On the 14th, the U.S. conservative think tank RAND Corporation released a 115-page report "Stabilizing U.S. -China Competition." The report rarely suggested that the U.S. government make it clear that it does not support "Taiwan independence" and "supports the gradual peaceful reunification of China," which caused shock.
Founded in 1948, RAND Corporation is recognized as the pioneer of the world's think tank and a benchmark for modern decision-making consulting institutions.
Previously, China had popularized a "legendary story" that Land Company had accurately predicted that China would deploy troops to North Korea, and in 2014 Land Company executives explicitly denied this claim.
In 1957, Land Company predicted the launch time of the first artificial satellite in the Soviet Union, less than two weeks before the error.
During the Vietnam War, Land Company demonstrated the inevitability of U.S. troops falling into the dam during the Vietnam War, but the report was not appreciated by the U.S. government and military at the time, and the final results confirmed what Land Company said was false.
The company has long been known for its tough anti-China stance, and has provided Taiwan Navy Chess for the U.S. Department of Defense for more than a decade. but this new report completely subverted the past position, making it clear that the U.S. side must clearly "give up the delusion of subverting the Chinese government"; accept China's nuclear deterrent strategy; and restrain the development of military capabilities that threaten China's mainland.
In a straightforward language, Rand pointed out that the United States should clearly recognize that the cost of intervening in the conflict in the Taiwan Sea far exceeds the benefits.China's breakthroughs in areas such as regional refusal capability, nuclear deterrence system, have made the U.S. military to intervene in the conflict in the Taiwan Sea "not counted."
The most remarkable content of the report is that it recognizes that Taiwan is the most complex and volatile issue in U.S.-China relations, and at the same time proposes to stabilize the Taiwan issue, the United States should create the greatest incentive for Beijing to pursue its "progressive reunification" path.
Land’s shift in position is due to the recognition of China’s real power and the view that it is extremely dangerous for the United States to conflict with China or even completely disconnect.
But this "support for gradual reunification" is in fact a delay in China's reunification, it is still in order to give the United States space for strategic adjustment, and it is by no means identical with China's core interests.
Previously, the "strategic ambiguity" policy of the United States on the Taiwan Strait issue has always been the psychological pillar of the "Taiwan independence" forces to "reject reunification by force", and Rand's report completely burst this bubble. Some people in Taiwan Province will not be able to sleep.
On the 20th, U.S. President Trump met in the White House with the visited Australian Prime Minister Albani, when the face of journalists and Albanians hinted that it could be a deal with mainland China on the Taiwan issue.
This is similar to the RAND Corporation's suggestion. Trump comes more directly. Since he is no longer able to deal with the war in the Taiwan Strait, it is better to exchange it for some benefits.
Recently, due to China's resolute counter-reaction to the United States, and the United States has been unable to respond, Western media and think tanks have made comments.
A New York Times article titled “Trump’s Suicide of Superpowers” said Trump was demolishing the post-World War II system of allies, while a trade war with China had completely exposed America’s deadly weaknesses.
The article believes that the Trump administration is carrying out a systematic destruction campaign, and the rule-based world order after World War II is being dismantled by Trump one by one. Never before in history has a global dominant force taken the initiative to dismantle the system that underpinned its leadership, especially when this system still brings great benefits to it. The report believes that the United States under Trump's leadership is heading for suicide!
The Economist’s article, “Why China is Winning the Trade War,” points out that China is winning the trade war and has learned to escalate confrontation and retaliation as effectively as the United States, while also trying to impose its own “out-of-the-country” trade rules, changing the trajectory of the global economy.
The article believes that China is more relaxed than the United States for three reasons.
First, China has demonstrated resistance and flexibility in countermeasures, achieving so-called "escalation leadership".
In response to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese container ships, China also charged U.S. port ships. China also threatened an anti-monopoly investigation to put pressure on U.S. companies such as DuPont, Google, NVIDIA and Qualcomm. China’s refusal to buy U.S. soybeans – a market worth $12 billion last year, one of the U.S. largest exports to China – is seriously hitting the Middle West voters Trump relies on.
Third, the trade war has made China stronger rather than more vulnerable.The outside world has often referred to the huge challenges facing China, including the real estate crisis, low consumption, and the overcapacity and capital mismatch caused by industrial policies.But for many Chinese, Trump’s pressure proves exactly what China has planned for the past 12 years is right: that China must build itself as a technology-industrial power in an increasingly hostile global environment.
On the 17th, a commentary published by the French "World" said that the U.S. blockade has not been able to bring China's AI down, but instead inspired a stronger desire for independence and the ability to create "you block me, I create myself", which the West can not do.
There are also those who want to fish in troubled waters. Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong warned that the world will usher in a "chaotic" transition period of the post-American order, which may last for ten years. This transition period "will undoubtedly be chaotic and unpredictable, because the United States is withdrawing from its role as a global insurer, but no other country has the ability or willingness to fill this vacuum".
Huang Xuncai believes that the mainland currently does not have the ability or willingness to replace the United States as the leading force in the global system. The mainland "remains a middle-income country with many domestic challenges. Therefore, no new global leaders have emerged yet, and we are in this very unpredictable and chaotic transition period."
If China does not have the will, and which other country has this strength, China’s Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative and Global Governance Initiative are designed to provide China with a solution to the “four major deficits” facing global peace, development, security and governance.
It calls for immediate action to promote trade liberalization and protect global common interests.Indeed, the “Future Investment and Trade Partnership” (FITP) to be promoted, the founding member states including Singapore, the UAE and New Zealand, is one of the examples of small nations uniting to promote open trade.
He hopes to incorporate the EU and ASEAN 10 countries into this single free trade agreement in the future, so that small Singapore can rely on the organization to play a greater international influence.
To isolate China and engage in the "FITP" in a different furnace, Singapore has a small ambition.
On the 15th, Singapore's President Shandemann delivered a speech at the International Monetary Fund, urging China to abandon its self-sufficient development line, believing that only in this way can China coexist peacefully with the United States and avoid war.
It is funny that Shandemann does not criticize the Western technological blockade of China, but instead asks China not to "go the path of closed self-sufficiency, but to maintain mutual dependency with the United States and Europe", is it not a blunder?
In the Sino-US game, the world has indeed entered a Warring States period, with various trends emerging, each with its own purpose.
The shift in RAND's position shows that a new world pattern has quietly taken shape.
The New York Times pointed out that although China is slightly behind Western countries in the field of high-tech, the overall level is far above the Western countries!China's manufacturing capacity accounts for more than one-third of the world, the United Nations expects to reach the horror of 45% to 50% by 2030-2040 around, and there has never been a case of a country using a trade war to defeat an industrial power since the Second World War.
The end of U.S. hegemony will not end in a “explosive” shock, but its consequences will slowly appear after a period of chaos.