[🇨🇳] China vs USA

[Saif]

US ambassador warns of China's growing manufacturing dominance

The top US envoy to China called Thursday for fair and reciprocal trade between the world's two largest economies and expressed concern about projections that China's dominance of global manufacturing will grow even further in the years to come. US Ambassador David Perdue told business and governm

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

US ambassador warns of China's growing manufacturing dominance

AP
Published :
Jan 29, 2026 20:17
Updated :
Jan 29, 2026 20:17

US ambassador to China David Perdue speaks during an Amcham event in Beijing, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026. Photo : AP/Ken Moritsugu

The top US envoy to China called Thursday for fair and reciprocal trade between the world's two largest economies and expressed concern about projections that China's dominance of global manufacturing will grow even further in the years to come.

US Ambassador David Perdue told business and government leaders in Beijing that China should be congratulated on becoming a manufacturing powerhouse but echoed fears in Europe and elsewhere that China's exports pose a threat to factories and jobs in other countries.

“This is not healthy for the rest of the world,” he said in remarks to an annual dinner of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.

Perdue was appointed by US President Donald Trump, who has imposed tariffs on imports from China and many other countries in a bid to reindustrialize and boost factory jobs in the United States.

China responded with tariffs on imports from the US An ensuing tit-for-tat spiral drove tariffs sky-high before the two sides agreed to a series of 90-day truces. In late October, both countries agreed to a one-year pause when Trump met Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea during a gathering of Asia-Pacific nations.

“They’ve been able to create the space we’ll need to work through a lot of tough, complicated issues,” Perdue said.

China had reaped the benefits of free trade with the rest of the world, while American companies have faced a series of barriers to the Chinese market over the years, the US envoy said.

“America’s not looking for a trade war, but we are looking to get fair, free, reciprocal trade,” he said.

Perdue said that work is underway for a visit by Trump to China in 2026, and that Xi is expected to visit the US this year too. Trump has said he will come to China in April, but neither government has confirmed a date.​

 

[Lulldapull]

US ambassador warns of China's growing manufacturing dominance

The top US envoy to China called Thursday for fair and reciprocal trade between the world's two largest economies and expressed concern about projections that China's dominance of global manufacturing will grow even further in the years to come. US Ambassador David Perdue told business and governm

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

US ambassador warns of China's growing manufacturing dominance

AP
Published :
Jan 29, 2026 20:17
Updated :
Jan 29, 2026 20:17

View attachment 24158

US ambassador to China David Perdue speaks during an Amcham event in Beijing, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026. Photo : AP/Ken Moritsugu

The top US envoy to China called Thursday for fair and reciprocal trade between the world's two largest economies and expressed concern about projections that China's dominance of global manufacturing will grow even further in the years to come.

US Ambassador David Perdue told business and government leaders in Beijing that China should be congratulated on becoming a manufacturing powerhouse but echoed fears in Europe and elsewhere that China's exports pose a threat to factories and jobs in other countries.

“This is not healthy for the rest of the world,” he said in remarks to an annual dinner of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.

Perdue was appointed by US President Donald Trump, who has imposed tariffs on imports from China and many other countries in a bid to reindustrialize and boost factory jobs in the United States.

China responded with tariffs on imports from the US An ensuing tit-for-tat spiral drove tariffs sky-high before the two sides agreed to a series of 90-day truces. In late October, both countries agreed to a one-year pause when Trump met Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea during a gathering of Asia-Pacific nations.

“They’ve been able to create the space we’ll need to work through a lot of tough, complicated issues,” Perdue said.

China had reaped the benefits of free trade with the rest of the world, while American companies have faced a series of barriers to the Chinese market over the years, the US envoy said.

“America’s not looking for a trade war, but we are looking to get fair, free, reciprocal trade,” he said.

Perdue said that work is underway for a visit by Trump to China in 2026, and that Xi is expected to visit the US this year too. Trump has said he will come to China in April, but neither government has confirmed a date.​

AP is Zionist propaganda site.
Don't post junk news bhai.

 

[Vsdoc]

AP is Zionist propaganda site.
Don't post junk news bhai.

Again ...

 

[Saif]

China rejected calls to enter nuclear talks after US-Russia treaty lapses

United States has said any new nuclear agreement would have to include China, whose nuclear arsenal is rapidly expanding, but negotiating table have failed.

en.prothomalo.com

China rejected calls to enter nuclear talks after US-Russia treaty lapses

AFP
Published: 05 Feb 2026, 16: 22

China rejected calls to enter talks on a new nuclear treaty after a US-Russian agreement expired on Thursday, ending decades of restrictions on how many warheads the two powers can deploy.

Campaigners have warned that the expiry of the New START treaty could trigger a global arms race, urging nuclear powers to enter negotiations.

The United States has said any new nuclear agreement would have to include China, whose nuclear arsenal is rapidly expanding, but international efforts to draw Beijing to the negotiating table have so far failed.

China's foreign ministry joined a growing chorus expressing regret on Thursday over the expiry of the treaty, saying it was "of utmost importance to safeguarding global strategic stability".

Nevertheless, "China's nuclear capabilities are of a totally different scale as those of the United States and Russia," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian told a news conference.

Beijing "will not participate in nuclear disarmament negotiations at this stage", he said.

Russia and the United States together control more than 80 per cent of the world's nuclear warheads.

China's nuclear arsenal, meanwhile, is growing faster than any country's, by about 100 new warheads a year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

China is estimated to have at least 600 nuclear warheads, SIPRI says -- well below the 800 each at which Russia and the United States were capped under New START.

France and Britain, treaty-bound US allies, together have another 100.

- Fears of nuclear war -

Signed during a warmer period of relations, US president Donald Trump did not follow up on Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin's proposal to extend New START's limits for one year.

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres called the expiry a "grave moment".

"For the first time in more than half a century, we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals" of Russia and the United States, Guterres said in a statement.

"This dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time -- the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades," he said, after Russian suggestions of using tactical nuclear weapons early in the Ukraine war.

Pope Leo XIV said each side needed to do "everything possible" to avert a new arms race.

A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called for "restraint and responsibility" and said that the US-led military alliance "will continue to take steps necessary" to ensure its defence.

A group of Japanese survivors of US atomic bombs during World War II said they feared the world was marching towards nuclear war.

"Given the current situation, I have a feeling that in the not-too-distant future, we'll actually have a nuclear war and head toward destruction," Terumi Tanaka, co-chair of the Nihon Hidankyo group, told a press conference.

In the run-up to the treaty's expiry, the metaphorical "Doomsday Clock" representing how near humanity is to catastrophe moved closer than ever to midnight, as its board warned of heightened risks of a nuclear arms race.

- 'Impossible' without Chine -

Moscow said it considered that both Russia and the United States were "no longer bound by any obligations" under New START.

"The Russian Federation intends to act responsibly and prudently," it added, but warned it was ready to take "decisive" countermeasures if its national security is threatened.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters of the treaty's expiry that "we view it negatively."

Trump, who has frequently lashed out at international limits on the United States, also looked ready in his first term to let New START lapse as he insisted on including China.

But some observers say the expiry owes less to ideology than to the workings of the Trump administration, where career diplomats are sidelined, simply not having the bandwidth to negotiate a complex agreement.

On Wednesday, secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated a call for a new agreement that includes China.

"The president's been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it's impossible to do something that doesn't include China," Rubio said.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, which warns of nuclear risks, agreed that China should engage.

But "there is no indication that Trump or his team have taken the time to propose risk reduction or arms control talks with China since returning to office in 2025", Kimball said.

The treaty, signed in 2010 in Prague by then presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, limited each side's nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, a reduction of nearly 30 per cent from the previous limit set in 2002.​

 

[Saif]

US accuses China of secret nuclear tests

The United States accused Beijing on Friday of conducting a secret nuclear test in 2020 as it called for a new, broader arms control treaty that would bring in China as well as Russia. The accusations at a global disarmament conference highlighted serious tensions between Washington and Beijing at

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

US accuses China of secret nuclear tests

REUTERS
Published :
Feb 06, 2026 20:07
Updated :
Feb 06, 2026 20:07

The United States accused Beijing on Friday of conducting a secret nuclear test in 2020 as it called for a new, broader arms control treaty that would bring in China as well as Russia.

The accusations at a global disarmament conference highlighted serious tensions between Washington and Beijing at a pivotal moment in nuclear arms control, a day after the treaty limiting US and Russian missile and warhead deployments expired.

"I can reveal that the US government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons," US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno told a Disarmament Conference in Geneva.

The Chinese military "sought to conceal testing by obfuscating the nuclear explosions because it recognized these tests violate test ban commitments. China has used 'decoupling', a method to decrease the effectiveness of seismic monitoring, to hide their activities from the world," he said.

DiNanno said China had conducted one such "yield-producing test" on Jun 22, 2020.

China's ambassador on disarmament, Shen Jian, did not directly address DiNanno's charge but said Beijing had always acted prudently and responsibly on nuclear issues.

"China notes that the US continues in its statement to hype up the so-called China nuclear threat. China firmly opposes such false narratives," he said.

"It (the US) is the culprit for the aggravation of the arms race."

Diplomats at the conference said the US allegations were new and concerning.

GLOBAL ARMS CONTROL FACES A CRITICAL MOMENT

The 2010 New START treaty which ran out on Thursday left Russia and the United States for the first time in more than half a century without any binding constraints on their deployments of strategic missiles and warheads.

US President Donald Trump wants to replace it with a new agreement including China, which is rapidly increasing its own arsenal.

DiNanno told the Geneva conference: "Today, the United States faces threats from multiple nuclear powers. In short, a bilateral treaty with only one nuclear power is simply inappropriate in 2026 and going forward."

He reiterated US projections that China will have over 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.

But Shen, the Chinese delegate, reiterated that his country would not participate in new negotiations at this stage with Moscow and Washington. Beijing has previously highlighted that it has a fraction of their warhead numbers - an estimated 600, compared to around 4,000 each for Russia and the US

"In this new era we hope the US will abandon Cold War thinking... and embrace common and cooperative security," Shen said.​

 

[Saif]

Is Trump's attack on Iran designed to weaken China also?

When American bombs fall in the Middle East, the world tends to interpret them through a familiar lens: nuclear brinkmanship, regional security, Israel's anxieties, Tehran's defiance. Yet geopolitics rarely unfolds in straight lines. In an era defined not by regional rivalries but by great-power co

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Is Trump's attack on Iran designed to weaken China also?

Mir Mostafizur Rahaman
Published :
Mar 03, 2026 00:06
Updated :
Mar 03, 2026 00:06

When American bombs fall in the Middle East, the world tends to interpret them through a familiar lens: nuclear brinkmanship, regional security, Israel's anxieties, Tehran's defiance. Yet geopolitics rarely unfolds in straight lines. In an era defined not by regional rivalries but by great-power competition, it is worth asking a harder question: is the attack on Iran truly about Iran - or is it, in part, about China?

The United States and China are now locked in what many analysts describe as a systemic rivalry. Trade wars, semiconductor controls, naval manoeuvres in the South China Sea, diplomatic competition across Africa and Latin America - the contest is global, structural and long-term. Washington sees Beijing as its primary challenger on the world stage. Any major geopolitical move must therefore be read against that background.

Energy sits at the heart of this rivalry.

China's meteoric economic rise has been powered by imported oil. Despite investments in renewables and domestic coal, the Chinese economy remains heavily dependent on crude imports to sustain industrial output, transportation networks and urban growth. Unlike the United States, which has leveraged shale production to transform itself into a leading energy producer, China relies overwhelmingly on external supply lines.

Two countries have played a particularly important role in that supply chain: Iran and Venezuela.

For years, Beijing has quietly purchased vast quantities of Iranian crude, often at discounted prices and frequently through opaque shipping arrangements designed to evade sanctions. Estimates suggest that the overwhelming majority of Iran's oil exports ultimately end up in Chinese refineries. This has not merely been a commercial relationship; it has been a strategic lifeline for Tehran and an economic cushion for Beijing.

Venezuela once represented another pillar of China's energy diversification strategy. But Washington's long campaign of sanctions, diplomatic isolation and pressure on Caracas fundamentally reshaped that landscape. A change in government - driven in significant part by sustained US intervention - altered Venezuela's geopolitical alignment and constrained the previous volume and flexibility of oil flows to China. What Beijing once counted as a reliable alternative has become far less predictable.

That leaves the Gulf.

At the centre of this equation lies the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime artery through which roughly a fifth of global oil consumption passes each day. It is not simply a shipping route; it is the world's most critical energy chokepoint. Any serious disruption sends tremors through global markets. Insurance premiums spike. Freight costs surge. Inflationary pressures ripple outward.

If Iran were to close Hormuz - even partially - the consequences would be profound. Oil prices would climb sharply. Global supply chains would tighten. Energy-dependent economies would strain.

China, more than most major powers, would feel the pressure.

This is where the strategic logic begins to widen. An escalation that pressures Iran's ability to export oil - whether through direct military strikes, maritime insecurity, or intensified sanctions enforcement - indirectly squeezes China's energy security. Washington does not need to declare such an intention explicitly. Structural realities do the work.

Some argue that the current confrontation is about nuclear deterrence or regional proxy wars. Those factors matter. But they do not exhaust the explanation. In a world increasingly shaped by US-China rivalry, actions that weaken Beijing's supply resilience cannot be seen as incidental.

There is also the question of regime change - a phrase that has haunted American foreign policy for decades.

Donald Trump, often dismissed by critics as impulsive, has nevertheless shown a keen instinct for leverage politics. He understands - as do most seasoned strategists - that the architecture of the Iranian state makes traditional regime change a complicated proposition. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is not simply a military unit. It is an economic powerhouse, a political arbiter and a parallel state structure embedded deeply within Iran's governing system. Remove a president or even a supreme leader, and the institutional core remains intact.

Trump likely knows that decapitating leadership does not automatically transform Iranian policy. But weakening the state's coercive capacity, degrading its naval infrastructure, or fracturing its command hierarchy can limit its strategic reach - particularly its ability to threaten shipping routes or project power through proxies.

Yet there is another, even more consequential possibility.

If, at the end of sustained pressure, Washington were able to shape or support the emergence of a loyal, pro-Western regime in Tehran, the implications would extend far beyond internal Iranian politics. Iran possesses the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserves. Its export capacity, currently constrained by sanctions, could be rapidly expanded under a government reintegrated into Western financial systems.

Such a shift would not merely restore Iranian oil to global markets. It would place the direction and conditions of those exports under the influence - if not outright alignment - of Washington.

For China, that would be deeply unsettling.

At present, Beijing benefits from discounted Iranian crude, often purchased outside the dollar-denominated financial architecture dominated by the United States. A compliant Iranian government, eager to rebuild ties with Western economies, would have strong incentives to recalibrate its export patterns. Oil could flow preferentially to US allies. Contracts could be renegotiated. Pricing structures could shift. Sanctions relief might come with implicit geopolitical strings attached.

In that scenario, Washington would gain not only strategic breathing room in the Gulf but also leverage over a significant source of China's imported energy. It would not need to "close" the Strait of Hormuz to pressure Beijing; it could shape the flows that move through it.

For a country as energy-hungry as China, that would represent a structural vulnerability.

Of course, none of this guarantees that the United States can engineer such an outcome. Iran is not a blank slate. Nationalism runs deep. External intervention often produces backlash rather than compliance. The experience of Iraq stands as a cautionary tale.

But geopolitics is often about shaping probabilities rather than certainties.

China, for its part, has responded cautiously. It has called for restraint and de-escalation, mindful that an open confrontation in the Gulf threatens its own economic stability. Beijing does not want to be drawn directly into a military contest far from its shores. Nor does it want to see a critical energy supplier destabilised or politically transformed in ways that limit its access.

The dilemma for China is stark: it depends heavily on oil routes that the United States Navy ultimately has the power to secure - or disrupt. Its economic engine relies on flows that move through waters dominated by American alliances and military reach.

This is the quiet asymmetry at the heart of the rivalry.

So is the attack on Iran aimed at China?

Not exclusively. Regional dynamics, Israeli security concerns and long-standing hostilities with Tehran all play undeniable roles. But to treat the confrontation as purely local would be to ignore the defining geopolitical fact of our era: the United States sees China as its principal competitor, and every major strategic decision is filtered through that lens.

An Iran weakened, constrained or politically re-oriented is not just a Middle Eastern outcome. It is a variable in the balance of power between Washington and Beijing.

In the end, wars in one region often send their most consequential signals elsewhere. If this conflict reshapes energy flows, alters control over the Strait of Hormuz, or reconfigures Iran's political alignment, the effects will be felt far beyond the Gulf.

They will be felt in Beijing.

And that possibility - more than the missiles or the rhetoric - may explain why this confrontation carries the unmistakable shadow of a much larger contest.​