In China, U.S. top military 軍官 (officer) defends U.S. pivot to Asia

By Terril Yue Jones
BEIJING | Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:23 am EDT

(Reuters) - The United States' top military officer on Monday defended the re-orientation of U.S. foreign policy towards Asia in front of his Chinese counterpart, a week after Beijing criticized Washington for ramping up its military presence in the region.

China is uneasy with what the United States has called the "rebalancing" of forces as Washington winds down the war in Afghanistan and renews its attention further east.

China says the policy has emboldened Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam in longstanding territorial disputes with Beijing.

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said the United States "has been and will continue to be a Pacific power.

"We seek to be a stabilizing influence in the region," Dempsey said at a news conference at China's Ministry of National Defense. "In fact, we believe it would be our absence that would be destabilizing in the region, not our presence."

Dempsey was speaking at a joint press conference with Chinese Chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Fang Fenghui after both sides held talks earlier in the day.

China's defense ministry made a thinly veiled criticism of the United States last week for increasing tensions in the Asia-Pacific, saying China faces "multiple and complicated security threats" due to the U.S. strategy.

Fang said there is a possibility that North Korea could launch a fourth nuclear test.

"We ask all sides to work on the North Koreans to stop the nuclear tests, and stop producing nuclear weapons," he said.

Fang reiterated China's stance that it is firmly opposed to nuclear tests by North Korea.

China is North Korea's main diplomatic and financial backer, but in recent months it has begun to express impatience with Pyongyang.

After weeks of threats of war by North Korea, Pyongyang said last week it would return to negotiations subject to a list of conditions, including the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The United States said it was seeking "clear signals" that the North would halt its nuclear weapons activities.

North Korea has moved two short-range missile launchers to its east coast, apparently indicating it is pushing ahead with preparations for a test launch, a South Korean news agency reported on Sunday.

When asked whether China was willing to delegate staff to set rules for global cybersecurity, Fang said that the Internet, "if it is not managed well, it may bring damaging consequences".

"If security cannot be guaranteed, it is not an exaggeration to say that the damage of consequences could be as serious as a nuclear bomb," he said.

Beijing and Washington have traded accusations in recent months of massive cyber intrusions. The United States says hacking attacks emanating from China have targeted U.S. government and corporate computer networks among others, stealing government and commercial data.

A U.S. computer security firm released a report in February saying a secretive Chinese military unit is believed to be behind a wave of hacking attacks against the United States.

(Writing by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Jon Hemming)  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/us-china-usa-idUSBRE93L0LR20130422

視頻 (Videos) about China II

Subjects of this compendium:

-The International Financial Crisis spurred great interest in Chinese investment. China's Sovereign Wealth Fund, the CIC, has enjoyed some significant successes as a result. But recovery has brought along political roadblocks to keep Chinese money out. That has made the CIC's job more difficult. Today Tian Wei spoke to CIC Vice Chairman and President Gao Xiqing, who is also an NPC deputy.

-Investments from China -- Reality or Just a Dream? - Panel 3
Moderator: Mr. Urmas Varblane, Vice Dean of the University of Tartu• 
How to Attract Chinese Investments into the EU? Mr. Markku Taulamo, Partner, TT Capital Advisors Ltd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS6yKhyYtE8

-For over a decade trade and investment relations between China and Latin America have flourished. China and many of its new Latin American partners, especially in resource-rich South America, have emphasized the complementary, win-win nature of the relationship. But the honeymoon period between China and Latin America appears to be coming to a close as some Latin American countries, such as Brazil, become increasingly worried about rising commodity dependency and as China faces rising anxiety over increasingly unstable relations with countries like Venezuela. This talk will explore the background and implications of this important and evolving set of political and economic relationships. 

Speaker Bio
Matt Ferchen is an associate professor in the Department of International Relations at Tsinghua University and a resident scholar at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, both in Beijing. Ferchen has an MA in China and Latin American Studies from SAIS and a Ph.D. in comparative politics from Cornell. 

Co-hosted by the SFS Center for Latin American Studies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJPvtwXJims

Why America and China can’t 信任 (trust) each other

Why America and China can’t trust each other

By Michael Mazza, Special to CNN

The release of China’s biennial defense white paper has been getting some press for its revelations about the People’s Liberation Army’s force structure. Chinese media outlet Xinhua, for example, reported that “the Chinese government on Tuesday declassified the designations of all 18 combined corps of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) as the latest step to increase transparency of its armed forces.”
While it is difficult to applaud the PLA for declassifying information that was already common knowledge (see, for example, the sinodefence.com page on army organization, last updated four years ago), more transparency is certainly better than less. Still, the American focus on Chinese transparency is misplaced. Of course, the Pentagon would like to see its Chinese counterpart be more candid about PLA capabilities and investments; to the extent the United States can coax China towards such candor, it should do so. But disclosures like those in the Chinese white paper do little to address the underlying problem in the U.S.-China relationship: a dearth of strategic trust.

Although more Chinese transparency can enhance that trust on the margins, it cannot by itself redress the bilateral relationship’s great deficiency. Nor is it possible for that deficiency to be satisfactorily redressed, at least not in the near- to medium-term. Why not? American distrust of China is intimately linked to the very nature of the People’s Republic, and the reverse is true as well.
Because the Chinese political system is a closed one, foreign observers can never be sure that Chinese pronouncements on foreign policy, strategy, and intentions are genuine. There is no free press or independent legislature to call Chinese leaders to account or challenge their public statements. Unlike in democracies, it is much easier for China’s leaders to keep the results of their internal deliberations secret and to control the message that is delivered publicly. Due to the nature of the Chinese political system and Beijing’s propensity for secrecy, it would be folly for any country – let alone the United States, which China clearly views as potential adversary – to take Chinese words at face value. Indeed, in his 2011 book, A Contest for Supremacy, Aaron Friedberg quite clearly explained the link between transparency and China’s closed political system:

“Even if Beijing were suddenly to unleash a flood of information, American analysts would regard it with profound skepticism, scrutinizing it carefully for signs of deception and disinformation. And they would be right to do so; the centralized, tightly controlled Chinese government is far better able to carry off such schemes than its open, divided, and leaky American counterpart.”
More from GPS: China's defense spending mystery
Nor is it easy for Beijing to trust Washington. While America’s open political system makes it difficult for the United States to pull off any sort of strategic surprise – consider how far ahead of time the Bush administration began preparing the American public for the 2003 invasion of Iraq – China’s leaders believe their U.S. counterparts have already aired their malign intentions in public. Successive American presidents have consistently stated their support for the spread of liberty globally and for the development of democracy in China in particular. One of President Bill Clinton’s main arguments for supporting Chinese entry into the World Trade Organization was that trade with China would, over time, lead to greater political freedom in that country.

American leaders cannot trust Chinese leaders because the latter’s long-term designs are difficult to discern and clouded in secrecy. Beijing cannot trust Washington because it believes Washington has already made clear U.S. opposition to the continued rule of the Chinese Communist Party, even if America’s ultimate plans for bringing down the CCP are unclear.
If Beijing felt so inclined, it could publicize all PLA unit designations down to the platoon level, while Americans cheered China on for increasing transparency. Even then, each country would continue to look at the other through a glass, darkly. For the foreseeable future, true Sino-American trust will remain illusory.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/why-america-and-china-cant-trust-each-other/?hpt=hp_bn2

視頻 (Videos) about China I

Subjects of this compendium:

-Helen Siu ,professor of anthropology , talk about China's urban revolution:

-Jon Huntsman, former U.S. Ambassador to China, and Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia, along with Keith Richburg, former Washington Post Bureau Chief and China correspondent, engaged in a panel conversation on the challenges and opportunities posed by China's global growth.

-North Korea's highly provocative threats against the United States and South Korea have raised tension and fear around Asia-Pacific. China has called for restraint.

China to Take Over U.S. 基礎設施 (Infrastructure)

April 16, 2013  •  From theTrumpet.com
China is looking to finance ailing American infrastructure as the U.S. runs out of cash.
BY CALLUM WOOD

Secretary of State John Kerry met with top Chinese officials in Beijing on April 13 to discuss the growing threats from North Korea. However, when Mr. Kerry spoke with the press following the meeting, he said there were other discussions taking place. The U.S. and China discussed the possibility of China investing in U.S. infrastructure.

Yes, the potholes in the road you swerve to avoid on your way to work might soon be plugged with the aid of the Chinese. A lack of domestic funding has led the U.S. to look elsewhere for financing to pay for the most basic upkeep of the nation. “We welcome Chinese investment in the United States,” said a smiling Mr. Kerry, who suggested that China could play a big role building U.S. transportation infrastructure, water utilities and power plants.

This is not an entirely new initiative. In January 2011, President Barack Obama met with Chinese businessmen to discuss deeper U.S. investments. During the meeting, President Obama said, “The United States is open for investment and would welcome it.”

The U.S. certainly would benefit from Chinese help. With crippling debt closing in on $17 trillion, and $3.86 billion being added per day, there is less and less money being spent on aging U.S. infrastructure. In January 2009, the New York Times released an article stating, “More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day.” And that was four years ago.

The Times printed the article following the release of a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers which gave the nation’s infrastructure a D on a ranking of A through F. It estimated that it would cost $2.2 trillion over the next five years to bring it back into good repair. That hasn’t happened.

Enter China.

“The U.S.-China relationship is fast becoming the most important bilateral relationship for both countries, if it isn’t already,” said John Frisbie, director of the U.S. China Business Council.

But who is it really more important for? The U.S. cannot pay for its own infrastructure, the most basic of needs in America. So it is opening the doors wide for China to come in and spend money. In a sense, however, it is a win-win for both: China gets profits, and Americans get better infrastructure. And when foreign companies make the investments and are able to export the profits, wealth drains out of the nation.

The Trumpet wrote in 2011: “Washington’s move to yield strategic ground in these pivotal areas is designed to stave off the country’s demise, but it will only hasten America’s corrosion. Under the multiplying weight of debt, U.S. leaders are throwing open the nation’s doors for a Communist government to enter its borders and employ its citizens. America’s failure to control its spending is taking away its ability to control its course.”

This is evident with Washington’s dealings with North Korea. North Korea is utterly dwarfed by the power of the U.S., yet Korea continues to openly threaten America and its allies. It looks as if all the military might of America is virtually rendered impotent—and in a sense it is, because Washington is completely hamstrung by China. America recognizes that North Korea is a Chinese protectorate—and there is little it can do about it unless it wants to risk offending China. And this is not an attractive option when China is its most important lender and investor.

Following an address to the Edmond Chamber of Commerce on April 4, Congressman James Lankford was asked how dangerous America’s debt problem was. Lankford said that in his opinion, the more immediate threat was North Korea, but not because of its weapons. He said that if North Korea didn’t back down, and the U.S. was forced to mobilize troops, which costs money, China could refuse to buy up more U.S. debt. America would be without the funds to mobilize troops and check power in the Asia-Pacific region. Suddenly the U.S. could be facing an overnight interest rate hike on bonds.

America’s debt bomb could go off, he said. And it could happen “overnight.”

China holds over 7.5 percent of U.S. debt. America is so beholden to China, it has compromised its ability to act as a true superpower. Gone are the days that the U.S. could act with authority and real power—today the U.S. dances to the tune of its debtors.

As Trumpet columnist Robert Morley wrote last year, “[T]here is no doubt that China considers America’s debt as a weapon to be used. Back in 2007, Xia Bin, a cabinet-rank minister, stated that China’s foreign reserves should be employed as a ‘bargaining chip’ in trade talks with the U.S. That same year, as China and America hammered out a trade deal, He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further, warning that China could obliterate the greenback if it so desired. ‘China has accumulated a large sum of U.S. dollars. Such a big sum … contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency,” he said. … In the past, [Chinese media] has referred to America’s debt pile as China’s ‘nuclear option,’ indicating Beijing could easily trigger a dollar meltdown of massive proportions if it needed to.”

As China continues to invest in the U.S., there may be some benefits domestically. Perhaps roads will improve, or you will get better Internet services. But such benefits come at a terrible national cost. The U.S. is living Proverbs 22:7. It is truly becoming enslaved to those it reaches out to for help. The U.S. was prophesied to be ensnared by its enemies. If China gains control of American industry, on top of its huge intake of U.S. debt, America will well and truly be besieged by trade warfare, just as is prophesied in Deuteronomy 28.

The time is almost on us when economic restriction will choke off the United States. It is a bleak outlook, but not one that should despair us. With such immense trial, there is opportunity for repentance. God doesn’t want to see the nations suffer, but He must bring people to see that their ways do not work. The U.S. doesn’t have it right, and neither does China. Both will soon be taught the right way to live, along with all other peoples and nations.

You don’t have to be ignorant of the troubles besetting this world. Read Russia and China in Prophecy and The United States and Britain in Prophecy to understand the plan God has for the forming Asian conglomerate and the West. ▪

World's Top 5 武器 (Arms) Exporters:China Replaces UK

By Michael Martina

BEIJING, March 18 (Reuters) - China has become the world's fifth-largest arms exporter, a respected Sweden-based think-tank said on Monday, its highest ranking since the Cold War, with Pakistan the main recipient.

China's volume of weapons exports between 2008 and 2012 rose 162 percent compared with the previous five-year period, with its share of the global arms trade rising from 2 percent to 5 percent, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said.

China replaces Britain in the top five arms-dealing countries between 2008 and 2012, a group dominated by the United States and Russia, which accounted for 30 percent and 26 percent of weapons exports, SIPRI said.

"China is establishing itself as a significant arms supplier to a growing number of important recipient states," Paul Holtom, director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme, said in a statement.

The shift, outlined in SIPRI's Trends in International Arms Transfers report, marks China's first time as a top-five arms exporter since the think-tank's 1986-1990 data period.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, asked about the report, said China was a responsible arms exporter which strictly adhered to international law.

"On arms exports, China sticks to three principles. First, that it is conducive to the recipient country's justifiable self-defence needs. Second, it does not damage regional and global peace, security and stability. Third, it does not interfere in other countries' internal affairs," he told reporters.

Now the world's second-largest economy, China's rise has come with a new sense of military assertiveness with a growing budget to develop modern equipment including aircraft carriers and drones.

At the Zhuhai air show in southern China in November, Chinese attack helicopters, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and air defences were on public show for the first time.


PAKISTAN, MYANMAR, BANGLADESH

SIPRI maintains a global arms transfers database base that tracks arms exports back to the 1950s. It averages data over five-year periods because arms sales vary by year.

"Pakistan - which accounted for 55 percent of Chinese arms exports - is likely to remain the largest recipient of Chinese arms in the coming years due to large outstanding and planned orders for combat aircraft, submarines and frigates," SIPRI said.

Myanmar, which has been undergoing fragile reforms that the United States thinks could help counter Beijing's influence in the region, received 8 percent of China's weapons exports.

Bangladesh received 7 percent of the arms while Algeria, Venezuela and Morocco have bought Chinese-made frigates, aircraft or armoured vehicles in the past several years.

China does not release figures for its arms sales.

Germany and France ranked third and fourth on the arms exporter list. China followed only India in the acquisition of arms, though its reliance on imports is decreasing as it ramps up domestic production.

After decades of steep increases in military spending and cash injections into domestic contractors, experts say some Chinese-made equipment is now comparable to Russian or Western counterparts, though accurate information about the performance of Chinese weapons is scarce.

China faces bans on Western military imports, dating back to anger over its crushing of pro-democracy protests in and around Tiananmen Square in 1989. That makes its domestic arms industry crucial in assembling a modern military that can enforce claims over Taiwan and disputed maritime territories.

China has faced off recently with its Southeast Asian neighbours and Japan over rival claims to strings of islets in the South China Sea and East China Sea, even as the United States executes a so-called pivot towards the Pacific. (Additional reporting by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Robert Birsel).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/worlds-top-5-arms-exporters_n_2899052.html

California 和 China

Jerry Brown in China

Chasing the dragon . An old relationship presents fresh opportunities

CALIFORNIA’S economy was almost twice the size of China’s when Jerry Brown last visited, in 1986. Today, the governor of America’s biggest state (and the world’s ninth-largest economy, down from seventh in 1986) is the first to admit that things look different, as he and a 90-strong business entourage embark on a week-long trade and investment tour of China. Chinese investors, reckons Mr Brown, have $400 billion-$500 billion burning a hole in their pockets. “They like our almonds, our wine, our brains,” he says. “Instead of buying T-bills in Washington, they should be investing in California.”

Under China’s so-called “going out” policy, outward direct investment grew from $5.5 billion in 2004 to $65 billion by 2011. That figure should continue to rise, as should the relatively small share enjoyed by America so far. California’s strong brand in China—everyone knows where Hollywood is, and the Lakers are fervently followed across the country—leave it well placed to take advantage. A new office in Shanghai aims to attract Chinese investors as much as to help Californian exporters.

The first Chinese to seek their fortunes in California came during the gold rush of the late 1840s. Tens of thousands followed in the next few decades to work on the state’s vast railway projects. More recently immigrants and investors have flocked to the San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles, where Chinese banks and estate agents jostle for space with America’s finest dim sum restaurants. California’s universities, and some of its high schools, teem with Chinese students. This “connective tissue”, says Mickey Kantor, a California-based former commerce secretary, gives the state an edge over its rivals.

Yet only in the last year have state officials made serious efforts to forge connections with their Chinese counterparts, says Thilo Hanemann at the Rhodium Group, an economic-research firm. A Rhodium study found that California secured 156 Chinese deals between 2000 and 2011, more than any other state, but that the total value of these investments was less than other states hauled in. California has done a reasonable job of attracting private Chinese investment, perhaps because of its innovation-friendly reputation; it has had less success with state-owned enterprises and sovereign-wealth funds. And “That’s where the money is,” says Mr Hanemann.

Mr Brown will be looking for some of that money during his trip, particularly if he can direct it towards one of the two big infrastructure projects he sees as his legacy: the construction of a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco (the other is a tunnelling scheme to divert water from northern to southern California). The project is far from properly funded, and its costs are rising almost as quickly as its popularity is falling. Construction is supposed to begin this summer; an influx of Chinese cash could help revive the flagging momentum.

Renewables and clean technology also present opportunities. Green rules in California have contributed to a reputation for business-unfriendliness, but have also helped foster a market for technologies the Chinese are keen to buy: the country aims to spend $473 billion on clean energy during a five-year plan ending in 2015. The American arm of BYD, a Chinese electric-vehicle manufacturer, recently won a $12m contract to build ten buses for the city of Long Beach, south of Los Angeles.

But Chinese investments in the United States can jangle nerves. Security concerns in sectors like telecoms may be legitimate, but can also be used as a smokescreen for protectionist impulses. The memory of a state-owned Chinese firm’s attempt to buy Unocal, a Californian oil company, in 2005, is fresh among many Chinese executives, says Mr Hanemann. That bid collapsed after fierce opposition from American congressmen, including Californians.

From the print edition: United States

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21576111-old-relationship-presents-fresh-opportunities-chasing-dragon

Chinese 防禦(defence) budget has increased,NATO Allies declined...

Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Japan National Press Club, Tokyo, Japan (followed by Q&A session)

Q: My name is Muzi (sp?) Yomiuri Shimbun, staff writer in Tokyo. I'd like to ask you about China; because you did not refer to China at all on your speech. "Yes, has the military build-up of China become a threat to the security of Asian region and to the world?" is my question. And what is your perception about the situation?
And secondly, what can NATO do to stabilize the situation in Asia? And according to your perception, has your perception changed after you visited Asia? Thank you.
ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Thank you very much for your questions. First on China, we do not consider China a direct threat to NATO Allies.
Of course, we have taken note of the fact that the Chinese defence budget has increased substantially during recent years while defence budgets in NATO Allied nations have declined. These declining defence budgets in NATO nations are, of course, a matter of concern, seen from my chair as NATO Secretary General. And from an overall strategic perspective, of course, it may have a long-term impact on the global power balance that we are cutting defence budgets while China and other emerging powers are increasing their defence budgets.
But again, we do not consider China a direct threat to NATO Allies. We hope that China will use its increasing influence on the international scene in a peaceful way and in a constructive way to maintain international peace, security and stability.
I hope and I believe that the Chinese leadership realizes that it is in China's interest to maintain such international peace, security and stability; because the Chinese economic success depends very much on a stable world order.
Let me just add to that, that I would very much like to see a strengthened dialogue between NATO and China. NATO operates on the basis of United Nations mandates. And we have special relationships with four out of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Because three of them are Allies: the US, UK and France. And with the fourth, Russia, we have a special partnership rooted in the NATO-Russia Council. So we have a structured dialogue with four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. But with the fifth, China, I would like to see a more structured dialogue. We have some dialogue. But it could be enhanced. And that could, I think, also contribute to preventing any misunderstandings.
(...)
On China, which kind of dialogue? Well, what I mentioned was my desire to see a more structured China-NATO dialogue. But obviously it would also be to the benefit of the security in Asia if a multilateral dialogue could take place among major players in this region. And that leads me to... to your third question.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_99634.htm

Xi expresses concern for Chinese victims in 波士頓(Boston) bombings

BEIJING, April 17 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday expressed great  concern for the Chinese students who were casualties in the Boston Marathon bombings. It was confirmed that a Chinese student studying in the United States died in Monday's Boston Marathon bombings and another student was severely injured. Xi expressed sorrow for the dead student and offered condolences to the injured student and the victims' families through relevant departments. Xi instructed the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the Chinese Embassy in the United States and the Chinese Consulate General in New York to make all-out efforts to handle the aftermath and arrange treatment for the injured student. He also asked them to maintain close contact with the U.S. side to properly handle other related issues.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-04/17/c_132317526.htm

Some US presidents 報價!

人人生而平等。

我喜欢梦想未来而非追思既往的歷史。

自由之花需要经常用爱国者和暴君的鲜血来浇灌。

我們想你們替你們的作為感到驕傲。我們想你們繼續在政府裏效力，如果這是你們的願望。永遠付出你們的最好、不要氣餒、不要小氣。永遠記住，其他人可能會憎恨你，但那些憎恨你的人不會勝利除非你憎恨他們，於是你們毀滅你們自己。

• 若我們等待他人或等待下一次，就不會有所改變。我們正是你我正在等待的人。

• 是的，我們可以治癒這個國家；是的，我們可以掌握我們的未來。

• 如果你走在正確的道路上，而且你願意繼續走下去，你終會進步。

• 信念並不代表你沒有懷疑。

• 這是我們齊心協力拯救地球的時刻。讓我們下定決心不把一個海水上升、飢荒頻繁、暴風雨肆虐的土地留給後代子孫。

• 我們對自己努力捍衛的理想作出妥協時，便迷失了自己。要在最艱難的時刻、而非平順的時刻維護那些理想，藉以實踐之。

• 不能讓失敗來定義你，你必須把失敗當作導師，你必須讓失敗經驗指引你如何在下一次有不一樣的作為。

• 美国永远为了全世界各地的核心原则说话，我们不寻求把任何政治体制强制给任何国家，但是我们也不认为我们所支持的这些原则是我们国家所独有的，这些表达自由、宗教崇拜自由、接触信息的机会、政治的參與，我们认为这些是普世的权利，应该是所有人民能够享受到，包括少数民族和宗教的族群。

Xi meets 2nd China-US 省長' forum attendees

Big powers,需求 big forums!

"Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday met with Chinese and U.S. governors, calling for deeper regional cooperation between the two countries.

Relations between China and the United States are currently at "an important phase that connects the past and the future," Xi told the governors attending the second China-U.S. governors' forum.

Xi recalled his latest telephone discussion with U.S. President Barack Obama, saying they agreed on the direction for building a bilateral cooperative partnership and developing a new type of relations between big powers."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-04/15/c_132310964.htm

This  is...

...this 從字面上: