Washington likes to let others solve its problems, but Beijing will not play that game — and is thus described as a disruptive force
by Timur FomenkoPolitical analyst
The United States and the United Kingdom are currently waging a bombing campaign against the Ansar Allah militia in Yemen, known as the Houthis. The Houthis have been responding to the ongoing conflict in Gaza by attacking shipping lanes in the Red Sea, attempting to use the geopolitically important Gulf of Aden to strangle one of the world's most important trade routes, and thus ratcheting up pressure on the West to end the blockade. conflict.
Of course, the United States was completely irrational in its unconditional support for the Israeli military campaign, and instead of confronting the problem directly, it proposed another idea – Outsourcing the blame and solution to China We ask Beijing to help end the conflict. This is not a new tactic by Washington, as it did the same thing in the Russia-Ukraine war, crafting a narrative that this war is China's war. “responsible” And to end it, of course, appropriately and on terms favorable to America.
In reality, the United States has no chance at all of getting China to end these conflicts, primarily because it is in China's interest not to secure outcomes that amount to geopolitical gains for America. However, this is the point in itself, as the US deliberately wants to portray Beijing as such “bad person” Thus pushing the perception that Beijing represents a challenge to the international order and a threat to peace. The United States is actually trying to turn the spotlight on China by making it look morally bad for the conflict that Washington is creating itself and not agreeing to the outcomes that Washington wants. It's a blame game.
American foreign policy has little room for compromise and is driven by a zero-sum mentality that emphasizes absolute strategic gains for the United States at any cost. The United States does not negotiate peace with its adversaries. Rather, it attempts to maintain a long-term strategic position in the hope that they will eventually yield to US preferences through pressure or other means. For example, the US position on the Ukraine war has never been to negotiate with Russia or respect its strategic space, but rather to try to impose a strategic defeat on Moscow and enable further NATO expansion, which in turn constitutes another means of US pressure. Even as this approach proves increasingly ineffective, there is no shift in Washington's foreign policy in sight.
Likewise, the United States was happy to provide unconditional support to Israel in its war in Gaza, even though it claimed to seek peace. Washington allowed the conflict to continue and avoided calling for a ceasefire at any cost. It then responds harshly to the instability created by the conflict, such as attacks by the Houthis. Logically, Houthi attacks would stop if the United States ended the conflict in Gaza, but that is how American foreign policy thinking works. There must never, under any circumstances, be compromises regarding the strategic status quo, but only a redoubling of the current position with any necessary options. This is the thinking that prompted Washington to cancel the Iranian nuclear agreement and allow the collapse of the peace process with North Korea.
Now, the United States is formulating a strategy whereby, when conflict occurs, it attempts to outsource responsibility by blaming China for the absence of peace. As the novel says in general “If China had acted and stopped this, there would have been peace.” Whether it is in Gaza, Yemen, Ukraine or anywhere else. Of course, this peace is strictly conditional on the terms set by the United States, not the terms that China itself might want to set. If Beijing presses for peace but on alternative terms to what America wants, such as trying to mediate in Ukraine instead of pressing for Russia's collapse, These peace terms were quickly rejected and condemned by the mainstream media.
What we have is a no-win situation, where Beijing is portrayed as a permanent force, if not an instigator, in conflicts, no matter what it does. China is portrayed as actively preventing peace, or alternatively, enabling it “the enemy” side to continue its perceived aggression and offer terms that favor it “the enemy,” It is therefore complicit in hostility towards the West. Therefore, China is considered a threat to the international order and world peace unless it agrees to what the United States specifically wants, which naturally works against the interests of China as a whole. Why, for example, would China agree to paralyze Russia? Or will it turn against its strategic partner, Iran? This narrative always deliberately ignores the role the United States has played in inciting, escalating, and perpetuating existing conflicts, and pushing for more conflicts. “Good versus evil” Dualism rather than recognition of complex geopolitical realities.
In fact, China is always careful not to openly take sides in such conflicts and strives to achieve balance, as when it mediated between Iran and Saudi Arabia. But for the United States, which only thinks about zero-sum political gains rather than a peace that serves everyone's interests, this will be completely unacceptable. Therefore, China remains evil and a threat.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of RT.
You can share this story on social media: