Zhou Xin: Peel off the skin of the "Four-Party Security Dialogue"

Source: World Wide Web

On September 24, the leaders of the United States, Japan, India and Australia held the Quadripartite Security Dialogue (QUAD) summit in Washington, D.C., the first face-to-face meeting between the leaders of the four countries. While the four leaders have deliberately downplayed the overtones of containing China, international opinion generally agrees that the core intent of the mechanism is clearly to counter China's growing influence. At present, it seems that the United States seeks to contain China from three aspects through QUAD.

The first is to put a "tight curse" on China in key technology fields such as semiconductors. The joint statement of the four countries said that "reaffirming its commitment to strengthening the resilience, diversity and safety of key technology supply chains, and will build a supply chain of key technologies and materials such as semiconductors", although it did not directly point to China, but the conspiracy to contain China's semiconductor industry has long been revealed. As we all know, semiconductors have always been the focus of the United States on China's neck, and the United States has spared no effort to build a supply chain of key technology products that excludes Chinese mainland in order to combat China. Some scholars say the United States may have a more "ambitious" plan to form a coalition that excludes China in high-tech research and development and product production. In the field of chips, a new supply chain will be developed by the United States and produced by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

The second is to set up a "stumbling block" for China's maritime rights protection operations. The joint statement's statement of "advocating compliance with international law such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to meet challenges to the rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas" has become a "black talk" that interferes with China's maritime rights protection actions. In the context of U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and the South China Sea dispute, phrases such as "maintaining a rules-based and coercively free order" and "advocating freedom of navigation and overflight" have taken on China-specific nature. Clear-eyed people can see that the so-called "order" refers to the "free international order under the leadership of the United States" after World War II, and its main purpose is to safeguard the long-term hegemony and vested interests of the United States and impose the American model on other countries. The reason for the emphasis on "rules-based" is to facilitate the labeling of "rule breakers" in China.

The third is to pour "ecstasy soup" into regional countries. The United States has spared no effort to cobble together an anti-China "alliance," first signing the AUKUS defense agreement with Britain and Australia, followed by a four-nation summit with great fanfare, which shows that it is impatient to try to strengthen anti-China cooperation, and at the same time gradually lure other countries in the region to join this gang. The United States is trying to expand external docking while strengthening internal cooperation and build a broader network of regional cooperation under the leadership of the United States. In March, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said at a U.S. think tank meeting that ASEAN, Europe, the Middle East and even Africa share common values with QUAD member states and should strengthen cooperation so that these countries can share the "Indo-Pacific Vision" of freedom and openness. Coincidentally, after the leaders of the four countries met at the White House, their joint statement also boasted about ASEAN, and the meaning of co-opting Southeast Asian countries is self-evident. On another level, quad is also a hedge against China's influence in Southeast Asia. In a joint statement from the previous summit, the four countries said they expected to provide a total of about 1 billion doses of vaccines to Pacific island countries, Southeast Asian and Indian Ocean countries by the end of 2022. The four countries are expected to gradually fulfill their commitments to provide vaccines to Southeast Asian countries. This is also widely seen as countering China's influence in the field of "vaccine diplomacy".

Both QUAD and AUKUS are "hanging sheep's heads and selling dog meat". Under the banner of "climate change, epidemic, and infrastructure cooperation," it is nothing more than a tool used by the United States to contain China. The Biden administration claims not to seek a "new Cold War" and a divided world, but behind the scenes, it has never stopped deliberately provoking confrontation and containment of China. In short, the United States is practicing the "new Cold War" in the name of "anti-Cold War," and its containment plot against China is doomed to fail. The reasons for this are mainly the following three points.

First, China's development cannot be stopped. China has unparalleled institutional advantages and a strong leadership core, and can concentrate on doing great things. Some foreign netizens have lamented that it takes at least several years for other countries to build roads and bridges, while it takes only a few dozen days for China to build an viaduct. Zhang Weiwei, a professor at Fudan University, once said that As a "civilized country", China has the strategy and wisdom of a big country, a super-large volume and a super-rich tradition, and our rise has its own characteristics and unique contributions to world politics and economy. China has also passed the period of selling cheap labor, and today's China adheres to the new development concept, attaches importance to innovation and development, strengthens the technical research and development team, strives to achieve leapfrog development in important scientific and technological fields, and promotes the independent control of key core technologies. In the more than 70 years since the founding of New China, it has experienced many challenges and difficulties, external interference and suppression, but it is in the process of resolving, overcoming and coping with it that China's strength has been continuously enhanced and its self-confidence has continued to grow. The United States' attempt to bring China to its knees through pressure and intimidation is unlikely to work. In addition, in today's economic globalization, if the United States forcibly decouples from China, it will eventually lift a stone and drop it on its own feet. According to data released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if the United States completely decouples from China, the U.S. semiconductor industry will lose $83 billion, and the U.S. aircraft and aviation manufacturing industry will lose at least $38 billion a year. There is no way out for the United States to engage in zero-sum games, and win-win cooperation between China and the United States is the right way in the world.

The second is that the Quartet Security Dialogue mechanism is not monolithic. India's adherence to strategic autonomy is the weakest link in the mechanism, and with the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, whether it is really willing to be at the mercy of the United States and act as its pawn still has to be a question mark. The summit seems to be particularly "pampered" by India, which just shows that India has its own "little nine-nine" and is not completely dead set on the United States. India does not want to be dragged into the military confrontation between the United States and China, but wants to seek political and economic benefits from it through the opportunity of the United States to build an Indo-Pacific strategy. The draft joint statement previously reported by foreign media did not become the main topic of discussion in the Indo-Pacific region, which shows India's hesitation in attitude. The Hindustan Times previously warned the Indian government to beware of the "Enterprise syndrome", which is a humiliating page in India's history, and in the 1970s, the US military sent a 74 combat team led by the "Enterprise" into the Bay of Bengal to force India to compromise in the surrounding military actions. Indian media believe that since then, the "Enterprise carrier syndrome" has become India's lingering nightmare for the United States.

The third is that the United States does not pay lip service to Southeast Asian countries. Although the United States pays lip service to ASEAN as the core of its Indo-Pacific strategy, it does not act in action. The recent establishment of AUKUS has heightened concerns in Southeast Asian countries. In recent interviews with US media on topics such as AUKUS, Myanmar government sources said that some countries are busy with geopolitics and competition, which has exacerbated regional risks and instability. Indonesia's Foreign Ministry also issued a statement expressing concern about the ongoing arms race and the projection of military power in the region, and encouraging Australia to fulfill its obligations to maintain regional peace, stability and security. Malaysian Defence Minister Hishamuddin revealed that he has urged australia to engage with Its Chinese neighbors and will visit China in the near future to seek Chinese advice on the AUKUS issue. The United States exports its nuclear submarine technology at OAKUS, in stark contrast to its previous refusal to provide nuclear submarine technology to India. In addition, the United States kept a tight lid on its traditional ally France during the signing process of the agreement, so that France remained in the dark until the last moment, when it did not know that it was "stabbed in the back" by the United States. What about the selfish United States to France and India, but what about other countries that are not among its core allies? I am afraid that in the future, Southeast Asian countries will also play drums in their hearts when dealing with the United States.

The "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue" is an "alliance" that wears a "vest" of cooperation to incite confrontation with China, and the holding of two summits in half a year seems to have developed smoothly, but there are still few substantive results, and the countries concerned are not willing to be tied to the "chariot" of confrontation with China by the United States. In the face of no major changes in a hundred years, peace and development are the mainstream international trend, and if the United States insists on going against the trend and engages in a closed and exclusive "small circle," it is bound to lose hearts and minds and run into a bloody head on the iron plate. (Chinese Scholar of International Studies Zhou Xin)