In the face of international conflicts, China is willing to be a "booster" for persuasion and peace talks

Source: Global Times

Russia and Ukraine are both friendly countries of China, and the unresolved war between Russia and Ukraine is worrying. "China has always decided its own position and policy according to the merits of the matter itself, and has always stood on the side of peace and justice." "It is the US side, not the Chinese side, that consistently spreads false information and lies. The Chinese side has always proceeded from the historical latitude and longitude of the Ukrainian issue and the merits and demerits of the ukrainian issue, and has independently made an objective and impartial judgment. "China is the last thing to see a conflict and war, and at the same time, it believes that extreme pressure and sanctions will not solve any problems, but will add fuel to the fire and intensify contradictions." China is committed to persuading peace and promoting talks. "In the more than four months since the Ukraine crisis escalated, China has repeatedly stressed that it is willing to be a "booster" for persuading peace and promoting talks. However, a few Western countries, such as the United States and Britain, have repeatedly "arched fire" for the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, creating chaos in the world while also bringing economic decline and social division to their own countries. Recognizing the nature of these problems can help us correct our mentality and have a deeper understanding of the important role China plays in the international community.

Since the escalation of the Crisis in Ukraine, external forces such as the United States and the West have always increased the intensity of intervention in the economic, military, diplomatic and other fields, and gradually evolved into a "proxy conflict". In mid-June, the United States offered $1 billion in additional security assistance to Ukraine, particularly new artillery, coastal defense weapons, and advanced rocket systems, making it harder for the international community to engage politically in resolving the conflict. The Associated Press and other media statistics said that with the largest single amount of military aid from the United States after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the United States has promised to provide 5.6 billion US dollars in security assistance to Ukraine.

Such a "proxy conflict" has the real possibility of triggering a crisis of direct military conflict between the United States and Russia or NATO and Russia. Given the fact that several NATO countries and Russia possess nuclear weapons, if the existing conflict between Russia and Ukraine cannot be alleviated and continues to heat up, the possibility of a greater catastrophe cannot be completely ruled out within Europe. At present, it is imperative to return to rationality and calmness in handling international problems, find out the crux of the problem, and persuade and promote peace and talks, so that the conflict that has emerged in the European region can be controlled in a timely manner and effectively resolved.

The greatest achievement of the European countries in ending the Cold War should have been to create an opportunity that would truly bury the division of Europe once and for all and achieve the greatest unity of Europe. However, for more than 30 years after the Cold War, the international landscape in Europe ended with the complete isolation of Russia from the Political and Security Process in Europe, which led to a more divided status quo in Europe. The dream of major European countries to build "pan-European security" has also been frustrated by the exclusive and hierarchical security architecture created by the United States' stubborn promotion of NATO's expansion and transformation. Russia's identity as a European power and its major and reasonable strategic concerns have been completely deprived and despised, which constitutes a "time bomb" that always exists in the construction of European security. Earnestly promoting European strategic autonomy and straightening out the relations between Russia and Europe has become the fundamental way out to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the European security dilemma once and for all. This is precisely the proper meaning of China's statement that it must "completely abandon the Cold War mentality", attach importance to and respect the legitimate security concerns of all countries, and "form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiations". Similarly, China's basic position on respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and abiding by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations is consistent and clear, and such a proposition is more important and urgent than ever.

Under the coercion of the United States, more and more European countries have lost the willingness to build strategic autonomy, and the tragedy of the great division in Europe caused by NATO's "desire to drive Russia out of Europe" will continue to intensify. In contrast, China's proposal on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the resolution of the European security dilemma has no selfish interests, stands in an objective and fair position, and advises the relevant parties to negotiate and negotiate in accordance with the merits of the issue, and constructively resolve each other's disputes.

On February 28, local time, at the emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly on Ukraine, Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, said that the situation in Ukraine has changed drastically, "which china does not want to see, nor is it in the interests of any party." From the beginning of the escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Chinese side has made clear its position, welcoming direct dialogue and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, "Ukraine should become a bridge of communication between the East and the West, not the forefront of the confrontation between major powers", and called for "creating a favorable atmosphere and conditions for direct negotiations between the parties, because this is the fundamental way out of the problem". China's proposition of "adhering to the peaceful settlement of differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation" shows, both morally and practically, that China is a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, a defender of the international order, and a reliable force for the relaxation rather than expansion of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Brzezinski said the US side should seek help from the Chinese side

In addition to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, how to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue is also a great test for the international community. In response to these two major events, China's actions also reflect the constructive role of presiding over justice, persuading peace and promoting talks.

Since the 1990s, the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula has been a major issue plaguing security in Northeast Asia. The crux of the problem is the deep hostility between the DPRK and the United States and the lack of adequate security guarantees for the DPRK, which is highlighted by the frequent military exercises between the United States and the ROK in the peninsula region, as well as the DPRK's nuclear weapons tests and missile launches, and mutual recriminations in the diplomatic field. In view of the difficulties in direct dialogue between the DPRK and the United States, in order to alleviate tensions, China has coordinated with all parties to promote the formation of a six-party (China, DPRK, US, ROK, Japan and Russia) talks mechanism to achieve the goal of resolving hostility or mistrust between the DPRK and the UNITED States and relevant parties on the peninsula through dialogue and consultation and to ensure that the overall security interests of the region are not damaged. Since August 2003, in the past five years, the dprk, the ROK, china, the United States, Russia, and Japan have held six rounds of talks in China to conduct in-depth exchanges on the core security concerns of all parties, which has played a positive role in promoting mutual understanding of each other's positions and demonstrated China's good will to persuade and promote talks. China's diplomatic innovations have also made the "Beijing Six-Party Talks" a symbolic international political term.

When the second round of the Six-Party Talks was held in February 2004, the parties talked day and night to negotiate a common document, word for word. Li Zhaoxing, then Chinese foreign minister, also talked about the truth that "a bite cannot be a fat man" during a phone call with US Secretary of State Powell. In July 2005, the fourth round of the six-party talks held in Diaoyutai, Beijing, was catching up with consecutive hot days, and in order to prevent the representatives and journalists from participating in the six-party talks from catching fire, the Chinese side specially prepared mung bean soup that the people of Beijing loved to drink. According to the host: "Don't underestimate this bowl of secret mung bean soup, it can definitely play a role in preventing heat and fire." This tidbit is full of metaphors – with China's mediation and efforts, the convening of the Six-Party Talks has eased tensions, reduced the possibility of the DPRK and the United States fighting each other, and the "de-fire" effect of mung bean soup has also been recognized by the representatives of the six parties – China's promotion of the Six-Party Talks, a form of negotiation, has set the framework for resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

However, over the past 10 years, the overall U.S. Asia-Pacific strategy has undergone a major overhaul focused on great power competition, exacerbating tensions on the peninsula by strengthening the U.S.-South Korea and U.S.-Japan alliances, and advancing the idea of solidifying South Korea's strategic dependence on the United States. The deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea in 2017 not only undermined the stability of the peninsula itself, but also directly regarded the Korean Peninsula as a pawn for it to seek so-called "superiority" in its strategic competition with China.

The objectives set by the Six-Party Talks and the principle of addressing the concerns of all parties in a synchronized, reciprocal and balanced manner are still of guiding significance. In the face of the ongoing complex situation of the crisis on the Korean Peninsula, China calls on all parties concerned to remain calm and restrained, adhere to the correct direction of dialogue and consultation, and avoid actions that may aggravate tensions and lead to miscalculation. China also calls on the direct parties to the Korean Peninsula issue, namely the United States and the DPRK, to resume the process of direct dialogue as soon as possible. The leaders of the United States and the DPRK have met many times since 2018 and reached important consensus on improving bilateral relations and advancing the denuclearization process on the peninsula. Since then, north Korea has made commitments to suspend nuclear tests and intercontinental ballistic missile tests, taking an important step towards the denuclearization of the peninsula. When the US-DPRK dialogue continues to reach an impasse in 2021, the denuclearization process has stalled, and the situation on the Peninsula has increased again.

China is also a strong advocate of a negotiated settlement of the Iranian nuclear crisis. Former U.S. Presidential National Security Adviser Brzezinski wrote in the Houston Chronicle in December 2007 that China strongly advocated that the United States should remain strategically patient in its dealings with Iran. He believes that from China's position, the United States should avoid being dragged into a tit-for-tat confrontation with Iran and should focus on finding a solution to the problem through negotiations. The wise U.S. strategist also said that efforts and experience in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through negotiations (the Six-Party Talks) can be used to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, and suggested that the United States should seek Help from the Chinese side.

Similar to the security dilemma on the Korean Peninsula, which stems from the hostile policy of the United States toward North Korea, the root cause of the Emergence of the Iranian nuclear issue is the policy of maximum pressure on Iran by the United States. On July 14, 2015, after difficult negotiations, Iran reached a "landmark" agreement with the six countries on the Iranian nuclear issue (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany). According to the JCPOA, Iran promised to limit its nuclear program, and the international community lifted sanctions against Iran accordingly. China, the United Nations, the European Union and other countries or organizations support the plan. However, the trump administration in the United States unilaterally and abruptly withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and instead imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran. For such a serious agreement, the wayward behavior of the United States to "say it will retreat" has been strongly condemned by the international community.

In the face of the re-entrapment of the Iranian nuclear agreement, according to the merits of the incident, China adheres to a just, fair and responsible position, and clearly points out that "the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and continued to exert maximum pressure on Iraq, which is the initiator of the current Iranian nuclear crisis." The unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States on Iran and the erroneous practice of long-arm jurisdiction have also created obstacles to the political and diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue.

The United States' military prowess and foreign expansion are a dead end

As we all know, the United States has become the most destructive force in the construction of the international order. Instead of making full use of the critical transition period of the international landscape in the first 10 years after the Cold War to promote the establishment of a truly inclusive regional and global security architecture, it has always been on the evil road of exhausting foreign militarism.

Such a "superior" country was mired in the quagmire of the Iraq War and the Afghan War in the first 20 years of this century, which caused the United States to suffer a multi-field recession and social division rarely seen in the past hundred years, and even after last year's "Capitol Hill riots", public opinion worried that "the United States is once again on the verge of civil war". This shows that both the soft and hard powers that the United States preaches at home and abroad have been seriously weakened by its strategic misconduct. However, the United States has never learned its lesson, but instead repeatedly preached the absurd propositions of "defeating Russia" and "fiercely challenging China" at the recent G7 summit and NATO summit.

Exhaustive military force and external expansion are a dead end. An America that is lazy in self-reflection and insists on creating turmoil and division within itself and in other regions cannot fail to incur the fate of rout in the future. When we understand or judge the United States, we must not only see that its strength is still in a certain advantage, but also recognize the tragic reality that its decision-making groups abuse their own strength, lead to self-weakening, and bring disasters and turmoil to many countries and regions. Any "sublime" and "fearful of beauty" mentality that thinks away from these realities is pathological.

At present, it is worth noting that the United States has accelerated nato's Asia-Pacific transformation process on the grounds of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. NATO's new strategic concept paper indicates that the organization will increase its cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries in the coming years. The United States is trying to complete the process of shaping the security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region with the so-called "NATO experience." All of these moves by the US side, without exception, are to accelerate the overall strategic confrontation layout against China at the regional and global levels. The bad tradition of the United States, which does not know how to plan its foreign strategy without external opponents or enemies, makes it difficult for its resources to be used to resolve domestic problems, but makes it more difficult to persuade other "allies" to sacrifice themselves for the SAKE strategy. How can the United States, which has suffered successive setbacks and routs in small and medium-sized countries in the Middle East, win the competition and confrontation with China that it has provoked?

Returning to the theme, in the context of key changes in the international landscape and the frequent occurrence of international crises, the world needs peace and tranquillity more than more fierce disputes and even wars. China's diplomatic philosophy and practice have brought more hope to people and more truly beautiful expectations to the world.