#China Foreign Direct Investment

[xtruss]

The EU Doesn’t Know How to Not Be a Vassal of the US Anymore

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has tried to show Americans how Washington has exploited Western Europe

— Bradley Blankenship | RT | August 22, 2023

(From L to R) US President Joe Biden, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Hiroshima on May 19, 2023 © Kenny Holston/POOL/AFP

Tucker Carlson, of Fox News fame, recently met with Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic in Budapest, Hungary. The journalist pointed out that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline has put a serious strain on the European Union’s economy and mentioned that the world was “resetting” in reaction to the conflict in Ukraine and the West’s pledged support for Kiev.

Carlson raises some good issues, and an important one to expand upon is the fact that the EU economy is lagging significantly since the outbreak of the war last year. A June piece by the Financial Times titled ‘Europe has fallen behind America and the gap is growing’ details how the EU is now considerably dependent on the US for its technological, security, and economic needs.

In terms of hard numbers, Jeremy Shapiro and Jana Puglierin of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) think tank have stated: “In 2008, the EU’s economy was somewhat larger than America’s: $16.2tn versus $14.7tn. By 2022, the US economy had grown to $25tn, whereas the EU and the UK together had only reached $19.8tn. America’s economy is now nearly one-third bigger. It is more than 50 per cent larger than the EU without the UK.”

The article goes on to describe a European Union that is dragging far behind the US and China in terms of quality universities, a less-than-pristine start-up environment, and lacking key benefits from its transatlantic peer – namely cheap energy. The Ukraine conflict has impacted the latter to the point that EU companies are paying three or four times what their American competitors are, with Washington being energy-independent and enjoying great domestic supplies. Meanwhile, energy from Russia is waning, European factories are closing in droves, and industry leaders are worried about the region’s future competitiveness.

The ECFR issued its own report on the matter in April, which is far blunter in describing the situation as a kind of “vassalization.” The summary of that report notes that the Ukraine war has exposed the EU’s key dependencies on the US, that over the course of a decade, the bloc has fallen behind the US in virtually every key metric, that it is deadlocked in disagreement and is looking to Washington for leadership.

The ECFR noted two causes for this situation. Firstly, despite the widely understood decline of the US compared to the rise of China, the transatlantic relationship has been unbalanced in Washington’s favor over the last 15 years since the 2008 financial crisis. The Biden administration is keen to exploit this and assert itself in the face of a disjointed Europe. Secondly, no one in the EU knows what greater strategic autonomy could look like – let alone agree on it if they did. There exists no process to decide the EU’s future in an autonomous way given the current status quo, which means US leadership is necessary.

This paints quite an interesting picture. Many commentators, including myself, have long documented the decline of the US and attributed it to a number of factors: less of an attractive environment for foreign direct investment (FDI), financial instability, corruption, and internal political turmoil. This is, of course, relativized to China, which has seen immense economic growth since the founding of the People’s Republic and particularly over the past four decades. But under the smoke screen of a fumbling America and a growing China, the EU has likewise fallen in stature.

The Western Establishment just gave itself a ‘World Peace and Liberty’ Award! Ursula von der Leyen received the ‘Judicial Equivalent’. The Western Establishment just gave itself a ‘World Peace and Liberty’ Award. Ursula von der Leyen received the ‘Judicial Equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize’ from Justin Trudeau in a perfect self-congratulatory orgy

As for the two causes noted by the ECFR, they seem to be intertwined. Many of the key issues that have faced the EU, from migration to the banking crisis to Covid-19, have stemmed directly from the non-federal nature of the EU. And the current political crises are a result of Euroskepticism, i.e. a backlash against what is perceived as an overreach from Brussels by some political organizations within the bloc. The EU is a complicated and sometimes cumbersome bureaucracy that is cherished by some, reviled by others, and, under these assumptions, is an impediment to strategic autonomy.

The ECFR essentially argues for the EU and Western European capitals to lean into the transatlantic partnership, but on terms favorable to themselves. This includes creating an independent security architecture within and complimentary to NATO, creating an economic NATO of sorts and even pursuing a European nuclear weapons program. At least the former two are acceptable, as abandoning the US outright would be politically foolish for the EU at this juncture. It certainly needs to develop a transatlantic free-trade agreement that puts an end to American trade protectionism.

However, the obvious point to help diversify the Western European economic portfolio, reduce genuinely problematic dependencies, and fuel growth is for the EU to develop peer-to-peer relations with the Global South. For one, the EU Parliament could right now ratify the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) to help their companies gain market access in China and tap into one of the world’s largest consumer bases. I would also argue, as I’ve done in the past, that the EU and China could cooperate – rather than compete – on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in the Global South because of Europe’s historical connections, due to its colonialist past.

What is clear is that the EU needs to diversify and back off from the transatlantic relationship. With much talk about ‘de-risking’, or even ‘de-coupling’, from China, Western Europe has actually gotten into the position where it is strategically dependent on Washington to the point of being outright vassalized. This is a bleak situation for the EU’s growth model and its hopes for strategic autonomy.

— Bradley Blankenship is an American Journalist, Columnist and Political Commentator. He has a syndicated column at CGTN and is a freelance reporter for international news agencies.

[saxafimedianetwork]

Experts Criticize China's Governance Model in Africa, Praise Taiwan's Approach

Experts criticize #China's #Governance model in #Africa, citing unpayable debts & lack of benefits for locals. In contrast, #Taiwan's model in #Somaliland is praised for its people-centric approach & focus on knowledge transfers.

Continue reading Experts Criticize China’s Governance Model in Africa, Praise Taiwan’s Approach

[apas-95]

Idk how to feel about China opening diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Yes Afghanistan's assets should be unfrozen and the entire reason the Taliban runs Afghanistan now is the fault of the US, but they are still an extremely brutal reactionary theocracy enforcing the most extreme gender apartheid in the world. It's not China's (or anyone's) place to change that obviously, but I can't bring myself to celebrate China opening diplomacy with them as a win for the third world.

So, in a word: non-interference.

You're right that the Taliban are a reactionary organisation, and you're right that they're in power because of US interference and invasion. Furthermore, you correctly point out that China should not attempt to change the internal political structure of Afghanistan, but the reason for that is much more than an abstract notion of sovereignty or respect - it is moreso a matter of practicality.

The Taliban are in power because they are the Afghan-nationalist group most favourable to US interests. The US would prefer its puppet government be in power, but failing that, there are groups it very much does not want to take power, such as Afghan communist organisations. The US directs more resources to undernining those groups than it does the Taliban. In any case, the Taliban are still better for Afghanistan than the US-comprador government is, but they are still ultimately in power due to continued US intervention. The US refusal to recognise the Taliban is an element in a continuum of intervention, attempting to tip the scale towards US-favourable groups - it is, counter-intuitively, an element of the exact strategy that is keeping the Taliban in power.

China's non-interference policy not only does not influence the internal affairs of other countries - inherently, it actively *weakens* US influence in those countries. If the threat keeping US-favourable groups in power is sanctions, blockade, and international non-recognition, then the credible promise that China, an incredibly useful partner, will engage with *whichever* domestic group takes power, no matter their ideology, allows for organic Afghan interests to express themselves and bring about organic Afghan political goals. Similarly, the provisioning of no-strings-attached investment, infrastructure, etc, makes US support of preferred groups less effective, as Afghanistan is both less desperate for support, and also has less incentive to take aid packages that include 'restructuring' demands.

In essence: refusing relations with the Taliban, like the US is doing, is part of the exact gradient of political-economic pressures that keeps the Taliban (the group least threatening to US interests, other than an unsustainable puppet) in power. Opening non-judgemental relations to *whoever* achieves power weakens that gradient, and strengthens the ability for the genuine interests of the Afghan people to determine who achieves and retains power. China refusing to open relations with the Afghan government because they do not align ideologically would not change that gradient at all, and could only add yet another set of foreign interests overriding those of the people (interests which could not be more commanding than those of the US military empire, in any case). Free and non-judgemental relations with a reliable trading partner is precisely the environment that weakens the political base of reactionary organisations, and strengthens genuinely revolutionary ones.

[racefortheironthrone]

Why do economists need to shut up about mercantilism, as you alluded to in your post about Louis XIV's chief ministers?

In part due to their supposed intellectual descent from Adam Smith and the other classical economists, contemporary economists are pretty uniformly hostile to mercantilism, seeing it as a wrong-headed political economy that held back human progress until it was replaced by that best of all ideas: capitalism.

As a student of economic history and the history of political economy, I find that economists generally have a pretty poor understanding of what mercantilists actually believed and what economic policies they actually supported. In reality, a lot of the things that economists see as key advances in the creation of capitalism - the invention of the joint-stock company, the creation of financial markets, etc. - were all accomplishments of mercantiism.

Rather than the crude stereotype of mercantilists as a bunch of monetary weirdos who thought the secret to prosperity was the hoarding of precious metals, mercantilists were actually lazer-focused on economic development. The whole business about trying to achieve a positive balance of trade and financial liquidity and restraining wages was all a means to an end of economic development. Trade surpluses could be invested in manufacturing and shipping, gold reserves played an important role in deepening capital pools and thus increasing levels of investment at lower interest rates that could support larger-scale and more capital intensive enterprises, and so forth.

Indeed, the arch-sin of mercantilism in the eyes of classical and contemporary economists, their interference in free trade through tariffs, monopolies, and other interventions, was all directed at the overriding economic goal of climbing the value-added ladder.

Thus, England (and later Britain) put a tariff on foreign textiles and an export tax on raw wool and forbade the emigration of skilled workers (while supporting the immigration of skilled workers to England) and other mercantilist policies to move up from being exporters of raw wool (which meant that most of the profits from the higher value-added part of the industry went to Burgundy) to being exporters of cheap wool cloth to being exporters of more advanced textiles. Hell, even Adam Smith saw the logic of the Navigation Acts!

And this is what brings me to the most devastating critique of the standard economist narrative about mercantilism: the majority of the countries that successfully industrialized did so using mercantilist principles rather than laissez-faire principles:

When England became the first industrial economy, it did so under strict protectionist policies and only converted to free trade once it had gained enough of a technological and economic advantage over its competitors that it didn't need protectionism any more.

When the United States industrialized in the 19th century and transformed itself into the largest economy in the world, it did so from behind high tariff walls.

When Germany made itself the leading industrial power on the Continent, it did so by rejecting English free trade economics and having the state invest heavily in coal, steel, and railroads. Free trade was only for within the Zollverein, not with the outside world.

And as Dani Rodrik, Ha-Joon Chang, and others have pointed out, you see the same thing with Japan, South Korea, China...everywhere you look, you see protectionism as the means of achieving economic development, and then free trade only working for already-developed economies.

[darkmaga-retard]

By Clark Barnes EarlKing56.family.blog

August 12, 2024

China’s economy is plunging into an unprecedented and dire phase, sounding deafening alarms that the Chinese government hopes to muffle, but they are growing too loud to ignore. This looming collapse is an ominous warning to America and the entire world as we are witnessing this unsettling unraveling in real-time. So, what do we need to know about this? China isn’t exactly transparent, most recently halting economic data releases to keep the world in the dark, which is just not a good sign. What they are hiding is that their state-controlled economy is unravelling due to debt, misguided investments, and eroding credibility. The question is, how bad could it get and what impact could it have on you? And most importantly, what can you do to prepare? Let’s talk about it.

3 REASONS CHINA COULD SHOCK THE WORLD

1) UNINFORMED POPULATION

The course and direction of a country are often determined by its citizens, and China’s citizenry is becoming increasingly upset and agitated, or are they? Some things we know, and some things we don’t.  We know the suppression of information and censorship might keep them from blaming their problems on the Chinese government, and the government is keeping information from them. The Chinese Communist Party had a botched COVID response–Draconian lockdown of apartment complexes and factories; workers forced to work instead of going home, then suddenly all measures were lifted as if they never occurred.

China has ceased reporting economic data that could reveal its true economic health. For instance, they stopped publishing youth unemployment figures, citing a need to review their methodology. The most recent available data showed a record-high youth unemployment rate of 21.3% in June for those aged 16 to 24. It’s possible that it’s even higher now, possibly exceeding 25%, but we lack current information. In addition, China has limited access for foreign users to corporate registries and academic journals. They have also clamped down on due diligence firms, which are vital sources of information for overseas businesses interested in China. It’s evident that the Chinese government is actively suppressing information and engaged in extensive damage control.

The Chinese people don’t really understand how teetering their economy truly is because the government doesn’t want that to be known. Even today, if the ruling Chinese Communist Party doesn’t like data or it reflects negatively on them, they simply don’t report it. The world has to wonder what’s really going on in the people’s minds, what they actually know and don’t know, and whether their frustration level will ever be more potent than the government’s ability to hold them down.

[william-r-melich]

Tik Tok on the Chopping Block - 04/25/2024

Yesterday, Joe Biden signed the Tik Tok Divest-or-Ban bill into law. I covered this bill extensively in my post, "Tik Tok Bill/HR 7521" back on March 16th of this year. This bill forces ByteDance to sell Tik Tok within one year. It's clear to me that this Chinese owned company is controlled by the CCP and is using it to gather information on US citizens and influence children toward committing self-harm and suicide.

Tik Tok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew released the following video statement yesterday. "Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban on you and your voice. We are confident, and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again." He was referring to how they circumvented Trump's executive order to ban the app in the U.S. back in 2020. Tik Tok's position is that through China's Counterespionage Law, its customer data is stored in Virginia and backed up in Singapore. They claim that they have never or ever will share U.S. data with the CCP. Yet the owner of ByteDance previously issued a letter of apology to the CCP about failing to follow the CCP's directives. It's obvious to me that they are more of an arm of the CCP than a private company and we should not trust them. At the same time, I'm also conflicted about trusting our own government. Regardless it's now signed into law, like it or not.

Tik Tok and ByteDance together spent over $7 million since the beginning of this year on TV and digital ads in an effort to stop legislation from passing the bill. A Tik Tok spokesperson said this, "This expenditure reflects work we do to educate policy makers about how legislation could affect our community of 170 million American users." Tik Tok officials lobbied Congress and Biden's executive office last quarter. Biden's executive office contains the National Security Council, the Office Management and Budget, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and other divisions.

As I mentioned in my previous post on this bill last March, Donald Trump and Elon Musk both came out against it. Trump is concerned that it could expand government powers on other platforms, and Musk is concerned about censorship. The bill is intended to remove any foreign influence and investment in social media platforms and websites here in the U.S. The government would have to prove that a foreign entity is directly involved and then initially force divestment, and then later if necessary deplatform the app and shut down their operating websites.

I'm all for private companies operating platforms that allow freedom of expression, but not if they're being operated by a foreign adversary like China's CCP. Yet I'm always very skeptical of our government and their tendencies to over-reach in order to go after their political opposition. Especially with this current bunch in charge. All we can do is to stay informed and hopefully for the sake of our freedom and security vote in Republican majorities in both the house and senate, and get Donald Trump back into office, in my opinion.

[one-divides-into-two]

"[T]he classical debate seems almost to attribute a secondary importance to the extraordinary historical significance of the active role of institutions in the late-joiner countries (signally in Germany) – initially in the forms of an accentuated centralization of the operations financing industrialization, and then, subsequently, with equipment intended to directly or indirectly govern the structure and composition of supply – when compared to the tendencies of the state-development relation, which is instead treated as essential. On the other hand, if a politics of fierce protections and then of imperialist expansion, which tends even to destroy the world market as simple area of exchange, corresponds to the anything but “parasitic” role of the state within second-comer industrialization, in this very phase the conditions, which had up to that point impeded the evolution of the international market from a mere moment of simple circulation to becoming the direct center of the accumulation process on a world scale, are changing radically. But concerning the whole process of internationalization, the classical debate performs a reading by all means conditioned by what has just been said.

The international movements of labor-power in this phase are events which largely remain to be studied. What is certain, however, is that they repeat on an enormous scale, though in different forms, the “originary” movements of the “slave trade” [tratta]: let it suffice to recall the massive extractions of labor-power from India and China, both towards other colonial areas (Africa) and to the metropolis, or to recall the waves of transoceanic immigration to the United States. If all this does not eliminate the existence of closed national markets of labor, still less is the relative international immobility of capital overcome by the waves of “capital export,” which the classical debate on imperialism rightly places at the center of its attention, and which constitute in fact the first massive historical phenomenon of “internationalization” of capital. In other words, this is still a hybrid form, so to speak, of transition, of the process of internationalization: this does not therefore represent a real qualitative leap of the system. As the recent literature on foreign investment has put into relief, this is dominated in this phase, quantitatively and qualitatively, by the figure of the investment “portfolio.” Although the nature of the latter cannot be made clear but in contrast to “direct” investment (a distinction that is not necessarily fully perceived in this moment), the phenomenon appears reconstructed, even then, in a substantially correct manner.

[...]

The adequate theoretical figure that encompasses [ricomprendere] the nature and dynamic of this specific mobility of capital is already totally developed in Marx: it involves capital as commodity – the loan capital market. In the 5th section of the third book Marx unfolds the general lines of his theory of this market, albeit in a rather fragmented manner:

On the money market it is only lenders and borrowers who face one another. The commodity has the same form, money. All particular forms of capital, arising from its investment in particular spheres of production or circulation, are obliterated here. It exists in the undifferentiated, self-identical form of independent value, of money. Competition between particular spheres now ceases; they are all thrown together as borrowers of money, and capital confronts them all in a form still indifferent to the specific manner and mode of its application. Here capital really does emerge, in the pressure of its demand and supply, as the common capital of the class, whereas industrial capital appears like this only in the movement and competition between particular spheres.

Whence the Marxian theory of the rate of interest and its critique of the existence of a “natural rate”:

As far as the permanently fluctuating market rate of interest is concerned, this is a fixed magnitude at any given moment, just like the market price of commodities, because on the money market all capital for loan confronts the functioning capital as an overall mass; i.e. the relationship between the supply of loan capital on the one hand, and the demand for it on the other, is what determines the market level of interest at any given time.

The rate of profit – which exists uniquely as a tendency, as a movement tending to equalize the particular rates of profit – constitutes only the external limit of the determination of the rate of interest, but the laws of formation of the one are in fact different from those of the other – their connection clearly resides only in the movement of the cycle. But the different nature of the two rates has a fundamental importance in this context, precisely for that aspect from which Marx’s analysis seems to want to abstract:

In stressing this distinction between the interest rate and the profit rate, we have so far left aside the following two factors, which favour the consolidation of the interest rate: (1) the historical pre-existence of interest-bearing capital and the existence of a general rate of interest handed down by tradition; (2) the far stronger direct influence that the world market exerts on the establishment of the interest rate, independently of the conditions of production in a country, as compared with its influence on the profit rate.

Exactly as the rate of interest historically anticipates the formation of the rate of profit, so it anticipates, at the level of the world market, the tendential movements of the rate of profit. The influence of the world market on the national rates of interest is in fact only an appearance [faccia] of the inverse process. Marx affirms this explicitly at the end of his analysis of credit:

The credit system hence accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the creation of the world market, which it is the historical task of the capitalist mode of production to bring to a certain level of development, as material foundations for the new form of production. At the same time, credit accelerates the violent outbreaks of this contradiction, crises, and with these the elements of dissolution of the old mode of production.

Capital export and the process of capitalist internationalization preceding the first world war are largely the practical realization of this anticipatory function of the movement of capital that is productive of interest. As such, they reproduce on a broad scale the characteristic ambivalence of this movement. The “classical” literature is aware, even without systematizing it, of this ambivalence. Thus, the Leninist emphasis on the contrast between export of commodities and export of capitals does not change the fact that, in the last analysis, for Lenin as for almost all the contemporaneous literature, the second is still a direct function of the first, on the “strictly economic” plane, according to the unchanging schema: export of manufactured goods against import of raw materials. And it is in this light that one should also read and appreciate the twofold polemic developed by Lenin: on the one side, against anyone who unduly extends the moments of anticipation of that form of international mobility of capital (against Kautsky, but also against Bukharin); on the other, against anyone who elides them within a “normal form” of the cycle and within the schemas of enlarged reproduction."

Luciano Ferrari Bravo, "Old and new questions on the theory of imperialism." (1973)

[mariacallous]

President Yoon Suk Yeol’s conservative People Power Party (PPP) suffered a major setback in South Korea’s parliamentary election held on April 10, 2024. Of the 300 seats in the National Assembly, the PPP secured only 108 seats through direct and proportional elections. Meanwhile, the major progressive opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) and its satellite parties expanded its majority to 175 seats, hampering Yoon’s ability to govern for his remaining three years in office. Although the Yoon government’s domestic agenda may become further imperiled, his active foreign policy agenda will largely stay intact, including his staunch support for the U.S.-South Korea alliance and promotion of South Korea as a global pivotal state.

A referendum on President Yoon

South Korea’s midterm election was largely seen as a referendum on Yoon. Since coming to office in May 2022, Yoon’s domestic approval ratings have remained low, rarely breaking past 40 percent. Although support for the DPK and its party leader, Lee Jae-myung, has tracked equally as low, South Koreans were more likely to associate their country’s current economic woes, including inflation and high prices, with the ruling government.

A series of small, but unfortunate events and gaffes by Yoon during the election campaign may have also helped tip the scales in favor of opposition candidates in contested districts. In the months leading up to South Korea’s election, minor scandals surrounding the president’s wife and his former defense minister, an ongoing strike by the country’s medical doctors, and the president’s seemingly trivial comment about the price of green onions made him look out of touch.

Moreover, the rapid growth in support for a new progressive party founded by former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk just a month before the election attests to Yoon’s domestic unpopularity. Cho established the Rebuilding Korea Party (RKP) explicitly to challenge the Yoon administration, which he described as “dictatorial” and “anti-democratic.”  Despite the former justice minister’s own corruption scandals and indictment, the RKP performed better than any other third party, winning 12 seats in the party-list proportional voting system.

Domestic political challenges

A divided government and ongoing political polarization will make it especially difficult for government and opposition leaders to make compromises and find bold solutions to pressing social and economic problems, such as high inflation, falling birth rates, and the lack of affordable housing.

Yoon will continue to face challenges in implementing his domestic priorities. During recent town hall meetings, the president unveiled several policy initiatives in hopes of attracting voters, including plans for new housing through urban redevelopment and new infrastructure projects. Just prior to the election, Yoon promised major investment in a new industrial complex for the development of semiconductors and artificial intelligence and pledged to relocate the National Assembly out of Seoul to the administrative city of Sejong in the middle of the country. However, his government will face obstacles in the National Assembly in financing such projects with progressives holding a commanding majority.

Greater continuity in foreign policy

The basic contours of Yoon’s foreign and national security policy, including support for the U.S.-South Korean alliance, deterring North Korea, and the U.S.-Japan-Korea trilateral, will persist. Relations with the United States will also remain positive given wide public support, even among progressives, for the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

Likewise, the South Korean public’s unfavorable views of China and broad recognition of Chinese coercive actions in the region have muted major criticism that Yoon has antagonized China. Despite the Yoon government’s close alignment with Washington, Seoul has also maintained space to engage Beijing diplomatically. Last week, the Yoon government announced Seoul would host a China-Japan-South Korea trilateral summit in late May.

Nevertheless, the DPK’s electoral gains will take some of the wind out of Yoon’s foreign policy sails. The DPK may complicate further South Korean rapprochement with Japan and demand that Yoon seek greater concessions from Tokyo to address historical grievances. This in turn may slow the pace of U.S.-Japan-Korea trilateral cooperation and the implementation of the deliverables announced during the Camp David trilateral summit in 2023, particularly those that call for greater military cooperation with Japan.

Opposition party members may also feel more emboldened to speak out against Yoon’s hostile approach to North Korea in contrast to the DPK’s desire for greater inter-Korea engagement. Yoon’s revised unification plan for the two Koreas, which incorporates principles of freedom and democracy, will likely be criticized by DPK members.

A lame duck?

The term “lame duck” has been repeatedly used to describe Yoon’s remaining time in office. However, Yoon’s predicament may not significantly diverge from his first two years in office since the DPK did not win a supermajority—over 200 seats—needed to overcome filibusters and override presidential vetoes. The election results are also unlikely to change the overall tenor of South Korea’s polarized politics, as the ruling and opposition parties continue to highlight scandals and pursue corruption charges against their political opponents. Although political momentum may shift to the DPK, the PPP will likely regroup in preparation for the next presidential election in 2027 as it did following even greater losses by the conservative party in the 2020 parliamentary elections.

For South Korea’s allies and partners, some concern may emerge regarding whether the Yoon government can sustain its activist foreign policy agenda, including support for Ukraine or increased attention to Taiwan and cross-Strait relations. Yoon, however, is unlikely to backtrack on the idea of South Korea becoming a global pivotal state, as foreign policy and national security issues are typically the prerogatives of the president in South Korean politics, and Yoon remains at the helm of Korea’s strong executive branch.

Seoul recently hosted the third Summit for Democracy in March, and in May will co-host the AI Safety Summit and the China-Japan-Korea trilateral summit. NATO is looking toward South Korea and other Asian countries for greater support on Ukraine. Although unlikely, a more inward-looking South Korea resulting from the president’s so-called “lame-duck” status would be a loss for the international community.

Beyond partisan politics, the DPK too has a stake in elevating South Korea’s global role. Although North Korea and Japan issues elicit starkly different responses from South Korean progressives and conservatives, in recent years, attitudes towards the U.S.-South Korea alliance and China have somewhat converged. The United States and its allies should therefore continue to work with Seoul, irrespective of the party in power, to promote regional security and global order.

[vote-democrat-president-congress]

Washington Post:

How Trump is already damaging U.S. national interests

Assuming they do end up facing each other in November, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump will offer voters a stark choice between the former’s support for the network of alliances and international institutions the United States helped create after World War II and the latter’s “America First” approach. In that sense, U.S. voters will not be choosing a direction for their country alone but for the world as a whole.

The assumption underlying such institutions as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the mutual defense agreements that bind the United States with Japan and South Korea is that security is not a zero-sum proposition. By committing resources over extended periods and combining them, taking mutual advantage of differing capabilities, countries can make themselves far safer than would have been possible if they acted unilaterally or in temporary concert. Mr. Biden believes this is still a workable model, which is why he is trying to apply and expand it to deter the challenge to NATO posed by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has repeatedly depicted security alliances not as prudent long-term investments but as free rides for allies who get U.S. protection but do not shoulder their fair share of the defense burden. This is why Mr. Trump is pushing to end America’s support for Ukraine and hinting at a separate peace of some kind with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. His campaign website promises “fundamentally reevaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.”

Self-absorbed and easily swayed by honeyed words and calculated attention from autocrats such as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, he inconsistently directs venom at China’s predatory trade practices and admiration for that country’s leader, Xi Jinping. This sows uncertainty not just in Taiwan but also the wider range of allies and partners that includes Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia and India. The Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy, has warned that a Trump return would raise foundational questions about America’s trustworthiness as well as “the credibility of its commitments to foreign partners, and the durability of its role as the [linchpin] of the global security order.” We wish it were exaggerating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/05/trump-world-global-reaction-tariffs/

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

China’s Green Energy Investments Aim at Latin America Amid Competition With the US

Chinese investments in Latin America are shifting to focus on decarbonization and renewable energies, using technologies that are strategic for the future of the global economy. 

China’s growing presence in the trade and investments landscape in Latin America has drawn attention from policymakers and businesses in the United States. Accustomed to the status of leading regional power, the U.S. and its traditional allies are now facing competition coming from China. 

This trend started two decades ago. China’s greater economic engagement with Latin America began after its entry in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the launching of the Going Global strategy in 2001. The balance of trade between Latin America and China grew from $12 billion in 2000 to more than $445 billion in 2021. 

Chinese engagement has only grown stronger throughout the years with increasing foreign direct investment (FDI), diplomatic efforts, and greater trade complementarity. Chinese FDI initially aimed at assuring food and energy security through mergers and acquisitions with local and foreign companies in Latin America’s agricultural, oil and gas sectors. The first White Paper outlining Beijing’s vision for the engagement with the region was launched in 2008, at a time when its firms were still acquiring knowledge as well as assessing strategic objectives and learning to navigate the political economy, regulatory and institutional environment in different countries. 

After 2013, during Xi Jinping’s first mandate and the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the vision changed. Big infrastructure projects, mostly focusing on the energy sector, were the focus of Chinese investments. In 2016 China released a second, more detailed White Paper outlining its policy for Latin America, focusing on cooperation for development, energy, and sustainability in a South-South framework. 

Between 2005-2012 it is estimated that China’s total FDI toward South America plus Mexico totaled around $63 billion, while between 2005-2023 the total FDI of Chinese firms in the same countries reached $212 billion. Brazil represented just over one-third of the total, with $71.6 billion worth of Chinese investment in 235 projects.

Continue reading.

[lingyunxiang]

Grace King Morgan Stanley Senior Banker, Senior Vice President of Wealth Management

Ms. Grace is the first woman from mainland China admitted to Columbia University. After graduation, Ms. Grace started working on Wall Street in the 1980s. She has served the most famous institutions and investors on Wall Street and has extensive and rich personal relationships.

This investment banking giant is known as "Mogul" in the Chinese industry. It is headquartered in a 750,000-square-foot office building in Manhattan, New York City. Its business areas include stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, funds, futures, investment banking, Securities underwriting, corporate financial consulting, institutional corporate marketing, real estate, private wealth management, direct investment, institutional investment management, etc.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[The Daily Don]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 27, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 28, 2023

Catie Edmondson and Carl Hulse in the New York Times yesterday noted that House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) cannot bring his conference together behind a budget plan. He wanted to pass a bill demanding major concessions from President Biden before the Republicans would agree to raise the debt ceiling, both to prove that he could get his colleagues behind a bill and to put pressure on the Biden administration to restore the old Republican idea that the only way to make the economy work is to slash taxes, business regulation, and government spending.

McCarthy was pleased to have passed his measure with not a single vote to spare, but it appears he got the vote because everyone knew it was dead on arrival at the Senate. According to Edmonson and Hulse, McCarthy got the bill through only by begging his colleagues to ignore the provisions of the measure because it would never become law. He urged them to focus on the symbolic victory of showing Biden they could unite behind cuts.

But today at the Brookings Institution, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan outlined a very different vision of the global economy and American economic leadership. First of all, just the fact this happened is significant: Sullivan is a national security advisor, and he was talking about economics. He outlined how Biden’s “core commitment,” “his daily direction” is “to integrate domestic policy and foreign policy.”

Sullivan argued for a new economic approach to the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Biden administration is trying to establish “a fairer, more durable global economic order, for the benefit of ourselves and for people everywhere.”

The U.S. faces economic challenges, he noted, many of which have been created by the economic ideology that has shaped U.S. policy for the past 40 years. The idea that markets would spread capital to where it was most needed to create an efficient and effective economy has been proven wrong, Sullivan said. The U.S. cut taxes and slashed business regulations, privatized public projects, and pushed free trade on principle with the understanding that all growth was good growth and that if we lost infrastructure and manufacturing, we could make up those losses in finance, for example.

As countries lowered their economic barriers and became more closely integrated with each other, they would also become more open and peaceful.

But that’s not how it played out. Privileging finance over fundamental economic growth was a mistake. The U.S. lost supply chains and entire industries as jobs moved overseas, while countries like China discarded markets in favor of artificially subsidizing their economies. Rather than ushering in world peace, the market-based system saw an aggressive China and Russia both expanding their international power. At the same time, climate change accelerated without countries making much effort to address it. And, most of all, the unequal growth of the older system has undermined democracy.

Biden has attempted to counter the weaknesses of the previous economic system by focusing on building capacity to produce and innovate, resilience to withstand natural disasters and geopolitical shocks, and inclusiveness to rebuild the American middle class and greater opportunity for working people around the world.

After two years, the results have been “remarkable.”

Large-scale investment in semiconductor and clean energy production has jumped 20-fold since 2019, with private money following government seed money to mean about $3.5 trillion in public and private investment will flow into the economy in the next decade. Building domestic capacity will bring supply chains home and create jobs.

But this vision is not about isolating the United States from other countries. Indeed, much of the speech reinforced U.S. support for the positions of the European Union.

Instead, the U.S. is encouraging our allies—including developing nations—to build similarly to increase our united economic strengths and to enable the world to address climate change together, a field that offers huge potential for economic growth. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with 13 Indo-Pacific nations is designed to create international economic cooperation in that region, and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay, is designed to do the same here in the Americas. The U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council and our trilateral coordination with Japan and Korea are part of the same economic program.

With this economic approach, the U.S. does not seek to cut ties to China, but rather aims to cut the risks associated with supply chains based in China by investing in our own capacities, and to push for a level playing field for our workers and companies. The U.S. has “a very substantial trade and investment relationship” with China that set a new record last year, and the U.S. is looking not to create conflict but to “manage competition responsibly” and “work together on global challenges like climate, like macroeconomic stability, health security, and food security.” “But,” he said, “China has to be willing to play its part.”

In today’s world, Sullivan said, trade policy is not just about the tariff deals that business leaders have criticized the administration for neglecting. It is about a larger economic strategy both at home and abroad to build economies that offer rising standards of living for working people.

The administration is now focusing on labor rights, climate change, and banking security in this larger picture. Through organizations like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment the administration hopes to mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in financing in the next seven years to build infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries and to relieve debt there.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries,” Sullivan said. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with “targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.” Rather than simply adjusting tariff rates, it means international cooperation.

And, Sullivan said, “it means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

This strategy, he said, “is the surest path to restoring the middle class, to producing a just and effective clean-energy transition, to securing critical supply chains, and, through all of this, to repairing faith in democracy itself.” He called for bipartisan support for this approach to the global economy.

Sullivan noted that the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” came from President John F. Kennedy, not from later supply-side ideologues who used it to defend their tax cuts and business deregulation. “President Kennedy wasn’t saying what’s good for the wealthy is good for the working class,” Sullivan said, “He was saying we’re all in this together.”

Sullivan quoted Kennedy further: “If one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the boats. That’s true for our country. That’s true for our world. [And] economically, over time, we’re going to rise—or fall—together.”

“And that goes for the strength of our democracies as well as for the strength of our economies.”

Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen noted that David Wessel of Brookings asked Sullivan for a quick summary of this new economic vision. Sullivan answered: “We’re at a moment now where we need to build capacity to build the goods & invent the technologies of [the] future & we’re going to make the investments to do that—us, +everyone who wants to be in on [the] deal. & then we’re going to build the resilience we need…so that no natural disaster or geopolitical shock can stop us from getting things we need when we need them….”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[thaliexvii]

Some Lee lore and my headcanons about him

Anonymous asked:

I was directed to you for some Lee lore/headcanons :) Early life as well as T1/T2 headcanons for Lee please?

Well, first thank you for asking me, Anonymous, I will try to tell you what I think of it even though my headcanon may not be the right one. I love to play him but everyone’s headcanons are different. It is very kind of erenaeoth to propose me for this and I hope it will give you some ideas for some parts. Since this is a long answer, I’ll put the rest under the cut.

First, in maybe historical details, if the time period of Tekken 1 was around 1994-1995, (Lee’s car from Tag is from 1999 but then that game is a bit of an anachronism, Lee was born during the Mao era in China (1949-1976 (around 1970, maybe 1973 if the car is some hint)). It was a time of many events and once Mao died in 1976, the Chinese economic reform (Gǎigékāifàng), known in the West as the opening of China, started in 1978, opening up of the country to foreign investment. The ‘BoluanFanzheng’ (Eliminating Chaos and Returning to Normal) was then a program attempting to correct the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution.

The Honda S2000 was manufactured in 1999 though it was shown as a concept car (Then called SSM) at the Tokyo Motor Show in 1995 so maybe Lee spoiled himself by already getting one of those futuristic cars in advance? He seems to love cars as we see him driving around for a bit in Tekken Tag 1, possibly as a way of relaxing and escaping the suffocating life with Heihachi or to get noticed, or probably both.

Of course, little Lee must not have understood all that was happening, maybe he does remember Mao’s state funerals and a few other events, maybe he remembers his parents having a little red book, but didn’t understand most of the events, but anyway what was important to know was that the opening may have been the reason why Heihachi was in China as a new investor and found Lee who was living in the streets.

My art of Heihachi finding young Lee Chaolan in the streets after a fight with other kids. (the background is a backstreet in Shanghai)

When Lee ended up in the streets, he probably was old enough to somehow fend for himself, since a three-year old would not have been able to steal food or find a shelter or anything like this and would possibly have found another parental figure to take care of him (of course, he could have found someone else who abandoned him, have lived in some homeless child shelter and escaped, but since there was no mention of it and Lee definitively took Heihachi as his father figure, I feel he was definitely alone once his parents died, with no people of importance around him). I think Lee didn’t have a big extended family and his parents must have died quite suddenly since otherwise he may have been taken under the wings of someone or some organization instead of ending up in the streets. In my headcanon, Lee is from Shanghai, and his immediate family died in a fire in an area with poor quality housing that exacerbated the fire.

Lee probably ended up living in the streets for a while, since he had time to learn how to fight to the point of looking like something of interest to Heihachi, who had to be really impressed by that kid’s fighting talent to decide he would make a good rival for his son. Of course, Lee could have begun to fight other kids even while his parents were still alive, but with the way it is said in his bio “Lee's parents died when he was a young child, leaving him to fend for himself on the streets. Facing a hostile environment each day, he quickly became a skilled scrapper with reflexes that were amazing for a boy of his age”, it seemed to have been out of necessity that he started to fight, so, once in the streets. 

This time in the streets and all its dangers probably toughened him in many ways and made him more distrustful of anyone. However, Heihachi was able to pass through those defenses and take him out of the streets, probably by offering him food and then promising him the world, telling him he would be in a rich family and never lack anything. For Lee, once he dropped his defenses and opened up to another person for the first time since his parents, Heihachi suddenly appeared like a savior, all cheerful, saving him from the street and even from death... Lee certainly felt gratitude that quickly turned to love for his new adoptive father. Lee was indeed grateful for the rescue, so he somehow wanted to repay his savior and be appreciated by him. Heihachi was now his new father, his new father figure, the one who took him out of poverty and offered him a new life and the one he opened up his heart to. Heihachi’s approval became something very important for Lee from now on.

And with Heihachi being a narcissist, he probably kept reminding his new son of all he did for him and probably often mentioned that Lee owed him everything. Even though he adopted him and Lee owed him everything, Heihachi never gave his family name to him. This must not have been a decision from Lee, to somehow honor and remember his biological parents, but a very calculated one done by Heihachi, who somehow wanted to make Lee feel not worthy enough to be a real Mishima and to fight to deserve a place into the family. He did not adopt that kid to give him a charmed life or out of fatherly instinct, he just wanted a rival for Kazuya. If Heihachi had wanted to name Lee (first name is Chaolan, Lee is the family name), Mishima, Lee would have had no say in this, no matter how much he would have wanted to honor his biological parents. So it was a Heihachi decision to show his adopted son that he wasn’t a real Mishima and it was not Lee’s decision to honor his dead biological family. Heihachi wanted to tell him: “I’m your savior, your father, but you are not worthy to fully be my son, unless you fight for it.”

Heihachi is indeed his savior so, Lee is at first very grateful and loves his adoptive father, he owes him so much but once adopted, once he had given his heart and devotion to him, he is hurt to discover that in fact Heihachi does not really care about him and is in reality a mean father to both him and Kazuya. He notices that Heihachi is really mean with his biological son, Kazuya, but also that Kazuya is the only one who really matters to Heihachi, the only one their father really focuses on, either in anger or in pride. Kazuya is the real Mishima, the important one, but also somehow, for some reason, hated by his father. Heihachi mostly ignores or humiliates Lee and mistreats Kazuya. But also, this makes Lee jealous since Kazuya is the real son, the one Heihachi’s thoughts are on, the one who mostly represents the Mishima prestigious family in events. Lee is somehow the proof that Heihachi was so generous to have adopted and raised that child, not a source of prestige himself. He had to bring honor to the family and act as it was requested but to show how Heihachi raised him. Heihachi was not feeling with him the emotions he did with Kazuya. And what also give Lee more of an inferiority complex, is that Kazuya is the eldest. Lee is the second one, the other son. The not important one. This is another thing that Heihachi wanted Lee to feel so that he would fight to be noticed and consider Kazuya as his rival, the one to fight against. Heihachi did not want to give a brother to Kazuya, he wanted to give him a rival. Lee probably did not care about fighting for money, the company, and larger prizes at this stage, since, as a kid, all those things were far from his mind. He probably only wanted food, shelter and a loving family, but Heihachi forced him to fight for his place in the family and spoiled the brotherly relation Lee could have had with Kazuya by introducing that rivalry. But in fact, just to say, neither Kazuya nor Lee could have won the title of best son since the real son was Kuma, the only one treated with some affection by Heihachi… Heihachi always cared far more for his bears, Kuma I and II, to the point of dressing up his second one and offering him the Mishima Zaibatsu, maybe as a joke and trying to take it back like in Kuma’s ending in Tekken 4 but Alisa talks about him having been considered to be the next CEO of the Mishima Zaibatsu in Tekken 6. Alisa: The bear in question was once a candidate to head the Mishima Zaibatsu. Lars: A bear running the Zaibatsu? Who comes up with this stuff? (Lars doesn’t know his dad…). Maybe after the whole Kazumi devil attack and his attempted murder of his son, Heihachi put all his love and affection on his baby bear... He had no place for humans anymore so Lee never stood a chance.

My art of Heihachi sending his children to school with the help of his favorite baby. In my headcanon, the Mishima polytechnical school already exists so they have the same uniform as Jin will have.

Of course the wealthy things Lee received were nice, mostly compared to having nothing in the streets, but it was constantly accompanied with stressful demands and expectations. Not only did Lee have to learn Japanese, he also had to learn Japanese customs, high society customs, how to write, and a few other remedial courses since he didn’t go to school when he was in the streets… And also, he may have been good at fighting but now he had to change his street fighting style to the Mishima ryu fighting style and learn the martial arts discipline while performing in his fights against Kazuya. All this forced him to study hard and learn fast. Lee was very intelligent as his bio says: “Lee was a prodigy both in smarts and martial arts”, so he succeeded in learning all of this probably quite fast but at the cost of his calm and peace of mind. He always had to perform for their father to show he was worthy of having been adopted. And when Heihachi shows he cares more about his bear than him, this must hurt him a lot. It probably turned him into quite a stressed child with his inferiority complex, always trying to please and satisfy his father, to not bring dishonor to Heihachi’s prestige and his claim that he raised that child. But Heihachi was not a supportive father. He seemed to have always told Lee that he was a disappointment, probably not good enough to be a Mishima. In the ending of Tekken Tag 2 when Violet has abducted his family to test Super Combot DX, Heihachi quickly mocks Lee over his robot: “You think were impressed by that hunk of junk? Pathetic!” and once Combot loses its head thanks to DJ, Heihachi says: “See? Nothing more than a disappointment!”, as if he’s saying, “See? You’re a disappointment, as always.” He then starts to laugh, somehow probably angering Lee who likely heard this a lot of time. Though Violet/Lee keeps his cool and makes them explode. So Heihachi always tried to make Lee feel like a disappointment, probably always threatening to send him back in the streets if he was not worthy enough, reminding Lee of his lowborn origins and his power over him. As we can see in the ending in Tekken 6 where Lee tied Heihachi, Kazuya, and Jin to missiles, as soon as the ball doesn’t reach him, Heihachi starts to laugh at Lee and tells him quite familiarly that he missed and once he discovers that the balls are explosive, he orders him to stop it right now, using his authority on him again. Heihachi seems to think he still hold authority over his adoptive son, like in Tekken 6 again, in scenario mode when he discovers that Lee built a new company, he says: “When did Lee (He does call him Lee, not Chaolan, to underline he is not a Mishima) have time to build up a corporation like this? I don't approve of this!”

To make Lee feel even more inferior, Heihachi also seemed to manipulate him by humiliating him with the spankings and noogies, as seen in the Tag games (All through Tekken Tag, if you pair Lee with Heihachi (with a certain combination of clothes) Heihachi spanks Lee or gives him a noogie at the start of each fight and when they lose, he grabs Lee and spanks him, he also spanks him in Tag 2 when they lose). Heihachi is always ready to mock Lee and it really shows that he was used to humiliating Lee. Lee is always a joke for Heihachi. He first took him as a rival for Kazuya but he also considered that kid as his thing and never respected him. He could do whatever he wanted to Lee, he was his toy. About the spanking, maybe it is also a form of Heihachi venting his own frustrations over his own father since as we can see in the continue scene of Tag 2, Jinpachi also spanks Heihachi… But Heihachi really treats Lee like a child, even when Lee had become an adult. He doesn’t take that son seriously, contrarily to Kazuya, who is the number one threat. Heihachi probably didn’t spank Kazuya anymore since he threw him from the cliff since Kazuya somehow scares him as a demon child. Heihachi sees a danger in him and Kazuya is not a joke like Lee. Even when innocent little five years old Kazuya did nothing wrong and ‘may’ only have that demon inherited from his mother, Heihachi is repulsed and scared by him. His fear and attitude then proceeds to turn Kazuya really evil… When Lee is grabbed by his father in the games for the spankings or noogies, Lee somehow does not resist much, he is more docile while Kazuya is even uncontrollable when tied in a space suit (Heihachi’s ending in Tekken 6).

Lee giving a revenge noogie to his father. Picture graciously provided thanks to @claudioseraph

That childish treatment is another manipulative attempt by Heihachi, to make Lee try to gain his father’s approval and do as his father requests, to finally be respected. But Lee respected his father and obeyed him, like a good son. Unlike Kazuya, who always showed Heihachi how much he hated him, calling him Oyaji (old man) and giving him hate letters, but he was never humiliated like this directly. The punishments for Kazuya seemed to have been more physical while those for Lee were more manipulative ones to humiliate him, even the physical ones were softer than the ones Kazuya received. Heihachi knew Kazuya would not be controlled like this - he could not use the need for affection or fear of losing everything on Kazuya since Kazuya already lost all those he cherished and didn’t want his hated father’s affection, but Lee could be controlled like this… Reminding Lee what he owed him, threatening to take it away from him, showing him some prizes he could win if he obeyed and giving him some compliments (very rarely but those few would give Lee hope for getting some more later) was a good trick, the rest of the time Heihachi would just ignore him, making Lee again work for his attention and approval. Having experienced how hard it was to live in the streets, Lee never wanted to go back there again and still thought that the abuse he lived in the Mishima house was better than starving in the streets. Even if they were often crushed, he had hopes of one day pleasing his father.

Lee’s wish, a loving father. (Panel from Tekken 2 comicanthology)

Lee was probably torn in all those feelings, he owed Heihachi, he still loved him, Heihachi was his father figure, and in return he wanted his love and approval but he also now really saw how Heihachi was to him and Kazuya. Maybe he felt he deserved the punishment and insults his father gave him since maybe he thought he may not have worked enough to please him, maybe he tried to convince himself that Kazuya deserved to be beaten for his insolence and stubbornness but I think he didn’t dare tell himself that in fact Heihachi was a bad father. Maybe if they both changed things a bit, Heihachi would be satisfied with them… Abused children always feel guilty and confused…

Despite not knowing why it happened exactly, Lee was aware of the war between his father and brother and he knew he was only caught in the middle of this. He somehow was on both sides while also being against both. When he was young his preoccupations were only to survive, to try to please his father so that he was not thrown out or punished but also to comfort his brother. Because even if they didn’t always get along, they still were brothers. Lee and Kazuya growing up together might have made them not only rivals, like Heihachi wanted, but also have brought them closer, since they are among the only two who knew what kind of a person Heihachi really was. Lee still wanted his father’s approval, still loved him, but he was not blind. Despite not knowing the real deep story, Lee was the only one who somehow understood Kazuya’s rebellion at the abuse while all the servants never saw any of this, or pretended to never see, and Heihachi made Kazuya pass at the little pest that needed to be punished. All narcissistic parents always shine in front of other people while only showing their true face to their abused children. In such a hostile and cold environment, it was good to have someone else, for both Lee and Kazuya. To feel less alone and know someone else knew the life they had. They might have fought often, have disagreements and jealousy but still they certainly cared for one another. They played together. They saw the abuse, fear and sadness the other lived. And they comforted each other. Until Heihachi pitted them one against the other again. So both Lee and Kazuya were rivals in things Heihachi forced them too, which also turned into a real rivalry, but also were brothers brought closer by the abuse. In my headcanon, they were homeschooled until highschool to hide the abuse and Heihachi not trusting his devil child Kazuya to behave.

While Kazuya was the little revolted devil in his youth and Lee was the well-behaved child, I think the roles somehow slightly inversed during their teenage years. Lee, who first probably was a nerd at school, loving mathematics (he was math teacher in Blood Vengeance even if it’s non-canon) and science like robotics, realized that his charm and beauty was attracting some students. So, enjoying the attention some people now were giving him, he started to flirt and exert that charm. He was the one others were fawning over, he was the one who got the attention, and he loved it. Despite still doing all the chores and training his father requested of him and still getting high grades at school, he decided that since he was almost invisible to their father, and tired of how disciplined all his Mishima life had been since then, but being also a bit more assured that he would not be thrown out of the house now that Heihachi put so much effort into schooling him (even if that threat probably came back sometimes but more rarely), he would become a bit more disobedient and he would also party with friends, somehow showing off his wealth to them to get more attention, and coming home back after curfew. Maybe sometimes being late at school, now busy smoking in some corner with other teenagers to look cooler and be more appreciated than the well-behaved nerd he was at the start of the school (Lee is often shown smoking in pictures). This probably pushed Heihachi to keep spanking his undisciplined teenager Lee, showing Lee even more that his father was not taking him seriously. But he also discovered that he could get others’ attention with his looks, his money and his flirting. If his father could not give him attention, he would get it elsewhere. Though he still wanted to be loved by his father but had found another way to heal his hurt over it. Meanwhile Kazuya also calmed down his angry revolt and was more focused on training to beat Heihachi one day. His angry tantrums were now useless, he was more calculating and less emotional.

But once they were adults, all would change again since Lee and Kazuya were now being implicated more with the Zaibatsu. Lee then began to realize that if he really could surpass Kazuya, he really could gain all of this fortune… Not just having great clothes and cool stuff like rich teenagers do, like he was enjoying until now, but being obscenely rich… even powerfully rich… Now not only was Lee confused between his love for his father, his need for approval, his fear to disappoint him, his own disappointment with how Heihachi was, his resentment for how he treated them, but now he also realized all he could gain from it. At first, he just wanted a loving family, he could now see that this would never be the case, but he could now have all this wealth… Yet he still hoped for his father’s love and approval… And between Kazuya and Heihachi things were still going well enough that Heihachi decided to teach Kazuya the more secret Mishima moves while he would instead send Lee to the United States, to the San Francisco Mishima Zaibatsu branch to complete his education. Another Heihachi calculated move that made both brothers jealous of the other. Lee was jealous of the favoritism and Kazuya was jealous of Lee’s freedom. A lot was going on in Lee’s head at this time. Not only was he jealous that Kazuya was getting the secret Mishima moves and time spent with their father as he was pushed aside in the U.S., he felt that his father did not deem him worthy of learning them (Lee never got to learn those moves in the games). Lee felt he had disappointed his father somehow and felt a lot of jealousy toward Kazuya…

So to forget his jealousy, his feeling of being pushed aside, feeling unloved and considered like an employee only, Lee started enjoying his freedom. He was in the U.S. far from the controlling presence of his father, far from Heihachi and Kazuya’s mysterious war, he had money, fame, he could party… Of course, he had a job for the Mishima Zaibatsu but he still could spend the rest of his time enjoying life… Trying stuff his father never allowed, more than cigarettes and coming home late, anyway not like Heihachi cared... He had the best in everything, he just didn’t have Heihachi's affection and esteem. But still, he had to keep up in his fighting, to impress his father when he would confront Kazuya again. He still did not want to displease his father. He still wanted to show him that he was worth something. So that his father would not really get rid of him. He may not throw him out of the house but he sends him halfway across the globe… So he hired a trainer, Marshall Law, and started to fight in underground tournaments, gaining his nickname Silver haired demon. Marshall Law and his friend Paul, and some other friends Lee made were not exactly the most elegant people so Lee let go a bit of the elegant costumes he had in Japan or at his work hours and dressed more like a rocker, wearing jeans and leather jacket. He was hanging with people from poorer backgrounds, like from where he originally came from. Maybe for a while, he felt like he could be pushed away from the family and those ordinary people were more his real social class and was a bit curious about them while wondering where he belonged… Though he would never tell them. No one had to know he was poor at first, no one had to know anything of his private life, in fact, but he liked to look like a rocker sometimes, meet simpler people and leave that corrupt world of business.

Lee relaxing with Marshall and Paul before a concert.

Because now that he was working more in those circles, Lee discovered how corrupt those practices really were. Not only the normal ones, that he had nothing against, it was the way it was, but also the horrible crimes, the threats, the murders… I always feel he had something to do in Mister Chang’s murder. Well, at least knew something about it. It happened when he was in the U.S. having a good position and learning of all the practices the Zaibatsu was using to get their way… So Lee probably knew (maybe a reason why he financed Julia’s researches, out of guilt of having something to do, even if barely, with her grandfather’s death). And he probably realized the full extent of the Mishima Zaibatsu’s corruption and evil practices, but did nothing against it. It may be troubling but it still was the way a business, some businesses, worked… (I feel that time period was when Lee was more selfish, caught up in his insecurities and ambitions). Lee still hoped he would get the Zaibatsu one day if he was not fully pushed away from the family, like he feared. Maybe he also had that small hope that maybe in fact his father trusted him enough to send him in the U.S… So he had to honor that trust. Either prove to his father that he was worth something or honor the trust his father put in him. Heihachi may be far away on the map but he was still very close in Lee’s mind. Lee still had to prove himself to him and please him. His stressful nature probably came back and he may have started to appease it with alcohol and maybe even drugs sometimes. He was realizing that things were getting more and more serious. He was enjoying the power, freedom, and fame his position now gave him but he would have to prove himself worthy to keep it while Kazuya was still near their father…

Lee probably didn’t fully know what would happen but he could feel something would happen between Kazuya and Heihachi. Either they become close and he is thrown away or they hate each other like they always did and one dies… The fact that one of them may lose everything probably troubled him very much. Lee really seems to undergo lots of changes at this time. I think Kazuya and Lee have grown more apart as brothers, they are not as isolated together as they were when they were children and they do not seem to have the same kind of life. And Lee does want to win everything but that impending family war was probably troubling him much. He probably does not want his brother to die or Kazuya to win everything and somehow both options were probably scaring him. He could not lose that rivalry but he could not accept his brother being killed. Or their father. He still owed so much to his father… And even if Lee still loves Kazuya, he does want to have the great life and prestige that Heihachi is showing before his eyes. If he is not rejected by Heihachi, if he can get his hands on all that, he will. When he was younger, he mostly wanted a roof, food, and love from his family but now the money and power did corrupt him more.

Once the first Iron Fist Tournament arrived and Lee truly realized that he could get the same as Kazuya if he wins, in fact get more than Kazuya, win the whole Zaibatsu, right now with that tournament, despite not being a full Mishima (so his father does care about him to deem him worthy enough to fight for it) he definitely does not want to back down. He may get on bad terms with Kazuya, but that is a once in a lifetime chance. Besides, it is also what their father wants, he must make him proud. His father will see he is worth something. Lee has a chance to not be the adopted child anymore, to not be the little brother anymore, the second one in everything, he can be a full Mishima by gaining the Mishima Zaibatsu and he won’t back away.

So when the first King of Iron Fist Tournament happened, Lee went back in Japan to participate. In the end, he was beaten by Kazuya before his brother went to beat their father and gained the Mishima Zaibatsu. The Tekken 2 bio says that once Kazuya won the tournament, Lee was mentally and physically destroyed and, in an old unconfirmed biography but very frequently found on Internet, Lee would have been so crushed that he fled to the mountains, screaming (somehow incapable of confronting his problems and showing his emotions. Lee does seem to be quite emotional by his ending where he jumps in joy and laughs in Tekken 1). In any Tekken 2 bio versions anyway, he had some kind of breakdown and depression. Lee still needed to prove himself to his father, to himself, and by this, he had to become a real Mishima and be better than Kazuya in many things to prove his worth and belonging. Kazuya learned the secret moves, Kazuya won the fight and the Zaibatsu, their father died… What did he have anymore? It put a lot of pressure on Lee’s shoulders which explains why Lee was totally destroyed after he lost to Kazuya in the first tournament.

Both brothers now believed Heihachi to be dead, Kazuya finally had his revenge and threw him down from a cliff. Lee knew that this tournament was the conclusion of Heihachi’s abuse towards Kazuya and him and he probably was relieved by it. Maybe once he calmed down about what he lost, he even joined his brother for this reason after the tournament. He knew that tournament was in fact an elaborate way for Heihachi to kill Kazuya and he was horrified by it. He still didn’t understand why Heihachi always hated his son so much. Though he also was disappointed to have lost his chance to win the Zaibatsu, Lee was probably still confused in his feelings toward his father. He may have been torn then between mourning his father's death or feeling relieved that his tyrannical attitude was over but he also understood why Kazuya killed him. They both knew that façade of cheerful, generous and philanthropic man, was hiding something much uglier.

Once Kazuya was at the helm of the Mishima Zaibatsu, he took Lee as a secretary. Despite Lee’s talents and knowledge of the Zaibatsu, he didn’t give him a better position, possibly to humiliate him since he was resentful that Lee tried to steal his inheritance. Lee accepted Kazuya’s offer since he didn’t really have any choice. He could quit and leave the Zaibatsu but then would lose all chances to one day get a better position, maybe even the Zaibatsu, and he probably had anxiety at the thought of trying to get a job elsewhere since he didn’t have faith in himself, he got his job at the Zaibatsu because he was Heihachi’s son. Heihachi never allowed him to be independent and confident in himself. Lee was now depressive, he wasn’t in a state to fight for anything anymore, so he then went to work for Kazuya as his secretary. He thought that Kazuya will probably stop being angry at him, he will probably elevate him to a better position soon and maybe, without Heihachi to pit them one after the other, they could get along…

My art of Lee and Kazuya celebrating a new beginning as brothers.

The fact that he tried to get the Zaibatsu and that Lee could not hide his frustration of having lost, brought Kazuya’s resentment upon him and it didn’t start as the best relation but working together, in the same office each day, also brought them closer once more. I like to think Lee tried to get along with Kazuya during that time and Kazuya calmed down in his anger. If he hated Lee, he would not have taken him near him, he wanted to annoy him, yes, but not get rid of him. Lee was one of the closest people to him (I often played Tekken bowl with both the brothers for this… throwing bowling balls at Heihachi’s head). Kazuya also could get along with Lee as long as Lee knew who was in charge. (You need to see @erenaeoth’s headcanons for Kazuya, they are excellent. It is deep and thought about the Kazuya he roleplays and writes him. Kazuya is not just a mean villain, all his life is taken into account). Hanging out together, Kazuya also probably helped Lee in getting out of this mourning and confusion by reminding him of how their father was toward him, toward them, how Heihachi was a monster, which probably brought Lee to more freely feel a lot of unavowed resentment toward Heihachi. Without his father to manipulate him, he started to realize and dare express all the hurt Heihachi did to them and that he didn’t deserve that treatment from his father.

With Heihachi gone, Lee thought that the crimes he knew were happening at the Zaibatsu, like the murders and threats to people who didn’t comply, like what happened to Mr. Chang, could now be a thing of the past. But Kazuya didn’t intend to let go of Heihachi’s efficient way of ruling the Zaibatsu so instead of stopping the crimes Heihachi was doing, Kazuya continued them and doubled down on it, bringing a bad reputation to the Zaibatsu. He more openly started committing heinous crimes, he had abductions and murders carried out and even started experimenting on endangered animals. Lee was very disappointed but again he did nothing to stop it for fear of losing his job, his advancement in the Zaibatsu, and he still hoped to get along with his brother. Maybe it was even out of fear of Kazuya, since, in Tekken 7, he does mention that he possibly was banished because he knew of Devil “I believe the real reason the Mishima family banished me was because they suspected I knew about the devil within Kazuya”. (The Mishima family consisted then of only Heihachi since he killed everyone else but maybe you could add Kuma, his favorite son. Little seven years old Lars had nothing to do in this of course, he wasn’t there). So Lee possibly may have witnessed Kazuya’s devil during that time. I like to think Lee and Kazuya really tried to be close, they were the only ones who knew all of the other’s life and traumas, but it just didn’t work out: Kazuya was too bossy, Lee too jealous, they didn’t have the same life or interests for the most part and they completely disagreed on how to rule the Zaibatsu. They both were frustrated that the other didn’t see their point of view.

So Kazuya kept on taking the Zaibatsu in a bad direction, once more attacking the Chang family (to get the amulet they had, like Heihachi had done), Kazuya ordered Michelle Chang’s mother to be abducted, another reason why Lee would feel guilty toward them and help Julia’s research for a while. He also abducted Doctor Bosconovitch to get his precious knowledge and scientific talent on creating intelligent fighting animals from endangered and even extinct animals and creating robots like the J.A.C.K, the doctor had previously made for Russia. So Prototype JACK was now upgraded. In my headcanon, Lee worked with the abducted Dr Bosconovitch on Prototype JACK, which gave him the knowledge required later to work on his robotic company and to even help repair Alisa.

There seems to have been a time where Lee was also a bad guy and killed the old man who trained him so that he would not tell Kazuya but that seems to be a very old version and non-canon anymore if it ever was, like the running to the mountain thing (but maybe it was why Lee was the bad guy in Tekken: the Motion Picture). Then in other versions, the old man turned into Wang, who of course wasn't killed and Wang asked him to save the honor of the Mishima Zaibatsu, meaning that despite Lee working for Kazuya, Wang had faith that Lee would be kinder than Kazuya and Heihachi (Wang was tricked by Heihachi in Tekken 1 and believed him to be a good man for all those years but by then had finally realized what Heihachi was, maybe even suspecting him of having killed his friend Jinpachi, Heihachi’s father. What Wang really knew was never confirmed but Jinpachi did tell him before disappearing that he had to stop the Mishima bloodline and later Wang tells Heihachi that he won’t fool him again).

Living in the Mishima garden since Jinpachi and Heihachi allowed him, Wang possibly knew Lee since childhood and probably knew that he was a good person. He possibly saw that Lee still was, despite the situation Lee was now in, since Wang decided to put his trust in him to bring back honor to the Zaibatsu and restore it to the way Jinpachi intended it to be, by stopping all those crimes that both Heihachi and Kazuya did. Wang possibly did not want Lee to become like him: not taking action only to regret it later. He probably had affection for that little child who was cut off from his Chinese culture, since Wang seems very traditional. But unlike Heihachi, Kazumi, Jinpachi, and Wang, Lee and also Kazuya have never really been attracted to the traditional side - they never have traditional clothing, unlike many other characters. Lee only finally had a Chinese armor in Tekken 7 (my headcanon is that Wang gave him) and nothing traditionally Japanese. He had an old costume in Tekken 6 but more of an historical 18th century European costume (and the rapier item move to go with it). I imagine growing up, he probably watched seventies animes, like of course all those mecha animes that were legion, and Rose of Versailles, an anime happening during the 18th century, that is full of elegant people and full of roses and dreamed about this romanticized side. Wang is a more traditional person, more from the time period before the Cultural Revolution (he probably left China in 1966 if not earlier, when Mao ordered the purge of all capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society to preserve Chinese communism). He probably wanted to teach Lee the more traditional Chinese customs. Maybe if he had the occasion, Wang may have helped Lee keep his Chinese language and write Chinese, though Heihachi probably watched so that his children were not influenced by anyone else but him, limiting contact with old Wang. But now Wang could freely get to Lee.

More historical looking clothes Lee likes (and a vampire cape) and his childhood animes, full of roses and robots. (Rose of Versaille/ Berusaiyu no Bara,  and the robot ones, UFO Robot Grendizer and Mazinger Z)

But one thing is sure and canon, and that is that Wang offered to train Lee for the upcoming tournament (that Kazuya organized once he learned that Heihachi was alive). Wang was the boost that helped Lee get out of his apathy and depression. He acted as his mentor then and Lee always showed a lot of respect toward him afterward, calling him master or teacher in each game. So being given Wang’s trust, probably helping him in having more faith in himself, pushing him to listen to his conscience against those crimes, Lee decided to participate in the second King of Iron Fist tournament. His ambitions were to get the Zaibatsu, to stop Heihachi from getting it back, but also to stop the crimes Kazuya was committing with it. Yet by this time, Kazuya had also in his own internal struggle after meeting Jun. And his battle between Devil and Angel, between embracing revenge or love, which would weaken him against Heihachi in the tournament. Jun seemed to have been a good influence on Kazuya, she seemed to appease his paranoia and resentment. Lee probably knew Jun a bit and probably knew she had a good influence on Kazuya but he weirdly suspects her of being to blame for all that’s happened in Tekken 6 scenario mode. Lee Chaolan: "Kazama Style Traditional Martial Arts Dojo." Hmm, does someone here have a connection to Jun Kazama? Alisa Bosconovitch: Yes. One of her blood relations opened this dojo. It may be worth our while to investigate Lee Chaolan: I see. Perhaps the cursed blood of this family is to blame for all that’s happened.

I wonder if Lee had found out about Devil at the same time he knew Jun was going out with Kazuya? But technically Jun was in fact taking away that devil… In my headcanon, I prefer to imagine he noticed that she had a positive effect on Kazuya, I had read in the very old wiki that he helped her try to exorcise Kazuya by keeping Heihachi at bay and fighting him, which is why he is Heihachi’s sub boss in Tekken 2. But it was a passage that had no real official proof and got taken away since now everything has the official sources. But I would like to think they got along and wanted to save Kazuya…

Once Kazuya lost, Heihachi proceeded to punish his sons, both of them since he was angry at Lee for taking Kazuya’s side. He threw Kazuya in a volcano, apparently killing him, and expelled Lee from the Zaibatsu. He didn’t kill Lee, maybe he did not do it because, after all, despite the way he treated him, Lee had been his son for years, and even not loving him, he could not do that, Lee was not like Kazuya, he was a normal human, not a monster like he perceived Kazuya, and he felt a bit of pity toward him, so he expelled him from the Mishima Zaibatsu. He probably left him with nothing since in Tekken 6, Heihachi does seem angry to find out that Lee built himself some successful company so if he had given him something, he would not be surprised like this. Heihachi probably wanted to humiliate him once again by telling him, “Without me, you are nothing. I made you, I undo you.” In my headcanon, he brought him back to China, to the same street he found him in, to remind him what he was before. Being a narcissistic father, Heihachi wanted his son to see that he could do nothing without him, like he was nothing before meeting him and that since he betrayed him to go to Kazuya, he would not enjoy what his father could give him anymore, which also explains Lee’s constant anger toward Heihachi, who tried to humiliate him once again by exiling him with nothing (and also explains Lee’s revenge that are always kind of humiliating for Heihachi. Payback.).

With his many failures, the stress of competing, now truly realizing that he was nothing and never would be anything for Heihachi, and his brother’s brutal death (I headcanon Lee was in the helicopter, waiting for his turn to be punished by Heihachi so he knew what happened and was traumatized), Lee seemed quite worn-out once he was expelled. I think he really was destroyed and depressed when Heihachi got rid of him, he never really had the chance to rise from his previous depression when he lost the Zaibatsu to Kazuya. And it probably took some years before he could come back stronger, he didn’t build Violet Systems in a day. (I like to imagine he had to work and was a math teacher for a while like in Blood Vengeance before he started his company, I also headcanon that he put some money aside before he got expelled and could use it to partly help to start his project, but knowing his way of life, he probably spent most of his previous money on cars, clothes, parties, and beauty care sessions so he didn’t put that much aside). Since he was expelled and tried to hide himself when coming back, I feel that Violet Systems only recently became successful and Lee probably started implanting it in Japan only when he dared come back as Violet in Tekken 4.

But despite being miserable and shattered then, he probably would have kept hanging around his family if he had not been exiled by Heihachi. Somehow depressing and frustrating, that exile probably saved Lee’s life. Otherwise, he probably would have gotten even more corrupted by all the Mishima ways, by his resentment and frustration, while exiled and away from the toxicity of the Mishima family, he had time to think it all over without a bad influence around. He was alone. He could think by himself without trying to appease or please anyone. He first had that resentment and depression but like it was said in Tekken 4’s prologue, the idea of revenge left him so he started his new life and gained new confidence in himself. Maybe he learned to relax once exiled and this is why he is often seen taking life the good way, everything is excellent, his twenty years away probably helped him gain confidence in some of his capacities and gain some serenity. Until he went back toward the Mishima family… in a way to prove himself to them again…

In terms of his personality, I think Lee’s flirty and charming side is an attempt to get esteem and love from people since he lacked those things. But also he will never want real commitment or really give his heart. He will flee since he has to protect himself. Despite often being around a lot of people, I think Lee is a solitary person. I think he got hurt too much in his relations with his family. He was friend with Marshall and Paul before Tekken 1 and trained with them but there is no mention of it anymore, we do not know why but it seems none of them are trying to be friends again. I think Lee wants to keep people away from him. He looks very welcoming but his heart is hidden since he does not want to be hurt.

It is said that after his exile, Lee distanced himself to lead a solitary life. If we believe Harada, his secretaries are robots too, so he is surrounded by robots instead of humans. Of course, not all people who surround him are robots, he has a lot of humans at his parties, like for example, Tiger Jackson, who in my opinion seems to come often to those parties since he’s even got a place of honor on the couch in the Pool Party stage in Tekken 5 when Lee is not on it (not a robot, unless the lights on his clothes somehow indicate something… though in fact I do not think so).  Apparently a solitary life full of parties, so not so solitary… Then how was he solitary? By not getting attached to anyone. All those people all come there for superficial reasons. They are not close: they party. If you can see the lyrics to Plastic Love, it might be a bit like this. He was hurt in his previous relations with his family, he doesn’t want to be hurt again so I think Lee decided to close his heart to any deep relations. It’s not because he has some show off and exhibitionistic sides that he truly shows himself. He is in fact a secret person, presenting a superficial side to keep people far from his real self. Violet is the proof of that. He used the flamboyant Violet when he needed to be hidden, he played superficial to a larger degree to protect himself. Violet acts more expressively, crazily and even ruder than Lee who is more classy and polite. He uses that personality not only to reach Heihachi in Tekken 4 but also to boost himself with self confidence. Violet seems more carefree and it is probably good for the stress Lee feels normally. Violet is an escape and an armor, underneath his sunglasses, Lee is protected, like an armor. He is invincible. He is excellent.

In love as well, Lee seems quite superficial and to keep his distances. I don’t think he even wants more than admiration and attention. When he flirts with his secretary in the Fight Lab of Tekken Tag 2, he flirts like a teenager and seems to mostly have fun being rejected rather than winning her. Like he doesn’t want to really catch her, he also doesn’t want to be caught, and shows it clearly by having many women around him, warning anyone that he isn’t serious. His goal does not seem to be to have a deep romantic relation, he likes to offer the image of the sexy man or romantic man with roses but he always keeps his distance.

Maybe the only person he may get closer to now in terms of friendship would be Lars but even then, maybe not. They have a plan to make and are carrying it out, but they are not that close. Lee was interested in being his friend, maybe even brother since he seemed to know who Lars was, and he did offer to help Lars and seemed a bit disappointed when Lars refused (though Lee was also secretly already helping Lars’ army, Yggdrasil, with his money before this…)

Lars telling Lee he cannot involve him in this, refusing his offer when Lee asks to join force with him. Lee remains a bit frozen before he acts all “I don’t care, that’s fine.”

Julia was a good friend, as Lee mentions, but she is now reduced to streaming to get money, indicating, not that Lee doesn’t necessarily want to help her, but likely that all his money is going to Yggdrasil now… but still, again, maybe they are not that good friends since apart from the Tekken 6 scenario campaign, it never was mentioned that he was friend with Julia, again it might just be out of guilt for her family suffering at the hands of the Mishimas. Like Alisa, Julia also thinks he is strange, maybe another way to keep people away and avoid being seriously close to anyone. He does likes to flirt and even has some kinky sides, like we can see when he plays with Anna in her interlude in Tekken 5, he roleplays with her at first, then the loser seems to pay a price. I think the fun here for him was the risk of being punished, not being punished. Anna seems to be more the dominant one and enjoyed winning while Lee accepts his fate, maybe coming from the fact that Lee always obeyed. He lost the game so he had to comply...

Anna and him also seem to be friends but not serious lovers since Anna went to get married and Lee didn’t do anything. I think it is a side they both have and appreciate: they leave the other their freedom. They are friends with how they both seem to regret having to fight each other in Tekken 6 scenario campaign: Anna: “Yes, I became Kazuya Mishima’s bodyguard in order to work against her. But I never thought you and I would end up as enemies.” Lee Chaolan: “Neither did I.” Anna went to get married but Lee seems to fear commitment.

Lee is that self-assured seductive guy throwing some ‘Excellent!’s a bit everywhere, he doesn’t want to show the unsure, bitter and resentful person he is underneath. He wants people to see someone who has never been poor and never has been hurt. And being near him could get people hurt since he knows he doesn’t want to be closer. My headcanon about Lee is that he is a cis man, grey ace, polyamorous, akoiromantic, sensually attracted, pansexual. But that is my opinion. He likes to be sensual and look sexy but doesn't need to go further. He also wants affection from many people to feel loved but does fear to show himself too much, that is why the relations never go too far emotionally and seriously. Once he gets their love, he leaves to not go further and either hurt them or be stuck with any people who see deeper actions as commitment. That fear of commitment also comes from his past since he was hurt a lot and does not want to be hurt again so he leaves it more 'superficial'. He loves to be wanted, to be the center of attraction, like he never was in his family and that is what matters to him. Someone closer would dig too much to see the real him and, since he left the suffocating Mishima family, he is free and intends to remain free.

The forty-eight-year-old Lee is less hurt and more sure of himself; he succeeded with his business by himself; he has also somehow learned to let go, like he abandoned his ideas for revenge, and he does spend a lot of time relaxing to appease his stressed nature. He still has his moments and his need to be alone. We see how he is still unsure when he just beat Kazuya in Tekken 5 interlude, he says it like it was a surprise then jumps in joy. And falls, then quickly gets up and acts like it never happened. Even though he is more sophisticated in later games, then, he still seems to have a more anxious side underneath that he tries to hide.

As for his family, in the games, Lee now seems to hate Heihachi but he only seems to focus on the rivalry or be angered by Kazuya, but all his interactions with him are not as hostile as with his father. He does receive Kazuya with calm in the Tekken 6 scenario campaign:

“Kazuya. I wasn't expecting a personal appearance. Rebel army? Nonsense. I'll ask you to cease these mad accusations, unless you have some proof. Ahh, you always lacked elegance, Kazuya.” While he loses it when Heihachi invades his place: “What? Why are you in my palace?! You have no right being here! That's enough! It's time I released years of resentment upon you!”

And in his Tekken 5 interlude: Lee: Kazuya why do you always get in my way? Kazuya: You’re the one who won’t stay put, you maggot. Lee: You stole the position in the Mishima Zaibatsu from me! Now it’s time to take back what’s rightfully mine. Kazuya: You have no idea what’s going on. It’s a shame how stupid you are. Lee: Shut up! Quit your rambling and fight! Come on.

Though insulting, calling Lee stupid and maggot, Kazuya seems more dismissing of him, scornful but he doesn’t have the hate for Lee that he has for his father. Lee is an annoyance, not an enemy. And Lee seems to be angry as a part of their rivalry but not for some personal hurt, even when he worked for him as secretary. Of course it annoyed him, but his anger toward Kazuya still seems more like a matter of rivalry, while Heihachi hurt him more. So their relation may have turned bad with all that happened between them, but still to a lesser degree than the one between them and their father. It is Heihachi who is at the center of all Lee’s revenge endings, rather than Kazuya. Lee sees that Kazuya is the product of his father’s mistreatments and hate, another reason to push some anger toward Heihachi. Though he does seem to blame it all on Kazuya to the journalist in Tekken 7… “his blood has cursed the Mishima household.” But I think it’s on the devil inside him that he really puts the blame. And he will fight against Kazuya in that war now going on but again, it is to stop the war, not a revenge thing.

In their winning pose in Tekken Tag 2, Kazuya keeps his stoic air while Lee makes a small smile, somehow showing some familiarity and no real hate between them both.

[indizombie]

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is plummeting in tandem with global trade. Net FDI into India fell to $3 billion in the five months through August, compared with $18 billion in the same period a year earlier, the Reserve Bank of India reported last week. China has seen an even steeper fall as the country turns inward. In a recent blog co-authored by Gill and M. Ayhan Kose, they observed: "Global trade is expected to grow less than 2% this year - not even half the annual average that prevailed in the 2000s. At the end of 2022, the total volume of global FDI inflows was down by almost 40% from the 2007 peak." By contrast, in the first seven years of the 2000s ahead of the great financial crisis, trade grew by more than 10%.

Rahul Jacob, ‘There is no easy escape from the middle income trap’, Mint

[personalcareexpo]

Visa-free! 🎉Entry policy relaxed!🎉 Visa waiver added!🤝 Relax visa requirements for foreigners!😆

🐼Relaxing visa conditions for foreigners， More convenient for overseas visitors✈️ To visit exhibitions in China for business cooperation💼🥂 ! ! !

In 2023, the transit policy and visa process will be optimized, international flights will resume and increase at a faster pace, and multiple entry favorable policies will further facilitate international business exchanges. China's door to the world will open wider and wider!🐼💖🤗

01✨

Shanghai port issued a new visa-free transit reminder📣 The National Immigration Bureau issued a new visa-free transit policy in November, 23📣

At present, the 72/144-hour visa-free transit policy is implemented at 31 ports in 23 cities in 18 provinces for people from 54 countries. Namely Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Monaco, Russia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, Belarus, Norway, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and other countries, totaling 54 countries with valid international travel documents and confirmed dates and seats within a limited time. Persons from 54 countries who transit from China to a third country (region), with valid international travel documents, and connecting passenger tickets with fixed dates and seats within a limited time, may apply for transit visa exemption to the port entry inspection authorities of the cities that implement the transit visa exemption policy, and the exit border inspection authorities will handle the temporary entry formalities for them. The duration of visa-free stay starts from 00:00 on the next day of entry.

❤️[Please see the table at the bottom for details of Shanghai ports]👇👇

02✨

📢New news on visa-free policy released in November 📢China’s new visa-free policy promotes high-level opening-up

On November 24, 2023, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that China has decided to try to expand the scope of unilateral visa-free countries and implement a unilateral visa-free policy for ordinary passport holders from six countries: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Malaysia. From December 1, 2023 to November 30, 2024, ordinary passport holders from the above countries who come to China for business, tourism, visiting relatives and friends, and transit for no more than 15 days can enter China without a visa.

03✨

New news on convenient foreign personnel coming to China released in January📣 The National Immigration Administration has officially implemented five measures to facilitate foreign nationals to come to China📣

Another good news has come recently. Starting from January 11, the National Immigration Administration has officially implemented five measures to facilitate foreigners coming to China, which mainly include:

Relax the conditions for foreigners coming to China to apply for port visas. For foreigners who urgently need to come to China to engage in non-diplomatic and official activities such as business cooperation, visits and exchanges, investment and entrepreneurship, visiting relatives, and handling private affairs, and who do not have time to apply for a visa abroad, they can apply for a port visa entry to the port visa authority with relevant proof materials such as invitation letters.

For foreigners, 24-hour direct transit passengers at nine international airports including Shanghai Pudong, Beijing Capital, Beijing Daxing, Hangzhou Xiaoshan, Xiamen Gaoqi, Guangzhou Baiyun, Shenzhen Bao'an, Chengdu Tianfu, and Xi'an Xianyang are exempted from border inspection procedures.

Foreigners in China can apply for visa extension, replacement and reissue at their nearest location.

Foreigners in China who need to enter and exit multiple times can apply for a re-entry visa.

Simplify the application materials for visa documents for foreigners in China.

04✨

📢Starting from February 9, China and Singapore will exempt each other from visas

On January 25, representatives from the government of the People's Republic of China and the government of the Republic of Singapore signed the 'Agreement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Singapore on Mutual Visa Exemption for Ordinary Passport Holders' in Beijing. The agreement will officially enter into force on February 9, 2024 (Lunar New Year’s Eve). By then, people from both sides holding ordinary passports can enter the other country without a visa to engage in tourism, family visits, business and other private affairs, and their stay shall not exceed 30 days. If you enter the other country to engage in activities that require prior approval, such as work or news reporting, or plan to stay in the other country for more than 30 days, you must obtain the corresponding visa before entering the other country.

As of January 25, China has concluded mutual visa exemption agreements covering different passport types with 157 countries, and has reached agreements or arrangements with 44 countries to simplify visa procedures. Comprehensive mutual visa exemption has been achieved with 22 countries including Singapore, Maldives and Kazakhstan. In addition, more than 60 countries and regions offer visa-free or visa-on-arrival convenience to Chinese citizens. The convenience for Chinese citizens to leave the country has been greatly improved, and the 'gold content' of Chinese passports will become increasingly valuable. (Source: CCTV News)

05✨

Starting from March 1, China and Thailand will exempt each other from visas📣

On January 28, the government of the People's Republic of China and the Royal Government of Thailand held a signing ceremony in Bangkok for an agreement on mutual visa exemption for ordinary passport holders. The agreement will take effect from March 1, 2024.

After the news was released, data from a travel platform showed that the search popularity of Thailand-related keywords on the platform increased by more than 7 times compared with the previous day. Among them, air tickets and hotels increased by more than 6 times compared with the previous day. (Source: CCTV News)

In addition, recently, China has stated that it will grant unilateral visa-free treatment to Sweden and Ireland. This is the second time that China has granted visa-free treatment to European countries after France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy.

#visa #China #chinesevisa #visafree #entrypolicy #visawaiver #businessinchina #transitpolicy #internationalflights #internationalbusinessexchanges #business #Shanghaiport #transitvisaexemption #tourism #visitrelatives #visitfriends

[beardedmrbean]

Police in the Indian capital, Delhi, have raided the homes of prominent journalists and authors in connection with an investigation into the funding of news website NewsClick.

NewsClick's founder Prabir Purkayastha and a colleague were arrested. Police also seized laptops and mobile phones.

Officials are reportedly investigating allegations that NewsClick got illegal funds from China - a charge it denies.

Critics say the move is an intentional attack on press freedom.

Started in 2009, NewsClick is an independent news and current affairs website known to be critical of the government. In 2021, it was raided by tax authorities on allegations of breaking India's foreign direct investment rules.

The co-ordinated raids at 30 locations on Tuesday are some of the largest and most extensive on India's media in recent years. Police later confirmed they had arrested Mr Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty, the website's head of human resources.

"A total of 37 male suspects have been questioned at premises, nine female suspects have been questioned at their respective places of stay and digital devices, documents etc have been seized/collected for examination," a police statement said.

Opposition leaders accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of a "fresh attack on the media". But Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur said investigative agencies were merely doing their job.

How did the raids happen?

Among those also questioned were journalists Abhisar Sharma, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Aunindyo Chakravarty, Urmilesh, Bhasha Singh, popular satirist Sanjay Rajoura and historian Sohail Hashmi. Some were taken to police stations.

Searches were also carried out at the website's office in Delhi, news agency ANI reported.

In Mumbai, activist Teesta Setalvad's house was also searched. Ms Setalvad has long fought for victims of the deadly 2002 riots in Gujarat state and has written articles critical of the government for NewsClick.

A source close to Mr Purkayastha told the BBC that more than 15 policemen arrived at the editor's home at 06:30 local time (01:00 GMT).

"They did not produce any warrants or paperwork, questioned him for several hours and took away all the electronic devices they found at home," they said. Later, news agencies showed him being taken away by the police in a vehicle.

Mr Rajoura's lawyer, Ilin Saraswat, said the comedian was raided at the same time and that police took away his laptop, his two phones, some DVDs of his old work and some documents.

"The police said that Mr Rajoura is not named in the current investigation, but since he has worked with the website, he will be interrogated. We have not been provided a copy of the police complaint," he added.

BBC India offices searched by income tax officials

Indian tax authorities raid critical media outlets

India top court frees Muslim comic on bail

According to reports, the raids are in connection with a case registered against NewsClick in August after a New York Times report alleged that the website had received funds from an American millionaire to spread "Chinese propaganda".

It claimed that Neville Roy Singham worked closely with the "Chinese government media machine" and used his network of non-profit groups and shell companies to "finance its propaganda worldwide".

A case was reportedly registered against the website under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, a draconian anti-terror law that makes it nearly impossible to get bail. NewsClick has rejected all the charges as false.

Who was raided?

All the people who were raided have been associated with NewsClick - some are employees, while others have worked on freelance projects.

Prabir Purkayastha, its founder and editor-in-chief, is the author of a number of books and a founding member of the Delhi Science Forum. During the 1975 Emergency - when civil liberties were suspended - he was jailed along with several opposition politicians.

Bhasha Singh is an activist and journalist who has reported extensively on manual scavenging and farmers' suicides. She has accused the government of being anti-women and on Monday appeared in a NewsClick video expressing concern over the increasing trend of members of the governing BJP praising the man who assassinated India's independence leader Mahatma Gandhi.

Abhisar Sharma is a prominent video journalist known for his critical views of the government. He worked for BBC Hindi before moving to work at the NDTV news channel. One of his last videos covered widespread protests by government employees against a new pension scheme.

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, writer, journalist and filmmaker, is best known for his investigations into billionaire tycoon Gautam Adani and is facing several defamation suits filed by the industrialist. Earlier this year, he was mentioned in a report by Hindenburg Research which alleged that companies owned by Mr Adani had engaged in decades of "brazen" stock manipulation and accounting fraud - allegations denied by the industrialist who is perceived as being close to PM Modi.