When the US and Japan Make Geopolitical Attacks, It Is Too Much To Take In

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 3 September 2016
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Alex Harper. Edited by Alexandra Mullin.
According to a report on Aug. 30 by Kyodo News (Japan), the Japanese government began carrying out a coordinated plan to launch comprehensive economic cooperation with Russia, despite still not making any progress on the issue of the territories of the “Four Northern Islands.” For many years, Japan has insisted that economic cooperation with Russia and settling the territorial dispute are linked together. Therefore, this report by Kyodo is nothing less than a sign of an important shift in Japanese policy toward Russia.

Shinzo Abe plans to attend this year’s Eastern Economic Forum, held in the Russian far eastern city of Vladivostok, on Sept. 2. When the time comes for the summit talks between the Japanese and Russian heads of state, the discussion will no doubt include the two countries’ eight economic cooperation proposals.

Japan’s actions here can easily be seen as trying to kill two birds with one stone. By improving the Japan-Russia relationship, the Japanese are also exerting more geopolitical pressure on China.

After attending the G20 summit meetings in southern China, Obama will visit Laos and attend an East Asian summit meeting there. He will be the first sitting American president to ever visit Laos. This is thought to be his last effort before leaving office to promote his “pivot to Asia” strategy. Laos simultaneously has good relations with China and Vietnam, but after a change in leadership this year, Western public opinion has constantly been claiming that Vientiane has taken one step closer to Hanoi, which will also make Laos take one step closer to the U.S.

Furthermore, in these last two days, India’s minister of defense has visited the U.S. and has signed a bilateral agreement stating that both nation’s militaries will be able to use the other’s bases. U.S. media has made it very clear that this should be seen as symbolizing India taking one step closer to an alliance with the U.S., Japan and Australia.

China appears to be surrounded more and more vigorously by U.S.-Japanese geopolitical attacks. If we prick up our ears, we can hear the shouts and mutters of the U.S. and Japan in their “small meetings” all around China’s borders; it appears they are trying awfully hard to sow dissension and scheme against China.

This kind of concern is not necessarily superfluous, but China still clearly cannot fall into this trap and allow its core interests be pulled into a crux by the U.S. and Japan. Twenty-first century geopolitics really isn’t like the traditional game of Go: The chief aim of every seed planted by China, the U.S. and Japan is not necessarily just to surround the other side involved. There is a very large overlap in present age international relations, and important affiliations are often multi-faceted in significance and meaning. Idiots are not sensitive to anything, but being too sensitive will make one neurotic.

We can see from China’s own foreign relations that the rest of the world is reading far too much into its “geopolitical” moves. For example, when a Chinese leader visits Cuba or Mexico, is it to encircle the U.S.? Or when China’s economic cooperation with Latin America develops very quickly, is it to dig around just outside the wall of America’s back garden? In Asia, Chinese investment in Sri Lanka has not stopped increasing. Is it because we are sowing seeds against India?

We believe that within the U.S. and Japan there exists a real force to compete against China geopolitically, and their aspirations on this issue are far more intense than China’s. But we should still be clear: When they rely on playing geopolitics, they cannot defeat China. This is firstly because China is too big, and secondly because the effort they are putting into it is nowhere near enough. The protective net Japan and the U.S. are weaving will never have enough power to strangle China. The only real use of its large scale is to create a false feeling of self-reassurance, a false idea that they could choke China.

Looking at the big picture, relative to China’s strength, the many deployments that the U.S. and Japan have been making around China are equivalent to laying out a spider web in front of a dragon. Myanmar is an important country that Japan and the U.S. have been focused on trying to rope in. Aung San Suu Kyi just recently visited China, and the China-Myanmar relationship is on a trend exactly opposite of U.S.-Japan desires.

A microcosm of the “stiffest battle” between China, the U.S. and Japan these last few years was the South China Sea arbitration case. The loss brought about by the case was supposed to cancel out China’s gains from construction on the islands, but China ended up on top. The large majority of people will most likely agree with this statement.

China has just recently become a great power of real significance, and isn’t especially familiar with the circumstances associated with this situation. The response by all sides that have flocked to China has been really quite dazzling. Our ability to judge no doubt still needs to continue to mature. When we don’t follow the norms completely, focus on what gives us real gain or real loss, and on what only makes us lose face, this is our safest and most reliable measuring stick.

China wants to develop a modern national defense force, while at the same time it must maintain long-term economic vitality. Furthermore, China must constantly expand its horizons and vision, as being a great power is the only way for us to walk forward steadily. Russia’s military is strong, but its economy is weak; its strength and weakness are very prominent. China’s military strength must improve until it is at a level sufficient to allow us to ignore military pressure from any foreign nation. In the long term, China’s economy will continue booming, it will maintain the posture needed to overtake America, and it will hold on to its enduring attractiveness to various nations. China’s comprehensive national strength will be changed to providing the base for everyday superiority.

Concentrating its efforts on taking care of its own business will forever be China’s number one priority and in the midst of the Asia-Pacific geopolitical clamor, this truth is something we must not forget.


据共同社30日报道,日本政府29日开始进行协调,计划在“北方四岛”领土问题未有进展的情况下先行开展对俄罗斯的综合性经济合作。日本多年来一直坚持对俄经济合作与解决领土问题挂钩的立场,因而共同社的报道不啻为日本对俄政策的一个重要动向。
  安倍晋三计划出席今年9月2日起在俄罗斯远东城市符拉迪沃斯托克举办的东方经济论坛。届时的日俄首脑会谈将商讨两国间的8个经济合作方案。
  日本这样做很容易被看成它通过改善日俄关系向中国施加地缘政治压力的“一石二鸟”之举。
  在中国的南边,奥巴马将在G20峰会之后出席在老挝举行的东亚峰会,并同时访问老挝。他将是第一位踏上老挝国土的美国在任总统,这被认为是他为其“亚太再平衡”战略做离任前的最后一次努力。老挝同时与中国、越南保持良好关系,但该国领导人今年换届之后,西方舆论一直在宣扬万象变得进一步“亲河内”的种种理由,并称这会让老挝进一步“靠近美国”。
  此外,这两天印度防长访美并签署两国军队互相使用对方基地的协议,有美媒明确将此视为印度进一步倒向美日澳同盟的标志性事件。
  中国似乎在被美日越来越活跃的地缘政治出击包围。如果我们竖起耳朵,能够听到美日在中国周边各种“小会”上的喊话或低语,它们很像是在挑拨离间,算计中国。
  这样的关注未必是多余的,但中国显然也不能陷进去,让自身的核心关注被美日“牵了牛鼻子”。21世纪的地缘政治并非传统“围棋”,中国及美日“每落一子”的首要目的也并非都是要“包围对方”。当代国际关系有很大的交叉性,多重意义之间常常有着复杂的关联。对什么都不敏感是“二百五”,太敏感了会“神经质”。
  从中国自身的对外关系中可以看出外界过分解读“地缘政治”的荒诞。比如中国领导人访问古巴或墨西哥,是去“包围美国”吗?还有中国同拉美国家经济合作发展很快,是去挖美国后院的墙脚吗?在亚洲,中国对斯里兰卡的投资不断增加,这是我们与印度对弈的落子吗?
  我们相信美日存在对华搞地缘政治竞争的真实动力,它们这方面的意愿比中国要强烈得多。但我们还应清楚,它们靠玩地缘政治是玩不倒中国的。这一是因为中国太大,二是因为它们投入的力量远远不足,它们编织的防范中国的网络产生不了“绞杀力”,它很大程度上起到的是自我安慰“壮声势”的作用,安能让中国“窒息”。
  总体看,相对于中国的实力来说,美日在中国周边的很多部署都相当于在巨龙面前布下蜘蛛网。缅甸是美日重点拉拢的中国周边国家,昂山素季刚刚访问了中国,中缅关系在逆着美日的愿望“回摆”。
  中国与美日近年“最硬的一仗”大概要算南海仲裁案了,仲裁案带来的损失与中国岛礁建设形成的战略所得相互抵消后,中国最后得到的是正分,这个判断恐怕大多数人都会同意。
  中国刚刚成为真正意义上的大国,对做大国是什么情形不是很熟悉,一时间蜂拥而至的各方反应让人眼花缭乱。我们的判断力尚需不断成熟,在我们拿不太准的时候,看什么给我们带来了实际利益或损害,什么带来的仅仅是“面子”的损益,这应是我们最保险和可靠的尺子。
  中国要发展现代国防,同时一定要长期保持经济活力,此外还要不断拓展视野和胸怀,我们作为大国才能走好走稳。俄罗斯军力强但经济弱,它的优势和弱点都是如此突出。中国军力要强大到足以让我们对任何外部军事压力都不在乎的程度。中国经济保持长期繁荣以及总规模赶超美国的态势,能够对各国保持持久的吸引力,为中国综合力量转化为日常优势提供基础。
  集中精力做好自己的事情永远是中国的第一要务,这点在亚太地缘政治喧嚣的时候我们尤其不能忘记。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Topics

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Ethiopia: “Trump Guitars” Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: Three Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – but When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Related Articles

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

Japan: Iran Ceasefire Agreement: The Danger of Peace by Force

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle