This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
Yet, here you are, commenting about biased sources, without linking your own sources, and certainly not countering any of the data in the link.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
As China enters what many economists say is the final stage of one of the largest real-estate booms in history, it is confronting a staggering bill: More than $5 trillion in debt that developers took on when times were good, according to economists at Nomura Holdings Inc.
That debt is nearly double what it was at the end of 2016 and is more than the entire economic output of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, last year.
Global markets are braced for a possible wave of defaults, with warning signs flashing over the debt of about two-fifths of development companies that have borrowed from international bond investors.
Chinese leaders are getting serious about addressing the debt, with a series of moves meant to curb excessive borrowing. But doing so without torpedoing the property market, crippling more developers and derailing the country’s economy is quickly turning into one of the biggest economic challenges Chinese leaders have faced in years, and one that could reverberate globally if mismanaged.
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
I agree with you. Most of what he posted may look like facts. But these are common facts that happened else where in the world. But his China hatred makes them look like unique to China. For example, the real estate bubble. It happened in US between 2002 and 2007 too.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
Yet, here you are, commenting about biased sources, without linking your own sources, and certainly not countering any of the data in the link.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
As China enters what many economists say is the final stage of one of the largest real-estate booms in history, it is confronting a staggering bill: More than $5 trillion in debt that developers took on when times were good, according to economists at Nomura Holdings Inc.
That debt is nearly double what it was at the end of 2016 and is more than the entire economic output of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, last year.
Global markets are braced for a possible wave of defaults, with warning signs flashing over the debt of about two-fifths of development companies that have borrowed from international bond investors.
Chinese leaders are getting serious about addressing the debt, with a series of moves meant to curb excessive borrowing. But doing so without torpedoing the property market, crippling more developers and derailing the country’s economy is quickly turning into one of the biggest economic challenges Chinese leaders have faced in years, and one that could reverberate globally if mismanaged.
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
You are biased because you are, well, biased. You openly admit to it. You lose credibility as a result. You live with that and it's your call. You are fine with that and so am I.
I don't need to counter post examples of anything. I simply reminded readers that the goals of CSIS are clear and the actual content of the quoted information is simply a reflection of standard government policy of nations in a position to exert power.
Literally every one of the 6 points presented could be turned on its head and fired back at the US for example (or any other nation with power to exert).
1. Political and strategic calculations? Really? Strengthen image and forge relationships? Is point one only there to state the obvious?
2. 'strings attached' and 'heavy handed' diplomacy? That is literally the Trump Way! But not only the extreme version of Trump. The US has a very long history using such tactics.
3. Public health diplomacy, projected image and commercial sales versus donations? Remind me of the US public health diplomacy and the influence of the US pharma industry and image projection.
4. Bilateral vs Multilateral engagement? It's not a case of either or. Governments take both approaches depending on need and in line with policy goals.
5. Speed vs Quality for first mover advantage? Remind me of point 1 again. Of course! Strategic calculations. Surely that couldn't explain it, could it? Not unlike the invasion of Iraq is it? If that wasn't a case of speed over quality, then what is? But again. It was a strategic calculation.
6. Aggressive information and disinformation campaigns? Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
Can you see why counter examples aren't necessary here?
You gave six points of standard practice, universally applied, foreign policy actuations but tried to pin them on China and show those actions in bad light to a Covid 19 backdrop.
Why not take a look at how the US has handled COVID-19 on a national and international level. All the way from trying to 'buy' already purchased PPE freight destined for other countries on the tarmac at airports to its shenanigans with regards to the WHO through to side stepping 'diplomacy' in its entirety by labelling COVID-19 the China Virus.
What I'm saying here is that no one will come up smelling of roses when the carpet is finally lifted. Considering this has been the first true pandemic of the century, you would expect huge problems to crop up and they have, but they are common to all the dominant powers. They are not unique to one.
What is shocking is how unprepared the world was in spite of knowing this was coming and having had plenty of close shaves in recent decades.
In 1999 I listened to a panel of world renowned virologists describe this century as the Century of the Virus.
Very little was done to prepare for what we have just been through, and we are just two decades in.
However, that lack of preparedness was not really nation specific but pretty much across the board.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
Yet, here you are, commenting about biased sources, without linking your own sources, and certainly not countering any of the data in the link.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
As China enters what many economists say is the final stage of one of the largest real-estate booms in history, it is confronting a staggering bill: More than $5 trillion in debt that developers took on when times were good, according to economists at Nomura Holdings Inc.
That debt is nearly double what it was at the end of 2016 and is more than the entire economic output of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, last year.
Global markets are braced for a possible wave of defaults, with warning signs flashing over the debt of about two-fifths of development companies that have borrowed from international bond investors.
Chinese leaders are getting serious about addressing the debt, with a series of moves meant to curb excessive borrowing. But doing so without torpedoing the property market, crippling more developers and derailing the country’s economy is quickly turning into one of the biggest economic challenges Chinese leaders have faced in years, and one that could reverberate globally if mismanaged.
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
You are biased because you are, well, biased. You openly admit to it. You lose credibility as a result. You live with that and it's your call. You are fine with that and so am I.
I don't need to counter post examples of anything. I simply reminded readers that the goals of CSIS are clear and the actual content of the quoted information is simply a reflection of standard government policy of nations in a position to exert power.
Literally every one of the 6 points presented could be turned on its head and fired back at the US for example (or any other nation with power to exert).
1. Political and strategic calculations? Really? Strengthen image and forge relationships? Is point one only there to state the obvious?
2. 'strings attached' and 'heavy handed' diplomacy? That is literally the Trump Way! But not only the extreme version of Trump. The US has a very long history using such tactics.
3. Public health diplomacy, projected image and commercial sales versus donations? Remind me of the US public health diplomacy and the influence of the US pharma industry and image projection.
4. Bilateral vs Multilateral engagement? It's not a case of either or. Governments take both approaches depending on need and in line with policy goals.
5. Speed vs Quality for first mover advantage? Remind me of point 1 again. Of course! Strategic calculations. Surely that couldn't explain it, could it? Not unlike the invasion of Iraq is it? If that wasn't a case of speed over quality, then what is? But again. It was a strategic calculation.
6. Aggressive information and disinformation campaigns? Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
Can you see why counter examples aren't necessary here?
You gave six points of standard practice, universally applied, foreign policy actuations but tried to pin them on China and show those actions in bad light to a Covid 19 backdrop.
Why not take a look at how the US has handled COVID-19 on a national and international level. All the way from trying to 'buy' already purchased PPE freight destined for other countries on the tarmac at airports to its shenanigans with regards to the WHO through to side stepping 'diplomacy' in its entirety by labelling COVID-19 the China Virus.
What I'm saying here is that no one will come up smelling of roses when the carpet is finally lifted. Considering this has been the first true pandemic of the century, you would expect huge problems to crop up and they have, but they are common to all the dominant powers. They are not unique to one.
What is shocking is how unprepared the world was in spite of knowing this was coming and having had plenty of close shaves in recent decades.
In 1999 I listened to a panel of world renowned virologists describe this century as the Century of the Virus.
Very little was done to prepare for what we have just been through, and we are just two decades in.
However, that lack of preparedness was not really nation specific but pretty much across the board.
Typical deflection technique that you have demonstrated. Rather than arguing facts about the PRC vaccine diplomacy, and whether it has in fact been successful and beneficial to the PRC, my opinion is that it has been detrimental, you resort to whataboutism.
dailykos is a political forum populated by liberals and progressives, to elect more and better democrats. Ecological, and human rights, bias is a given.
India snatches Australian coal right from under China’s nose, imports shipments stranded at Chinese ports
India has cancelled the Chinese war on the Australian coal industry by sending out a clear message that India is firmly standing strong with its Australian friends as they continue to battle Chinese tyranny.
Moreover, India and Australia are striving to devise ways to intensify their co-operation in mining and coal sector.
China’s tyranny is nearing its screeching end at its leader Xi Jinping is the one to be blamed for the ‘great fall of China’.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
Yet, here you are, commenting about biased sources, without linking your own sources, and certainly not countering any of the data in the link.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
As China enters what many economists say is the final stage of one of the largest real-estate booms in history, it is confronting a staggering bill: More than $5 trillion in debt that developers took on when times were good, according to economists at Nomura Holdings Inc.
That debt is nearly double what it was at the end of 2016 and is more than the entire economic output of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, last year.
Global markets are braced for a possible wave of defaults, with warning signs flashing over the debt of about two-fifths of development companies that have borrowed from international bond investors.
Chinese leaders are getting serious about addressing the debt, with a series of moves meant to curb excessive borrowing. But doing so without torpedoing the property market, crippling more developers and derailing the country’s economy is quickly turning into one of the biggest economic challenges Chinese leaders have faced in years, and one that could reverberate globally if mismanaged.
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
You are biased because you are, well, biased. You openly admit to it. You lose credibility as a result. You live with that and it's your call. You are fine with that and so am I.
I don't need to counter post examples of anything. I simply reminded readers that the goals of CSIS are clear and the actual content of the quoted information is simply a reflection of standard government policy of nations in a position to exert power.
Literally every one of the 6 points presented could be turned on its head and fired back at the US for example (or any other nation with power to exert).
1. Political and strategic calculations? Really? Strengthen image and forge relationships? Is point one only there to state the obvious?
2. 'strings attached' and 'heavy handed' diplomacy? That is literally the Trump Way! But not only the extreme version of Trump. The US has a very long history using such tactics.
3. Public health diplomacy, projected image and commercial sales versus donations? Remind me of the US public health diplomacy and the influence of the US pharma industry and image projection.
4. Bilateral vs Multilateral engagement? It's not a case of either or. Governments take both approaches depending on need and in line with policy goals.
5. Speed vs Quality for first mover advantage? Remind me of point 1 again. Of course! Strategic calculations. Surely that couldn't explain it, could it? Not unlike the invasion of Iraq is it? If that wasn't a case of speed over quality, then what is? But again. It was a strategic calculation.
6. Aggressive information and disinformation campaigns? Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
Can you see why counter examples aren't necessary here?
You gave six points of standard practice, universally applied, foreign policy actuations but tried to pin them on China and show those actions in bad light to a Covid 19 backdrop.
Why not take a look at how the US has handled COVID-19 on a national and international level. All the way from trying to 'buy' already purchased PPE freight destined for other countries on the tarmac at airports to its shenanigans with regards to the WHO through to side stepping 'diplomacy' in its entirety by labelling COVID-19 the China Virus.
What I'm saying here is that no one will come up smelling of roses when the carpet is finally lifted. Considering this has been the first true pandemic of the century, you would expect huge problems to crop up and they have, but they are common to all the dominant powers. They are not unique to one.
What is shocking is how unprepared the world was in spite of knowing this was coming and having had plenty of close shaves in recent decades.
In 1999 I listened to a panel of world renowned virologists describe this century as the Century of the Virus.
Very little was done to prepare for what we have just been through, and we are just two decades in.
However, that lack of preparedness was not really nation specific but pretty much across the board.
Typical deflection technique that you have demonstrated. Rather than arguing facts about the PRC vaccine diplomacy, and whether it has in fact been successful and beneficial to the PRC, my opinion is that it has been detrimental, you resort to whataboutism.
dailykos is a political forum populated by liberals and progressives, to elect more and better democrats. Ecological, and human rights, bias is a given.
India snatches Australian coal right from under China’s nose, imports shipments stranded at Chinese ports
India has cancelled the Chinese war on the Australian coal industry by sending out a clear message that India is firmly standing strong with its Australian friends as they continue to battle Chinese tyranny.
Moreover, India and Australia are striving to devise ways to intensify their co-operation in mining and coal sector.
China’s tyranny is nearing its screeching end at its leader Xi Jinping is the one to be blamed for the ‘great fall of China’.
What's not to like in that?
Not at all. He simply illustrated how you lie by only looking at one side of the coin, telling one part of the whole story. It is the favored technique of professional propagandists like FauxNews and OAN as well as extremists on the other side. They claim to be factual while spreading disinformation by telling only the part of the story that supports their agenda.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Humm….Now we know why the vaccines don’t work.
No vaccine works if it is not manufactured, distributed and injected.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
Yet, here you are, commenting about biased sources, without linking your own sources, and certainly not countering any of the data in the link.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
As China enters what many economists say is the final stage of one of the largest real-estate booms in history, it is confronting a staggering bill: More than $5 trillion in debt that developers took on when times were good, according to economists at Nomura Holdings Inc.
That debt is nearly double what it was at the end of 2016 and is more than the entire economic output of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, last year.
Global markets are braced for a possible wave of defaults, with warning signs flashing over the debt of about two-fifths of development companies that have borrowed from international bond investors.
Chinese leaders are getting serious about addressing the debt, with a series of moves meant to curb excessive borrowing. But doing so without torpedoing the property market, crippling more developers and derailing the country’s economy is quickly turning into one of the biggest economic challenges Chinese leaders have faced in years, and one that could reverberate globally if mismanaged.
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
You are biased because you are, well, biased. You openly admit to it. You lose credibility as a result. You live with that and it's your call. You are fine with that and so am I.
I don't need to counter post examples of anything. I simply reminded readers that the goals of CSIS are clear and the actual content of the quoted information is simply a reflection of standard government policy of nations in a position to exert power.
Literally every one of the 6 points presented could be turned on its head and fired back at the US for example (or any other nation with power to exert).
1. Political and strategic calculations? Really? Strengthen image and forge relationships? Is point one only there to state the obvious?
2. 'strings attached' and 'heavy handed' diplomacy? That is literally the Trump Way! But not only the extreme version of Trump. The US has a very long history using such tactics.
3. Public health diplomacy, projected image and commercial sales versus donations? Remind me of the US public health diplomacy and the influence of the US pharma industry and image projection.
4. Bilateral vs Multilateral engagement? It's not a case of either or. Governments take both approaches depending on need and in line with policy goals.
5. Speed vs Quality for first mover advantage? Remind me of point 1 again. Of course! Strategic calculations. Surely that couldn't explain it, could it? Not unlike the invasion of Iraq is it? If that wasn't a case of speed over quality, then what is? But again. It was a strategic calculation.
6. Aggressive information and disinformation campaigns? Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
Can you see why counter examples aren't necessary here?
You gave six points of standard practice, universally applied, foreign policy actuations but tried to pin them on China and show those actions in bad light to a Covid 19 backdrop.
Why not take a look at how the US has handled COVID-19 on a national and international level. All the way from trying to 'buy' already purchased PPE freight destined for other countries on the tarmac at airports to its shenanigans with regards to the WHO through to side stepping 'diplomacy' in its entirety by labelling COVID-19 the China Virus.
What I'm saying here is that no one will come up smelling of roses when the carpet is finally lifted. Considering this has been the first true pandemic of the century, you would expect huge problems to crop up and they have, but they are common to all the dominant powers. They are not unique to one.
What is shocking is how unprepared the world was in spite of knowing this was coming and having had plenty of close shaves in recent decades.
In 1999 I listened to a panel of world renowned virologists describe this century as the Century of the Virus.
Very little was done to prepare for what we have just been through, and we are just two decades in.
However, that lack of preparedness was not really nation specific but pretty much across the board.
Typical deflection technique that you have demonstrated. Rather than arguing facts about the PRC vaccine diplomacy, and whether it has in fact been successful and beneficial to the PRC, my opinion is that it has been detrimental, you resort to whataboutism.
dailykos is a political forum populated by liberals and progressives, to elect more and better democrats. Ecological, and human rights, bias is a given.
India snatches Australian coal right from under China’s nose, imports shipments stranded at Chinese ports
India has cancelled the Chinese war on the Australian coal industry by sending out a clear message that India is firmly standing strong with its Australian friends as they continue to battle Chinese tyranny.
Moreover, India and Australia are striving to devise ways to intensify their co-operation in mining and coal sector.
China’s tyranny is nearing its screeching end at its leader Xi Jinping is the one to be blamed for the ‘great fall of China’.
What's not to like in that?
Not at all. He simply illustrated how you lie by only looking at one side of the coin, telling one part of the whole story. It is the favored technique of professional propagandists like FauxNews and OAN as well as extremists on the other side. They claim to be factual while spreading disinformation by telling only the part of the story that supports their agenda.
This is a blatant attempt by the Chinese gov’t to manipulate their manufacturing dominance and force Chinese companies into other markets/countries. SMH.
According to the BBC China has produced and exported more Corona virus vaccine than anybody. Far more.
Those bastards! Trying to save lives! How dare they make "the developed nations" look so bad! /s
Gotta do something with millions of already-produced doses with questionable efficacy. The Chinese government no longer wanted to use them. They finally admitted back in Apple they were on the wrong path with vaccine plans and are now pursuing the same mRNA development funded by the US government in large part and employed by Moderna and Pfizer.
"China has distributed hundreds of millions of doses of domestically made vaccines abroad and is relying on them for its own mass immunization campaign. But the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, said at a conference their efficacy rates needed improving.
“We will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates. (ie, as low as 50%) “It’s now under consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process.”
He also praised the benefits of mRNA vaccines, the technology behind the two vaccines seen as the most effective, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, months after questioning whether the then-unproven method was safe."
The Chinese weren't as great at this as you like to promote them as being George. The US had the right idea when it came to vaccine development, but it took the Chinese a year longer to realize it.
A vaccine has zero efficacy, none, nada, zip if it isn't manufactured, distributed, and used -- like those you are touting the efficacy of.
But nice try!
It was a Chinese official who said it, not me George.
LOL
Yet another fail. Keep trying though. You'll get it right eventually.
The global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have offered China an unprecedented opportunity to shore up its international image and influence by providing the world with medical aid and vaccines. Based on analysis of Chinese activities from 2020 to present, ChinaPower has identified six main features of Beijing’s “Covid-19 diplomacy”:
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations—including the desire to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones—figure prominently in Beijing’s decisions to provide medical aid or vaccines. As a result, Chinese activities have likely improved Beijing’s image and helped strengthen its relationships with countries that sought, or already enjoyed, strong relationships with China.
China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with “strings attached.” This includes Chinese requests that countries show gratitude towards Beijing and support Chinese foreign policy goals. This heavy-handed and abrasive approach has led to more criticism and growing distrust of China among many countries, especially wealthy democratic countries.
The overwhelming majority of China’s public health diplomacy has come in the form of commercial sales rather than donations. This stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to project the impression that most Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have been donated.
While the United States and many other wealthy countries have donated large quantities of vaccines to COVAX (a global initiative to promote equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines), China predominantly engages countries bilaterally to augment its bilateral influence. Only a small proportion of Chinese vaccine exports have been allocated to COVAX or other multilateral mechanisms.
Beijing has prioritized speed over quality in order to secure first-mover advantages. Concerns about the quality of Chinese medical supplies and vaccines have undercut China’s Covid-19 diplomacy.
China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns—a topic that will be covered in-depth in the next ChinaPower feature.
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
Summary
To date, China’s medical supplies and vaccine diplomacy has resulted in mixed results for Beijing in terms of its global image and influence. On the medical supplies front, countries were deeply reliant on Chinese medical supplies—especially PPE—during the pandemic. In many countries where China already had significant influence, leaders were willing to provide Beijing with the public displays of gratitude that it desired. In other countries, especially high-income countries, China’s heavy-handed approach to providing medical supplies generated frustration and complaints.
On the vaccine diplomacy front, China extracted displays of praise and support for Chinese vaccines in several countries. At the same time, China’s efforts were undercut by its decision to primarily sell rather than donate vaccines. Many of the countries most reliant on Chinese vaccines have purchased them; only a few countries have received sizable donations of vaccines. China’s vaccine diplomacy has also been limited by concerns about their efficacy, which has been exacerbated by the availability of highly effective competing vaccines.
CSIS? Chinapower?
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
Yet, here you are, commenting about biased sources, without linking your own sources, and certainly not countering any of the data in the link.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
As China enters what many economists say is the final stage of one of the largest real-estate booms in history, it is confronting a staggering bill: More than $5 trillion in debt that developers took on when times were good, according to economists at Nomura Holdings Inc.
That debt is nearly double what it was at the end of 2016 and is more than the entire economic output of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, last year.
Global markets are braced for a possible wave of defaults, with warning signs flashing over the debt of about two-fifths of development companies that have borrowed from international bond investors.
Chinese leaders are getting serious about addressing the debt, with a series of moves meant to curb excessive borrowing. But doing so without torpedoing the property market, crippling more developers and derailing the country’s economy is quickly turning into one of the biggest economic challenges Chinese leaders have faced in years, and one that could reverberate globally if mismanaged.
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
You are biased because you are, well, biased. You openly admit to it. You lose credibility as a result. You live with that and it's your call. You are fine with that and so am I.
I don't need to counter post examples of anything. I simply reminded readers that the goals of CSIS are clear and the actual content of the quoted information is simply a reflection of standard government policy of nations in a position to exert power.
Literally every one of the 6 points presented could be turned on its head and fired back at the US for example (or any other nation with power to exert).
1. Political and strategic calculations? Really? Strengthen image and forge relationships? Is point one only there to state the obvious?
2. 'strings attached' and 'heavy handed' diplomacy? That is literally the Trump Way! But not only the extreme version of Trump. The US has a very long history using such tactics.
3. Public health diplomacy, projected image and commercial sales versus donations? Remind me of the US public health diplomacy and the influence of the US pharma industry and image projection.
4. Bilateral vs Multilateral engagement? It's not a case of either or. Governments take both approaches depending on need and in line with policy goals.
5. Speed vs Quality for first mover advantage? Remind me of point 1 again. Of course! Strategic calculations. Surely that couldn't explain it, could it? Not unlike the invasion of Iraq is it? If that wasn't a case of speed over quality, then what is? But again. It was a strategic calculation.
6. Aggressive information and disinformation campaigns? Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
Can you see why counter examples aren't necessary here?
You gave six points of standard practice, universally applied, foreign policy actuations but tried to pin them on China and show those actions in bad light to a Covid 19 backdrop.
Why not take a look at how the US has handled COVID-19 on a national and international level. All the way from trying to 'buy' already purchased PPE freight destined for other countries on the tarmac at airports to its shenanigans with regards to the WHO through to side stepping 'diplomacy' in its entirety by labelling COVID-19 the China Virus.
What I'm saying here is that no one will come up smelling of roses when the carpet is finally lifted. Considering this has been the first true pandemic of the century, you would expect huge problems to crop up and they have, but they are common to all the dominant powers. They are not unique to one.
What is shocking is how unprepared the world was in spite of knowing this was coming and having had plenty of close shaves in recent decades.
In 1999 I listened to a panel of world renowned virologists describe this century as the Century of the Virus.
Very little was done to prepare for what we have just been through, and we are just two decades in.
However, that lack of preparedness was not really nation specific but pretty much across the board.
Typical deflection technique that you have demonstrated. Rather than arguing facts about the PRC vaccine diplomacy, and whether it has in fact been successful and beneficial to the PRC, my opinion is that it has been detrimental, you resort to whataboutism.
dailykos is a political forum populated by liberals and progressives, to elect more and better democrats. Ecological, and human rights, bias is a given.
India snatches Australian coal right from under China’s nose, imports shipments stranded at Chinese ports
India has cancelled the Chinese war on the Australian coal industry by sending out a clear message that India is firmly standing strong with its Australian friends as they continue to battle Chinese tyranny.
Moreover, India and Australia are striving to devise ways to intensify their co-operation in mining and coal sector.
China’s tyranny is nearing its screeching end at its leader Xi Jinping is the one to be blamed for the ‘great fall of China’.
What's not to like in that?
Not at all. He simply illustrated how you lie by only looking at one side of the coin, telling one part of the whole story. It is the favored technique of professional propagandists like FauxNews and OAN as well as extremists on the other side. They claim to be factual while spreading disinformation by telling only the part of the story that supports their agenda.
LOL!
You must be looking in the mirror.
Hardly, but tell yourself that nonsense if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Comments
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-covid-medical-vaccine-diplomacy/
Such a wonderful Government, the PRC is; always looking out for its best interests.
That isn't really a balanced source to play in anything with regards to China in the sense that CSIS exists to promote US interest and influence policy.
It might as well be a direct feed on US foreign policy from the White House when it comes to China.
No problem with that. They are usually up front and basically factual but that doesn't make it a very good source in this case.
As for what you are highlighting here. There is nothing to see. Quite literally.
This is how things work when it comes to foreign policy just about eveywhere anyone has 'power' to wield.
If you want to dispute the date, fine, link to counterexamples.
Of note, I provided a number of links here in these forums early in the pandemic, about how China diaspora were buying up PPE throughout the world, which ultimately created shortages for those countries a short time later. That's fair capitalism, I suppose, but ultimately, it doesn't help the PRC, does it?
There are a number of articles out now about China peaking economically, and while the evidence is not fully developed, it is accurate to state that China's economy will never again grow at the rates that it has in the past. The PRC has shot its wad on infrastructure, and given that Chinese Citizens are not allowed to invest outside of China, they have invested in housing, and created a bubble, which is in fact becoming well known world wide, with some stating that the PRC is looking at $5T losses.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beyond-evergrande-chinas-property-market-faces-a-5-trillion-reckoning-11633882048
But of course, I'm biased because I actually use the internet as intended; to find information about the world.
I don't need to counter post examples of anything. I simply reminded readers that the goals of CSIS are clear and the actual content of the quoted information is simply a reflection of standard government policy of nations in a position to exert power.
Literally every one of the 6 points presented could be turned on its head and fired back at the US for example (or any other nation with power to exert).
1. Political and strategic calculations? Really? Strengthen image and forge relationships? Is point one only there to state the obvious?
2. 'strings attached' and 'heavy handed' diplomacy? That is literally the Trump Way! But not only the extreme version of Trump. The US has a very long history using such tactics.
3. Public health diplomacy, projected image and commercial sales versus donations? Remind me of the US public health diplomacy and the influence of the US pharma industry and image projection.
4. Bilateral vs Multilateral engagement? It's not a case of either or. Governments take both approaches depending on need and in line with policy goals.
5. Speed vs Quality for first mover advantage? Remind me of point 1 again. Of course! Strategic calculations. Surely that couldn't explain it, could it? Not unlike the invasion of Iraq is it? If that wasn't a case of speed over quality, then what is? But again. It was a strategic calculation.
6. Aggressive information and disinformation campaigns? Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
Can you see why counter examples aren't necessary here?
You gave six points of standard practice, universally applied, foreign policy actuations but tried to pin them on China and show those actions in bad light to a Covid 19 backdrop.
Why not take a look at how the US has handled COVID-19 on a national and international level. All the way from trying to 'buy' already purchased PPE freight destined for other countries on the tarmac at airports to its shenanigans with regards to the WHO through to side stepping 'diplomacy' in its entirety by labelling COVID-19 the China Virus.
What I'm saying here is that no one will come up smelling of roses when the carpet is finally lifted. Considering this has been the first true pandemic of the century, you would expect huge problems to crop up and they have, but they are common to all the dominant powers. They are not unique to one.
What is shocking is how unprepared the world was in spite of knowing this was coming and having had plenty of close shaves in recent decades.
In 1999 I listened to a panel of world renowned virologists describe this century as the Century of the Virus.
Very little was done to prepare for what we have just been through, and we are just two decades in.
However, that lack of preparedness was not really nation specific but pretty much across the board.
WRT China Power outages;
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/11/2057350/-China-s-cities-begin-to-darken-as-climate-change-enhanced-rainfall-floods-coal-mines
BTW;
dailykos is a political forum populated by liberals and progressives, to elect more and better democrats. Ecological, and human rights, bias is a given.
https://tfiglobalnews.com/2021/10/03/india-cancels-chinas-ban-on-australian-coal-by-importing-shipments-stranded-on-chinese-ports/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
What's not to like in that?
Not at all. He simply illustrated how you lie by only looking at one side of the coin, telling one part of the whole story. It is the favored technique of professional propagandists like FauxNews and OAN as well as extremists on the other side. They claim to be factual while spreading disinformation by telling only the part of the story that supports their agenda.
No vaccine works if it is not manufactured, distributed and injected.
You must be looking in the mirror.
Hardly, but tell yourself that nonsense if it makes you feel better about yourself.