Core Viewpoint - The Chinese Embassy in New Zealand emphasizes the need for international cooperation to combat transnational crime, while expressing concerns over the establishment of an FBI office in Wellington, asserting that such cooperation should not target third parties [1] Group 1 - The establishment of the FBI office in Wellington is noted, with the Chinese side acknowledging related statements from the US and New Zealand officials [1] - The Chinese Embassy opposes the use of Cold War mentality to unjustly criticize China, stating that such actions are unpopular and will not succeed [1]

Group 1 - The "Han Guang" exercise in Taiwan has doubled in duration compared to previous years, showcasing more U.S.-made equipment and a record number of participants, indicating a shift towards deeper defense and prolonged combat scenarios [2] - The Chinese government views the "Han Guang" exercise as a performance that cannot change the inevitable outcome of Taiwan independence, criticizing the Democratic Progressive Party for its actions that harm Taiwan while misleading the public [2] - The Chinese government firmly opposes any form of military collusion between the U.S. and Taiwan, urging the U.S. to adhere to its commitment of not supporting Taiwan independence and to stop sending wrong signals to separatist forces [2] Group 2 - The U.S. Air Force recently conducted the largest military exercise in its history in the Western Pacific, which the Chinese government criticizes as a manifestation of Cold War mentality aimed at creating tensions in the Asia-Pacific region [3] - The Chinese government asserts that the Pacific should remain peaceful and not be turned into a zone of conflict due to U.S. military posturing and alliances [3] - The Chinese military expresses confidence and capability to handle all risks and challenges, emphasizing its role in maintaining national sovereignty and regional peace [3]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing discussions between the United States and Japan regarding the defense of Japan using nuclear and conventional military capabilities reflect a persistent Cold War mentality, as indicated by experts on Japan-related issues [1] Group 1 - The United States and Japan are engaged in routine consultations about the defense of Japan, which includes tabletop exercises simulating potential crisis scenarios [1] - The discussions involve considerations of scenarios where U.S. nuclear weapons might be utilized [1] - Experts suggest that these actions are indicative of outdated Cold War thinking still influencing current defense strategies [1]

Group 1 - The article highlights the double standards in trade practices, where Western countries advocate for free trade when exporting to China but impose trade barriers against Chinese products entering their markets [1][4] - The Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced anti-dumping duties on brandy from the EU starting July 5, which has been met with claims of unfairness from the affected countries [1][4] - The U.S. has led efforts to restrict the use of Chinese 5G technology in Europe, reflecting a broader narrative of a "technology cold war" driven by geopolitical considerations [3][4] Group 2 - The EU has decided to impose anti-subsidy tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, aiming to weaken China's competitiveness in the global renewable energy sector [4][7] - Historical cooperation between China and Europe in manufacturing has been significant, with European firms providing technology transfer that helped China develop its industrial framework [6][7] - European countries are now adopting a defensive stance in their economic relations with China, using tariffs and technical standards to limit market access for Chinese products [7][9] Group 3 - There is a contradiction in Europe's approach, as it seeks to maintain its industrial advantages while simultaneously requesting increased Chinese investment and job creation [9][11] - The article criticizes the notion that cooperation with China is a form of economic aid, arguing that China's manufacturing success is a result of its own efforts rather than external assistance [11] - It calls for a reevaluation of how countries can promote their own development while ensuring a fair competitive environment, rather than resorting to protectionism for short-term gains [11]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint presented is that the United States is unwilling to accept China's rise as a global leader, reflecting deep-seated fears about losing its dominant position [1][3][14] - The competition between the US and China has intensified, characterized by trade friction, tariffs, and high-tech restrictions, indicating a struggle over global influence rather than a simple desire to maintain leadership [3][7] - China's advancements in traditional industries like steel and automotive, as well as emerging sectors, demonstrate its growing global market share, contradicting US efforts to contain its rise [3][12] Group 2 - China emphasizes peaceful development and fair cooperation, contrasting with the US's unilateral approach and imposition of its standards on other nations [5][11] - The article critiques the US's "zero-sum game" mentality, suggesting that such an approach is outdated and counterproductive in a complex global landscape [7][9] - The narrative suggests that China's rise should be viewed as an opportunity for international order building rather than a threat, promoting a vision of mutual respect and win-win cooperation [11][14]

Group 1 - The article emphasizes that China and Australia are friends, not enemies, and this should not be a question [1][3] - It criticizes certain countries for escalating military tensions and increasing defense spending under the guise of "China threat," which burdens their economies and hinders global economic recovery [3][4] - The article highlights the complementary economic structures of China and Australia, advocating for communication over differences and maintaining friendly relations [3] Group 2 - Australia is under pressure from the U.S. to increase its defense budget from slightly above 2% of GDP to 3.5%, but the Australian Prime Minister insists decisions will be based on national interests [4] - The Australian government is evaluating its defense budget in light of support from NATO allies, indicating potential shifts in defense policy [4] - The Australian Foreign Minister is set to meet with U.S. Secretary of State, suggesting ongoing U.S. influence on Australia's defense strategy [4]

Core Viewpoint - The recent G7 tax agreement appears to be a compromise between the US and its allies, but it reveals the US's strategic maneuvering to gain long-term benefits while temporarily conceding to its allies [1][3]. Group 1: Tax Agreement Details - The G7 agreement allows US tech giants to be exempt from the OECD's global minimum corporate tax rules, preventing them from paying back taxes in overseas markets [1][3]. - In exchange, the US Congress must repeal Section 899 of the US Competition Act, which authorizes the government to impose retaliatory tariffs on countries that discriminate against US companies [1][3]. Group 2: Strategic Implications - The agreement is seen as a tactical retreat by the US to secure strategic cooperation from allies in economic containment against China [3][4]. - The negotiations were dominated by the US, which threatened to initiate a "301 investigation" against the EU's digital tax and impose tariffs on European goods, leading to swift concessions from European leaders [3][4]. Group 3: European Challenges - Europe faces a triple dilemma: ceding fiscal sovereignty, being bound by US policies towards China, and internal divisions among member states regarding their stance on China [4][6]. - The new tax agreement indirectly acknowledges the "super-national treatment" of US companies, resulting in significant annual tax losses for the EU [4][6]. Group 4: China's Response - China has implemented export controls on critical metals like gallium and germanium, which are essential for Western countries, highlighting its leverage in the trade conflict [9][11]. - The Chinese government is also working to divide the US-EU alliance by approving significant orders from Airbus while halting purchases from Boeing, demonstrating the potential costs of decoupling from China [9][11]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The sustainability of US concessions is uncertain, as historical patterns suggest that the US may revert to aggressive trade tactics if allies hesitate in their pressure on China [11]. - The potential for European strategic autonomy is being tested, with leaders like Macron advocating for independence from major powers, which could pose long-term risks for US influence [11].

Group 1 - NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized the importance of increased spending by the EU and NATO in light of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and China's military expansion [1] - NATO members' military spending is projected to account for 55% of global military expenditure in 2024, with calls for member states to raise defense spending to 5% of their GDP [1] - NATO's actions are perceived as an attempt to extend its influence into the Asia-Pacific region, raising concerns among countries in that area [1] Group 2 - China maintains a position of promoting peace and dialogue regarding the Ukraine issue, refraining from supplying weapons to conflict parties and controlling dual-use item exports [2] - China's constructive role in international affairs has been recognized globally, contrasting with NATO's alleged misinformation [2] - China urges NATO to abandon outdated Cold War mentalities and to correct its misconceptions about China, emphasizing its commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty and contributing to global peace [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses China's response to NATO's claims regarding military spending and perceived threats from Russia and China, emphasizing that NATO's narrative is aimed at justifying increased military expenditures and expansion into the Asia-Pacific region [1]. Group 1 - NATO officials are accused of exaggerating international tensions and undermining China's normal military development to justify increased military spending [1]. - China urges NATO to reflect deeply, listen to the international community's just voices, and abandon outdated Cold War mentalities and zero-sum game concepts [1]. - China reaffirms its commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty, security, and development interests while contributing to global peace and stability through practical actions [1].

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese Embassy in the UK firmly opposes the UK government's speech and report that spread the notion of a "Chinese threat" and made unfounded accusations against China, asserting that China's development does not pose a challenge or threat to any country [1] Group 1: China's Position on Allegations - The embassy rejects allegations of espionage, cyberattacks, and transnational repression attributed to China, labeling them as baseless and malicious slander [1] - Issues related to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and human rights are deemed internal matters of China, with no external forces having the right to interfere [1] Group 2: Call for Improved Relations - China emphasizes its unwavering determination to safeguard national sovereignty and maritime rights, stating that it will not tolerate provocations from external forces [1] - The embassy advises the UK to recognize the situation, correct its mindset, and abandon Cold War thinking and ideological biases to facilitate smooth dialogue and cooperation between the two countries [1]