America’s New Anti-China Policy

Published in Merit Times
(Taiwan) on 5 July 2022
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jennifer Sampson. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
NATO identified China as a systemic challenge in its 2022 Strategic Concept issued at its June 28 summit. At last year’ gathering President Joe Biden asserted that China posed such long-term, systemic challenges to international security, and this year, NATO wrote it into the record.

At the U.S.-led Group of Seven summit of major industrial nations on June 26, leaders pledged to invest $600 billion in developing nations within five years. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said directly that this plan is intended to replace China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Additionally, the U.S. invited Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the U.K. to form a group of five, called Partners in the Blue Pacific, an alliance that was announced on June 24. The PBP seeks to promote economic and diplomatic relations with island nations in the Pacific. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi signed a security agreement in March with the Solomon Islands and held a virtual summit with the foreign ministers of 10 countries in the South Pacific at the end of May. Even though the countries did not sign any agreements, relations between the South Pacific islands and China have grown increasingly more intimate, and prompted other countries to be on the alert. The PBP is believed to a response by the U.S. and other countries to China’s expanding influence in the Pacific. Because this region extends between two island chains, it has major strategic significance to the U.S. for guarding against the People’s Liberation Army.

After Biden took office, he created a series of mechanisms and organizations to contain China’s rise. For example, in 2021, the U.S., Japan, India and Australia restarted the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue — the Quad, or “Asia’s NATO” — envisioning a free and open Indo-Pacific and order in the East China and South China seas. That same year, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia formed a trilateral security pact dubbed AUKUS. Then, last March, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity was officially formed, and the U.S. proposed Chip 4, a semiconductor alliance with Taiwan, Japan and South Korea that excludes China. In addition, the U.S. intends to expand Five Eyes, the intelligence-sharing network established during the Cold War to monitor the Soviets. With the addition of Japan, South Korea, India and Germany, a “Nine Eyes” would enhance the monitoring and collection of Chinese intelligence.

Led by the U.S., Western countries are moving more quickly to safeguard against and even contain China with a variety of cooperative initiatives and resolutions. But whether these proposals can achieve their objectives remains to be seen. For example, G-7 countries say that helping low and middle-income countries build infrastructure is meant to challenge the Belt and Road Initiative. However, the problem is that America’s infrastructure needs considerable work and it is not in a position to help others. In fact, the U.S. relies on China to supply materials such as steel and cement to build infrastructure, so how can a plan that excludes China succeed?

While the West may want to return to the South Pacific, the U.S. and Japan have a bad track record in the region. The U.S. has conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands, which according to The Washington Post, is equivalent to subjecting the islands to 1.6 Hiroshima-sized explosions every day for 12 years. Marshal Island has repeatedly demanded compensation for injuries from the nuclear tests, but there has been no agreement on an amount, which has generated great anger.

During World War II, the U.S. and Japan battled fiercely in the Solomon Islands. In addition to serious casualties, they left behind unexploded munitions. To this day, people and animals are frequently injured by these devices. Before discussing the PBP, the Solomon Islands believes that before there is any discussion about the PBP, the U.S., Japan and other countries should first promise to clean up World War II’s dark legacy.

Can cooperation based on confrontation and containment genuinely unite people’s hearts and minds? How far can such cooperation go? The U.S., which regards itself as a global hegemon, really should consider these questions.


六月二十八日舉行的北大西洋公約組織(NATO)峰會,在「新戰略概念」中稱中國是其「系統性的挑戰」。美國總統拜登在去年的北約峰會後即已表示,中國對國際安全帶來了長期、系統性的挑戰;今年的北約峰會將此列入正式文件中。

以美國為首的七國集團會議(G7)六月二十六日開會,各國領導人承諾在五年內籌集六千億美元(約新台幣十七兆五千億元),為發展中國家的基礎設施提供資金。歐盟執委會主席范德賴恩明確指出,這個計畫是為了「取代中國大陸所倡議的『一帶一路』」。

另一方面,美國邀集澳洲、日本、紐西蘭及英國等一共五個國家,在六月二十四日宣布成立「藍色太平洋夥伴」(PBP),目標是促進與太平洋島國的經濟和外交關係。中國大陸外交部長王毅在今年三月與南太的索羅門群島簽署安全協議,且王毅在五月底和南太平洋十國外長舉行了視訊會議,儘管最後並未簽成協議,但中國與南太諸島國的互動愈來愈密切,引發相關國家的警戒,PBP成立的目的就被認為是美日等國反制中國大陸在太平洋地區擴展影響力,因為這個區域穿越第一島鏈至第二島鏈之間,被美國視為是防守與反擊中國人民解放軍的重要戰略位置。

拜登上台後,為了圍堵中國崛起,陸續成立了不同的機制和組織,例如二○二一年美日印澳重啟了「四方安全對話」(Quad),號稱「亞洲版小北約」的Quad,願景是自由開放的印度─太平洋、建立東海與南海的秩序;同一年,美英澳三國成立了「美英澳三邊安全夥伴關係」(AUKUS);二○二二年三月正式啟動了「印太經濟架構」(IPEF);二○二二年三月美國提議聯手台日韓組成排除中國大陸的半導體聯盟(Chip 4)。此外,美國還有意將成立於冷戰時期、以監控蘇聯情報的共享網絡「五眼聯盟」,加入日本、南韓、印度和德國,擴大為「九眼聯盟」,增加對中國情資的蒐集與監控。

以美國為首的西方各國防範甚至圍堵中國大陸的行動,愈來愈積極快速,相關的合作計畫與決議可謂五花八門,而這些倡議能否得到預期的效果,還有待觀察。如G7出資協助中低收入國家進行基礎建設,說是要對抗一帶一路,問題是美國自己的基建就百廢待舉,已無能力向外輸出。基建所需要的鋼筋、水泥等材料主要仰賴中國供應,完全排除中國的基建計畫如何成功。

西方想重返南太,然而美國和日本在南太平洋區域的記錄不佳。美國曾在馬紹爾群島進行過六十七次核試爆,據《華盛頓郵報》報導,這讓馬紹爾群島每天得承受相當於一點六次廣島原子彈規模的爆炸。馬紹爾人一再就核子試爆造成的傷害向美方索賠,但金額始終談不攏,令馬紹爾人對此感到非常憤怒。

二戰期間,美國和日本在索羅門群島及其周邊海域激烈戰鬥,除死傷慘重,還留下大量未爆彈,當地直到現在都還經常傳出人畜傷亡的慘事。索羅門群島認為,在談PBP合作之前,美日等國應先承諾把二戰「遺毒」清理乾淨。

以對抗和圍堵為前提的合作,真能團結人心嗎、又能夠走多遠?自認為當今世界霸主的美國應該好好想想。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Topics

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Related Articles

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Luxembourg: Thanks, Daddy: Trump Is Imposing Putin’s Will on Europe

Guyana: Guyana’s Ongoing Subservience to the US, Jagdeo’s Really

Israel: Putin’s No-NATO Demands for Ukraine Remain the Same over a Decade after 2008 Conference

China: Negotiation the Only Way Out for Peace in Ukraine