Friday, August 29, 2025
Thursday, August 28, 2025
Wednesday, August 27, 2025
Monday, August 25, 2025
Chinese FM slams US Navy Admiral for false remarks on China, urging US to stop sowing discord between China, Latin America. 26-08-2025
Chinese FM slams US Navy Admiral for false remarks on China, urging US to stop sowing discord between China, LatAm
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun on Monday slams the deep-rooted Cold War and confrontational mindset of some personnel in the US, urging the US side to stop sowing discord between China and Latin America and creating trouble out of nothing.
The comments came in response to a question regarding the recent remarks made by US Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, commander of US Southern Command, who falsely claimed that China "continues its methodical incursion, seeking to export its authoritarian model, extract precious resources" in the Western Hemisphere, during the South America Defense Conference 2025 (SOUTHDEC 25) held from August 20 to 21 in Argentina.
The remarks from the US side are contrary to facts, repetitive, and once again expose the deep-rooted Cold War and confrontational mindset, Guo said.
China has adhered to the principles of mutual respect, equality, mutual benefit, openness, inclusiveness, and win-win cooperation in conducting practical cooperation with Latin American and Caribbean countries in various fields, Guo said.
The spokesperson said China-Latin America cooperation meets mutual needs, aligns with shared interests, effectively promotes local economic and social development, and is sincerely welcomed by the countries and people of the region.
According to Guo, the US has relentlessly interfered in and controlled Latin America and the Caribbean region for many years, using its hegemonic and bullying actions clear for all to see.
Latin America and the Caribbean regions are not anyone's backyard, and China-Latin America cooperation is not targeted at any third party, nor should it be subject to interference from any third party, Guo stated.
The countries of the region have the right to independently choose their development paths and partners, said Guo, adding that the US should stop sowing discord between China and Latin America and creating trouble out of nothing, and instead do something tangible for the development of Latin American and Caribbean countries. Chinese FM
Chinese report challenges legality of US "Freedom of Navigation"operations, 26 - 08 - 2005
Chinese report challenges legality of US ‘freedom of navigation’ operations
Unprecedented comprehensive legal assessment of US ‘freedom of navigation’ operations exposes its lack of legal basis, military pressure tactic
China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources releases a legal assessment report on US' "freedom of navigation" on August 25, 2025. Photo: Hu Yuwei/GT
On Monday, the China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources released a legal assessment report on US' "freedom of navigation," which concludes that US' so-called "freedom of navigation" lacks a basis in international law, reflects the US' habitual practice of using military force to pressure other nations, and distorts the interpretation of international law.The report finds that US' "freedom of navigation" incorporates numerous self-created concepts and self-imposed standards of so-called customary international law, which contradict true international law and the practices of many countries. Through these assertions and actions, the US seeks to maximally compress the legitimate rights of other nations while expanding its own rights and freedoms, aiming to secure "freedom" unbound by legal constraints.
Zhang Haiwen, former director general of the China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources, stated at Monday's press conference that the report aims to expose the US hegemonic practices disguised as lawful, revealing the fragility and untenability of its claimed legality from a professional perspective.
The report examines the US' legal positions and practices regarding freedom of navigation, particularly statements and actions related to the "Freedom of Navigation Program," focusing on 11 issues: innocent passage of warships, entry for assistance, transit passage, archipelagic sea lanes passage, "international waters," legal status of islands, straight baselines, baselines for outlining archipelagos, military activities in exclusive economic zones, air defense identification zones, and historic waters.
Based on these findings, the report concludes that US' so-called "freedom of navigation" lacks a foundation in international law, severely distorts the interpretation and development of international law, perpetuates the logic of "gunboat diplomacy," and reflects the US' habitual use of military force to pressure other nations.
The report highlights that the US has invented several "legal concepts," such as "international waters," which lacks a basis in contemporary maritime law, and the so-called "high seas corridor," which is used to undermine coastal states' jurisdiction over areas like the Taiwan Straits.
The report also underlines the US' long-standing double standards. The US military aircraft insisted on enjoying "freedom of overflight" in other countries' air defense identification zones (ADIZ) while labeling similar actions by non-allied countries' military aircraft as "threats."
For example, while the US emphasizes the "freedom of overflight" for its military aircraft and repeatedly challenges China's East China Sea ADIZ, including multiple instances of military aircraft transiting the Taiwan Straits, it simultaneously portrays routine Chinese military aircraft activities in international airspace within the ADIZs of the US, Japan, and South Korea as "intrusions" or "provocations." The US' double standards on ADIZ issues are clearly inconsistent with its proclaimed commitment to defending "freedom of navigation."
Disrupting order
Based on these facts, the report believes that US' so-called "freedom of navigation" serves the country's national interests and geopolitical strategies, posing a threat to regional peace and stability, disrupting the international maritime order, and embodying clear illegality, unreasonableness, and double standards.
Chen Xidi, an expert at China Institute for Marine Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources, also one of the report's authors, told the Global Times that this is the first comprehensive legal assessment of the US' so-called "freedom of navigation" claims, and the report serves as a significant international public good, defending true navigational freedom under international law.
The report noted that, despite US claims that its South China Sea "freedom of navigation operations" do not target any specific country, statistics show China has been the primary target over the past decade.
Over the recent years, the US has continued to frequently and illegally intrude into sea and airspaces related to China's sovereignty without authorization. The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) on August 13 expelled a US warship - USS Higgins destroyer - when it intruded into Chinese territorial waters near Huangyan Dao in the South China Sea without permission from the Chinese government.
On August 11, the US Department of Defense released its 2024 Fiscal Year annual "Freedom of Navigation" (FON) report, identifying China as the top target among 11 countries or regions, with the most "challenged" claims and the only nation facing challenges in multiple maritime areas. These include four challenges to what it claimed as China's mainland's "excessive maritime claims," such as requires prior permission for innocent passage of foreign military ships through the territorial sea, straight baselines, and historic rights in the South China Sea, as well as restrictions in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone.
China's report is seen as a direct rebuttal to the US military's claims. Zheng Zhihua, an associate professor at the Japan Research Center of Shanghai Jiaotong University, who is also one of researchers on the report, told the Global Times on Monday that the report systematically reviews US' "freedom of navigation" practices and legal position since 1979, covering a broad scope, including the dispute over transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz. "Although this issue has no direct connection with China, we remain deeply concerned. In particular, we oppose the improper application of US' 'freedom of navigation' to other maritime areas," said the researcher.
"We also reject the instrumentalization and weaponization of international law, the excessive expansion of navigation interests, and the improper restriction of the maritime rights of coastal states under the US' freedom of navigation doctrine," Zheng stressed.
This report points out that the US' freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) not only disrupts the good order of coastal states but also often causes unnecessary friction, and in severe cases, leads to maritime and air incidents, threatening the peace and stability of the nations and regions targeted by these actions.
Driven by its own interests, the US has not yet acceded to UNCLOS. However, it consistently positions itself as a stakeholder in UNCLOS, selectively applying provisions that benefit its interests. This "flexible" approach has provided space for the formation and development of US' "freedom of navigation," the report pointed out.
The report states that "absolute freedom of navigation" has long been viewed by the US as a critical and global national interest. Launched in 1979, the US' "Freedom of Navigation Program" continues to use military force to challenge coastal states' claims. The US conducts these operations globally, targeting what it calls "excessive maritime claims," relying on its navy and air force's global projection capabilities, characterized by clear displays of military power. Since the 1992 Fiscal Year, the US Department of Defense has annually listed its navy's "freedom of navigation operations." Since 1993, these operations have challenged over 15 countries or regions annually, remaining at a high frequency over the past decade.
As early as 1982, the United States explicitly classified "contain[ing] requirements for advance notification or authorization for warships/naval auxiliaries or apply[ing] discriminatory requirements to such vessels" as one of the "excessive maritime claims." To this end, the US Navy has repeatedly and continuously entered into the territorial seas of other States worldwide for many years, aiming to challenge the requirement that foreign warships must give prior notification or receive authorization before entering territorial seas, per the report.
In the US Department of Defense's "Annual Freedom of Navigation Report" for FY 2023, 13 claims from 11 states or regions directly involved restrictions on passage through territorial seas by foreign military vessels. Among them, China's regulation requiring prior authorization for foreign military vessels to enter its territorial seas has been the US Navy's primary target for many years. Since FY 2007, challenges against this Chinese regulation have been uninterrupted.
"One core purpose of releasing this report is to effectively uphold the international rule of law," Xu Heyun, the deputy director of China Institute for Marine Affairs under China's Ministry of Natural Resources, said at Monday's press conference. "The US employs blatant double standards, using international law when it suits the US and discarding it when it doesn't, severely undermining it. This report aims to restore an objective and fair interpretation of maritime law."
Saturday, August 23, 2025
Thursday, August 21, 2025
Ode To The Motherland is China's anthem of pride and "The Voice of Hearts " of the Chinese nation and people. Friday, 22nd Aug 2025
ARTS / MUSIC
How one song becomes China’s anthem of pride
‘Voice of hearts’
Chinese fans sing Ode to the Motherland at the FIBA Asian Cup game in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on August 16, 2025. Photo: VCG
Despite a narrow FIBA Asian Cup title miss after a one-point defeat to Australian in the final on Sunday, the whole stadium of Chinese fans in Saudi Arabia sang Ode to the Motherland in acknowledgement to the Chinese national men's basketball team's best result in the tournament in the past decade.From the triumphant chorus in Changsha, Central China's Hunan Province in 2015 to the emotional rendition in Saudi Arabia, the song witnessed the Chinese team's rebound from a long struggle on the international stage and the emergence of a promising young generation of players.
"When the entire stadium of Chinese fans sang Ode to the Motherland, my eyes were filled with tears," said one social media user on China's lifestyle sharing platform Xiaohongshu after the final.
From celebrations commemorating the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China at Tiananmen Square on October 1, 2019, to the opening ceremony of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, and the successful launch of China's first manned spacecraft in 2003, Ode to the Motherland has borne witness to China's glorious moments and given voice to many generations' sincere love for their country since its birth in 1950.
Shi Yibing, a researcher at the Institute of Music Research at the Chinese National Academy of Arts, told the Global Time that the song is a timeless classic that transcends eras and has long become the ceremonial soundtrack to the nation's major official events.
Although the melody follows a Western major scale, the lyrics possess a distinctly "Chinese character" - majestic, composed and unhurried - highlighting the confidence and pride of Chinese people who have stood up, said Shi.
Today, with China's national strength vastly transformed, this song is not only the clarion call of China's "standing up," but also a reflection of its journey to becoming prosperous and strong, Shi noted.
When celebrating the 25th anniversary of Macao's return to the motherland at the Macao East Asian Games Dome in December 2024, the audience joined together in singing Ode to the Motherland with great pride and hope for the future, wishing for the nation's prosperity, peace and stability, as well as for Macao's continued progress and renewed brilliance.
Completed in one sitting
The creator of Ode to the Motherland is Wang Shen, a renowned Chinese musician from Dangkou township, Wuxi, in East China's Jiangsu Province. Hua Yi, director of the Wang Shen Memorial Hall, shared the story behind the song's creation with the Global Times on Tuesday.
In the autumn of 1950, as the People's Republic of China was about to celebrate its first anniversary, the Five-Starred Red Flag fluttered under the blue sky, and the Tiananmen Square was filled with jubilation. Wang traveled from Tianjin to Beijing to purchase musical instruments and witnessed the flag-raising ceremony at the Tiananmen Square.
Moved by the scene, inspiration struck Wang. On the train back to Tianjin, his thoughts raced. He began singing, writing and tapping out the rhythm, with both the lyrics and the melody pouring out almost simultaneously. He completed the opening section of Ode to the Motherland in one sitting, according to Hua.
Hua specifically mentioned that Wang didn't have any paper on hand at the time, so he composed the song on the back of a discarded cigarette pack, using a pen that had been gifted to him by his teacher, Xian Xinghai, the well-known composer of the Yellow River Cantata.
After returning home, Wang stayed up for several nights to finish the remainder of the song. On September 15, 1951, the People's Daily dedicated nearly half a page to recommending the song to the entire nation. By National Day, the song had swept across the nation and was widely sung. Since then, the influence of Ode to the Motherland has continued to grow, and in 1993, it was selected as one of the "Chinese Music Classics of the 20th Century."
Outpouring of passion
Wang passed away in Tianjin in 2007 at the age of 89. Just a year later, at the opening ceremony of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, a children's choir performed Ode to the Motherland, and the song resonated around the world.
What left the deepest impression on Hua, he recalled, was a remark Wang made when looking back on his life in his later years: "Although I composed many pieces in my lifetime, I believe I only wrote two songs. One is Ode to the Motherland, composed with musical notes, and the other is Ode to the Motherland, which I am still composing with my heart."
The song may appear to have been a sudden burst of inspiration for Wang on the eve of National Day in 1950, but it was in fact the outpouring of passion that had taken shape through his many years of revolutionary work - during his studies in Yan'an, Northwest China's Shaanxi Province and his service in the provinces of Hebei and Shanxi, Shi said.
It was not merely his personal expression, but the collective voice of an entire generation of revolutionaries. On the eve of China's first National Day, he saw the national flag fluttering in the wind at the Tiananmen Square. This vivid imagery was captured by the composer and transformed into lyrics, naturally stirring a deep sense of pride, Shi added.
Commenting on the special value of Ode to the Motherland, Feng Jicai, a renowned figure in Chinese literature, painting and cultural preservation, said, "It is the voice of our hearts."
"Whenever we feel a surge of passion for our country, when our hearts are filled with emotions for the nation, or when we want to express our pride and sense of honor, we naturally sing this song," Feng said.
The manuscript of Ode to the Motherland Photo: Courtesy of Wang Shen Memorial Hall
Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Sunday, August 17, 2025
Monday, August 11, 2025
Thursday, August 7, 2025
Wednesday, August 6, 2025
Sunday, August 3, 2025
Counterpunch: The U.S> advances its dystopian plan to destroy China. Megan Russell; 01-08-2025 Friday
August 1, 2025
The U.S. Advances Its Dystopian Plan to Destroy China
Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
Imagine: it’s the summer of 2025, and the United States has been surrounded by foreign military bases. The bases have been built by some antagonistic country on the other side of the world that drones on about the inevitability of war. Leaders of the nation pump billions into their military, drumming up advanced AI weaponry, building long-range ballistic missile systems targeting the most populated U.S. cities, and sending thousands of troops to the Caribbean in preparation. Large-scale war games are held throughout the region, including drills that simulate nuclear war on the U.S. In the next two years, they say. War is coming, and we need to be ready. Meanwhile, back on domestic soil, the nation’s top thinkers gather to plan the collapse of the U.S. government, releasing a 120-page document outlining the steps to take after the war leaves nothing but dust and instability behind.
But wait. You don’t need to imagine. That is happening, just not to the United States. No, the U.S. is not the victim at all—the U.S. is the antagonistic country on the other side of the world, bloating its military, prepping for war, and outlining the collapse of another nation’s government.
The U.S. has built over 300 military bases in the Asia Pacific alone, installed long-range missile systems pointed at China’s largest cities, and held joint war exercises with regional allies simulating nuclear war with China. And just last week, the federally funded Hudson Institute released its 128-page plan for the collapse of China’s government.
Western media tells you that China is the most aggressive nation on earth, but China has shown extreme restraint in the face of US military buildup and hostile rhetoric calling for war. If the opposite were true—if China had surrounded the U.S. with missiles, troops, and bases—the U.S. would have already considered that an act of war. Just think back to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the installation of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba almost led to the U.S. declaring full-scale nuclear war.
Luckily, the facts speak louder than U.S. war propaganda, and these are the facts: the US has over 900 foreign military bases, while China has just one. The US has surrounded China with over 300 military bases, while China has zero in the entire Western Hemisphere. The US has launched 251 military interventions since just 1991, while China hasn’t intervened in any country for 50 years.
And on July 10, 2025, the U.S. and its allies began conducting the largest military exercises in the Pacific since World War II. Nicknamed Resolute Force Pacific, or REFORPAC 2025, the exercise will involve over 350 aircraft, more than 12,000 service members, and will take place at more than 50 locations across 3,000 miles in the Pacific, including Hawaii, Guam, Japan, and international airspace. The US Air Force says these exercises will “prove how we’ll fight and win” a war against China.
China’s “acts of aggression,” as labeled by mainstream Western media, are often just its own defensive military exercises that it conducts in response to the constant war games off its shores. But please, let’s be honest with ourselves—what country wouldn’t respond that way? If anything, it’s an act of restraint to clear preparation for war.
Just last week, the Hudson Institute (which has received millions from the U.S. Department of Defense) held a conference to discuss the collapse of China’s government and released a 128-page document outlining the plan. The document is heinous and dystopian, outlining a gradual invasion of China through clandestine information campaigns, cultural and psychological restructuring, military intervention, and an overall manipulation of the soul of China from the shadows.
Phase 0 will begin before the collapse. U.S. Special Operations Forces will use psychological and political warfare to sow division between the government, the military, and the people—the government has already funded billions of U.S. tax dollars to do just that. They plan to twist narratives to undermine China’s history, exploit trauma, and mock the CPC through information campaigns. Phase 1 will go into play after China’s collapse, which is U.S. occupation in everything but name. U.S. forces will be deployed to China’s cities and embedded into China’s military. A new puppet government will adhere to the whims of U.S. leaders. Anyone sympathetic to the CPC will be “controlled” while U.S. forces conduct action raids to secure nuclear weapons. And finally, Phase 2 will attempt to rewrite national consciousness by installing a U.S.-approved version of history. They will create a “Voice of China” modeled after the “Voice of America,” the people will be re-educated about the evils of communism, and a “sad but transparent” period of national mourning will pave the way to a new China shaped entirely by the United States.
The rest of the document outlines how to precisely target China’s facilities, restructure China’s financial system to suit U.S. interests, secure assets, restructure the military, and conduct a “reconciliation” campaign. At the end, the document mentions an imaginary, arbitrarily drawn line across China separating East from West, and discusses potentially splitting or partitioning territories. It also considers name changes for China, such as Taiwan or the Chinese Federal Republic.
The document is as Orwellian as it sounds, written by “experts” such as Miles Yu, Ryan Clarke, and Gordon G. Chang. Chang is one of the most frequently cited “China experts” in the U.S., but he’s not an expert so much as a propaganda mouthpiece. He has built an entire career out of making bold, spectacularly wrong predictions about China’s collapse, all while reinforcing U.S. imperial talking points.
His most infamous claim came in his 2001 book, “The Coming Collapse of China”, in which he confidently declared that the Chinese Communist Party would fall by 2011 at the latest. When that didn’t happen, he extended the deadline… and extended it again. He even made Foreign Policy’s “10 Worst Predictions of the Year” twice. Over two decades later, not only has China not collapsed, but grown into one of the world’s most powerful economies and a leading force in global diplomacy and development.
Despite his long track record of failure, Chang remains a regular on Fox News, a speaker at military think tanks like the Hudson Institute, and a go-to figure for anti-China hardliners in Washington. Why? Because he tells them exactly what they want to hear. His role is simply to justify aggression, stir up fear, and promote regime change narratives under the cover of “expertise.” In truth, Gordon C. Chang is no more than a state-aligned propagandist, useful only because he reinforces the U.S. imperial worldview so Congress can use more of your tax dollars to go to war on China.
People like Chang will keep returning to live Congressional hearings and federally funded organizations like the Hudson Institute to justify U.S. war and domination abroad. It’s time to demand that lying imperial mouthpieces like Chang no longer get uplifted to be used as a means for global death and destruction—not in Congress, in academia, or anywhere. We must reject the path of endless war and build a world based on mutual respect, not militarism. But that future requires us to stop imagining that we are always the victims and start recognizing when we are the aggressors.
NEO: Declaration of Dependence: How the US turns allies into hostages of its fears: 03-08-2025
Declaration of Dependence: How the U.S. Turns Allies into Hostages of Its Fears
August 03, 2025
The TALISMAN SABRE exercises unfold not as a demonstration of partnership but as a military ritual of loyalty. The Pentagon demands an oath.
The question posed to Japan and Australia sounds like a test of obedience: will you fight if we decide to attack China? This is not a negotiation about security. This is an exam in submission. The region hears a warning wrapped in the polite vocabulary of diplomacy. Allied commitments are transformed into promissory notes that Washington will cash in the moment it declares the crisis real.
This framing exposes the true nature of the modern Anglo‑American architecture. Outwardly, it markets the word “alliance.” In practice, it assigns roles in which the center makes decisions and the periphery consents to be an instrument. These processes are accelerating. Trust is eroding. States across the region increasingly view autonomy as a condition for survival rather than a matter of pride.
The New Tone of American Demands
Elbridge Colby delivers a formula that reads as anxiety rather than strength. For decades, the U.S. hid behind strategic ambiguity on Taiwan. Now it demands clarity from others while reserving the right to act without commitments of its own. It is an ultimatum disguised as a diplomatic inquiry. Alliances no longer resemble multilateral frameworks. They look like safety ropes tied to a single center of power.
America will continue to apply pressure, but its power is already poisoned by its own anxiety
This shift grows out of an internal fear of losing control. America’s political class sees the regional stage fragmenting into independent poles of influence. The public call for a “clear answer” is an attempt to freeze fluid processes. Washington rushes to lock in loyalty while its ability to dictate terms still appears intact. Similar efforts to impose control have already surfaced in U.S. policy toward Asia, where every new fault line is drawn like a carbon copy of older scenarios — from Ukraine to Taiwan.
The Allies’ Response: Quiet but Unequivocal Resistance
Australia replies with a cautious formula: any decision to join a conflict will be made by the government of the day. The phrasing sounds dry, yet it carries the memory of the historical costs of other people’s wars — wars Canberra joined out of habit. Premature promises no longer appear as acts of solidarity. They look like bets on someone else’s script.
Japan chooses an even dimmer register. Tokyo warns its companies operating in Taiwan that evacuation cannot be guaranteed. The statement reflects a cold recognition of the limits of Japanese policy. Constitutional constraints and public opinion remain lines that cannot be crossed without triggering an internal crisis. The warning from government officials effectively shifted responsibility for safety onto businesses themselves, underscoring the inequality of allied obligations and turning even corporate structures into hostages of geopolitics.
Sovereignty as Obligation
In Asia, sovereignty has always been born from pain rather than declarations. It was never granted by triumphant conferences. It was clawed out from under the dictates of foreign flags and military bases that lingered long after wars were declared over. In Japan’s experience, this pain is encoded in its very Constitution. Shinzo Abe tried to rewrite that text not out of ambition but out of a need to lift the country from its perpetual status as a limited subject. His course remained unfinished, yet it became a reference point. In Tokyo’s answers today, there is an echo of that past effort: a cautious attempt to keep distance without openly defying those who still see Japan as a forward operating post
Across Asia, sovereignty has never been a symbolic gesture. It has been understood as an obligation — the work of holding a course in waters where navigation is charted by foreign fleets. And when the Pentagon demands an oath of loyalty, Japan’s leadership measures every step against the memory of an era when decisions were made far from Tokyo or Canberra. That memory makes their responses restrained, yet hardly colorless. Inside them is the quiet statement: we remember what happened when we stayed silent. In the background, the structure of dependence remains visible — especially where U.S. industrial and logistics programs continue to tighten their grip on so-called allies, dressing political control in the technical language of capacity-building.
Geopolitical Blackmail and Its Consequences
The American demand for a “clear answer” functions as a soft form of blackmail. It does not come with overt threats. It comes with the weight of expectation. Allies know: refusal will be read as betrayal; agreement will be read as unconditional capitulation. The architecture of alliances creates the illusion of choice, but the very form of the question removes alternatives. This is the discipline of empire — the periphery is expected to be predictable.
Against this backdrop, the ostentatious demonstration of U.S. and Australian multi‑tier strike capabilities during the TALISMAN SABRE drills becomes less a military exercise than a visual proof that the alliance works one‑way — under someone else’s command.
Domestic debates in Japan and Australia increasingly reveal fatigue with this pressure. Meanwhile, Pentagon briefings praise unprecedented integration of HIMARS and Typhon systems, parading it as proof of multilateral unity, even as the actual political will of allies remains fragile.
Asia Confronting Foreign Wars and Its Own Obligations
The moment Washington demands signatures for participation in war becomes a litmus test for the entire region. Formal treaties are no longer read as guarantees. They appear as obligations that will be paid for with domestic security. The allies’ responses — cautious, elliptical, restrained — are not expressions of apathy. They reveal a growing awareness that the old order is splintering, and that someone else’s wars could tear apart the internal fabric of their societies.
The region enters a phase where autonomy ceases to be a luxury and becomes a condition for survival. Memories of colonial wars and postwar bases, of obligations dictated from abroad, turn today’s caution into a shield rather than a weakness. Here, sovereignty is no slogan. It is a heavy duty weighed against the cost of miscalculation. America will continue to apply pressure, but its power is already poisoned by its own anxiety. Asia is learning to speak softly in order to preserve the right to act loudly when the moment arrives.
Rebecca Chan, Independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty
More on this topic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)