Currently, there are many rapid changes and complex, unpredictable developments in global and regional security environment. Major powers are also proactively adjusting their strategies. These factors have led to fierce competitions among these powers in many fields, including the development of hypersonic weapons, those that are capable of engaging targets at stand-off range with devastating effect and high kill probability. The development of such type of weapon has raised concerns about a new arms race between major military powers.

The push for hypersonic weapon development

The main reason for major powers to pay special attentions to the development of hypersonic weapon is that this type of weapon is capable of performing attack from extreme range with great speed, making them impossible to be detected and intercepted with current missile defence systems. Typically, a hypersonic weapon can travel at Mach 5 (5 times faster than the speed of sound) and some can even achieve Mach 25. Currently, hypersonic platforms are divided into two subtypes: hypersonic cruise missiles, powered by engine during their entire flight and hypersonic glide vehicles with flight trajectory similar to gliders, hence they are also known as hypersonic gliders. Hypersonic cruisers are developed based on the principle of improving the maximum speed of current platforms from Mach 2 to Mach 5, and potentially Mach 10. A hypersonic cruise missile is equipped with a special scramjet engine in which the fuel is burnt in a pressurised supersonic air chamber.

Hypersonic glider is a special type of reentry vehicle attached to a delivery platform, typically a ballistic missile. A hypersonic glide vehicle can reach the maximum speed of Mach 20 or higher when launched from an InterContinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). The current focus of hypersonic glider development is not on increasing its own speed, but on the weapon’s ability to glide through the atmosphere at multiple altitudes between 40 km and 100 km and use aerodynamic force to adjust its trajectory, and even completely remove the use of a propulsion system. Presently, Russian Avangard hypersonic glider has been successfully tested and entered combat duty. Meanwhile, China has tested its DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle multiple times. At the moment, the US is considered to be lagging behind in this field, currently its C-HGB hypersonic glider program is only at development phrase.

The most impressive breakthrough in Russia’s hypersonic weapon program is the successful development of Avangard hypersonic glider. As Russian President Vladimir stated, with Avangard – “an undefeatable weapon”, Russia has become the first country in the world to successfully develop this type of weapon and it would ensure Russian national security and the safety of Russian people in decades to come. Avangard hypersonic glider has intercontinental range and can reach the speed of Mach 20, upon approaching target, the weapon will detach from the delivery missile and glide through the air with extreme speed, maneuvering to adjust altitude and direction to evade the enemy air defense.

Recently China also succeeded in developing DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle, with short-range ballistic missile DF-17 as the delivery platform. DF-ZF’s role is participating in the implementation of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategy, mainly focusing on intercepting hostile carrier strike groups approaching Chinese waters. In a hypersonic weapon program, the development of the reentry glider is the key. In this field, many military experts believe that China is only a few years behind Russia. To conduct tests for its hypersonic platforms, China has been actively developing related infrastructure, including the construction of a wind tunnel that can be used for Mach 9 flight tests on the outskirts of Beijing.

Meanwhile, the US shows no interest in developing strategic nuclear hypersonic glider. Instead, it focuses on three systems with similar potentials to hypersonic glide vehicle, including: Air-Launch Rapid Response Weapon AGM-183A, Long-range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) and Prompt Global Strike (PGS) to provide the US the capability to quickly engage multiple targets at long range. This controversial move has led many to believe that the US is developing a new intermediate range missile after its withdrawal from INF.

Enhancing the strategic and tactical deterrent capability of hypersonic weapon

In reality, Russia, the US and China all aim to develop hypersonic weapons to enhance their strategic deterrence capability and effectively deal with external threats. Presently, Russia has been heavily investing in developing hypersonic weapons, aiming to take the leading position in the new military technology revolution. This is due to the fact that Russia considers hypersonic platforms as its main weapons in future space warfare. This new type of weapon, with its great speed, high precision and flexibility, is expected to have a decisive role in future warfare. In fact, Russia called weapons with hypersonic strike capability “the 6^th generation of military technology”. Thanks to its special attention and huge resource allocation toward hypersonic weapon, Russia is now believed to have surpassed the US in hypersonic weapon development. For decades, Russia viewed INF as the foundation of US – Russia strategic balance. However, recent US’s moves such as the deployment of ballistic missile defence systems in Romania and Poland or the continuous Eastward expansion of NATO have led Moscow to believe that its national security and “post-Soviet space” are seriously threatened. At the same time, the US’ “Prompt Global Strike” program further undermines US- Russian strategic balance. In case of a geopolitical crisis, even if the US only use conventional warhead for its “Prompt Global Strike”, it can still be perceived as a strategic offensive weapon by the Russians. Therefore, hypersonic weapon will be an effective tool for Russia to deal with external security threats as well as the US’ “Prompt Global Strike”.

Meanwhile, Russia also views hypersonic weapon as the basis to enhance its non-nuclear deterrence capability. Russian strategic nuclear force is undergoing vigorous modernisation, and because of the high “threshold” of the use of nuclear weapons, they do not have much use in a conventional conflict. Russia, in its latest Military Doctrine, introduced the new strategy of “non-nuclear deterrence” and its hypersonic weapon program is the key to realise this strategy. Non-nuclear strikes with hypersonic weapons, which have much lower threshold of combat use compared to ICBMs such as Topol-M or RS-24 Yars, provide a more practical solution for strategic deterrence. Russia’s efforts in developing modern nuclear-capable and preemptive hypersonic weapons like Avangard present a special strategic thinking. This thinking focuses on the development of hypersonic platforms and the modernisation of the nuclear force. To be more specific, it prioritises the development of nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle as well as the application of tactical nuclear weapon in combat.

As for the US, right from the beginning of 21^st century, it introduced “Prompt Global Strike” to develop hypersonic technology with the goal of containing potential adversaries, such as: Russia and China. Accordingly, the US has increased its military presence in Europe to deter Russia, and in East China Sea and East Sea (South China Sea) to contain China. It also plans to deploy a certain number of hypersonic weapons under EUCOM and INDOPACOM. This move indicates that the strategic aim of the US’ hypersonic weapon program is to deter its adversaries. According to “Prompt Global Strike” initiative, after the operational decision has been made, US hypersonic weapons can strike any target around the globe within an hour. For the US, “Prompt Global Strike” is a versatile combat solution with high price/performance ratio. In addition, a hypersonic glider normally has low chance to cause collateral damage, so it can be used flexibly in combat. This shows that the US military clearly intends to use this weapon against high value, time-sensitive targets. Besides, thanks to its extreme speed and high precision, even a hypersonic weapon without a warhead is still able to destroy the target with its kinetic power, very suitable for preemptive strikes against high value targets such as enemy heads of state, terrorist leaders, strategic nuclear facilities, military headquarters and missile defence systems, etc.

China is also aiming to penetrate the US’ missile defence network. Currently, the US has deployed a large number of missile defence systems in the Asia – Pacific region, seriously threatening US – China strategic balance. If China manages to develop conventional and nuclear hypersonic gliders, it will be able to penetrate the current US’ missile defence network. In addition, for China, another important role of hypersonic weapon is that it can directly threaten US carrier strike groups in the Pacific. According to military experts, although air defence systems of a US carrier strike group can deal with enemy supersonic bombers, it cannot effectively deal with hypersonic gliders. If a hypersonic glide vehicle directly hits an aircraft carrier, even a conventional warhead is enough to neutralise the target.

Nevertheless, hypersonic weapon is also a “double-edged sword”, which, if not controlled effectively, will become a destabilising factor for global and regional security and the source of a new arms race, even threatening the survival and development of all mankind. Therefore, to ensure the global strategic balance, major powers must reach an agreement on the development of this dangerous type of weapon and strictly limit its proliferation. This is also the prerequisite for creating the strategic balance between major powers, as well as maintain a long-term peace and stability in the world.

 

Việt Nam has drawn up policies to attract high-quality foreign investment. The growth of the bilateral trade relationship between the UK and Việt Nam has been profound over the last 10 years. In fact, I was recently reading statistics that show that over the last decade, Việt Nam has been the fastest growing provider of UK imports globally. This of course has been driven by Việt Nam’s strengths in agriculture, manufacturing and consumer goods.

In total, bilateral trade between two countries is valued at £5.7 billion (US$6.6 billion) per annum, including over £900m in UK exports in return to Việt Nam in everything from pharmaceuticals and chemicals to high-end consumer goods and of course our strengths in services provision from companies such as Unilever, AstraZeneca and GSK.

There is plenty more I believe UK companies can bring to Việt Nam, particularly in fin-tech, innovation and education, and I am confident that we will see continued growth in the years ahead.

The implementation of the UKVFTA in early 2021 was a significant milestone in our ever-improving trade relationship. We almost immediately saw UK-Việt Nam trade increase by 16 per cent during the first nine months of 2021 compared to the same period in 2020 despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The foundations of the agreement and our shared trade policy mean that we will see this continue. 65 per cent of all tariffs have already been eliminated on UK-Việt Nam trade, with the number increasing to 99 per cent by full implementation of the UKVFTA in 2029.

In relative terms, direct UK investment into Việt Nam is not as significant as some peers from across the region. The UK invests £1.7 trillion globally, but only £932 million of that came into Việt Nam last year according to our statistics. It is worth noting that these figures probably undersell the impact of UK financial institutions in providing global finance and investment to Việt Nam, for example, HSBC and Standard Chartered, which are providing the capital needed for Việt Nam’s energy transition. We would want to see this grow with more regulatory reform to allow greater investment flows, particularly in energy and infrastructure.

The attraction for investors in Việt Nam, including UK ones, are many. Well located in one of the world’s most dynamic growth regions, Việt Nam has a large, well-educated workforce and is undertaking the necessary reforms to its institutions, economic management and infrastructure to continue to attract capital.

I think we all agree it has been a success following the large public announcements of companies such as Apple investing in the last year and I don’t believe the current geopolitical atmosphere will affect the underlying strengths of Việt Nam’s economy which drive its attractiveness as an investment destination.

I think to continue to attract businesses from the UK and around the globe, Việt Nam needs to think carefully about how it makes regulation as business-friendly as possible from establishing companies in the country to licensing their operations and much more besides. This is already underway and we work closely with our Vietnamese counterparts to monitor and improve these conditions in our annual trade dialogues.

In my short time in Việt Nam, I would say I have been impressed by the positive, inquisitive nature of Vietnamese businesses as they look to source the right partners and solutions for their challenges from around the globe. This covers not only their approach to business but how they manage their workforces to ensure they have the skills they need to be successful in the longer term.

UK education provision is especially important in helping Vietnamese businesses in this way and my team and I work constantly to bring more UK education providers to Việt Nam to offer training and higher education opportunities to build on existing provisions from companies such as Pearson, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW) and more./.

 

Assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Nguyễn Minh Vũ said the seven basic principles of the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States should be included in the list of mandatory norms.

Việt Nam highlighted basic principles of international law and the obligation of protecting the environment in relation to armed conflicts.

The comments were made at a working session of the 77th United Nations General Assembly’s Sixth Committee (Legal) in New York on Wednesday (US time).

Assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Nguyễn Minh Vũ said the seven basic principles of the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter should be included in the list of mandatory norms.

Such norms must be accepted and recognised by the majority of countries representing regions, cultures, and legal systems with different development levels, he continued.

Regarding environmental protection in relation to armed conflicts, Vũ said Việt Nam, that had gone through wars, backs the committee’s rules on environmental protection before, during and after armed conflicts.

The countries, businesses and organisations that have harmed the environment during armed conflicts should take responsibility for restoring the environment through post-conflict environmental assessment, removing toxic remnants of wars, clearing bombs and mines, and supporting and compensating victims, he emphasised.

The Sixth Committee is the primary forum for the consideration of legal questions in the General Assembly. All of the UN Member States are entitled to representation on the Sixth Committee as one of the main committees of the General Assembly. /.

 Given the upcoming midterm elections in the United States and the consequences of the outcome for domestic legislation and programs as well as the country’s foreign policy, it’s useful and fitting to review fundamental differences between America’s two major political parties on vital demographic issues.

On virtually every major demographic issue, including reproduction, mortality, immigration, ethnic composition, gender, marriage and population ageing, significant divides exist between the Democrats and Republicans (Figure 1). Those divides have significant consequences and implications for current and future government policies and programs.

 

Source: Various U.S. public opinion surveys.

 

Those divides on vital demographic matters, which have become increasingly politicized by the two major parties, are reinforcing political polarization and partisan antipathy across the country and hindering the economic, social and cultural development of the United States.

With respect to reproduction, while most Democrats are in favor of a woman’s legal access to abortion, most Republicans are not. For example, a March 2022 PEW national survey found that proportion of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases was more than twice that of Republicans, i.e., 80 versus 38 percent.

Also, Gallup polls indicate a widening gap since the late 1980s between Democrats and Republicans on the circumstances permitting abortion. By 2022, for example, the proportions of Democrats and Republicans saying abortions should be legal under any circumstances were 57 and 10 percent, respectively (Figure 2).

 

Source: Gallup.

 

A similar difference on abortion is evident among members of Congress and justices of the Supreme Court. While Congressional Democrats are largely in favor codifying access to abortion and safeguards to the right to travel across state lines to undergo the procedure, Congressional Republicans are opposed to such access and safeguards. And the recent Supreme Court abortion decision ending the right to abortion reflects the divides in the views of justices appointed by Republican and Democrat administrations.

Concerning access to birth control methods, the vote on the recently passed bill by the House of Representatives was mostly along party lines. All but eight Republicans opposed the bill that aims to ensure access to contraception. In the Senate, the birth control measure is expected to fail as most Republicans are likely to be against it.

While most Democrats are in favor of a woman’s legal access to abortion, most Republicans are not. For example, a March 2022 PEW national survey found that proportion of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases was more than twice that of Republicans, i.e., 80 versus 38 percent

On mortality and morbidity issues, Congressional Democratic and Republican leaders are also divided. A notable example of that divide has been the sustained Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act enacted by Democrats more than a decade ago.

Recent research has also found that more premature deaths occur in Republican-leaning counties than in Democratic-leaning counties. The policies adopted by Democratic-leaning states compared to those in Republican states are believed to have contributed to the greater divide in mortality outcomes. Those policies include Medicaid expansion, health care access, minimum wage legislation, tobacco control, gun legislation, and drug addiction treatment.

The early responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was transformed from a public health concern into a major political issue, also reflect the divide in mortality outcomes between Democrats and Republicans. While mask wearing, social distancing, and related preventive measures were often stressed by most Democratic officials, many Republican leaders resisted such measures and downplayed the risks of the coronavirus.

Those partisan differences concerning the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in the behavior and attitudes of Republicans and Democrats across the country. As a result of those attitudinal and behavioral differences, Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democrat-leaning counties.

With respect to immigration, Republicans in general favor less immigration than Democrats. For example, a national Gallup poll in July 2022 found that the proportion saying immigration to America should be decreased was 69 percent among Republicans versus 17 percent among Democrats. The rise for decreased immigration during the past several years is primarily due to Republicans, whose desire for reducing immigration increased by 21 points since June 2020 compared to an increase of 4 points among Democrats (Figure 3).

 

Source: Gallup.

 

To address immigration levels, the former Republican administration advocated building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and limiting the granting of asylum claims. In contrast, most Democratic leaders have not been in favor of erecting a border wall. Also, the current Democratic administration has been removing obstacles to granting asylum claims, including ending the former administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.

Concerning the more than 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the country, the former Republican administration wanted to ban counting them in the 2020 census. The desired exclusion of undocumented migrants in the census enumeration was aimed at not including them when determining Congressional representation. The current Democratic administration, in contrast, includes undocumented migrants in the census count and determining Congressional representation.

On whether to offer an amnesty to immigrants living unlawfully in the country, a wide divide exists between the two major political parties. While Democrats are largely in favor of offering illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship, many Republicans oppose granting an amnesty to those who are unlawfully resident in the country. A PEW survey in August 2022, for example, found the proportion in favor of a path to U.S. citizenship among Democrats was more than double the level among the Republicans, 80 versus 37 percent, respectively.

Regarding the changing ethnic composition of the U.S. population, Democrats tend to view the changes more favorably than Republicans. For example, one national PEW survey found Democrats three times more likely than Republicans to say a majority nonwhite population will strengthen America’s customs and values, i.e., 42 and 13 percent, respectively.

Similar divides between Democrats and Republicans were found with respect to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. The growth of interracial marriage is considered to be a good thing for the country by a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans, 61 and 33 percent, respectively. Also, Democrats have been consistently more likely than Republicans to say that same-sex marriages should recognized by the law as valid, with the proportions in 2022 at 83 and 55 percent, respectively (Figure 4).

 

Source: Gallup.

 

Democrats and Republicans also differ in their views about gender identity. While a national PEW survey found 80 percent of Republicans saying that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex assigned at birth, 64 percent of Democrats took the opposite view, believing that a person’s gender can be different from the sex assigned at birth.

Moreover, the majority of Republicans, 57 percent, say that society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender, compared to 12 percent of Democrats.

On the issue of population ageing, noteworthy policy differences with program implications exist between Democrats and Republicans. In general, Republican leaders have resisted government entitlement programs established by Democrats, such as Social Security and Medicare, preferring reliance on the private sector, freedom of choice and individual responsibility.

Republican leaders have proposed replacing those major programs for older Americans with private investment accounts and a voucher system for health insurance. In addition, some Republicans recommend eliminating Social Security and Medicare as federal entitlement programs and have them become programs approved by Congress annually as discretionary spending.

A similar political divide exists among Americans concerning the provision of long-term care that the elderly may need. One national PEW survey in 2019 reported that while two-thirds of Democrats say the government should be mostly responsible for paying for that care for the elderly, 40 percent of Republicans have that view.

In sum, significant divides currently exist between Democrats and Republicans on nearly every major demographic issue facing the United States. Those divides are being politicized by the two parties, reinforcing political polarization and partisan antipathy across the country, which in turn are affecting domestic legislation and foreign policy as well as hampering America’s progress in the 21st century.