© RIA Novosti / Alexander Kondratyuk
Your country for the first time in history called “the challenge” for NATO, a military Alliance of 29 Western countries, including the United States: how to respond? China — and that it was a “challenge,” first, made a very long pause on the part of the reaction. Second, this was followed by diplomatic smile from ear to ear: the news is good. Their point is that NATO members had differing opinions about China.Literally: passed last week, the London communiqué States that “the growing influence and foreign policies of China represent both opportunities and a challenge to which we must respond together, as an Alliance”. And — also literally — the response to this representative of the Chinese Ministry of foreign Affairs (above the silence): despite the efforts of the United States, some NATO members did not cling to China the label of enemy.And that’s very late (understand the situation) followed, finally, a comment in Renmin Ribao. It turns out that on the eve of the summit, there was an active processing of the allies: Secretary of state Michael Pompeo told them that China “is a huge threat” to Alliance. And Kyle Hutchison, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, told me that China today is, again, a threat, and this country, it’s time to “respect the global rules.”The result — see above. Actually best known not a short written “Chinese” lines about the “opportunity and challenge”, and the review of the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: China is “coming closer” to change the global balance of forces, but the Alliance “doesn’t want to create new enemies” and to get involved in the problems of the South China sea. The President of France Emmanuel macron also said: “China should not be the object of our collective defence <…> in a purely military sense.”
This, of course, the event. And not only for China. Because if NATO members have very different points of view about who their opponent is a military Alliance — that is, against whom the Union is friends, something NATO has a big problem. We seen with regard to Russia, but there are other, more important fault lines in the Western Alliance.Here it is necessary to look at how Chinese experts assess not just the nuances in the various NATO statements, but the essence of what is happening in the world.This is the episode in which the Chinese media is even noticed on the day was the speech on television of the Minister of economy of Germany Peter Altmaier, who explained why his government did not ban the use of Chinese 5G technologies — and those is different, on a global scale, Huawei Corporation. USA is known to put pressure on the allies the idea that the Chinese, if you let them with the latest technology to the West, are all to hear and all to see, for all to follow.
But we’re not satisfied with boycott American technology after it was revealed that the US tapped the phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Altmaier.A bold argument, and here’s how he responded to American diplomacy in the person of Ambassador in Berlin Richard Grenell: to compare the United States and China — that is, we add a hypothetical surveillance of China with real eavesdropping the USA is “an insult to the thousands of American military to ensure the security of Germany, and millions of Americans committed to a strong Western Alliance.” Why the insult? Because “there is no moral equivalent between China and the United States.”Beijing analysts say it that the model itself of the existence of NATO — and the West — since the 90-ies were built on the tripartite formula of “cooperation in defence, supported by economic interdependence and common values”, which in addition was supposed to be the values of “universal”. They are the “moral equivalent”. This formula is now bursting at the seams is just beginning to be applied to relations first with Russia, and now China.The fact that in this scheme, the deadline was the USA: any cooperation between these two, and many other powers of Europe pushes with the European and world markets, the Americans — despite the fact that military spending in this Alliance are rising. Military dominance of the United States makes sense only if it leads to the dominance of economic (over the allies first of all they should not buy from Russia, no gas, no s-400). And connects this design is of questionable moral elements.But still more difficult to notice the Chinese scientists. When it was possible to speak of the US as a whole. And now there are at least two foreign policy toward China — and the world in General.
Both of these concepts — anti-Chinese, but there’s a difference between radical Republicans of the type of Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, authors of many anti-Chinese bills, and Democrats. Democrats oppose everything that makes the trump, including trade wars with China, India, Japan, Brazil and Argentina, not to mention Russia.And what sane foreign policy can there be in such a situation? And then larger European powers — especially Germany and France are to sign a strategic ideas of the United States (as the Chinese call and other things), if they see that in America there are at least two ways of looking at what is happening in the world?Well, let’s not forget the classic Peking reactions, which are offered by experts (and in fact, and the Executive branch). It is necessary not to succumb to provocations in the form of sanctions, tariffs and other things — and to respond to any, no more than is absolutely necessary. And smile be sure to smile.Dmitry Kosyrev