Home Posts Page | TB Online Nachrichte

Why Did India Stay Stable After British Rule While Myanmar Fell Into Civil War?

East Asia

Tendenzblick

-

January 10, 2025

Why Did India Stay Stable After British Rule While Myanmar Fell Into Civil War?

India and Myanmar, two countries with deep civilizational roots and diverse populations, share the historical experience of British colonial rule. Yet despite this common origin, the paths they have taken since achieving independence in the mid-20th century have diverged sharply.

India has managed to build a relatively stable and functioning democratic state, whereas Myanmar has remained locked in recurring cycles of civil war and authoritarian rule. This divergence is not the result of a single cause but rather a complex interplay of ethnic demographics, religious dynamics, the structural legacy of colonial governance, the processes of state-building, and the influence of external powers in the post-independence period.

Both countries are characterized by intricate ethnic mosaics, but the nature of their demographic compositions has had profoundly different political consequences.

India, though home to hundreds of ethnic and linguistic communities, has a demographic structure in which the Hindustani-speaking population forms a substantial and influential plurality, accounting for approximately 46.3% of the population. This group’s relative concentration has enabled it to form a cultural and political core around which a broader sense of national identity has been constructed. The dominant group’s language, values, and customs have achieved partial standardization across national institutions, providing a measure of cultural cohesion.

While India certainly faces regionalism, linguistic divisions, and caste-based inequalities, the existence of a large and relatively centralized ethnic bloc has enabled the state to contain these tensions without descending into widespread separatist conflict. The constitutional framework allows for a measure of regional autonomy and political pluralism, which has functioned as a safety valve for diverse demands.

Myanmar’s ethnic landscape, by contrast, is highly fragmented and lacks a comparable integrative core. Although the Bamar majority makes up roughly 68% of the population, the remaining 32% is divided among 134 officially recognized ethnic minority groups, many of which are concentrated in distinct and often remote geographical regions. Each with their own languages, religious practices, historical identities, and in many cases, armed militias.

Under colonial rule, these minority regions were governed separately from the Bamar heartland and given a degree of autonomy that encouraged the development of parallel political structures. As a result, these communities entered independence with a sense of distinct nationhood and political separateness. Unlike India, which successfully absorbed regional and ethnic variation into a federal democratic framework, Myanmar’s post-independence governments—dominated by Burman elites—pursued centralization and often exclusionary nationalist policies. The failure to accommodate ethnic aspirations through institutional mechanisms fueled distrust and led to protracted armed resistance, creating a landscape in which the state has never fully consolidated its territorial sovereignty.

Religious composition and the relationship between religion and state power further compound these differences. India, despite being a majority-Hindu country, institutionalized secularism as a foundational principle of its post-independence constitution. This commitment to secular governance was not merely symbolic; it played a substantive role in shaping policy and managing religious diversity. Minority religions such as Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism were granted equal rights under the law, and religious freedom was constitutionally protected. Though India has experienced periodic outbreaks of sectarian violence—most notably between Hindu and Muslim communities—these conflicts have generally remained localized and have been mediated by both legal institutions and civil society actors.

Furthermore, Hinduism’s inherently pluralistic character and deep cultural entrenchment have allowed for a certain level of symbolic unity even amid religious diversity. State intervention, particularly in moments of tension, often involves deploying security forces to sensitive areas, regulating public religious expression to prevent escalation, and encouraging interfaith dialogue. These measures, while not always sufficient, have helped to sustain a broad—if imperfect—framework for coexistence.

In Myanmar, religion has become an aggravating rather than a mediating factor in the country’s deep divisions. Although around 88% of the population adheres to Theravada Buddhism, religious identity is closely intertwined with ethnicity, and non-Buddhist communities are disproportionately represented among ethnic minorities. Unlike India’s secular framework, the Myanmar state has promoted a form of Buddhist nationalism that has marginalized religious minorities and contributed to a sense of exclusion and alienation. Religious differences reinforce ethnic separatism and deepen the mistrust between minority communities and the state. The result is a combustible combination of ethnic and religious grievance that has become a persistent driver of conflict.

Colonial legacies also played a critical role in shaping post-independence trajectories. In India, British colonial rule—while deeply exploitative—nonetheless created administrative, infrastructural, and legal institutions that facilitated a measure of national integration. The development of a railway network, postal services, and telegraph lines enabled better connectivity between regions. Moreover, the British emphasis on English-language education produced a class of elites with modern administrative training and international outlooks. After independence, these individuals were instrumental in drafting a comprehensive constitution that enshrined democratic governance, civil liberties, and federalism. India’s constitutional assembly was a model of inclusive negotiation, involving representatives from a wide array of social, religious, and political backgrounds. The resulting constitutional framework struck a balance between national unity and regional autonomy, establishing a federal structure that allowed states to preserve their linguistic and cultural identities while participating in a unified national system. This compromise has endured despite significant political, economic, and social challenges.

By contrast, the British approach in Myanmar was more fragmented and short-term in orientation. The colonial administration deliberately divided the country into Ministerial Burma and the Frontier Areas, governing them under separate legal and administrative systems. This divide-and-rule strategy fostered deep divisions between the Bamar majority and the peripheral ethnic groups, who were often recruited into colonial armed forces as a counterweight to Bamar nationalism.

Economically, British policies deepened regional inequalities. In some northern and eastern regions, the British encouraged monoculture cash crops or opium cultivation for export, disrupting local economies and social structures. By the time Myanmar gained independence in 1948, the country lacked a unified administrative system or a shared political culture capable of supporting national integration. Ethnic minorities, accustomed to relative autonomy, were unwilling to submit to Bamar-dominated central rule, and successive governments failed to establish the legitimacy necessary for effective governance across the country. The result was a fractured postcolonial state, vulnerable to both internal insurrection and military authoritarianism.

The international environment further influenced these divergent outcomes. During the Cold War, India adopted a policy of non-alignment, positioning itself as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. This strategic autonomy earned India diplomatic respect across ideological blocs and helped it avoid becoming a battleground for proxy wars.

While both the United States and the Soviet Union sought influence in India, they largely did so through diplomacy, trade, and aid rather than direct intervention. India’s large population, strategic location, and economic potential made its stability a shared interest for many powers, which discouraged external support for separatist movements or insurgencies. This relative insulation from geopolitical interference enabled India to focus on internal development and institutional consolidation without the added pressure of great-power conflict.

Myanmar, on the other hand, has been far more exposed to geopolitical manipulation. Its location at the intersection of South and Southeast Asia, combined with its vast natural resources—including timber, jade, and natural gas—has made it a strategic prize for regional and global powers. Neighboring countries have frequently intervened, either overtly or covertly, to support ethnic insurgent groups or to secure access to resources and strategic corridors. For instance, some bordering nations have provided safe havens, logistical support, or financial assistance to ethnic armed groups operating near their territories, both to exert influence and to contain instability from spilling across borders. The result is a highly internationalized internal conflict, in which various factions are sustained not only by local grievances but also by foreign interests. This has made national reconciliation even more difficult and has entrenched a pattern of militarized politics, resource-driven conflict, and fragmented authority.

The endurance of India’s democratic framework, its institutional commitment to pluralism, and its capacity to absorb diversity through negotiated constitutionalism have allowed it to maintain relative unity and stability.

Myanmar, hindered by a fractured colonial inheritance, ethnonationalist governance, religious exclusion, and persistent foreign interference, has struggled to build a coherent and inclusive state.

Source: Daily Mail, the Irrawaddy, BBC, indiafacts, the new yorker

Why Did Hong Kong Fall in 18 Days? The Untold Story of British Defeat and Japanese Strategy in World War II

POLITIK

Tendenzblick

-

January 7, 2025

0

Why Did Hong Kong Fall in 18 Days? The Untold Story of British Defeat and Japanese Strategy in World War II

Hong Kong, often referred to as the Pearl of the Orient, experienced a devastating blow during World War II when Japanese forces occupied the city in a mere 18 days. This rapid collapse raises a perplexing question: why did a colony that had been under British administration and development for nearly a hundred years fall so swiftly to the Japanese army? Understanding this requires a close examination of the strategic, diplomatic, and military factors that converged in December 1941 to produce one of the shortest and most decisive campaigns in the Pacific theater.

The roots of Hong Kong’s vulnerability can be traced back to the early 20th century and the diplomatic agreements that constrained British military expansion in the region. The most consequential of these was the Five-Power Naval Treaty, signed in 1922 by the United States, Britain, France, Japan, and Italy. One of the treaty’s key provisions prohibited the construction of new naval bases or fortifications by Britain in its Pacific territories east of the 110th meridian, which included Hong Kong. This clause severely restricted British military flexibility.

Prior to the treaty, Britain had full autonomy over its colonial defenses and could develop Hong Kong’s military infrastructure according to its own strategic priorities. After the treaty, however, Britain was compelled to respect the new balance of naval power in the Pacific, effectively halting any significant expansion or modernization of Hong Kong’s defenses. As Japan rapidly militarized and expanded its sphere of influence across East Asia in the 1930s, Hong Kong remained effectively frozen in time, its fortifications outdated, and its defense plans increasingly obsolete.

While Britain was constrained diplomatically and militarily, Japan prepared meticulously for war. Long before launching their attack, the Japanese military began shaping the battlefield through strategic and covert measures. In early 1939, Japan occupied Hainan Island, completing the encirclement of Hong Kong from the south. This move allowed Japanese forces to establish a strong forward position, from which they could launch attacks or disrupt British supply lines. At the same time, Japanese bombers targeted nearby areas such as Zhuhai and Shenzhen, weakening regional resistance and psychologically pressuring the British.

In addition to military positioning, the Japanese undertook extensive covert operations within Hong Kong itself. Japanese intelligence agencies quietly set up a network of spies and informants throughout the city, many of whom were recruited from local secret societies and triads. These collaborators facilitated the smuggling of weapons, sabotaged British infrastructure, and spread disinformation. This internal subversion not only weakened British authority from within but also gave the Japanese detailed knowledge of British troop deployments, fortification positions, and vulnerabilities. By the time the invasion began, the Japanese military had a remarkably detailed map of Hong Kong’s defense network.

Japan’s military planning was equally comprehensive. As early as December 1939, the Japanese General Staff had formulated a complete operational plan for the invasion of Hong Kong. This plan called for the Japanese Air Force to first destroy British air and naval assets in the territory, after which the Japanese 23rd Army and its 38th Division would launch a ground assault from the Peninsula Kowloon. The plan also included contingencies for cutting off Hong Kong’s water supply and isolating the colony to prevent reinforcements or resupply. Every aspect of the assault was carefully thought out, including how to handle local resistance and how to use air superiority to dominate the battle from the outset.

In contrast, British preparations were slow, limited, and often reactionary. Although British authorities were aware of Japan’s growing threat, their strategic posture toward Hong Kong remained ambivalent. Diplomatic pressure from China led Britain to begin modest defensive improvements in 1939, including the recruitment of local Hong Kong residents into volunteer defense units. Aerial reconnaissance missions over Japanese positions in places such as Humen and the Wanshan Archipelago were initiated in late 1940. Still, the overall approach lacked urgency and seriousness. British command remained focused on Europe, particularly with the looming threat of Nazi Germany. Hong Kong, geographically isolated and politically peripheral in British strategic calculations, was treated more as a symbolic possession than a fortress to be defended at all costs.

This attitude was evident in Britain’s operational goals for Hong Kong, which were not centered on defending the city outright, but rather on denying its use to the Japanese. The British military’s official position was to prevent the Japanese from using Hong Kong’s harbor as much as possible. This passive and limited objective reflected the deeper strategic ambiguity in London. Unlike the Soviet Union’s fanatical defense of Stalingrad, where soldiers and civilians were ordered to fight to the last man, Britain’s plan for Hong Kong was based on an acceptance of eventual defeat. British forces were expected to hold out as long as possible, perhaps to buy time or slow down Japanese advances, but there was no serious expectation of ultimate victory.

Despite these limitations, when war broke out, Japan committed overwhelming force to ensure the success of its invasion. While on other fronts, such as in China, the Japanese army often relied on technological superiority rather than numerical advantage, in Hong Kong they deployed both. Nearly all the Japanese 38th Division was committed to the battle, supported by substantial elements of the 23rd Army. Naval forces included the 2nd China Fleet, as well as special base units stationed in Guangdong and Xiamen. These forces brought with them a formidable array of warships, including a light cruiser, multiple destroyers, gunboats, torpedo boats, and over 300 marines. Japan’s air power was equally strong, featuring dozens of bombers, fighter aircraft, and reconnaissance planes. Perhaps most decisively, the Japanese army deployed eight large caliber 240mm howitzers, which provided devastating artillery support during the assault.

The British garrison in Hong Kong, by comparison, was modest. Totaling just over 14,000 troops, the force was composed of approximately 2,600 British regulars, 3,350 Indian soldiers, 750 Chinese troops, and over 1,700 local volunteers. The British naval presence was comparable in number to Japan’s but lacked modern vessels and support infrastructure. The air force in Hong Kong was particularly underwhelming, consisting mostly of outdated or repurposed civilian seaplanes with limited combat capability. In short, the defenders were outnumbered, outgunned, and already compromised by enemy intelligence.

The battle began on December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japanese aircraft swiftly gained air superiority by destroying British air defenses. The Japanese 38th Division launched a coordinated attack on Kowloon under the cover of heavy artillery fire. Although British and volunteer forces resisted bravely, the defenses crumbled after five days of intense fighting. Kowloon was fully occupied by December 13. With the mainland portion of the colony secured, the Japanese turned their attention to Hong Kong Island.

On December 18, the Japanese executed a landing operation. Employing a strategic deception, they staged a feint in the south of the island to divert British forces, while the actual landing occurred in the north, in areas such as North Point and Taikoo, which were poorly defended. Although Indian troops and British tanks mounted a counterattack, Japanese forces quickly overwhelmed the defenders and established a beachhead. The British responded by shelling landing areas and sinking some Japanese transport vessels, temporarily slowing their advance. However, the Japanese troops already ashore pressed forward and captured key command centers, dealing a serious blow to British coordination.

From December 20 onward, the British conducted a determined defense across more than 140 fortified positions. Despite the unclear and defeatist tone from high command, individual officers and troops fought with remarkable courage. Fierce battles erupted in various districts of Hong Kong Island, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides. Nonetheless, the Japanese gradually advanced, exploiting their artillery, air power, and control of local infrastructure. With no prospect of reinforcement, and with water and ammunition supplies dwindling, the defenders’ situation became increasingly hopeless. On December 25, 1941—now known as Black Christmas—the British formally surrendered.

It is worth emphasizing that, despite the strategic disadvantages and lack of preparation, British and local forces managed to inflict over 2,000 casualties on the Japanese. This speaks to the fighting spirit and resilience of the defenders. However, had Britain approached the defense of Hong Kong with the same seriousness as it did during the Battle of Britain, the outcome might have been very different. If the restrictions of the Five-Power Naval Treaty had been challenged or ignored, if modern fortifications had been constructed in time, if a detailed combat plan had been established well in advance, and if the Royal Navy had made efforts to reinforce and resupply the garrison during the battle, Hong Kong might not have fallen so quickly—or at all.

In the end, Hong Kong’s rapid fall was the result of diplomatic constraints, strategic neglect, superior Japanese planning, and overwhelming force. The 18-day campaign was not simply a testament to Japanese strength, but also a reflection of British hesitation, underestimation, and a defensive doctrine shaped more by politics than by the realities of war.

Source: CGTN, Guancha, South China Morning Post

Anti-Fascism, American Hegemony, and China’s Civilizational Rise

Uncategorized

Tendenzblick

-

January 3, 2025

0

Anti-Fascism, American Hegemony, and China’s Civilizational Rise

Looking back, the war’s shadow did not vanish at the end of World War II, it merely spread into new domains. The central forces of fascism—totalitarianism, racism, militarism—continued under the attractive guise of financial hegemony. In the aftermath of military defeat, the predatory civilization did not disappear but rather evolved into a subtler, more pervasive financial totalitarianism. Capital and the state intertwined, operating a global war economy through proxies, extraterritorial law, technological monopolies, and selective democratic rhetoric that defines a world of “friends” and “foes.”

Western anti-fascist narratives obscure a troubling truth: the United States was born from genocidal colonialism, emerging as a global capitalist juggernaut that systematically exploited both its continent and the wider world. From its early decades, U.S. power manifested in a predatory capitalist order, operating like a federal bank of plunder.

During Japan’s invasion of China (1931–1945), the U.S. thrived as Japan’s chief supplier of oil, steel, technology, and finance, even as it maintained a facade of political neutrality. Only when Axis control of Eurasia threatened American trade did the U.S. invoke an anti-fascist stance, while continuing to reap profits from both world wars—profits that anchored its post-war dominance and allowed it to remake much of Eurasia into economic client states. China and the Soviet Union alone resisted this reigning order.

China’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the broader global struggle against fascism serves not merely as a historic remembrance, but as a resounding call to build and defend an integrated civilizational model that transcends predatory systems and moves toward a truly sovereign and equitable world.

Under the banner of anti-fascism, America’s financial and military apparatuses consolidated an expansionist project that reshaped global institutions. The Ryukyu Islands, once an independent kingdom, remain today under U.S.–Japanese jurisdiction, its people deprived of autonomy and cultural sovereignty—proof that predatory civilization persists in new forms. Meanwhile, globalized financial capitalism imposes its will not through open conquest but through rulemaking, technological gatekeeping, and financial manipulation.

Today, 38 percent of U.S. wealth is controlled by 1 percent of its population, and the 2024 presidential election cost over $14.7 billion—paid for largely by military, energy, tech, and financial conglomerates, many with roots in past wartime profiteering. U.S. military spending accounts for 40 percent of the global total, and over 800 foreign bases spread its power like a garrison empire. These military interventions serve to export domestic contradictions, stashing internal crises in distant territories.

Racism remains a structural pillar: external measures like sanctions and containment mirror domestic hierarchies manifest in immigration restriction and suppression of movements like Black Lives Matter. And through Silicon Valley giants and intelligence agencies—Google, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, NSA, FBI—the U.S. exerts control over global discourse, digital data, and privacy, enabling ideological suppression to support anti-communist and anti-China policies. It rejects the idea of any model where the state plays a decisive role in capital or where global solidarity, a community with a shared future for mankind, could win support.

In response to American economic dominance, the Soviet Union established its own bloc after the war, and today China rejects exploitative arrangements like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and Section 301. In turn, the U.S. deployed NATO and constructed the First Island Chain to contain Eurasia. While China and the Soviet Union endured ideological isolation, the rest of the world fell under a Cold War regime cloaked in Western-promoted freedoms and human rights.

But China, guided by millennia of civilizational continuity, forged a socialist market path to rapid industrialization and built a comprehensive industrial chain. Since the Soviet collapse, only China has remained a genuine integrated civilization capable of resisting global predation. The tariff wars provoked by the U.S. have exposed the vulnerabilities of dollar dominance and accelerated the shift toward a post-dollar world—providing fertile ground for China’s economic and financial innovations.

China now advances RMB internationalization, regional economic integration, and technological leadership—offering an alternative to dollar hegemony and advocating a system built on mutual benefit, fairness, and sovereignty. As U.S. fiscal deficits ferment inflation and domestic trust erodes, global unrest—including unrest like in Los Angeles—may foreshadow the collapse of dollar dominance. When that occurs, U.S. monopoly capital may turn inward, triggering repression, social fragmentation, and potentially civil breakdown if foreign wars no longer deliver returns.

China’s confidence is rooted not in aggression but in a long-term civilizational perspective. Its historic victory in the Korean War marked the first collective resistance to a new Western financial-fascist hegemony—a stand by China’s integrated civilization that shaped the modern world order.

Global capitalist society has passed through three major episodes of exploitation—mercantile colonization, industrial militarism, and financial globalization—each era increasingly reliant on coercion. Whenever peaceful accumulation falters, capitalism resorts to force. Yet, in the late Qing, despite suffering mercantile and military invasion, China preserved its civilization while others fell under colonial rule.

The Republic of China was a necessary bridge from imperial to modern statehood, but feudal constraints and semi-colonial subjugation prevented a full national awakening. It was only through the mass sacrifice and resistance during the War Against Japanese Fascism—costing 35 million lives—that China forged national unity and modern identity.

The Communist Party of China built on this foundation, breaking from the Kuomintang to pursue land reform, revolutionary mobilization, and sovereignty reconstruction—choices validated in decisive victory during both World War II and the subsequent civil war. Without such transformation, China would not have withstood the emerging financial-fascist coalition or achieved unprecedented global isolation of a neo fascist aggression.

Today, China channels its long civilizational lineage to propose a path beyond Western hegemony. Through asymmetric innovations—hypersonic missiles, quantum satellites, drone warfare—it challenges America’s high-cost fortress without direct confrontation. In AI and finance, China offers open-source algorithms and multipolar markets that oppose U.S. data monopolies and dollar dominance.

Taiwan’s status reflects this civilizational contest. The Golden Dome space-defense vision and past U.S. missile defense overtures represent continued technological and military encirclement. Taiwan’s alignment with U.S. systems perpetuates its colonial dependency, giving ideological cover to predatory U.S. strategy.

Ultimately, Taiwan’s return is not a conquest but a natural outcome of China’s growth—in economic scale, geopolitical reach, RMB credibility, and civilizational influence. As drift widens, voluntary reunification becomes the most practical path. Civil society in Taiwan—teachers, artists, healers, and activists—can weaken the independence apparatus through cultural integration and peaceful engagement. Recent military drills represent deterrence, not aggression, and demonstrate resolve rather than belligerence.

China’s resurgence is not merely national ambition—it is a civilizational movement rooted in 5,000 years of integration, resilience, and renewal. It faces the predatory legacy of the West not through brute force, but through sustained moral confidence, institutional innovation, and historical depth. The idea of a unified, confident, and rejuvenated China is not escapism—it is the inevitable outcome of a civilization that has shown it can survive conquest and emerge stronger.

This is not a nationalist fantasy, but a historically grounded projection of a reunited future driven by civilizational health and global evidence of a multipolar world—a world where Taiwan’s choice will reflect not coercion, but shared identity and shared destiny.

Source: Guancha, CGTN, internationaldayofpeace

National Key Technology Strategies of the United States, South Korea, and Australia

POLITIK

Tendenzblick

-

December 26, 2024

0

National Key Technology Strategies of the United States, South Korea, and Australia

In today’s rapidly evolving scientific and technological landscape, characterized by intensified geopolitical competition and accelerated industrial transformation, key technologies have become central to shaping international power dynamics, economic vitality, and national security. Since World War II, countries worldwide have acknowledged the critical role of technology in securing national interests, prompting major powers to embed science and technology priorities within their national strategies. These efforts broadly follow two paradigms: a hybrid model that integrates technology strategies into broader national innovation frameworks, and an independent model that focuses exclusively on national-level strategic deployment of key technologies.

Among the most prominent adopters of the independent model are the United States, South Korea, and Australia. Each country’s approach reflects its unique scientific foundation, economic context, and strategic imperatives, resulting in distinct national key technology strategies that exemplify three core models: technology leadership, strategic cultivation, and development-security balance.

The United States: Asserting Global Technology Leadership

As a global technological leader, the United States views maintaining supremacy in critical and emerging technologies as indispensable to its economic prosperity and national security. The 2020 National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies underscores this vision by identifying priority areas—such as artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced computing—and establishing mechanisms to manage both technological risks and opportunities.

The U.S. strategy is comprehensive, involving coordinated efforts across federal departments, promotion of STEM education, support for innovation ecosystems, and robust public-private partnerships. Importantly, the strategy features annual reviews of key technology priorities to remain adaptive in a fast-changing environment. In parallel, the U.S. prioritizes shaping global standards and governance models that align with democratic values, while strengthening alliances to protect intellectual property and supply chains. This approach reflects a dual objective: sustaining leadership in high-priority technologies while safeguarding national interests amid growing competition from strategic rivals such as China and Russia.

South Korea: Strategic Cultivation of Essential Technologies

Facing fierce international competition and recognizing gaps in source technologies critical for dominance, South Korea’s strategy focuses on the targeted cultivation and protection of national essential strategic technologies. Its 2022 strategy prioritizes technologies including semiconductors, 5G/6G communications, secondary batteries, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies, aiming to elevate South Korea to a global technological leader by 2030.

South Korea employs a nuanced classification system, dividing technologies into leading, competitive, and catching-up categories based on their current technological maturity relative to global leaders. This tiered approach enables precise allocation of resources and tailored policy interventions. The government promotes challenging R&D projects, simplifies budget processes, and fosters collaboration across universities, research institutes, and industry. Additionally, South Korea actively pursues international partnerships and standard-setting to reinforce its strategic positioning. Its model emphasizes systematic, focused technology development combined with protection mechanisms to enhance resilience against external shocks.

Australia: Balancing Development and Security

Australia’s Blueprint for Critical Technologies exemplifies a balanced strategy that acknowledges both the economic opportunities and national security risks posed by emerging technologies. Recognizing the vital role of technologies like space systems, AI, and advanced manufacturing, Australia aims to ensure supply chain security, foster innovation, and establish resilient infrastructure while managing geopolitical risks.

Australia’s approach features comprehensive measures, including regulatory reform to eliminate barriers to innovation, targeted R&D investment, and international cooperation frameworks such as AUKUS and QUAD. The strategy also emphasizes the development of national security-focused institutions like the Supply Chain Resilience Office and the University Anti-Foreign Interference Task Force to mitigate risks related to intellectual property theft and foreign influence. By integrating economic growth objectives with rigorous security assessments, Australia seeks to create a sustainable and secure technological ecosystem adaptable to evolving global challenges.

The experiences of the U.S., South Korea, and Australia reveal several key trends in national key technology strategies.

Each country identifies and updates prioritized technology areas aligned with national interests, reflecting a dynamic understanding of technological relevance amid global competition.

Effective coordination mechanisms spanning government agencies, academia, and industry are crucial to aligning R&D, commercialization, and security objectives.

Beyond innovation promotion, strategies increasingly emphasize risk assessment, supply chain security, intellectual property protection, and foreign interference mitigation.

Collaboration with allies and partners in R&D, standard setting, and supply chain management is central to sustaining competitive advantages and mitigating shared risks.

These differing yet complementary approaches illustrate how national key technology strategies are evolving to address multifaceted challenges. While the U.S. leads in technological dominance and risk mitigation, South Korea exemplifies targeted cultivation and protection of strategic capabilities, and Australia balances innovation with national security imperatives. Together, they provide valuable models for countries seeking to navigate the complexities of technological competition and safeguard their future prosperity and security.

Source: industry gov au, msit go kr, cnas, itif

Europas Lithium-Träume: Wie das Scheitern von Northvolt die entscheidende Rolle Chinas in der Branche unterstreicht

THINKVIEWS

Tendenzblick

-

December 20, 2024

0

Europas Lithium-Träume: Wie das Scheitern von Northvolt die entscheidende Rolle Chinas in der Branche unterstreicht

Am 21. November 2024 beantragte Northvolt, Europas größtes Batterieunternehmen, Insolvenzschutz. Einst als Europas letzte Hoffnung in der Lithium-Batterie-Industrie gefeiert, sah sich das Unternehmen einem intensiven Wettbewerb durch weltweit führende Unternehmen in China, Japan und Südkorea ausgesetzt, während in Europa keine nennenswerten Batterie-Produktionskapazitäten vorhanden waren.

Northvolt wurde 2016 vom ehemaligen Tesla Supply Chain Manager Peter Carlsson gegründet und konnte neben umfangreichen europäischen Subventionen fast 3 Milliarden US-Dollar von Investoren wie Volkswagen und Goldman Sachs einsammeln. Das Unternehmen verfügte einst über Aufträge von großen Autoherstellern im Wert von 55 Milliarden US-Dollar und wurde mit über 20 Milliarden US-Dollar bewertet. Trotz anfänglicher Versprechungen brach Northvolt unter einer Schuldenlast von 5,8 Milliarden US-Dollar zusammen und verfügte nur über 30 Millionen US-Dollar in bar, was kaum ausreichte, um den Betrieb für eine Woche aufrechtzuerhalten.

Das Scheitern von Northvolt ist auf Fehler in der Strategie, im operativen Geschäft und in der internen Dynamik zurückzuführen. In der Lithium-Batterie-Industrie hängt der Erfolg von der nahtlosen Integration von Fabrik, Mitarbeitern, Prozessen und Produkten ab. Northvolt scheiterte jedoch in fast jeder Hinsicht. Das Unternehmen hatte beschlossen, eine Fabrik im schwedischen Skellefteå zu bauen, um dort die umweltfreundlichsten Batterien der Welt herzustellen. Dazu sollte bis 2030 billige Wasserkraft genutzt und 50 Prozent Recyclingmaterial verwendet werden. Dies entsprach zwar den Nachhaltigkeitszielen der EU, doch der abgelegene Standort im hohen Norden stellte eine Herausforderung dar – mit harten Wintern, fehlendem Know-how vor Ort und hohen Rekrutierungskosten, die zu kulturellen und kommunikativen Barrieren und damit zu einer Verlangsamung des Fortschritts beitrugen.

Was die Ausrüstung betrifft, so war Northvolt stark auf chinesische Lieferanten angewiesen, obwohl das Unternehmen das politische Ziel verfolgte, seine Abhängigkeit von China zu verringern. Mehr als 60 % der Ausrüstungsgegenstände stammten aus China, ebenso wie 574 chinesische Ingenieure, die einen Großteil des Baus der Fabrik leiteten. Northvolt bestand jedoch darauf, die Anlagen in Schweden warten zu lassen, was zu Ineffizienzen und Unfällen führte, darunter 26 größere Zwischenfälle zwischen 2019 und 2024 – wie Brände und Austritte giftiger Gase. Diese Fehler, die häufig auf unsachgemäße Handhabung durch unerfahrene Mitarbeiter aus Europa zurückzuführen waren, führten zu nicht eingehaltenen Lieferterminen und schließlich zur Stornierung eines Auftrags von BMW im Wert von 2,2 Milliarden US-Dollar.

Erschwerend kam hinzu, dass Northvolt seinen chinesischen Lieferanten misstraute und das Management glaubte, dass die Anlagen sabotiert oder mit versteckten „Hintertüren“ versehen worden waren. Diese Verschwörungstheorien belasteten die Zusammenarbeit zusätzlich und untergruben das für den Erfolg notwendige Vertrauen und die Kooperation.

Die Insolvenz von Northvolt verdeutlicht einen entscheidenden, oft übersehenen Faktor in der Lithium-Batterie-Industrie: die Bedeutung der Zusammenarbeit in der industriellen Kette. Im komplexen Gebiet der Lithium-Batterie-Produktion wirken sich wesentliche Schritte wie Mischen, Beschichten und Wickeln direkt auf die Batteriequalität aus. Weltweit dominieren China, Japan und Südkorea den Markt für Lithium-Equipment, wobei China bei der Produktion führend ist. Im Jahr 2023 betrug der Markt für Lithium-Produktionsausrüstung in China schätzungsweise 120 Milliarden Yuan, was zwei Drittel des globalen Marktanteils ausmacht.

Chinas Vorteil liegt in seinen großen, vertikal integrierten Unternehmen, die den Großteil des Herstellungsprozesses abdecken. Mehr als 90 % der Anlagen werden lokal hergestellt, und chinesische Lithiumanlagen haben internationale Standards erreicht oder übertroffen. Dies in Verbindung mit technischem Know-how und Größe ermöglicht es chinesischen Unternehmen, wettbewerbsfähige Preise und eine verbesserte Produktionseffizienz anzubieten.

In der Vergangenheit waren Japan und Südkorea führend in der Branche und konnten sich auf frühe technologische Fortschritte stützen. Der rasche Fortschritt Chinas wurde jedoch durch die Inlandsnachfrage nach Elektronik und Fahrzeugen mit alternativen Antrieben sowie durch eine starke Zusammenarbeit in der gesamten Industriekette vorangetrieben. Seit 2013 haben lokale Zulieferer ausländisches Know-how genutzt, um ihre eigenen Technologien weiterzuentwickeln, was zu Geräten geführt hat, die den wachsenden Anforderungen des Marktes für Elektrofahrzeuge und Unterhaltungselektronik gerecht werden.

Chinas Lithiumindustrie verdankt ihr Wachstum zu einem großen Teil der Zusammenarbeit zwischen vorgelagerten Ausrüstungslieferanten und nachgelagerten Herstellern. Ein wichtiges Beispiel ist Wuxi Lead Intelligent Equipment Co, Ltd (LEAD), das sich von einem kleinen Hersteller von Kondensatorausrüstungen zu einem führenden Unternehmen in der Produktion von Ausrüstungen für Lithiumbatterien entwickelt hat. Ursprünglich auf das Wickeln von Kondensatoren spezialisiert, überwand LEAD technische Hürden und entwickelte eine automatische Wickelmaschine. Dieser Erfolg führte zur Expansion in die Produktion von Lithiumbatterieausrüstungen, wo das Unternehmen zu einem wichtigen Lieferanten für CATL, Chinas führenden Batteriehersteller, wurde.

Bis 2018 hatte LEAD einen Anteil von 60 % am inländischen Markt für Wickelmaschinen, wobei ein erheblicher Teil des Umsatzes von CATL stammte. Diese langfristige Partnerschaft hat nicht nur die Technologien beider Unternehmen verbessert, sondern auch ihre Position als Weltmarktführer gefestigt. Die Fähigkeit von LEAD, die strengen Leistungsanforderungen von Unternehmen wie Panasonic zu erfüllen, das Tesla mit Batterien beliefert, zeigt die Stärke dieser Zusammenarbeit.

LEAD ist international expandiert, um die Expansion von CATL im Ausland zu unterstützen, und hat mit der Eröffnung des ersten CATL-Werks im Ausland im deutschen Bundesland Thüringen im Januar 2023 einen wichtigen Meilenstein erreicht. Diese 14-GWh-Anlage beliefert große europäische Automobilhersteller wie BMW und Daimler. LEAD lieferte wichtige Produktionsanlagen und leistete technische Unterstützung vor Ort, um einen effizienten Betrieb der Anlage zu gewährleisten.

In ähnlicher Weise eröffnete Hefei Gotion High-tech Co., Ltd (Gotion) im September 2023 seine Lithium-Batteriefabrik in Göttingen, Deutschland. Ursprünglich eine Produktionsstätte von Bosch, wurde sie umgewidmet, nachdem Bosch mit der sinkenden Nachfrage auf dem Markt für Brennstoffzellenfahrzeuge zu kämpfen hatte. Die Übernahme durch Gotion verhinderte Massenentlassungen und machte den Standort zu einem wichtigen Akteur auf dem europäischen Markt. Darüber hinaus arbeitet Gotion mit Volkswagen an einer 20-GWh-Batteriefabrik in Salzgitter, die 2025 eröffnet werden soll. Dieses Projekt, ursprünglich ein Joint Venture zwischen Volkswagen und Northvolt, wurde nach dem Rückzug von Northvolt an Gotion übertragen. Wie bei CATL liefern LEAD und Yinghe Technology wichtige Ausrüstungen und Dienstleistungen für dieses Projekt.

Diese Erfolgsgeschichten zeigen, wie chinesische Lithiumunternehmen durch strategische Partnerschaften und hochwertige Produkte eine entscheidende Rolle beim Übergang Europas zur Elektromobilität spielen. Durch die Zusammenarbeit mit chinesischen Unternehmen beschleunigt Europa seine Anstrengungen zur Elektrifizierung und stärkt seine Position bei der Bewältigung der globalen Klimaherausforderungen.

Der rasante Aufstieg der chinesischen Lithiumindustrie – von der Einführung neuer Technologien bis hin zu eigenständigen Innovationen – veranschaulicht die Kraft der Zusammenarbeit in der Industriekette. Unternehmen wie LEAD und CATL haben technologische Innovationen vorangetrieben, industrielle Prozesse modernisiert und sich einen globalen Wettbewerbsvorteil gesichert. Sie sind ein Beispiel dafür, dass China in der Lage ist, herkömmliche Entwicklungsstufen zu überspringen.

Der Niedergang von Northvolt ist ein warnendes Beispiel: In der sich schnell entwickelnden Technologiebranche müssen Unabhängigkeit und Zusammenarbeit in einem ausgewogenen Verhältnis stehen. Das Scheitern von Northvolt unterstreicht die Bedeutung von Vertrauen und Zusammenarbeit in der globalen Industriekette. Die Zukunft der Herstellung von Lithium-Equipment hängt von einem ganzheitlichen Ansatz ab, bei dem die Zusammenarbeit den technologischen Fortschritt und die globale Innovation vorantreibt.

Quelle: LEAD, Gotion, Northvolt, Batteries News, ctvnews

Huawei and Avatr Expand Partnership with New Product Development and Marketing Agreement

Uncategorized

Tendenzblick

-

December 19, 2024

0

Huawei and Avatr Expand Partnership with New Product Development and Marketing Agreement

On December 12, Avatr and Huawei signed an upgraded strategic cooperation agreement, focusing on deepening their collaboration in product development, marketing, and ecological services to enhance the next generation of Avatr’s products. This move follows the similar cooperation model Huawei established with GAC on November 30 and represents a new approach for Huawei in its automotive sector partnerships.

Huawei, initially focused on offering ICT technologies to car companies without building cars itself, has developed three cooperation models: the parts model, the HI model, and the smart selection model. In the parts model, Huawei acts as a traditional supplier of components to carmakers. The smart selection model, seen in collaborations with brands like Seres, is a more integrated approach where Huawei collaborates on product definition, design, marketing, and user experience. The HI model, which Avatr had been following since 2022, involves Huawei providing automotive technology solutions such as smart driving, smart cockpit, and electric drive technologies, while the car companies handle product design, manufacturing, and marketing.

The new cooperation model between Huawei and Avatr is an upgrade to the HI model, termed HI plus or quasi-smart selection. Unlike the smart selection model, HI plus does not involve Huawei’s direct sales through its terminal channels. The new agreement will broaden Huawei’s involvement, with Huawei contributing significantly to product development, marketing, and ecological services. This upgraded cooperation aims to improve Avatr’s competitiveness in the market, supported by Huawei’s deep expertise in smart technologies.

Huawei’s car business unit has already seen success with its smart selection model through brands like M7 and M9, achieving impressive sales figures. In November 2024, the sales of Huawei-powered models reached 395,000 units, with M7 leading in the new power model category and M9 excelling in the high-end market. These results demonstrate Huawei’s strength in product definition, marketing, and ecological services, which have led to more in-depth partnerships with other carmakers, including Avatr.

Under the original HI model, Avatr’s monthly sales showed significant growth, surpassing 10,000 units in November 2024, up from fewer than 2,000 at the beginning of the year. With the new HI plus model, Avatr’s sales are expected to rise further, backed by Huawei’s expanded support.

The strategic cooperation focuses on creating new models based on a new architecture, with Huawei playing a pivotal role in the development of intelligent vehicle features, marketing, and ecological services. Huawei’s input is expected to contribute to both Avatr’s sales and brand recognition in an increasingly competitive market.

The collaboration between Avatr and Huawei highlights the shift in the automotive industry toward software-defined cars, where car manufacturers and technology providers share the risks and rewards of enhancing the user experience throughout the vehicle’s lifecycle. This new cooperation model reflects the evolving landscape of the automotive industry, where partnerships between car companies and tech providers are becoming more integral to the creation of intelligent vehicles.

Source: Huawei, Avatar, huaweicentral

Xiaomi Accelerates Global Expansion with Plans to Launch Car Sales in Multiple Regions

Uncategorized

Tendenzblick

-

December 18, 2024

0

Xiaomi Accelerates Global Expansion with Plans to Launch Car Sales in Multiple Regions

Xiaomi is accelerating its expansion into the overseas automotive market. The company is preparing to establish an overseas automotive business under its international department, forming a new team dedicated to international sales. This team is focused on roles such as market research, project management, and electric vehicle after-sales support.

Additionally, Xiaomi’s automotive division is expanding its autonomous driving team, with new roles aimed at addressing regulatory verification and enhancing autonomous driving capabilities for international markets. Autonomous driving is expected to be a key focus area as Xiaomi works to strengthen its overseas car business.

The company plans to begin by conducting small-scale car sales in select overseas regions to gauge market reaction and prepare for larger-scale expansion. Xiaomi will leverage its international department and its network of over 100 Xiaomi stores worldwide to support these sales efforts. The company has ambitious plans to open 10,000 Xiaomi stores overseas in the next five years, integrating its “Human x Car x Home” smart ecosystem and new retail model.

Xiaomi’s success in international markets, particularly with its smartphones, tablets, and other products, has laid the foundation for its entry into the overseas automotive sector. More than 50% of Xiaomi’s revenue already comes from international markets, positioning the company to capitalize on its established brand recognition as it moves into this new territory. In July of this year, Xiaomi made its first step toward entering the European car market by showcasing two SU7 vehicles in Paris. CEO Lei Jun expressed Xiaomi’s goal of launching its brand in Europe by 2030. However, the rapid formation of Xiaomi’s overseas automotive team suggests that this timeline may be accelerated.

Xiaomi’s advantage in international markets is particularly strong when compared to other Chinese automakers. Even before generating revenue from its auto business, Xiaomi’s international revenue accounted for more than 50% of its total earnings. In Europe, Xiaomi’s smartphone market share reached 18% in Q3 2024, increasing 1% year-on-year, and positioning the company in third place. This solid brand recognition gives Xiaomi a strong foundation for its automotive ventures.

One of the key challenges Chinese carmakers face in expanding overseas is brand recognition. While many Chinese automakers have opened stores in Europe, the number of these stores is far fewer than those of European brands. Xiaomi’s established presence in the smartphone market, bolstered by partnerships with European carriers and localized marketing strategies, has already helped overcome some of these barriers.

However, challenges remain. For instance, the Xiaomi SU7, priced over $2,7487 in China, will likely face higher prices in Europe due to tariffs and transportation costs. This could position the model as a high-end vehicle in overseas markets, but Xiaomi’s limited presence in the high-net-worth segment may hinder its ability to capture the luxury market.

Data from Canalys indicates that in the European high-end smartphone market (above $800), Apple dominates with 77% market share, followed by Samsung with 16%, while Xiaomi holds less than 2%. Furthermore, Xiaomi’s overseas users tend to have lower purchasing power for internet services compared to their domestic counterparts, further complicating its efforts to break into the high-end market.

In conclusion, while Xiaomi has a strong brand and operational experience in international markets, particularly in Europe, its main challenge lies in establishing a foothold in the high-end automotive market, where it lacks significant recognition.

The global expansion of China’s electric vehicles (EVs) is rapidly gaining momentum, with strong growth in Southeast Asia, South America, and Europe. In Southeast Asia, countries like Thailand, India, and the Philippines, as well as Brazil and Mexico in South America, are experiencing increasing exports of Chinese EVs. Brazil, in particular, has surpassed Belgium as the largest export market for Chinese EVs, with 40,000 units exported this year. In these regions, BYD has emerged as a dominant player.

Europe remains a primary target for Chinese high-end EVs, with companies like NIO, XPeng Motors, and ZEEKR establishing operations there. According to data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (EAMA), Chinese EVs accounted for 11.1% of newly registered pure electric vehicles in Europe in June 2024, with 23,000 units sold. The SAIC MG4 EV, priced at 31,990 euros, was the best-selling Chinese model, selling 13,000 units. In contrast, the NIO ET5, priced at 59,000 euros, sold only 34 units in Germany during the same period. Affordable models remain the primary avenue for Chinese companies to achieve sales breakthroughs in Europe, as high-end models face significant competition from established local brands such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen.

However, the shift in the local automotive industry toward developing proprietary in-car systems, moving away from Apple CarPlay and focusing on intelligent driving experiences, could present an opportunity for Xiaomi. The company’s “Human x Car x Home” ecosystem sets it apart, positioning it as a unique player in the market.

Xiaomi’s potential breakthrough in the overseas automotive market lies in its ability to integrate its extensive user base, particularly its smartphone users, into a connected ecosystem that spans both vehicles and smart devices. This interconnection, which other carmakers are only beginning to explore, could provide Xiaomi with a competitive edge. However, regulatory hurdles, data privacy concerns, and high tariffs will pose challenges as Xiaomi seeks to establish this ecosystem overseas. Localized research, development, and marketing will be essential to the company’s success.

Ultimately, for Xiaomi, expanding into the global automotive market is not just about selling cars but about exporting its “Human x Car x Home” ecological concept and integrating vehicles into its broader ecosystem of products. With its established user base and brand influence, Xiaomi aims to carry forward the aspirations of China’s high-end electric vehicle industry as it seeks to establish a global presence.

Source: Xiaomi

Behind the U.N.’s Urge to Reform Japan’s Imperial Succession System: Tradition, Gender Equality, and National Debate

East Asia

Tendenzblick

-

December 17, 2024

0

Behind the U.N.’s Urge to Reform Japan’s Imperial Succession System: Tradition, Gender Equality, and National Debate

On October 29, 2024, during a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) urged the Japanese government to amend the Imperial Household Law of 1947 to promote gender equality in the succession to the throne. The call for reform has sparked renewed international attention on Japan’s imperial succession system, which has deep cultural and historical roots. However, CEDAW highlighted that the current male-only succession rules are inconsistent with modern global standards of equality, bringing the issue of gender equality in Japan to the forefront of international discussions.

In response, the Japanese government voiced strong opposition. On October 30, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi emphasized Japan’s cultural and national traditions, arguing that the recommendations should not be subject to international interference. He reiterated that the male-only succession rule was rooted in tradition and was not discriminatory, further demanding the withdrawal of recommendations related to the imperial succession.

This exchange has ignited widespread debate about the imperial succession system and gender equality in Japan. While some scholars and social groups support the UN’s proposals as an opportunity for modernizing the system, conservatives oppose such changes, viewing them as an infringement on Japan’s sovereignty and culture. The debate reveals a clear tension between those advocating for reform and those committed to preserving traditional values.

The Japanese imperial succession system, which has long followed the principle of male-line succession, is facing increasing conflict with modern concepts of gender equality. While Japan’s imperial tradition includes eight female emperors across ten generations, these instances were often viewed as temporary or transitional. Since the Meiji Restoration, the Imperial Household Law has stipulated that only male-line descendants may inherit the throne, emphasizing the purity and continuity of the imperial lineage. For conservatives, this male-only succession is not only a historical tradition but also a sacred practice tied to Shinto beliefs, which hold that male emperors are more aligned with the nation’s spiritual duties and rituals.

However, the growing emphasis on gender equality, particularly among younger generations, challenges this long-standing tradition. Surveys show that more than 80% of the Japanese public support the idea of a female emperor, highlighting a shift in public opinion. The exclusion of women from the succession is increasingly seen as a practical problem, contributing to a declining number of imperial family members and raising concerns about the sustainability of the system. Without reform, the imperial family risks losing its relevance.

This shift is also fueled by the personal and practical challenges facing women in the imperial family. Aiko, Princess Toshi, the emperor’s only daughter, is beloved by the public but cannot ascend to the throne due to gender constraints. Moreover, female members of the royal family are required to leave the family after marriage, further diminishing the imperial lineage. These practices reduce the family’s numbers and increase the pressure on the system’s stability, especially regarding succession and public office, presenting a growing challenge to the imperial family’s future.

Amidst this debate, scholars and reformers have proposed various directions for change. Some suggest amending the Imperial Household Law to allow women to inherit the throne or retain royal status after marriage. Others propose gradually increasing the roles and rights of women within the royal family, ensuring they can continue their duties and retain their status even after marriage. Additionally, some advocate for the establishment of a female Miyaki, where female royals could hold an independent status similar to that of male family members. These proposals aim to modernize the imperial system while respecting Japan’s traditions and addressing the nation’s evolving expectations for equality and sustainability.

The debate over Japan’s imperial succession system highlights a complex intersection of tradition, culture, and modern values. As gender equality continues to gain prominence, reforming the system to allow female emperors is becoming an increasingly pressing issue for Japan’s future.

Source: mainichi, reuters, people

Jack Ma Appears at Ant Group’s 20th Anniversary

East Asia

Tendenzblick

-

December 16, 2024

0

Jack Ma Appears at Ant Group’s 20th Anniversary

December 8 marked the 20th anniversary of Alipay and Ant Group. To celebrate this milestone, employees from around the world gathered at the Ant Group headquarters in Hangzhou for a day of festivities, including a birthday carnival, a relay run, and volunteer activities. That evening, Jack Ma, who had not been seen in public for some time, made a surprise appearance at the event, offering encouragement to employees.

Addressing the crowd, Jack Ma expressed heartfelt congratulations to the 20-year-old Ant Group: “I am thrilled to celebrate this moment with you. Over the past 20 years, you have built Alipay from scratch, launched innovations like Alipay, Yu’E Bao and Ant Forest, and made meaningful contributions to society through your efforts. On behalf of the founding team, I salute Alipay and Ant Group and extend my best wishes!”

This year has been pivotal for Ant Group, marked by significant organizational restructuring and a focus on AI-driven strategies. In March, Ant Group announced its largest internal reorganization since 2020, establishing independent boards for Ant International, OceanBase, and Ant Digital Technology to accelerate reform and drive its three core strategies: AI First, Alipay Dual Flywheel, and accelerated globalization.

In August, the group launched Digital Ant Force in Beijing, a business unit focused on providing AI-native services for enterprises. Leveraging a distributed service platform, Digital Ant Force integrates human-machine collaboration to deliver intelligent end-to-end solutions for enterprise operations.

At the 2024 Inclusion Bund Conference in September, Ant Group unveiled its AI-driven initiatives, including three AI Housekeepers: the lifestyle assistant Zhixiaobao, the financial manager Ant Xiaocai, and an AI health assistant. Alipay also launched the Smart Body Ecological Open Plan for the industry and released the Smart Body Development Platform “Treasure Box”.

Ant Digital Technology revealed its ABC strategy, focusing on AI services, blockchain innovations, and cloud computing. This strategy aims to enhance efficiency in areas like risk control and marketing, helping businesses gain a competitive edge in the era of large-scale AI models.

In October, Ant Digital Technology hosted a strategic upgrade conference in Beijing, announcing a revamped cloud service matrix with its four new strategies—new computing power, new applications, new interactions, and new operations. These innovations are designed to help enterprises build AI-native applications and accelerate their journey toward intelligent growth.

OceanBase, Ant Group’s database platform, has also embraced the AI era. At its 2024 Annual Launch Event on October 23, the company introduced OceanBase 4.3.3 GA, featuring vector search and indexing capabilities. This update integrates SQL and AI, simplifying the AI technology stack and providing enhanced database solutions for modern enterprises. Users can now access vector search functionalities through SQL or Python SDK, enabling more efficient hybrid search capabilities.

From celebrating 20 years of innovation to charting a bold path forward, Ant Group is poised to lead in the AI era, ensuring that its technologies continue to bring meaningful change to businesses and individuals worldwide.

Ma emphasized that his focus was not on the past but on the future: “Today, I am not here for the past 20 years of Ant Group but for the next 20 years.”

Reflecting on the changes ahead, he noted, “Every era presents unique challenges and opportunities. Twenty years ago, our generation was fortunate to seize the possibilities of the internet era. Looking forward, the era of AI promises changes beyond imagination. AI will revolutionize everything, but it will not decide everything. While technology is vital, the true winners of the future will be those who lay the groundwork today for meaningful and valuable advancements.”

He urged Ant employees to continue their mission: “For the next 20 years, we should stay true to our purpose—leveraging technology to improve the lives of ordinary people. Let AI empower our humanity, and let humanity, in turn, empower AI.”

Source: sohu, ant group, top168

The G20 Rio Summit and Brazil’s Dream of Great Power

POLITIK

Tendenzblick

-

December 15, 2024

0

The G20 Rio Summit and Brazil’s Dream of Great Power

The Group of 20 (G20) Summit held on November 18-19, 2024, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, marked a significant moment in global diplomacy and Brazil’s aspirations to establish itself as a global power. For the first time in its history, Brazil hosted the G20 summit, an event coinciding with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s return to power. It was the first major global event hosted by Brazil under his renewed leadership, signaling a shift in its foreign policy priorities. The summit served as a platform to showcase Brazil’s ambitions, but the road to realizing its aspirations remains fraught with challenges, many of which emphasize the importance of strengthening cooperation with countries like China.

The G20, comprising 19 nations and the European Union, has become the preeminent forum for discussing global economic cooperation, encompassing about 85% of global GDP, over 75% of global trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population. The Rio Summit emphasized Brazil’s presidency, which officially begins on December 1, 2023, and focuses on three key themes: combating hunger, poverty, and inequality; promoting sustainable development; and reforming global governance systems. These themes align closely with Lula’s vision for a more inclusive and equitable world order.

One of the major highlights of the summit was the launch of the Global Alliance Against Poverty and Hunger, a Brazilian initiative aimed at mobilizing international resources to address these issues effectively. The alliance, unveiled on November 18, has 148 member countries, 24 international organizations, 9 financial institutions, and 31 philanthropic organizations. President Lula hailed this as a landmark achievement, with South Africa committing to continue the initiative during its G20 presidency in 2025. The alliance underscores Brazil’s intent to position itself as a leader in addressing global inequalities, particularly in the global South.

Another bold proposal from Brazil was the introduction of a 2% wealth tax on the world’s 3,000 wealthiest individuals, expected to generate $200-250 billion annually. These funds would be earmarked for tackling poverty and environmental challenges. Although the idea sparked debates and met resistance, it found a place in the G20 Rio de Janeiro Leaders’ Declaration, highlighting Lula’s ability to push ambitious ideas onto the global stage.

Brazil’s agenda also prioritized sustainable development, focusing on combating climate change and transitioning to renewable energy. A central feature of this agenda was the G20 Initiative on Bioeconomy (GIB), which Brazil had previously introduced. The initiative outlines ten principles for developing the bioeconomy and was formally endorsed in the Rio Summit Declaration. Moreover, Brazil advocated for reforming existing climate funds to make them more accessible to developing nations and proposed the creation of a Tropical Forest Finance Facility (TFFF), designed to assist low-income countries in preserving their forests.

These measures align with Brazil’s domestic priorities under Lula, who has repeatedly emphasized the importance of environmental stewardship. By leading these global initiatives, Brazil seeks to strengthen its image as a responsible and forward-thinking player on the international stage.

Reforming the global governance system is another cornerstone of Brazil’s G20 presidency. Lula envisions a modernization of international institutions, including the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), to reflect contemporary global realities. He also advocates for empowering multilateral development banks to play a greater role in supporting sustainable development and poverty reduction, especially in the global South.

By emphasizing these reforms, Brazil aims to reshape the international order to be more inclusive and equitable. This aligns with Lula’s broader strategy of championing the interests of the global South, positioning Brazil as a leader in advocating for the rights of developing nations.

Brazil’s ambition to become a global power is not new. Since its redemocratization in the 1980s, its foreign policy has gradually evolved from autonomy through distance to autonomy through participation, and later to autonomy through integration. These shifts reflect Brazil’s growing engagement with regional and global platforms, particularly under Lula’s leadership during his earlier terms (2003-2011). During this period, Lula promoted South-South cooperation, regional integration, and United Nations reform, elevating Brazil’s international standing.

Since taking office again in January 2023, Lula has reinvigorated Brazil’s foreign policy. His administration has rejoined the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) while hosting summits to promote regional cooperation. Internationally, Brazil has taken on leadership roles, including its G20 presidency in 2024, BRICS presidency in 2025, and the hosting of the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 30). These moves reflect Lula’s determination to “show the world the real Brazil,” as he stated in a June 2024 speech.

Despite these efforts, Brazil faces significant challenges in achieving its great-power aspirations. Economically, its growth has stagnated over the past decade. Brazil’s GDP peaked at $2.62 trillion in 2011, ranking seventh globally, but fell to $1.6 trillion in 2021. Although it has rebounded to $2.17 trillion in 2023, it remains below its historical peak. Projected growth rates of 2.3% in 2024 and 2.1% in 2025 highlight the need for stronger economic performance to sustain Brazil’s ambitious foreign policy.

Externally, Brazil’s regional influence has diminished due to political and economic fragmentation in Latin America. Relations with Argentina, historically a cornerstone of regional cooperation, have soured under the Millet government, weakening Mercosur and regional integration efforts. Divisions between left- and right-leaning governments in the region have further hampered Brazil’s ability to rally support for its initiatives.

Amid these challenges, China emerges as a crucial partner for Brazil. Over the past three decades, China-Brazil relations have deepened significantly, with both countries emphasizing the importance of multilateralism and South-South cooperation. Since Lula’s return to power, the partnership has strengthened, with China supporting Brazil’s G20 initiatives and aligning on key global issues, such as UN reform and BRICS expansion.

China’s backing has been instrumental in advancing Brazil’s G20 presidency. During the Rio Summit, President Xi Jinping endorsed Brazil’s proposals on poverty reduction and global governance reform. China also joined the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty and supported Brazil’s call for reforms in global financial and trade governance. This strategic alignment underscores the mutual benefits of their partnership in addressing shared challenges and promoting the interests of the global South.

The G20 Rio Summit marked a high point in Brazil’s quest to become a global power, providing an opportunity to showcase its leadership on issues of global importance. However, significant economic and geopolitical constraints remain, requiring Brazil to navigate a complex international landscape. Strengthening ties with China and other key partners will be critical to overcoming these challenges and realizing its ambitions.

By focusing on inclusive development, sustainable growth, and global governance reform, Brazil under Lula is positioning itself as a champion of the global South. Whether it can translate these aspirations into lasting influence will depend on its ability to address internal challenges, foster regional cooperation, and leverage strategic partnerships on the global stage.

Source: G20, S20 Brasil