Israel knew the drill even before US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boarded his flight to Tel Aviv earlier this month four days after the death of his father. It was Pompeo’s first and only overseas trip since March.

Echoing a US warning two decades ago that Israeli dealings with China jeopardised the country’s relationship with the United States, Pompeo’s trip solidified Israel’s position at the cusp of the widening US-Chinese divide.

Two decades ago the issue was the potential sale to China of Israeli Phalcon airborne warning and control systems (AWACS). Israel backed out of the deal after the US threatened withdrawal of American support for the Jewish state.

This month the immediate issue was a Chinese bid for construction of the world’s largest desalination plant and on the horizon a larger US-Chinese battle for a dominating presence in Eastern Mediterranean ports.

Within days of his visit, Pompeo scored a China-related success even if the main focus of his talks with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu was believed to be Iran and Israeli plans to annex portions of the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967.

Israel signalled that it had heard the secretary’s message by awarding the contract for the Sorek-2 desalination plant to an Israeli rather than a Chinese company.

The tender, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

China’s interest in Israel is strategic given the fact that the Jewish state is one of the world’s foremost commercial, food and security technology powerhouses and one of the few foreign countries to command significant grassroots support in the United States.

If there is one thing Israel cannot afford, it is a rupture in its bonds to the United States. That is no truer than at a time in which the United States is the only power supportive of Israeli annexation plans on the West Bank.

The question is whether Israel can develop a formula that convinces the United States that US interests will delineate Israeli dealings with China and reassure China that it can still benefit from Israeli assets within those boundaries.

“Right now, without taking the right steps, we are looking at being put in the situation in which the US is telling us we need to cut or limit our relations with China. The problem is that Israel wants freedom of relations with China but is not showing it really understands US concerns. Sorek-2 was a good result. It shows the Americans we get it." said Carice Witte, executive director of Sino-Israel Global Network and Academic Leadership (SIGNAL) that seeks to advance Israeli-Chinese relations.

Analysts, including Witte, believe that there is a silver lining in Israel’s refusal to award the desalination plant to a Chinese company that would allow it to steer a middle course between the United States and China.

“China understands that by giving the Americans this win, China-Israel relations can continue. It gives them breathing room,” Witte said in an interview.

It will, however, be up to Israel to develop criteria and policies that accommodate the United States and make clear to China what Israel can and cannot do.

“In order for Israel to have what it wants... it's going to need to show the Americans that it takes Washington's strategic perceptions into consideration and not only that, that it's two steps ahead on strategic thinking with respect to China. &nbsp;The question is how." Witte said.

Ports and technology are likely to be focal points.

China is set to next year takeover the management of Haifa port where it has already built its own pier and is constructing a new port in Ashdod.

One way of attempting to address US concerns would be to include technology companies in the purview of a still relatively toothless board created under US pressure in the wake of the Haifa deal to review foreign investment in Israel. It would build in a safeguard against giving China access to dual civilian-military use technology.

That, however, may not be enough to shield Israel against increased US pressure to reduce Chinese involvement in Israeli ports.

“The parallels between the desalination plant and the port are just too close to ignore. We can’t have another infrastructure divide,” Witte said.

The two Israeli ports will add to what is becoming a Chinese string of pearls in the Eastern Mediterranean.

China already manages the Greek port of Piraeus.

China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd (CHEC) is looking at upgrading Lebanon’s deep seaport of Tripoli to allow it to accommodate larger vessels.

Qingdao Haixi Heavy-Duty Machinery Co. has sold Tripoli port two 28-storey container cranes capable of lifting and transporting more than 700 containers a day, while a container vessel belonging to Chinese state-owned shipping company COSCO docked in Tripoli in December 2018, inaugurating a new maritime route between China and the Mediterranean.&nbsp;

Major Chinese construction companies are also looking at building a railroad that would connect Beirut and Tripoli in Lebanon to Homs and Aleppo in Syria. China has further suggested that Tripoli could become a special economic zone within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and serve as an important trans-shipment point between the People’s Republic and Europe. &nbsp;&nbsp;

BRI is a massive infrastructure, telecommunications and energy-driven effort to connect the Eurasian landmass to China.

Potential Chinese involvement in the reconstruction of post-war Syria would likely give it access to the ports of Latakia and Tartous.

Taken together, China is looking at dominating the Eastern Mediterranean with six ports in four countries, Israel, Greece, Lebanon, and Syria that would create an alternative to the Suez Canal.

All that is missing are Turkish, Cypriot and Egyptian ports.

The Chinese build-up threatens to complicate US and NATO’s ability to manoeuvre in the region.

The Trump administration has already warned Israel that Chinese involvement in Haifa could jeopardize continued use of the port by the US fifth fleet.

“The writing is on the wall. Israel needs to carve out a degree of wiggle room. That, however, will only come at a price. There is little doubt that Haifa will move into the firing line,” said a long-time observer of Israeli-Chinese relations.

Israel knew the drill even before US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boarded his flight to Tel Aviv earlier this month four days after the death of his father. It was Pompeo’s first and only overseas trip since March.

Israel knew the drill even before US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boarded his flight to Tel Aviv earlier this month four days after the death of his father. It was Pompeo’s first and only overseas trip since March. Echoing a US warning two decades ago that Israeli dealings with China jeopardised the country’s relationship with the United States, Pompeo’s trip solidified Israel’s position at the cusp of the widening US-Chinese divide. Two decades ago the issue was the potential sale to China of Israeli Phalcon airborne warning and control systems (AWACS). Israel backed out of the deal after the US threatened withdrawal of American support for the Jewish state. This month the immediate issue was a Chinese bid for construction of the world’s largest desalination plant and on the horizon a larger US-Chinese battle for a dominating presence in Eastern Mediterranean ports. Within days of his visit, Pompeo scored a China-related success even if the main focus of his talks with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu was believed to be Iran and Israeli plans to annex portions of the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967. Israel signalled that it had heard the secretary’s message by awarding the contract for the Sorek-2 desalination plant to an Israeli rather than a Chinese company. The tender, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. China’s interest in Israel is strategic given the fact that the Jewish state is one of the world’s foremost commercial, food and security technology powerhouses and one of the few foreign countries to command significant grassroots support in the United States. If there is one thing Israel cannot afford, it is a rupture in its bonds to the United States. That is no truer than at a time in which the United States is the only power supportive of Israeli annexation plans on the West Bank. The question is whether Israel can develop a formula that convinces the United States that US interests will delineate Israeli dealings with China and reassure China that it can still benefit from Israeli assets within those boundaries. “Right now, without taking the right steps, we are looking at being put in the situation in which the US is telling us we need to cut or limit our relations with China. The problem is that Israel wants freedom of relations with China but is not showing it really understands US concerns. Sorek-2 was a good result. It shows the Americans we get it." said Carice Witte, executive director of Sino-Israel Global Network and Academic Leadership (SIGNAL) that seeks to advance Israeli-Chinese relations. Analysts, including Witte, believe that there is a silver lining in Israel’s refusal to award the desalination plant to a Chinese company that would allow it to steer a middle course between the United States and China. “China understands that by giving the Americans this win, China-Israel relations can continue. It gives them breathing room,” Witte said in an interview. It will, however, be up to Israel to develop criteria and policies that accommodate the United States and make clear to China what Israel can and cannot do. “In order for Israel to have what it wants... it's going to need to show the Americans that it takes Washington's strategic perceptions into consideration and not only that, that it's two steps ahead on strategic thinking with respect to China. The question is how." Witte said. Ports and technology are likely to be focal points. China is set to next year takeover the management of Haifa port where it has already built its own pier and is constructing a new port in Ashdod. One way of attempting to address US concerns would be to include technology companies in the purview of a still relatively toothless board created under US pressure in the wake of the Haifa deal to review foreign investment in Israel. It would build in a safeguard against giving China access to dual civilian-military use technology. That, however, may not be enough to shield Israel against increased US pressure to reduce Chinese involvement in Israeli ports. “The parallels between the desalination plant and the port are just too close to ignore. We can’t have another infrastructure divide,” Witte said. The two Israeli ports will add to what is becoming a Chinese string of pearls in the Eastern Mediterranean. China already manages the Greek port of Piraeus. China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd (CHEC) is looking at upgrading Lebanon’s deep seaport of Tripoli to allow it to accommodate larger vessels. Qingdao Haixi Heavy-Duty Machinery Co. has sold Tripoli port two 28-storey container cranes capable of lifting and transporting more than 700 containers a day, while a container vessel belonging to Chinese state-owned shipping company COSCO docked in Tripoli in December 2018, inaugurating a new maritime route between China and the Mediterranean. Major Chinese construction companies are also looking at building a railroad that would connect Beirut and Tripoli in Lebanon to Homs and Aleppo in Syria. China has further suggested that Tripoli could become a special economic zone within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and serve as an important trans-shipment point between the People’s Republic and Europe. BRI is a massive infrastructure, telecommunications and energy-driven effort to connect the Eurasian landmass to China. Potential Chinese involvement in the reconstruction of post-war Syria would likely give it access to the ports of Latakia and Tartous. Taken together, China is looking at dominating the Eastern Mediterranean with six ports in four countries, Israel, Greece, Lebanon, and Syria that would create an alternative to the Suez Canal. All that is missing are Turkish, Cypriot and Egyptian ports. The Chinese build-up threatens to complicate US and NATO’s ability to manoeuvre in the region. The Trump administration has already warned Israel that Chinese involvement in Haifa could jeopardize continued use of the port by the US fifth fleet. “The writing is on the wall. Israel needs to carve out a degree of wiggle room. That, however, will only come at a price. There is little doubt that Haifa will move into the firing line,” said a long-time observer of Israeli-Chinese relations.

Israel caught in the middle of intensifying rivalry between US and China

Chinese President Xi Jinping is so nervous about the position of the Communist Party that he is risking a new Cold War and imperilling Hong Kong's position as Asia's pre-eminent financial hub, says the former&nbsp;British governor of the territory.

Chris Patten said Xi's 'thuggish' crackdown in Hong Kong risked triggering an outflow of capital and people from the city which funnels the bulk of foreign investment into mainland China.

The West, he said, should stop being naive about Xi, who has served as General Secretary of the Communist Party since 2012.

"We have long since passed the stage where, without wanting another Cold War, we have to react to the fact Xi seems to want one himself," Patten said.

Patten cast Xi as a dictator who was "nervous" about the position of the Communist Party in China after criticism of its early handling of the novel coronavirus outbreak and the economic impact of its trade disagreements with the United States.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-slams-trumps-move-to-end-citys-special-status-302036" hreflang="en">Hong Kong slams Trump's move to end city's special status</a>

"One reason Xi Jinping is whipping up all this nationalist feeling about Hong Kong, about Taiwan and about other issues, is that he is more nervous than any official would allow about the position of the Communist Party in China," he said.

The Chinese embassy in London did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Patten, now 76, watched as the British flag was lowered over Hong Kong when the colony was handed back to China in 1997 after more than 150 years of British rule.

Hong Kong's autonomy was guaranteed under the "one country, two systems" agreement enshrined in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. But thousands of Hong Kong protesters have defied Beijing in recent months.

China’s parliament this week approved a decision to create laws for Hong Kong to curb sedition, secession, terrorism and foreign interference.

"Xi Jinping hates the things which Hong Kong has been promised under the ‘one country, two systems’ treaty lodged at the United Nations which he is wilfully breaking," Patten said. "What he hopes he can do is to bash Hong Kong into shape."

Patten said Xi's actions had placed Hong Kong's position as Asia's premier international financial hub under question.

"What does it mean? It means serious question marks not just about Hong Kong's future as a free society but also about Hong Kong's ability to continue as probably the premier international financial hub in Asia," Patten said.

"A lot of people will try to leave Hong Kong," Patten said, adding that he feared capital would also flow out. "It is going to be pretty rough over the next few months."

The autonomy of Hong Kong has, until now, given investors faith in the territory's legal and governance systems. China’s legal system is accountable to the Communist Party.

"What you have coming into conflict is a dictatorial idea of what the law is with the common law which is undoubtedly going to cause a constitutional clash," Patten said

He added the West had been even more naive with Xi's China than it had with post-Soviet Russia.

"What Xi has demonstrated so far is that unless you stand up to bullies they go on bullying you," he said.

Patten said the West should stand together when allies, such as Australia, were targeted by Beijing and be cautious with companies such as Huawei which Britain has allowed to help build its 5G network.

"Huawei is an agent of an unpleasant Chinese state," Patten said. Huawei has repeatedly denied claims that it is agent of the Chinese state.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is so nervous about the position of the Communist Party that he is risking a new Cold War and imperilling Hong Kong's position as Asia's pre-eminent financial hub, says the former British governor of the territory.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is so nervous about the position of the Communist Party that he is risking a new Cold War and imperilling Hong Kong's position as Asia's pre-eminent financial hub, says the former British governor of the territory. Chris Patten said Xi's 'thuggish' crackdown in Hong Kong risked triggering an outflow of capital and people from the city which funnels the bulk of foreign investment into mainland China. The West, he said, should stop being naive about Xi, who has served as General Secretary of the Communist Party since 2012. "We have long since passed the stage where, without wanting another Cold War, we have to react to the fact Xi seems to want one himself," Patten said. Patten cast Xi as a dictator who was "nervous" about the position of the Communist Party in China after criticism of its early handling of the novel coronavirus outbreak and the economic impact of its trade disagreements with the United States. Also read: Hong Kong slams Trump's move to end city's special status "One reason Xi Jinping is whipping up all this nationalist feeling about Hong Kong, about Taiwan and about other issues, is that he is more nervous than any official would allow about the position of the Communist Party in China," he said. The Chinese embassy in London did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Patten, now 76, watched as the British flag was lowered over Hong Kong when the colony was handed back to China in 1997 after more than 150 years of British rule. Hong Kong's autonomy was guaranteed under the "one country, two systems" agreement enshrined in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. But thousands of Hong Kong protesters have defied Beijing in recent months. China’s parliament this week approved a decision to create laws for Hong Kong to curb sedition, secession, terrorism and foreign interference. "Xi Jinping hates the things which Hong Kong has been promised under the ‘one country, two systems’ treaty lodged at the United Nations which he is wilfully breaking," Patten said. "What he hopes he can do is to bash Hong Kong into shape." Patten said Xi's actions had placed Hong Kong's position as Asia's premier international financial hub under question. "What does it mean? It means serious question marks not just about Hong Kong's future as a free society but also about Hong Kong's ability to continue as probably the premier international financial hub in Asia," Patten said. "A lot of people will try to leave Hong Kong," Patten said, adding that he feared capital would also flow out. "It is going to be pretty rough over the next few months." The autonomy of Hong Kong has, until now, given investors faith in the territory's legal and governance systems. China’s legal system is accountable to the Communist Party. "What you have coming into conflict is a dictatorial idea of what the law is with the common law which is undoubtedly going to cause a constitutional clash," Patten said He added the West had been even more naive with Xi's China than it had with post-Soviet Russia. "What Xi has demonstrated so far is that unless you stand up to bullies they go on bullying you," he said. Patten said the West should stand together when allies, such as Australia, were targeted by Beijing and be cautious with companies such as Huawei which Britain has allowed to help build its 5G network. "Huawei is an agent of an unpleasant Chinese state," Patten said. Huawei has repeatedly denied claims that it is agent of the Chinese state.

China's 'nervous' Xi risks new Cold War, says former Hong Kong governor

The economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic for Gulf states has done far more than play havoc with their revenue base and fiscal household. It has propelled massive structural change to the top of their agenda in ways that economic diversification plans had not accounted for.

Leave aside whether Gulf states can continue to focus on high-profile, attention-grabbing projects like Neom, Saudi Arabia’s $500 billion&nbsp;21st century futuristic city on the Red Sea.

Gulf rulers’ to-do list, if they want to get things right, is long and expensive without the burden of trophy projects. It involves economic as well as social and ultimately political change.

Transparency and accurate and detailed public reporting go to the core of these changes.

They also are key to decisions by investors, economists, and credit rating companies at a time when Gulf states’ economic outlook is in question. Many complain that delays in GDP reporting and lack of easy access to statistics complicates their decision-making.

Nonetheless, if there is one thing autocratic Gulf governments have going for themselves, beyond substantial financial reserves, it is public confidence in the way they handled the pandemic, despite the fact that they failed to initially recognize crowded living circumstances of migrant workers as a super spreader.

Most governments acted early and decisively with lockdowns and curfews, testing, border closures, repatriation of nationals abroad, and, in Saudi Arabia, suspension of pilgrimages.

To be sure, Gulf countries, and particularly Saudi Arabia that receives millions of Muslim pilgrims from across the globe each year, have a long-standing history of dealing with epidemics. Like Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, they were better prepared than Western nations.

History persuaded the kingdom to ban the umrah, the lesser Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, in late February, days before the first case of a COVID-19 infection emerged on Saudi soil.

Beyond public health concerns, Saudi Arabia had an additional reason to get the pandemic right. It offered the kingdom not only an opportunity to globally polish its image, badly tarnished by human rights abuses, power grabs, and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, but also to retain religious influence despite the interruption in the flow of pilgrims to the kingdom.

“Saudi Arabia is still a reference for many Muslim communities around the world,” said Yasmine Farouk, a scholar of Saudi Arabia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

It also allowed Saudi Arabia to set the record straight following criticism of its handling of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012 when the kingdom became the epidemic’s epicenter and in 2009 when it was hit by the H1N1 virus.

Saudi Arabia is also blamed for contributing to a public health catastrophe in Yemen with its frequent indiscriminate bombings.

A country in ruins as a result of the military intervention, Yemen has grappled for the past four years with a cholera epidemic on the kingdom’s borders.

Trust in Gulf states’ handling of the current pandemic was bolstered by degrees of transparency on the development of the disease in daily updates in the number of casualties and fatalities.

It was further boosted by a speech by King Salman as soon as the pandemic hit the kingdom in which he announced a raft of measures to counter the disease and support the economy as well as assurances by agriculture minister Abdulrahman al-Fadli that the crisis would not affect food supplies.

Farouk suggested that government instructions during the pandemic were followed because of “trust in the government, the expertise and the experience of the government [and] trust in the religious establishment, which actually was following the technical decisions of the government.”

To be sure, Farouk acknowledged, the regime’s coercive nature gave the public little choice.

The limits of government transparency were evident in the fact that authorities were less forthcoming with details of public spending on the pandemic and insight into available medical equipment like ventilators and other supplies such as testing kits.

Some Gulf states have started publishing the daily and total number of swabs but have yet to clarify whether these figures include multiple swabbings of the same person.

“It is likely that publics in the Middle East will look back at who was it that gave them reliable information, who was it who was there for them,” said political scientist Nathan Brown.

The question is whether governments will conclude that transparency will be needed to maintain public confidence as they are forced to rewrite social contracts that were rooted in concepts of a cradle-to-grave welfare state but will have to involve greater burden-sharing.

Gulf governments have so far said little about burden-sharing being allocated equitably across social classes nor has there been transparency on what drives investment decisions by sovereign wealth funds in a time of crisis and changing economic outlook.

Speaking to the Financial Times, a Gulf banker warned that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “needs to be careful what he spends on . . . Joe Public will be watching.”

Headed by Prince Mohammed, the kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund has gone on a $7.7 billion USD shopping spree buying stakes in major Western blue chips, including four oil majors: Boeing, Citigroup, Disney, and Facebook. The Public Investment Fund is also funding a bid for English soccer club Newcastle United.

The banker suggested that Saudi nationals would not appreciate “millionaire footballer salaries being paid for by VAT (value-added tax) on groceries.” He was referring to this month’s hiking of sales taxes in the kingdom from five to 15 per cent.

The fragility and fickleness of public trust were on display for the world to see in Britain’s uproar about Dominic Cummings, a close aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who violated lockdown instructions for personal reasons. Johnson is struggling to fight off demands for Mr Cummings’ dismissal.

To be sure, senior government officials and business executives in the Gulf have cautioned of hard times to come.

A recent Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey of CEOs predicted that 70 per cent of the United Arab Emirates’ companies would go out of business in the next six months, including half of its restaurants and hotels and three-quarters of its travel and tourism companies.

Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan warned earlier this month that the kingdom would need to take “painful” measures and look for deep spending cuts as a result of the collapse of oil prices and significantly reduced demand for oil.

Aware of sensitivities, Al-Jadaan stressed that “as long as we do not touch the basic needs of the people, all options are open.”

There was little transparency in Al-Jadaan’s statements on what the impact would be on employment-seeking Saudi nationals in a labour market where fewer migrant workers would be available for jobs that Saudis have long been unwilling to accept.

It was a missed opportunity considering the 286 per cent increase in the number of Saudis flocking to work for delivery services.

The increase was fueled by an offer by Hadaf, the Saudi Human Resources Development Fund, to pay drivers $800&nbsp;a month, as well as a newly-found embrace of volunteerism across the Gulf.

The surge offered authorities building blocks to frame expectations at a time when the kingdom’s official unemployment rate of 12 per cent is likely to rise.

It suggested a public acknowledgement of the fact that well-paying, cushy government positions may no longer be as available as they were in the past as well as the fact that lesser jobs are no less honourable forms of employment.

That may be the silver lining as Gulf states feel the pressure to reinvent themselves in a world emerging from a pandemic that potentially will redraw social, economic, and political maps. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic for Gulf states has done far more than play havoc with their revenue base and fiscal household. It has propelled massive structural change to the top of their agenda in ways that economic diversification plans had not accounted for.

The economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic for Gulf states has done far more than play havoc with their revenue base and fiscal household. It has propelled massive structural change to the top of their agenda in ways that economic diversification plans had not accounted for. Leave aside whether Gulf states can continue to focus on high-profile, attention-grabbing projects like Neom, Saudi Arabia’s $500 billion 21st century futuristic city on the Red Sea. Gulf rulers’ to-do list, if they want to get things right, is long and expensive without the burden of trophy projects. It involves economic as well as social and ultimately political change. Transparency and accurate and detailed public reporting go to the core of these changes. They also are key to decisions by investors, economists, and credit rating companies at a time when Gulf states’ economic outlook is in question. Many complain that delays in GDP reporting and lack of easy access to statistics complicates their decision-making. Nonetheless, if there is one thing autocratic Gulf governments have going for themselves, beyond substantial financial reserves, it is public confidence in the way they handled the pandemic, despite the fact that they failed to initially recognize crowded living circumstances of migrant workers as a super spreader. Most governments acted early and decisively with lockdowns and curfews, testing, border closures, repatriation of nationals abroad, and, in Saudi Arabia, suspension of pilgrimages. To be sure, Gulf countries, and particularly Saudi Arabia that receives millions of Muslim pilgrims from across the globe each year, have a long-standing history of dealing with epidemics. Like Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, they were better prepared than Western nations. History persuaded the kingdom to ban the umrah, the lesser Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, in late February, days before the first case of a COVID-19 infection emerged on Saudi soil. Beyond public health concerns, Saudi Arabia had an additional reason to get the pandemic right. It offered the kingdom not only an opportunity to globally polish its image, badly tarnished by human rights abuses, power grabs, and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, but also to retain religious influence despite the interruption in the flow of pilgrims to the kingdom. “Saudi Arabia is still a reference for many Muslim communities around the world,” said Yasmine Farouk, a scholar of Saudi Arabia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It also allowed Saudi Arabia to set the record straight following criticism of its handling of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012 when the kingdom became the epidemic’s epicenter and in 2009 when it was hit by the H1N1 virus. Saudi Arabia is also blamed for contributing to a public health catastrophe in Yemen with its frequent indiscriminate bombings. A country in ruins as a result of the military intervention, Yemen has grappled for the past four years with a cholera epidemic on the kingdom’s borders. Trust in Gulf states’ handling of the current pandemic was bolstered by degrees of transparency on the development of the disease in daily updates in the number of casualties and fatalities. It was further boosted by a speech by King Salman as soon as the pandemic hit the kingdom in which he announced a raft of measures to counter the disease and support the economy as well as assurances by agriculture minister Abdulrahman al-Fadli that the crisis would not affect food supplies. Farouk suggested that government instructions during the pandemic were followed because of “trust in the government, the expertise and the experience of the government [and] trust in the religious establishment, which actually was following the technical decisions of the government.” To be sure, Farouk acknowledged, the regime’s coercive nature gave the public little choice. The limits of government transparency were evident in the fact that authorities were less forthcoming with details of public spending on the pandemic and insight into available medical equipment like ventilators and other supplies such as testing kits. Some Gulf states have started publishing the daily and total number of swabs but have yet to clarify whether these figures include multiple swabbings of the same person. “It is likely that publics in the Middle East will look back at who was it that gave them reliable information, who was it who was there for them,” said political scientist Nathan Brown. The question is whether governments will conclude that transparency will be needed to maintain public confidence as they are forced to rewrite social contracts that were rooted in concepts of a cradle-to-grave welfare state but will have to involve greater burden-sharing. Gulf governments have so far said little about burden-sharing being allocated equitably across social classes nor has there been transparency on what drives investment decisions by sovereign wealth funds in a time of crisis and changing economic outlook. Speaking to the Financial Times, a Gulf banker warned that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “needs to be careful what he spends on . . . Joe Public will be watching.” Headed by Prince Mohammed, the kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund has gone on a $7.7 billion USD shopping spree buying stakes in major Western blue chips, including four oil majors: Boeing, Citigroup, Disney, and Facebook. The Public Investment Fund is also funding a bid for English soccer club Newcastle United. The banker suggested that Saudi nationals would not appreciate “millionaire footballer salaries being paid for by VAT (value-added tax) on groceries.” He was referring to this month’s hiking of sales taxes in the kingdom from five to 15 per cent. The fragility and fickleness of public trust were on display for the world to see in Britain’s uproar about Dominic Cummings, a close aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who violated lockdown instructions for personal reasons. Johnson is struggling to fight off demands for Mr Cummings’ dismissal. To be sure, senior government officials and business executives in the Gulf have cautioned of hard times to come. A recent Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey of CEOs predicted that 70 per cent of the United Arab Emirates’ companies would go out of business in the next six months, including half of its restaurants and hotels and three-quarters of its travel and tourism companies. Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan warned earlier this month that the kingdom would need to take “painful” measures and look for deep spending cuts as a result of the collapse of oil prices and significantly reduced demand for oil. Aware of sensitivities, Al-Jadaan stressed that “as long as we do not touch the basic needs of the people, all options are open.” There was little transparency in Al-Jadaan’s statements on what the impact would be on employment-seeking Saudi nationals in a labour market where fewer migrant workers would be available for jobs that Saudis have long been unwilling to accept. It was a missed opportunity considering the 286 per cent increase in the number of Saudis flocking to work for delivery services. The increase was fueled by an offer by Hadaf, the Saudi Human Resources Development Fund, to pay drivers $800 a month, as well as a newly-found embrace of volunteerism across the Gulf. The surge offered authorities building blocks to frame expectations at a time when the kingdom’s official unemployment rate of 12 per cent is likely to rise. It suggested a public acknowledgement of the fact that well-paying, cushy government positions may no longer be as available as they were in the past as well as the fact that lesser jobs are no less honourable forms of employment. That may be the silver lining as Gulf states feel the pressure to reinvent themselves in a world emerging from a pandemic that potentially will redraw social, economic, and political maps. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Lessons Gulf states have learned from coronavirus pandemic

In an era that is to be defined by 4th Industrial Revolution where Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Internet of Things are increasingly expected to play major roles, having the advantage over 5G technology is likely to be a key determinant of an upcoming great power rivalry.&nbsp;

However, geopolitical developments during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is likely to either dampen or delay China's grand global 5G strategy that is also critical to Beijing’s Digital Silk Road plans. The relatively small group of nations led by the United States (US) that acted against Chinese plans in the pre-COVID period may expand as increasingly more nations are concerned about Beijing’s reliability due to its behaviour — involves accountability, responsibility and propaganda — during the current pandemic. &nbsp;

Gaining technological supremacy has been one of the key features of geopolitical rivalries in modern history, and it is no different for the ongoing US-China rivalry. Realising this, President Donald Trump has waged a global campaign against Huawei — main Chinese 5G player, other one is ZTE — since the last couple of years alleging China of 5G technology-related intellectual property theft and raised national security issues due to espionage-related concerns. Consequently, to limit Huawei’s capacity to provide 5G equipment, specifically at affordable rates, in the US and beyond, the Trump administration has announced several measures against Huawei, including the most recent one during the pandemic that restricts “Huawei’s ability to use US technology and software to design and manufacture its semiconductors abroad” as the US alleged Huawei of undermining its export control measures. &nbsp;

The US government has used rising anti-China sentiments during the pandemic domestically and externally to its advantage and imposed new restrictions. This new measure by the US is likely to impact Huawei’s R&amp;D work and raise its business costs substantially as chipmakers are not allowed to supply chips to Chinese company if they are based on the American technology; moreover, there are no Chinese technological alternatives at present. The measure will also impact the companies that are associated with Huawei components across the world, including the EU, thereby, damaging Huawei’s main international sales pitch, affordability. This action has attracted so much attention that the Chinese government has threatened to retaliate against American companies that have a big presence in China if the US continues with any such further measures. &nbsp;

While the Trump administration has been maintaining the consistent act against Huawei domestically, it has also been persuading its partners across the globe to ban Huawei in gaining access to their respective telecommunication networks. Some of its allies like Japan, Australia and New Zealand have gone forward with the US plans in banning Huawei, some like Canada and the European Union (EU) were still under discussion before the pandemic. EU member states were divided over the issue as China holds influence over several nations of the Union. Further, in disappointment to the US before the pandemic, the United Kingdom (UK) reluctantly provided limited access to Huawei some months ago. &nbsp;

Nonetheless, as the questions against China arise over its accountability towards the virus origins, reliability over the supply chains dependence and propaganda through global media blitzkrieg, the anti-Chinese lobby in the UK seems to have lapped up the opportunity to convince Boris Johnson administration to act against Huawei as British media suggests. The Financial Times last week reported that the UK government is making plans “to force a full phase-out of Huawei from Britain’s 5G networks” in the next three years. This is a strong shift in the UK’s approach towards Huawei in just a few months. &nbsp;

In the last week of January 2020, the European Commission recommended strict rules, instead of an outright ban, against any high-risk 5G suppliers including “exclusions for key assets considered as critical and sensitive”, and “strategies… to ensure the diversification of vendors”. Similarly, in February 2020, German ruling party’s members supported a position paper that called for limiting the participation of foreign vendors in 5G network rollout in a compromise as an anti-Chinese group among the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have been piling up pressure on the Merkel administration for an outright ban of Huawei. Further, CDU’s coalition partner, Social Democratic Party, is asking for equipment suppliers’ political reliability vis-à-vis their home countries' governing system, which can dampen chances of companies like Huawei when the draft bill that asks for additional requirements from 5G network suppliers will face the parliamentary test. Handelsblatt has reported that Deutsch Telekom and Vodafone are already considering to remove Huawei equipment from the sensitive core of their networks considering domestic political preferences and rising business costs due to the US actions.&nbsp;

While these suggestions do not call for an outright ban as the US would have liked, they nonetheless are in favour of more stringent regulatory regime against the foreign vendors like Huawei. Moreover, it should come as no surprise if local EU 5G players like Nokia and Ericsson are prioritised over the foreign ones by EU member states as the industrial strategy under the new French-German COVID-19 recovery plan suggests. The French-German deal calls for strengthening “screening towards non-EU investors in strategic sectors”, and “accelerating the adaptation of state aid and competition rules” in the European competition policy. &nbsp;

Further, in sort of a policy priority, Josep Borrell Fontelles, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, recently in a column that was published in several media outlets suggested that the state-centric Chinese approach stands opposite to the “the EU’s multi-stakeholder approach based on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms” in the cyber domain; also, he called for avoiding dependence on China in strategic sectors. These developments suggest that Huawei’s access to most of the OECD market is likely to get restricted, which would limit China’s ambitions both politically and economically. &nbsp;

ASEAN is one region where Huawei is likely to have better run among high-value markets, except in Vietnam. While Vietnam has not banned Huawei, it claims to have developed native 5G tech through Viettel, Vietnam’s largest telecommunications company operated by the country’s defence ministry, which experts suggest provides an incentive to bypass China’s Huawei. The company has suggested that it doesn’t have plans to work with Huawei for now. The situation isn’t likely to change much as China ramps up the aggression in the South China Sea. Also, other major emerging economies like Brazil and India are yet to take a call in this regard. &nbsp;

India was one of the early countries to raise espionage-related concerns over Huawei almost a decade ago. While the government has allowed Huawei for trials, it is facing ambiguity over the issue as the country’s strategic community is seriously worried about national security issues. The situation is only likely to get tight due to ongoing border skirmishes at India-China border and also the Indian government’s plans to bring strong data protection law, which talks about localising data. &nbsp;

Moreover, there have been a couple of interesting developments over Indian 5G in the recent past. First, Airtel, which have an advocate of Huawei, has inked a $1 billion deal with Nokia — as uncertainty over Huawei’s access prevails — to modernise and expand its 4G network, which will also be used for the future 5G purposes. Second, Reliance Jio, currently India’s largest telecommunications company, claimed to have developed own in-house 5G tech. Also, Jio has proudly claimed that it is the only company in the world that doesn’t use any Chinese equipment in its 4G and 5G networks and will maintain this going forward. &nbsp;

All these events suggest the growing hardship for Chinese 5G plans across the world as it faces the campaign led by the US. As the geopolitics during the pandemic unravels, one should not expect the situation to get any better for Huawei; especially when China has ramped up the military aggression in the East China Sea, South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, Hong Kong and India-China border region. The international community — especially stakeholders at the receiving end of the Chinese aggression and the West that cares for international norms and human rights — is not likely to ease its stance anytime soon if the pandemic hostility prevails. &nbsp;

&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

In an era that is to be defined by 4th Industrial Revolution where Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Internet of Things are increasingly expected to play major roles, having the advantage over 5G technology is likely to be a key determinant of an upcoming great power rivalry.

In an era that is to be defined by 4th Industrial Revolution where Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Internet of Things are increasingly expected to play major roles, having the advantage over 5G technology is likely to be a key determinant of an upcoming great power rivalry. However, geopolitical developments during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is likely to either dampen or delay China's grand global 5G strategy that is also critical to Beijing’s Digital Silk Road plans. The relatively small group of nations led by the United States (US) that acted against Chinese plans in the pre-COVID period may expand as increasingly more nations are concerned about Beijing’s reliability due to its behaviour — involves accountability, responsibility and propaganda — during the current pandemic. Gaining technological supremacy has been one of the key features of geopolitical rivalries in modern history, and it is no different for the ongoing US-China rivalry. Realising this, President Donald Trump has waged a global campaign against Huawei — main Chinese 5G player, other one is ZTE — since the last couple of years alleging China of 5G technology-related intellectual property theft and raised national security issues due to espionage-related concerns. Consequently, to limit Huawei’s capacity to provide 5G equipment, specifically at affordable rates, in the US and beyond, the Trump administration has announced several measures against Huawei, including the most recent one during the pandemic that restricts “Huawei’s ability to use US technology and software to design and manufacture its semiconductors abroad” as the US alleged Huawei of undermining its export control measures. The US government has used rising anti-China sentiments during the pandemic domestically and externally to its advantage and imposed new restrictions. This new measure by the US is likely to impact Huawei’s R&D work and raise its business costs substantially as chipmakers are not allowed to supply chips to Chinese company if they are based on the American technology; moreover, there are no Chinese technological alternatives at present. The measure will also impact the companies that are associated with Huawei components across the world, including the EU, thereby, damaging Huawei’s main international sales pitch, affordability. This action has attracted so much attention that the Chinese government has threatened to retaliate against American companies that have a big presence in China if the US continues with any such further measures. While the Trump administration has been maintaining the consistent act against Huawei domestically, it has also been persuading its partners across the globe to ban Huawei in gaining access to their respective telecommunication networks. Some of its allies like Japan, Australia and New Zealand have gone forward with the US plans in banning Huawei, some like Canada and the European Union (EU) were still under discussion before the pandemic. EU member states were divided over the issue as China holds influence over several nations of the Union. Further, in disappointment to the US before the pandemic, the United Kingdom (UK) reluctantly provided limited access to Huawei some months ago. Nonetheless, as the questions against China arise over its accountability towards the virus origins, reliability over the supply chains dependence and propaganda through global media blitzkrieg, the anti-Chinese lobby in the UK seems to have lapped up the opportunity to convince Boris Johnson administration to act against Huawei as British media suggests. The Financial Times last week reported that the UK government is making plans “to force a full phase-out of Huawei from Britain’s 5G networks” in the next three years. This is a strong shift in the UK’s approach towards Huawei in just a few months. In the last week of January 2020, the European Commission recommended strict rules, instead of an outright ban, against any high-risk 5G suppliers including “exclusions for key assets considered as critical and sensitive”, and “strategies… to ensure the diversification of vendors”. Similarly, in February 2020, German ruling party’s members supported a position paper that called for limiting the participation of foreign vendors in 5G network rollout in a compromise as an anti-Chinese group among the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have been piling up pressure on the Merkel administration for an outright ban of Huawei. Further, CDU’s coalition partner, Social Democratic Party, is asking for equipment suppliers’ political reliability vis-à-vis their home countries' governing system, which can dampen chances of companies like Huawei when the draft bill that asks for additional requirements from 5G network suppliers will face the parliamentary test. Handelsblatt has reported that Deutsch Telekom and Vodafone are already considering to remove Huawei equipment from the sensitive core of their networks considering domestic political preferences and rising business costs due to the US actions. While these suggestions do not call for an outright ban as the US would have liked, they nonetheless are in favour of more stringent regulatory regime against the foreign vendors like Huawei. Moreover, it should come as no surprise if local EU 5G players like Nokia and Ericsson are prioritised over the foreign ones by EU member states as the industrial strategy under the new French-German COVID-19 recovery plan suggests. The French-German deal calls for strengthening “screening towards non-EU investors in strategic sectors”, and “accelerating the adaptation of state aid and competition rules” in the European competition policy. Further, in sort of a policy priority, Josep Borrell Fontelles, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, recently in a column that was published in several media outlets suggested that the state-centric Chinese approach stands opposite to the “the EU’s multi-stakeholder approach based on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms” in the cyber domain; also, he called for avoiding dependence on China in strategic sectors. These developments suggest that Huawei’s access to most of the OECD market is likely to get restricted, which would limit China’s ambitions both politically and economically. ASEAN is one region where Huawei is likely to have better run among high-value markets, except in Vietnam. While Vietnam has not banned Huawei, it claims to have developed native 5G tech through Viettel, Vietnam’s largest telecommunications company operated by the country’s defence ministry, which experts suggest provides an incentive to bypass China’s Huawei. The company has suggested that it doesn’t have plans to work with Huawei for now. The situation isn’t likely to change much as China ramps up the aggression in the South China Sea. Also, other major emerging economies like Brazil and India are yet to take a call in this regard. India was one of the early countries to raise espionage-related concerns over Huawei almost a decade ago. While the government has allowed Huawei for trials, it is facing ambiguity over the issue as the country’s strategic community is seriously worried about national security issues. The situation is only likely to get tight due to ongoing border skirmishes at India-China border and also the Indian government’s plans to bring strong data protection law, which talks about localising data. Moreover, there have been a couple of interesting developments over Indian 5G in the recent past. First, Airtel, which have an advocate of Huawei, has inked a $1 billion deal with Nokia — as uncertainty over Huawei’s access prevails — to modernise and expand its 4G network, which will also be used for the future 5G purposes. Second, Reliance Jio, currently India’s largest telecommunications company, claimed to have developed own in-house 5G tech. Also, Jio has proudly claimed that it is the only company in the world that doesn’t use any Chinese equipment in its 4G and 5G networks and will maintain this going forward. All these events suggest the growing hardship for Chinese 5G plans across the world as it faces the campaign led by the US. As the geopolitics during the pandemic unravels, one should not expect the situation to get any better for Huawei; especially when China has ramped up the military aggression in the East China Sea, South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, Hong Kong and India-China border region. The international community — especially stakeholders at the receiving end of the Chinese aggression and the West that cares for international norms and human rights — is not likely to ease its stance anytime soon if the pandemic hostility prevails. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Coronavirus impact: Geopolitical developments deepen China’s global 5G woes

The Chinese government has not left anybody in doubt about its ambitious target of dominating the world at any cost. Chinese government has been suppressing freedom of speech, taking away the rights of citizens of Hong Kong in an authoritarian manner and aggressively occupying the territory of neighbours.

China is now aggressively claiming a territorial right in the South China Sea and Senkaku island. The Chinese government says that Taiwan is part of its territory and objects to any recognition given to Taiwan by any other country.

Further, China is trying to enforce its dominance over small and weak countries such as Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and others, by extending loans, which these countries cannot afford to repay in the foreseeable future.

Viewing China’s methods and targets, one does not find much of difference between today’s Chinese government and Hitler’s Germany. Several countries in the world are gradually realizing that checking China’s ambition is as necessary, as checking Hitler’s ambition that caused World War II.

However, the supporters of China claim that US government too should be accused of trying to dominate the world and it has sent troops to several countries such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and others to enforce its domination. There is an element of truth in this as the American government seem to think that it has the duty to police the world.

In any case, on careful analysis of the scenario and judiciously comparing the domination desire of China and the US, one cannot but see a subtle difference between both these countries.

While China believes in ruthless elimination of opponents both inside and outside and wants to occupy territories of other countries by coercion or force, the US does not indulge in such acts of suppression of human rights or occupying territory of other countries.

The US has not concealed its desire that freedom of speech and democratic procedures should prevail in all regions in the world. On many occasions, the US has fought against totalitarian regimes, religious extremists, and terrorist groups and has paid a high price by losing American lives.

The US may have the ambition to dominate the world and ensure its authority as a superpower, but it has no ambition of territorial expansions that China has.

All said and done, if the world were to choose between US&nbsp;and China, it would inevitably come to the conclusion that world domination by the US&nbsp;is a lesser evil than the world domination by China.

Unlike China, the citizens of US&nbsp;have the right to criticise the decisions of the government, launch protests against human rights violation, if any and exercise their franchise once in four years to change the party in power, if it would act against the wishes of the people. By such a process, the conscience of the US&nbsp;largely remains intact and the US government is vulnerable to the pressure of public opinion.

On the other hand, China has a totalitarian regime and no citizen can survive in China if he would criticise the Chinese President or question the decision of the Chinese government. To this extent, it is a dictatorial regime in China which can be termed as an uncivilized form of governance.

The fact is that the USA holds the superpower status for several decades now.&nbsp;Of course, there has been criticism against the US government by some section of world opinion, but most of such critics belong to religious extremist groups and motivated communist&nbsp;forces, whose economic and administrative policies have totally failed to deliver the goods.

China achieving superpower status and establishing its authority across the world with the least consideration for value systems and sentiments of people, is the worst thing that can happen to the civilisation.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

The Chinese government has not left anybody in doubt about its ambitious target of dominating the world at any cost. Chinese government has been suppressing freedom of speech, taking away the rights of citizens of Hong Kong in an authoritarian manner and aggressively occupying the territory of neighbours.

The Chinese government has not left anybody in doubt about its ambitious target of dominating the world at any cost. Chinese government has been suppressing freedom of speech, taking away the rights of citizens of Hong Kong in an authoritarian manner and aggressively occupying the territory of neighbours. China is now aggressively claiming a territorial right in the South China Sea and Senkaku island. The Chinese government says that Taiwan is part of its territory and objects to any recognition given to Taiwan by any other country. Further, China is trying to enforce its dominance over small and weak countries such as Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and others, by extending loans, which these countries cannot afford to repay in the foreseeable future. Viewing China’s methods and targets, one does not find much of difference between today’s Chinese government and Hitler’s Germany. Several countries in the world are gradually realizing that checking China’s ambition is as necessary, as checking Hitler’s ambition that caused World War II. However, the supporters of China claim that US government too should be accused of trying to dominate the world and it has sent troops to several countries such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and others to enforce its domination. There is an element of truth in this as the American government seem to think that it has the duty to police the world. In any case, on careful analysis of the scenario and judiciously comparing the domination desire of China and the US, one cannot but see a subtle difference between both these countries. While China believes in ruthless elimination of opponents both inside and outside and wants to occupy territories of other countries by coercion or force, the US does not indulge in such acts of suppression of human rights or occupying territory of other countries. The US has not concealed its desire that freedom of speech and democratic procedures should prevail in all regions in the world. On many occasions, the US has fought against totalitarian regimes, religious extremists, and terrorist groups and has paid a high price by losing American lives. The US may have the ambition to dominate the world and ensure its authority as a superpower, but it has no ambition of territorial expansions that China has. All said and done, if the world were to choose between US and China, it would inevitably come to the conclusion that world domination by the US is a lesser evil than the world domination by China. Unlike China, the citizens of US have the right to criticise the decisions of the government, launch protests against human rights violation, if any and exercise their franchise once in four years to change the party in power, if it would act against the wishes of the people. By such a process, the conscience of the US largely remains intact and the US government is vulnerable to the pressure of public opinion. On the other hand, China has a totalitarian regime and no citizen can survive in China if he would criticise the Chinese President or question the decision of the Chinese government. To this extent, it is a dictatorial regime in China which can be termed as an uncivilized form of governance. The fact is that the USA holds the superpower status for several decades now. Of course, there has been criticism against the US government by some section of world opinion, but most of such critics belong to religious extremist groups and motivated communist forces, whose economic and administrative policies have totally failed to deliver the goods. China achieving superpower status and establishing its authority across the world with the least consideration for value systems and sentiments of people, is the worst thing that can happen to the civilisation. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Superpower marathon: Here's how China's strategy is different from the US

It is the advent of Cold War 2.0 with America and its allies on one side and on the other&nbsp;China and Russia involving suspicion, hostility, and aggression including&nbsp;military muscle-flexing without exchanging fire.

It is has been happening as standard characteristics of the Cold War which played out from 1945 to the end of the 1980s.

Now, America is taking on China&nbsp;and recruiting allies. US ally Australia is effectively edging towards a break-up with China with trade ties being disrupted even though China is Australia's biggest export market.

China makes up 30 per cent of Australia's exports which is close to 7 per cent of its GDP. Chinese students and tourists bring big money to Australia. China has been leveraging everything. It has now blocked beef and barley imports from Australia after PM Scott Morrison demanded an investigation into the coronavirus outbreak.&nbsp;

However, Australia remains firm&nbsp;and hasn't backed down. Then there is Japan upping the ante. Japan's chief cabinet secretary has spoken about the Uighurs in China.

Yoshi-hide Suga while addressing the press was asked a question about the Uighurs, the Japanese leader said Tokyo is watching China closely. Japan is also working overtime to pull its businesses out of China.

President Trump may be famous for his U-turns but for days now&nbsp;he's been taking on China openly. On Thursday, during an interview&nbsp;the US president threatened to kill America's diplomatic relationship with China. Trump blamed the Chinese government for spreading the virus and said he doesn't want to speak to President Xi Jinping.

China foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian gave a measured response but he seemed to lose his cool when Taiwan was mentioned with hostility evident.

Recently, US secretary Mike Pompeo held a video conference with foreign ministers of seven countries. The idea was to get them on board against China. India's external minister S Jaishankar was part of the digitial meeting. Israel and South Korea were among the other participants.

Reports say the conversation lasted 75 minutes with the US focus on making China pay by restructuring supply chains and dent China's domination over world trade. The confrontation could escalate on Monday when WHO members meet for the world health assembly, not in person, but on video conference, thanks to the Wuhan virus.

It is the advent of Cold War 2.0 with America and its allies on one side and on the other China and Russia involving suspicion, hostility, and aggression including military muscle-flexing without exchanging fire.

It is the advent of Cold War 2.0 with America and its allies on one side and on the other China and Russia involving suspicion, hostility, and aggression including military muscle-flexing without exchanging fire. It is has been happening as standard characteristics of the Cold War which played out from 1945 to the end of the 1980s. Now, America is taking on China and recruiting allies. US ally Australia is effectively edging towards a break-up with China with trade ties being disrupted even though China is Australia's biggest export market. China makes up 30 per cent of Australia's exports which is close to 7 per cent of its GDP. Chinese students and tourists bring big money to Australia. China has been leveraging everything. It has now blocked beef and barley imports from Australia after PM Scott Morrison demanded an investigation into the coronavirus outbreak. However, Australia remains firm and hasn't backed down. Then there is Japan upping the ante. Japan's chief cabinet secretary has spoken about the Uighurs in China. Yoshi-hide Suga while addressing the press was asked a question about the Uighurs, the Japanese leader said Tokyo is watching China closely. Japan is also working overtime to pull its businesses out of China. President Trump may be famous for his U-turns but for days now he's been taking on China openly. On Thursday, during an interview the US president threatened to kill America's diplomatic relationship with China. Trump blamed the Chinese government for spreading the virus and said he doesn't want to speak to President Xi Jinping. China foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian gave a measured response but he seemed to lose his cool when Taiwan was mentioned with hostility evident. Recently, US secretary Mike Pompeo held a video conference with foreign ministers of seven countries. The idea was to get them on board against China. India's external minister S Jaishankar was part of the digitial meeting. Israel and South Korea were among the other participants. Reports say the conversation lasted 75 minutes with the US focus on making China pay by restructuring supply chains and dent China's domination over world trade. The confrontation could escalate on Monday when WHO members meet for the world health assembly, not in person, but on video conference, thanks to the Wuhan virus.

Cold War 2.0: US and its allies tussle against China, Russia