The Vice president of China termed the US Indp-pacific plan as hazardous as the expansion of NATO in Europe. According to a prominent Chinese official, the US Indo-Pacific policy and the formation of groups like the Quad are “as dangerous” as NATO’s eastward advance in Europe.
The Ukraine crisis “provides a mirror for us to observe the situation in the Asia-Pacific,” Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng said at a forum in Beijing on Saturday, and the region “faces two opposite choices: should we build an open and inclusive family for win-win cooperation or go for small blocs based on the Cold War mentality and group confrontation?”
The expansion of NATO, according to Chinese officials, is to blame for the conflict in Ukraine. China, like India, has voted against UN sanctions against Russia. Beijing, on the other hand, has gone further, blaming the situation on the US and NATO and demanding that Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” be addressed.
While there have been some broad similarities in China and India’s responses to Ukraine — from abstaining at the UN to calling for diplomacy and focusing on the evacuation of their citizens — one notable difference has been China’s linking of NATO’s actions in Europe with those of the US and its Asian partners and allies.
Mr. Le, a former Ambassador to India, is expected to become China’s next Foreign Minister or a senior position in the foreign policy establishment following the once-every-five-year Party Congress in November this year, according to several Beijing analysts. Wang Yi, the current Foreign Minister, is set to finish his tenure in March of next year when the National People’s Congress (NPC) will pick a new Premier and Cabinet Minister.
China termed NATO’s activities dangerous in Europe
Mr. Le likened NATO’s activities in Europe — which many observers in Beijing say justified Russia’s invasion, despite the fact that China’s government has not openly stated so — to those of the US in Asia, warning that a catastrophe may ensue.
“No country should pursue its ostensibly absolute security at the expense of the security of other nations.” Otherwise, as the saying goes, “one who tries to blow out another’s oil lamp will catch fire in his beard.” We must treat each other with respect and refrain from interfering in the private lives of others. “There is no need for saviors or ‘lecturers,’ and imposition or intervention in others’ domestic matters should be resisted,” he stated.
Mr. Le stated, “Going against the trend to pursue the Indo-Pacific strategy, causing difficulty, forming closed and exclusive little circles or groups, and leading the area off course toward fragmentation and the bloc-based split is as dangerous as NATO’s eastward expansion strategy in Europe.” “If allowed to continue unchecked, it will have unthinkable implications, pushing the Asia-Pacific to the brink of disaster.”
Earlier this month, China’s Foreign Minister made a similar statement, specifically mentioning the Quad of the United States, Australia, India, and Japan as a major component of that plan. He compared the Quad to the “Five Eyes” intelligence partnership between Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, as well as the AUKUS (Australia-United Kingdom-United States) defense pact.
Mr. Wang said during the NPC that the US Indo-Pacific strategy “talks multilateralism but in reality promotes exclusive clubs.” “It purports to follow international rules, but in reality sets and enforces laws that benefit itself and its acolytes.” ….The US is staging a ‘5432’ stance in the Asia Pacific, from strengthening the Five Eyes and marketing the Quad to putting together the AUKUS security partnership and bolstering bilateral military ties. The Indo-Pacific strategy’s true purpose is to create an Indo-Pacific version of NATO.”
Members of the Quad have rebuffed such labels, pointing to the group’s comprehensive cooperation, which includes vaccinations and supply chains.
“There are interested parties that propagate that kind of analogy,” External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar remarked last month. “I would strongly advise you not to fall into the easy analogy of an Asian-NATO,” he remarked, pointing out that India was not a treaty ally of the United States. “We’re not a treaty partner.” It lacks a treaty, a framework, or a secretariat; rather, it’s a 21st-century response to a more diverse, dispersed globe.”