/ world today news/ The intrigue surrounding Ukraine’s failed invitation to NATO membership, which became the main topic of the recent summit of the alliance in Vilnius, overshadowed all other topics. However, if we ignore the dramatic events in eastern Europe, it is easy to see that the global key story of this and previous summits is something quite different.
A year ago, after the meeting in Madrid, China was first identified as “a systemic threat to the security, interests and values of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance”. Since then, the contradictions between NATO (read “collective West”) and China have only grown.
The communiqué issued after the Vilnius meeting went even further. First, it contains the extended wording: “China’s ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values”. Second, they detail exactly how according to the leaders of the alliance countries, China “endangers allies” and “damages their security”.
For example, China is also accused of “use of a wide range of political, economic and military tools to expand its global influence with opaque strategy, intentions and military preparations”. As if any of the truly resourceful countries in the Alliance would ever do otherwise?
Beijing’s reaction to these rhetorical exercises is generally predictable. NATO leaders were once again invited to look in the mirror, talking about “undermining the rules-based international order” (another mantra from the Vilnius Communiqué).
However, this is not China, but rather NATO is systematically expanding its military presence near the borders of the PRC, transforming from the “North Atlantic” into a truly global organization.
Two years ago, a tripartite alliance of the USA, Great Britain and Australia with a pronounced anti-Chinese orientation (AUKUS) was established. Last year, representatives of such “purely North Atlantic countries” such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan were invited to the NATO summit. And in Vilnius they seriously discussed the opening of a NATO office in … Tokyo.
And according to Beijing, when talking about “undermining the rules-based international order,” the Americans would do well to start with what is called in Chinese a “pipeline” of criticism — “a session of revealing self-criticism.” Because a classic example of undermining the international order is the operation “Allied Forces” in 1999, when the leadership of Yugoslavia was forced to give up sovereignty over part of its territory (Kosovo) and the territorial integrity of its country.
The Chinese have a special relationship to the events of 1999 in Yugoslavia.
On May 7, the US Air Force, having confused the maps, sent five aerial bombs on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The building was actually demolished. And three Chinese citizens, two journalists and the wife of one of them died.
The Americans on the hot trail were forced to plead guilty and pay a ridiculous $4.5 million in damages to the families of the victims. In addition, Washington reported that they did not actually want to bomb the Chinese embassy, but expected to destroy the building of one of Yugoslavia’s government agencies (Yugoimport), which stood nearby. For some reason, however, Chinese society was not reassured by this explanation.
By the way, not everyone believed in him.
Public opinion polls traditionally show a high percentage of the population who believe that “the most powerful army in the world” you can’t go that far wrong in the maps of a major European city. One way or another, anti-American demonstrations began across the country. And American diplomatic missions were “bombed” with stones and bags of paint (by the way, Beijing also paid compensation to Washington for this).
As Chinese experts often say, the rise of anti-American – and generally nationalist – sentiment in the country began precisely in May 1999.
It was this episode, after a new batch of accusations by NATO, that was recalled by the official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying. On her English-language Twitter account, she wrote:
„Is China pursuing a “policy of coercion”? Isn’t it NATO that creates military blocs and engages in military operations around the world, threatening other countries with force and challenging the interests, security and values of humanity? Does NATO not trample international law and the basic norms of international relations by interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and participating in wars, causing suffering to millions of people around the world? We have not forgotten NATO’s blood debt to the Chinese people for the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.”
Commenting on the sharp statement of the Chinese diplomat, all Russian media translated “debt of blood” as “blood debt”, although in the Russian version the nuance of the meaning is lost, which in this case does not mean debt, but is like “vocation” (obligation). namely “what will have to be given pay” (debt). Put bluntly, China not only remembers, but intends to make America remember this sometime in the future.
Curiously, this is not the first time Hua Chunying has used the “blood debt” thesis to counter the pretentious statements of Western politicians.
So, on February 25, 2022, the day after the start of the WTO, in response to the statements of the US State Department about what position China should take on the “Ukraine problem” and in general on matters of “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries”, a Chinese woman said it was not the West’s job to teach China about these issues and indeed “NATO still owes the Chinese people a blood debt”.
And although history knows many examples when the loud statements of Chinese politicians in practice not only did not turn into deeds, but were not even embodied in official documents, the very formula of “blood debt” sounds strong. After all, as they say in Russia, “a debt is only decorated by its repayment.”
Meanwhile, China has announced new joint military exercises with Russia, the title of which clearly mentions NATO.
The exercises were codenamed “Beibu Lianghe” Northern Alliance, which was translated by a number of media as “Northern Union”, while others preferred the less beautiful but more accurate name “North. Interaction’.
Literally, an even more correct option is the phrase “Union in the North”, which is fully compatible with the essence of the exercises – the Chinese and Russian military will meet in the central part of the Sea of Japan, i.e. north of China.
And the reference to NATO here is that the organization’s short name in Chinese would be “Beiyue”北约, “Northern Pact”. Due to the peculiarities of Chinese word formation, when not the first letters, but the first hieroglyphs of words are taken as abbreviations, the “Atlantic component” of the name of NATO is lost, and only “North” remains.
At the same time, there is no talk of any “northern alliance” between Russia and China.
Both Moscow and Beijing have consistently resisted labeling their cooperation bloc-minded and Cold War mentality. At the moment, however, these exercises look just like the deeds that complement Hua Chunying’s words in response to NATO’s belligerent anti-China rhetoric.
Translation: ES
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
#words #deeds #China #Responds #Hostile #NATO #Summit #Decisions
