If you like this article, click "Follow" in the upper right to increase your reading experience, and thank you for your support and encouragement!
preface
Mainland Defense Minister Li Shangfu spoke at the 20th Shangri-La Dialogue, and the aisles of the entire venue were packed. Everyone wants to see China's new security initiatives.
But the Yankees changed a small move at this time, and the title of their speech was secretly changed. The originally hard-grained "U.S. leadership in the Indo-Pacific" has become a softer "shared vision for the Indo-Pacific."
With this small change, how can the people present not be suspicious, what does the United States mean by this?
"Change" and "No Change"
Perhaps the revision of the title to some extent means a softening of the position, but from Austin's remarks, we can still see the United States' adherence to the Indo-Pacific strategy and core interests.
The U.S. defense secretary's speech was a one-man show, touting U.S. leadership in the Indo-Pacific region while ignoring global security concerns. In contrast, China's global security initiatives demonstrate a more inclusive and comprehensive international perspective.
The seemingly subtle headline change reveals on the one hand the sensitivity of the United States to tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, and on the other hand reflects its concerns about its global hegemony.
Although the title has changed, the US desire for control and hegemonic thinking in the Indo-Pacific region is still obvious. Although this practice may seem decent on the surface, it is in fact a threat to other countries, an act that ignores the interests of other countries and only looks out for their own interests.
It's like a sugar-coated cannonball, wrapped in sugar-coated, which looks sweet, but is still a cannonball inside.
This is exactly what the United States has done in the international arena, ostensibly changing its wording in an attempt to create an image of peace and cooperation, but in fact, the essence of its hegemonism has not changed.
In general, the speech of the US defense secretary shows that although they changed the title of the speech, they did not change the hegemonic thinking behind it.
Second, "American-style hegemony" = "common vision"?
Although Austin's speech frequently mentioned "Free and Open Indo-Pacific", its essence was a hegemonic interpretation centered on self-interest.
The "common vision" he calls and respect for the sovereignty and peace and stability of other countries are not fully reflected, but instead reveal a kind of unilateralism that is deeply rooted in the bones.
The Global Security Initiative proposed by China puts forward a comprehensive, cooperative, shared and sustainable security concept from the perspective of global sharing.
This perspective emphasizes the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind and is a true "common vision". In this vision, countries are no longer alone, but respect and trust each other, cooperate with each other, and jointly address global challenges.
We can see that in this perspective of China, there is no shadow of strong hegemonism, no hegemony that ignores the sovereignty of other countries, and some are only the concept of win-win cooperation.
This is a global security initiative based on fairness and justice, premised on equal treatment and aimed at peace and development. Compared with the US Indo-Pacific strategy with hegemonism as the core, China's global security initiative is undoubtedly more in line with the common expectations of the international community.
Austin's speech is only a superficial political rhetoric, and the real "shared vision" should be to accommodate and respect the sovereignty of all countries and maintain regional peace and stability, which is exactly what China's Global Security Initiative advocates.
Therefore, what really needs to be changed is not only the superficial title of the speech, but also the hegemonic thinking behind it. We should guide countries to abandon the zero-sum mentality, adopt an inclusive and cooperative attitude, and face global challenges together.
What really needs to change
It is not important to change the title, but to change the hegemonic thinking of beauty. The change in words does not hide the intention behind it, which is to maintain its global supremacy.
The world does not need a leader who ignores the interests of others and only cares about its own interests. What we need are international partners that can treat each other as equals, respect the sovereignty of other countries and maintain peace and stability.
But the actions of the United States have shown that they did not really grasp this.
For example, in his speech, Austin repeatedly pointed out the situation in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, which is a typical interference in the internal affairs of other countries and does not respect the sovereignty of other countries. For another example, the US military sent reconnaissance planes to break into the training area of the Chinese military before the incense meeting to carry out reconnaissance interference, which is an obvious provocative act.
summary
In this globalized world, we need sharing, not hegemony; We need cooperation, not conflict; We need understanding, not bias.
The Global Security Initiative explained by Li Shangfu represents this concept, which is also what we should respect and advocate. In contrast, the "common vision of the Indo-Pacific region" emphasized by the United States is only a change of soup for American-style hegemony.
Changing the title does not change its essence, what really needs to be changed is the hegemonic thinking behind it.