Ding Dong│The real intention of the United States behind the South China Sea edge selection station
>Since the dispute in the South China Sea has been reactivated around 2010, the US government has implemented three basic policies in the region:emphasis on regional order based on rules; strict implementation of the “Freedom of Navigation and Overflight Action” to strengthen strategic deterrence against China; Choose a side station.”
But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement on July 13, Washington time broke this tradition, marking the first qualitative change in the United States’ South China Sea policy and making clear choices Proclaim.
Pompeio’s statement claimed that it would unify the US position with the results of the “South China Sea Arbitration Case” on July 12, 2016, reject China’s claim for sovereignty in certain areas of the South China Sea, and propose “ This is the final ruling and is binding on both parties.”
Just a while ago, the United States rarely sent two The aircraft carrier battle group went to the South China Sea region to hold military exercises and intend to”crash” with the Chinese military exercise time. Washington’s change in the South China Sea policy is already showing signs.
Unprecedentedly, the US government formally strengthened its opposition to a specific foreign policy of China. It can be said that it is the product of further in-depth fermentation of Hong Kong’s national security legislation.
At that time, I made a judgment:
“After the passage of the bill by the Trump administration…it shows that the US attitude towards China is surpassing’strategic competition’ Has become more hostile, and the US-China Cold War is actually crossing the last line, crossing the initial stage, and entering a higher and more comprehensive stage.” (See the article”All indications that bad conditions are happening” )
Immediately after the incident, the Trump administration packaged and rolled out including”removal of special relevant treatment” for Hong Kong, implementation of a visa restriction, and the addition of four Chinese media agencies in the United States as”diplomatic missions” , And listed China’s Huawei and ZTE as”national security threats” and other four measures.
Since then, the United States has imposed sanctions on China because of the human rights issue in Xinjiang, China, and increased arms sales to Taiwan. The two major US aircraft carriers battled together in the South China Sea sovereignty dispute area to launch highly targeted military exercises .
Until Pompeo, as the chief diplomat of the United States, took the four-year anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration as an opportunity to issue a formal statement on updating the South China Sea policy, it was the US government’s positioning of China from a strategic opponent to a strategic enemy. China’s policy is a major sign of further qualitative change from comprehensive strategic competition to comprehensive sub-Cold War.
From the Obama administration’s “return to Asia-Pacific” strategy to the Trump administration’s “Indo-Pacific strategy”, the basic policy of the United States in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, including the South China Sea, is a strategic approach to China. Strengthen containment and strengthen military deterrence against China.
However, with the announcement of the US State Department’s South China Sea statement, US policy in the region is strategically shifting from containment to containment; strategically, it is shifting from vagueness to clarity.
Pompeo’s statement is also unusual in that it deliberately cuts relevant countries in China and the region. While opposing China’s sovereign claims, it claims that it “does not affect the sovereignty of other countries on these islands. In particular, it specifically rejected China’s maritime sovereignty claims on Wanan Beach near Vietnam, Nankang Shoal near Malaysia, the waters of Brunei Exclusive Economic Zone and the waters around the Nathuna Islands near Indonesia.
All of this shows that the Trump administration’s motives and intentions are not so simple, to contain China is the purpose, and in the case of confrontation with China, it tries to unite other countries in the region to strengthen its own China’s competitive advantage.
Washington has an accurate insight into the mentality of the countries in the region, which is part of a highly targeted geostrategic layout around China.
The opening of China’s strategic intentions and further qualitative changes to China’s policies are due to Washington’s belief that after the failure of the game around Hong Kong and the rapid implementation of national security legislation, China will follow the current If there is a line that goes on, it will not look back. Relying solely on strategic competition cannot achieve its policy goals.
A stronger driver may be that the hard-line actions taken by the United States against China have been met with tit-for-tat and uncompromising responses, such as the recent sanctions around the Xinjiang Autonomous Region.”Peer-to-peer” sanctions; after Washington made a new decision on arms sales to Taiwan, its main contractor, Lockheed Martin, was subject to”peer-to-peer” sanctions.
The so-called cold war means that the two opposing parties adopt a”cold” method other than a large-scale hot war to compete, confront and contain each other in order to achieve their goals.
The United States and China highly follow the”peer-to-peer” principle when taking measures and actions. The former is planning to ban Chinese-related media such as WeChat and TikTok in order to respond to the”peer-to-peer” response. These are typical Cold War confrontations.
After the”two-way” and”normalization” of competition, confrontation, and containment measures and actions between the United States and China, it started from the late Obama administration and the early Trump administration, and was recently officially opened. The overall sub-Cold War momentum of the two countries is becoming irreversible.
Exclusive comment, declined to reprint.