When internal problems arise, it is the consistent style of the United States and some Western countries to resolve internal disputes by diverting contradictions.
This is the case with Trump and Biden, who, during their tenure, have had more and more internal contradictions and problems, and have frequently hyped up the China issue in an attempt to divert the public's attention.
In fact, not only the president of the United States, but also some congressmen.
For example, recently, a congressman from Ohio, Vance, introduced a bill. The bill mentions that the U.S. government used to buy a large number of Chinese sovereign gold-denominated bonds during the Qing government and the Republic of China.
But after 1949, these debts were "unilaterally cancelled".
Vance mentioned in the motion that China's move violates international law. China should "pay off" this debt. Separately, Vance made a valuation, saying that bonds purchased more than 100 years ago now exceed $1 trillion.
Later, he threatened that if China "does not abide by" international rules and American rules, then the United States should not allow China to access the American financial market.
It is even possible to refuse to recognize the US Treasury bonds purchased by China, or to hedge the US Treasury bonds purchased by China.
I have to say that Vance's abacus is very loud.
The first thing we need to say is that the bonds and debts that Vance refers to are actually unequal. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, it announced that it would abolish all unequal treaties, and these debts were naturally included in it.
Second, what Vance shouldn't know much about is that in 1983, there was a similar case in the United States.
In 1911, the late Qing government signed a loan contract with the banks of the four Western countries for a period of 40 years and an amount of 6 million pounds.
But soon, the Qing government fell, and the loan ended up being ignored. It was not until the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States in 1979 that the matter was brought to the table again.
At that time, several Americans who held bonds on the Huzhou-Guangzhou Railway filed a lawsuit against the Chinese government, demanding that the Chinese government repay the "bad debts" left by the Qing government.
Reasonably, there is no reason for New China to repay it. Therefore, the summons of the U.S. court was returned, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Alabama actually issued a "default judgment".
In this regard, the Chinese side has put forward solemn instructions. After all, the issuance of government bonds is an act of sovereignty and should not be retrospective.
The same is true of the bill mentioned by Vance, the United States has no power to "collect debts" for debts more than 100 years ago.
Actually, doesn't Vance really understand this? Not really.
To put it bluntly, it is some Western politicians and those who are close to "devils" who are trying to make trouble for China in every possible way. The more this happens, the more it seems that they are actually weak-hearted.
In addition, even if Vance's bill passes, it can only address issues that are included after the bill has taken effect, and it also has no retroactive power.
The argument that US lawmakers are hyping up China's debt repayment seems to be a legal issue, but in fact it is a whole method used to win votes.
Politicians in Europe and the United States like to increase their influence through some words, so as to pave the way for their own politics. So, it's not a simple legal issue, it's actually more of a political issue.
From the recent South China Sea issue, to the Taiwan issue, to the economic and trade issues, it can be seen that the United States is doing everything it can to suppress the mainland.
Nowadays, the domestic livelihood problems in the United States, the national debt problem is getting bigger and bigger. What the United States should do is to care about its own problems and problems.
Instead of constantly demonizing other countries and labeling other countries as "hats" in order to divert contradictions.