>Yes, 100% of the media unanimously hates China >Yes, bipartisanship is fiercely anti-China >Yes, all journalists have a China hate boner >Yes, we created a genocide out of thin air to get popular support against China >Yes, Soros have outright said that China is the greatest threat to the world >Yes, you always hear anti-China news everyday from the MSM
meanwhile Any Forums >Akshually this proves nothing and kikes are actually allies with China! Just look at this picture of Mao shaking a Jews hand 70 years ago!
I like china. As long as America is anti-white, I will be pro-china. >nuuu you don't have to be pro-china Being against the enemies of the status quo is pro status quo, which makes you anti-white.
The Australian Institute of International Affairs was delighted to welcome the China Institute of International Studies, headed by their president Ambassador Qi Zhenhong, to a roundtable discussion on 14 June 2018.
Australia-China relations are an increasingly important part of Australia’s foreign policy. The roundtable discussion provided an excellent opportunity to exchange earnest and frank views from both sides in a respectful and open environment.
The AIIA joined with the China Institute of International Studies and the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace in co-hosting an international conference to further understanding of Indo-Pacific maritime issues. More than 60 participants from China, the United States, Australia, Russia, Japan, India and many other countries in the region attended, including diplomats, senior officials, and scholars from universities and think tanks. Participants discussed existing cooperation mechanisms in the Indo-Pacific, maritime economic cooperation and non-traditional security cooperation.
The Australian Institute of International Affairs, China Institute of International Studies and the Cambodian Institute for cooperation and Peace co-hosted an international conference: “Indo-Pacific Maritime Security and Cooperation: Opportunities & Challenges” in Beijing on 18-20 April. The symposium provided a valuable forum to build international understanding of Indo-Pacific maritime issues.
More than 60 participants from China, the United States, Australia, Russia, Japan, India and many other countries in the region attended the symposium, including diplomats, senior officials and scholars from universities and think tanks. Participants discussed existing cooperation mechanisms in the Indo-Pacific, maritime economic cooperation and non-traditional security cooperation.
The AIIA would like to thank the China Institute of International Studies and the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace for co-hosting this symposium and looks forward to further opportunities to cooperate in the future.
The Australian Institute of International Affairs for WA Inc., in partnership with the Centre for Muslim States and Societies, UWA, invite you to an intimate roundtable discussion with a distinguished delegation of visiting Chinese scholars led by HE Ambassador Mr Qi Zhenhong, President of China Institute of International Studies (CIIS).
As a Sister Institute to the Australian Institute of International Affairs, CIIS is the think tank of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and conducts research and analysis on a wide range of foreign policy issues of strategic importance, particularly those concerning international politics and world economy.
CIIS consists of nearly one hundred researchers and other professionals. Among them are senior diplomats, leading area-study specialists, and preeminent experts in major fields of foreign affairs. Even young scholars at CIIS all have advanced university degrees in International Relations or related disciplines.
This roundtable is part of a second-track scholarly exchange. AIIA and CMSS, UWA encourage those engaged in government, business, acedemia or study with our largest trading partner and Asian-Pacific neighbour to join the session.
Recently, in a weekly cabinet meeting in France, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel described China as one of the causes behind the declining influence of Europe and the increasing tendency toward division within the EU. It is not uncommon for politicians in Europe to blame internal contradictions on external factors. However, Gabriel said Beijing "should adopt a 'one-Europe' policy that doesn't attempt to divide us," and inexplicably compared this policy to the one-China policy.
In Europe's present dilemma, it is understandable that Germany, which wants to secure its dominant status within the EU, spares no efforts in calling for European unity. After all, a divided EU means that the huge economic dividends and the political influences enjoyed by Germany at the core of Europe would likely be carved up. Once the European division of labor, with Germany at the top of the value chain, collapses, it's hard to imagine where the German economy would end up. Germany therefore regards the European single market and its value chain as forbidden territory, and is excessively vigilant about developing cooperation with countries outside Europe. It is particularly concerned about China's cooperation with the 16 Central and Eastern European countries.
Gabriel asked China to develop a "one Europe" stance. One Europe is feasible geographically, not in terms of politics and the economy. It is questionable that the EU with its 27 member states can represent Europe, which now has nearly 50 countries and regions.
Let's go with Gabriel's logic to equate the EU to Europe. Should China be responsible for Brexit and the dividing tendencies within the EU?
The main reason behind these growing contradictions among EU countries is that Germany attempted to take a one-size-fits-all approach following the European debt crisis, forcefully implemented deflationary policies which led to voices of discontent among debtor countries and a widening gap between northern and southern Europe, and unilaterally carried out an open-door policy in pushing out the quota system across the EU during the refugee crisis.
Whether it is for building a strong EU or pursuing "one Europe," this has to be figured out by Europeans on their own. It is also the responsibility of Germany, since it actively seeks to lead the EU. If Germany shirks responsibility and shifts contradictions at will, it will not qualify for EU leadership, let alone be able to lead Europe in its entirety.
It is unreasonable that Gabriel compared the one-Europe policy with the one-China policy. The latter is based on historical facts and political consensus across the Taiwan Straits, and recognized by international organizations and treaties, while the one-Europe policy is only an ambiguous concept.
As a responsible partner, China has always respected and supported European integration, and emphasized the consistency of the development of relations with the EU and its member states, which is reflected in China's actions. The depth and breadth of achievements that China's cooperation with the EU is the most powerful evidence for its support of "one Europe".
Gabriel's words on China are merely conjecture and musings, and not based on fact. The saying reflects some Europeans' and even political elites' anxiety and their attempts to transfer the contradictions surrounding Europe's internal and external problems. Especially in the face of the looming German election and the bleak prospect of Gabriel's Social Democratic Party, there may be a more complicated political motive behind his words.
One of the most significant assets for JIIA is our global network. In the contemporary world where networking is a crucial source of intellectual power, the world-wide network, which encompasses renowned institutes and organizations, proves our strength and capacity as a leading global think-tank. JIIA has expanded and will be developing the network that enables us to produce wide ranging, insightful research outcomes and policy recommendations.
Asia Pacific: China: China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) Institute for International Strategic Studies, Central Party School of C.P.C. Institute of International Studies, Fudan University Institute of Modern History Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS) The Institute of East European, Russian and Central Asian Studies (IEERCAS) China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies
Korea: Institute for Japanese Studies Seoul National University Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS) International Policy Studies , Institute of Korea (IPSIKOR) Korea Foundation Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) Korea University Library Seoul National University The Asan Institute for Policy Studies (AIPS) The Institute for National Security Strategy of Korea (INSS) The Sejong Institute
Indonesia: Centre for Strategic International Studies (CSIS)
Malaysia: Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM)
Philippines: Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS)
