The title subject may raise issues with some human rights groups since sissy is defined in the dictionary as an effeminate man or boy or as a timid, weak, or cowardly person. When men dressed like women or acted like girls in today’s society are more likely gay people and they deserve respect as individuals with their preference of behavior or appearance in dressing or manners. Today feminists also demand their respect as females not inferior to males in any way, the association of timid, weak, or cowardly manner with females are definitely not acceptable. So obviously the term sissy is an outdated vocabulary or is a politically incorrect word. Then why is sissy used in the subject title? The reason is twofold: Firstly, the newly coined terms such as “little fresh meat”(小鮮肉）or “mother minted baby” (娘㚿子) are not yet widely known and perhaps more offensive than the traditional sissy term to the social scientists. Secondly, the purpose of the present article is to discuss a cultural change which is fermented and nourished by media. Although LGBT may exist even prevalent in the media circle or society, the author’s focus is on a cultural phenomenon impacting broadly on societal and national level. This phenomenon is particularly visible in the Asian countries today in sharp contrast to ancient times. Therefore, the author coined ‘sissy culture’ as a special phrase for the purpose of this essay.
 
Sissy Culture is a culture that has changed the societal value system about fellow humans. Sissy culture suppresses masculine characteristics and flourishes feminine characteristics in human, particularly on standards of physical beauty (body, makeup and clothing), personality (expressions of feelings) and mannerism (speaking and body language). This sissy culture can be observed through TV media in Asian countries, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan although they were far ahead of that in Mainland China) not only in societies but more acutely in entertaining and social media circles which have a great influence on the young people or society. The famous media personalities, movie stars, and popular singers are the most visible representatives of this ‘Sissy Culture’, the more sissy they are the more popular they seem to be, hence more influential in forming a sissy culture shaping the society. Is anything wrong with this phenomenon? That depends on where you stand? As Americans and Hollywood led media industry, generating the sissy culture in Asia is great, it weakens masculine characteristics in Asian societies, enriches American beauty, cosmetics, fashion and media industries and creates a strong American power image (simply because of that Hollywood creates the opposite of sissy image for American heroes (terminator, transformer, die hard, spider man, and the like). However, if you would take an Asian stand, the story would be very different. Have you seen any of top-ranking Asian movies lately? Most likely it is a product of sissy culture. 
 
There is no proof that the sissy culture is a strategic plot to weaken Asian societies. However, one can trace some historic facts to support such a hypothesis. During WW II, the Imperial Japanese army was brutal and cruel, it made devastating impact on all nations it invaded including the U.S. when she engaged in WW II. After the war, the U.S. was the occupier of Japan in control of Japan’s recovery. In that process, the U.S. invested in Japanese media industry and controlled its development. With CIA’s design or not, a Japanese American, Johnny Hiromu Kitagawa (10/23/1931 to 7/9/2019 born in Los Angeles), founded Johnny & Associates and became a powerful businessman in Japan. He dominated Japanese music industry (creating bands with good looking fair faced young boys and making them into popular stars) for forty years and he also extended to theater and TV businesses. TV was the tool or medium to change Japan’s traditionally male-dominated society from worshipping warriors (samurai) to a sissy culture. This process was so successful and profitable for media and cosmetics industries, etc., it was replicated by media industry in South Korea where the Sissy Culture was further flourished as seen in Korean movies and TV shows which became popular not only in S. Korea but also propagating throughout Asia, like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mainland China. The trend is similar, young pretty face actors and actresses dominate the media, huge amount of capitals was invested in creating these idols who can plow back huge profits for the media industry. To say the least, it is an unhealthy process creating huge wealth gap in the society making youth madly worshiping the sissy characters.
 
With the advancement in Internet technology in China, the sissy culture also dominated e-Commerce. TV and movie celebrities became marketing spokespersons promoting products making very handsome commissions, from cosmetics to daily household goods and from cars  to home sales. Under the free market principle, there is nothing wrong with media celebrities participating in marketing and sales activities except that eventually it dawned on the social scientists that the sissy culture was the primary and evil drive changing the entire society. The children and students talk and act like the sissy celebrities and the media was flooded with sissy actors and actresses. It may not be a problem, if the young people talked differently from the adults but it became a serious problem if the entire young generation would think like the sissy celebrities and want to be just like them, changing physical appearance by cosmetic surgery, making fortunes by appearance and talking and acting in sissy manner as if the entire world can function by ‘appearance’ only. Recently, China has begun to implement some regulations and laws to guide the media industries. It certainly would impact free markets and personal freedom to some degree but if it was designed to impact the society for the better. It is perhaps worthy of experimenting. A healthy society should consist of lots of professionals living a life of their own not in the shadow of a dominating sissy culture. Anyone should have a right to worship any idol, but idols forming a culture dominating a society, especially the entire young generation, is not a healthy social phenomenon, especially that phenomenon contains greed and corruption. We are looking forward to reading some social scientists' reports in the near future.
 
Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.
 

The U.S. is prevalent in determining China’s grand strategy (Current and former officials of U.S. National Security Council, Rush Doshi and Matt Pottinger, have published a book and an essay claiming that China has a grand strategy to displace the U.S. to control the region then the world), but in fact, this has been the consistent policy of the U.S. (logic: If I did it, then others would do the same!) Observations show that China’s diplomacy has been mainly “reactionary diplomacy” for many decades, reflecting her struggle under pressure of foreign power. From the dying period of Qing Dynasty to the laboring birth of Republic of China about 100 years span, China had endured foreign insults to invasions, a case of evidence for weak countries having no diplomatic power. In the international arena, China not only could not exhibit the posture of a big country, but it could hardly defend itself. Relations with SE Asian countries were mostly based on historical connections and the sentiments of overseas Chinese in SE Asia. Traditionally China was never in the habit of invading small neighboring countries with military force, but often there were foreigners coveting Chinese territory. History showed many examples of invasion from the north by foreigners who were ultimately assimilated into the Chinese society. There had been also frequent invasions at the border of southwest China, but China had always responded to foreign territory ambition with a policy of appeasement. After World War II, China's internal civil war created two political entities across the Taiwan Strait, thus China’s relations with SE Asian countries were muddled and directly interfered by other nations. At the end of the Vietnam War, the United Nations recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole China. Only then China's foreign diplomacy can move towards the normal track of an independent big country. However, positioning China's foreign policy as premeditated expansion of hegemony (so claimed by the U.S. scholars above), deliberately trying to gain control from the (Asian) region to the entire globe, it is too much like the folklore: Thieves call catching thieves to divert the attention away from the real thieves.

Throughout the founding history of the U.S. till WW I, its territorial expansion through war had been clearly recorded. The U.S. played a pivotal role in WW II and emerged not only as a victor but also as a nation avoided battles on her home ground. Post WW II, the U.S. took on leadership role in rebuilding the world from the devastating war. From the 1950s to the 90s of the 20th century, the U.S. military power and economy were indeed the world's strongest. Therefore, the U.S. has long established a grand strategy in the name of leading the world, but in reality for maintaining its global superpower status. The so-called “America First” concept (Consider American interests as the highest priority to maintain her superpower status in the world - American hegemony) has long been entrenched in American politics. In the latter part of 20th century and entering into the 21st century, China's economy had been consistently improved, and its military development had been sanctioned by the U.S., but China had determined to develop its defense capability to catch-up and rival any foreign powers. Starting from the Obama era, China was committed to modernizing its military and accelerating the development of advanced weapons, which made the U.S. more and more concerned, thus implementing her “Pivot to Asia-Pacific” policy targeting China. By the time Trump was in power, it was even more obvious that he was fueling confrontation with China by launching a trade war and expanding to a full-scale sanction to suppress China's fast technological development. After Biden took office, he continued this policy of containing China, and publicly stated that “China is the most serious competitor of the U.S. and the U.S. is committed to building an alliance against China”.

Biden's team generally consisted of former members of the Obama administration and inherited the strategy of containment and suppression of China as its China policy. However, Biden’s approach is slightly different from Trump's ‘lone-star’ and ‘trigger (Twitter) happy’ style. Biden considers himself rich in diplomatic experience and intends to unite with American allies to establish an anti-China alliance. Since taking office, officials of the Department of States and the Department of Defense have visited Asia-Pacific allies, Japan, South Korea, and Australia as well as appeased India to solicit their willingbess to establish the Four Plus One Anti-China Alliance (QUAD+). It is too early to tell whether this plan will materialize. Australia and Japan have expressed their support openly, but South Korea and India are unwilling to blindly fight China at the expense of their own interests. The U.S. wants to extend its Asia-Pacific strategy to the Indian Ocean. In addition to uniting Australia and India, it also wants to lure SE Asian countries to support its anti-China alliance strategy. This is the basic reason why U.S. Vice President Harris was visiting SE Asia after Secretary of Defense Austin did so. In 2013, the U.S. encouraged the Philippines to raise a South China Sea (SCS) island dispute case in an arbitration court to challenge China's sovereignty over those islands and territorial waters in the SCS, but China ignored the case, strengthened her island construction and defense, and committed to communicating with SE Asian countries to customize the code of conduct for SCS navigation and joint economic development. Although the U.S. has dispatched warships and aircraft carriers into the SCS and held military exercises as demonstration of power, the U.S is well aware of the truth that it is difficult to sing alone. This is also another purpose of VP Harris' visiting Vietnam and Singapore to promote diplomatic relations. The U.S.’s assistance to Vietnam and donation of COVID vaccines are so obvious with ulterior motives, well known even by street vendors.

Harris only visited Vietnam and Singapore during her SE Asia tour, not to Indonesia or Thailand nor Brunei or Cambodia. The United States keeps saying that it values ​​SE Asian countries, but in reality she focuses far more on Japan, South Korea, India and Australia. However, this Quad+ alliance is not a done-deal and its success is also uncertain. Hence, Vietnam became a target. Singapore does have a lot of influence in ASEAN, but Brunei is the current chair of ASEAN, Cambodia is the next chair, and Indonesia is the secretariat of ASEAN. Biden's American diplomacy has hardly taken into consideration of the Eastern culture and small countries’ mentality. Sure enough, Harris's trip and speeches in SE Asia not only did not make any significant wave but instead aroused some dissatisfaction. Indonesian media accused the U.S. of arrogance (snub), and Singapore think tank (Hoang Thi Ha, ISEAS-Yusuf Ishak Institute) stated that instead of blindly fighting against China, imposing pressure on ASEAN countries. and asking them to stand in line with the U.S. and having the same views and ideas like the U.S., the U.S. should take a pragmatic and principled approach to face the rising China. From the media reaction, we can conclude that Harris's trip to SE Asia only made a small ripple at best, certainly not a wave.

Freedom and safety of navigation is the major flag of rhetoric that the United States used to make waves antagonizing China in the East China Sea (ECS), SCS and the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. The U.S. also used this banner to conduct joint military exercises. In the eyes of ASEAN countries, this is both funny and worrying. The U.S. refuses to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreement and sends a large number of warships to the SCS and ECS to conduct military exercises, shouting that others do not respect the freedom of navigation and safety but never asking who is really causing tensions in these waters. China is painstakingly engaging with ASEAN to establish SCS navigation guidelines and common regulations for resource development. China’s policy is absolutely a pragmatic and mutually beneficial foreign policy. ASEAN countries understand that very well. The Biden team really should reflect on its current Asia-Pacific policy to make her presence appreciated.




​

 
History of The Cold War
 
The Cold War (1946-1991) literally started right after WW II (1939-1945). The Russian Bolshevik revolution took place in 1917 overthrew the Czar Nicholas II and after a few years of civil war, a socialist state emerged. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) grew to 12 states; Joseph Stalin took over the control of the government when Vladimir Lenin died in 1924. During WW II, USSR absorbed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and post WW II, the Soviet Union continued with its 'expansionism' foreign policy by installing communist-leaning governments in Eastern Europe while the U.S. was exerting her power and leading the post war recovery in West Europe and South Asia. The US-Russia wartime alliance crumbled and the Cold War began in 1946. The U.S. created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of 12 nations in 1949 as a political system resisting communist expansion but it became a military organization when Korean War broke out (1950-1953) ultimately forcing China to defend North Korea against the U.S.-NATO-S. Korea forces. In 1954, the Soviet wanted to join the NATO but got rejected, then the Soviet Union and seven satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe formed the Warsaw Pact, rival to NATO. From then on, the Cold War lasted more then forty years.
 
In 1970, the U.S. President Nixon and his adviser Kissinger formulated a plan to lure China into the West economy to confront the Soviet Union. After two decades, the Soviet Union was disintegrated out of economic collapse (1991). Basically, the Soviet Union's economic development plans were failing, they could not keep up with the arms race with the U.S. The Cold War is an all-front confrontation, including military, economy, technology and diplomacy all depending on a robust economy. Near Soviet's economic collapse, the U.S. GDP ($5.64T) was 15.2% of the World GDP ($36.94T, 1989), China 1.24% ($0.46T) and Russia 1.4% ($0.5T). The U.S.-China had a combined GDP 16.44% ($7.10T) competing with Russia 1.4% ($0.5T). The end result could be predicted. Fortunately, the Cold War did not develop into a hot war or world war. Even though the Cuba missile crisis was scary, but the Soviet Union backed down from the nuclear confrontation, a nuclear war prevented. The U.S. and Russia both possessed considerable nuclear warheads, if a hot war broke out, both and the world would be destroyed. 
 
Another Cold war will lead to WW
 
Of course, during a cold war, the military confrontation is the most dangerous. When the atomic bomb was used in WW II, Japan surrendered reluctantly. Post WW II, as Cold War started, the nuclear power was limited to a few nations. Therefore, it was relatively easy to develop a “Capping the number of nuclear warhead Treaty”. China was willing to announce a policy: “China will never use nuclear weapon first nor used it against any non-nuclear nation.” This policy helped preventing nuclear war during the Cold War. However, long after the collapse of the Soviet Union, China had maintained a rapid pace of economic development. The U.S. had shifted her attention and pressure to China. Consequently, China had increased her defense budget especially in advanced weapon development such as nuclear missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, many smaller nations also wanted to develop nuclear weapon as a deterrence to the abuse from superpowers who possess nuclear weapons. Thus a proliferation of nuclear weapon occurred, now the world is facing nuclear threat from Israel and North Korea, potentially from Iran.
 
Today, China has risen not only as the world's second largest economy maintaining sizable trade with 130 nations but also as a respectable military power. The U.S. seems to be cultivating a second Cold War targeting China. The U.S. pivoted her attention to Asia Pacific and attempted luring Russia against China. Recently, the U.S. increased her diplomatic activities with Japan, South Korea, Australia and India contemplating an AP version of 'NATO' (QUAD+) confronting China. However, Russia and China had elevated their bond both economically and militarily. China also signed a 25-year economic development plan with Iran making a China-Russia alliance seemingly apparent. With proliferation of nuclear weapons (over 10,000 nuclear war heads distributed worldwide), it is unwise and extremely dangerous to initiate another Cold War. First of all, in today's GDP (2020), the U.S. is $20.94T (24.7% of the world GDP $84.54T), China $14.72T (17.4%) and Russia $1.48T (1.7%), thus if the U.S. launches an economic war against China-Russia, it would be 24.7% vs 19.1% significantly worse from Cold War I (U.S.-China against Russia was 16.44% vs 1.4%). With China's man power advantage and highly integrated economy (Russia was totally isolated economically in Cold War I), the U.S. has a very poor odds to win on economic competition. Realizing fighting alone inadequate, the U.S. is trying to build alliances, but one can hardly expect the other countries to sacrifice their vital interests for 'America first' doctrine. If the U.S. dared to use nuclear weapon, it would invite mutual destruction. That is more reason for U.S. allies to hold the U.S. back.      
 
Difference between Cool War and Cold War
 
Since Cold War is not an option (no winning odds except mutual destruction), the U.S. must consider a different strategy. The U.S. must have a plan B which is a Cool War. The author has introduced the concept of Cool War before, essentially competition with wisdom and caution. One makes carefully selected competition. One competes when one can. One will cooperate instead of competing when one realizes that competition is not an option. Of course, making selective competition requires wisdom, reasoning and calm attitude to avoid making wrong selection and/or miscalculating opponent's reactions. For example, Trump Administration launched a broad tariff war against China but with little gain, apparently not a well thought-out selection (China dominates in many basic goods manufacturing). However, the selection of a semiconductor wafer-chip war was a seemingly wiser choice and it indeed caused more disruption and pain in China's manufacturing industries. China has an enormous demand of various chip import. Sanction on chip products and technologies do hurt China since China does not have a complete supply chain of her own yet.
 
Biden continued this competition, broadening to material, design and manufacturing tools and technologies. The impact on China is considerable. However, competing in this domain requires a large sum of capital and human talents to maintain a solid domination. The U.S. does not have such a complete domination, hence she requires allies, for example Japan for advanced materials, South Korea and Taiwan for manufacturing technologies, Holland for special tool (EUV imaging system), etc. In this competition, China is likely to invest in R&D and talent development to catch up and seek self-sufficiency. This will take a few years at least, but with China's economic and industrial base she may succeed. In addition, China is the largest market for chips, the high-end chip technology companies need a market to absorb their products and generate profits to sustain their technology dominance. Therefore, there is no assurance that in the competition of semiconductor-chip technology, the U.S. will definitely come out on top. The smart thing is to assess the competition constantly and carefully, if competition does not bring victory then cooperate. When COVID-19 is still rampant and China is in a better shape in controlling the pandemic, the U.S. decision makers along with their think tank advisers must remain cool to face the Cool War not slipping into a Cold War. 
 
US-China Cool War will be beneficial to the world
 
Comparing Cold War and Cool War, anyone can see that Cold War is not an option. We can predict that Cold War will increase the chance of starting a world war. So if we started Cold War II, there would be no winner or loser but destruction for all. So the U.S. and China must tone down the rhetoric of Cold War and face a Cool War. In a Cool War, we must remember its principle, one must smartly select competition, if competition is not fruitful or rewarding, we must turn to cooperation.  If we follow this principle, any competition or confrontation will not lead to a hot war like Cold War does. We not only can avoid world war, but also can make progress for mankind.  Just like Olympic competitions, no matter who gets the gold medal or the silver medal, breaking the world record, mankind wins. Right now the U.S. and China confrontation seems to be very fierce on the surface heading to a possible world war, but the smart people in the government think tanks on both sides must remain cool and follow the Cool War Principle. Don't let media including social media bring us into the trap of Cold War. Another Cold War will bring us a disastrous world war!  


​