Recently, there has been a storm on the international stage, and former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has publicly criticized Stoltenberg and accused him of undermining peace and stability in the Asian region. The remarks attracted widespread attention, not only because of the dispute between the leaders of the two countries, but also because of the intricacies of international relations, economic cooperation, and geopolitics.
First of all, we need to focus on Keating's assessment of Stoltenberg as a "super fool". This is a rhetorical rhetoric that does not conform to the norms of a country's former leader. Such public criticism is rare, leading to speculation that Stoltenberg may have done something dissatisfying. In fact, Keating pointed out Stoltenberg's hype of the China threat theory at this year's Davos forum, which caused widespread controversy.
The Davos Forum was originally an economic forum, and countries went there mainly to discuss economic issues, but Stoltenberg hyped up the China threat theory on this occasion, which caused a lot of confusion. This not only runs counter to the original purpose of the forum, but also exposes Stoltenberg's excessive concern about China. His claim that China is invading NATO, and that NATO has never seen China as an adversary, has raised concerns in countries such as Australia.
Australia, which used to take a hard line on China policy, has come to realize over time that its interests are closer to those of Asian countries than to Europe. The current prime minister has abandoned a strategy of all-out repression against China, and instead joined the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in an attempt to deepen economic cooperation with the rest of the world. However, Stoltenberg's remarks once again brought the focus back to the confrontation between China and the United States, which is puzzling.
More importantly, Australia's previous excessive repression of China has had irreversible consequences. The domestic economy completely collapsed, the United States abandoned Australia, and China rose. Over the past decade or so, the crackdown on China has led to boiling domestic resentment and even a tendency toward separatism. Therefore, in order to ensure that the reunification of the country will not be divided and the country's economy will recover, Australia has had to adjust its China policy.
Stoltenberg's remarks also provoked a backlash at home. Some scholars have pointed out that Australia should pay more attention to economic development and maintain neutrality with China and the United States, rather than blindly following the pace of NATO's expansion in Asia. This opposition is indicative of Australia's expectations and concerns about developing economic cooperation with China.
NATO's expansion plans have also been questioned by Australia. Although Australia is a member of NATO, it does not fully support NATO's plans to establish a workstation in Asia and to include Japan as a member. Australia's antipathy at NATO as "the product of European rivalry" and its attempt to spread its war plague to Asia has led Australia to side with France.
France has been an obstacle to NATO's internal expansion, and they are reluctant to expand NATO into Asia. This was not out of love for peace, but out of France's strategic interests. As a result, Australia sided with France, relieving them some of the diplomatic pressure.
Australia's assessment of NATO is ironic, calling it "the product of a European rivalry" trying to catch the plague in Asia. This statement reflects Australia's dissatisfaction with NATO's expansion plans in Asia, which it believes is not in Australia's strategic interests.
Overall, Australia's role in the international arena and its China policy are undergoing significant adjustments. Domestic opposition also suggests that Australia faces a complex balance with China and the United States. As for NATO, Australia is likely to focus only on its defense orders, and it has shown caution and prudence when it comes to expanding in Asia. As the international situation evolves, Australia's future role will be more worthy of attention.
Recently, former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating's public criticism of Stoltenberg caused an uproar. He bluntly called Stoltenberg a "super fool" and accused him of undermining peace and stability in the Asian region. The dispute not only involves contradictions between the leaders of the two countries, but also reveals the intricacies of international relations, economic cooperation, and geopolitics.
First of all, Keating's strong criticism of Stoltenberg is striking. Such public rhetoric does not conform to the norms of the country's former leaders, and raises speculation that Stoltenberg may have made a dissatisfying move in some respect. Keating's remarks clearly pointed out that at this year's Davos forum, Stoltenberg once again hyped up the China threat theory, which caused widespread controversy.
The Davos Forum was originally an economic forum, and countries participated mainly to discuss economic issues. However, Stoltenberg's hyping up of the China threat theory on this occasion runs counter to the original purpose of the forum and highlights his excessive concern about China. His claim that China is invading NATO, which has never seen China as an adversary, has caused unease in some countries, including Australia.
Australia used to take a hard line on China, but over time it has come to realize that its interests are closer to those of Asian countries than to Europe. In order to ensure national unity and not division, and to promote the country's economic recovery, Australia has adjusted its China policy since the current prime minister and joined the "Belt and Road" initiative. However, Stoltenberg's remarks once again brought the focus back to the confrontation between China and the United States, which is puzzling.
More importantly, Australia's previous excessive repression of China has led to irreversible consequences. The domestic economy completely collapsed, the United States abandoned Australia, and China rose. In the past, the suppression of China has caused public resentment in the country, and even a tendency towards national separatism. Therefore, in order to ensure national unity and promote the country's economic recovery, Australia has had to readjust its China policy.
Stoltenberg's remarks sparked a backlash at home. Some scholars believe that Australia should now focus more on economic development and neutrality with China and the United States, rather than blindly following the pace of NATO's expansion in Asia. This opposition is indicative of Australia's expectations and concerns about developing economic cooperation with China.
Australia's assessment of NATO's expansion plan is even more ironic and profound. Viewing it as a "product of European rivalry" and trying to spread the "plague of war" in Asia reflects Australia's dissatisfaction with NATO's expansion plans in Asia, which it sees as contrary to Australia's strategic interests.
Overall, Australia's role in the international arena and its China policy are undergoing major adjustments. Domestic opposition suggests that Australia faces a complex choice in balancing the balance with China and the United States. When it comes to NATO, Australia may value only its defense orders more than its offer, but it has shown caution and prudence when it comes to expanding in Asia. As the international situation evolves, Australia's future role will be more worthy of attention.