Connect with us


Why Beijing’s Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Suddenly Quieted Down

Why Beijing’s Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Suddenly Quieted Down



Why Beijing's Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Suddenly Quieted Down Tyler Durden Thu, 08/20/2020 - 02:00

Authored by Huidong Zhang via The Epoch Times,

Top-level Chinese officials have recently shifted away from the regime’s wolf warrior diplomacy tactic to a more toned-down approach. This turnaround can be interpreted as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) not wanting to decouple from the United States nor shut out of the global economic order led by Washington.

Yang Jiechi, a top member of the Politburo, wrote, “China is always open to dialogue and communication with the U.S.,” in an article dated Aug. 7. Cui Tiankai, Chinese ambassador to the United States, said the U.S.-China relationship should be “cooperation rather than confrontation” at the Aspen Security Forum on Aug. 4. Foreign Minister Wang Yi addressed the China-U.S. Think Tanks Media Forum on July 9, saying, “China can restore and restart the dialogue mechanisms at all levels and in all areas.”

Although the above statements from the CCP officials reveal that Beijing is begging for a dialogue with Washington, the words carry no weight and may not lead to concrete actions.

Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Creates a Global Enemy

For a long time, the CCP has regarded diplomacy to be a way of extending its tyranny. Its aggressive and offensive diplomacy is characterized by the goal of inciting national sentiment and brainwashing the Chinese people.

For example, as former leader of the Communist Party, Mao Zedong’s revolutionary diplomacy was in line with his personal ambition—to become a leader of the world revolution. He classified nearly all nations as enemies. The United States and Western Europe became “imperialists,” the communist countries that abided by the Soviet Union were the “social imperialists,” and the remaining third world countries basically close to Europe and the United States were the “anti-China” faction. The few countries left were the “widespread poor friends” in Africa, which the regime could exploit using its foreign aid policy.

In the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict, a very annoyed Soviet Union was preparing to carry out a “surgical nuclear strike” against China. A firm opposition from the United States spared the Chinese people from nuclear attack. Under the provocative “anti-imperialist” and “anti-revisionist” foreign policy of the regime, the Chinese people have suffered endlessly from an arrogant and isolated dictatorship.

The subsequent leaders of the CCP realized that the time wasn’t right for the CCP to become a world leader; so they adopted former leader Deng Xiaoping’s “economic foreign policy with a strong nationalist diplomacy” to confuse the international community. During this period, the CCP organized various demonstrations in mainland China to threaten the international community, such as the 1999 students’ anti-American demonstration, the Chinese internet users’ boycott of French retail giant Carrefour in 2008, the 2012 anti-Japanese protest, and the anti-Korea demonstration in 2017. The wolf warrior diplomats, however, remained quiet.

China’s economy developed rapidly after the United States helped it join the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its national strength also increased significantly, especially after it surpassed Japan to become the world’s second largest economy in 2010. Its capital strength seemed to prepare the CCP to achieve its ambition of changing the world order so it dominated the world. CCP hack writer Jin Canrong, a professor on Sino-U.S. relations at Renmin University of China, even declared the so-called “win-win” as China wins twice. The new superpower is now ready to launch its revolutionary diplomatic wars around the world.

The global pandemic enabled the wolf warrior diplomats to launch a series of attacks in order to shirk accountability for the wide spread of the CCP virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus. First, they inferred that the United States was the source of COVID-19, which provoked the China-U.S. conflict. Second, shamelessly demanding gratitude from the world for providing defective face masks. Third, the Chinese ambassador to Australia warned Australia to stop the international inquiry into the origin of the CCP virus. Fourth, the Chinese ambassador to Paris slandered staff in France’s nursing homes on his embassy’s website and sharply criticized the Western response to the outbreak for being laggardly. Fifth, the Chinese Embassy in Brazil tweeted that Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of the President of Brazil, had been infected with a “mental virus” during a recent trip to the United States after he tweeted that the regime is a “dictatorship.” Sixth, the Chinese Embassy in Germany called local tabloid BILD “bad” when it claimed that China owes a debt to Germany because of the CCP virus pandemic. Seventh, the Chinese Embassy in Sweden posted on its website that think tank Frivärld’s claim that “China should apologize” is totally groundless, unjustified, and is a more terrifying virus.

These diplomatic spats caused by the wolf warriors on the surface demonstrate the tough line of the regime, but also constantly brainwash the Chinese people. As the state-run media Global Times wrote, “The days of China getting bullied are gone.” The ultimate goal of such tactics is to trap the international community into the blame game and obfuscate the fundamental issue of the source of pandemic.

However, this wolf warrior diplomacy has brought an obvious side effect, namely, “the big power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics” proposed by CCP leader Xi Jinping has deteriorated to distrust by all countries in the world, and to once again becoming the “human enemy.” A recent Pew Research Center survey showed “roughly two-thirds of Americans now have a negative opinion of China, the highest percentage recorded” since Pew began asking the question 15 years ago.

Shifting to Dialogue Mode Buys Time

Wolf warrior diplomacy has not only failed to elevate international power proposed by China’s foreign ministry, it has ruined the image of a worldly new power the CCP created through painstaking efforts.

The relationship between the CCP and other countries in the world continues to deteriorate—especially U.S.-China relations. After U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the freedom-loving nations of the world “must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party,” and (we) “can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other,” the regime finally realized the change in U.S. foreign policy toward the CCP. In order to maintain the legitimacy of the regime, the CCP top officials had to beg for a dialogue with the United States.

Yang Jiechi, a Politburo member and director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Communist Party of China wrote:

“The two countries need to engage in dialogue and communication in all areas. China is always open to dialogue and communication with the U.S.”

Obviously, Yang deliberately forgot what Pompeo said in his speech, “Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty.” The dialogue will not occur because the United States has recognized, as Pompeo stated, “that the only way—the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave.”

The United States has said it clearly:

“When it comes to the CCP … we must distrust and verify.”

The CCP’s begging for a dialogue with the United States can be interpreted as a delaying tactic and pinning its hopes on the upcoming presidential election.

“China prefers that President Trump—whom Beijing sees as unpredictable—does not win reelection,” according to a statement made by NCSC (U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center) Director William Evanina on Aug. 7.

The CCP has never given up its ambitions of global hegemony. Therefore, the United States must be alert to the current behavior of the CCP, because what the CCP does has always threatened the security of the United States and the world.

CCP Breaking Away From World Economic Order

As we all know, from the cover-up of the coronavirus outbreak to the suppression of whistleblowers, the CCP’s actions, aided by the WHO director general’s misleading information, have led to a world pandemic that continues to erode the international community. It is inevitable for people around the world to demand compensation from the CCP for damages caused by the virus. Already, some countries in Africa have publicly asked the CCP to reduce or forgive their debts—this is compensation in disguise. Conflicts around the issue of claims will erupt after the pandemic is over. The CCP may have to leave the international economic order.

Countries will not move their industrial supply chains to China, especially after seeing the threat of the CCP’s tyranny to the global economy and politics. Considering national security and the safety of people’s lives and health, countries will accelerate their decoupling with the regime. A tidal wave of decoupling from the CCP has already begun.

Countries involved in cooperation projects and organizations led by the CCP’s investment-oriented “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR, also known as Belt and Road Initiative), Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the BRICS, have had serious conflicts and disagreements with the CCP over the pandemic and diplomacy. India and Brazil, members of the BRICS, for instance, have shown deteriorating relations with the CCP.

Through the pandemic, deterioration of relations between the CCP and other countries has accelerated. Once the industrial chain moves out of China, it will be difficult to get it back. The status of “world factory” will never return. The CCP’s perverse actions will only lead to its exclusion from the international community and the world economic order.

Read More

Continue Reading


Delivering aid during war is tricky − here’s what to know about what Gaza relief operations may face

The politics of delivering aid in war zones are messy, the ethics fraught and the logistics daunting. But getting everything right is essential − and…




Palestinians on the outskirts of Gaza City walk by buildings destroyed by Israeli bombardment on Oct. 20, 2023. AP Photo/Ali Mahmoud

The 2.2 million people who live in Gaza are facing economic isolation and experiencing incessant bombardment. Their supplies of essential resources, including food and water, are quickly dwindling.

In response, U.S. President Joe Biden has pledged US$100 million in humanitarian assistance for the citizens of Gaza.

As a scholar of peace and conflict economics who served as a World Bank consultant during the 2014 war between Hamas and Israel, I believe that Biden’s promise raises fundamental questions regarding the delivery of humanitarian aid in a war zone. Political constraints, ethical quandaries and the need to protect the security of aid workers and local communities always make it a logistical nightmare.

In this specific predicament, U.S. officials have to choose a strategy to deliver the aid without the perception of benefiting Hamas, a group the U.S. and Israel both classify as a terrorist organization.


When aiding people in war zones, you can’t just send money, a development strategy called “cash transfers” that has become increasingly popular due to its efficiency. Sending money can boost the supply of locally produced goods and services and help people on the ground pay for what they need most. But injecting cash into an economy so completely cut off from the world would only stoke inflation.

So the aid must consist of goods that have to be brought into Gaza, and services provided by people working as part of an aid mission. Humanitarian aid can include food and water; health, sanitation and hygiene supplies and services; and tents and other materials for shelter and settlement.

Due to the closure of the border with Israel, aid can arrive in Gaza only via the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian border.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, will likely turn to its longtime partner on the ground, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, to serve as supply depots and distribute goods. That agency, originally founded in 1949 as a temporary measure until a two-state solution could be found, serves in effect as a parallel yet unelected government for Palestinian refugees.

USAID will likely want to tap into UNRWA’s network of 284 schools – many of which are now transformed into humanitarian shelters housing two-thirds of the estimated 1 million people displaced by Israeli airstrikes – and 22 hospitals to expedite distribution.

Map of Gaza and its neighbors
Gaza is a self-governing Palestinian territory. The narrow piece of land is located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, bordered by Israel and Egypt. PeterHermesFurian/iStock via Getty Images Plus


Prior to the Trump administration, the U.S. was typically the largest single provider of aid to the West Bank and Gaza. USAID administers the lion’s share of it.

Since Biden took office, total yearly U.S. assistance for the Palestinian territories has totaled around $150 million, restored from just $8 million in 2020 under the Trump administration. During the Obama administration, however, the U.S. was providing more aid to the territories than it is now, with $1 billion disbursed in the 2013 fiscal year.

But the White House needs Congress to approve this assistance – a process that requires the House of Representatives to elect a new speaker and then for lawmakers to approve aid to Gaza once that happens.


The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is a U.N. organization. It’s not run by Hamas, unlike, for instance, the Gaza Ministry of Health. However, Hamas has frequently undermined UNRWA’s efforts and diverted international aid for military purposes.

Hamas has repeatedly used UNRWA schools as rocket depots. They have repeatedly tunneled beneath UNRWA schools. They have dismantled European Union-funded water pipes to use as rocket fuselages. And even since the most recent violence broke out, the UNRWA has accused Hamas of stealing fuel and food from its Gaza premises.

Humanitarian aid professionals regularly have to contend with these trade-offs when deciding to what extent they can work with governments and local authorities that commit violent acts. They need to do so in exchange for the access required to help civilians under their control.

Similarly, Biden has had to make concessions to Israel while brokering for the freedom to send humanitarian aid to Gaza. For example, he has assured Israel that if any of the aid is diverted by Hamas, the operation will cease.

This promise may have been politically necessary. But if Biden already believes Hamas to be uncaring about civilian welfare, he may not expect the group to refrain from taking what they can.

Security best practices

What can be done to protect the security of humanitarian aid operations that take place in the midst of dangerous conflicts?

Under International Humanitarian Law, local authorities have the primary responsibility for ensuring the delivery of aid – even when they aren’t carrying out that task. To increase the chances that the local authorities will not attack them, aid groups can give “humanitarian notification” and voluntarily alert the local government as to where they will be operating.

Hamas has repeatedly flouted international norms and laws. So the question of if and how the aid convoy will be protected looms large.

Under the current agreement between the U.S., Israel and Egypt, the convoy will raise the U.N. flag. International inspectors will make sure no weapons are on board the vehicles before crossing over from Arish, Egypt, to Rafah, a city located on the Gaza Strip’s border with Egypt.

The aid convoy will likely cross without militarized security. This puts it at some danger of diversion once inside Gaza. But whether the aid convoy is attacked, seized or left alone, the Biden administration will have demonstrated its willingness to attempt a humanitarian relief operation. In this sense, a relatively small first convoy bearing water, medical supplies and food, among other items, serves as a test balloon for a sustained operation to follow soon after.

If the U.S. were to provide the humanitarian convoy a military escort, by contrast, Hamas could see its presence as a provocation. Washington’s support for Israel is so strong that the U.S. could potentially be judged as a party in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

In that case, the presence of U.S. armed forces might provoke attacks on Gaza-bound aid convoys by Hamas and Islamic jihad fighters that otherwise would not have occurred. Combined with the mobilization of two U.S. Navy carrier groups in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, I’d be concerned that such a move might also stoke regional anger. It would undermine the Biden administration’s attempts to cool the situation.

On U.N.-approved missions, aid delivery may be secured by third-party peacekeepers – meaning, in this case, personnel who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian – with the U.N. Security Council’s blessing. In this case, tragically, it’s unlikely that such a resolution could conceivably pass such a vote, much less quickly enough to make a difference.

Topher L. McDougal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading


Diagnosis and management of postoperative wound infections in the head and neck region

“The majority of wound infections often manifest themselves immediately postoperatively, so close followup should take place […]” Credit: 2023 Barbarewicz…



“The majority of wound infections often manifest themselves immediately postoperatively, so close followup should take place […]”

Credit: 2023 Barbarewicz et al.

“The majority of wound infections often manifest themselves immediately postoperatively, so close followup should take place […]”

BUFFALO, NY- October 20, 2023 – A new research perspective was published in Oncoscience (Volume 10) on October 4, 2023, entitled, “Diagnosis and management of postoperative wound infections in the head and neck region.”

In everyday clinical practice at a department for oral and maxillofacial surgery, a large number of surgical procedures in the head and neck region take place under both outpatient and inpatient conditions. The basis of every surgical intervention is the patient’s consent to the respective procedure. Particular attention is drawn to the general and operation-specific risks. 

Particularly in the case of soft tissue procedures in the facial region, bleeding, secondary bleeding, scarring and infection of the surgical area are among the most common complications/risks, depending on the respective procedure. In their new perspective, researchers Filip Barbarewicz, Kai-Olaf Henkel and Florian Dudde from Army Hospital Hamburg in Germany discuss the diagnosis and management of postoperative infections in the head and neck region.

“In order to minimize the wound infections/surgical site infections, aseptic operating conditions with maximum sterility are required.”

Furthermore, depending on the extent of the surgical procedure and the patient‘s previous illnesses, peri- and/or postoperative antibiotics should be considered in order to avoid postoperative surgical site infection. Abscesses, cellulitis, phlegmone and (depending on the location of the procedure) empyema are among the most common postoperative infections in the respective surgical area. The main pathogens of these infections are staphylococci, although mixed (germ) patterns are also possible. 

“Risk factors for the development of a postoperative surgical site infection include, in particular, increased age, smoking, multiple comorbidities and/or systemic diseases (e.g., diabetes mellitus type II) as well as congenital and/ or acquired immune deficiency [10, 11].”


Continue reading the paper: DOI: 

Correspondence to: Florian Dudde


Keywords: surgical site infection, head and neck surgery


About Oncoscience

Oncoscience is a peer-reviewed, open-access, traditional journal covering the rapidly growing field of cancer research, especially emergent topics not currently covered by other journals. This journal has a special mission: Freeing oncology from publication cost. It is free for the readers and the authors.

To learn more about Oncoscience, visit and connect with us on social media:

For media inquiries, please contact

Oncoscience Journal Office

6666 East Quaker Str., Suite 1D

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 4


Read More

Continue Reading


Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Makes the Poor Pay for the Rich

A year after the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, he presented a new scheme to the Department of Education…



A year after the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, he presented a new scheme to the Department of Education on Tuesday. While it is less aggressive than the prior plan, this proposal would cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, doing more harm than good. 

As the legendary economist Milton Friedman noted, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” 

Higher education in America is costly, and this “forgiveness” would make it worse. 

Signing up for potentially life-long student loans at a young age is too normalized. At the same time, not enough borrowers can secure jobs that offer adequate financial support to pay off these massive loans upon graduation or leaving college. These issues demand serious attention. But “erasing” student loans, as well-intentioned as it may be, is not the panacea Americans have been led to believe.

Upon closer examination, the President’s forgiveness plan creates winners and losers, ultimately benefiting higher-income earners the most. In reality, this plan amounts to wealth redistribution. To quote another top economist, Thomas Sowell described this clearly: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” 

Forgiving student loans is not the end of the road but the beginning of a trade-off for a rising federal fiscal crisis and soaring college tuition. 

When the federal government uses taxpayer funds to give student loans, it charges an interest rate to account for the cost of the loan. To say that all borrowers no longer have to pay would mean taxpayers lose along with those who pay for it and those who have been paying or have paid off their student loans.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, student debt forgiveness could cost at least $360 billion. 

Let’s consider that there will be 168 million tax returns filed this year. A simple calculation suggests that student loan forgiveness could add around $2,000 yearly in taxes per taxpayer, based on the CRFB’s central estimate. 

Clearly, nothing is free, and the burden of student loan forgiveness will be shifted to taxpayers.

One notable feature of this plan is that forgiveness is unavailable to individuals earning over $125,000 annually. In practice, this means that six-figure earners could have their debts partially paid off by lower-income tax filers who might not have even pursued higher education. This skewed allocation of resources is a sharp departure from progressive policy.

Data show that half of Americans are already frustrated with “Bidenomics.” 

Inflation remains high, affordable housing is a distant dream, and wages fail to keep up with soaring inflation. Introducing the potential of an additional $2,000 annual tax burden at least for those already struggling, mainly to subsidize high-income earners, adds insult to injury.

Furthermore, it’s vital to recognize that the burden of unpaid student loans should not fall on low-income earners or Americans who did not attend college. Incentives play a crucial role in influencing markets. 

By removing the incentive for student loan borrowers to repay their debts, we may encourage more individuals to pursue higher education and accumulate debt without the intention of paying it back. After all, why would they when it can be written off through higher taxes for everyone?

The ripple effect of this plan could be far-reaching. 

It may make college more accessible for some, opening the floodgates for students and the need for universities to expand and hire more staff, leading to even higher college tuition. This perverse incentive will set a precedent that will create a cycle of soaring tuition, which would counteract the original goal of making higher education more affordable.

While the intention behind President Biden’s student loan forgiveness may appear noble (in likelihood, it is a rent-seeking move), the results may prove detrimental to our nation’s economic stability and fairness. And if the debt is monetized, more inflation will result.

Forgiving student loans will exacerbate existing problems, with the brunt of the burden falling on lower-income Americans. Instead of improving the situation, it will likely create an intricate web of financial consequences, indirectly affecting the very people it aims to help. But that is the result of most government programs with good intentions.



Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, chief economist or senior fellow at multiple state thinks across the country, host of the Let People Prosper Show, and previously the associate director for economic policy of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, 2019-20. Follow him on @VanceGinn.


Read More

Continue Reading