Hot Spots

---

Hot Spots

01/19/2012

Another View from China

There is no more important relationship these days than that between the United States and China and it’s important to get the latter’s opinion on the issues of the day. So the following is from an official government mouthpiece, Global Times, and an op-ed by Dai Xu, research fellow at the China Center for Strategic Studies at Peking University.

Lately in the discussion of international affairs and China’s response, voices advocating “hiding one’s capabilities and biding one’s time” still dominate.

But as I see it, national strategy should not be a static matter. It should be subject to changes, particularly to the changes of the global political sphere.

It is absolutely right for China to stick to the path of peaceful development. Meanwhile, however, we should still keep a cool and watchful mind when dealing with international affairs.

Contrary to what many people had expected, conflict remained after the end of the Cold War, and many confrontations escalated into warfare years after.

As summarized in 1986 by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S national security advisor, the national interest of the U.S. lies on three fronts. The first is the far west where Eastern Europe is the focal point. The second is the Far East, where conflicts are centered in countries such as Japan, China and North Korea, and key points of interest lie in South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan island. The third lies in the southwest, where the strategic focuses of the U.S. are Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

Today, the U.S. has been carrying out strategies on all three fronts. It has further squeezed Russia’s space through NATO expansion. The “return to Asia” has stirred up huge waves of tension around China.

In the Islamic world, the U.S. has brought down Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. Now it is pressuring Syria and Iran, as well as Pakistan.

I’d like to call this perpetual state of global conflicts “warm war.”

It is more heated and noticeably obvious than the silent confrontation of the cold war, despite lacking blatant display of open fire.

However, it can still be regarded as a type of warfare in a broader sense.

I believe a U.S. war with Iran is likely to happen this year.

The U.S. is trying to achieve its ultimate goal as one of its global strategies. Both U.S. and Europe need to get rid of the current financial mire. Israel worries that its national security is at stake. The current sanctions the West has forced upon Iran can actually be seen as a declaration of war.

The preparation for this war has been going on for years in the form of espionage, Internet attacks, assassinations, and all sorts of manipulations the U.S. has played on the country’s psyche.

To be fair, not only the U.S. but also Israel and Iran are preparing for this war. So is Russia, which sees great potential in this conflict. Pakistan may also be drawn into trouble by the U.S. as the U.S. has much to gain if Pakistan is mired in social unrest.

The U.S. has wanted for years to take over Pakistan, which is the only Islamic country that has nuclear weapons.

Another hidden agenda the U.S. has is to cut off China’s access to the Indian Ocean so as to stop the trading activities China has with the Islamic world. The strategy of the U.S. may also involve North Korea, which is in its post Kim Jong-il era, and Myanmar, which is strategically important to China.

As one can see, due to the strategic manipulations of the U.S., 2012 will not be a year of world peace. It’s possible that the world can’t walk out of the shadow of war in the following years.

Alarmingly, U.S. Republican candidate Jon Huntsman said in the CBS TV debate that “We should be reaching out to our allies and constituencies within China […who] are bringing about change, the likes of which is gonna take China down.”

It cannot be clearer that U.S. politicians are never in favor of allying with China for mutual interest.

Since China’s reform and opening-up, China has rarely mentioned the idea of “three worlds,” and it always favors the policy of not forming cliques and non-confrontations.

The purpose of this article is not to provoke conflict or encourage confrontation, but to remind our fellow countrymen to be more clear-headed about the U.S.’ hidden agenda, and to have a firm grasp of the global picture.

Well, you can be sure the above is representative of the Party line in China.   Let’s hope our own leaders read such editorials as much as I do for an understanding of what they are up against.

---