China 'better prepared' to deal with US tariff threats
A China expert on Monday said that Beijing is well prepared to deal with US President Donald Trump's tariff threats, with the nation now less dependent on American trade.The comments come ahead of expected trade talks between Vice Premier He Lifeng and a US delegation in Britain, the second round of such negotiations between the world's two biggest economies since Trump launched his trade war shortly after returning to the White House in January.Zhou Bo, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, was speaking to RTHK's Hong Kong Today programme "I think China is becoming better prepared because China has dealt with him (Trump) before and China's dependency on America actually has been reduced," Zhou, who is a retired People's Liberation Army senior colonel, said."Throughout this kind of tariff war, you can see that China, from the very beginning, stand firm. China said it would fight to the end if necessary, while China is also open to conversation.On last Thursday's phone conversation between President Xi Jinping and Trump, Zhou said the exchange was extremely important."Just imagine the largest economies not to talk to each other, then all other people would watch anxiously...This would be a huge relief for people around the world."Zhou also said he was optimistic that both sides will make progress at the talks in London."I think from the Chinese side, the requirement is very simple. China just wants to be respected, China just wants to be treated on an equal footing."I hope, and I'm sure, there will definitely be some kind of positive results," he added.Speaking on Truth Social platform, Trump said in a post that "the meeting should go very well".He added that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet the Chinese delegation. (Additional reporting by AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
3 hours ago
- Asia Times
From Kent State to LA, using soldiers on civilians is high-risk
Responding to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard into the city on June 7, 2025, to protect agents carrying out the raids. Trump also authorized the Pentagon to dispatch regular US troops 'as necessary' to support the California National Guard. The president's orders did not specify rules of engagement about when and how force could be used. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard and asserted it was not needed, criticized the president's decision as 'inflammatory' and warned it 'will only escalate tensions.' I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation's past. My recent book, 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio. The confrontation escalated into violence: troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life. In my view, dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are better prepared today than in 1970 to respond to riots and violent protests – but the vast majority of their training and their primary mission remains to fight, to kill and to win wars. Protests in Los Angeles began after federal agencies conducted immigration raids across the city on June 6, 2025. The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer. Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest. Examples include riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington DC in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd. Presidents rarely deploy National Guard troops without state governors' consent. The main modern exceptions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied federal court orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the federal government sent troops to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters. The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, a narrower federal statute that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in situations including 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Trump did not limit his order to Los Angeles. He authorized armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at any 'locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.' ICE officers and national guards confront protesters outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces' Reserve Officer Training Corps program. In response, Republican Governor Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of the university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities. Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn't going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. 'We're going to put a stop to this!' he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3. Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers. There was confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon's expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard's presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures. Archival CBS News footage of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State, May 4, 1970. The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly. In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that he had ordered Guardsmens' rifles loaded with live ammunition. As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers' responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops' discharge of weapons. When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted 'Fire in the air!' in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students' heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus' order, and fired at the students. The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were. Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. 'Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,' one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, 'Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?' Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4, 1970. National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds. In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that 'the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.' In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. The application of force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force. Aggressive displays of force, in fact, can heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive that authorities are acting with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrated that using military force in these situations is an option fraught with grave risks. Brian VanDeMark is professor of history, United States Naval Academy This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
3 hours ago
- Asia Times
Thai-Cambodia clash through a US vs China lens
BANGKOK – A deadly border feud between Thailand's US-trained military and Cambodia's Chinese-assisted troops has resulted in a surprise agreement with Phnom Penh retreating and abandoning a freshly dug trench after one Cambodian soldier was killed and both sides reinforced their armies in the disputed Emerald Triangle jungle. The face-to-face gunfight at the border also sparked questions about Bangkok's fragile civilian-led coalition government and its ability to control Thailand's politicized military which has, when displeased, unleashed government-toppling coups. While villagers hurriedly dug schoolyard bunkers, and thousands of travelers were left stranded due to temporary checkpoint closures, Thailand announced on Sunday (June 8) that Cambodian troops agreed to withdraw to their pre-confrontation positions and make other concessions. 'Cambodia agreed to fill in the trenches, to restore the area to its natural state,' the Bangkok Post reported on Monday (June 9). The Thai Army displayed photos of what it said showed a 650-meter trench dug by Cambodian troops in the disputed zone. Two pictures showed a freshly dug trench on May 18 and May 28. Two other photos displayed the site restored and filled with dirt on Sunday (June 8). In Cambodia, details about the agreement were sketchy. 'The Ministry of National Defense of Cambodia announced today that military commanders from Cambodia and Thailand have agreed to adjust the positions of their troops along certain areas of the border to reduce tensions and avoid confrontation,' the Khmer Times reported on June 9. 'I ask the public to trust that the government is working to solve this through peaceful means, which is the only way to avoid violence and maintain good relations with our neighboring country,' Cambodia's influential former prime minister Hun Sen said. Cambodia blames Thai forces for allegedly shooting dead a Cambodian soldier on May 28 during a brief firefight in the Emerald Triangle, where eastern Thailand, northern Cambodia, and southern Laos meet. The jungle and scrubland include a no man's zone that is not officially demarcated, attracting human and wildlife traffickers, illegal loggers, smugglers, fugitives, and other criminals. The disputed zone also boasts the ruins of ancient Hindu temples, including Ta Moan Thom, Ta Moan Toch, and Ta Kro Bei. The latest deadly confrontation began when the two nations' armed forces opened fire at each other at Chong Bok pass on the Thai-Cambodian border. The Cambodians were allegedly digging a trench along the rugged, porous frontier, drawn 100 years ago by French colonialists. According to the Thai army, Cambodia's troops 'encroached' and shot first when the Thais approached to talk. Cambodian troops 'misunderstood the situation and started using weapons, so Thai forces retaliated,' a Thai army spokesman said. In an official letter to Thailand's embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia's Foreign Ministry officially demanded an investigation and trial for Thailand's troops who 'without provocation' allegedly killed the Cambodian. The Cambodian soldier's death created increased public support for authoritarian Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet. 'The reaction of the Cambodian public to this situation has surprised me, in how it has caused a large upswell in patriotic sentiment and pro-government support, even from a lot of people I know to be very skeptical of the government,' Craig Etcheson, an author and researcher about Cambodia, said in an interview. 'In that sense, it has been very good for the CPP,' Etcheson said, referring to the long-ruling, monopolistic Cambodian Peoples' Party. Coincidentally, miles away, China was concluding its two-week-long Golden Dragon military exercises with Cambodia, which included 2,000 combined personnel, fearsome galloping 'robot combat dogs' with assault rifles mounted on their backs, plus helicopters, vehicle-mounted rockets, mortars, and other weaponry. The Golden Dragon drills do not 'threaten or harm any country,' said Cambodia's Defense Ministry spokesman General Chhum Socheat. China is Cambodia's biggest source of weapons and other military needs, including Chinese tanks, armed vehicles and air defense training, but there was no indication of any Chinese involvement in the border confrontation. China's President Xi Jinping boosted Phnom Penh's faith in more aid and investment from Beijing during his April visit to Cambodia. In May, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs John Noh met Cambodia's Defense Minister and Secretary of State Lieutenant General Rath Dararoth to discuss security and military relations. 'Both leaders look forward to a US Navy ship visit, and maritime training, to occur at Ream Naval Base later this year, as well as travel by Secretary Hegseth to visit the US ship while in port at Ream,' the US Defense Department said on May 31. American officials hope a US ship will be able to dock, for the first time, near Sihanoukville in Cambodia's Ream Naval Base which is undergoing massive upgrades by China as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative. Thailand conducts large-scale military exercises with the Pentagon each year and allows the US Navy docking facilities, including the US 7th Fleet's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, along its shallow Gulf of Thailand coast, bolstering the US Pacific Fleet in the Indo-Pacific region. The Thai-Cambodian border clash meanwhile exposed cracks between Thailand's elected, civilian-led government and its cautious relationship with the military. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said she wants a peaceful, behind-the-scenes, negotiated settlement between Bangkok and Phnom Penh, but has not announced its terms. Thailand's military is perceived as bristling against Cambodia. 'The Thai army would prefer a hawkish response,' Paul Chambers, a visiting fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said in an interview before the border agreement was reached. 'As tensions have risen, alarm has grown. Such alarm could intensify to an extent that it affects Thai civil-military relations,' he said. The mood among the public has risen 'from apathetic to increasingly alarmed in both countries,' Chambers added. Others said the differences between Thailand's government and military were not destabilizing, yet. 'Currently, the Thai military and the civilian government under Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra appear to be aligned in their approach to the border dispute,' Sophal Ear, an associate professor of Southeast Asian and other international relations at Phoenix's Arizona State University, said in an interview. 'Both have expressed a preference for peaceful resolution through existing bilateral mechanisms. However, the military has indicated readiness for a 'high-level operation' if necessary, reflecting a cautious stance amid increased Cambodian military activity near the border,' Sophal Ear said. Paetongtarn expressed her relationship with the army when she said, 'The military understands precisely what is happening on the ground. It is the military's responsibility to evaluate whether the situation has reached a point where confrontation is necessary. 'If not, then engaging prematurely could result in great harm.' Thailand and Cambodia, meanwhile, cooperate on several vital issues, including trade and security, which may help temper their feud. Their relations are so tight, for example, that they are jointly accused of helping each other crush political dissidents, according to New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW). 'The Cambodian and Thai governments have engaged in transnational repression – government efforts to silence dissent by committing human rights abuses against their own nationals outside their own territory — through reciprocal arrangements targeting dissidents and opposition figures, colloquially known as a 'swap mart',' HRW said. 'Both governments have facilitated assaults, abductions, enforced disappearances, and the forced return of people to their home countries where their lives or freedom are at risk,' the rights group said in April. Thailand and Phnom Penh deny violating the law when it comes to deporting people back to each other's country, despite pleas that fleeing political activists be spared. In 1999, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet was a cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point. It is unknown if that will temper or give confidence to his military dealings with Thailand. Paetongtarn's father, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, had close fraternal ties with Cambodia's previous prime minister and former Khmer Rouge regiment commander Hun Sen, the father of Prime Minister Hun Manet. Those generational links were especially valuable after Thaksin was overthrown in a military coup in 2006, leading to 15 years as a self-exiled fugitive from prison sentences for corruption and other financial crimes. Those enmeshed personal relationships had recently been blamed by some Thais for weakening Bangkok's negotiating stance in an ongoing dispute with Cambodia over mapping their shared Gulf of Thailand which hosts oil and natural gas extraction platforms. 'Right-wing opponents of the Shinawatras, in particular, are using the issue of Thai-Cambodian border issues to attack the Paetongtarn government,' Chambers said. 'This issue could become increasingly productive for the right-wing opposition.' Sophal Ear said: 'Opposition groups in Thailand have criticized the Shinawatra-led government for its handling of the border dispute, accusing it of being too conciliatory towards Cambodia. 'This strategy taps into nationalist sentiments, but risks being counterproductive if perceived as undermining efforts for a peaceful resolution. The [Thai] government's emphasis on diplomacy may appeal to moderates who prioritize stability over confrontation. 'In Cambodia, there is a sense of nationalistic fervor, with support for the government's decision to seek ICJ intervention. 'In Thailand, the public is more divided, some express concern over national sovereignty, while others prioritize economic and political stability,' Sophal Ear said. Thailand and Cambodia will engage in talks at a June 14 meeting of the Joint Boundary Committee, said Thai Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai. 'The government has made preparations, both the legal aspects and negotiations through mechanisms, along with military preparations on the frontline if that proves necessary,' said the defense minister, who is also a deputy prime minister. 'For those who stir up nationalist sentiments, they should understand that war is best avoided,' Phumtham said. 'Don't stir it, or problems will follow.' Richard S Ehrlich is a Bangkok-based American foreign correspondent reporting from Asia since 1978, and winner of Columbia University's Foreign Correspondents' Award. Excerpts from his two new nonfiction books, 'Rituals. Killers. Wars. & Sex. — Tibet, India, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka & New York' and 'Apocalyptic Tribes, Smugglers & Freaks' are available here.
RTHK
4 hours ago
- RTHK
Next Policy Address to be delivered in September
Next Policy Address to be delivered in September John Lee says public consultations for his upcoming Policy Address will begin on Monday. Photo: RTHK Chief Executive John Lee on Tuesday said he will deliver his next Policy Address in September, a month earlier than usual. Lee said the change is being made due to polls in December for the city's legislature. Public consultations ahead of the address will begin next Monday, the SAR leader announced ahead of this week's Executive Council meeting, with more than 40 online and in-person sessions as well as two district forums. "This year, I'm advancing the delivery of the Policy Address to September, because at the end of this year, there'll be the Legislative Council general election. The Legislative Council's term will end early," he said. "I'll advance the consultation sessions on the Policy Address, because I take very seriously the communication and interaction between the executive [authorities] and the legislature. I need to have sufficient time to listen to the views of the public and different sectors." Lee set out 138 key performance indicators (KPIs) in his blueprint a year ago, which he said departments were able to meet. "The policy objective of the government now is to strive for economic development and improve people's livelihoods. That would be the focus of the Policy Address," he said. Asked about reports that director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Xia Baolong will visit Hong Kong this month, Lee said his administration will make announcements in due course if there is any information relating to the Beijing official's activities. Xia paid inspection tours to the SAR in 2023 and 2024.
