Since the beginning of the 21st century, the changes in the world pattern have obviously been tremendous. The most important international issue in this period is undoubtedly the future direction of Sino-US bilateral relations. From the united states and Western countries to contain China's rise, and even frequently touch The bottom line of the Chinese side, it is not difficult to see that China's response methods have gradually undergone unprecedented changes.
In this regard, in his new work "China's Choice", the famous Singapore scholar Mahbubani Mabu not only made a specific analysis of the potential consciousness of the US government to confront China from the cultural, political, economic and other subdivisions, but also conducted an in-depth exploration of the strategic idea of China's "peaceful rise".
Mahbubani believes that there is no conflict between the fundamental interests of China and the United States in the five major directions, and there is no need for the United States to completely force Sino-US relations into a dead end of the "zero-sum game" on the China issue. Even though the power of the United States is still very strong, this power can no longer shake China's national strategy, and China's restraint on the United States is not for reasons of strength, and this restraint is limited.
<h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="3" > the United States needs to deeply understand the meaning behind the "China bottom line."</h1>
As early as when Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with US Deputy Secretary of State Sherman in Tianjin, he clearly informed the US government of the "two lists and three bottom lines" requested by the Chinese side. In fact, we can understand China's move as "advice" for the US China policy, and clearly tell the US government to "stop testing China's so-called bottom line through some small circle behavior."
Whether the "two lists" can be implemented in the future is related to whether China and the United States can achieve a win-win situation in the future, and whether china and the United States can abide by China's "three bottom lines" is related to whether China and the United States can coexist in the future.
The first bottom line is that "the United States must not challenge, slander or even try to subvert the path and system of socialism with Chinese characteristics", and the purpose of proposing this article is obvious, China wants to correct a misunderstanding of Chinese communist ideology formed by the Western countries led by the United States in the Cold War.
Unlike the Soviet Union in the past, China did not deliberately prove that the socialist system was superior to the capitalist system. In fact, China has stopped supporting other Communist Parties decades ago, and China's national strategic focus is on how to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and will not waste time exporting communist ideology to other countries.
The United States should abandon the narrow prejudices of the Eastern and Western systems and truly understand China in an information symmetrical way, so as to formulate a long-term and rational national strategy. If the US government continues to regard "socialism with Chinese characteristics" as an ideological threat or even therefore hostile to China, and adopts offensive and destructive means against China's state system, then China will not tolerate it and will certainly mobilize all means to fight back with all its might.
The second bottom line is that the United States must not try to obstruct or even interrupt China's development process. The meaning of this bottom line is very clear, not only for the Sino-US trade war, but also for the United States to suppress China's economic development around the world.
Any country has the right to pursue modernization, not to mention that China is taking the road of "peaceful rise" and has been pursuing the modernization of "win-win cooperation". Unlike the process of colonial expansion in the rise of Western countries, China has not harmed the fundamental interests of any country on its own path.
Taking a step back, even if the US government really makes up its mind not to engage in economic and trade cooperation with China, it should not sabotage China's economic and trade exchanges with other countries through coercion or framing on the basis of individual will.
The above two points are the bottom line of China's state system and the bottom line of the development strategy. If in these two bottom lines, China also hopes to correct the cognitive errors of the US government as much as possible through exposition, then China's third bottom line is that it does not need any explanation and elaboration of the "warning" at all.
<h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="5" > touch the bottom line of China's sovereignty, there is no room for negotiation</h1>
Let's summarize from a historical point of view, China did once dominate the overall destiny of European countries. It is precisely because the United States has taken advantage of the inner fear of European countries for the so-called "yellow peril" theory, coupled with the ideological legacy of the Cold War, to incite the questioning and attack of China's state system.
The United States' obstruction of China's development is to better safeguard the multilateral order it has established in the past few decades by means of the "Marshall Plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization" and other means, and to safeguard the core interests of dollar hegemony and diplomatic hegemony in disguise.
Assuming that the above two acts of the United States, because of the many influences of history, there are more or less objective factors, then the most important bottom line of the United States against China, that is, the interference of "national sovereignty", does not seem to have any justification. This is because issues such as those involving Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are entirely China's internal affairs, and they have neither any external impact nor touch the fundamental interests of the United States.
The United States' attempt to divide a country and nation by disgraceful means is a disguised denial of the national sovereignty, history, and culture of other countries. Therefore, with regard to the Taiwan issue, which is the most important issue at the present stage, the Chinese Government has issued an "ultimatum" warning the United States not to test the Taiwan issue again, and China has never had a so-called "scalable bottom line" on the Taiwan issue.
Although the US military force at the present stage is strong, China's Taiwan policy does not depend on the strength of the US military force deployed in the Indo-Pacific region, but on the general trend of "cross-strait reunification" on the island of Taiwan.
However, this does not mean that China will allow the United States to act arbitrarily on the Taiwan issue, just as we promised not to "militarize" the South China Sea Islands, but we will not allow the United States to take the initiative to "militarize" the South China Sea.
This can be well proved from the "war to establish a country" to resist US aggression and aid Korea. China was not afraid of the United States when it was poor and weak, and now that China's economy and military strength have both taken off, it can guarantee "victory in battle" at its doorstep, and how can it fear the United States?
Previously, the US media called China's new-age diplomacy "wolf-like diplomacy", and they should know how strong the wolf's territorial consciousness is. For the United States to smear the reputation of the wolf warrior and prevent the growth of the wolf, China can temporarily shelve or directly ignore a part, which is called "great power demeanor".
But on the issue of national sovereignty, the wolf warrior will not only not compromise, but will also reciprocate at all costs depending on the degree of provocation by the United States.
<h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="7" > the United States should fully understand China, and restraint at this stage does not mean that China is afraid</h1>
The United States is a country that places too much emphasis on military might, although this is in line with the laws of the jungle in Western societies. However, in the face of a relatively "special" China, the United States needs to conduct profound reflection from the lessons of history and fully realize that the courage and will of the Chinese people to resist foreign aggression have never been affected by the strength or weakness of military strength.
At this stage of the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy, all the acts of "game" around the issue of China's sovereignty are not only stupid, but also doomed to touch a nose of ash.
Recently, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put forward his own views on the practice of the United States and its allies in "militarizing" the Taiwan issue. He believes that if the United States can ensure that there will be no military conflict in the Taiwan Strait before 2030, then this will be a stage victory for the United States.
Rudd is a politician who is familiar with China, and the meaning of his views could not be clearer. At this stage, the united States, Japan, Australia, and other countries' threats to militarize "defend Taiwan" are of no long-term strategic significance, and this will only make the situation in Taiwan more tense, and the practice of establishing military exchanges to encourage Taiwan to "seek independence by force" is to force Beijing to adopt a "last resort" in disguise.
Once such a situation arises, in fact, no country can interfere in the specific implementation of Beijing's policy toward Taiwan, and it is impossible to count the "Five Eyes Alliance" in its entirety. The Biden administration's idea of "using the Taiwan issue to intimidate the mainland" was completely wrong in the direction it chose from the beginning.
This strategic mistake in the broad direction stems from a serious lack of understanding of China's power in the United States. This theory can be glimpsed through Mahbuba's 2018 dinner with Kissinger, the most outstanding contemporary strategist in the United States, when Kissinger revealed a fact to Mahbubani, "Based on insufficient understanding of various factors in China, it has seriously affected the US government's long-term strategic planning for China."
Perhaps because of this, it confronted the Soviet Union for decades and formed a hostile perception of the solidification of ideas. The U.S. government does not understand the meaning of "salute before soldiers, don't say that words are unpredictable" in traditional Chinese culture, and simply summarizes all of China's restraint as China's lack of strength, and China has always feared the United States.
According to Kevin Rudd, the United States is "extremely confident" in its commonly used military intervention methods, and this direct idea of strength and weakness will eventually make the United States abandon all political means of diplomatic mediation and lose everything step by step on the issue of interfering in China's sovereignty.
Without understanding China, the United States will not have a long-term and clear strategy toward China, and it will continue to expand because of its strong military strength. It can be said that at present, the only "rational" move by the United States on Taiwan-related issues is to draw in the towel of Japan, Australia, and other countries for the sake of safety.
But this undoubtedly made the Taiwan issue more sensitive, and if the United States continues to continue this wrong strategy, Rudd also made it clear at the end of the speech - "China will certainly not compromise, then the United States will completely lose both military and economic advantages in the next decade." ”
"China will not compromise, and then the United States will completely lose both military and economic advantages in the next decade." ”