Akbar Fernando Ndabung, an Indonesian student in his 20s at the Udayana University and a local singer, did not expect his rap song about the Jakarta-Bandung High-speed Railway (HSR) to become an immediate hit on social media when it was released online in December 2022. The high tempo song is peppered with romantic lyrics interwoven into a rosy blue print of Indonesia.

When the Jakarta-Bandung HSR, with a design speed of 350 kilometers an hour, commences operation, the travel time between the capital of Jakarta and its fourth-largest city Bandung in West Java Province will be shortened from three hours to 40 minutes. Indonesia's capital of Jakarta is notorious for being among the cities with the worst traffic congestion in the world. 

The positive feedback has inspired him to keep an eye on the HSR's latest development, and he plans to write more songs as the railway's public operation date draws near. "I'm breathlessly looking for any chance to be among the first group of passengers taking a ride on the HSR," Fernando noted. 

Like him, there has been a palpable sense of excitement among Indonesians in recent days, as expectations are burning bright that the country will become the first in Southeast Asia to boast of a fully operational high-speed railway line. 

Joining the buzz, Indonesian social media celebrities and nearby residents along the railroad, regularly record the HSR's testing at a "hotspot" mountain site near the terminal Tegalluar station and give updates on the project's latest developments. 

"In addition to the operation of the first HSR, we also hope that China and Indonesia will join hands to extend the new railway to Surabaya, the country's second-largest city in East Java Province," Fernando said.

The earnest expectation displayed among the people in Indonesia, where the original proposal for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was revealed a decade ago, comes as local skepticism and concerns about BRI projects have steadily been losing ground in the face of the 10th anniversary of the initiative. At a time when multiple BRI projects are gear up and entering the sprint stage, it also sends a resounding signal that the West's intensified smear campaign against the BRI has been in vain. 

Over the last 10 years, Western countries have coined numerous terms to denigrate BRI projects in Southeast Asia, from the cliché of "debt trap" rhetoric, hypes of "economic colonization," doubts on projects' environmental sustainability and construction quality, to a recently invented subject, "sunk cost fallacy trap."

However, the Global Times' recent visits to a galaxy of BRI projects in Southeast Asia nations, including those in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, found such narratives were unwarranted. They were part of a US-led geopolitical game that aims to instigate anti-China sentiments and create discourse to obstruct otherwise normal economic cooperation under the promising initiative. 

While the expanding network of mutually beneficial cooperation under the BRI should have been welcomed and hailed on the global stage, certain Western countries' kneejerk hostility toward the BRI tide has unmasked their "sour grapes" mentality, industry insiders noted. 

The accusations levied against the China-proposed initiative have also laid bare the deeply-rooted hegemonic and Western-centric mindset of the certain Western countries, in particular the US, that reflexively imagine that actions taken by China are replicas of its unscrupulous colonial model.

Under Washington's approach, it unilaterally imposes its own will on recipient countries and issues loans with political strings attached, with the ulterior aim of pocketing US streams of revenue at the cost of cooperative partners' interests. It is vastly different from the BRI cooperation platform, which exemplifies the adage "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime," and genuinely leads to new growth and enhanced capacities for self-driven development in BRI countries.

Steering through the choppy water

"It is important that we maintained a strategic focus and are committed to doing the work. Step by step, the positive development of BRI projects is set to burst every lie," said Zhang Chao, executive director of the board of PT Kereta Cepat Indonesia China (KCIC), when summarizing the last eight years of hard work that have put Western naysayers to shame.

The KCIC is a consortium of Indonesian and Chinese firms responsible for developing and operating the Jakarta-Bandung HSR line. Zhang is a founding board member of the KCIC, present since the joint venture was set up in 2015.

Looking outside Zhang's office in the KCIC building in Jakarta, the HSR's inaugural station - Halim Station - is within view, with dozens of local workers on the lattice roof, working in full swing to finish the project.

Zhang saw how the Halim Station was built from scratch. And the beginning is always the most difficult. 

Back in 2015 and 2016, Zhang said the implementation of the project faced tremendous hardships, in particular from the local community, which at the time, showed a certain level of distrust, partly due to Western propaganda schemes. 

"We received a lot of complaints at that time. Protestors even demonstrated in front of our office building. Some locals remained skeptical of whether Chinese bidders could perform better than Japanese bidders in railway technology," Zhang recalled, adding that doubts grew further with the Western-driven "debt trap" narrative as well as other exaggerations on the project's schedule delays.

Li Zhenkui, the deputy manager of the station project department at the China Railway Fourth Bureau Group Corporation, which is the main Tegalluar station contractor, also recalled that initially, local residents didn't fully comprehend the HSR's necessity and believed it wouldn't hold much practical significance for them. 

"During that time, they couldn't grasp or envision the immense economic and transportation benefits that the high-speed railway would bring," Li noted.

But as the project progressed and delivered benefits to the society, local support inevitably grew. Zhang said that in about 2019, the KCIC started receiving warm responses, with more inquiries coming about when the HSR would be completed.

Locals' attitudes saw a further positive shift as the HSR enters its intensive testing phase this year, paving the way for the full commercial operation.

"We are extremely grateful for the high-speed rail project, which has connected our small village to a larger world. It has brought us closer to the capital Jakarta and has demonstrated efficiency and diverse economic development. Indonesians warmly welcome and eagerly anticipate increased Chinese involvement in infrastructure projects," a local villager, Asip Cenghar, who operates a small shop in front of the Tegalluar station, told the Global Times.

As Asip's words shed a light on positive hopes harbored by Indonesians, the HSR has already demonstrated various dimensions of spillover effects. The Global Times learned that to date, the project has provided 51,000 jobs to the local community. The income of these employees is about 30 to 50 percent higher than the local average.

Also, many Indonesians the Global Times met during the visits said that they now deem the landmark BRI project to be a symbol of "national pride" and the long-lasting friendship between China and Indonesia.

Such changeover is also a process of weaving China-Indonesia bonds closer, noted industry insiders. Similar transformations have also been taking place in other Southeast Asian countries. 

Abdul Majid Ahmad Khan, the former Malaysian ambassador to China, told the Global Times that Malaysian people have started to correct their misconceptions about China with the rapid progression of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), a BRI project connecting four underdeveloped areas and serving as an economic corridor. 

There was initial confusion and controversy among local residents due to the large areas of land earmarked for the project. But soon after, Malaysian local communities came to realize that the BRI project not only boosts domestic market and reduces costs, but also creates employment opportunities, he said.

"The HSR, along with certain BRI projects, is sort of a novel thing to people in Southeast Asia, and that's why their views were distorted by manipulative Western plots at the beginning. But, seeing is believing. The situation is quite different now. The startling decade of achievements by the BRI offers the best piece of evidence to debunk Western fear-mongering," a senior executive at a BRI project based in Malaysia, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Global Times. 

"We're confident that actions which produce concrete results speak louder than words and lies," the executive noted. 

Vicious mindset VS Bright reality

As the US, Japan, and other Western countries increasingly grow restless over the BRI's steady rise, Western media outlets - in collusion with politicians and non-government organizations - have been churning out a flurry of bearish reports on BRI project this year, using sensational headlines and hyping the sheer size of claimed "predatory debt" to discredit normal BRI cooperation.  

Japanese media outlet Nikkei Asia published a lengthy piece claiming that the Jakarta-Bandung HSR could mire Indonesia in a "Sri Lanka-like debt trap."

In March, the Voice of America (VOA) concocted the term "Sunk Cost Fallacy Trap," alleging that continuous investment in the HSR, which adds up to the existing cost, will create a huge burden for the Indonesian government, with no way out.

Such stories are simply regurgitations of the "debt trap diplomacy" cliché, propagandist rhetoric loudly trumpeted by a number of Western political figures including former US vice president Mike Pence and former US secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spenser.

But the Global Times reporters' field investigation finds that such clamoring is nothing more than barefaced lies fabricated by the Western media and anti-China politicians. The "debt trap" cliché attack is to politicize ideologize economic issues based on the misrepresentation of the reality on the ground.

"There's a major logic flaw in the 'debt trap' theory because, for any major infrastructure project to kick off, you must borrow, regardless of whether from the US, Japan, or China… That's where the debts come from, and is essentially a normal phenomenon following economic rules. The creation of debt does not amount to a debt crisis," said Zhang. 

What's at the core is how the operator calculates how to manage the debt level, and "China is obviously doing a good job" in that regard.

In the case of the Jakarta-Bandung HSR, the project's financing is in the form of commercial loans granted to the joint venture KCIC, rather than sovereign borrowing. 

"It is a business-to-business model with risks borne by both the Chinese and Indonesia companies involved, which the Indonesian government is comfortable with," Zhang explained, noting that this model also embodies the BRI concepts of "extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits."

What's at the core is how the operator calculates how to manage the debt level, and "China is obviously doing a good job" in that regard.

In the case of the Jakarta-Bandung HSR, the project's financing is in the form of commercial loans granted to the joint venture KCIC, rather than sovereign borrowing. 

"It is a business-to-business model with risks borne by both the Chinese and Indonesia companies involved, which the Indonesian government is comfortable with as it won't increase its foreign debt," Zhang explained, noting that this model also embodies the BRI concepts of "extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits."

Wirun Phichaiwongphakdee, director of the Thailand-China Research Center of the Belt and Road Initiative, noted that the frequently hyped profitability and sustainability issues associated with BRI projects are, in fact, "logically deceptive."

"The West has resorted to its common practice of telling fragmented BRI stories and concealing the most important parts, so as to instigate dissatisfaction among the Southeast Asian people and shape stereotypical misperceptions of the BRI in wider scope," Wirun told the Global Times. 

In Thailand, hopes for the early opening of the China-Thailand HSR have been floating high, since the operation of the landmark China-Laos Railway BRI project in December 2021 that provides a complete picture of the instilled economic boost, the Global Times learned. 

Since construction started, the China-Thailand HSR has often been a target of intensive Western slandering, citing the hefty construction cost that could drive up Thailand's public debt. 

"It is hilarious to see how the West tallies the economic books. They only calculate the benefits based on revenue from passenger ticket prices and cargo transportation. This is biased because it should also include the comprehensive income along the economic corridor, including commercial development," Wirun said, while noting that construction of public facilities amid economic slowdown are also an economic stimulus.

With regard to sources where the debts stem from, scholars from Southeast Asian think tanks have stressed that it is neither fair nor objective to blame China, as the majority of debt by developing countries is owed to international multilateral institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, while loans from China only account for a small proportion.

"The debt issue of countries along the BRI route is a result of multi-year accumulation of unsustainable financial distress. It is not the development of the BRI that inflicted the crisis," Yu Hong, senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, told the Global Times.

Statistics showed that multilateral institutions and commercial creditors account for over 80 percent of BRI countries' debts, the biggest source of their debt burden. 

In the case of Sri Lanka, which in Western narrative is portrayed as a "victim of the BRI debt trap," loans from China accounted for only about 10 percent of Sri Lanka's total foreign debt in 2021, roughly the same as Japan, and much less than market borrowings and multilateral development banks, relevant data showed.

If there's anyone to be blamed for debt defaults in Southeast Asian countries, it should be the US whose irresponsible monetary policy drives to strengthen the dollar, which then squeezes the liquidity of developing countries, fuels inflation and increases their debt repayment costs, observers pointed out. 

'Sour grapes' mentality

During in-depth talks with locals in Southeast Asian countries including in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, the Global Times noticed the extensive endorsement on Chinese railway technologies. Various qualities such as construction efficiency, advancement of technologies, the application of Chinese standards and how to apply the experience learned have all been applauded by residents in BRI countries.

Chinese engineers recalled that the competition for infrastructure projects in Southeast Asia can be quite intense in the bidding process, but China has exceeded Japanese and European companies aided by its overwhelming industrial strength.

In the case of the Jakarta-Bandung HSR, a consortium of Chinese companies won the contract over their Japanese counterparts back in 2015, Zhang noted.

"To the envy of Western countries, China has undertaken numerous BRI infrastructure construction projects across Southeast Asia. So their vilification against BRI projects could be out of a 'sour grapes' mentality," the anonymous executive said. 

Chinese project managers also stressed that Chinese investments come with great sincerity, without any terms attached and are there for the long term, which is the nature of BRI cooperation. 

China's long-term pledge was on vivid display when the Global Times visited the construction site of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) in the Kemasul Forest Reserve. The railway passes through this forest reserve, which serves as a habitat for various wild animals, including Asian elephants, wild boars, black panthers, and bears.

At the site, numerous culverts of different sizes have been designed to accommodate the wildlife. Some of these culverts are approximately 6 meters wide and 5 meters high, allowing for adult elephants and other forms of wildlife to pass underneath the railway during the construction phase.

Gao Xiaoyue, the environmental manager of the China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) ECRL Section 6, told the Global Times that once the railway is completed, they will restore the land and animal habitats to the best of their ability, in accordance with the requirements of the local authorities.

Observers said that the Western accusations against BRI projects are fraught with hypocrisy mindsets. For example, US investment depletes local resources for the sake of reaping short-term gains and demands strong obedience to the political terms attached, which would leave recipients firmly under Washington's thumb.

The US is interpreting the China-proposed public good from its own past coercive exercises, Chinese analysts said. By contrast, BRI investment truly generates new growth engines, and supports the self-sustainable development needs of countries along the BRI route.

MarzukiAlie, former speaker of the People's Representative Council of Indonesia, told the Global Times that the Jakarta-Bandung HSR project has exhibited a number of observable aspects, including "technology transfer that contributes to the overall growth of Indonesia's transportation and technology … and a positive impact on the growth of tourism and the regional economy."

"China and Southeast Asia are both developing countries, which means they understand each other better and can easily accommodate each other's complementary economic development demands," Wirun explained. 

The denigration of China's strengthened BRI cooperation with Southeast Asian countries is based on Western-centric thinking meant to maintain the unipolar hegemonic order under US domination. But the vibrant BRI feats achieved won't be derailed by vicious Western attacks, as the world is growing tired of US coercion and increasingly desires a different, multipolar order, analysts said. 

"We know what is best for us… And I would suggest that some countries not interfere and create chatter about China-ASEAN cooperation [under the BRI]," Wirun noted.

The 18th G20 Leaders' Summit will be held this weekend in New Delhi, India. This is the first time India will hold such a large-scale multilateral diplomatic summit. Judging from the preparations, it seems that New Delhi highly values this event, hoping that its status as a "great power" can be enhanced by hosting the G20 summit successfully. But the US and the West, which often claim they "stand with India," have made great efforts to hype the "differences" between the participating countries of the G20 summit. They want to promote their own agenda to a major world platform for economic cooperation. Some analysts say that this year's G20 summit in New Delhi may face more noise and a more complex situation than ever, speculating that a joint communiqué may not be issued for the first time in its history.

India has announced six priorities for the G20 summit: green development and climate finance, inclusive growth, digital economy, public infrastructure, technology transformation, and reforms for women empowerment for socio-economic progress. As for the issue that the West is paying the most attention to - the Russia-Ukraine conflict - many media outlets noted that India did not invite the Ukrainian leader to attend this summit.

From this series of arrangements, it is not difficult to see that the Indian side wants to focus the discussion on economic recovery and multilateral diplomacy, which has been the main theme of the G20 platform all along. New Delhi has repeatedly said that the forum is not a place for geopolitical competition. For instance, on the India-China conflict, which the US and the West have been hyping up, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said, "I would not at all see it the way you would suggest," when recently asked about this topic by some media.

However, this is not the outcome that the US and the West want. They have shown a tendency of wanting to tear the G20 apart since last year's summit in Bali, Indonesia. This year, they have intensified their efforts to castrate the G20. A report in The New York Times Chinese edition asked an inflammatory question, "Does the world still need the G20?"

Apart from dividing the Global North and South as well as inciting confrontation between West and East, US and Western public opinion has shown at least two major new characteristics for the upcoming G20 summit. First, they are keeping an eye on the BRICS mechanism after its expansion and hyping up its "conflicts" with the G20 platform. Second, they try to provoke China-India conflicts by using India's presidency to hype the competition between the dragon and the elephant.

According to messages released by US media, US President Joe Biden is ready to propose a program providing an alternative to China to developing countries at the G20 summit, and the US and Western countries will force the G20 to condemn Russia by threatening to refuse to issue a joint statement. The US and the West want to woo India hard in order to confront China. However, this behavior doesn't seem supportive of India, but rather stirs up trouble for the country. Now, the US and the West have shown a gloating attitude over some geopolitical divergences, including those between China and India. They want to see deeper division and even fights. Such an unhealthy mindset is the archenemy of global cooperation mechanisms, including the G20.

The danger of the reality is that global problems and challenges continue to intensify, while at the same time, the world's sense of urgency and unity to overcome difficulties, as well as its will and ability to deal with global challenges, have been weakened by various factors, and people all over the world are becoming more divided. Many have the feeling that it is becoming increasingly difficult for countries to reach a consensus, let alone carry out common actions. The world has high expectations of the G20 and hopes to see some important consensus come from it and some common actions start here.

It should be emphasized that the G20 mechanism, which was born at the time of the 2008 financial crisis, is the result of cooperation between developed and developing economies. The G20 countries represent two-thirds of the world's population, 85 percent of global GDP, and more than 75 percent of international trade. The mechanism used to see many highlights, including the help it provided to deal with the 2008 crisis and the announcement that the leaders of China and the US will sign the Paris Agreement before the 2016 G20 Summit. These results benefit not only developing countries, but also the US and the West enormously.

However, after that, which country has frequently "withdrawn" from various global cooperation mechanisms? Who is building a "small yard and high fence?" Who is promoting bloc confrontation in the international arena? Who is stirring up trouble around the world and undermining normal cooperation? The countercurrents caused by these movements around the world have inevitably affected the global cooperation mechanism, including the G20. Before the summit, Washington inexplicably issued a "warning" to China, urging it not to "play the role of spoiler" at the G20 summit. In this regard, we would like to say that these words are quite accurate if we swap China with the US.

Last year, the G20 Bali Leaders' Declaration was announced and hard-won results were achieved under Indonesia's G20 presidency. We hope that this year's G20 summit in New Delhi will eliminate disruptions and become a success story, and that we can eventually see a joint statement that builds consensus. It is the duty of every G20 member to let the mechanism continue playing the role of a platform for seeking common ground while reserving and resolving differences, striving for mutual benefits and win-win results, and injecting confidence and certainty into the stability of the global economy. It is not only the expectation of developing countries, but also in the long-term interests of the US and Western countries to let consensus transcend differences and gather strength through cooperation.

The United Nations General Assembly is currently underway, and countries of the "Global South" are receiving particular attention. In fact, since this year, from India hosting the online "Voice of Global South Summit" to the Munich Security Conference mentioning "Global South" 55 times in its report, from the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Hiroshima emphasizing the strengthening of relations with the "Global South" to Western countries and Russia vigorously seeking the support of "Global South" countries over the Ukraine issue, the strategic importance of the "Global South" has become increasingly prominent, and the popularity of this concept continues to rise.

The popularity of the "Global South" concept may be linked to two specific events: The first is the "Voice of Global South Summit" held by India on January 12 and 13 of this year, with the participation of 120 countries, although China was not invited; the second event is the G7 summit held in Hiroshima, Japan in May. This summit had two agendas, one of which was to "strengthen ties with the Global South," leading to the invitation of some developing countries, while China, similarly, was not invited.

In reality, the concept of the "Global South" still has many ambiguous aspects at present, and the idea of a "Global South" without China is even a pseudo-proposition.

Firstly, there is currently no universally recognized standard for defining "Global South." For example, some people believe that if the "Global North" refers to developed countries, then the "Global South" represents a synonym for developing countries, underdeveloped nations, and less-developed countries. Others argue that after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, there was a significant shift in the world order, and as a result, "Global South" gradually replaced the term "Third World." In other words, "Global South" replacing "Third World" continues to carry strong political connotations.

Because the definitions of "Global South" are diverse, many people often use or interpret this term as they please, parroting or presenting their own understanding and definitions of "Global South." In terms of the purpose of this definition, one view is that the concept of "Global South" highlights the multiple impacts of globalization on developing countries; another view is that "Global South" embodies the determination of "the South" countries to resist the hegemonic power of "the North" countries. It can be imagined that such arbitrary speculation or self-talk can only lead to confusion in academic theories and concepts, and even result in different opinions.

Secondly, the G7 led by the US and some Western public opinion hype up the "Global South" with the motive of excluding China from the family of developing countries. As early as when Donald Trump was in office, the US had hyped up the idea that "China is not a developing country."

In the "Memorandum on Reforming Developing-Country Status in the World Trade Organization" published on July 26, 2019, the US announced in a high profile that "the United States has never accepted China's claim to developing-country status." As for why the US promotes India to become the leader of the "Global South," on the one hand, it is nothing more than wanting to use India's role as the rotating chair of the G20 to enhance its international status and woo India before the G20 meetings; on the other hand, it is an attempt to drive a wedge between China and India and exclude China from the "Global South" family.

However, the international status of a country is not determined by a few countries, but by the majority of countries in the world. The US and West have their own calculations, but they have miscalculated from the very beginning. The United Nations Development Programme, in a research report about building a "Global South" in 2004, explicitly included China in the category of "Global South" countries.

Indeed, China's economy is rapidly developing and its international status is increasing day by day, but China's status as a developing country has not fundamentally changed. China is still in the primary stage of socialism and its basic national conditions have not changed. China's international status as the largest developing country in the world remains unchanged. As President Xi Jinping emphasized in his important speech at the High-level Dialogue on Global Development on June 24, 2022, China has always been a member of the big family of developing countries.

Moreover, some people in the West attempt to exclude China from the "Global South," but they cannot deny our close ties and cooperation with developing countries, nor can they deny the contributions China has made to the development of "the South" countries and South-South cooperation. In fact, China has made significant contributions to South-South cooperation in the past and present, and will continue to make efforts in the future.

A delegation of six US senators arrived in Shanghai on Saturday, beginning a visit to China. The trip comes at an important time in the still unsettled bilateral relationship between China and the US.

The delegation is led by the Senate's majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and includes a mix of Democratic and Republican senators from Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Hampshire and New York. After their initial stop in China, the five men and one woman will head to Japan and South Korea, both of which are viewed as reliable American allies.

American politics is fractured; the speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy was recently ousted because he could not rein in his Republican colleagues and the Democrats saw no reason to support him. McCarthy's dismissal was an embarrassment to himself. But it also showed just how volatile US domestic politics is. Compromise, an essential feature of democracies, is hard to find in Washington, and political positions have also hardened within the American electorate. The 2024 presidential election will likely solidify these opinions even further.

Another aspect that might harden next year is hostility toward China within official Washington.

That would be unfortunate, but right now blasting China is a convenient way for political elites to cover up their differences. Sadly, the only thing elite politicians seem to agree on these days is their belief that China is a bad actor on the global stage. If you're looking for anyone in Washington to say something positive about the hugely influential Belt and Road Initiative, good luck. It's more likely to find someone who believes in the possibility of zombies ruling the world.

On top of attacking China for its global interests, politicians try to amplify any negative economic news as evidence that the country is doomed. They conveniently overlook the fact that China's economic growth will continue to outpace that of the US for the rest of the year and beyond. The global economic situation would be in bad shape if China were to have growth forecasts anywhere close to what the US is likely to experience. 

The domestic US political response is not to proactively seek ways to make America stronger. Instead, politicians advance massive, but inadequate, policies that make vague promises about bolstering national security. One example is the CHIPS and Science Act which was passed by Congress despite critics pointing out numerous flaws associated with it. President Joe Biden contributes to this nonsense about China by refusing to erase the tariffs established by his predecessor even though the evidence continues to show the tariffs are doing more harm to the US than China.

The bottom line is that reality goes out the window whenever America's politicians talk about China.

Is it possible that the visit by Schumer and his colleagues could lead to some rational conversations regarding China within Congress? Will this visit build on the generally positive trips made over the past few months by the US secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce? With each of those trips, there has been increased anticipation in the US that Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping will meet during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering, scheduled for next month in San Francisco. Optimists believe that successful conversations might open the door to a state visit.

If Schumer wants to positively advance US-China relations, then he should consider taking back a recent statement indicating that he will carry a verbal hammer into any conversations with Chinese officials.

Schumer is from New York, a state that according to one estimate sustains almost 50,000 jobs per year because of trade with China. It's also reported that New York exported more than $37 billion to China between 2012 and 2022. My point: Imagine if the Democratic senator had spoken in advance of his trip about finding ways to expand trade between New York (and other states) with China as part of his visit. That would be leadership, something too often hard to find in Washington.

Keep in mind something that ought to be favorably viewed by China: Schumer and his fellow senators are not making a side trip to Taiwan; such visits by American officials derail any momentum in improving relations because of Beijing's insistence that US politicians are seeking to stoke discord between the island and the mainland by stopping in Taiwan.

China will not, and should not, sit by quietly if Schumer follows through on his promise to talk tough with Chinese officials and to make an issue of human rights as well as Fentanyl. In 2023, China and the global community are all too aware that "you must do what we want" screeds from a prominent American politician do nothing to improve the bilateral relationship. More importantly, the US is no longer positioned to dictate to any nation, especially powerful ones, about how to conduct their internal and external affairs.

The author is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University.

The President of the 77th Session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Csaba Kőrösi visited the China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR) on Friday during his trip to China, applauding China's wisdom in dealing with water crises in ways that provides valuable experience to other countries.

At the invitation of Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, Korosi visited China from February 1 to 4, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Korosi believes that China's measures to deal with water crises are scientific and advanced, after gaining comprehensive knowledge of China's water science and technology development, and water engineering achievements in exchanges with relevant Chinese officials and water experts.

For the world today, the water crisis is imminent. In his speech, Korosi said that with climate change, floods, and droughts becoming more frequent around the world. It is estimated that in the next 20 years, about 400 million people around the world will be forced to leave their homes due to floods and droughts, which is unprecedented in human history.

In response to the global water challenge, the United Nations will convene the UN 2023 Water Conference from March 22 to 24 to steer a shift in water decision-making and truly improve water security and stability. 

"To meet such challenges, we must rely on scientific evidence," said Korosi.

He thanked China for its contribution to the realization of the water goals set by the UN Sustainable Development Agenda, and affirmed that science-based solutions to the water crisis would also provide valuable experience for other fields to fully realize the Sustainable Development Goals.

Water is the source of all living things and the cornerstone of all the Sustainable Development Goals. The world today faces a series of global challenges, such as climate change, and water is the key to meeting them. The world must use a united, sustainable, and scientific approach to solve the problem, said Kuang Shangfu, head of the IWHR.Chen Houqun, an academician at the Chinese Academy of Engineering and a senior engineer at the IWHR, elaborated on specific technical difficulties that China's large water conservancy projects such as the South-to-North Water Diversion Project and the Three Gorges Dam have overcome. He offered examples of cases to demonstrate the contributions made by these major projects and contributed to China's economic boom and social development, such as in low-carbon emission reduction.

Though a slew of efforts have made to win back foreign tourists, Myanmar has been spurned due to rising security concerns caused by high profile telecom fraud cases and domestic political turmoil. Bookings for five-star hotels in the country still have been desolate even though the prices of some rooms have dropped to 300 yuan ($40) per night, Chinese media reported.

Some starred hotels in Myanmar have even been forced to give 40 percent discounts to lure in tourists. Earlier this year, the famous Sedona Hotel Yangon was forced to sell to a Singaporean company and a $130 million Peninsula hotel project in Yangon was suspended due to political instability and other factors, media reports said.

When reached by the Global Times on Thursday, several travel agencies, including Beijing China International Travel Service Co, Shanghai China International Travel Service Co, Spring Tour, tuniu.com and Shanghai Airlines Tours International, replied that they have no tourism products for Myanmar on offer at the moment. 

They were uncertain about when these tours would resume. A staffer from tuniu.com told the Global Times that they can only provide business visa services at the moment. 

According to a notice issued by the General Office of China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism on August 10, travel agencies and online tourism service providers across the country have been permitted to resume outbound group tours and "airline tickets plus hotel" services for Chinese citizens to destinations listed in the third batch of permitted countries and regions. Myanmar is included on the list of Asian countries. 

It is no longer surprising to see Chinese people say they are worried about being caught in telecom scams due to stereotypes involving Myanmar. The unfavorable perceptions about the South Asian nation were once again reinforced by No More Bets, a crime action drama currently dominating the box office in the Chinese mainland.

In a poll conducted by Chinese media on Thursday inquiring about whether Chinese netizens would travel to Myanmar, 8,901 respondents out of 9,298 said they wouldn't consider going due to safety concerns. 

Chinese tourists' unfavorable perception toward Myanmar is a result of multiple factors - political turmoil, rising concerns over rampant telecom fraud cases and the relatively poor tourism reception capability comparing to other South Asian countries, Song Qingrun, a senior research fellow from the School of Asian Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Thursday. Limited direct flights could also be one of the reasons why there hasn't been a jump in the number of Chinese tourists traveling to the country, Song noted. 

Myanmar's political society has been continually torn apart in the past few years. The struggle between the military and its supporters and the opposition has turned violent. Some extremist rebels have formed shadow governments along the border, carrying out scattered violent attacks on government departments and military and political officials, Song noted. 

The Chinese Embassy in Myanmar frequently reminds Chinese citizens not to believe high-salary recruitment information online, engage in illegal or criminal activities, so as to avoid damage to life and property during their stay in Myanmar. Previously, the UK warned British citizens not to travel to the conflict zone in Myanmar and the US State Department has also issued a Level 4 advisory against travel to the country, quoting civil unrest and armed conflicts.

According to figures from the Myanmar's Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, from April 2022 to the end of March in 2023, Myanmar received a total of 367,368 international tourists, of which Chinese tourists topped the list at 48,342, accounting for 13.15 percent. This is not even a fraction of what it used to be.

The latest data during the first half of 2023 showed that Myanmar attracted just 450,000 foreign tourists, led by Chinese and Thai tourists. Although it saw an increase compared to the same period last year, that increase is far less than that of neighboring countries, media reported. 

Song told the Global Times that the peak influx of Chinese travelers to the South Asian country in 2016 and 2017 has not returned despite the resumption of China's group tours to the country. However, Song said that since Myanmar is a close neighboring country of China and contains vast abundant tourism resources, it is still attractive to many Chinese travelers. He also called for a rational view of the country since the stereotype that it is plagued by crimes may have been amplified by media. 

Myanmar has been making efforts to optimize its domestic tourists market. Myanmar's ambition to win back more Chinese tourists can clearly be seen at the ongoing seventh China-South Asia Expo in Kunming, Southwest China's Yunnan Province, Song said. 

Myanmar has arranged for more than 100 entrepreneurs to participate in the exhibition and for the first time used naked eye 3D screens to display the beautiful cultural scenes of the country, the China News Service has reported. 

Some tourism insiders pointed out that the gloomy tourism enthusiasm from Chinese people in the post COVID-19 era does not specially target the country, but the entire South Asian tourism market. An employee surnamed Sun from Shanghai Airlines Tours International told the Global Times that tours to Southeast Asian countries have all shown average poor performances these days except for the Philippines.

Modern-day Melanesians carry a two-pronged genetic legacy of ancient interbreeding that still affects their health and well-being, researchers say.

Unlike people elsewhere in the world, these Pacific islanders possess nuclear DNA that they inherited from two Stone Age hominid populations, say population geneticist Benjamin Vernot, formerly of the University of Washington in Seattle, and his colleagues. At least some of that ancient DNA contains genes involved in important biological functions, the researchers find. Nuclear DNA is passed from both parents to their children.
The finding means that ancestors of people now living in the Bismarck Archipelago, a group of islands off Papua New Guinea’s northeastern coast, mated with Neandertals as well as with mysterious Neandertal relatives called Denisovans, the scientists conclude online March 17 in Science.

In support of previous research, the researchers find that non-Africans — including Melanesians — have inherited an average of between 1.5 and 4 percent of their DNA from Neandertals. But only Melanesians display substantial Denisovan ancestry, which makes up 1.9 to 3.4 percent of their DNA, the researchers say. (Present-day African populations possess little to no Neandertal or Denisovan DNA.)

The bits of Neandertal and Denisovan DNA carried by Melanesians encompass genes involved in metabolism and immunity, indicating that interbreeding influenced the evolutionary success of ancient humans, Vernot’s group reports.

The new study reconstructs the microscopic landscape of Neandertals’ and Denisovans’ contributions to Melanesians’ DNA “in impressive detail,” says Harvard University paleogeneticist Pontus Skoglund.

Vernot’s team studied DNA from 35 Melanesians at 11 locations in the Bismarck Archipelago. Analyses concentrated on DNA from 27 unrelated individuals. The researchers also looked for evidence of ancient interbreeding in previously acquired genomes of close to 1,500 modern-day individuals from different parts of the world. Denisovan DNA for comparisons came from fragmentary fossils found in a Siberian cave; comparative Neandertal DNA came from a genome previously extracted from a 50,000-year-old woman’s toe bone.
Among Melanesians, DNA sequences attributed to Neandertals and Denisovans encompassed several metabolism genes. One of those genes influences a hormone that increases blood glucose levels. Another affects the chemical breakdown of lipids. Other Melanesian genetic sequences acquired through ancient interbreeding either include or adjoin genes that help to marshal the body’s defenses against illness.

These findings follow evidence suggesting that once-useful genes that ancient humans inherited from Neandertals now raise the risk of contracting certain diseases (SN: 3/5/16, p. 18). Vernot’s group reaches no conclusions about good or bad effects of ancient hybrid genes in Melanesians.

No sign of Neandertal or Denisovan DNA appears in areas of Melanesians’ genomes involved in brain development, the scientists say. So brain genetics, for better or worse, apparently evolved along a purely human path.

Denisovans’ evolutionary history remains poorly understood. Previous DNA comparisons suggest that Denisovans must have reached Southeast Asia. Skoglund suspects that’s where the ancestors of Melanesians bred with Denisovans.

Substantial interbreeding of humans with Denisovans probably occurred only once, Vernot and his colleagues suspect. Genetic exchanges of humans with Neandertals took place at least three times, they add. These estimates are derived from comparisons of shared Denisovan and Neandertal DNA sequences among individuals in different parts of the world.

Bacterium effective when dusted on plants — The successful agent for destroying pesty insects, the microscopic bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, is most effective when it is dusted onto tobacco or other plants…. The bacteria are now recommended for use against tobacco budworms and hornworms. From known results …. they look promising as biological control agents. — Science News, April 30, 1966

Update
Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, is still used to combat agricultural pests. Different strains of the bacterium target different insects; one strain can even kill mosquito larvae in water. Organic farmers dust or spray Bt on crops and consider it a natural insecticide. In conventional farming, Bt DNA is often inserted into a plant’s genome, creating genetically modified crops that make their own pesticide (SN: 2/6/16, p. 22). In 2015, 81 percent of U.S. corn and 84 percent of U.S. upland cotton contained Bt genes.

Lead contamination in drinking water can change with the seasons. Tracking lead levels in water pipes over several months, researchers discovered three times as much dissolved lead and six times as much undissolved lead in summer than in winter. The finding could help improve water testing, says study coauthor Sheldon Masters, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech and Corona Environmental Consulting in Philadelphia.

Masters and colleagues analyzed water contamination data collected from pipes in Washington, D.C., and Providence, R.I., and tested the dissolvability of lead in different water conditions. In many, but not all, homes and lab tests, the amount of lead leaching into drinking water rose as water temperature increased.

For pipes in Washington, average wintertime dissolved lead levels were 3.6 parts per billion, compared with 10.8 ppb during summer. Average undissolved lead concentrations varied from 7.6 ppb during winter to 48.4 ppb during summer. Each 1 degree Celsius rise in water temperature boosted dissolved lead levels by about 17 percent and lead particles by about 36 percent, the researchers report online April 14 in Environmental Science & Technology. Washington water temperature varied from about 5° to 30° C. Seasonal variations in lead were smaller than those expected from temperature changes alone, since other factors such as the amount of organic matter in water can also influence lead levels.

Some water systems could meet the regulatory standard of less than 15 ppb in winter while exceeding that threshold during warmer months, the researchers warn. Water testing prioritizes conditions with the highest risk for lead leaching. However, no current guidelines explicitly address seasonal variability. Lead consumption can cause severe health problems including birth defects, anemia and brain damage (SN: 3/19/16, p. 8).

Genetically engineered crops don’t appear to harm humans or the environment, according to a new report released May 17 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

An extensive analysis of two decades’ worth of evidence dug up no substantial proof that genetically engineered foods were any less safe to eat than those that are conventionally bred. The study’s authors also found no conclusive causal link between the engineered crops and environmental problems. The authors note, though, that it’s not always easy to make definitive conclusions; measuring long-term environmental changes is complicated.

The news comes in the midst of political tumult in the United States over laws to label foods made with GE ingredients. But when it comes to food safety and the environment, the authors conclude, how a plant is made isn’t as important as what is actually created.

“It is the product, not the process, that should be regulated,” the authors write.