Ted Sioeng is an Indonesian businessman with interests in the United States, China, Vietnam and other parts of Asia, worth around US$500 million. Sioeng grew up in Indonesia. Adopted and raised ethnically Chinese family, he has a strong affinity for China, which is now the focus of his business interests, while he also admires the United States – he and his family have been based in Los Angeles since 1987.
Video: The “Taiwan Agreement” mentioned in Xi-Biden’s speech on September 10 was exploded as the “Three Sino-US Communiqués,” but it was a 2021-year version. If it is blocked, if implemented, it will definitely be a devastating blow to Taiwan independence. 习拜9月10谈话说的“台湾协议”被爆就是“中美三公报”，不过是2021年版，在挡下，若执行，对台独必定是毁灭性打击.
The Taiwanese Representative Office in the United States held the “Republic of China 110th National Day Reception” on October 6th, Eastern Time. The event was hosted by Xiao Meiqin, Taiwan’s representative in the United States. It is worth noting that when James Moriarty, Chairman of the American Association in Taiwan (AIT) attended the event, he expressed concern that China’s threat to Taiwan is real and urgent. The international community is paying more and more attention to Taiwan, and it is also a signal of concern about the Taiwan Strait. , Taiwan should develop an asymmetric military power as soon as possible. 1、台湾驻美代表处美东时间10月6日举行“中华民国110年国庆酒会”，该场活动由台湾驻美代表萧美琴主持。值得注意的是，美国在台协会（AIT）主席莫健（James Moriarty）出席活动时，忧心表示中国对台威胁是真实存在且迫切的，国际社会越来越关注台湾，同时也是担忧台海的信号，台湾应尽快发展不对称军力。
Regarding US President Joe Biden’s mention of the “Taiwan Agreement” that he and Chinese President Xi Jin averagely agreed to abide by, Mo Jian responded to media questions and said that the Taiwan-related agreement between the United States and China is ” “The Three U.S.-China Communiqués” should be what Biden is referring to. Apart from that, “the United States and China have no other Taiwan-related agreements.” 对于美国总统拜登（Joe Biden）提到他和中国国家主席习近平均同意信守的“台湾协议”（Taiwan Agreement）究竟为何，莫健回应媒体提问表示，美中之间与台湾相关的协议就是“美中三公报”，这应该就是拜登所指的内容，除此之外，“美中没有其他与台湾有关的协议”。
Comments A, if this agreement is the China-U.S. Three Communiqués, it will look good B. What are the three Sino-US Communiqués? 2、评论 A，若这个协议是中美三公报那就好看了 B、中美三个公报是什么？
Shanghai Communique: In February 1972, US President Nixon visited China at the invitation of Premier Zhou Enlai, and the door of Sino-US exchanges was reopened. During Nixon’s visit to China, China and the United States issued the “China-US Joint Communiqué” (“Shanghai Communique”) in Shanghai on February 28, 1972, marking the beginning of the normalization of Sino-US relations. 上海公报：1972年2月，美国总统尼克松应周恩来总理的邀请访华，中美交往的大门重新打开。尼克松访华期间，中美双方于1972年2月28日在上海发表了《中美联合公报》（“上海公报”） ，标志着中美关系开始走向正常化。
Cross-Strait Relations: The United States recognizes that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China. The US government has no objection to this position. 两岸关系：美国认识到，在台湾海峡两边的所有中国人都认为只有一个中国，台湾是中国的一部分。美国政府对这一立场不提出异议。
Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations: In December 1975, US President Ford was invited to visit China. On December 16, 1978, China and the United States issued the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between China and the United States. According to this communiqué, on January 1, 1979, China and the United States formally established diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level. The United States announced the severance of the so-called “diplomatic relations” with Taiwan, and withdrew US troops stationed in Taiwan within the year, and terminated the US-Taiwan “Mutual Defense Treaty” “(That is, “breaking diplomatic relations, annulling contracts, withdrawing troops”). 建交公报：1975年12月，美国总统福特应邀访华。1978年12月16日，中美两国发表了《中美建交联合公报》。依这个公报，1979年1月1日，中美两国正式建立大使级外交关系，美国宣布断绝同台湾的所谓“外交关系”，并于年内撤走驻台美军，终止美台《共同防御条约》（即“断交、废约、撤军”）。
Cross-Strait Relations: The United States of America recognizes that the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China. 两岸关系：美利坚合众国承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府。
Communiqué 817: On August 17, 1982, the two governments issued the “China-US Joint Communiqué” (August 17th Communiqué”). The United States promised that “it will not seek to implement a long-term policy of selling weapons to Taiwan. The performance and quantity of the weapons sold will not exceed the level in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations, and it is prepared to gradually reduce its weapons sales to Taiwan, and it will lead to a final settlement after a period of time.” 817公报：1982年8月17日，两国政府发表《中美联合公报》（“八·一七公报”），美方承诺“它不寻求执行一项长期向台湾出售武器的政策，它向台湾出售的武器在性能和数量上将不超过建交以来近几年的水平，准备逐步减少它对台湾的武器出售，并经过一段时间导致最后解决”。
Cross-strait relations: The United States of America recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and recognizes China’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China 两岸关系：美利坚合众国承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府，并承认中国的立场，即只有一个中国，台湾是中国的一部分。
C. Now I’m talking about the differences between the three Sino-US communiqués and the previous ones. Before the United States verbally respected the three communiqués, but its substantive actions have been undermining the three communiqués. For example, the US has also declared that it will no longer seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or form a group to seek it. Hegemony, but the facts have been seeking hegemony. The four-party mechanism of the United States, Japan, India and Australia is a group; and the continuous sales of weapons to Taiwan are all sabotage C、现在提到中美三个公报和以前有什么不同之前美国是口头上尊重三公报，但是实质动作一直在破坏三个公报，比如，美方也声明不再亚太地区谋求霸权，或者组建集团谋求霸权，但是事实一直在谋求霸权，美日印澳四方机制就是一个集团；还有不断向台湾卖武器，都是破坏
But before, our country’s strength was small. Even if the enemy does not abide by the agreement, we have no way. 但是之前我们国家实力小，即使敌人不遵守协议，我们也没有办法，打不过，只能任由敌方肆意使坏进行破坏
Now I will mention three more communiqués through President Xi’s talk. I think there may be a big difference. One is that the situation between the two countries has undergone a qualitative change, and the other is President Xi’s personal will; since it is signed, it will be implemented. Execution, then we will have actions. 现在通过习主席的谈话再提三个公报，我认为可能会有很大不同，一个是现在的两国局势已经发生质变，另一个是习主席的个人意志；既然签了就要执行，如果不执行，那我们就会有动作。
So I personally think that this may be the most serious moment when the United States has treated the Three Communiqués between the establishment of diplomatic relations and 1989. Will it be strictly enforced? Certainly not, but it will be more serious. If China continues to build a wall The will comes to force the United States to implement it. I think it will be implemented gradually. If our will is not firm, then it will not be implemented; this firm will is to continue to make more in-depth and comprehensive Wu Tong preparations, and follow the schedule, and launch it when the time comes. , Don’t think too much. 所以我个人认为，这可能是在建交到1989年期间，到现在为止，美国对待三公报最严肃的时刻；会不会严格执行，肯定不会，但是会更加严肃，如果中国持续有建墙的意志来迫使美国执行，我认为会逐渐执行，如果我们意志不坚定，那就不会执行；这个坚定的意志就是持续不断做更加深入全面的吴桐准备，并按照时间表来，到时间就发动，不用考虑太多。
D. If the United States implements it, what will it mean for Taiwan independence? Complete destruction. First of all, you don’t have enough sources of force. If you are using a fire stick, no amount of political ecstasy will be used. Secondly, official contacts will decline. This is a major psychological blow; at that time, it can be like clamoring for Taiwan independence. , But it’s even less emboldened than it is now, just add laughter! D、如果美国执行，对台独意味着什么？ 彻底灭亡，首先你没有足够的武力来源了，在使用烧火棍，即使有再多的政治迷魂汤也没有用，其次官方往来会下降，这是心里层面的重大打击；那个时候还可以就像叫嚷台独，但是比现在底气更加不足，止增笑耳！
Responding to San Francisco Chronicle Rhonda Williams letter ‘Asian Americans need to be more inclusive’
This morning’s Rhonda Williams’ Letter to Editor is disappointing.
She states: “You cannot be invisible when it does not directly affect you and then be front and center when it serves your best interests.”
Her statement is belied by the fact that progressive Chinese and Asian-Americans and groups have been out front in supporting the Black Liberation struggle. We have been in the thick of the Civil Right Movement in the South in the Sixties; we have been strong supporters of the Black Panther Party; we have been strong supporters of African liberation leaders like Lumumba, Nkrumah, Sekou Toure. More recently, Asians for Black Lives Matter was formed in support of BLM.
And contrary to what the writer says about only “being front and center when it serves your best interests”, Chinese organizations have affirmatively supported increasing Black and Brown participation in higher education.
I agree that we should be all shouting ‘Stop Hate’.
But to counterpose ‘Stop Hate’ against ‘Stop AAPI Hate’ is directly comparable to counterposing ‘All Lives Matter” against ‘Black Lives Matter’.
Both result in diminishing the relevance of violence against specific populations.
Alvin Jay
“We are troubled and saddened by Rhonda Williams’ letter and the Chronicle’s heading: “Asian Americans Need to Be More Inclusive”. These types of messages create wrong assumptions, raises racial mistrust, and ignores the fundamental problems of racism in the US. Each ethnic community should speak out against prejudices and discriminations about their own and other communities. Many Asian Americans have done so. In the Black Lives Matter movement, Asians joined Latinos, Whites, Blacks, and others to fight together for justice. On October 1, 2021, in NY Chinatown, an African American sang the “Chinese March of the Volunteers” to a happy Chinese crowd celebrating China’s 72nd birthday. When rampant anti-Asian hate crimes were occurring, many of us spoke out that it is the wrong message to call it an African vs. Asian American issue. This year Ashlyn So, a 13-year-old Chinese American, organized a “Black and Gold” rally that joined Asian and African Americans against racism and featured mainly African American singers. The LGBTQ community also rallied against anti-Asian hate. We need to unite to fight racism against all races and stop the blame game. Stop Hate and Stop AAPI Hate are not inconsistent. “United We Stand, and Divided We Fall”.
It cost only 10 cents to print a $100 bill. US kept printing, what if the $100 bill worth only 10 cents somewhere down the road? Will you sell more oil, gold or finished goods in exchange for US$?
What Will Happen To Crude Oil If The Dollar Falls by Ellen R. Wald
Analysts have been publicly claiming that a dropin the value of the U.S. dollar is coming. Of course, this has implications for international trade, manufacturing, travel and the purchasing power of Americans. It also has a direct impact on the price of crude oil. If the value of the U.S. dollar drops, the price of both Brent and WTI crude oil will rise.
Oil is almost always sold in U.S. dollars. Both Brent and Crude—the two main oil benchmarks—are traded in U.S. dollars. When the value of the dollar drops, the price of crude must rise to have the same worth on the market. Similarly, when the dollar value rises, the price of crude should correspondingly drop. Crude prices do not necessarily reflect daily or minor fluctuations in the dollar value, but significant adjustments in the dollar value should result in corresponding changes in the price of oil.
Another way to look at is to see how a London-based trader might see it. A London-based trader who buys and sells oil in dollars, thinks about the dollar in relation to the British pound. Right now the dollar is worth about £0.8, or £1 is worth $1.25. The price of Brent is about $67 per barrel. If the dollar loses value—say it becomes worth £0.7, or £1 is worth $1.43—then the London trader is willing to spend more dollars on that barrel of Brent. Maybe she is willing to spend $76.6 per barrel.
Of course, the numbers are never that simple. Over the time that the dollar loses value, other issues and events impact the oil market. Therefore, traders cannot directly correlate crude price changes to the change in the dollar value. But the example is informative. If the dollar does drop significantly, there should be a corresponding force pushing up the price of crude.
Henry Tsoi’s account of 10/9/1949 San Francisco Chinatown celebration of PRC founding. A little-known piece of Chinese-American history: Tomorrow, October 9, is the 72nd anniversary of the SF Chinatown celebration of the founding of New China. 蔡福就對 1949 年 10 月 9 日舊金山唐人街慶祝中華人民共和國成立的記述。一段鮮為人知的美籍華人歷史：明天，10月9日，是美國加州舊金山唐人街慶祝新中國成立72週年。
The following is an account of the event by one of the leaders. Copy of the original chapter is attached. Also attached is the Blacklist. Feel free to share:
‘IN THE MIDST OF A STORM’ ‘在狂风暴雨之中’ (original Chinese attached)
The People’s Republic of China was established on 10/1/1949. Mao pronounced to the world: “From here, the Chinese people have stood up.” The rebirth of China gave overseas Chinese jubilation and inspiration. San Francisco organizations and student associations joined to celebrate the 12th anniversary of the Chinese Workers Mutual Aid Association in conjunction with the founding of the PRC.
Henry Tsoi （蔡福就、蔡荇洲）and Jin Yinchang (金荫昌）and others participated in the preparation.
The evening of October 9, 1949 was pleasantly cool and breezy. Overseas Chinese, young and old, went to Chinese American Citizens Alliance auditorium on Stockton Street for the celebration. American friends also came. The almost 500 people were in a happy mood.
There were two banners: “Entire Overseas Chinese stand up to build New China” and “Chinese and American peoples are forever close and friendly”. Between the two banners was the Chinese five-star flag. Flowers filled the front of the stage.
Forty minutes into the program, over forty thugs, with sticks/clubs, suddenly rushed through the entrance into the auditorium. Some of them tore down the banners and flag and trampled the flowers on the stage; others attacked participants. Many attendees were beaten and bruised. Attempting to stop the thugs, Student Wang Fushi 王福时 was surrounded by 5 of them who knocked him down and bloodies his head. It was chaos.
At that point, the MC, community leader Kew Yuen Ja 谢侨远, quickly asked the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) Chorus to start singing. The majestic sound of the Yellow River Cantata calmed down the atmosphere in the auditorium. People returned to their seats. Having failed to abort the meeting, the thugs left the venue. In the face of chaos, the meeting continued to its conclusion.
After the incident, Kew Yuen Ja and Henry Tsoi, and other organizers of the celebration summarized the experience. They concluded that they had underestimated the wild and cruel nature of the Kuo Min Tang (KMT)/Guomindang 国民党 reactionaries. They recalled that prior to the meeting, they had already assessed that KMT power was deep-rooted and that the celebration of the Communist victory would be dangerous. It was in acknowledgment of their lack of self-defense capability that the Longshoremen were invited to help provide security. However, they had not expected that the thugs would be so violent. They regretted that they hadn’t asked Suey Sing Tong brothers to help.
The next day, KMT expanded their offensive. In addition to announcing in the party newspaper the “victory over bandits’, they posted leaflets by “Republic of China Protection Group”. The leaflet listed Henry Tsoi in a list of 16 [actually, the list consisted of 15–aj] traitors to be eradicated. KMT made threatening phone calls to the listed people. Tongs were encouraged kill Communists, offering $3,000 per victim. Other than Thomas Tang/Tang Mingzhao 唐明照 【 of New York City–aj 】，the listed people were SF Chinatown community leaders, newspaper people, and students. Among the listed were core people in Golden Gate Weekly 金门侨报 【this paper started publication in May 1949 based on a 1945 recommendation by Dong Biwu 董必武 when he was in SF for United Nations conference–aj 】, Jungsai Daily 中西日报， SF chapter of Overseas Chinese Federation for Peace and Democracy 旅美中国和平民主联盟旧金山支盟 【This organization was initiated by General Feng Yuxiang 冯玉祥 】， New China Study Group 新中国研究会。
The reactionary KMT’s despicable behavior was met with opposition by the majority of people in Chinatown. Those who had previously disbelieved reports of KMT brutality in China had now seen their brutality locally. The reactionaries thought that they would unite with traditional organizations to attack the progressives. But more than a few Tong leaders weren’t fooled. To the contrary, they offered protection to the democratic forces.
The next day, Joe Yuey 周銳 of Suey Sing Tong called Henry Tsoi at Golden Gate Weekly. He said directly: “Mr. Tsoi, the blacklist has your name on it. Don’t worry. I have already told Law Jai 罗仔 to accompany you. Wherever you go, he will go with you.” Tsoi thanked him for the thoughtfulness of his friend and was going to say: “Let me think about it.” But he was cut off: “Don’t be hesitant. It will be hard to handle if something happens.” In this manner, Henry Tsoi accepted the protection of Suey Sing Tong. He knew he was a target with no ability to defend himself. In the face of danger, he accepted the sincerity of his friend.
In the evening, a Bing Kung Tong leader called Tsoi, offering to send someone to protect him. Tsoi felt uncomfortable and told him: “Thanks for your consideration, but just this morning, I accepted an offer from a Suey Sing brother. I can can’t turn around and accept another offer from a friend.” The person replied: “You don’t have to change. They are sending a person to express their sincerity; we will send a person to express ours. It’s even better with another person. You will be even safer. No need to be reluctant. I will send Ah San 阿山 to you immediately. Wait for him.” Henry Tsoi could not object and thanked him. Both leaders being friends, he could not treat them unequally. Consequently, both Law Jai and Ah San accompanied Henry Tsoi everywhere.
One evening, Tsoi went to his older brother’s store to pick up mail. The brother was shocked and criticized him: “Do you want to die coming out so late by yourself?!” Tsoi laughed: “What do you mean want to die? I have friends taking care of me. They are waiting for me outside.” The brother didn’t believe him. He went to look out the window and saw two tough looking men. He said: “No wonder you’re so brave. You have guards. But you still have to be careful and not take things for granted.” Tsoi got his mail. The two brothers accompanied him back home before leaving.
Dispite disclosure, US still not transparent in nuclear arsenals by Song Zhongping Oct 07 2021
The US State Department on Tuesday disclosed the number of nuclear weapons in the US stockpile, according to Associated Press (AP). The State Department said that the number of US nuclear weapons stood at 3,750 as of September 2020, including those in active status and in long-term storage. The number is down from 3,805 in 2019 and 3,785 in 2018.
Disclosing the number of nuclear weapons is a reversal of the Trump administration’s policy. One of the important reasons why the Biden administration disclosed this sensitive information now is that the US is making efforts to restart arms controls talks with Russia. During the process of negotiations, Washington needs to disclose the number and make it seem transparent.
The US is trying to leave the world an impression that it is reducing nuclear weapons. Another purpose of the US is to drag China into the negotiation of nuclear arms control with the US and Russia. By hyping China will “soon surpass Russia” as the US’ “top nuclear threat,” Washington has also tried to rope in Moscow to press China to join the negotiation. However, China has only a fraction of the number of nuclear warheads that the US has. It is not China that poses a so-called threat to the world, but the US nuclear weapons.
In fact, the number that Washington disclosed still lacks transparency. There is no worldwide verification mechanism to examine the exact number of nuclear weapons each country possesses. This means Washington can basically “disclose” whatever number it wants to.
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), as of January 2021, the US had a total inventory of approximately 5,550 nuclear warheads, while China’s number was 350. This is a huge gap. In addition to the 3,750 nuclear weapons that the US State Department disclosed, the US also has about 1,750 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement, according to SIPRI. Therefore, precisely speaking, the number 3,750 was not so true. It is also unlikely that Washington will dramatically reduce its number of nuclear weapons in the future.
On the one hand, the US has announced that the number of its nuclear weapons has decreased in recent years. Yet on the other hand, it is proliferating nuclear technology to other countries. AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, is an example. The US will share its nuclear submarine technology with Australia, a country that has neither nuclear weapons nor any nuclear power stations.
Upholding double standards, the US is precisely the initiator of global nuclear proliferation.
The US has another purpose: to replace old nuclear weapons with the new ones. To a great extent, the US’ so-called declining number of nuclear weapons is because the country needs to eliminate old weapons, as the new ones are being developed. After its nuclear weapons are updated, the total inventory may not change too much.
For example, the US Navy is now developing the Columbia-class submarine. This is an upcoming class of nuclear submarines scheduled to enter service in 2031. And the US Air Force is developing the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, which is able to deliver conventional and thermonuclear weapons. All of these facts indicate that the US is strengthening its strategic nuclear force, and imposing serious threats to the whole world.
The number of US’ nuclear warheads is enough to destroy all humanity. This being the case, the US should have taken the lead in reducing its nuclear weapons, instead of updating them. If the US wants to reach a good result with nuclear arms control negotiations and fulfill US President Joe Biden’s stated desire to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in US policy, it must critically rethink its steps.
The author is a Chinese military expert and commentator. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
