Latest news with #DengXiaoping
New York Times
4 days ago
- General
- New York Times
Denying Visas to Chinese Students Will Backfire on America
One night in 1978, President Jimmy Carter got a phone call at 3 a.m. from a top adviser who was visiting China. 'Deng Xiaoping insisted I call you now, to see if you would permit 5,000 Chinese students to come to American universities,' said the official, Frank Press. 'Tell him to send 100,000,' Mr. Carter replied. By Christmas time that year, the first group of 52 Chinese students had arrived in the United States, just ahead of the formal establishment of U.S.-China diplomatic relations on New Year's Day. A month later, Mr. Deng, then China's top leader, made a historic visit to America during which he watched John Denver sing 'Take Me Home, Country Roads' and was photographed wearing a cowboy hat. It's almost hard to believe how little contact there had been between the United States and modern China before that. The Sinologist John K. Fairbank wrote in 1971: 'Since 1950 Washington has officially sent more men to the moon than it has to China.' The visits by Mr. Deng, and more important, by those first Chinese students, began a new chapter that would fundamentally change China — and the world. The United States gained access to a vast market and talent pool, while China found a model and a partner for transforming its economy. Now that chapter has closed, after the Trump administration announced that it would begin 'aggressively' revoking the visas of Chinese students on Wednesday. For the millions of Chinese who have studied in the United States, myself included, it is a sobering and disheartening development. It marks a turning point that America, long a beacon of openness and opportunity, would start shutting its doors to Chinese who aspire for a good education and a future in a society that values freedom and human dignity. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Decoding China's rare-earth strategy: More resilient than it seems
In 'China's rare-earth controls are not the masterstroke they seem – ToI 27 April 2025' authors argue that Beijing's actions will inadvertently weaken its dominance in global rare earth race. This view, however, underestimates the depth, scale and strategy that China has deployed to control the critical mineral globally over last three decades. China has built her position in REE through decades of investments, technological superiority, trained human resources, supply chain integration and strategic acquisitions. As the world rushes to diversify and reduce dependency we must ask: is it too late and too little? (AI-generated image) China accounts for roughly 60% of the global critical-mineral production and is home to over 85% worldwide refining capacity. It produces 40% of the world's refined copper, 70% of refined cobalt, over 60% of lithium, and 99% of battery-grade graphite. Additionally, China also controls 87% of the global permanent-magnet market, to which REEs are essential. The US Geological Survey has specified 50 critical minerals including REE. Out of these 50, US is 100% import-dependent for 12 critical minerals and more than 50% import dependent on 29 minerals. According to USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries Report 2024, China is the dominant US supplier account for 72% of the annual demand, followed by 11% from Malaysia and 6% from Japan. In 1992, during a visit to one of the country's main rare earth production hubs in Inner Mongolia, Deng Xiaoping, famously said: 'While there is oil in the Middle East, China has rare earths'. This vision carried by focused academic research and a robust innovation environment. China has well-funded five National Rare Earth Laboratories under strategic industrial policies. Additionally, 39 Chinese universities offer dedicated program to train workforce in critical mining and REEs. China University of Mining and Technology ranked number one globally in mining technology. Consequently, China holds the highest number of patents in mining technology. Also read: China's rare-earth controls are not the masterstroke they seem Supply chain risk is another very critical factor in the REE geopolitics. China has previously demonstrated her ability to withhold the supply causing more than 5x price surge in the critical minerals when it has temporarily halted the supply to Japan following a maritime dispute in 2010. Post Covid-19 pandemic there have been multiple initiatives to de-risk the supply chain however China's mining scale and global footprint makes it non-viable for other countries to initiate in the mining of critical minerals. Additionally, China is known to use dumping strategy and deflate prices. Canada's Deputy Prime Minister accused China of stifling critical minerals start-ups and disrupting any attempts to create alternative avenues. Recent months have witnessed large mining corporations such as BHP, Tianqi IGO are either shutting their Nickel, Cobalt, Lithium mining or postponing planned expansion owing to oversupply from China and Indonesia. India, too, must prepare to navigate this challenging landscape. The National Critical Minerals Mission (NCMM) is a timely policy step that enables private sector participation in exploration and mining of key minerals. By fast-tracking mine licensing, incentivising rare-earth recycling, and fostering public-private-academic partnerships, India can reduce its vulnerability. Strategic stockpiling with like-minded countries, capacity-building for refining, and investing in domestic research are critical. India should also leverage its geopolitical positioning to participate in resilient and trusted critical-mineral supply chains with the Quad and other alliances. Recycling does offer a sustainable and supplemental route for sourcing REEs and critical minerals, but it cannot replace mining. It remains a secondary source with limited scale. Establishing recycling infrastructure demands high investment and long lead times. As per the data from Internation Energy Agency, from 2015–2023, recycled shares of copper and nickel fell by 4%, while cobalt and lithium recycling stayed below 10%. (AI-generated image) Any retaliatory or diversification strategy must be rooted in patience, steady technological advancement, and geopolitical pragmatism. Disengaging from China entirely is neither practical nor immediate. Building alternative capacities and reducing dependency will take sustained effort over many years, requiring coordinated national vision and international partnerships. After the Covid-19 pandemic, India aimed to reduce reliance on China for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). Yet, progress has been slow. According to Pharmaceutical Exports Promotion Council imports of bulk drugs rose 13.06% in the first two months of 2024–25 compared to the previous year, indicating continued and even growing dependency on Chinese supplies. In conclusion, China's rare-earth dominance is not a fragile or accidental monopoly, it is a product of deep, deliberate, and sustained strategy. With strong government support, cutting-edge processing technologies, world-leading educational institutions, and a proven willingness to deploy market-disruptive measures like price dumping or export bans, China has built a formidable ecosystem. Attempts to counter this dominance must acknowledge the scale of the challenge. The narrative of Beijing's self-defeating strategy overlooks the resilience and adaptability that underpins China's critical minerals playbook one that continues to outpace global responses. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Malay Mail
23-05-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
Consider Petronas-like model to develop Malaysia's REE industry — Ahmad Ibrahim
MAY 23 — Deng Xiaoping once made a shrewd prediction. He said, 'The Middle East has oil, China has Rare Earths'. Rare earth is now indispensable as the world catches the netzero fever. Not just limited to use in the electric vehicle. But has found strategic use in the military. China controls more than 85 per cent of supply. It is an effective bargaining chip for China. Rare earths have become a critical feature of a sustainable world. Venturing into the rare earths industry presents a strategic opportunity for Malaysia. The Petronas model for oil and gas offers useful lessons. There is a suggestion to establish a government-linked company GLC, the National Rare Earths Corporation (NREC), to mirror Petronas in overseeing all aspects of the value chain including exploration and mining, processing and refining, downstream manufacturing, R&D and innovation, as well as strategic trade and diplomacy The idea emphasises decentralised operations, with centralised oversight. While NREC handles strategy and international relations, state-level operations could be managed by State Rare Earths Boards, which ensure local benefit-sharing and stakeholder involvement. Rare earth mining often faces backlash due to pollution. Malaysia should position itself as a global model for ethical rare earth production. Avoid the 'resource curse' by focusing not just on mining but also advanced material production such as rare earth alloys. R&D investments in alternative materials, recycling, and process improvements should be a strategy. There should be strategic stockpiling and trade policy. This involves coordinating trade through G2G or long-term offtake agreements to avoid market manipulation. Important to maintain neutral, non-aligned trade diplomacy to stay out of great power rivalries. The issue of governance, transparency should be addressed. Adopt international best practices in governance. Publish regular ESG reports and include civil society in oversight processes. Can the Petronas model be repeated? Yes, but with adaptation. Petronas succeeded due to strong legal backing (Petroleum Development Act), technical capability-building, and international partnerships. For rare earths, transparency, sustainability, and geopolitical neutrality will be more important than in oil & gas. The Petronas Twin Towers — a symbol of Malaysia's energy success. — Unsplash pic It has been reported that Malaysia's focus now is on its rare earths-bearing ion-adsorption clay (IAC) deposits overlying the granite bodies along the peninsular's spine. The advantage of the IAC deposits is that there is essentially no thorium in them. Some preliminary investigation work has reported an inferred amount of some 16.2 million tonnes of REE in the country. There is now only 1 operating mine in Kenering, Gerik, there is now also one Proof-of-Concept (POC) midstream processing plant in Simpang Pulai. Of course Lynas has been around for years now. Some industry players alert on another potential money spinner in the rare earths business, thorium. The rising demand for thorium in new-generation nuclear energy designs is rooted in the push for safer, cleaner, and more sustainable nuclear power systems. Thorium has emerged as a fuel in advanced reactors. New designs like the Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) are optimised to use thorium efficiently. These so-called Generation IV reactors promise inherent safety (e.g., passive shutdown systems), less long-lived radioactive waste, higher fuel efficiency, and reduced weapons proliferation risk. As countries move away from fossil fuels, nuclear power is seen as a reliable base-load clean energy source. Thorium is seen as a better long-term nuclear option due to greater abundance and reduced risks compared to uranium. India, China, and some Western research institutions are heavily investing in thorium-based reactor designs. India's 'three-stage nuclear program' relies significantly on thorium, as the country has vast reserves. China is testing MSR prototypes in the Gobi Desert, specifically targeting thorium fuel cycles. And Malaysia can participate in supplying Thorium. Monazite sands, a by-product of rare earth element (REE) processing, often contain thorium. Malaysia already processes rare earth elements (Lynas in Gebeng), and thorium is present in the waste streams (typically stored as radioactive waste). This existing material could potentially be re-evaluated and extracted as a valuable resource instead of waste. There are caveats. Rare earths have a smaller market and more complex processing routes. Environmental risks are greater if mismanaged. Global geopolitics around critical minerals is intense—neutral positioning is key. Malaysia has the chance to lead not just in rare earth mining, but in sustainable, responsible resource governance. A hybrid Petronas model — state-led but innovation-driven, transparent, and green — can position Malaysia as a respected player in the global critical minerals economy. The reality is we cannot just sit back without taking the right actions to profitably harness billions from Malaysia's reasonably rich rare earths deposits. We must not squander the opportunity. *The author Datuk Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an associate fellow at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at [email protected] **This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Otago Daily Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
China's rise: stabilising the global order or sparking a major shake-up?
The Shanghai skyline. PHOTO: REUTERS You do not go from Mao suits to luxury malls without shaking up the global order. In just a few decades, China has catapulted from post-revolutionary poverty to boardroom dominance. It is impossible to ignore it; economically, diplomatically and militarily, China is everywhere. But the million-dollar question that seems to haunt many gatherings these days is whether China's spectacular rise is making the world more stable or just more nervous? China had a turning point in 1978. Deng Xiaoping began economic reforms that ripped down the barriers of central planning with the catchphrase "To get rich is glorious," which would make Wall Street blush. Ideological inflexibility was replaced by foreign wealth. China began constructing the mall rather than merely opening stores. The outcome? Unprecedented. Decades of GDP growth of almost 10% annually. Hundreds of millions of people were lifted from poverty. The establishment of a European-sized middle class. And instead of retreating once the Cold War ended, China leaned in with strategic diplomacy, World Trade Organisation participation and a rebranding initiative known as the "peaceful rise". No tanks, no invasions, just trade agreements and infrastructure projects. And here is where the stabilising argument kicks in. China is the top trade partner of more than 120 countries. That is a deterrent as well as being remarkable. Very few states want to risk a conflict with their largest buyer, logistics centre or lender. When your GDP depends on Chinese demand, you think twice before picking a fight. China is also a skilled diplomat player. From the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership to Asean to its United Nations role, Beijing has made significant investments to project an image of being a positive global force. In its foreign policy, it promotes "win-win co-operation," non-interference and multipolarity — a world where many people shape it rather than just one sheriff (read: United States of America). That appeals to many states that are fed up with American hyprocrisy and lecturing. Even China's unwavering adherence to sovereignty, which it holds dear, has helped to stabilise some areas by preventing outside interference. Beijing steers clear of messy wars in favour of regional discussions and infrastructure agreements. That strikes many as a welcome diversion from what are often seen in the Global South as the interfering tendencies of the West. But as you flip the coin, the fissures become visible. Let's start with Beijing's outlandish claim to much of the South China Sea. A peaceful rise? When China is displaying naval might, erecting runways on contested reefs and brandishing old maps as if they override international law, it is a difficult sell. The Philippines and Vietnam, for example, were concerned rather than reassured. As a result, the US has shifted its military priorities to Asia and strengthened its partnerships. Then there is Taiwan. Both the military exercises and Beijing's rhetoric are becoming more confrontational. When aircraft carriers are used to support peaceful reunion, such a goal has a hollow ring to it. That is a conflict just waiting to happen; it is not stability. The Belt and Road Initiative is a trillion-dollar infrastructure dream on paper. In actuality? Sometimes it is a disguised debt trap. Ask Sri Lanka, which, due to its failure to repay loans, was forced to cede a major port to China for 99 years. Economic development is not what happens when nations lose control of important assets; rather, it is geopolitical leverage disguised as investment. And do not forget the power competition with the US. We are not yet in a full-blown great power showdown, but the vibes are definitely chilly. Global alliances are already changing as a result of trade disputes, hi-tech prohibitions and military posture. Nations torn between Washington's security umbrella and Beijing's cheque book are forced to choose a side, which never works out well. Where does this leave us, then? The truth is China's rise is a double-edged sword. It offers trade, connection, new diplomatic options and fresh perspectives on world leadership, but it also carries with it economic reliance, strategic rivalries and territorial disputes. Indeed, the world is more interconnected, but it is also more vulnerable. What comes next depends less on China and more on how the rest of us respond. Will we engage where interests align and push back where values clash? Or will we sleepwalk into another great power standoff, trading Cold War 1.0 for a glossier sequel? Whether the future leans towards collaboration or conflict will depend on how we, including New Zealand, respond to that increase. It is a tightrope walk on a global scale; if we tip one way, we make progress together; if we tip the other way, we face a showdown of the 21st century. This is a test of the wisdom of the world, not simply of China's intentions. ■ Mercy Mikaele Fonoti is a master of international studies student at the University of Otago.
Asia Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
If China can rise, why can't India?
It's not the easy questions that shape a nation. It's not comfort that builds greatness. If history has taught us anything, it's this: Real progress is born from discomfort. Too often, societies fall into the trap of playing it safe – protecting old beliefs, avoiding friction, and choosing the path of least resistance. But no great story, no lasting success, has ever come from staying comfortable. Nations, like individuals, are destroyed not by what they face but by what they refuse to face. Across history, the fate of countries has not hinged solely on wars, leaders, or wealth, but on their willingness to ask the uncomfortable questions. The ones that hurt. The ones that unearth contradictions, threaten pride and force a reckoning with the past. Refusing to confront uncomfortable truths can be more damaging than any external threat. The Soviet Union collapsed not from outside pressure, but from its refusal to question its rigid ideology. The lesson is not that questioning guarantees success. It's that the refusal to question guarantees failure. If America hadn't asked why African Americans were treated as second-class citizens, it might still be trapped in deeper institutional racism. The civil rights movement was born from confrontation, not comfort. After WWII, Germany asked how it allowed the Holocaust to happen, choosing to confront its past. By remembering, not denying, it transformed from aggressor to the moral anchor of Europe. The biggest example is China. Deng Xiaoping asked the unthinkable – Is this version of communism truly serving our people? Then, instead of abandoning communism, he reimagined it – blending it with market reforms and global ambition. The result? The rise of a capitalist-communist state unlike anything the world had seen. The key was not ideology. It was introspection. Before Deng's era, China was a rigid, feudal society dominated by a few elites and strict ideology. The Cultural Revolution under Mao deepened the crisis, causing widespread persecution and chaos. In the late 1970s, China faced a choice: stick to traditional Marxist doctrine or reinvent its society and economy. Deng Xiaoping took two bold steps – first through a social revolution that dismantled feudal structures, then through pragmatic economic modernization. He began by rehabilitating millions persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, restoring their dignity and fostering national reconciliation. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping launched the 'Open Door Policy,' inviting foreign investment and integrating China into the global economy. This, along with his broader reforms, fueled rapid growth—China's GDP grew by 9.5% annually from 1978 to 2013, lifting 800 million out of poverty in four decades. Through the 'Four Modernizations,' Deng prioritized education, technology, national defense and agriculture, building a skilled workforce that powered China's rise to become the world's second-largest economy. China's focus on innovation and talent over ideology drove rapid progress. Literacy rose from 20% (1949) to 97% (2020). It now produces 1.4 million engineers a year, leads in STEM PhDs and has more than 100 million small and medium enterprises generating 60% of GDP and 80% of the employment. China's rise is rooted in long-term investment in human capital, making it a global leader in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and space tech. Deng's focus on practical solutions over ideology drove China's rise from poverty to prosperity. By breaking feudal structures and embracing market reforms, China rebuilt its economy and fostered a nation of competent, forward-thinking citizens who empower the nation. India today stands at a crossroads, much like China in the 1970s. A land of vast potential, India is held back not by talent or vision but by its reluctance to question deep-rooted beliefs about caste. The caste system has long perpetuated inequality and limited opportunity. It's India's Achilles heel. However, a major shift is underway. In April 2025, after persistent advocacy by opposition and civil society, the Indian government agreed to conduct a nationwide caste census as part of the decennial population survey. This step is vital for dismantling feudal structures and enabling data-driven, inclusive policymaking. I've long argued in my columns for a caste census, as India's strengths are overshadowed by the caste system's deep-rooted flaws. The census is a step forward in addressing historical injustices and promoting equitable development, but the real challenge is turning the data into policies that drive social justice and inclusion. A caste census, followed by land reforms, and then industrial reforms, will set India on the right trajectory, much like China. India must learn from China to invest in human capital and ensure equal opportunities for all, regardless of caste. For India to rise, it must first dismantle its traditional internal beliefs and ask uncomfortable questions to unleash its potential. The day we choose competence over complacency, equity over entitlement, and nation over narrowness, India's rise won't just be possible – it will be inevitable.
