China and America, as the two current hegemons, are inevitably cast on adversarial sides. That's the neat story. Plenty still remain enamoured with the sound-bitey Thucydides Trap, a notion built on such shoddy selection bias that it reeks of Bronze Age thinking. But peel away the rhetoric and the bluster, and Chinese and Americans are very similar peoples: Both are enterprising and pragmatic, respect hard work, and chase prosperity. They are also so thoroughly capitalistic that in either country, every rule is quickly examined for its arbitrage. (I know this from decades on both sides, with as many American friends as Chinese) Both modern nations were forged in revolt against empire, and both began with a genuine streak of idealism. And on both sides, the quality of people varies enormously. The smartest and the dumbest people I know are American. In the crowded field of China punditry, some Americans who have lived there for decades understand our own story better than many of us do. Yet, as ever, the loudest pundits tend to be the least informed. certainly no meritocratic filter on the megaphone. If we refrain from the easy temptation to bicker for a moment, we can stay on the cosier end of the frenemyship. And perhaps China can even help mediate the American-Canadian relationship!

Classifying China as an Emerging Market has been anachronistic for years. When is the laggard industry going to catch up? And MSCI still keeping China in the EM index basically forces every EM portfolio to carry oversized single-country exposure and undercuts any real diversification.

On the surface, matching tariffs dollar for dollar looks tough: 3/4 of everything Canada exports goes to the US, and those goods account for about 1/5 of Canadian economy. The same trade is only worth about 1% of America’s. But Canada is a great middle power whose advantage lies in having flexible, polyamorous relations. China can pick up the slack and blunt the bite of those tariffs. It’s been going in that direction - the new Pacific pipeline, ginger steps on Chinese EVs, more canola exports etc. However, opportunistic volumes are not true diversification. With the weight of experience, Canada needs a supply-side shift that treats China as a long-term partner. Such structural change is hard and politically cumbersome. It still has to be done. Start by scrapping the EV restrictions which is largely protectionist of American interests. Build Chinese auto factories instead. Take in Chinese machinery and parts (which are the top US-Canada trade), expand Pacific routes, and buy Great Wall wine. Today is the chance to discuss a free-ish trade agreement. Quit the virtue signalling that always ends up in fruitless bickering. What actually matters is mutual prosperity.

Fifa and Olympics are really the only two events that can make the whole world stop and watch together. Fifa gets State-status, and every country genuflects to its officials, who are theoretically the staffers of a Swiss NGO. Pretty much unchecked powers. Perhaps it’s one situation where they have even enough power to go beyond profit and afford to be idealistic. Create, just for those short weeks, a utopian occasion. Don’t sell tickets. Give them all by lottery. So no tiered seats and no bragging rights on how much one pays. Let the fans go in, drop ego at the door, and just enjoy the Game in happy rivalry!

Fourteen years since we last spoke. Your face is still distinct in the photos I revisit, your hair still black. Time has made our status quo quotidian and each Mother's Day seem a little less stormy. I cycle through the set scenes we have. The walk-up in Dalian, where you completed your first book, only for me to destroy the floppy disks. You rewrote without reproach. The flat in Beijing, where you sat up all night to finish my Lego, Air Tech Claw Rig, 1992, because I could not forgive you for leaving. By morning your eyes were bloodshot. Our earthworm site in the Sea, where you sat and watched as Ba dug. The lily pond in Beidaihe, where we lapped around with Laolao, and marched as we sang. Then falling into you, after a homesick month and eighty-seven unanswered emails at boarding school. Your world stills and mine moves. Each day of your absence adds to the weight of iniquity. What you have endured has surpassed 黑眉爷, and is catching up to 白眉爷, who each walked their own long march to exoneration. Let the world have its capricious judgements. As you told me: as long as I know the truth, it is ok.

I must say, I am genuinely surprised. Compared with the hesitant silence we have often seen in the past, Japan's decision to issue a direct and public counter-response this morning to China's letter at the United Nations is unexpected. I have read Ambassador Yamazaki's letter carefully. While the document is tidy and follows diplomatic conventions, there is substantial room for improvement, logically, historically, and legally. I studied China-US-Japan relations at Stanford for three years, and have conducted extensive archival research in multiple presidential libraries such as FDR, Nixon and Reagan, where I handled original correspondence between Japanese leaders, US presidents, and White House memos. I also reviewed a large volume of primary documents at Hoover and in Taipei. My Stanford thesis focused on the Ryukyu and Diaoyu disputes and was published in the leading Chinese studies journal of the United States. Let me, as a serious IR scholar rigorously trained in this field, respond point by point. 1. If Japan is truly "exclusively defense-oriented," why deploy military assets to the Taiwan Strait? Japan repeatedly claims its defense posture is strictly defensive. But if Japanese Self-Defense Force vessels can cross national boundaries and operate in the Taiwan Strait, then: "Defense" becomes "projection." This fundamental contradiction is never explained in the letter. It is not simply a question of where a ship travels, but a question of how Japan justifies extraterritorial military deployments under the framework of a supposedly passive defense doctrine. 2. Japan's rapid remilitarization: still "self-defense"? Over the past decade, Japan has taken major steps: -Defense spending at new highs, placing the country among the world's top ten -Acquisition of "counterstrike capability (in reality, long-range strike capability)" -The 2015 Security Legislation enabling collective self-defense, a major constitutional controversy -Increasing military presence oriented toward Taiwan -Deepened operational integration with the United States A fundamental question arises: Did the 2015 reinterpretation of collective self-defense violate Japan's Constitution? Many constitutional scholars in Japan say yes. Ambassador Yamazaki avoids this entirely, while speaking at length about "international law." But he should also note Japan's domestic legal inconsistencies are far more serious. 3. Since Ambassador Yamazaki cites the 1972 Joint Communique, let's review what it actually says. In the statement, the Japanese government declares its adherence to Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation, which states that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." The Cairo Declaration of 1943, jointly issued by the major Allied leaders, explicitly stipulated: "All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." Under international law, states, not governments, are the subjects of sovereignty. Governments merely represent the state. After 1949, the People's Republic of China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (ROC) and succeeded to its corresponding rights and obligations. Since the Ambassador presents Japan as a country that respects and upholds the authority of the United Nations so much, let's remind him of what was affirmed by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758: "Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council." Therefore, Japan's statement that it adheres to Article 8 of Potsdam is, in effect, confirmation that Taiwan belongs to China, and indirectly confirms that Taiwan falls within the sovereignty of the PRC. I encourage the Ambassador to address all relevant clauses, not just the ones that suit his narrative. 4. Peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question? Japan must first examine its own policies. I, like many others, sincerely hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. But if certain Japanese politicians threaten military intervention, and mislead the Japanese public by framing such actions as "cool" or "righteous" to boost their approval ratings, then how exactly can peace be achieved? I FEEL worried. Japan's actions contradict its rhetoric. You cannot escalate military posture while preaching "de-escalation," Mr. Ambassador. 5. Accusing China of "stifling" people-to-people exchanges? This claim is puzzling I honestly fail to see the evidence. In the past few years, China has repeatedly funded youth exchange programs, covering airfare, accommodation, and all activities for young Japanese to visit China. I myself have been invited many times to speak with Japanese youth participants and made some really good friends. China has taken such active steps to encourage next-generation understanding. So what, then, is being "restricted"? Could Ambassador Yamazaki provide a concrete example? I am willing to investigate it personally and respond. Also, I genuinely want to know if Japan provides a similar opportunity for Chinese? 6. On Japanese fishery products: refusing imports is not "coercion" The discharge of treated water from Fukushima remains controversial. Many Japanese citizens themselves avoid Fukushima products too. Every sovereign state has the right to maintain food-safety standards. China is simply exercising its consumer rights. Is Japan demanding compulsory acceptance of its products? A deeply flawed argument. 7. Has Japan never taken coercive action against states with differing views? Japan itself: -Joined US export-control measures against China -Imposed screening and restrictions on Chinese enterprises -Engaged in political pressure campaigns in regional security forums If Japan cannot faithfully answer whether it has ever applied pressure on others, then its claimed stance of opposing coercion lacks credibility. 8. Since Mr. Ambassador emphasizes respect for international law, then two questions must be answered: -Japan's status as a defeated state matters The post-1945 international order clearly assigned Taiwan to China. No international legal instrument grants Japan any role in the Taiwan question. -Was the "reversion of Okinawa" fully compliant with international law? Okinawa was originally designated for United Nations trusteeship after WWII. Japan seemingly bypassed the intended framework. If Japan invokes international law, it should explain the legality of its own postwar territorial processes. 9. A country that consistently denies wartime history cannot claim moral leadership in peace A truly peace-loving nation does not: -Deny historical atrocities -Embrace revisionist narratives -Allow its politicians to visit Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines Class-A war criminals. If this is considered a contribution to peace, then the word "peace" is being used in a rather creative sense. Japan has yet to resolve these issues. It is therefore difficult for Japan to position itself as role model of peace in the region, or in the UN. Tone matters, but facts matter more. I welcome Japan speaking openly in the United Nations. But open statements must accept open responses, grounded in international law, historical documents, policy consistency, regional realities. Rhetoric cannot substitute for facts. Domestic reinterpretations cannot replace international consensus. Unhalted march toward military normalization cannot count as pursuit of peace. Perhaps the research intern who drafted the letter deserves a second look, Ambassador Yamazaki.

Several friends have sent me this article by @Lingling_Wei so I’ll give my two cents. I agree, American socialism isn’t Chinese socialism. But I’d go further. I’ve always found it inadequate to describe China using what amounts to 20th century western political vocabulary. They don’t fit, because we’ve had our own wholly distinct political evolution over millennia. Our “total, centralised, one-party control” isn’t “socialism” manifested, but the product of our own trajectory. The massive centralised bureaucracy traces back to the Han dynasty. It’s not a socialist invention. We discovered long ago that it is necessary, for when we were decentralised, we tend to end up in the throes of chaos. The idea that communal/state interest supersedes the individual’s has long been the accepted norm, consistent with Confucian philosophy - 大义over小义. (I don’t agree with this, merely noting the provenance.) If one must assign China an “ism”, it ought to be PRAGMATISM. It’s obviously not communism - we ran that experiment, endured the carnage, and emerged with a rather informed opinion on the subject. And though we’ve kept the name, I’ve been taught that the singular motivation of the first CCP revolutionaries was to create prosperity, not to implement communism per se. Anyway, China has been debating matters of statecraft, legitimacy, and the accountability of powers since the warring states period. There’s much to be said about how our political history has evolved - and it remains an ongoing process. But when I hear people judging China based solely on western frameworks, I have to respectively push back. It’s like critiquing Peking Opera as if it were a Broadway musical.

Since my prep school days in England, I’d worn the poppy around Remembrance Day. But as the only Mainland Chinese, I used to wonder, what was the relevance for me? So I learned. In WWI, 140,000 Chinese workers braved perilous journeys to join the British and French on the European frontlines. They cleared mines, dug trenches, and built roads. But it was a thankless sacrifice, for the Treaty of Versailles ceded German-held Chinese territory to Japan. The sting of betrayal sparked the May Fourth Movement of 1919, which inspired the next generation of revolutionaries. In WWII, we lost 20 million - more than the entire European theatre minus the Soviets. But the December Ninth Movement of 1935 brought a fractured nation together. Reds and blues stood shoulder to shoulder, joined by Americans too. And so, beyond thanking the veterans, lest we forget: whether through betrayal or alliance, our fates remain intertwined. We'll have our chip sanctions and trade spats, but what we share will always outweigh what separates us.