The United States Return to Asia in a High Profile, Experts Heatedly Discuss the Necessity of Sino-Russian Alliance

Since the United States announced its high profile return to Asia, it has intensified its military connection with Asia-Pacific nations like Australia, The Philippines and Singapore to fan the flames around China, make allies, cause chaos and undermine China’s foundation. However, the U.S. has explained that the military deployment in the Asia-Pacific region is not intended to besiege China. Experts are heatedly discussing how a Sino-Russian alliance is necessary.


Since the mid-to-late Cold War period, China has implemented the “Non-Aligned Policy,” aiming to avoid getting involved in a confrontation between the two superpowers. The policy was based on a reflection on the painful lessons of the alliance with the Soviet Union during the early Cold War. After the end of the Cold War, China proposed the “Three Nos Policy”—do not align, do not confront, and do not point against a third party—in order to focus on economic development by obtaining a peaceful and stable international environment. The goal has basically been achieved for now.


However, since the outburst of the global financial crisis, the international pattern has significantly changed. Facing the escalating hostilities of the United States, it would inevitably lead to more reckless strategic besiegement if China continued to adhere to its “Non-Aligned Policy.” The environment for development and security in China will inevitably be further deteriorated. It is even possible that a large-scale war would occur involving or waged against China.


Cho Chang, the chief national risk analyst in the Export-Import Bank of China, pointed out that the Middle East is not very useful to the U.S. other than the significance of geopolitical strategy, according to the chaos in the Middle East. The United States has imported less than seven percent of its oil and gas from this region. At present, the more chaotic the situation in the Middle East gets, the higher oil prices get, and the greater the impact on the newly emerging countries like China and India. It is true that America’s strategic center has moved to the East. This is not bluffing. A long-term strategy will be implemented throughout the 21st century. The current stage is preparation or formation. We have to be concerned about the countermeasure.


Qian Rong, a world affairs researcher at Xinhua News Agency, said that the U.S. has adopted a policy of “contact and besiege,” hoping to lead to the change of the judicial system and ideology through economic cooperation, and gradually weaken the leading position of the Chinese Communist Party. At the same time, they will restrain the Chinese military, compress the space of China’s external military activities and especially control the international transport channel, mainly the oil transport channel.


Wang Haiyun, Vice President of the Institute of China-Russia Relations History in China, indicated that the changes in the status of international security required us to adjust the strategy from the “non-aligned” to the “aligned” as soon as possible. Otherwise, we will lose the initiative.


Wang Haiyun, who is also the director of the Energy Diplomacy Research Center in the China’s International Research Foundation, asserted that China cannot be a "lonely country" in the future multipolar world. If China wants to become a real great power and one of the future power centers in the world, we should unite a large group of friends around us. We have to make adjustment based on the timing and situation. Whether or not to make an alliance must never be a rigid dogma.


Captain Huang Xing, the former minister of research guidance at the Academy of Military Sciences, claimed that China might need to adopt a more flexible way to deal with the alliance issues. He believed it could be called “the alliance of non-alliance.” In the bigger picture, it is necessary to deepen the strategic partnership between China and Russia. It is a political choice. In addition, a long-term peaceful environment can easily cause backwardness in military development. And the reform and transformation might lead to the decline of combat ability. The “peace disease” and transition would make it difficult to implement tasks. Now the question is not about investment or technical issues, but the problems of strategy management.