And then he punches, pretends to have a conversation, the Biden administration only knows one move against China, alliance | article | government
On June 4th, the website of the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong published an article titled "Leaders of the Anglo American Alliance prefer to put on airs and provoke rather than engage in dialogue". The author is Lu Gang, and the excerpt of the article is as follows:
On the issue of China, the Joe Biden administration only knows one trick - pretending to be ready for dialogue and then striking hard. The effectiveness of this approach depends on how onlookers perceive it.
The latest example is the Shangri La Dialogue held in Singapore. According to some news reports, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin expressed his desire to meet with Chinese Defense Secretary Li Shangfu during the dialogue, but was refused.
So obvious, completely unexpected!
Austin said, "We are working closely with allies to enhance our military posture in the region. We are making our military presence more dispersed, flexible, and resilient. This will make the region more stable and secure.".
Even observers from Mars would naturally conclude that these words and actions by the United States and its allies are more likely to turn the region into a powder keg.
The so-called "defense" of the United States may seem very impolite to others; The United States considers its own security to be the insecurity of others. However, the world has become accustomed to such clever words and expressions.
When the United States forces its allies to strengthen their containment and encirclement of China, it is called "strengthening alliances.". When China takes similar countermeasures, it is called "bullying and coercion". When Washington punishes others economically, it is called sanctions. When others do the same, it is economic coercion.
It doesn't sound like Austin is someone who wants to ease tensions and resolve potential conflicts through real dialogue. On the contrary, Washington repeated the old trick: either portraying the Chinese as rejectionists; Either force them to accept America's containment and encirclement.
Australian Defense Secretary Richard Mars, who has always been "trustworthy," joined Austin's argument in Singapore. He claimed that the Australian British American Security Alliance is transparent, while China's military construction is "opaque.". He did not provide a detailed explanation, perhaps to avoid being asked too many unnecessary questions.
If you don't plan to carry nuclear weapons, why do the dozen or so nuclear powered submarines planned by the Anglo American alliance need highly enriched uranium? Because low enriched uranium is sufficient as nuclear fuel. This is a key sticking point of Iran's nuclear agreement, which mainly involves allowing Iran to have a certain level of enriched uranium that would render it incapable of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Okay, maybe we can't trust Iran, but we can always trust Australia!
Why does Australia need some nuclear powered submarines to conduct what Mars called "power projection" beyond its own region and deep into the Asia Pacific region? Australia could have built 12 non nuclear powered submarines in just half the time and at the same cost as originally planned, making them very suitable for defending Australian territory.
No matter how you look at it, the Anglo American alliance seems to have not contributed to "peace" and "collective security" in the Asia Pacific region, but rather the opposite - not to mention, it may involve Australia in regional conflicts.
Of course, Austin and his Western partners in Singapore have said a lot to the Chinese people. But compared to dialogue, the leaders of the Anglo American alliance clearly prefer posturing and provocation.
