China says Hegseth is touting a Cold War mentality in calling it a threat
BEIJING (AP) — China on Sunday denounced U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for calling the Asian country a threat, accusing him of touting a Cold War mentality as tensions between Washington and Beijing further escalate.
The foreign ministry said Hegseth had vilified Beijing with defamatory allegations the previous day before at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a global security conference. The statement also accused the United States of inciting conflict and confrontation in the region.
'Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region, and instead touted the Cold War mentality for bloc confrontation,' it said, referring to the post-World War II rivalry between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.
'No country in the world deserves to be called a hegemonic power other than the U.S. itself,' it said, alleging that Washington is also undermining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific.
Hegseth said in Singapore on Saturday that Washington will bolster its defenses overseas to counter what the Pentagon sees as rapidly developing threats by Beijing, particularly in its aggressive stance toward Taiwan.
China's army 'is rehearsing for the real deal,' Hegseth said. 'We are not going to sugarcoat it — the threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.'
The Chinese statement stressed that the Taiwan question is entirely China's internal affair, saying the U.S. must 'never play with fire' with it. It also alleged Washington had deployed offensive weaponry in the South China Sea, was 'stoking flames and creating tensions in the Asia-Pacific' and "turning the region into a powder keg.'
In a Facebook post on Saturday, China's Embassy in Singapore said Hegseth's speech was 'steeped in provocations and instigation.'
The U.S. and China had reached a deal last month to cut U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs from 145% to 30% for 90 days, creating time for negotiators from both sides to reach a more substantive agreement. China also reduced its taxes on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%.
But it's uncertain if a trade war truce will last. Trump in a social media post on Friday said he would no longer be 'nice' with China when it comes to trade and accused Beijing of breaking an unspecified agreement with the U.S.
Tensions escalated anew after the U.S. said on Wednesday it would start revoking visas for Chinese students studying there.
Separately, the Chinese Embassy in Singapore criticized attempts to link the issue of Taiwan with that of the war in Ukraine after French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a dangerous double standard in focusing on a potential conflict with China at the cost of abandoning Ukraine.
'If one tries to denounce 'double standards' through the lens of a double standard, the only result we can get is still double standard,' it said.
China, which usually sends its defense minister to the Shangri-La forum, this time sent a lower-level delegation led by Maj. Gen. Hu Gangfeng, the vice president of the People's Liberation Army National Defense University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former UFC fighters file lawsuits, alleging the MMA promotion restricts their earning potential
FILE - Phil Davis in action against Ryan Bader during a mixed martial arts bout for the light heavyweight title at Bellator 180 on Saturday, June 24, 2017, in New York. (AP Photo/Gregory Payan,File) FILE - Phil Davis in action against Ryan Bader during a mixed martial arts bout for the light heavyweight title at Bellator 180 on Saturday, June 24, 2017, in New York. (AP Photo/Gregory Payan,File) FILE - Phil Davis in action against Ryan Bader during a mixed martial arts bout for the light heavyweight title at Bellator 180 on Saturday, June 24, 2017, in New York. (AP Photo/Gregory Payan,File) LAS VEGAS (AP) — Two former UFC fighters have filed antitrust lawsuits against the mixed-martial arts behemoth, alleging it operates as a monopoly that restricts their ability to maximize earnings. Phil Davis and Mikhail Cirkunovs, who fought under the name Misha Cirkunov, filed their lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Nevada against the Las Vegas-based UFC. Cirkunovs' complaint was filed on May 23, and Davis' was filed six days later. Advertisement Philadelphia-based Berger Montague, which is represented locally by Las Vegas' Claggett and Sykes, is the law firm for both fighters. A message left with the Las Vegas firm on Monday was not immediately returned. Cirkunovs is seeking $75,000 in damages. Davis didn't specify how much money he is suing for. The UFC reached a $375 million settlement in September in a class-action antitrust lawsuit brought by Cung Le, who filed his claim in 2014. The UFC has not reached an agreement with Kajan Johnson, who filed his lawsuit in 2021. Both recent complaints made references to the Johnson case, with the Cirkunovs' suit saying they were similar. Advertisement 'In previous hearings, Plaintiffs' own counsel expressed strong concerns to the Court about the weaknesses of the Johnson claims,' the UFC said in a statement. 'This new complaint (Cirkunovs) confirms that the plaintiffs in the Johnson case lack the standing to represent the proposed class. 'In addition, it confirms that the majority of fighters signed class-action waivers and agreed to arbitrate their claims instead of resorting to court procedures. We are confident that the facts and the law are on our side in opposing approval of both of these proposed classes.' Davis fought in the UFC from 2010-15 before signing with Bellator MMA, which became the Professional Fighters League this year. He argues that the UFC's presence prevents fighters who aren't even in the organization from receiving competitive wages. Cirkunovs was in the UFC from 2015-22. ___ AP sports:
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon to redraw command map to more closely align Greenland with the US
The Pentagon is poised to shift its oversight of Greenland by putting it under U.S. Northern Command, a symbolic gesture that would more closely align the island territory with the U.S. as President Donald Trump continues to show interest in taking control over the Arctic landmass. The shift in oversight, which could come as soon as this week, could also help the U.S. broaden its Golden Dome missile shield by providing more radars for coverage. Under the plan, Greenland would shift from European Command's jurisdiction to Northern Command, which is responsible for overseeing the security of North America, according to a DOD official and two people familiar with the planning. The people were granted anonymity to discuss the move ahead of its announcement. The switch is the most concrete step yet in the Trump administration's months-long effort to gain ownership over Greenland, an autonomous island aligned with Denmark. Trump briefly brought up buying Greenland during his first term, but has talked about it repeatedly since winning the election last November, alarming the island's 58,000 inhabitants and frustrating the Danish government, which says it has no interest in selling. Making Greenland part of Northcom will be heavily scrutinized in Denmark and throughout NATO, which has been uneasy over Trump's months-long campaign to take control over the island and his refusal to rule out military action to seize territory. Denmark and the semi-autonomous Faroe Islands will remain under European Command, creating a symbolic and operational split between those territories and Greenland. 'From the perspective of geography, the move makes some sense,' said one of the people familiar. 'From a political perspective, however, this clearly is going to worry Europe,' the official added. The switch in jurisdiction is part of the Pentagon leadership's review of the Unified Command Plan, which outlines the areas of responsibility for the department's six geographic combatant commanders. While the Greenland split doesn't involve any major shifts in leadership, other proposals — including combining Northern Command and Southern Command and pulling the Africa Command back under the Germany-based European Command — would have deep impacts on the number of three- and four-star officers serving in the military, and on how many assets are assigned to different areas of the globe. The Trump administration has for months talked about the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security, pointing out that its location in the North Atlantic makes American control critical for stepped-up missile defense programs and monitoring Russia and Chinese shipping in the Arctic. The change opens the possibility of adding more Golden Dome radar systems on Greenland and expanding that network of sensors, while more closely aligning the island with Canadian and American regional defense plans. The Danish embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A DOD official deferred to the White House, which did not respond to a request for comment. Northern Command is chiefly responsible for protecting U.S. territory and oversees missions such as the southern border, air and missile defense, and working with Canada and Mexico on joint security matters. Putting Greenland under Northern Command would, in effect, cleave Greenland from Denmark when it comes to how the island is prioritized in policy discussions at the Pentagon and the White House. The second person familiar with the planning said the Danish government has not been formally briefed on the upcoming move. The U.S. has long had a military presence on the island. In March, Vice President JD Vance and then-national security adviser Mike Waltz visited the Pituffik Space Base, which boasts the Pentagon's northernmost deepwater port and has long functioned as a strategic location to watch Russia and China. In Greenland, Vance urged the Arctic island to 'cut a deal' with Washington, saying, 'I think that you'd be a lot better coming under the United States security umbrella than you have been under Denmark's security umbrella.' In January, the Danish government pledged to spend an extra $2 billion on Greenland security initiatives, in part to placate Trump's security concerns. But NATO and European officials have been cautious about the American president's interest in the island. Trump's comments on the importance of the Arctic have caught the attention of NATO leaders. The alliance's secretary general, Mark Rutte, said last week that 'for NATO, we're getting more involved' in Arctic security issues. He added that Trump calling attention to Russian and Chinese moves in the region marked a positive development. In an interview with NBC last month, Trump said he would not rule out taking Greenland by military force. 'I don't say I'm going to do it, but I don't rule out anything,' he said. 'We need Greenland very badly.'
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - China's courtroom espionage strategy demands a federal response
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in a stunning case that should be a wake-up call to lawmakers across the country. In U.S. v. Pangang Group, a Chinese state-owned enterprise admitted in open court that it had engaged in state-sponsored industrial espionage, stealing American trade secrets to achieve strategic goals for China's government. The company even tried to invoke sovereign immunity, claiming that theft for the purpose of national industrial development was a legitimate function of the Chinese state. This brazen confession didn't just confirm China's role in weaponizing commercial enterprises for geopolitical gain — it also underscored how vulnerable our systems remain to economic sabotage. One of the least understood, but potentially most damaging, tools in this arsenal is third-party litigation funding. It's time that Congress wakes up and takes steps to address this looming threat. During my time in Congress, I served on the Committee on National Security and learned about many forms of foreign interference, but few are as insidious as third-party funding. Under this system, outside financiers — often anonymous — fund lawsuits in return for a cut of the potential winnings. There is no federal requirement to disclose these arrangements, including whether the backers are foreign nationals, sovereign wealth funds or shell corporations tied to adversarial governments. That must change. Third-party funding isn't necessarily inherently malicious, but this opacity and the nature of these arrangements opens the door to abuse. Although its backers have historically been hedge funds or other investors in pursuit of healthy returns that are insulated from the broader market — which raises its own set of ethical concerns about subverting the justice system to earn a profit — these actors are generally not seeking to undermine the U.S. more broadly. Foreign-backed funders, on the other hand, can use litigation to drain resources from U.S. companies through prolonged legal battles. Not only that, but they can also use such proceedings to obtain access to proprietary information such as technical data, trade secrets and supply-chain vulnerabilities through the discovery process. For firms tied to sectors like AI, pharmaceuticals, aerospace or semiconductor design, this is a direct national security risk. The FBI has called China's economic espionage the 'greatest long-term threat to our nation's information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality.' Yet right now, we lack even the most basic safeguards to ensure that our courtrooms aren't being used as intelligence-gathering venues for hostile foreign powers. That is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are solutions that are currently under consideration. Rep. Ben Cline's (R-Va.) Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 would be a critical first step. It would prohibit foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from investing in third-party litigation funding, require transparency about who is funding litigation, and direct the Department of Justice to report annually on foreign activity in this space. Another promising effort backed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the Litigation Funding Transparency Act, which would mandate disclosure of funding sources in all federal civil cases, ensuring that judges, juries and defendants know who's really pulling the strings behind the scenes. These federal efforts echo a growing movement at the state level. In my home state of Kansas, for example, lawmakers recently enacted Senate Bill 54 — a strong, bipartisan reform that mandates the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements within 30 days of execution. It also requires a sworn statement that identifies all parties to the agreement, whether the funder can influence litigation or settlement decisions, and if any foreign entity is involved in the financing. But piecemeal state action can only go so far, and we need Congress to act quickly. Third-party litigation funding should not be a backdoor for China or any other adversary to undermine American companies, steal our intellectual property, or compromise our national defense base. When state-owned enterprises such as the Pangang Companies can openly admit in court that they steal American innovation for geopolitical gain, we can no longer afford to treat litigation finance as just another investment vehicle. It now has the potential to be a vector of strategic exploitation. National security isn't bounded by state lines, and neither is foreign influence. The threats are real, the stakes are high, and the time for action is now. Let's not wait for the next courtroom confession to learn what China already knows: that America's legal system is a battlefield, and without reform, we're fighting blindfolded. Todd Tiahrt previously represented the 4th District of Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives and served on the House Committee on National Security. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
