Social Comment: Asia -Pacific countries should not stand under the critical wall of NATO

The NATO Summit began to be held in Madrid, Spain on the 28th. In the eyes of bystanders, the product of this old Cold War was opening the curtain of the "New Cold War". The latest article on the US "Foreign Policy" website clearly clearly uses this NATO summit as a sign for the "New Cold War". ——The leaders in Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand will participate in the meeting for the first time- "The new front is delineated and may continue the time of generations." Behind this somewhat pessimistic judgment reflects the general concerns of the international community on the current situation.

Relevant reports are mentioned almost without exception that in NATO's so -called new "strategic concepts" documents, China will be listed for the first time as "challenge". National Security Consultant Sha Liewen said that NATO will "talk about the challenges brought by China in an unprecedented way." But how to describe China, member states have conducted "fierce discussions."

It is said that unlike the radical attitude towards China in China, France and other countries believe that it should be used to describe China with more sophisticated and more cautious rhetoric. French President Macron had previously warned that NATO should not "disperse himself" and form "prejudice" in the relationship with China. Lithuania and Portuguese diplomats also expressed their concerns about too much attention to China, because NATO countries did not have any direct boundaries with China. This "fierce discussion" itself is enough to show how ridiculous the rhetoric of "China threatened NATO".

Objectively speaking, there are 30 member states in NATO, and the interests of interests and external attitudes cannot be exactly the same, but Washington's strategic will is to form a stronger and stronger stem and abduction of NATO. This makes those countries that want to find a sense of security by joining NATO, in fact, they often become vassals or chess pieces in Washington. As a result, their safety environment not only improved fundamentally, but faced the risk of inferiority. Because in any case, NATO cannot change the nature of its military and political groups, and its existence itself pose a threat to world peace and stability.

Mencius Mencius in China has a saying, "A gentleman is not standing under the wall." To some extent, it can be said that NATO organizations are the largest critical wall in the world today.

NATO's birth has continuously strengthened the security predicament of Europe, and the outbreak of the Russian and Ukraine conflict is the reality of its evil results. It turns out that the pursuit of a unique social comment in the name of collective defense: Asia -Pacific countries should not stand under the critical wall of NATO to the extreme practices of security, and the end is the camp confrontation. In other words, NATO is definitely not a solution to the European security crisis, but poison. If someone scattered such poison to East Asia, which is called "oasis that is peaceful in the world", this behavior is both yin poison and harsh.

Anyway, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, especially Japan and South Korea, should not appear at the conference venue of the NATO Summit. This is a very negative trend. Participating in this Cold War, a strong cross -Atlantic military political rally with strong hostility to China, can it bring to the Asia -Pacific countries and what will they lose? It's not a difficult account.

Closeness with the initiative or passive organization of NATO may be praised by Washington and will have some relationship with this military group. However, the interests of the Asia -Pacific countries are based on the peace and stability of the region. It is a very unwise choice for NATO Asia -Pacific to caters to the wolf into the room. Moreover, this will inevitably hurt mutual trust with China, and it will inevitably pay the price.

The sewage in the Cold War must not flow into the Pacific Ocean, which should be a universal consensus in the Asia -Pacific region. If it is fierce with NATO, it is intentionally or unintentionally introduced to the Asia Pacific, which "is like those who have been drinking, but insist on saying that they have no drunk driving." European security is now in a deadlock that is constantly cutting and chaotic, and all parties are still trying to find a solution, and the Asia -Pacific countries must learn from Europe from a correct perspective.

In short, the various tendencies presented by the NATO summit this time are both wrong and dangerous. For the Asia -Pacific countries, vigilant and opposition to "NATO Asia -Pacific" must be clear that it must be clear and clear. It does not have any "pretending to be drunk" speculative space.

- END -