10. The United States "returned to Asia", and the South China Sea has become a storm

Flawless Events

In March 2009, the USS Flawless incident, a confrontation between Chinese and US ships in the South China Sea, became a hot topic of news because of the hype of the US side. This incident has also aroused public concern about the regular reconnaissance activities carried out by US spy ships in China's waters.

It's not surprising that this happened. The fact that various US reconnaissance and survey vessels often operate in China's exclusive economic zone and are very close to China's territorial waters is not only a provocation against China's national sovereignty, but also seriously undermines and affects China's national security interests.

At the end of February 2009, when the Chinese and US defense ministries were working together, we have repeatedly talked about this issue: US ships should not conduct such marine surveys in China's exclusive economic zone, and should leave immediately, otherwise the US side should bear responsibility for some problems that have arisen.

After the March Flawless incident, the US side protested against China, which was unreasonable.

Any country's maritime rights and interests, first of all, are 12 nautical miles of territorial waters, which is the scope of sovereignty. There are 12 nautical miles of territorial waters adjacent to the economic zone, within which a sovereign State can independently enforce maritime law, and 12 nautical miles outside the adjacent economic zone, there is also an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles.

The activity of U.S. ships, according to us, is about 120 kilometers away, and even if it says it is accurate, it is undoubtedly within China's 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.

Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that within the exclusive economic zone of a sovereign state, any ship, merchant ship or warship of other countries has the right to pass through, we should pay attention to two issues:

The first is through which you can pass through, but you can't stay here. And the US side is not passing, it is staying. A large number of oceanographic survey vessels have stopped in this place and are engaged in all kinds of ocean exploration, water temperature detection, ocean current detection, submarine acoustic wave reflection, sonar detection, and so on, and all kinds of technical exploration, which actually pose a great threat to our security.

Second, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, even adoption is limited, not that any form of adoption is acceptable. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is very clear and is called innocent passage. It is only when you pass through here that you cannot pose a direct threat or interference to the national security, economic interests, political interests, and military interests of this sovereign country, and can it be called innocent passage. The U.S. oceanographic survey ship did not pass, let alone pass harmlessly.

Under such circumstances, the US side still has to lodge a protest, and in fact, it should be our side protesting.

As a matter of fact, our protest against the US maritime behavior has never stopped. At the 2008 and 2009 working meetings between the Chinese and US defense ministries, the Chinese representatives made extremely solemn representations on this issue. In this case, if the US still insists on its actions, then there is no doubt that the US side should be responsible for the consequences arising therefrom.

The US reconnaissance of a sovereign country's coastal areas is not only aimed at China, but is actually a worldwide act. Wherever it deems it to have a major strategic interest, it will do so.

In order to carry out such acts, it packages its own actions, although some of them are not clever, and can even be said to be very clumsy.

The United States pointed out that the United States does not recognize the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the rights and interests of all countries in the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, so it does not recognize the right of innocent passage of ships in the exclusive economic zone stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

What is the rationale for it? It says that there is a road in front of your yard, and you can't block this road, you can only walk by yourself, and other vehicles can't pass. It says that the road is for everyone and that everyone can pass it.

We retorted at the time that you didn't pass the question, you were lying at the door of someone else's courtyard and peeping in. What we object to is your snooping, not your passing.

How does the US side explain this? It doesn't make much sense, it just explains that it's their routine, it's not a presidential decision, so the U.S. military has to do it.

From this small problem, it can actually be seen that the behavior and face of such hegemony in the world today. The national interests of the United States are the highest point, and there is no reason to make up a reason, and the core is to safeguard the national interests of the United States.

If a country's national strength is growing rapidly, the United States will conduct maritime reconnaissance, space satellite reconnaissance, and intelligence collection on it, so as to maintain a comprehensive grasp of the country's dynamics.

Although China and the United States have very large overlapping interests and exchange of interests, the United States has never stopped containing and guarding against China.

The U.S. side has made a big deal out of the Flawless incident, openly protested to China, and expressed the displeasure of the U.S. government, so everyone knows about it. In fact, this kind of maritime rights protection behavior is carried out almost every day.

In the East China Sea, the Yellow Sea, the South China Sea, and the Bohai Sea, we all have maritime surveillance departments, maritime patrol vessels, and patrol aircraft, and all of them are working very hard. There is also the issue of space, and of course the issue of space is more complicated. This is because when the US oceanographic survey vessels approached China's coastal areas to carry out reconnaissance, we were able to fully grasp the evidence that the activities of these vessels within the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone off China's coast violated the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," and we were able to make very powerful accusations against the United States from the perspective of international law and the rights and obligations of sovereign states.

And space detection, can not protest, because it is operating in international public space. This is a whole new problem for our security. At present, more than 9,000 satellites pass through China's skies every year, including military reconnaissance satellites and remote sensing satellites.

Using satellite technology, very clear surface images can be taken in international public space, including important ports, bridges, roads, and tunnels.

This presents us with a national security task that is more complex and more arduous to maintain than in the past.

Disputes in the South China Sea

Until the mid-20th century, China claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea without any dispute by other countries. Since the discovery of undersea oil and gas resources, sovereignty disputes over the South China Sea and islands have been seen as one of the most potentially dangerous points of conflict in Asia, with political entities such as the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam claiming sovereignty over the islands or parts of them.

The South China Sea dispute is an international dispute over islands in the South China Sea. The dispute is over the Spratly Islands, the southernmost point in the South China Sea. In addition to being the largest tropical fishing ground, the Spratly Islands are also rich in oil and natural gas resources. This is not only the main reason why the countries and regions surrounding the South China Sea are concerned about this area, but also the main cause of disputes over rights and interests in the South China Sea. As the value of the South China Sea in oil resources and geostrategy continues to emerge, countries such as Japan, India, and the United States have also intervened in the South China Sea to get a piece of the pie. But it's mainly Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.

The South China Sea, also known as the South China Sea, is dotted with large and small islands, including the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands. At present, among the four major islands in the South China Sea, the Xisha and Zhongsha Islands are under China's de facto control, and the Dongsha Islands are controlled by China's Taiwan, while the situation in the Nansha Islands is much more complicated: Vietnam illegally occupies the western waters of the Nansha, the Philippines illegally occupies the waters northeast of the Nansha, and Malaysia illegally occupies the southwestern waters of the Nansha. The focus of disputes in the South China Sea is the Spratly Islands!

Although the land area of the Nansha Islands is only 2 square kilometers, the entire sea area is 823,000 square kilometers, and the geographical location is very important. Strategically located between two major naval bases, Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and Subic Bay in the Philippines, the Spratly Islands are a key point in maritime communication from the western Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, and are the choke points to Africa and Europe.

In the lower right corner of China's map is a mini-map of Nanhai Zhudao, a "nine-dash line" often referred to by oceanographers, which is distributed among the islands and sea areas contested by the countries surrounding the South China Sea. Of the Spratly Islands, only nine are controlled by China, including eight in Chinese mainland and one in Taiwan, while Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei occupy as many as 45.

In the aftermath of the Flawless incident, the Philippines, Malaysia and other countries have also taken a series of illegal actions in the South China Sea, and Japan has also taken a tough approach to the Diaoyu Islands. The East China Sea and the South China Sea have risen and fallen, and we have turned our attention to the blue ocean land.

The events that have occurred in history have a certain degree of chance, and many coincidences have come together.

Whether it is the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, the United States' reconnaissance of China's coastal areas, or the dispute over China's sovereignty and rights and interests in the South China Sea, these incidents are not new, and they all have a historical continuation, but they were met together in 2009 and are quite prominent.

We must not dismiss these incidents as a conspiracy by various countries to complicity, which is too subjective. However, we still need to realize that although these events are accidental and accidental, they must reflect something intrinsic, such as the transfer of domestic difficulties by countries under the situation of the global financial crisis.

The Philippines mainly questioned China's Scarborough Shoal, which it considered to be theirs, and its attitude changed only after about 1994 and 1995, and around 2009, the president signed a series of policies on the maritime baseline, to a large extent, to transfer domestic pressures, including economic difficulties.

This state is also found in the United States. The BBC, as well as the French media, have such assessments. It was the excessive reaction of the Americans to the Flawless incident. Why is it excessive? First of all, it stirs things up.

The United States has been reconnoitring our coastal areas, and I have driven them away, and in fact they have not stopped since 2001. The U.S. military is very abnormal this time and deliberately stirs up this matter. It is clear that this is the reason for the separation of American politics from the military.

The United States is facing serious economic difficulties, and political circles, including Hillary Clinton, who visited China, have shown an attitude of wanting to further strengthen ties and establish good relations with China, and want China to give the United States further economic support and ensure that the United States can tide over the difficulties. This is what we usually say that the United States has to ask for us.

The US policy toward China can be seen from the early days of Obama's presidency, in which he did not say harsh words during his election campaign, and since taking office, he has maintained good relations between the two countries during the Bush Jr. era, and has tried to improve them. Under these circumstances, according to the analysis of the BBC and the French media, the Pentagon is actually sending a stern signal to the White House that the development of China's maritime power poses a threat to US security, and wants to highlight such an incident and affect the developing political and economic relations between China and the United States. This is the attitude of the US military.

Japan is also facing a great domestic dilemma, and the financial crisis caused Japan's economy to show negative growth in 2009, showing a serious recession. In this case, Aso's popular approval rating is very low, falling below the approval rating of all previous Japanese prime ministers, only a little more than a dozen percent. Through the Diaoyu Islands incident, the Aso authorities used so-called Japanese nationalism to divert attention.

Judging by these events, it is difficult to say that it is a single event, in fact, it contains a large number of political factors within it.

Judging from the history of the Chinese nation, the Chinese nation has its own closed and introverted nature, and we cannot say that it is completely different from the past, completely reborn, not closed, and not introverted.

We have long believed that the sea is the main source of danger, because since 1840, all imperialist invasions of China have basically climbed up from the beach. Therefore, in modern times, the Chinese nation has been very deeply impressed that the direction of the sea is the source of danger, so our long-term concept is to build coastal defense. Build a strong fortress on the shore and prevent the enemy from climbing the beachhead.

This concept is completely inconsistent with today's developments.

We can see today that the Chinese nation has tremendous interests in the ocean, and we have 3 million square kilometers of maritime rights and interests, and its seabed mineral deposits, aquatic organisms, fisheries, including islands, islands and reefs, including oil and gas resources, and combustible ice on the seabed, are all huge.

In the past, we thought of the ocean as a source of danger, and it is only today that we have come to realize that the ocean is a great resource. It can be seen from the Internet that netizens are discussing these more and more deeply. Today, both the people and the leadership generally realize that there are great interests of the Chinese nation in the ocean.

Of course, we are not unrestricted in this huge interest, we are in accordance with the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" to determine the maritime rights and interests of the Chinese nation, we are to safeguard our due rights and interests within such a scope, we do not pursue rights and interests that do not belong to us, or the rights and interests of others.

What we are pursuing is the Chinese nation's rightful share of the ocean.

A country's rights and interests must be supported by the strength of a country. Diplomatic protest is one thing, and on the other hand, the country must have the strength to defend its maritime rights and interests – primarily the power of the maritime army.

We have a fairly decent force in the South China Sea - the South China Sea Fleet.

Of course, we still hope that the countries involved in the South China Sea dispute will resolve the issue through negotiations, but if we have to resolve the issue by force, we will also respond forcefully. Countries that have disputes with us in the South China Sea have forcibly seized our marine resources, and they should all be aware of this, and we will never give in or back down under their forcible occupation.

China's maritime strategy

At a sensitive time when the territorial dispute between China and the Philippines took place, the U.S. military handed over six ships equipped with heavy machine guns to the Philippine Navy, nominally to help the Philippines fight terrorists.

The political significance of the provision of these weapons is greater than the military significance. These weapons do not pose any threat to us, they are mainly a declaration and an expression by the United States that I support you politically and militarily. This is part of the strategy of encircling China that the United States has not abandoned.

This encirclement strategy is by no means just a matter of fishery resources and island disputes, and in fact the United States has not given up the Cold War mentality and wants to build an invisible encirclement of China. The premise of the construction is to bring up the argument of the China threat.

How do you bring this argument up? It is to grasp the problems of all neighboring countries that have territorial disputes with China, hype them up, amplify them, and then the United States will provide them with support. You see that you have a dispute with China, I am very interesting to you, and I will support you. In fact, pull these forces to the side of the United States and build an invisible encirclement of China.

Therefore, on the one hand, we express our grave protest against the Philippines' forcible occupation of Scarborough Shoal; On the other hand, it is also necessary to pay attention to the traditional friendship between China and the Philippines. President Arroyo and the Chinese leaders have established a tacit understanding that "our disputes are disputes, national interests are on the table, and everything should be explained clearly".

China has shown patience on the South China Sea issue. How to resolve the maritime issue involves the issue of national grand strategy, and it is an issue that China considers in an all-round way, including the South China Sea issue, as well as the disputes over maritime rights and interests between the North and the South Korea, including a series of issues with Japan.

We hope to set a model in the South China Sea, put aside disputes and develop together, and the policy has not changed to this day. When China fully unleashes its goodwill, it must get a response from the other side, and if the other side does not respond, unilateral goodwill will not have the desired effect.

Of course, no matter what the strategy, it revolves around one center – safeguarding China's national interests. In accordance with Comrade Deng Xiaoping's words, we should take China's national interests as the supreme criterion to judge and handle problems.

The 21st century is the century of the ocean, China's development and national security have an increasing demand for the ocean, and what kind of marine strategy should be built to safeguard national interests is a problem we are facing.

If we want to simplify the complex problem, let's talk about it simply:

The first is awareness, maritime awareness, outward-looking awareness, and the awareness that today's China's national interests have gone beyond our existing territory, airspace, and territorial waters. This awareness must be ingrained in order for us to defend our interests on a larger scale, in accordance with the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the past, we cared about ourselves and were very introverted, but now we are turning to extroversion, which is very obvious from the Internet. I think it's a very good thing that people have this sense of great power and the ocean, and that so many people care about the ocean.

The second is power, and we must build up the corresponding power, if your power can only operate within the territorial waters, then it is difficult for you to master the 200-nautical-mile EEZ, and we must build up the power to defend our national interests.

The third point is strategy, in today's world, international relations are complex, relations between major countries are complex, and China is at a critical moment of its rise. It is not one or two who want to contain China; There are not one or two major powers that want to provoke discord between China and many neighboring countries, take advantage of China's long-standing territorial and territorial disputes with these countries, provoke these countries' dissatisfaction with China, and build an invisible encirclement circle to contain China and contain China's rise. So today, if we want to have such a sense of the ocean, to build up the corresponding strength, we must think about our strategy, how to complete the effective protection of our interests with the least damage.

This problem is a worldwide problem, and it is not a question of deciding today, implementing it tomorrow, and seeing the results the day after tomorrow, but requires our careful thinking and long-term preparation, judgment, coordination, and operation. Of course, it is also necessary to show strength at the right time.

Sea lanes: the lifeblood of economic development

In July 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Vietnam that the United States had "national interests" in the South China Sea, suggesting that China was "coercing" countries surrounding the South China Sea. In particular, she advocated the formation of an "international mechanism" to resolve the South China Sea issue, which is clearly contrary to China's opposition to internationalization and multilateralization of the South China Sea issue, and advocates one-on-one bilateral negotiations between the countries concerned.

The United States made such a statement at the ASEAN meeting in Vietnam. We can't say that this was an elaborate operation, of course, but it was also a deliberate attempt to show a sense of American presence.

Of course, the occasion used by the United States is very coincidental, and it is not a statement issued by the US State Department alone, or a single statement by one of its generals, but it uses the occasion of the ASEAN meeting, because several ASEAN countries, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia, all have disputes with China on the South China Sea issue, and it has taken advantage of this contradiction to declare the interests of the United States.

This is a typical American approach, and if the United States wants to declare its interests in the South China Sea, it will never declare how it is in the South China Sea alone. What does it ultimately achieve?

Some people in Vietnam were very happy, "Oh, the United States has stepped up, as if to defend our interests." Some people in the Philippines are very happy and say that the United States is not speaking for us. Some media in Malaysia and Indonesia are also quite happy, saying that the United States is not speaking for us.

In fact, the United States is ultimately speaking for the interests of the United States, and it is taking advantage of regional differences to achieve its own interests, and this is a very ingenious way for the United States to safeguard its national interests.

Of course, you look at it from the point of view of international geopolitics, it is very ridiculous that the United States should claim to be closely related to its national interests in a place so far away from the United States, the South China Sea.

China has said a little bit that the South China Sea is related to China's major interests, and many Americans find it very unbearable. Geographically speaking, the South China Sea is so close to China that it would take the entire Pacific Ocean from the U.S. mainland, bypassing the Bass Strait, the Philippines, and China's Spratly Islands to enter the South China Sea. This region is so far away from the continental United States that it claims national interests in the region.

Of course, what are its declared interests? It is said that it is the navigational interests of the United States, the peaceful passage of the United States. Is it in your interest to pass the right alone? The South China Sea is so vast, when was it that American ships were hindered in their passage through the South China Sea? Nothing at all.

The United States has a huge sea and air base in Changi, Singapore, a very large military base, and has the conditions for aircraft carriers to berth. Under these circumstances, all American ships passed through the area without any threat or hindrance. If there is a threat, it may only come from a small number of pirates, but other than that, no sovereign country has made any threat to the United States' right of passage in the South China Sea.

The United States declares its so-called national interests in the South China Sea, but in fact it is issuing a threat, that is, the region must act in accordance with the rules determined by the United States, and the sovereignty claims of any other country in the region must conform to the rules of the United States, which is a naked hegemonic logic.

We must not take this matter too seriously, and we should not think that the United States is saying such a great thing, because the United States has declared such an interest in the South China Sea, and the situation in the South China Sea is going to undergo a huge evolution, and the whole region is going to have a very unfavorable situation for China, but in fact it is not that serious.

We must also firmly believe that the desire of ASEAN countries, including those countries that have disputes with China, to develop peacefully and to have good relations with China cannot be changed. If, because of Hillary Clinton's remarks, the United States claims that it has major interests in the South China Sea, and an alliance emerges in the South China Sea to collectively counter China, I don't think that's possible.

Hillary Clinton is not the first to make such attempts, and US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2005 spoke much more thoroughly than Hillary. At that time, the Asian Security Conference was held in Singapore, and Rumsfeld said that the ASEAN countries cannot deal with a powerful China alone, and that you must unite and form an organization to deal with it.

As soon as Rumsfeld finished speaking, Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong went up to speak, and Lee Hsien Loong made it very clear that the ASEAN countries today regard China's development as an opportunity and do not regard China's development as a threat. Lee Hsien Loong also said that it is not possible for ASEAN countries to form a Cold War-era Southeast Asian Treaty Organization to re-encircle China. The annual trade between ASEAN and China, not counting in 2005, in 2007 and 2008, the trade volume exceeded 200 billion US dollars, whether it is ASEAN 10+1 or ASEAN 10+3, this trend of economic integration is very obvious.

In this case, the United States may have the desire to ruin the entire situation in the South China Sea or China's relations with ASEAN through a single sentence from Hillary Clinton, but it simply cannot do that.

Therefore, first of all, we should not take this very seriously, thinking that how great their words are, and how the United States wants to be, the situation in the region must be the first to be seen and immediately make corresponding adjustments. If the United States thinks that all regions will follow its weather vane, then it has overestimated its own influence and its own strength. Don't forget where it was on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Under these circumstances, it will not work to revert to the big stick of the Cold War. The Americans themselves are well aware of this.

Of course, we should not take it too lightly and do not think that the Americans are just talking casually. This is part of the so-called national strategic arrangement of the United States, which is how to effectively contain China. Let us not think that the cold war is completely behind us, that it is gone forever.

With the gradual increase of China's power, the United States' countermeasures against China are also gradually increasing.

In 2008, Richard Haass, then a senior at the Institute of Foreign Affairs in the United States, published a comprehensive assessment of China's rise. In that report, he said that everyone else is talking about how China's rise is amazing, and I don't think China's rise is as terrible as you think.

He gave six reasons. The first five reasons are all related to military affairs, such as the US military stationed in Guam, the US military stationed in Japan, the US military's national defense investment, the US military's training, the US military's actual combat experience, and so on, listing a large number of US military advantages.

Sixth, I think it's very crucial, sixth, what did he write? He said that the United States firmly controls the sea lanes on which China's economy depends.

So I don't think Clinton's words should be taken too seriously, but not too lightly, the core is here. The United States is not worried that its passage will be controlled by others, but as Richard Haas said, the United States firmly controls the sea lanes on which China's economic development depends, and this is the intention of the United States.

The U.S. claims that the South China Sea is related to U.S. national interests, and in fact wants to control the sea, and then control the sea shipping lanes of China, Japan, South Korea, and other ASEAN countries, and the fate of these countries is in its hands.

Therefore, it is not someone else who wants to control this sea area, but the United States wants to control this sea area.

Of course, the United States knows that it is very difficult for it to play this role independently in this region, so it has taken advantage of the contradictions in this region and the discord between various countries in this region to achieve its goals.

A comrade once said that the Chinese have no conspiracy, everything is on the table, it can stand the test of history, and we do not have any intentions for others. This is very true, this is the frank gentlemanly style of the Chinese. But we also have to note that just because you don't have a conspiracy doesn't mean that others don't have a conspiracy.

On the one hand, we are accelerating development, and it is our wish to achieve a win-win relationship with other countries. But on the other hand, we have to see that people are trying to find ways to stifle you in every possible way.

What a role we played in the international financial crisis, including helping the U.S. economy. It's something we do very gentlemanly.

But let's not forget that the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, the U.S. president's meeting with the Dalai Lama, the U.S. president's forcing the renminbi to appreciate, then the U.S. and South Korea's attempts to conduct exercises in the Yellow Sea, and then the U.S. secretary of state asserting huge interests in the South China Sea.

If we look at this series of issues in tandem, you can see that the Chinese only rely on our kindness, our friendship, and our sincerity, and when acting in the international community, we should pay attention to the fact that there are some such forces in the international community, and some people out of such a dark psychology, they hope that chaos and turmoil will occur in China. If you don't have chaos, if you don't have turmoil, then they want to stifle and limit your development.

Therefore, we do not need to take Hillary's remarks very seriously, think that the whole region will make big waves, think that the entire region will be reorganized according to the will of the United States, and we should not take it very lightly, because the encirclement and restriction of people on us have not ceased for a single day, and this point needs to be kept in mind.

Although China is on the rise, it has many inherent shortcomings, including many historical disputes and territorial disputes with its neighbors. I once wrote an article about China's surrounding security environment, and the first sentence at the beginning of the article said, "Geography is fate."

Because we live in a very different historical condition, when New China was founded, Taiwan was first in a state of separatism, which was a very fatal problem for us and had a great long-term impact on us.

Second, with the development of the construction of New China, there was a loss of rights and interests in the South China Sea from the 60s and 70s of the 20th century. If you look at the maps of the world before the 40s, 50s and mid-60s of the 20th century, whether it is the Thames map in London, the map published by the United States, or the maps published by countries around the world, or even the maps published by Vietnam and the Philippines, the rights and interests in the South China Sea belong to China. This is internationally recognized.

However, since the mid-60s of the 20th century, the scramble for islands in the South China Sea has taken advantage of a gap in China, because it was during the "Cultural Revolution". This has caused us a very big problem to solve the problem today, that is, other forces have occupied it beforehand, resulting in a fait accompli, and then we are in a very unhappy state.

China does not have the same task as the United States, and has never envisioned control of the Middle East, control of Central Asia, control of South America, control of Africa. We are only pursuing the state that a sovereign country must complete, defending the sovereign territorial integrity of our own country, and this is a very traditional task, and we have not yet completed this task.

The United States intends to build an Asian-like NATO

In October 2011, Japan and India held a strategic dialogue, and a lot of information was sent out "against China." There is no doubt that the warming up of strategic cooperation between Japan and India is aimed at China.

This kind of strategic cooperation between Japan and India is a dream for the United States. The United States has long wanted to form a so-called Asian-shaped NATO, and the European NATO has completely collapsed the Soviet Union, and there is no doubt that the Asian-shaped NATO is aimed at China.

NATO in the Asian form is mainly to unite India in the south and Japan in the north, but this idea has been put forward for a long time, and Japan has been very enthusiastic in the past, mainly because India is not enthusiastic, and it has been slow to recover. India has India's considerations, and a big consideration is that India is unwilling to be tied to the US chariot.

Japan has shown a very high level of enthusiasm, and in terms of containing China, Japan's attitude is completely in line with that of the United States, but is it completely in line with India? Not necessarily.

It's hard to say how far they can go. India is not ready to form an Asian NATO to encircle and contain China in accordance with Japan's idea or the United States' idea. And in the medium to long term, India is also reluctant to take risks and play a role assigned to it by someone else.

Not only India and Japan, but also some countries around China, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, seem to have a tendency to unite against China. In the face of this trend, I believe that it should be viewed from two aspects.

On the one hand, others move frequently, which deserves our high vigilance and attention. Although we talk about peaceful rise, we see that many people do not want to see China's rise, whether you rise peacefully or whatever, this action certainly has its inevitability. As the British said, the so-called rise of great powers must be accompanied by isolation, which is a common phenomenon. Objectively so.

From a subjective point of view, we actually have a lot of room for adjustment. For a long time, we have given priority to major-country relations, and have attached great importance to major-country relations, China-US relations, China-EU relations, China-Japan relations, and China-Russia relations. Of course, from today's point of view, the relationship between major powers is still very important, but we must devote more energy and more attention to our neighborhood.

For a long time, we have paid too much attention to our relations with major powers, and we have not paid enough attention to the surrounding environment, and any relationship must be managed, arranged, and deployed.

Whether it is the "Mekong River tragedy", the cancellation of the Myitsone dam project in Myanmar, or the problems in the South China Sea, these problems are undoubtedly a warning to China.

Of course, we can say that this is someone else's instigation, someone else's provocation, or a malicious encirclement of us, but from another point of view, we are not enough to operate for a long time. Indeed, there is room for adjustment, and in the future, we should pay attention to and strengthen our relations with our neighbors.

Mekong River Joint Patrol Law Enforcement

In recent years, criminal activities such as smuggling drugs, weapons and ammunition in the waters of the Mekong River have been relatively prominent, and attacks on ships have occurred from time to time. On October 5, 2011, 13 Chinese crew members were killed when two Chinese cargo ships were attacked by armed men in Mekong waters.

The resolution of a regional problem is often driven by an emergency that causes great damage to the interests of all parties, prompting all parties to cooperate to deal with the problem together, thus giving rise to a new mechanism.

The cooperation between China, Thailand, Myanmar and Laos to establish a joint patrol and enforcement mechanism on the Mekong River is a very good trend, and from the immediate point of view, it solves the problem of navigation safety in the Mekong River; In the medium and long term, it actually includes larger regional security content, such as anti-narcotics and anti-terrorism.

China has good relations with Myanmar, Thailand and Laos, including previous economic development relations. Now, economic development alone may not be enough, and through a joint approach to the safety of navigation on the Mekong River, the four countries have effectively established this most basic cooperation mechanism — we cannot say how advanced this mechanism is, but can only call it the most basic cooperation mechanism. But this is a thousand times stronger than not having a mechanism, and much faster than when a problem arises and governments and police departments sit down and discuss what to do.

It's like a saying in the world of international conflict theory: even a plan full of loopholes is a thousand times stronger than no plan at all! Even a rudimentary mechanism is much more convenient to deal with than no mechanism at all.

It is in the interests of all parties to establish a joint patrol and law enforcement mechanism to jointly safeguard and ensure the safety of navigation on the Mekong River, as well as economic development, anti-narcotics and counter-terrorism along the Mekong River. From this point of view, there is a very good trend in the gradual expansion of economic cooperation in Southeast Asia to security cooperation. It is very regrettable that this positive trend was started by a tragedy.

According to the joint statement of the China-Laos-Myanmar-Thailand Mekong Joint Patrol and Law Enforcement Ministerial Meeting, the four countries jointly organized and implemented joint operations to crack down on serious public security problems that endanger the security of the Mekong River Basin. However, some Western public opinion believes that China's armed forces are "expanding their influence" by using the Mekong River to jointly patrol and enforce the law, opening a new "strategic front" in Southeast Asia.

The four-nation joint patrol and law enforcement is realized on the basis of pursuing the common interests of all countries, which is conducive to ensuring the security, stability, and economic development of the region. If China does not establish a cooperation mechanism with the countries along the Mekong River after the tragedy, the West will certainly comment that China does not take the lives of its own citizens or the lives of its locals seriously. Moreover, it will be said that China has behaved very negatively in international anti-drug and international counter-terrorism, and has not done anything in such a major event, which shows that China is not a responsible big country.

If we don't do it, they will definitely come to this conclusion, and the attack will be very powerful.

China's achievements will be of great benefit to China and its coastal countries in terms of economic development and regional anti-narcotics and counter-terrorism, which is also a manifestation of China's fulfillment of its regional obligations. When China did this, others came out and said that China wanted to control the Mekong River in this way, which is called "there is no excuse for the crime of wanting to add to it".

The reason why Thailand, Myanmar and Laos are willing to cooperate with China is because they know that what China pursues is by no means control, and that all parties pursue the same goal, which is to cooperate and jointly safeguard regional security, so that the economic development of the region and the happiness of the people in the region can obtain a greater security space.

Scarborough Shoal incident

In April 2012, the United States and the Philippines held a joint military exercise, "Shoulder to Shoulder". Although the exercise is a regular annual joint military exercise between the United States and the Philippines, the location of the exercise has been moved from the northeast of the Philippines to the edge of the South China Sea near the nine-dash line, close to the Spratly Islands. At the same time, from the perspective of time, the military exercise coincided with the confrontation between the Philippines and China in the waters off Scarborough Shoal.

This sensitive time and place is largely hyped up by the media. For example, the showdown between China and the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal is completely a time when the Philippines has nothing to do. It's totally provocative. Scarborough Shoal is an inalienable part of China's territory, and it is justified, reasonable and legal for Chinese fishermen to fish there.

The United States holds a huge number of military exercises in Asia every year. It is a bit ridiculous and a coincidence that the media has brought up the US-Philippine military exercises in conjunction with the South China Sea issue and with the confrontation between the Philippines and China at Scarborough Shoal.

The United States has the right to hold military exercises in the western Pacific, the Philippines has the right to participate in US military exercises, and China and Russia have the right to hold military exercises in the Yellow Sea. Of course, all parties can do a variety of interpretations.

The Philippines has the right to be tightly tied to the United States, and China has the right to consider taking further measures against the Philippines in addition to resolutely defending its sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal. You are willing to tie up with it, and you can tie your development, your future peace, and the United States completely.

Philippine politicians, of course, would not be stupid enough to do so.

If the Philippines puts everything it has on the United States, it tries to invite the United States to engage in another Cold War posture in Asia, to contain China, and use American power to intimidate China. If it wants to achieve such an intention through the U.S.-Philippine military exercises, then this intention will certainly not be achieved, and it will definitely have to pay a greater price for this intention in the future.

Defending national interests is not something that can be defended by lip service. If China had only relied on lip service to defend its national interests, China would not have been invaded so many times since 1840 and signed so many humiliating treaties, and defending its national interests would depend on strength.

Including the current confrontation between China and the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal, we should pay special attention to the fact that the Philippines dispatched warships, and we dispatched maritime surveillance vessels and fishery administration vessels.

As a matter of fact, for a country, in the first place, the military is not sent to solve any maritime dispute, but by sending forces such as the maritime superintendent, the maritime administration, and the coast guard to solve the problem. The Philippines first sent the navy to solve the problem, and we didn't smell the chickens, and the navy didn't go up right away, we dispatched fishery administration boats.

During this period, our two relatively large fishery administration vessels were between the Philippine warships and our fishermen, effectively protecting the lives and property of our fishermen.

After the standoff between China and the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, China voluntarily withdrew two ships as a sign of relief, but the Philippines sent an additional environmental monitoring vessel in addition to sending a coast guard ship of the same class to change shifts. The Philippines' repeated provocations on the Scarborough Shoal issue are taking China's strategic restraint as its own strategic opportunity.

We are strategically restrained because we do not want such disputes to occur with small neighboring countries, and we hope to resolve them in a calm environment through peaceful means and negotiations.

From the Philippine point of view, it feels that China is very isolated, no one supports China, and it feels that it has the support of the United States behind it, so the Philippines has obviously raised its own price, which is obviously a sugar daddy mentality.

The Philippines itself has little power. It feels that China has many limitations, and it expects that China's economic development will be the top priority, and that China's main problem is to maintain internal security, and that it has no time to deal with such disputes in such a situation. It believes that China is constrained by a large number of internal problems, and if China waits until China has dealt with all its internal problems in the future, it will not have such a period of opportunity.

Therefore, it should take advantage of this opportunity period to maximize its own interests.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Rosario called on other countries to take a stand on China's actions in the South China Sea, hoping to isolate China and pursue their own interests.

The Philippines has always been like this, like the 2011 ASEAN meeting, and the ASEAN consultation meeting in early 2012, the Philippines wants to make a big deal about it, and wants to isolate China at the ASEAN meeting, and then there are many countries to support it and achieve its own interests.

In fact, the South China Sea issue is very complex, and many countries are involved. The Philippines' claim to the so-called West Philippine Sea not only coincides with the scope of China's sovereignty, but also with the scope claimed by Vietnam and part of Malaysia's claim.

On the surface, it seems that these countries are at odds with China, but in fact, the two countries that have made the most trouble, the Philippines and Vietnam, have not been small in their differences over the South China Sea issue.

Scarborough Shoal is entirely within China's sovereignty, and other countries have shown a sober and calm attitude in the dispute over Scarborough Shoal, including Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and other countries that have not joined the Philippines' agitation. This is a great disappointment for the Philippines, and it was also unexpected.

Malaysia and Indonesia are both Islamic powers, and they see the Philippines relying on the United States to achieve its sovereignty claims, which will bring danger to the region. Therefore, these ASEAN countries have not clearly expressed their support for the Philippines, which is very disappointing for the Philippines, and it is a big gap from the situation that it envisioned at the beginning of the trouble.

China has no way out of the Scarborough Shoal sovereignty issue, otherwise it will inevitably have a chain effect that will lead to further chaos in the South China Sea.

We need to methodically distinguish between them, and the dispute between the Philippines and China over Scarborough Shoal and the South China Sea is not the same thing.

Of course, it is a small problem in a big problem, and this small problem can lead to a big problem, and there is a possibility of a knock-on effect. If China retreats again and again, and the Philippines does it this time, it takes Scarborough Shoal, and the Chinese government completely retreats, then the demonstration effect it produces will inevitably lead Vietnam and Malaysia to put forward more interest demands. If such a situation arises, it will certainly lead to further chaos in the South China Sea.

Of course, it is just an if, and China will not make any retreat on the issue of Scarborough Shoal. It is impossible for them to take advantage of this to their advantage.

China's persistence, firmness, and resoluteness on the Scarborough Shoal issue are in fact maintaining overall stability in the South China Sea, rather than launching an arms race in the South China Sea.

As long as China sticks to its traditional position on Scarborough Shoal and further consolidates it, it will gain stability in the South China Sea that will discourage those who want to take risks.

China's period of strategic opportunities

In 2012, the foreign and defense ministers of the United States and the Philippines held the first round of "2+2" talks on April 30. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a news conference after the meeting that the United States does not take a position on the issue of territorial sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, and the United States supports the adoption of diplomatic procedures for mutual cooperation to resolve the South China Sea issue.

The Philippines does not have the dominance and strength to engage in a conflict with China at all, and only wants to use the United States to gain benefits from a military conflict with China over the Scarborough Shoal issue. However, the United States is obviously unwilling to do such things that are not in the interests of the United States, and it is difficult for the Philippines, without the support of the United States, to have the confidence to provoke China, so the Philippines is not so much confronting China as it is seeking some bargaining chips from the United States.

Therefore, the Philippines has high hopes for the so-called "2+2" talks between the Philippines and the United States. Therefore, before the "2+2" talks between the two sides, the Philippines made a lot of noise in order to increase its own bargaining chips in this meeting, bargain in front of the Americans, and obtain the greatest benefits from the United States.

The results did not go as the Philippine government wanted, and the attitude of the United States was very ambiguous. The obvious posture of the United States is that it needs to use the Philippines to return to the Asia-Pacific region, and it needs to use the Philippines to contain China and disperse China's forces, but the United States is absolutely unwilling to fight a war led by others for others.

The Philippines wants to borrow US power to engage in a military conflict with China over the Scarborough Shoal issue, and the United States is obviously unwilling to do so.

Therefore, Hillary Clinton, who has been the most hawkish on the South China Sea issue, also stepped back on the "2+2" talks, saying that the United States does not take sides and hopes that the two sides will resolve the issue through diplomatic channels, which undoubtedly gives the Philippines a great sense of frustration and does not meet the expected wishes.

From this point of view, the United States wants to take advantage of the confrontation between the Philippines and China to achieve the goal of shifting the strategic center of gravity eastward, and the Philippines wants to take advantage of the opportunity of the United States' return to the Asia-Pacific region to provoke a conflict between the United States and China in the South China Sea. The two sides have both a combination of interests and a disagreement of interests. On the Scarborough Shoal issue, the similarities and differences of interests between the United States and the Philippines are very obvious.

Since the attitude of the US side is obvious, the Philippines does not have the qualifications and ability to provoke a conflict at Scarborough Shoal, and it has wanted to use the United States, but the United States has retreated, saying that it is not willing to get too involved in the Scarborough Shoal issue and the South China Sea issue.

From this point of view, the US statement disappointed the Philippines.

The United States is a realist country, and Hillary Clinton is going to Beijing to participate in the Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and the United States has huge economic interests in China and has a number of security cooperation matters in China. Compared with the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the Philippines has become a side dish in the eyes of the United States, and this side dish has to be pushed back, and the problem now is to get the main dish right.

There is a view that the "period of strategic opportunity" for China's economic development is being used by some neighboring countries to expand their maritime interests, and that the Philippines and some other countries are taking advantage of China's "period of strategic opportunity" to constantly create incidents in order to achieve the fait accompli of encroaching on China's interests.

The "period of strategic opportunity" for economic development is not won through forbearance and concession, but depends on us taking effective actions to safeguard sovereignty to actively defend it. We must maintain a high degree of vigilance on this point, and we often talk about the period of strategic opportunity, which has a problem of objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity refers to the objective situation, and the theme of world peace and development, including the development of high technology in the world and the process of globalization, constitutes the objective conditions for China to seize the strategic opportunity to accelerate its development. However, we must also pay attention to subjective conditions, and any situation is by no means a matter of God-given opportunity, but also a question of subjective creation.

The Philippines and some other countries want to take advantage of China's strategic mentality of seizing the period of strategic opportunity to accelerate development, believing that we will certainly maintain strategic restraint during this period, so they will turn our period of strategic opportunity into a period of strategic opportunity and take advantage of the greatest advantage. From this point, we are reminded that we must take the initiative to safeguard the period of strategic opportunities, absolutely not allow these things to interfere with the process of our peaceful development, and resolutely defend our interests.

Taking effective actions to safeguard sovereignty during the period of strategic opportunity not only does not contradict seizing the period of strategic opportunity, but can also effectively defend the period of strategic opportunity. If, within the period of strategic opportunity, we oppose and contradict the period of strategic opportunity between safeguarding sovereignty and the period of strategic opportunity, then we have actually thrown away this period of opportunity.

The Philippines kidnaps ASEAN

At the 2012 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Foreign Ministers' Meeting, the Philippines tried to kidnap ASEAN to confront China and write the sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea with China into the ASEAN Joint Communique. For the first time in the 45-year history of ASEAN, the meeting was unable to issue a joint communiqué due to clear differences of opinion on the issue within ASEAN.

ASEAN has taken the right approach. Whether it is the dispute between the Philippines and China, or the dispute between Vietnam and China, it is a bilateral issue, that is, the issue between China and the Philippines and the issue between China and Vietnam. However, if any country attempts to kidnap this issue, turn it into a regional issue, and make regional organizations recognize and support their adventurous behavior, this will be a disaster for regional organizations and will pose a serious challenge to the rationality and legitimacy of the existence of the entire regional organization.

Whether it is the Philippines' provocations at Scarborough Shoal or Vietnam's series of provocations in the South China Sea, there is a very big characteristic: it is not China that is changing the status quo.

Although the status quo is very unfavorable to China, the Chinese side is not saying that it wants to change the status quo, but that the Philippines wants to change the status quo and Vietnam wants to change the status quo. If ASEAN were to do this in a daze, it would be a great loss for ASEAN if they were to do so, but they were to use ASEAN to endorse them.

Because ASEAN is not a military alliance, it is an economic development cooperation organization. If this economic development cooperation organization does not take economic development cooperation as its top priority and takes some other actions as its top priority, then it will actually violate the purpose of this organization.

Therefore, judging from ASEAN's behavior this time, ASEAN has still adhered to its original intention and adhered to its role in Southeast Asia -- peaceful development, economic development, and regional stability.

At the ASEAN Regional Forum, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly urged the development of a legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Clinton has walked around China for most of the time, from Japan in the east, to Mongolia in the north, to Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the south, and her language has also transitioned from democracy and human rights to a more specific "code of conduct in the South China Sea."

Behavior like Hillary's was rare during the Cold War. The Cold War has long ended, but Hillary Clinton is still openly and openly fanning the flames everywhere around China and creating an atmosphere of the Cold War, which is extremely inconsistent with the development of the times.

From this, I can't help but think that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, judging by her age, is a person of the previous era -- not only her age, of course, but also her thinking, she has long been obsessed with how the United States brought down the Soviet Union and used that system to deal with China.

Her behavior is a serious provocation for a peace-loving China that pursues peaceful development. Of course, all of Hillary Clinton's performances do not represent Obama's policies, and there is a lot of Hillary Clinton's personal resentment against China.

Obama, for example, has said a lot since he became president, but never done anything like Hillary Clinton.

On the one hand, the policies of the Philippines and Vietnam in an attempt to kidnap ASEAN; On the other hand, Hillary Clinton also wants to hijack the United States' China policy.

From today's point of view, if we do not see ASEAN as a whole, there is no need for us to see the US rulers as a whole. We might as well think of Hillary Clinton as a belligerent, cold-war-minded character who can't get along with China in everything.

Sansha City was established

On July 15, 2012, a formation of 30 fishing boats arrived in the waters of Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea to conduct fishing operations, and on July 17, the formation of the government in Sansha City, Hainan Province, was officially launched.

These actions are a declaration of China's rights and interests in the South China Sea, and they are all passive and motivated by the other side.

We have been forced to react to the provocations of Vietnam through the so-called law of the sea, which considers China's Xisha and Nansha to be its own territory, and the Philippines to expand aggressively in the direction of Scarborough Shoal.

Of course, fishermen in the South China Sea have long fished in the same grounds where their ancestors have fished for generations. At one time, we were restricting it because we didn't want it to lead to unnecessary conflict.

Judging from today's situation, China's unilateral forbearance cannot be exchanged for regional peace and stability of maritime rights and interests. Therefore, I think that when Chinese fishermen go out to sea to fish, they are completely defending their fishing rights, and of course, it is also a beneficial act to safeguard national sovereignty.

The state must give policy preferences and subsidies to fishermen for these actions, otherwise these actions will be unsustainable. Because the fishermen go to the South China Sea, the consumption of diesel fuel to and from the South China Sea is very large, and if the state does not subsidize it, I think it will be difficult to sustain it by relying solely on the actions of the fishermen.

We can see that Vietnam subsidizes their country's fishermen who go to sea, and the Philippines encourages their fishermen to fish in disputed areas.

Of course, the formation of our fishing boats to fish in Nansha was not a sudden action, but a kind of restoration of our traditional fishing grounds, and we did it in a very restrained way.

Including the establishment of Sansha City, which administratively established the scope of our administrative jurisdiction, these are our very powerful action steps.

Today, we are well aware of the complexity of the South China Sea issue and the many conflicts, and we do not want to resolve it through conflict. On the one hand, affirm China's rights and interests; On the other hand, we let all parties know that we are willing to solve the problem by peaceful means, by negotiation methods, by ways where everyone can benefit, that is, the method of "shelving disputes and developing them together" that has been proposed before.

However, if some people regard China's "shelving disputes and joint development" as weakness and bullying, and let China unilaterally shelve disputes, claim its sovereignty and develop on a large scale, we also need to use actions to make them feel regret and make them feel that China is not weak and bulliable.

On August 3, 2012, U.S. State Department Acting Deputy Spokesperson Winterlier issued a statement accusing China of establishing the city of Sansha and establishing a new garrison to govern disputed areas of the South China Sea as "contrary to resolving differences through diplomatic cooperation, and potentially potentially escalating tensions in the region."

This statement is a habitual act for the United States, because there are too many instances of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. However, as far as the situation in the South China Sea as a whole is concerned, it is very abnormal.

It is definitely not China that is the first to provoke disputes in the South China Sea. When the Philippines sent warships to seize Chinese fishing boats at Scarborough Shoal, it did not see the United States issue a statement saying that the Philippines' actions were aimed at expanding the situation in the South China Sea and were not conducive to a peaceful settlement. Vietnam adopted Vietnam's "Law of the Sea" and included China's Xisha and Nansha all within Vietnam's territory without consultation with any neighboring countries, and when it was fixed in legal form, it did not see the United States issue any statement saying that the passage of Vietnam's "Law of the Sea" affected or interfered with the peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue.

The establishment of Sansha City is our passive response under the serious provocation of others and the encroachment on our national territory. Sansha City was supposed to be established in 2007, but at that time, in consideration of the situation in all aspects of the South China Sea, China postponed the establishment of Sansha City by four to five years in order to accommodate the sentiments of all parties in the South China Sea, which fully demonstrates our sincerity.

When Vietnam has incorporated China's Xisha and Nansha into Vietnam's territory through the Law of the Sea, we have been forced to react in this way. At this time, the US State Department came out to make a lot of nonsense, which actually added fuel to the fire of the situation in the South China Sea.

In fact, without the tacit support of the United States, a peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue would not be too difficult. Although the United States has been flaunting the banner of hoping for a peaceful settlement by all parties in the South China Sea, in fact it has adopted a means to secretly support the provocative countries in the South China Sea and make them more boldly encroach on the rights and interests of the South China Sea, which should be within the scope of China's sovereignty, and undoubtedly push the South China Sea into confrontation.

In fact, this is not the first day that the United States has done this, and before that, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walked around China, and all her words were aimed at China, sowing discord everywhere, in fact, it has completely violated the demeanor of a diplomat and the political speech norms of a politician. The State Department's statement this time is just a natural extension of all of Hillary's rhetoric.

Judging from what the United States has done, on the one hand, the United States says that its return to the Asia-Pacific region is for the sake of Asia-Pacific security, and that its return to the Asia-Pacific region is absolutely not for the purpose of containing China. As a matter of fact, since the United States proposed to return to the Asia-Pacific region, the Asia-Pacific region has been in turmoil. Whether it is the issue of the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan in the East China Sea or the issue in the South China Sea, they are all heating up.

In addition, on the one hand, the United States has said that its return to the Asia-Pacific region is absolutely not aimed at China, and on the other hand, it is building a "quasi-Cold War format" with a lot of rhetoric and actions to build a posture of encirclement against China. Under such circumstances, when the South China Sea issue is to cool down, it is not in the interests of the United States. In order to be in the interests of the United States, the South China Sea must create greater containment and attrition for China.

Some analysts believe that the United States, on the one hand, openly criticizes China on the South China Sea issue, and on the other hand, explicitly states that the Diaoyu Islands issue applies to the "US-Japan Security Treaty." These moves show a kind of strategic anxiety of the United States.

I don't agree with the term "strategic anxiety".

Just as we disagree with the claim that Japan's annexation of the Diaoyu Islands is merely a matter of Japanese politicians moving closer to the right wing for the sake of votes, these words invisibly beautify the other side. Japan's annexation of Diaoyu Dao and the Philippines' move on Scarborough Shoal are a manifestation of their domestic politics and, more importantly, a manifestation of their inevitability to forcibly occupy them for the sake of their national interests.

You say that the United States is a strategic anxiety, but in fact it is a far-sighted plan. If you look at it only as strategic anxiety, I think you are looking down on the Americans.

Although the United States claims that it is not encircling China, and although it says that it is returning to the Asia-Pacific region for the sake of peace in the Asia-Pacific region, in fact the United States has a very strong posture of encircling China. The United States' encirclement of China is basically a strategic posture of the United States, and it wants to complete the layout of this strategic posture.

Of course, there may be an element of anxiety in this process of completion, but it would be wrong to think that this behavior of the United States is only a manifestation of a kind of strategic anxiety, and it is actually a long-term considered, calm and orderly deployment of the United States to cause attrition on China, encircle China, restrict China's development, and prevent China's rise.

Not only Obama, but also future US presidents after Obama will behave like this. We should be well prepared for this.