The U.S. Ultimatum on Huawei Is Backfiring :UPDATE: Google banning Huawei from Android updates and

[Strapped]

What does the NSA do

 

[loyola llothta]

17 June 2019
Will China’s Automobile Market Trigger Next Economic Downturn?
By F. William Engdahl

Sales of new cars in China, today the world’s largest automobile market, plunged a dramatic 16.4% in May, making the worst month in the history of the relatively new China auto industry. According to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), the disastrous May sales came after declines of 14.6% in April and 5.2% in March. It is questionable if this can be blamed on the US-China trade war. The depression in China vehicle sales, however, is having a significant impact on foreign automakers, especially in Germany. Could this China turn presage a major new global economic recession or worse?

One indication that the US trade war is not the main cause is the fact that May 2019 marks the 12thconsecutive month of auto sales decline in China. Sales between automakers in China and car dealers were down 44%. Moreover, domestic sales of Chinese brand autos in May were down a significant 26%. Baojun, Dongfeng and Trumpchi are Chinese brands that have fallen 40% so far this year. Only Japanese Honda and Toyota could show sales increases. Clearly something major and not good is afoot in China, the world’s second largest economy.

A clue to what is driving (pun intended) the drop was given by Xu Haidong, CAAM’s assistant secretary general. He said, “a decline in purchasing power in the low-to-middle income groups as well as expectations of government stimulus to encourage purchases” was a major cause.

Consumer debt

What the “decline in purchasing powerin the low-to-middle income groups” means is the worrisome point. As I noted in an earlier piece, the years of Chinese prosperity, much like in the West, have been driven by easy credit, especially since the global financial crisis in 2008.

In 2009 China became the country producing the largest numbers of autos in the world. Many are US or Japanese or EU brands with Chinese production factories. Its car output since a decade has exceeded that of the USA and Japan combined, as well as that of the entire EU. By 2010 China was producing almost 14 million vehicles annually, largest of any nation in history and most of it for its “low-to-middle income” domestic market. China’s middle income earners saw car ownership as essential, and banks and soon non-banks or shadow banks were eager to lend. In 2009 total registration of cars, vans and trucks in China was registered cars, buses, vans, and trucks on the road in China reached 62 million. It will exceed 200 million by 2020. That means that the market for car ownership is, if not saturated, at least up against limits of household debt capacity.

For the past decade Chinese younger families with rising incomes and a car, turned to buy their own apartments or homes for the first time in a major way.


By 2018 the explosion of household and other debt, much of it unregulated, began to cause alarm in Beijing and with the Peoples’ Bank of China. It is estimated that an alarming $15 trillion in off-balance-sheet or shadow banking loans were outstanding. At least $3.8 trillion of that was in the form of so-called trust funds that drew savings from ordinary Chinese citizens to invest in local government projects or in housing construction. The World Bank estimated that all China shadow banking had grown from 7% of GDP in 2005 to 31% in 2016. The Basle BIS calculates that some $7 trillion of that is at risk of default.

The current consumer boom was triggered after the 2008 global financial crisis, when the Beijing government made what many saw as a near-panic infusion of cheap money into the economy in a bid to keep employment and incomes rising. As regulators began to try to bring the problem under better control, millions of middle-income Chinese families have suddenly found the economic paradise that seemed to exist the past two decades suddenly was becoming a debtor prison, as property values ceased double-digit rising. One difficulty is getting accurate government economic data. Contrary to the official 6+% GDP growth that seems unshakeable, some Chinese economists have suggested it could well be around 1% or even negative.

In this situation, the recent decline in the Chinese car sales is more than alarming. It has global implications, not least in Germany. Germany’s VW which has production in China is the largest selling car in China with over 3 million in 2017.

Global Impact

In recent months, in large part as a result of the continuing decline in China car sales, the global car industry has entered a new crisis phase. That, atop issues such as diesel emission scandals, is not good news for the industry. Germany’s Center for Automotive Research estimates that global car production in 2019 will fall at least 4 million units, a huge shock. Most Western analysts did not expect the severe drop in China car sales to occur.

In May German Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche said that “sweeping cost reductions” are ahead to prepare for what he is calling “unprecedented” industry disruption. German auto parts suppliers such as Bosch and thousands of small-to-midsize supplier companies speak of their worst crisis since the oil shocks of the 1970s. Over the first six months of 2019 carmakers worldwide from Germany to Italy to USA and China have cut some 38,000 jobs in response to the global downturn. Bank of America Merrill Lynch auto analyst John Murphy stated, “The industry is right now staring down the barrel of what we think is going to be a significant downturn. The pace of decline in China is a real surprise.”

For German carmakers the timing of the China market collapse could not be worse. Just as they are pouring billions into developing future-generation electric vehicles, still believed years away from viability and far more costly than current gasoline or diesel models, they are being hit with draconian and arbitrary EU emission demands and uncertainty.

Were Washington now to impose new tariffs on imports of German and other EU cars, it could get quite nasty on the economic front. The globalization of industrial production since 2000 that has made China workshop of the world now begins to show tectonic cracks in the globalist foundation.

Will China's Automobile Market Trigger Next Economic Downturn? - Global Research

 

[Strapped]

Will China's Automobile Market Trigger Next Economic Downturn? - Global Research

Ford & gm will just go bankrupt

 

[TDUBB]

16 June 2019
Say Hello to the Russia-China Mobile Operating System
The US ban on Huawei is pushing it to develop alternative systems that may rival Google and Android
By Pepe Escobar

Google cuts Huawei off Android; so Huawei may migrate to Aurora. Call it mobile Eurasia integration; the evolving Russia-China strategic partnership may be on the verge of spawning its own operating system – and that is not a metaphor.



https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/06/article/say-hello-to-the-russia-china-operating-system/

If Aurora takes over Alexa and Siri

 

[ORDER_66]

wrongpost

 

[Reece]

Yep. China has hacked the DOD network servers several times and has spied on US using rootkits on phones. Huawei is dirty and they know it.

Tell that to all the posters a few pages back. Dudes was really defending a company that stole more secrets than Nixon in his prime and is at the mercy of the Chinese government to do their bidding. People have no concept of nuance...willing to defend something that would be detrimental if Obama was still in office just so they can go against Trump now.

 

[Strapped]

:
Trudeau really thought he could bully china

 

[loyola llothta]

27 June 2019

5G and the US-China Trade War: Washington Pressures Telecom Firms Selling 5G Equipment in US “To Move Their Production out of China”
By Andrew Korybko

The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that the Donald Trump Administration is considering requiring any telecommunications firms that want to sell their 5G equipment in the U.S. to move their production outside of China.

The article says that the basis for this possibly forthcoming decree is the Executive Order that President Trump signed last month, which gives the Commerce Department until October to issue new rules in this respect. If true, then this is nothing short of a scheme to shake up the global supply chain, a U.S. gamble which will fail.

It can be argued that the entire trade war was initiated on this basis, with the U.S. imposing high tariffs on Chinese-produced goods in order to encourage this development. The zero-sum expectation was that companies in a complex relationship of economic interdependence with one of the world’s largest marketplaces would leave China in order to protect the profits that they’re making in the U.S. From an American strategic standpoint, this plot was thought to reduce China’s economic growth if enough companies left the country, but that evidently hasn’t been happening at the scale that they predicted which is why the U.S. is reportedly considering imposing new rules on the import of certain categories of equipment.

The Second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation is held in Beijing from April 25 to 27. /CGTN Photo

5G technology is being exploited as the example to roll out what might be a new far-reaching policy of restricting imports on unproven so-called “national security” pretexts, with the precedent that could be established then being applied against an untold number of other products as well.

In preparation for this, the U.S.


is trying to clinch trade agreements with possible re-offshoring destinations like India in order to facilitate the export of these formerly Chinese-produced products into the American marketplace on favorable terms akin to the ones that China used to enjoy before the trade war. For as ambitious of a plan as this may be, it could not realize its ends.

Just as many companies are in a relationship of complex economic interdependence with the U.S., so too are many of them in the same one with China, and America’s efforts to force them into making an artificial zero-sum choice between the two are an unnatural manipulation of market forces via tariffs and the aforementioned new import rules that are reportedly being considered.

Ideally, all companies would like to maximize their profits by selling to both of these leading markets, which is why they’re trying to find workarounds to Trump’s plans in order to avoid a disruption of business with China. It’s here where the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) can play an important role in helping both companies and countries balance between the two.

China has reached preferential trade agreements with many of its BRI partners, most of which aren’t restricted from selling to the U.S. through the imposition of high tariffs and restrictive import rules such as the ones reported upon by The Wall Street Journal.

Image on the right: U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai delivers a keynote speech at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, February 26, 2018. /VCG Photo

As such, companies looking to avoid the U.S. economic penalties against Chinese-produced goods yet still wanting to continue conducting business with the country could conceivably re-offshore to these said BRI countries, which would allow them to trade with both the U.S. and China while simultaneously contributing to the development of the mostly developing countries into which they’d be investing.

Pakistan, which hosts BRI’s flagship project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, might be an attractive destination since it enjoys excellent trading ties with both the U.S. and China, as could Kenya, for instance.

The Trump administration’s intent in the trade war is to inflict damage on China’s economic interests, but the invisible hand of the market and the profit-driven motivations of the pressured companies could see this scheme fail by the development of Beijing’s BRI partners and the resultant strengthening of its visionary Silk Road system instead of only benefiting the U.S. and its allies.

Therefore, the U.S. efforts to shake up the global supply chain might not succeed in the end.

U.S. consideration of reshuffling global supply chain may fail

 

[loyola llothta]

27 June 2019

US Sponsored “Color Revolution” Struggles in Hong Kong
By Tony Cartalucci

The Western media has been boasting over recent protests in Hong Kong. Western headlines have claimed the protests have “rattled” Beijing’s leadership.

The protests have been organized to obstruct Hong Kong’s elected government from moving forward with an extradition bill. The bill would further integrate Hong Kong’s legal system with that of mainland China’s, allowing suspects to be sent to the mainland, Taiwan, or Macau to face justice for crimes committed anywhere in Chinese territory.

The protests oppose the extradition bill as a wider means of opposing Hong Kong’s continued reintegration with China – arguing that the “One Country, Two Systems” terms imposed by the British upon Hong Kong’s return under Chinese sovereignty in 1997 must be upheld.

Uprooting the Last Vestiges of British Imperialism

The story of Hong Kong is one of territory violently seized by the British Empire from China in 1841, being controlled as a colony for nearly 150 years, and begrudgingly handed over to China in 1997.

The “One Country, Two Systems” conditions imposed by the British were a means of returning Hong Kong to China in theory, but in practice maintaining Hong Kong as an enduring outpost of Western influence within Chinese territory. The West’s economic and military power in 1997 left Beijing little choice but to agree to the terms.

Today, the Anglo-American international order is fading with China now the second largest economy on Earth and poised to overtake the US at any time. With economic and military power now on China’s side, it has incrementally uprooted the vestiges of British colonial influence in Hong Kong – the extradition bill being the latest example of this unfolding process.

Beijing has reclaimed Hong Kong through economic and political means. Projects like the recently completed Hong Kong high-speed rail link and the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge have helped increase the number of mainlanders – laborers, visitors, and entrepreneurs – travelling to, living in, and doing business with Hong Kong. With them come mainland values, culture, and politics.

Hong Kong’s elected government is now composed of a majority of openly pro-Beijing parties and politicians. They regularly and easily defeat Hong Kong’s so-called “pan-democratic” and “independence” parties during elections. It is the elected, pro-Beijing government of Hong Kong that has proposed the recent extradition bill to begin with – a fact regularly omitted in Western coverage of the protests against the bill.

US Color Revolution Masquerades as “Popular Opposition”

Unable to defeat the bill legislatively, Hong Kong’s pro-Western opposition has taken to the streets. With the help of Western media spin – the illusion of popular opposition to the extradition bill and Beijing’s growing influence over Hong Kong is created.

What is not only omitted – but actively denied – is the fact that the opposition’s core leaders, parties, organizations, and media operations are all tied directly to Washington DC via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and corporate foundations like Open Society Foundation.

Hong Kong’s opposition has already long been exposed as US-sponsored.

This includes the entire core leadership of the 2014 so-called “Occupy Central” protests, also known as the “Umbrella Revolution.” Western media has portrayed recent anti-extradition bill protests as a continuation of the “Umbrella” protests with many of the same organizations, parties, and individuals leading and supporting them.

The Western media has attempted to dismiss this in the past. The New York Times in a 2014 article titled, “Some Chinese Leaders Claim U.S. and Britain Are Behind Hong Kong Protests,” would claim:

Protest leaders said they had not received any funding from the United States government or nonprofit groups affiliated with it. Chinese officials choose to blame hidden foreign forces, they argued, in part because they find it difficult to accept that so many ordinary people in Hong Kong want democracy.

Yet what the protest leaders claim and what is documented fact are two different things.


The New York Times article itself admits that:

…the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit directly supported by Washington, distributed $755,000 in grants in Hong Kong in 2012, and an additional $695,000 last year, to encourage the development of democratic institutions. Some of that money was earmarked “to develop the capacity of citizens — particularly university students — to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform.”

While the New York Times and Hong Kong opposition deny this funding has gone to protesters specifically, annual reports from organizations opposition members belong to reveal that it has.

Hong Kong’s opposition leaders receiving US support include:

Benny Tai: a law professor at the University of Hong Kong and a regular collaborator with the US NED and NDI-funded Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) also of the University of Hong Kong.

In the CCPL’s 2006-2007 annual report, (PDF, since deleted) he was named as a board member – a position he has held until at least as recently as last year. In CCPL’s 2011-2013 annual report (PDF, since deleted), NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is listed as having provided funding to the organization to “design and implement an online Models of Universal Suffrage portal where the general public can discuss and provide feedback and ideas on which method of universal suffrage is most suitable for Hong Kong.”

In CCPL’s annual report for 2013-2014 (PDF, since deleted), Tai is not listed as a board member but is listed as participating in at least 3 conferences organized by CCPL, and as heading at least one of CCPL’s projects. At least one conference has him speaking side-by-side another prominent “Occupy Central” figure, Audrey Eu. The 2013-2014 annual report also lists NDI as funding CCPL’s “Design Democracy Hong Kong” website.

Joshua Wong: “Occupy Central” leader and secretary general of the “Demosisto” party. While Wong and other have attempted to deny any links to Washington, Wong would literally travel to Washington once the protests concluded to pick up an award for his efforts from NED subsidiary, Freedom House.

Audrey Eu Yuet-mee: the Civic Party chairwoman, who in addition to speaking at CCPL-NDI functions side-by-side with Benny Tai, is entwined with the US State Department and its NDI elsewhere. She regularly attends forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI. In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by “SynergyNet,” also funded by NDI. In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women’s Centre “International Women’s Day” event, hosted by the Hong Kong Council of Women (HKCW) which is also annually funded by the NDI.

Martin Lee: a senior leader of the Occupy Central movement. Lee organized and physically led protest marches. He also regularly delivered speeches according to the South China Morning Post. But before leading the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong, he and Anson Chan were in Washington D.C. before the NED soliciting US assistance (video).

During a talk in Washington titled, “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters,” Lee and Chan would lay out the entire “Occupy Central” narrative about independence from Beijing and a desire for self-governance before an American audience representing a foreign government Lee, Chan, and their entire opposition are ironically very much dependent on. NED would eventually release a statement claiming that it has never aided Lee or Chan, nor were Lee or Chan leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement.

But by 2015, after “Occupy Central” was over, NED subsidiary Freedom House would not only invite Benny Tai and Joshua Wong to Washington, but also Martin Lee in an event acknowledging the three as “Hong Kong democracy leaders.” All three would take to the stage with their signature yellow umbrellas, representing their roles in the “Occupy Central” protests, and of course – exposing NED’s lie denying Lee’s leadership role in the protests. Additionally, multiple leaked US diplomatic cables (here, here, and here) indicate that Martin Lee has been in close contact with the US government for years, and regularly asked for and received various forms of aid.

Other opposition leaders have been literally caught meeting secretly with US diplomats including Hong Kong opposition leaders Edward Leung and Ray Wong in 2016.

Delaying the Inevitable

Despite the supposed size of the protests it should be remembered that similar protests in 2014 and 2016 were also large and disruptive yet yielded no concessions from either Hong Kong’s elected government or Beijing.The extradition bill will pass – if not now – in the near future. The process of reintegration it represents will continue moving forward as well.

The longer the US wastes time, resources, and energy on tired tactics like sponsored mobs and political subversion, the less time, resources, and energy it will have to adjust favorably to the new international order that will inevitably emerge despite Washington’s efforts.

During this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue – an annual forum discussing Asia-Pacific security – the US would reiterate its designs to encircle and contain China. For an added twist, the US would include nations like the UK and France in its plans – specifically because of Washington’s failure to cobble together any sort of alliance of actual Asia-Pacific states.

China’s growing influence and its style of international relations built on investment, infrastructure development, and non-interference contrasts so favorably with Washington and Europe’s coercive neo-imperial foreign policy that despite a century headstart – the West now finds itself being left behind.

The protests in Hong Kong are organized to delay the inevitable end to the West’s “primacy” over Asia and in particular its attempts to dominate China. In the process, these protests will continue to expose Washington’s methods of fuelling political subversion and the Western media’s role in deceitfully promoting and defending it – compromising similar operations being carried out elsewhere across Asia-Pacific and around the world.

US Sponsored “Color Revolution” Struggles in Hong Kong - Global Research

 

[Strapped]

So fedex thought they were slick

 

[null]

US driven regime change in China coming up?

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[Strapped]

US driven regime change in China coming up?

Hong kong

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

29 June 2019
Trump-Xi Meeting in Osaka: Smiles and Handshakes, Are Things “Back on Track” Between the US and China?
By Stephen Lendman

Xi Jinping/Trump talks on the sidelines of the Osaka, Japan G20 summit turned out as expected — replicating the outcome of their talks at the Buenos Aires G20 summit late last year.

Then and now, both leaders agreed to continue trade talks. Trump said he won’t impose tariffs on another $300 billion worth of Chinese imports, at least not now, later very possible if stalemate continues.

Bilateral trade differences have little to do with the trade deficit hugely favoring China.

It exists because corporate America relocated much of its manufacturing and other operations to low-wage countries, notably China.

US policymakers are to blame for permitting unrestricted offshoring of millions of high-pay, good benefits jobs abroad, thirdworldizing America for most of its citizens, letting poverty become the nation’s leading growth industry.

Census data show half or more of US households are impoverished or bordering it. Most US workers struggle to get by on one or more part-time, low-pay, poor-or-no benefits, rotten jobs.

The world’s richest country serves its privileged class exclusively at the expense of the vast majority of its people, social justice fast eroding, on the chopping block for slow-motion elimination.

Sino/US differences have everything to do with major structural issues, little to do with the trade deficit.

The US seeks dominance over all other nations. China, the world’s second largest economy, is heading toward becoming number one in the years ahead.

It’s already the world’s leading economy on a purchase-price basis — what a basket of goods and services costs in the country compared to the US.

In his opening remarks, Xi said

“China and United States both benefit from cooperation and lose in a confrontation. Cooperation is better than friction, and dialogue is better than confrontation.”

He downplayed major bilateral political, economic, financial, trade, and military differences, adding:

“We have an excellent relationship, but we want to do something that will even it up with respect to trade. I think that is something that is actually very easy to do.”

“I actually think that we were very close and then something happened, it slipped a little bit, and now we are getting a little bit closer, but it would be historic if we could do a fair trade deal.”

Following talks, Trump said his meeting with Xi was “excellent…as good as it was going to be,” adding:

“We discussed a lot of things and we’re right back on track and we’ll see what happens, but we had a really good meeting.”

“I think President Xi will be putting out a statement…and we will too. We had a very, very good meeting with China, I would say probably even better than expected. The negotiations are continuing…We’re doing very well.”

Remarks by both leaders belied world’s apart bilateral differences, unlikely to be resolved as long as the US position remains hardline.

Based on the failure of 11 rounds of talks over the past year to resolve them, chances that the Trump regime will soften its unacceptable demands seem unlikely — leaving bilateral relations at an impasse if things turn out this way.

Both leaders approached summit talks intending to put a brave face on world’s apart bilateral differences.

The US wants its main global competitors, notably China and Russia, marginalized, weakened, isolated, and contained.

Major Sino/US differences have been irreconcilable.


They’re all about China’s growing political, economic, financial, and military clout.

The US wants China’s aim to advance 10 economic, industrial, and technological sectors to world-class status undermined.

They include high technology, high-end machinery and robotics, aerospace, marine equipment and ships, advanced rail transport, new-energy vehicles, electric power, agricultural machinery, new materials and biomedical products.

Premier Li Keqiang earlier said that Beijing’s blueprint for advancing economically, industrially, and technologically remains unchanged, stressing:

“We will strengthen the supporting capacity of quality infrastructure…and improve the quality of products and services to encourage more domestic and foreign users to choose Chinese goods and services.”

Achieving this goal clashes with US objectives, why resolving major bilateral differences have been unattainable.

Blacklisting Chinese tech giant Huawei and its 70 affiliates from the US market remains is a major obstacle to resolving differences, along with barring US tech companies from doing business with Huawei.

Xi’s terms for resolving major bilateral differences reportedly include lifting tariffs in place on Chinese imports, removing Huawei and its affiliates from the US blacklist, and rescinding the ban on US technology sales to the company.

There’s no indication from summit talks that Trump is amenable to this demand, just the opposite based on his regime’s dealings with China, North Korea, Turkey and other countries.

The record shows a US history of making unacceptable demands in return for empty promises, aiming to maintain its global dominance.

The strategy fails times and again. China clearly rejects it. Ahead of Xi/Trump summit talks, the official People’s Daily broadsheet said the trade deficit favoring Beijing is not evidence of “being taken advantage of,” adding: Wrongfully blaming China reflects “whole-body smell of selfishness.”

China’s Global Times noted unacceptable US actions, headlining: “World must contain capricious US actions,” saying:

“(T)he US…accus(es) almost all partners of profiting at its expense,” adding:

“Washington has adopted a non-cooperative attitude toward the major tasks facing human beings. It is interested in flexing its muscle to maximize its own interests.”

Its unacceptable actions “are catastrophic to global governance.” Trump’s “ ‘America first’ doctrine is dragging global governance into a quagmire…”

“The world needs to rein in the US,” GT stressed.

The commentary noted “the perfidy…the US has placed (on) the Persian Gulf region…whose situation (is) under the cloud of (potentially catastrophic) war” on Iran.

Director-General of China’s Foreign Ministry department of arms control Fu Cong said

“(w)e do not support the US policy of reducing Iran’s oil exports to zero,” adding:

“We reject the unilateral imposition of sanctions. For us energy security is important.” China will continue importing Iranian oil, he stressed — this issue alone to create friction with the US.

Trump and Xi smiles, handshakes, and friendly remarks in Osaka left major structural issues unresolved.

Bilateral discussions will likely continue in the weeks and months ahead, resolution remaining unattainable unless the US side softens its position.

It hasn’t happened so far. No evidence suggests a likely change of US policy ahead.

The South China Morning Post noted reality in Osaka, headlining:

“Beneath the smiles and handshakes, tensions simmer as world leaders meet for G20.”

Discussions between major world leaders did little to defuse them.

Note: Trump said “at least for the time being we are not going to be lifting tariffs on China.” Leaving them in place remains a major obstacle to resolving bilateral differences.

Trump-Xi Meeting in Osaka: Smiles and Handshakes, Are Things "Back on Track" Between the US and China? - Global Research