GOOD MORNING FROM LONDON
IN THIS ISSUE THE FOCUS IN ON CHINA’S SURGE IN THE NUMBER OF STEM GRADUATES; SECOND – THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORT FOR A FAR EAST NATO; AND THIRD – PEACE FEELERS BEARING FRUIT BETWEEN CHINA AND INDIA.
—————————
#1 CHINA’S BAIDU PLANS GLOBAL EXPANSION OF ITS ROBOTAXI
NIKKEI ASIA
PALO ALTO, California — Chinese internet giant Baidu plans to launch its robotaxi service Apollo Go outside of China as the race to commercialize autonomous vehicles heats up, Nikkei Asia has learned.
Baidu’s move comes as Tesla of the U.S. prepares to unveil its robotaxi this week, and as other Chinese players also eye overseas markets in hopes of taking the lead in the race for autonomous driving supremacy.
Apollo Go currently operates one of the biggest robotaxi fleets in China, where it provides service in more than 10 cities. It provides fully driverless rides in Wuhan, Beijing, Chongqing and Shenzhen, while in other locations the taxis have safety drivers. In the second quarter, Apollo Go provided 899,000 rides, up 26% year-on-year, its latest earnings report shows.
Baidu has started discussions with foreign automakers, ride-sharing platforms and other tech companies to deploy Apollo Go outside China via local partnerships, people familiar with the matter told Nikkei. The timing and locations of Apollo Go’s overseas ventures have not yet been finalized, according to these people.
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-
The focus on the fast development of China’s High-Tech companies obscures the real story which is that Chinese universities have surpassed U.S. institutions in the number of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) PhDs being produced. Based on current trends, it appears that gap will grow wider in the years to come. Those are two of the main conclusions in a just-released report by Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET).
According to the report in 2000 U.S. universities awarded twice as many doctorates in STEM fields (18,289) as that of Chinese universities (9,038). By 2007, the order had been reversed and China began outpacing U.S. universities. In 2010, Chinese universities graduated 34,801 STEM doctorates compared to 26,076 by American universities
Over the last decade, China has increased its lead. In 2019, Chinese universities produced 49,498 PhDs in STEM fields, while U.S. universities produced 33,759. Based on current enrolment patterns, the report projects that by 2025, China’s yearly STEM PhD graduates (77,179) will nearly double those in the U.S (39,959).
The report concludes that, “The quality of doctoral education in China has risen in recent years, and that much of China’s current PhD growth comes from elite universities.” About 45 percent of Chinese PhDs graduate from what are termed first-class universities and disciplines of the world — the country’s most elite educational institutions; 80 percent of graduates come from universities administered by central ministries rather than locally or privately administered institutions.
If you are looking for explanations of China’s high tech surge, just focus on Government decision making – Chinese investment focus and the widening gap between China and the US.
It is not meant to be like this. The US is the world superpower with China coming up on the rails. But in key areas – the number of STEM graduates in particular – China has excelled and is surging ahead of the US. And the US reaction? – de-risking, tariffs, duties and the sanctioning of Chinese companies.
Is the US able to curtail China’s STEM growth? Does de-risking protect the US and its allies? Do tariffs on Chinese goods hurt the US consumer more than the Chinese exporter? And where is it all leading? What is the long term goal? Where will the world be in 2034?
China is stable, focused, well-governed, committed to long term targets. And as China grows and develops – property sector problems not disregarded – where will it leave world development?
The pressure on the World Bank and the IMF – and the US Dollar – will continue. BRICS embraces 65% of the world’s population with countries in the wings waiting to gain admission. And the US military? Preparing to clip China’s wings? The time is approaching when the UK Labour Government will be forced to make decisions.
——————————————————-
#2 NO SUPPORT FOR AN ASIAN NATO
NIKKEI ASIA
New Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s vision for a NATO-style security framework in Asia is not finding a receptive audience in Southeast Asia, amid worries that it could deepen divisions within ASEAN over how to deal with China.
During last month’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party leadership election, Ishiba advocated for a collective security arrangement among Asian countries with shared values to strengthen deterrence against China.
But he has set the idea aside for his first foreign trip in the role — to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit that kicked off Thursday — to focus on building relationships.
“I don’t intend to bring it up,” Ishiba said Wednesday before departing for the summit in the Laotian capital, Vientiane, saying that discussion of the idea in the LDP is ongoing.
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS
“We are already ASEAN. We do not need NATO in ASEAN,” Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan told reporters ahead of the ASEAN Summit. This is a significant retreat for the US who, along with former NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg, was making determined efforts to re-create an anti-China SEATO – South East Asia Treaty Organisation.
India, which is part of the Quad security grouping alongside the U.S., Japan and Australia, also has indicated it does not support Ishiba’s idea. “We have never been a treaty ally of any country. We don’t have that kind of strategic architecture in mind,” India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said recently.
During the Cold War, the U.S., the U.K. and France in 1954 formed the eight-member Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) with countries including Thailand and the Philippines as a bulwark against the spread of communism. But the organization became split over the Vietnam War and was eventually dissolved in 1977.
The world has moved on – from bi-polar to multi-polar. There are a number of power points throughout the world to fill the gap created by the end of the US-USSR superpower confrontation. And remember this number – the US has 800+ military bases around the world. China has just one. China has advanced more than one trillion US Dollars to 150 countries to promote infrastructure development as an indispensable first step to the realisation of its policy of mutual Win-Win economic prosperity – and not one Chinese soldier, sailor or pilot in sight.
It is taking the world some time to come to terms with China. Inflexible in defence of its own boundaries and frontiers but not expansionist or acquisitive or imperialist. This is not how it was meant to be. Surely China would become the new rapacious superpower ever ready to challenge the US? But that is not how China sees the future. It will be important and effective and significant but it is not the New Imperial Power. It thinks Russia is wrong to become embroiled in war with Ukraine. It thinks N Korea is wrong to provoke the West with evidence of ever-extending distances of its ICBM. It will urge Iran to resist war with Israel.
Many in the US power hierarchy have been cheering on the US to “take on” China. China “needs to be taken out” before it replaces the US as the largest economy in the world. China has been preparing for the possibility of War – a local war in the Far East or a global war across the Earth but it is not wanting war or seeking military conquest. The world has room for a growing China and a continuingly substantial US. Both can be embraced providing the military elite within the US casts aside any thoughts of imposing its will on China.
——————————–
#3 INDIA/CHINA REACH DEAL FOR PATROLS AT DISPUTED BORDER
THE FINANCIAL TIMES
“India and China have reached an agreement on patrolling arrangements along their disputed border, a senior Indian official has said, paving the way for an easing of tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours that have overshadowed their diplomatic and trading relations.
Vikram Misri, India’s foreign secretary, announced the understanding on the eve of a summit of leaders of Brics countries due to begin on Tuesday in Kazan, Russia, which the Indian and Chinese leaders — Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping — are both due to attend.
India and China refer to their frontier as the Line of Actual Control, and clashes between the two sides in eastern Ladakh in 2020 left at least 24 troops, mostly Indians, dead.
“I can share with you that over the last several weeks, Indian and Chinese diplomatic and military negotiators have been in close contact with each other in a variety of forums,” Misri said at a press briefing in Delhi. “And as a result of these discussions, agreement has been arrived at on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas, leading to disengagement and a resolution of the issues that had arisen in these areas in 2020.” China’s foreign ministry did not immediately comment on the Indian statement.
At a regular press briefing in Beijing on Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian reiterated that China would work towards “greater Brics co-operation” and a “new era for the global south”. The potential agreement comes a month after Wang Yi, Xi’s top diplomat, held talks with India’s national security adviser Ajit Doval. Chinese state media said at the time that the two sides had “agreed to work together to create conditions for the improvement of bilateral relations”.
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-
India and China have reached an agreement on patrolling arrangements along their disputed Himalayan frontier in a breakthrough in talks aimed at resolving a four-year standoff.
The announcement by New Delhi on Monday comes ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day visit to Kazan in Russia to attend the 16th BRICS summit. Local media have speculated that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the conference.
“Over the last several weeks, Indian and Chinese diplomatic and military negotiators have been in close contact with each other in a variety of forums,” Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said during a media briefing.
“As a result of these discussions, [an] agreement has been arrived at on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China border areas leading to disengagement and a resolution of the issues that had arisen in these areas in 2020,” he said.
The Indian Express, a local newspaper, reported late last month that India and China had made significant progress in resolving issues along the LAC in eastern Ladakh. It said that access points previously blocked by Chinese troops might be made available to the Indian side now.
The LAC refers to a de facto 3,500-kilometer boundary between the two countries. Ties have been strained since June 2020 when a bloody hand-to-hand clash in the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh region led to the deaths of 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers. The incident was the first deadly confrontation between the two nations in 45 years.
Misri did not confirm if Modi and Xi would hold bilateral talks over the next few days, but Monday’s announcement of significant progress in resolving the border standoff could pave the way to a meeting in Kazan.
Many in the West have been banking on India to emerge as the countervailing power to China. The two world giants would go head-to-head. China would be stalled, India would surge and the world balance of power would tilt decisively in favour of the West. This theory gathered support when the two countries engaged in boundary disputes that led to hostilities and deaths on both sides. India would now become a firm military ally of the West and fight the West’s corner. The world would be safer and more secure – thought Washington, London and Brussels. The anti-China alliance was taking shape. The West felt good and safe and optimistic.
The announcement that the two countries have made a breakthrough in their frontier dispute is not welcome news to those in the anti-China camp who want to portray China as a power seeking monster eager to control the world. This narrative has always had an appeal to those countries eager to cast China in the mould of No 1 Economy.
The UK plays its part in fundamentally misrepresenting China as evidenced in the recent publication by the Hong Kong Lau University whose minute analysis of UK press reports on China has led to the conclusion that the reporting of China by the UK media is the most negative in the Western world. China is no blushing violet. It knows how to safeguard its interests but it is no expansionist or imperialist power. The next 30 years are vital for the world at large. China won’t buckle – but important players in the Western world will buckle.
