Source: wechat official account: Bu Yidao has been authorized to reprint
Pen / Sword smile & Sister Daodao
Thousands of protesters who poured into the streets of Madrid, as well as the banner of “no NATO, no war, for peace” held by them, failed to prevent the United States from leading its allies to officially enter the “NATO summit time”, and focused their spearheads on Russia and China.
NATO’s rapid reaction force has been expanded to eight times, focusing on the comprehensive protection of the territory of the eastern allies from Russia’s “most direct threat”… Some decisions to be made at the summit have been described as “a historic turning point” by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg.
If the NATO member states have generally agreed on the direction of Russia, they are prepared to list China as a “systematic challenge”. Even France, Germany and even Lithuania are suspicious of “paying too much attention to China”, because “NATO countries do not have any direct border with China”.
An American scholar made it clear that China was also a major topic of discussion at the NATO summit, mainly because the United States wanted to impose its intention to contain China on its allies on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. But the top priority for Europe now is to consolidate its own defense and deal with the crisis in Ukraine.
Major European countries do not want to disperse their power. It is no wonder that they have “differences” with the United States on China related wording.
But Washington is clearly determined to lead NATO to the Asia Pacific region.
Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand and other Asia Pacific countries that should not have been present at the Madrid summit attended the summit in a high profile, and continued to try to mix the Asia Pacific and European security issues. This is exactly what the United States wants.
Starting from the 28th, the political agenda of the leaders of major western countries this week began to turn to “NATO summit time”. The spoilers about the summit are also clearer.
The size of NATO’s rapid response force will be expanded to nearly eight times. Before the summit, such a message has released a strong smell of gunpowder against Russia.
There are 40000 active members of the NATO rapid reaction force. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said at a press conference on the 27th that he was ready to expand the “high alert” force to more than 300000 people to better protect the east wing of NATO.
Many changes in this NATO summit have been described as “the first” and “the biggest”.
New measures such as the substantial expansion of the fast reaction force are also known as part of the “biggest reform of NATO’s collective defense and deterrence since the cold war”.
The British financial times even described NATO’s decision to increase its military deployment near Russia and shift its focus to the comprehensive defense of allied territories as “a historical change after the cold war”, because NATO once reduced its military spending and withdrew its troops from Eastern Europe.
It is said that no agreement has been reached on how to describe China.
NATO will write the new strategic concept document released at the Madrid summit to China for the first time, which has been floating in the international public opinion for a long time. U.S. officials have also been trying to foil the atmosphere of curbing China, revealing that the NATO strategic document will use “strong words” against China. In the words of US national security adviser Sullivan, it is “to talk about the challenges brought by China in an unprecedented way”.
However, the summit is really about to open, but there are “differences” within NATO.
A NATO diplomat told Reuters that NATO members have not reached a consensus on how to describe China and China Russia relations.
Needless to say, the United States and Britain are trying to push China to use stronger language to reflect their so-called “concerns” about China’s military development and the Taiwan issue. However, France, Germany and other European countries believe that they should be more measured and cautious. French President macron has previously warned that NATO should not decentralize itself and form a “Prejudice” in its relations with China.
Some mainstream media in the United States and Europe reported that NATO is discussing a compromise plan, describing China as a “systemic challenge” and avoiding the use of words such as “adversary”. Specifically, the document may slander China in the aspects of network security and false information, key infrastructure control and rule-based international order.
At today’s regular press conference of the Chinese foreign ministry, Bloomberg reporters also specifically asked about NATO’s efforts to label China as a “systemic challenge”. The spokesman of the Ministry of foreign affairs immediately responded:
We solemnly demand that NATO immediately stop spreading false words and provocative remarks against China. What NATO should do is to give up the Cold War mentality, zero sum game and creating enemies, and not try to mess up Asia and the world after messing up Europe.
NATO has repeatedly stressed the “extraordinary significance” of the Madrid summit. Judging from the new strategic concept paper to be released soon, it is indeed true.
This is considered to be the most important working document of NATO after the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty. The last version was reached in 2010. At that time, China was not mentioned. Russia was also called a “partner”.
However, ten years later, the updated version of the document has clearly positioned Russia as the “most direct threat to NATO’s security, values and rules based international order”. China, led by the United States, has also become a “systemic challenge” that NATO needs to give priority to.
But there is an ironic detail in the German media reports:
Even Lithuania, which has jumped high on the Taiwan issue in the past two years, has expressed concern about NATO’s “excessive attention to China”. Diplomats from Lithuania and Portugal said that the situation between China and Russia is different. “NATO countries do not have any direct border with China.”.
The attitude of France, Germany and other European powers, and even Lithuania, has further exposed Washington’s intention to impose its containment of China on its allies, which has aroused suspicion and controversy within NATO.
Another highlight of this NATO summit is the meeting between the leaders of the United States, Japan and the ROK.
It is four years and nine months since the leaders of the three countries met again, and their leaders have changed.
According to the current media reports, strengthening trilateral cooperation to deal with the nuclear threat of the DPRK, balancing China in security and economy, and improving ROK Japan ROK relations are the three major topics of the US, Japan and ROK leaders’ meeting.
The first two items are easy to understand.
The Korean nuclear issue is the core appeal of South Korea. Since May, the United States, Japan and the ROK have successively held foreign ministers’ meetings, chief representatives’ meetings, deputy foreign ministers’ meetings and defense ministers’ meetings to closely communicate on how to deal with the DPRK nuclear issue.
China related issues are the main concern of Tokyo. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has more than once linked the Russian Ukrainian conflict with Taiwan, exaggerating that “today’s Ukraine may be tomorrow’s East Asia”.
Moreover, according to the logic of continuing the G7 summit, Yasuda will indeed emphasize the so-called “severe security environment” in East Asia again, and reiterate that “in the Indo Pacific region, attempts to unilaterally change the status quo are also continuing and strengthening”. I’m afraid no one will doubt that Yasuda’s remarks are aimed at China.
As for the improvement of ROK Japan relations, it is estimated that Seoul and Tokyo mostly look at the face of the United States.
After all, since Yin Xiyue came to power, the friction between South Korea and Japan on historical issues such as comfort women and forced labor has not been eased. At the end of May, the South Korean Marine Survey Ship conducted survey activities in the waters near “Dokdo” (Japan called “Takeshima”), which also led to strong protests from Japan.
Of course, I can’t say enough. It remains to be seen whether South Korea and Japan will really shelve historical disputes and practical differences because of the positive promotion of the United States.
There is an interesting phenomenon, that is, Seoul made verbal cuts on China related issues early: “it has nothing to do with South Korea”.
“Our focus is not on ‘common defense’, but on ‘comprehensive security’ such as economy, climate change and emerging technologies,” the South Korean presidential office said.
The problem is that after the meeting in May, the ROK and US leaders for the second time included “attaching importance to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea” in the joint statement. The leaders of the United States, Japan and the ROK are also expected to talk about the specific plan of the “India Pacific economic framework”. A reasonable guess is that the leaders of the three countries are likely to speak directly or indirectly against the so-called “China threat”.
Some South Korean media have seen through Seoul’s “verbal disrespect for physical integrity”: “the invited Yin Xiyue government protested that it was not anti Russian or anti Chinese. This is the same as those who drank but insisted that they did not drink and drive.”
Asia Pacific countries, like the leaders of South Korea and Japan, will appear at the NATO summit, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
Australia and New Zealand will also focus on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the growth of China’s influence. This is not surprising.
Australia, in particular, was once in a state of relative aphasia in the small circle of the West. With the help of the American “Indo Pacific strategy”, Canberra suddenly felt that it had its own place to play and was eager to be frequently active on the international stage.
Whether it is South Korea, Japan, or Australia and New Zealand, their closeness to NATO has long been a sign.
In April this year, NATO held a foreign ministers’ meeting. For the first time in 12 years, the strategic direction and operational guidelines were revised, and the “China factor” was taken into account for the first time. At this meeting, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand were invited to the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting.
On May 5, South Korea officially joined the NATO Network Defense Center. This is the first time that the agency has expanded its membership to countries outside Europe, which means that South Korea has joined NATO’s network security alliance system.
Behind this series of actions, the United States is actually promoting them.
An American expert pointed out that this has released a very negative trend, namely “NATO globalization”, which is essentially the globalization of Western alliances.
The two core pillars of “NATO globalization” are “NATO Asia Pacific” and “NATO Asia Pacific”.
In order to safeguard its own global interests, the United States continued to build a fire in Europe, and then led the trouble to the East. It insisted on promoting NATO to play a role outside Europe, trying to build a security pattern of “NATO in the Asia Pacific” led by the United States.
More and more NATO member states also have the internal impulse to promote the “NATO Asia Pacific” subjectively: they believe that only having a sense of presence in the Asia Pacific region can have global influence.
Under the circumstances that the United States and NATO have repeatedly fooled, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand and other countries have their own small calculations, the Asia Pacific region is likely to present negative situations such as generalized national security, artificially creating contradictions, and increasing mistrust among countries. This will be disastrous for the stability and development of any country in any region.
The latest issue of the US foreign policy gives a more pessimistic prediction: “a completely different cold war is beginning” “a new front is being defined and may last for several generations”
As we have seen, the eastward expansion of NATO strongly promoted by the United States has led to the tragedy of great division and confrontation in Europe. If “NATO is globalized” or “NATO is Asia Pacific”, the consequences will only be unbearable for any country in the region.