After seriously studying China’s three great neighbors, the U.S. think tank: China does not dare to attack Japan. Even Trump has to admit that the blockade against our country can only reach a relatively ideal state and degree. The U.S. is not all-powerful, and the allies that can be used by the U.S. can not be so reliable, to count, the U.S. partners are not many. Among the allies such as Japan in Asia, South Korea and the Philippines, only Japan has the highest value and loyalty to the U.S. is in the first place, and of course, Japan, whichins such a close relationship with the U.S., has also had the obvious benefit – our country does not dare to attack Japan easily.
Recently, a report released by a well-known think tank in the United States caused a lot of discussion. This report specifically analyzed the situation of three major neighboring countries around China, but the final conclusion was a bit surprising.
The report mentioned that among several allies of the United States in Asia, Japan is considered to be the one with the highest use value and relatively high loyalty to the United States, and even implicitly stated that because of this close relationship, China will not easily take so-called "attack" actions against Japan.
However, anyone who has a little understanding of China's foreign policy and national defense concepts knows that this statement is fundamentally untenable, and there are many practical problems in the U.S. alliance system behind it.
First of all, the relationship between the United States and Japan, on the surface, the two sides are indeed very close, each year will conduct several joint military exercises, the United States also has a lot of military bases in Japan, and also regularly sells advanced weapons equipment to Japan.
But this relationship is actually filled with a component of exchange of interests, the United States needs to use Japan’s geographical position in Asia to its strategic layout, while Japan hopes to gain more security commitments and international speech by relying on the United States.
Just like a few years ago, when Trump was the president of the United States, he repeatedly publicly asked Japan to increase military spending, bear more expenses for American troops, and even threatened to reduce Japan's security protection. At that time, everyone saw the embarrassing situation of the Japanese government.
This also shows that the so-called "alliance loyalty" is actually very fragile in the face of actual interests. The United States is not omnipotent and cannot always make allies obey its own arrangements unconditionally.
Looking at China, China's comprehensive strength has indeed been continuously improving in recent years, its economic aggregate has ranked second in the world, and its national defense forces have also developed steadily within a reasonable range. However, China has never regarded any country as a target of "attack" from beginning to end.
Instead, China has been actively promoting friendly cooperation with neighboring countries, such as with Japan, although there are some historical and territorial differences, but the exchanges between the two sides in economic and cultural fields have never been interrupted, and there is a large number of exchanges of people and goods each year.
The "Belt and Road" initiative proposed by China has also brought development opportunities to many countries, including Japan. This idea of achieving win-win results through cooperation is in sharp contrast to the United States 'approach of relying on pressure and wooing allies to engage in confrontation.
That kind of statement in the U.S. think tank report is in fact a misunderstanding of China’s concept of peaceful development, but also a kind of self-consolation for the U.S. own ally system.
You know, the current international situation is no longer the black-and-white pattern of the Cold War. Every country has its own interests and demands and will not be easily "driven and exploited" by other countries.
Like the two other U.S. allies in Asia, South Korea and the Philippines, while also working with the United States, have been constantly adjusting their diplomatic strategy in recent years, focusing more on balancing relations with neighboring powers and not following the pace of the United States altogether.
South Korea's economic and trade ties with China are getting closer and closer, and the Philippines has repeatedly expressed its hope to resolve the South China Sea issue through dialogue with China. These show that the United States wants to rely on its allies to "encircle, pursue and intercept" China, but it cannot achieve the so-called "ideal state."
China’s strengthening has never been meant to “attack” or threaten others, but to better safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity and contribute more to world peace and development.
In these years, China's performance on the international stage has been seen by all, whether it is participating in UN peacekeeping operations, or dealing with global problems such as climate change, new coronavirus, China has shown the responsibilities of the great powers.
In contrast, the United States' inaction to engage in military deterrence and rely on allied pressure is increasingly unrecognized by the international community.
Finally, I would like to ask you, do you think that the way in which the United States relies on its allies to make strategic arrangements can last long?In the current international situation, should countries develop through win-win cooperation or pressure against confrontation to defend their interests?
Recently, a report released by a well-known think tank in the United States caused a lot of discussion. This report specifically analyzed the situation of three major neighboring countries around China, but the final conclusion was a bit surprising.
The report mentioned that among several allies of the United States in Asia, Japan is considered to be the one with the highest use value and relatively high loyalty to the United States, and even implicitly stated that because of this close relationship, China will not easily take so-called "attack" actions against Japan.
However, anyone who has a little understanding of China's foreign policy and national defense concepts knows that this statement is fundamentally untenable, and there are many practical problems in the U.S. alliance system behind it.
First of all, the relationship between the United States and Japan, on the surface, the two sides are indeed very close, each year will conduct several joint military exercises, the United States also has a lot of military bases in Japan, and also regularly sells advanced weapons equipment to Japan.
But this relationship is actually filled with a component of exchange of interests, the United States needs to use Japan’s geographical position in Asia to its strategic layout, while Japan hopes to gain more security commitments and international speech by relying on the United States.
Just like a few years ago, when Trump was the president of the United States, he repeatedly publicly asked Japan to increase military spending, bear more expenses for American troops, and even threatened to reduce Japan's security protection. At that time, everyone saw the embarrassing situation of the Japanese government.
This also shows that the so-called "alliance loyalty" is actually very fragile in the face of actual interests. The United States is not omnipotent and cannot always make allies obey its own arrangements unconditionally.
Looking at China, China's comprehensive strength has indeed been continuously improving in recent years, its economic aggregate has ranked second in the world, and its national defense forces have also developed steadily within a reasonable range. However, China has never regarded any country as a target of "attack" from beginning to end.
Instead, China has been actively promoting friendly cooperation with neighboring countries, such as with Japan, although there are some historical and territorial differences, but the exchanges between the two sides in economic and cultural fields have never been interrupted, and there is a large number of exchanges of people and goods each year.
The "Belt and Road" initiative proposed by China has also brought development opportunities to many countries, including Japan. This idea of achieving win-win results through cooperation is in sharp contrast to the United States 'approach of relying on pressure and wooing allies to engage in confrontation.
That kind of statement in the U.S. think tank report is in fact a misunderstanding of China’s concept of peaceful development, but also a kind of self-consolation for the U.S. own ally system.
You know, the current international situation is no longer the black-and-white pattern of the Cold War. Every country has its own interests and demands and will not be easily "driven and exploited" by other countries.
Like the two other U.S. allies in Asia, South Korea and the Philippines, while also working with the United States, have been constantly adjusting their diplomatic strategy in recent years, focusing more on balancing relations with neighboring powers and not following the pace of the United States altogether.
South Korea's economic and trade ties with China are getting closer and closer, and the Philippines has repeatedly expressed its hope to resolve the South China Sea issue through dialogue with China. These show that the United States wants to rely on its allies to "encircle, pursue and intercept" China, but it cannot achieve the so-called "ideal state."
China’s strengthening has never been meant to “attack” or threaten others, but to better safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity and contribute more to world peace and development.
In these years, China's performance on the international stage has been seen by all, whether it is participating in UN peacekeeping operations, or dealing with global problems such as climate change, new coronavirus, China has shown the responsibilities of the great powers.
In contrast, the United States' inaction to engage in military deterrence and rely on allied pressure is increasingly unrecognized by the international community.
Finally, I would like to ask you, do you think that the way in which the United States relies on its allies to make strategic arrangements can last long?In the current international situation, should countries develop through win-win cooperation or pressure against confrontation to defend their interests?