The just concluded G20 Summit in New Delhi, marked by significant disagreements and low expectations, ultimately reached a joint declaration, reflecting the international community's shared desire for unity and cooperation in overcoming challenges, as well as setting aside some significant differences. However, US President Joe Biden's subsequent itinerary after leaving New Delhi has brought people back to the more complex and rough reality of international politics.

On Sunday, Biden arrived in Hanoi, Vietnam, beginning a short visit there, which has been buzzing news for some time and has attracted much attention. Since the normalization of US-Vietnam relations in 1995, every US president in office has visited Vietnam, which can be seen as a form of Washington's attention to Vietnam. However, never before has Washington's exploitation of Vietnam and lack of respect for Vietnam been so thoroughly exposed. Paying attention cannot be equated with paying respect. Attaching significance with ulterior motives is instrumentalizing the targeted country, which fundamentally disrespects the principle of equal and mutually beneficial relations. It is the Western media itself that pierced through this thin veil.

From the moment the news was released that Biden would be visiting Vietnam, numerous Western media outlets have been making noises for over half a month. However, all the reports and commentaries are "all the same." Some media outlets have explicitly stated in their headlines that "Biden heads to Vietnam in latest push to counter China." This is an unusual phenomenon in the clamorous Western public opinion arena, but it reveals the less glamorous truth about Biden's visit to Vietnam. This message brought about by Western public opinion unintentionally serves as a strong and lasting reminder to Vietnam.

First, Biden did not go to Vietnam for the sake of Vietnam. As Radio France Internationale put it, his diplomatic activities in Asia all revolve around one central theme - confronting the world's second-largest economy. Ultimately, it is still a matter of geopolitical maneuvering, treating Vietnam as a battleground for major powers. Washington's positioning of Vietnam is clear, as stated by Kurt Campbell, White House coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, that Vietnam is a "swing state." In other words, in their view, Vietnam has more "instrumental value" for the US in countering China.

Second, what Biden wants to peddle to Vietnam is neither what Vietnam wants nor is it in line with Vietnam's national interests. As a scholar in the US said, "Washington was more keen to risk upsetting Beijing than Hanoi was." In other words, the US and Western media have been discussing it for so long, but no one has said anything about the actual benefits that Biden's visit will bring to Vietnam. To some extent, it is like a clever housewife who can't cook without rice. 

American and Western public opinion and Washington do not care about Vietnam's national interests. What they really care about is how to get Vietnam to "fall into the arms of the US." The title of an article in the Diplomat magazine is "Vietnam's Time to Choose." Even though American public opinion and Washington clearly know that Vietnam, like other Southeast Asian countries, is unwilling and has been trying its best to avoid choosing sides between China and the US, they still continue to push, pressure, induce and even coerce in this direction. This is the diplomatic practice of the US to coerce other independent and sovereign countries.

One of the biggest points of concerns of Biden's visit is whether the US-Vietnam relationship will be upgraded to a "comprehensive strategic partnership." According to the US media, this will give Washington an equal place with Beijing and Moscow in Hanoi's diplomatic relations. American public opinion generally believes that this will arouse China's vigilance. If the US doesn't have ulterior motives, why should it worry about China being unhappy or angry when the US develops bilateral relations with Vietnam? China doesn't interfere in other countries' diplomacy, and is happy to see other countries live in harmony and engage in mutually beneficial cooperation. However, if it conducts activities against China, it's impossible for China to sit still.

Not long ago, when General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee Nguyen Phu Trong met with Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, Trong said Vietnam views its relationship with China as a matter of top priority. It is understandable that Vietnam hopes to maintain a balance in its relations with China and the US, the two major powers. But what the US is doing now is tantamount to pulling the balance pole away from Vietnam, or blowing headwinds that will make Vietnam unable to maintain its balance. This indeed requires Vietnam to be particularly mindful.

We also notice that, according to local media reports, Vietnam asked the US to refrain from the use or threats of force and actions that go against international law which further complicate the situation, resolve disputes peacefully. This indicates that Hanoi is not willing to pull chestnut out of fire for Washington. It also shows that regional countries are well aware of the dangers posed by Washington and are vigilant.

South Korea is very keen on joining the Quad grouping, said the South Korean Envoy in India Chang Jae-bok on Wednesday, according to The Hindu. However, just recently, at the G20 summit, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol publicly expressed his hope to promote the stable and healthy development of the South Korea-China relationship. 

Currently, the South Korean government's foreign policy is heavily leaning toward the US, and the eagerness to join the Quad is an extension of this diplomatic policy. The Yoon administration's foreign policy is deeply entrenched in the mind-set of a "new cold war" and cannot extricate itself. 

The South Korean government seems to believe that the world has entered a new cold war and agrees with the US in dividing the world into "liberal" and "authoritarian" camps. In other words, South Korea may acknowledge the need to view non-Western countries as enemies, and cooperation has limitations. South Korea also understands that strengthening relations with the Western camp will lead to friction in the relations between China and South Korea and even on the Korean Peninsula, but it considers this a necessary cost.

The important thing is that South Korea believes that by doing so, it reflects its identity as a "global pivotal state" and assumes global responsibilities. Zhan Debin, director and professor of the Center for Korean Peninsula Studies at the Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, told the Global Times that South Korea, which claims to be the vanguard of safeguarding the order of freedom and democracy, has become an important ally in promoting the US Indo-Pacific strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, which can enhance South Korea's international status. However, this confidence and enthusiasm may only be wishful thinking on the part of South Korea.

Since the Yoon administration came to power, it has shown great confidence in joining the Quad. Due to the influence of the Japan-South Korea relationship at that time, Japan did not want to see South Korea's participation, let alone South Korea decreasing its influence within this small circle. Compared to Japan, India is even less willing to see the Quad become an anti-China and anti-Russia group, as this would diminish India's value. As the leader of the Quad, the US has also not provided much support to South Korea.

Despite the active pressure from the Donald Trump administration for the South Korean government to join the Quad, President Joe Biden has not made a proactive statement on this matter. The Yoon administration believed that as long as South Korea proposed it, the US would immediately agree. However, from the perspective of the US, South Korea's capabilities and contributions, especially in terms of security outside the Korean Peninsula, are limited and cannot be of much help to the US.

If South Korea joins the Quad, the US naturally needs to consider how much contribution South Korea can make within the Quad mechanism. Wu Xinbo, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times that in current Quad mechanism, the US is using India, Japan and Australia to contain China from the Indian Ocean, the West Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. What can South Korea do? It can at most cooperate with the US and Japan in economic and trade measures to suppress China. In other words, South Korea has not yet proved its capabilities among the Quad countries.

For South Korea, the security of the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia should be the most concerning issue. Without cooperation with China, South Korea cannot maintain a stable and peaceful situation in the region. However, the inexperienced administration of Yoon clearly does not realize it. On one hand, it claims to maintain China-South Korea relations, but on the other hand, it continuously tests China's bottom line, which is detrimental to regional peace and stability and does not align with South Korea's own interests. If the Yoon administration wants to manage China-South Korea relations well, it needs to show sincerity. If the trilateral summit between China, Japan, and South Korea is only for showcasing South Korea's leadership and international status, the public's dissatisfaction with the government will only continue to rise.

Starting from Monday, the high-level week of the 78th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) will begin and last until September 26. Compared to previous ones, this year's UNGA has placed a greater emphasis on the "Global South" countries. Several high-level meetings to be held during the General Assembly will focus on the priorities of developing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, including climate, health and financing. Countries in the South have also influenced and responded to the agendas of the UNGA with a stronger spirit of unity and cooperation as well as a sense of "being the host." The director of an international think tank believes that "this is a year when the countries of the Global South have set the agenda."

For this year's high-level week of the UNGA, Secretary-General António Guterres has long had high hopes, hoping to "help rescue the Sustainable Development Goals." The term "rescue" reveals the current difficulties faced by global development, and also reflects the unbridgeable rift between developing and developed countries. What Guterres mentioned is a fundamental change in the current international situation, that is, the collective rise of developing countries, which brings a call for a more just and reasonable international order. Meanwhile, established major powers such as the US and the West are trying hard to maintain their dominance and resorting to every possible means to discredit, attack and suppress this call. It must be said that this contradiction is the deep factor causing the current geopolitical division.

For example, what the international community, mainly developing countries, most hope to discuss at the UNGA is how to solve poverty, alleviate high inflation, cope with climate change, among other issues. They hope to promote sustainable development through multilateral dialogues. The key words of the general debate - peace, prosperity, progress and sustainability for all - which are generally regarded as the "highlights" of the UNGA, also fully reflect this strong desire. What these countries are most worried about is that the Ukraine crisis will once again become the dominant topic in the UNGA and shift people's attention from development issues. The endless chatter about war and overt and covert threats made against other countries, forcing them to pick sides, are the last thing these countries want to hear. However, while the US pays attention to the "Global South," it also declared that "the world cannot address one without the other," meaning the Ukraine crisis and development issues. This shows that the US is well aware of the demands of developing countries, but it insists on bringing in its own agendas at multilateral forums.

There are many similar examples, all of which strongly prove without exception that the practice of bringing geopolitical calculations into multilateral occasions has undermined global cooperation efforts and wasted many opportunities for developing countries and developed nations to reach compromises, reconciliation, and cooperation. It has also severely limited the effectiveness of previously well-functioning multilateral platforms. This is very regrettable. In this process, the US and the West have continuously demonized the legitimate and just demands of developing countries using their powerful public opinion tools. On the eve of the opening of a series of important meetings at the United Nations General Assembly, the G77 + China Summit was held in Havana, the capital of Cuba, from September 15 to 16. The participating representatives unanimously passed the Havana Declaration, which underscored the "right to development in an increasingly exclusive, unfair, unjust, and plundering international order." This became a collective call from developing countries before the high-level meetings at the UNGA. However, it remains uncertain to what extent the voices and concerns of "Global South" countries and the UN Secretary-General can be heard by the representatives of developed countries inside the UNGA in New York. 

The US and other Western countries are clearly increasing their efforts to win over the "Global South," but it is evident that this is not about granting developing countries a more equal status and development opportunities, but rather an attempt to continue to confine them to the periphery of the "center-periphery" system. The reality is that developing countries are now more awake and capable of maintaining independence and autonomy than ever before. This is not only reflected in their cautious and balanced approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict but also in their clear-headedness and calmness in the face of US instigation for confrontation against China and Russia. The UNGA is the most representative multilateral forum globally, and the US and the West should be more humble here and clearly see the mainstream direction of the international community.

Editor's Note:
Europeans and British people need to be better educated about China, Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese Studies and director of the Lau China Institute at King's College, London, told Global Times reporters Sun Wei and Gu Di in an exclusive interview. "I hope British and Europeans can… at least having more respect for Chinese values, Chinese culture and Chinese identity," Brown said, adding that "we can have a discussion. But it's not about trying to engage with someone else to change them."

GT: How has China Through European Eyes: 800 Years of Cultural and Intellectual Encounter shaped perceptions in the UK and the West? In what ways has it enhanced the Western audience's understanding of Chinese culture?

Brown: It's essential to recognize the extensive historical connections between America, Europe, Britain and China. This book, alongside my upcoming work, delves into the lessons of the past for our present and future.

And we do have a lot of mutual knowledge. I hope this helps people understand our history better, so that we can have a bit more information about where we are today and where are we going to go in the future.

GT: Over the past three decades, you've extensively travelled across China and spearheaded numerous rural studies. With the upcoming release of China Incorporated: The Politics of a World Where China is Number One, you've noted a pervasive apprehension about China's rising prowess. What compelled you to cultivate a dialogue that's "less anxious and more constructive"?

Brown: I've been in and out of China a lot. In the last 30 years, I lived in China for six years, and I've visited China probably 100 times, and I've been to every province and every single autonomous region.

I last went to China at the end of 2019 and had a memorable and very good visit. I learned a great deal and look forward to going back, delving deeper into Chinese issues.
I think that Europeans and British people need to be better educated about China, and its important place with a significant history. I hope these books help people understand why China is important, why it matters and gain a better understanding about our shared history. We have a big shared history.

Especially now, China's economy and its political importance are prominent. There should be greater awareness of what China is and why it's crucial in our cultural and political lives. That's why I have done this. And I think it's really about public information, public education, but for the British people, obviously not for Chinese people. I get the impression that Chinese people are very knowledgeable about their history with Britain and Europe. On the whole, it's quite surprising how little Europeans might know about our shared history. I think one of the reasons for that is it's not very easy to access. This history is spread across many different books in many different places. I've really tried to put it all in one place to make it more accessible and easier to engage with.

GT: In the first chapter of China Incorporated, you assert that China is powerful, has evolved into a maritime force and its values diverge from Western perceptions. Why do you consider these three facets pivotal in today's conversations about China?

Brown: Obviously, China has a different view of the world, and it's not just the Chinese government. Many Chinese people also hold this perspective. They feel culturally distinct. Actually, I think they want to be better understood. Even if we are agreeing or disagreeing, I believe Chinese people want to be better understood, and that makes sense for sure. When you're having a dialogue, you do want to feel that the people are trying to understand you, even if they don't agree.

I got the sense that there wasn't so much said about what China and Europe, and China and Britain, were talking about. The tone of their dialogue and the way they were speaking to each other was not quite right. I sensed there was some sort of issue, and it wasn't just about what they were talking about; it was how they were talking.

I hope British and Europeans can do more about this by at least having more respect for Chinese values, Chinese culture and Chinese identity, even if we don't agree. This is not about agreeing. It's about at least trying to understand and acknowledge that others are different. We have to acknowledge that we can't change that. Then we can have a discussion.

But it's not about trying to engage with someone else to change them, to change who they are. It's really about engaging with someone else about ideas while accepting who they are.

GT: You highlight the undeniable unique intellectual and cultural history of the territories now forming the People's Republic of China. Why do you stress the impracticality of superimposing Western values onto China's distinct cultural backdrop?

Brown: I think China has accepted ideas from the outside world. Marxism, for instance, was originally from Europe, and many ideas of Chinese thinkers have engaged with thinkers from Europe and elsewhere. Economically, Americans and Chinese have accepted many of the ideas of capitalism. But, for Chinese people, there's a unique Chinese view of the world, and I think that always means there's a slight kind of transformation or change. The ideas will enter China, but they'll always be slightly adapted and changed according to national characteristics. That happens everywhere; Britain engages with ideas from America but changes them for the environment here.

So, I think we have to accept that with all of these ideas, there's always going to be adaptation and change. That's just a natural part of making them fit into particular environments where they are used.

In Britain, some people probably have a good understanding, while others don't. To me, it's important for British people to acknowledge when they don't understand. There's a rule that says people with the least knowledge have the strongest opinions. That's because you have to have a lot of knowledge to know you don't know. British people may often feel that they have a substantial amount of knowledge about China. 

GT: As we mark a decade of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), you've addressed some Western misconceptions in your latest book. In your estimation, what's the initiative's paramount contribution either to global economics or to nations along its path?

Brown: I believe it has raised awareness about the importance of engaging with China and how to approach such engagements thoughtfully. Especially for regions like Central Asia, the Middle East and Asia, there may be compelling reasons for economic engagement with China, whether in terms of investment or access to technology through initiatives like the BRI.

This provides a sort of platform or avenue. However, for Europeans, the connection might seem more distant. It's really about discerning the types of investments and modes of cooperation with China that promote harmony, rather than focusing on areas where there are clear disagreements. The BRI has been a significant learning process. I think it's still evolving, but it has afforded us a decade of getting to know each other better, understanding our respective strengths and weaknesses.

In Britain, for sure, there has been a noticeable shift. There have been more debates, particularly due to issues like those surrounding Hong Kong. The pandemic has, of course, introduced many challenges. The relationship between the US and China has also deteriorated, so there have been several negative factors. However, we are still working toward establishing a practical relationship with China. The government's stance is that it's a pragmatic relationship that requires ongoing collaboration, dialogue and mutual learning.

It's just that there are currently many dissenting voices in Britain, which may be receiving more attention than they warrant. As I often find, those who express the strongest opinions often possess the least understanding. They might continue to echo the same sentiments, only louder. In my view, they're not particularly relevant. 

GT: With two recent prime ministerial transitions in the UK and changing stances on China, are you disheartened by the evident shifts in bilateral ties?

Brown: I believe Britain needs to contemplate more deeply its objectives and what it can realistically achieve with China. While there are clear differences, there are also many common areas, and it's crucial that we acknowledge the need for realism. In Britain, there are often very critical voices regarding China, but our approach is generally pragmatic, but perhaps not as ideologically driven as in, say, Australia. 

Describing the UK's stance as more pragmatic is, I believe, an accurate characterization. As I mentioned, it should be a narrative of equality. The relationship should be one of respect, with a critical eye, but also conducted with courtesy. It should be guided by facts, a constant evaluation of what we have learned about each other in the past, and what we could come to understand in the future. In this way, I envision a dynamic relationship. 

GT: Prominent UK voices, including University College London(UCL)'s Michael Spence, emphasize the valuable contributions of Chinese students in the UK. With the recent cooling of UK-China scientific collaborations, what are your thoughts on these pragmatic perspectives within the cultural and academic spheres? Do you have specific recommendations to fortify UK-China cultural and academic exchanges, particularly given current economic dynamics?

Brown: Michael Spence is right in pointing out that there is a great number of Chinese students in Britain. We need to acknowledge that fact, along with the significant amount of economic and academic collaboration between the two countries. It's wrong to instill fear in people about engaging with China. Some individuals in Britain have made attempts to discourage British academics and others from dealing with China, portraying it as a major problem. However, for many areas, it's not a problem at all.

I think it's something we need to do, as there aren't significant security issues in most areas. There are, of course, some strong opinions in Britain from individuals who, as I often say, have the biggest opinions but know the least. They are trying to portray China as a major security threat.

In my view, security threats exist everywhere. While there are certainly areas where China poses challenges for Britain, and vice versa, we are well aware of those areas. However, there are also numerous areas where we need to collaborate and work together. Therefore, I believe a balanced relationship is better than a paranoid one.

GT: As an academic against the "decoupling" from China, how do you interpret the EU's recent designation of China as a "partner, competitor, and systemic rival," and the ensuing dialogues on "de-risking"?

Brown: I think it's a complex description. It's a rather intricate portrayal. I view it as a partnership. It is indeed a partnership. There will be areas where partnerships come more easily and other areas where it's tougher. However, I believe creating such a nuanced perspective is sometimes not very helpful. Britain, China, Europe and China have numerous trade, investment, technology, climate, environmental and other political relationships. They form a partnership, but it's a complex one.

Whether or not you need to categorize it into these three distinct aspects is more of an internal consideration for Europe. It's not necessarily the way you should frame your policy, so I wouldn't necessarily use that division. However, I understand that in implementing policy, you probably need to differentiate between areas that are more straightforward and those that are more challenging, and take note of that as you implement your policy.

Certainly, Europe's relations with China do influence the British relationship with China. Currently, because Britain is not part of the European Union, it has to take a different approach. I think this can sometimes be challenging. Dealing with China outside the European Union hasn't been easy for Britain because it's a much smaller entity. If we were still part of the European Union, I believe our policy toward China would probably be somewhat easier.

GT: With the UK's recent induction into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and considering past UK policies aligned with China's ascent, where do you foresee UK-China relations heading in the immediate future?

Brown: I don't think it'll ever be an easy relationship, but I think in the end, it will be about trade, investment and whether we are able to do more in those areas. Britain's trading relationship with China is big, but it could be much bigger. 

GT: During in meeting between Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi and Veteran US diplomat Henry Kissinger in Beijing in July, Wang said the US policies toward China require Kissinger-style diplomatic wisdom and Nixon-style political courage. Do you believe the UK requires a diplomatic personality to further bolster UK-China relations? 

Brown: No, I think the world only has space for one Henry Kissinger, and that's quite enough. We have a different relationship with China, and we don't want to mimic the Americans. We can cooperate with both America and China, but we can't replicate them.

I believe that Britons have a lot of knowledge about China, but we need to acquire even more. I hope my books are attempting to provide some insight. For Britain, we already have a narrative about China; we should strive to comprehend that narrative and learn from it.

GT: Despite China's consistent emphasis on its non-adversarial stance toward the US, why do you think there's a persistence of misperception in the West? How can we prevent the West from misconstruing China based on historical precedents of their own powers?

Brown: It won't be easy. It's going to be a tough process, but the reality is that America and China can't afford to have a direct confrontation. If they did, it would be a disaster for everyone.

However, I don't foresee them ever having an easy relationship. The challenge in the next few years will be how to manage it. How can Americans and Chinese work toward a relationship where disaster is avoided? Moreover, what role does the outside world play in this? It's all going to come down to management. I believe, and hope, that we will find a way to navigate it, but it won't be easy. This is going to be a tough period and the next 10 years are going to be a challenging transition.

GT: China's trajectory of development and resurgence is underpinned by its singular historical context. How do you interpret this "Chinese modernization," and what do you identify as its defining characteristics?

Brown: The challenges that China faced in modernizing were enormous. It has been successful in some areas, while in others, it has had to struggle. Chinese modernization has led to where we are today - a China with significant economic, military and political influence in the world. However, it is likely to face difficulties in defining its proper role. What is China? What kind of global role does it truly have? This is not very clear.

At present, some of this ambiguity may be due to the outside world's reluctance to assign China a certain role. Additionally, some of it may stem from China itself being hesitant to take on a more prominent global role.

I believe this is the most significant issue we will need to address. After all, China, in its current state, cannot simply be overlooked or marginalized. It demands recognition. The question then becomes, what kind of recognition and acknowledgment does it seek? This is a substantial matter that requires our attention.

China's National Day, which falls on October 1, is just around the corner. For the Chinese people, September 30 marks the start of a seven-day holiday following the Mid-Autumn Festival.

In the upcoming days, they will enjoy the happiness and joy of the "long holiday," which they have earned through their hard work.

Meanwhile, across the ocean in the US, this year's October 1 is a critical day.

Federal government agencies will run out of funds previously approved by Congress at midnight on September 30, the end of the current fiscal year. A government shutdown due to the bipartisan inability to reach an agreement seems inevitable.

For the rest of the world, this situation appears to be a farce of a commonplace American political struggle. People are not concerned about whether Washington will shut down. Where exactly is the US debt ceiling? This is what worries them. Can it continue to rise indefinitely?

The US has not defaulted on its national debt in the past, which is why US debt has become the most reputable in the world. But it has now reached an alarming height - $33 trillion! That amounts to $100,000 per person across the nation! What's even more concerning is its growth rate, with an increase of $10 trillion in three years! That means $833 million is being added to the debt every hour since it crossed the $33 trillion mark.

A nation that frequently accuses other countries of creating debt has set a huge trap for the world in recent decades. Let us not overlook the fact that the US possesses the power to "print money," which it uses to sustain Washington's audacious habit of borrowing and spending recklessly, exemplifying its dominant "style" of hegemony. Government finances in the US have struggled for nearly half a century due to excessive spending without proper control, resulting in the continuous accumulation of federal government debt.

In the realm of election politics and hegemonic policy, the US has wasted significant financial resources. These resources have been used to cater to the interests of interest groups and self-serving politicians. Consequently, there has been an excessive increase in military expenditures to sustain hegemony, along with a continuous distribution of funds to appease voters.

Filippo Gori, an economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has published an article entitled "America's Debt-Ceiling Disaster: How a Severe Crisis or Default Could Undermine U.S. Power," on the website of Foreign Affairs magazine (April 24, 2023).

The article points out that "because most international trade is in U.S. dollars, the United States can print money to pay for goods that it buys from abroad, allowing it to finance a large international trade deficit without having to worry that it will run out of cash."

This monopoly advantage, known as "too big to fail," has resulted in a peculiar situation where the US is "insolvent" but not officially bankrupt. As a result, the US must employ diverse strategies to uphold the dollar's dominance.

Another fundamental truth is that when the global community thinks about how the impact of this "Grey rhino" can be prevented and begins to make necessary preparations, the hegemony of the US and its foundation, the dollar, will surely be shaken.

China is a significant creditor of the US. The US' containment of China, particularly through creating military tensions in China's neighborhood, as well as the overall restriction on Chinese manufacturing and its impact on the livelihoods of the Chinese people, has heightened China's worry about the US reneging on its debts.

The hardworking Chinese people, who are about to enjoy a wonderful holiday, know that they work hard for the well-being of their families. If their hard-earned money were to be used to prop up an empire's hegemonic and brutal actions, as well as an unsympathetic political struggle, and then they were to be paid back in the form of "printed money," they would definitely say "no."

We believe that hard-working people around the world would share the will of the Chinese people.

September 30 of this year marks the 10th Martyrs' Day in China. On the morning of that very day, in Tian'anmen Square in downtown Beijing, President Xi Jinping and other leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the state presented flower baskets to fallen national heroes. Since 2014, when the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress designated September 30 as Martyrs' Day in the form of law, President Xi has participated in the wreath-laying ceremony to honor the heroes of the people each year. Just one day before the National Day on October 1, it holds profound historical and practical significance that the country commemorates the heroes and remembers history in the highest form, outlining the great journey of the Chinese nation's rejuvenation.

The People's Republic of China has been established for 74 years. The tremendous changes having taken place in China's national status, comprehensive strength, and people's living standards have made the glorious history of the revolutionaries who sacrificed their lives and shed their blood for national independence, freedom, and happiness seem somewhat "distant." For some young people, it may even feel somewhat "unfamiliar." "Forgetting history is tantamount to betrayal." The heroes revered by a nation best illustrate this point. Martyrs' Day is a kind of inheritance, passing down the heroic spirit and strength of the Chinese people, ensuring that the heroes and their deeds will not fade away with the passage of time, and inspiring the Chinese people to continue their struggle from generation to generation on the journey of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. This is also the true essence of not forgetting the original intention.

"Any nation with hope cannot be without heroes, and any country with promising prospects cannot be without pioneers." The great achievements that China has made up to date were created by the Chinese people and the heroes of the people, who have contributed their sweat, blood, and even their lives. Every era has seen its own heroes, and although the heroes bear the imprints of different times, their spirit of selflessness and sacrifice for the country, for the nation, and for the people is consistent. The contributions they have made are evident to all. The masses of people can often be discerned at a glance whether someone is an authentic hero. As the saying goes, "By reviewing the heroic deeds of the past and present, we draw inspiration from our predecessors to fuel our own fire," and the spirit represented by the heroes and martyrs has long been integrated into the spiritual world of generations of Chinese sons and daughters, becoming an indelible cultural imprint on the Chinese nation. Heroes of every era should receive the utmost and permanent respect in China, which should form an inviolable social righteousness.

To commemorate our predecessors is to inspire future generations. Although the eras of our predecessors have passed, their spirit is still worthy of our promotion. China is currently in a new stage and position, and the great cause that countless martyrs had fought for is facing new challenges, but at the same time also ushered in more opportunities. The internal and external environment for inheriting the red genes has undergone tremendous changes, which requires us to draw strength and direction from the predecessors and heroes of past generations, to never forget our original intentions, and to forge ahead. Chinese society has indeed entered a more diverse state, which is a reflection of the country's progress. However, the main theme of Chinese society must be filled with a heroic spirit. The main theme and diversity are not contradictory or conflicting, but complementary. The spiritual core of the Chinese people must never change, and we must resolutely fight against historical nihilism and remain vigilant, cautious, and resistant to the ideological infiltration of the West into China. To destroy a nation, one must first erase its history. The historical lessons in this regard are profound.

One more point must be mentioned: The ultimate goal of all the struggles and efforts of the Chinese people to commemorate the martyrs and heroes is to create better conditions for the peace and development of the country and the nation. Just like the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea (1950-53), which was fought to defend the our homeland and strive for a peaceful environment for national construction, it is essentially a pursuit of peace. This point is particularly important in the current context. With the accelerated evolution of the global situation over the past century, people remember history and pay tribute to the martyrs in order to better understand the value of cherishing peace while also remembering the principles defended by the heroes and martyrs. In other words, what we need is not only to cherish the hard-won peace but also to firmly uphold justice, as these two are dialectically unified. The inherent logic and historical inevitability of China's firm commitment to the path of peaceful development also lie in this balance.

Self-defeating policies. Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Multiple Chinese sportswear brands including Li-Ning, 361° and Peak were seen during the opening ceremony of the 19th Asian Games opening ceremony, which was held on Saturday via sponsorship for foreign athletes' delegations, a step forward of the globalization of Chinese products and brands.

During the opening ceremony, the Global Times observed that the outfit of the Indonesian group was Li-Ning, and athletes from Lebanon chose Peak, while 361° sponsored the outfits of Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

According to China Sports Daily, the 19th Asian Games signed sponsorship contracts with 176 enterprises, and the revenue from various markets will exceed 4.6 billion yuan ($629.9 million). Large-scale international sports events now have become important stages for brands to promote themselves.

During the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games, athletes from Slovenia wore outfits from Peak as they stepped on the podium, according to media reports. In addition, teams from Brazil, Belgium, Romania and Iceland also wore the brand.

China has been an active advocate, strong promoter and continuous contributor to the global poverty reduction agenda, and has always closely linked its own development to the global common development, Zhao Fengtao, vice chairman of the China International Development Cooperation Agency, told a press briefing on Tuesday, when asked about how China is helping to alleviate poverty in third world countries.

"China has always paid attention to the development of global poverty reduction, and the [China-proposed] Global Development Initiative (GDI) also prioritizes poverty reduction among the eight areas of work," Zhao said at a press briefing of the State Council Information Office on Tuesday.

At the press briefing, China released a white paper entitled "A Global Community of Shared Future: China's Proposals and Actions." The white paper, which summarizes the meaning of building a global community of shared future, its practices and development, was released on the 10th anniversary of China's proposal of the idea.

According to Zhao, China has actively implemented demonstration projects on people's livelihoods and promoted China's experience in poverty reduction. China has helped a number of developing nations carry out 6,000 projects linked to livelihood, which have effectively elevated local sustainable development capacity, Zhao said, exemplified by the plantation of homegrown hybrid rice in 70 countries as well as the introduction of China's Juncao cultivation technology in over 100 nations.

As China's old saying goes, "If you want to be rich, first build a road," and China is playing a role in building transportation to facilitate poverty reduction in areas along the transportation link. Driving up social and economic development via boosting connectivity is a focal point of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Zhao noted.

Over the past decade, the BRI has fueled nearly $1 trillion in investment and lifted 40 million people out of poverty. There are multiple highlights of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, while BRI project in Ethiopia also makes the country have the first expressway in East Africa.

Zhao said that China also mobilizes development resources to facilitate the global poverty reduction agenda. China has announced the upgrading of the South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund to a Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund and the increase of its total funding to $4 billion.

Under the framework, Chinese financial institutions have set up a special fund of $10 billion for implementing the GDI, and over 200 cooperation projects have been included in the GDI project pool, according to Zhao.

China has also shared its experience of poverty reduction in the context of Chinese modernization to other developing countries through education, training and think tank communication, as teaching a man how to fish matters more. For example, the Luban Workshop has helped train new types of skilled workers in over 20 countries, according to Zhao.

Wirun Phichaiwongphakdee, director of the Thailand-China Research Center of the Belt and Road Initiative, told the Global Times on Tuesday that the implementation of the concept of building a global community of shared future has given each individual country equal rights to development, and made the developing world able to lift itself out of poverty and genuinely participate in global governance.

The white paper released on Tuesday has been published in eight languages, including Chinese, English, French, Russia, German, Spanish, Arabic and Japanese. It has three parts - a preface, main body and conclusion. The main body has five sections, including "humanity at crossroads," "an answer to the calls of the time and a blueprint for the future," "deep roots in history and cultural tradition," "direction and path," "China's action and contribution."

China and the Philippines have so much that both sides can agree on that will benefit both countries, and certain differences should not be allowed to affect that, a special envoy of the president of the Philippines told the Global Times in an exclusive interview on Wednesday, the first such remarks by a person close to the president after the recent reemergence of tension between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

The remarks came as the situation concerning Huangyan Island in the South China Sea has suddenly intensified over the removal of what the Philippines claimed is a "floating barrier" deployed by China. The action by the Philippines has cast a shadow of concern over bilateral relations.

Speaking at the Philippine Investors' Roadshow, a two-day trade and investment promotional event in Beijing on Wednesday, Special Envoy of the President of the Philippines to China for Trade, Investment and Tourism Maynard S. Ngu said that China has been such an important trading partner that cooperation should be further strengthened and disputes and disagreements should be resolved.

"I think there's always an issue, but at the end of the day, we can resolve all these issues. There are always misunderstandings, but we can still sit and talk over every misunderstanding… China has been a trading partner of the Philippines for at least 1,000 years, even before the Spanish came," Ngu said, adding that he doesn't see any issues or misunderstandings that cannot be resolved.

Wednesday's event is a follow-up for promotional trade and investment between the two countries started since the state visit of Philippine President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. to China earlier in 2023, with both sides underscoring the importance of maintaining the good momentum of bilateral relations.

In addressing the event through a recorded video, the president noted the importance for strengthening trade and investment with China and that the two countries are highly complementary, while also welcoming more Chinese investors to do business with the country.

China has been the Philippines' largest trading partner for seven consecutive years. In 2022, bilateral trade volume reached $87.73 billion, according to data released by China's General Administration of Customs. China firmly ranks as the Philippines' largest trading partner, largest source of imports, and third largest export destination.

Currently, more than 35 percent of the total imports of the Philippines come from China, and China is also one of the largest markets for the Philippines, according to Ngu.

Given what has been achieved so far, Ngu said that the two countries should continue and strengthen their economic, trade, cultural and developmental engagements and exchanges.

"Both China and the Philippines have so much that both can agree on that will benefit the two countries, and we should not allow one or two differences to affect that, as we continue to mutually respect each other's beliefs or positions while mutually seeking peaceful and diplomatic means of settling whatever disputes or disagreements our countries' may have at this time," the special envoy said, referring to the issue in the South China Sea.

The situation near Huangyan Island in the South China Sea suddenly intensified recently as the Philippines said it had removed a "floating barrier" China deployed near Huangyan Island, a claim questioned by experts who on Tuesday said that such hype does not fit the national interests of the Philippines, but that of the US.

At the regular press conference on Wednesday, spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Wang Wenbin reiterated, in responding to a foreign media question over the recent issue, that Huangyan Island is China's inherent territory and the Philippines' so-called actions are purely a farce for its own entertainment.

"China will continue to firmly safeguard the territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests of Huangyan Island," Wang said.

In addressing the issue in the South China Sea, Philippine Senator Francis Chiz Escudero told the Global Times on Wednesday that the South China Sea issue is "the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed and set aside at the same time."

In further elaborating on his remarks, Escudero said, "We have so many things in common. We have so many things we can work on and cooperate on. And we should not let one difference affect that."

Escudero said that while this South China Sea issue has its complexity and challenges, "I firmly believe that dialogue and cooperation are essential to finding common ground and fostering mutually beneficial relations."

By collaborating in various sectors such as trade, investment, and innovation, the two nations can create mutually beneficial opportunities for business on both sides, Escudero said, adding that such partnerships create job opportunities, economic stability and ultimately improve the living standards for the people.

"Our differences should not be allowed to dictate our relations - that's our common ground, the things that we see eye to eye on should be the ones that dictate our relations. That has always been my position. And I believe that's also the position of our government as a whole," the senator said.