be vigilant! The US “trap” against China is splitting the world!

Spread the love

Author: Tanzhu source: official account: Yuyuan TanTian wechat id:yuyuantiantian

After more than a year of exchanges and interactions, the Biden administration has recognized a reality:

The United States cannot change China.

Whether it is the condescending containment of “proceeding from strength and status” or the “deceptive” suppression of “competition, cooperation and confrontation”, the Chinese people will not eat this set.

This conclusion based on practice has also been clearly written into the Biden administration’s first systematic exposition of China policy.

Of course, Americans will change their tactics.

Subsequently, the Biden administration changed the subject, saying that it would “shape the strategic environment around China”.

On June 1, in a public speech, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeated this statement again – what the United States can do and is trying to do is to “shape the strategic environment around China”.

This is also the biggest change made by the Biden administration compared with the previous administration. It is mainly achieved through “alliance”, which has also been included in the so-called new “tripartite law” of the United States.

Compared with other statements in the China policy, this policy seems to be supported by rich practical experience. After all, in the past year or so, the Biden administration has been very keen on “pulling circles”.

However, it is these “small circles” that are splitting the world. Today, when the “black swan” and “grey rhinoceros” incidents are frequent, the impact of the US actions has plunged the already turbulent world into greater danger.

What kind of strategic environment does the United States want to create, not hesitate to pull the world to “pay the bill”? What far-reaching implications will the us act bring?


Over the past year, I have not been absent from the official high-level interaction between China and the United States, either online or offline. I have a little feeling, especially obvious:

Before meeting China, the Biden administration did a lot of “preparatory work” to make itself more “confident”.

China US anchorage high level strategic alliance

A few days ago, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was still visiting South Korea and Japan.

Prior to the China us meeting in Tianjin, US Deputy Secretary of state Sherman visited Japan, South Korea and Mongolia without stopping. He left Tianjin and went to Oman. At the same time, Antony Blinken was in India and U.S. Defense Secretary Austin was in the Philippines.

It can be seen from this that before and after the contact with China, the Biden government focused on the Asia Pacific countries around China, which was highly targeted.

The purpose of doing so is not just to say in the meeting:

The US approach to China is not only for the sake of the American people, but also to “protect the interests of our allies”.

Behind this, there is also a move of Biden government. Some clues can be seen from his action of “pulling circles” in the Asia Pacific region.

Last year, under Biden’s organization, the United States, Japan, India and Australia held a summit of leaders of the “Quartet security dialogue” mechanism. This is the first time that the mechanism has risen to the leadership level dialogue since its establishment.

The “quadripartite security dialogue” mechanism between the United States, Japan, India and Australia was established in 2007. After a period of silence, the Biden administration reactivated it this time, sending a clear signal:

The United States wants to “match up” its allies in the Asia Pacific region.

All along, the United States’ Alliance System in the Asia Pacific region has been a “hub and spoke system” – the United States is the axis, and other countries are spokes.


Spokes and spokes are not connected. Only when the shaft is in, can they rotate. This can not only ensure the hegemony of the United States to the greatest extent, but also avoid these countries getting too close. After all, it is not in the interests of the United States for Asian countries to get too close.

With the signing of the reciprocal access agreement between Japan and Australia in January this year, this situation has changed – the US allies in the Asia Pacific have begun to encrypt their contacts.

This agreement has strengthened the cooperation between Japan and Australia in security and defense. Before that, Japan had only signed similar agreements with the United States.

Sullivan, assistant to the president for national security affairs, summarized it as a “grid system”, which is to promote the docking between allies and allies, that is, spokes, so as to form a grid whole.

Wuxinbo, Dean of the Institute of international studies of Fudan University, explained the reasons behind this:

Under the current circumstances, the balance of power between China and the United States has changed. The United States wants to shape the geopolitical environment around China. The United States hopes that its allies in the Asia Pacific region can unite to become more involved in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and the East China Sea issues, oppose China, and exert diplomatic and security pressure on China, which also highlights the priority attention of the United States to China as a “strategic opponent”.

It is not enough to build a dense network in the Asia Pacific region. The Biden government has greater ambitions. Therefore, the Biden government also established a new organization:

The US UK Australia trilateral security partnership (aukus).


The establishment of this organization means clearly:

Strengthen the links between different alliance systems.

You know, this is something that the United States could hardly do during the cold war.

Wangjisi, Dean of the Institute of International Strategic Studies at Peking University, is currently doing research in this area. He told me:

From the very beginning of the cold war, the United States and Europe formed a transatlantic alliance because they had common interests, such as the “Renaissance Europe” of the Marshall Plan. However, the situation in Asia was very different from that in Europe, so the United States was in a very difficult situation in Asia. Up to now, if the United States wants to form an alliance in the Asia Pacific region, it will still encounter greater resistance than in Europe.

Unlike the smooth alliance in Europe, shortly after the end of World War II, the United States fought the Korean War and the Vietnam War in Asia. At that time, the defeat in the battlefield was only the beginning of the U.S. hitting a wall in Asia. In fact, Asian countries suffering from local wars cherish the spirit of independence and autonomy more. Facing the United States, which wants to form gangs today, most Asian countries have no “side-by-side station”.

In order to project the strength of the Atlantic alliance to the Asia Pacific region, the Biden administration has drawn on Britain, the most important ally of the United States in the Atlantic alliance. The Biden administration hopes to strengthen the cooperation between Atlantic allies and Pacific allies through the nesting of the two “circles”.


For this ambition, the Biden administration is also promoting another action to accelerate NATO’s “Indo Pacific transformation”:

First, the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting invited Japan, South Korea and Australia for the first time;

Moreover, Japan has also signed a reciprocal access agreement with Britain, which allows the two countries to jointly deploy troops.

These behaviors deserve special vigilance. The Biden administration is trying to lead the camp based confrontation that intensifies the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to the Asia Pacific region, which is undoubtedly an extremely dangerous signal for Asia Pacific countries.


As the saying goes, different circles do not have to be hard melted. Is it really compatible that the United States forcibly “matches” different systems together?

Shenyamei, director of the American Institute of the Chinese Academy of international studies, told me that,

Many countries question whether the United States can handle so many “small circle” relations. Obviously, both in terms of diplomatic skills and mode of thinking, the current situation has exceeded the “entertainment ability” of the United States, which will only make the international situation more chaotic and complex.

This is not a alarmist talk. Australia is not far off.

On the day when the United States, Britain and Australia announced the establishment of the trilateral security partnership, Australia unilaterally suspended the contract to order 12 conventional submarines from France and, with the support of the United States and Britain, prepared to establish a nuclear submarine force.

The reason why Australia changed its mind is that it wants to assume greater responsibility for the “Indo Pacific strategy” of the United States, which French submarines cannot satisfy.

This incident has not only worsened the relations between France and Australia, but also between France and the United States – France has recalled not only its ambassador to Australia, but also its ambassador to the United States.

Former Australian Prime Minister Morrison, who actively acted as the “pawn” of the United States, ended up in embarrassment.

This is just the beginning, because there are many such disharmonious factors in the American “circle”.

India is one of them.

The “Indo Pacific strategy” is a big gesture of the Biden administration. If there were no India, the joke would be big. Therefore, after the Biden administration came into power, it also courted India more.

But as a result, we all saw that India refused to participate in all the sanctions that the Atlantic allies of the United States would impose on Russia in the Russian Ukrainian conflict.

India also has its own geopolitical considerations on whether to join the “Indo Pacific strategy” of the United States. If it can take advantage of its strength to strengthen its position in the Indian Ocean, India will not lose a lift from the United States.

Indian scholars said that India currently hopes to play a role of normative power in the international system, which means that India hopes to give full play to its strategic autonomy and provide the world with the framework of global norms in India’s eyes.

India with such an idea will certainly not cooperate with the so-called “Indo Pacific strategy” of the United States and become a pawn in it.


Compared with India’s lack of cooperation, the Biden administration faces a more realistic difficulty in further “pulling circles” in the Asia Pacific region:

The Asia Pacific region is a rapidly developing region. Many countries in the region are developing countries. It is difficult to attract people just under the banner of security and confrontation. Therefore, the Biden government made another move – “India Pacific economic framework”.

As early as February this year, when the “India Pacific strategy” was announced, the Biden administration began to build momentum for the “India Pacific economic framework”.

Liuweidong, a researcher at the American Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told me that“

The “Indo Pacific strategy” overemphasizes political and security considerations and is insufficient in terms of economy and trade. Therefore, the Biden government hopes to fill this gap through the “Indo Pacific economic framework”.

After all, in the era of globalization, economy and trade have become an inseparable part of political security. Political and military cooperation without economic and trade cooperation is difficult to be stable and lasting.

However, the “economy” in the words of the Biden administration is not the same as the “economy” understood by Asian countries. How much can we make up?

Look at the countries participating in the “Indo Pacific economic framework”.


These countries can be divided into four categories:

Member states of the “quadripartite security dialogue” mechanism between the United States, Japan, India and Australia

Some ASEAN Member States

Korea, New Zealand


Some of them appeared in the “Indo Pacific strategy” released by the Biden administration in February. At that time, the Biden administration stated:

Deepen the relations with Japan and South Korea;

Strengthen relations with India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pacific island countries, etc.

From the perspective of geography and economy, the two groups are too mixed. But if we combine the US military alliance, we can see the clue:

Japan and South Korea are all countries that have concluded bilateral military alliance relations with the United States.

Therefore, on the surface, the “Indo Pacific economic framework” takes the name of “economy”, but the core is still a consideration of political strategy.

No wonder some media say that the “India Pacific economic framework” is actually a “part” of the “Quartet security dialogue” mechanism between the United States, Japan, India and Australia. Its essence is still to divide the camp and to be “exclusive”.

South Korea and ASEAN do not want to get involved in these matters.

For a long time, although South Korea has a bilateral military alliance with the United States, it has always been wary of forming a trilateral alliance with the United States and Japan.

The United States’ efforts to promote the strategic alliance between Japan and South Korea have not been successful. You know, Yokohama has many problems between Korea and Japan.

In the last few days of May, the two countries also had a dispute over the issue of Dokdo (known as “Takeshima” in Japan):

First, Japan protested against the investigation activities of Korean ships, and Korea did not accept the objection raised by Japan in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea.

There is no way for the United States to mediate the contradictions between Japan and South Korea. Second, Biden wanted to use the economy to “deceive” South Korea.

Biden broke the Convention in this Asian trip and put his first stop in South Korea, and his first stop in South Korea was Samsung electronics semiconductor factory.

The global market share of Korean chip industry ranks second only to the United States. Before Biden’s visit to South Korea, the latest report of the American Semiconductor Industry Association showed that the share of the United States in the global semiconductor manufacturing capacity had dropped from 37% in 1990 to 12% at present.

According to the analysis of South Korean media, the US made this arrangement in consideration of the supply chain.

Sure enough, on the second day of his visit to South Korea, Biden led South Korea to negotiate cooperation in maintaining a stable supply of semiconductors. The purpose is to hope that South Korea can “bypass” China in the chip field.

You know, in the first four months of this year, South Korea’s investment in China increased by 76.3%, most of which were concentrated in high-tech industries. Among the investors, there are many Korean chip giants such as SK Hynix.

These Korean chip giants should also have a deep understanding of what it means to cooperate with the United States – in September last year, the United States asked their foundries to hand over inventory, orders, sales records and other data deemed to be trade secrets on the grounds of improving chip “supply chain transparency”.

The United States wants to master the economic activity data of these companies and China, so as to facilitate its own layout and contain China.

Therefore, when the United States recently proposed to establish a chip alliance with South Korea and Japan, South Korea naturally did not respond positively. Because, if it cooperates with the United States, South Korea will undoubtedly hand over its core interests and let the United States dictate, which is not a big price.

Are the developing ASEAN countries willing to listen to the US arrangement and accept a “de Sinicization” plan?

ASEAN countries have extensive economic exchanges with China. Since 2009, China has surpassed the United States, Europe and Japan to become the largest trading partner of ASEAN; In the first quarter of this year, ASEAN is also China’s largest trading partner.

Needless to say, after the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement (RCEP) initiated and led by ASEAN came into force, the free trade area with the largest population, the largest economic and trade scale and the most development potential in the world has been seen and felt.

This is also the most realistic infeasibility for Biden to divide the camp with an economic alliance and “de Sinicization”.

Wangjisi, Dean of the Institute of international strategy at Peking University, told me:

Although some countries have expressed their willingness to join the “Indo Pacific economic framework”, there are still doubts about what to do next and what to do to promote the economic interests under the framework.

At present, the bilateral trade relations between China and almost all Asia Pacific countries are higher than those between the United States and these countries. If this framework is to exclude China from the edge of the Asia Pacific, it is impossible.

No matter how the US moves change, its essence of provoking the “new cold war” has not changed.

Asia once suffered from the hot war and cold war manipulated by the United States. Now, as a region with great potential, most Asian countries’ pursuit of development is overwhelming. If the United States wants to play with fire here, it can not “pull a circle” to achieve. What’s more, the United States has not never tasted the feeling that it can’t afford to go overboard.

The United States has not yet understood that peace and development are the mainstream of the world today, and security cannot replace development. “Small circles” can not solve the “big challenges” facing the world, and “small groups” can not adapt to the “big changes” in the world today.

The Biden administration is keen to pull up “new circles”, activate “old circles”, and try to nest them together to force the geopolitical goals of different regions to turn to the same – against China. However, different countries have their own strategies and interests in China. The actions of the Biden administration will only make the situation in various regions more volatile.

Does the Biden government, which exaggerates the “China threat” and claims to “unite” all “small circles” to encircle China, really understand China?

Since ancient times, the Chinese civilization has been known for its openness and inclusiveness. It has continued to radiate new vitality in exchanges and mutual learning with other civilizations.

Now, what the Biden administration needs to do is to understand China, the Chinese people, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese nation before dealing with China, and then take on the responsibilities of politicians.

The Biden administration knows what the United States has promised, and how to answer the question of the century of China US relations. The ball is on the US side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *