NATO Summit: Meibao hides "disaster", NATO "going against the current" may be difficult to become

Lu Yunmou European Institute of Modern International Relations

From June 29th to 30th, the summit of the NATO member states was held in the Spanish capital Madrid, adopting the new version of the "strategic concept" that reflects NATO's common threat to cognition and guides NATO in the next ten years. It is worth noting that for the first time NATO incorporated the "China Challenge" statement into it, and it is arrogant to call China challenge NATO's "interests, security and values", and "destroy the rules -based international order" with Russia. "". This marks that NATO officially will jointly jointly enter the future of the future to enter the future.

The NATO Summit takes the opportunity to increase the "China Challenge", the United States is the biggest promotion factor

After the Cold War ended, NATO, as the previous hegemony tool of Laou's anti -Soviet hegemony, began to find a transformation of its own existence. In order to cater to the strategic concern of the United States, NATO adheres to the concept of "not being out of the circle, and out of the situation", and gradually extends out of the traditional European -Atlantic defense zone. "". At the same time, NATO has continuously continued the concept of security security, trying to replicate the "NATO model" to multiple fields such as the defense industry, key technologies, infrastructure, food safety, climate change, and new crown pneumonia epidemic. The scope of application of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Convention expands to the "new territory" such as the network and space.

As the US government regained the "Cold War Thinking", NATO seemed to have found a new "use of martial arts" to step up strategic cooperation with the United States. The European think tank analysis said that NATO's withdrawal from Afghanistan seemed to be ashamed, but it actually cooperated with the United States to take the energy to return to the big country to compete. The US media "Foreign Policy" website also published an article that Russia and Ukraine did not bring NATO's attention from China, but instead have an opportunity to bundle China and Russia.

The United States also pushed NATO's involvement in the Asia -Pacific region. Former President Trump has urged NATO to target China. Biden also adhered to similar thinking, actively encouraged the Asia -Pacific allies in the United States to go back with NATO, and stepped up the integrated pace of the two major alliance systems in Europe and Asia. The NATO summit rendered the "China Challenge" by the new "strategic concept". The essence was also another attempt for the United States to close the threat of the allies and integrate the surrounding tools. The Associated Press commented that the new "strategic concept" was written into the "China Challenge", which means that many US presidents borrowed the WAB from NATO and Hua Hui approached.

After changing the policy of China, NATO's position accelerated to the US positioning to the United States

In fact, this is not the first time that NATO has included China into its "security vision". In 1999, NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia and seriously violated Chinese sovereignty. However, at the beginning of the 21st century, as NATO gradually shifted its strategic focus to counter -terrorism and crisis management, its attitude towards China gradually eased. In 2002, NATO and China launched a bilateral political dialogue and decided to carry out "selective cooperation" on common security challenges. NATO has gradually regarded China as a partner that combats pirates, counter -terrorism, and maintaining regional stability.

However, with the intensification of the Sino -US game, NATO's statement has shifted to tighten step by step. In 2019, in the "London Declaration" released after the London Summit, NATO defined China as "opportunities" and "security challenges" for the first time. In the "NATO 2030" evaluation documents released at the end of 2020, the NATO working group was inspired by the EU's triple positioning of China. Essence It is worth mentioning that the reason why NATO starts the 2030 evaluation process is considered to consolidate consensus among allies. The working group is also hosted by American and European experts. Positioning is reaching consensus.

In June 2021, NATO's joint statement after the summit clarified China's "systemic competition" positioning, saying that China and NATO values ​​were "running counter", which constituted a systematic challenge to NATO security and so -called "rules -based international order", but It is still ready to carry out a "constructive dialogue" with China in terms of climate change. The new "strategic concept" of NATO and the joint statement after the meeting deleted the relevant expressions of cooperation with China, which greatly enhanced the competition between the relationship between the two parties. NATO's position accelerated the positioning of the United States to the United States.

In Europe and the United States, there are many controversy in the statement of China, and NATO is "going against the current".

However, in the "strategic concept", there is a certain degree of difference between "challenge" and describing the term "threat" described by Russia. From this place, it can be seen that NATO member states, especially in Europe and the United States, are difficult for NATO's functional positioning and threat cognitive differences. Essence According to Reuters, Europe and the United States have argued more in Europe and the United States during the drafting of "strategic concepts". NATO Secretary -General Stoltenberg also admitted that consensus between member states condensed the road and long.

It can be seen that NATO's acts of ideological lines and promoting cold war thinking are unpopular, and they do not meet the trend of peace and development. The US Think Tank Strategy and International Research Institute also published a warning to NATO that China is not a military threat of NATO and should not look at China's rise in a dual -opposite way. NATO official think tank NATO Institute also suggested NATO not to diversify China, "the necessity of formulating a military strategy in China is doubtful."

- END -