On August 20, a new collision occurred between a Chinese Coast Guard vessel and a Filipino ship, causing damage to both vessels in a new wave of escalation between the two countries in the South China Sea.
Some may view this incident as accidental, especially since ship collisions are not uncommon in a region rife with tensions on various fronts. However, given it involves a Filipino ship and a Chinese vessel, this raises suspicions and expectations that the incident may have been contrived in the context of the recent dispute between the two nations following the incident with Filipino missiles.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had previously warned the Philippines against deploying American medium-range missiles during the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meeting in the Laotian capital last July, stating, “Such a move could fuel regional tensions and initiate an arms race.” In contrast, Filipino Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo asserted that “this deployment is temporary and not directed against any specific countries.”
In August 1962, the governments of Cuba and the Soviet Union began constructing secret bases for several medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, enabling strikes against most of the continental United States.
Amidst rising geopolitical tensions in Southeast Asia, concerns escalated regarding the U.S. deployment of medium-range missile systems in northern Philippines, causing significant alarm in China. It expressed worries that this military development could destabilize the region, particularly amidst the growing conflict over the South China Sea.
It seems history is rewriting itself through its crises, as if the United States deliberately employs double standards in similar recurring events. Washington was the architect of the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 during the Cold War, when it objected to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Today, it is the same America deploying missiles in the Philippines on the border with China, with which it is experiencing a cold war. Will this compel Beijing to respond in kind as Washington did during the Cuban crisis and threaten with widespread nuclear war? Or will it resolve its crisis as Washington has resolved others through diplomatic means?
Returning to the Cuban missile crisis, or the Caribbean Crisis as termed in Russian, it was part of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union allied with Cuba amidst Cold War events. In August 1962, following several failed attempts by the U.S. to overthrow the Cuban regime (the Bay of Pigs invasion and Operation Mongoose), the governments of Cuba and the Soviet Union began building secret bases for medium-range nuclear missiles (IRBMs) and (MRBMs) in Cuba, allowing for a strike on most of the continental United States.
This crisis resolved later that year when U.S. President John F. Kennedy and U.N. Secretary-General U Thant reached an agreement with the Soviets to dismantle the Cuban missile bases, provided the U.S. pledged not to invade Cuba.
The world is currently experiencing “confusions” in its management, especially after the Silk Road reached South America, following the cooperative agreement announced by the presidents of Brazil and China, which diminished U.S. influence as its interests face threats globally.
The Cuban crisis ended days after it ignited, but the Cold War between the communist and liberal poles did not conclude until the collapse of the Soviet Union in early 1991, when liberalism declared its victory globally. This sense of victorious exuberance led radical liberal writer Francis Fukuyama to propose the theory of “the end of history and the triumph of liberalism,” suggesting that the world was progressing on the path of liberalism.
A pattern of conflict has been reshaped with the awakening of the sleeping dragon, which French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had long warned against stirring! It was awakened under the administration of former President Donald Trump, as his administration imposed a series of sanctions on “Huawei,” China’s largest telecommunications giant, aiming to hinder its rise and prevent it from competing against American and Western telecommunications firms, especially after discussions about the company’s advancement into 5G technology.
American policy did not stop at awakening the Chinese dragon; the current administration under President Joe Biden attempted to manage the conflict in Eastern Europe by awakening the Russian bear. It pushed Moscow, under the pretext of protecting its national security, to enter Ukrainian territory (a Washington ally) to establish a buffer zone protecting it from NATO missiles.
The world is experiencing “confusions” in its management, particularly after the Silk Road reached South America, following the cooperative agreement between the presidents of Brazil and China, which has diminished U.S. influence as its interests face global threats, amid international insistence on restructuring the existing system.
The scenario of deploying missiles at the U.S.’s soft underbelly gained Moscow short-term benefits, prompting Washington to withdraw its nuclear-capable missiles stationed in its military bases in Turkey.
Observing current developments, it appears that the current U.S. administration is deliberately exploiting hotspots around the world to ignite conflicts. It seeks to implement a policy of “containment” against rising powers, based on the Greek principle of “Thucydides,” to eliminate all threats to the hegemony represented today by the United States.
Therefore, Washington has identified China as the primary threat to America, believing it is working to shift the global economic center of gravity from New York to Shanghai. This led to U.S. support for Taiwan, which seeks independence from China, and the formation of the regional “Quad” alliance to counter the Chinese influence in the region.
To this end, Biden hosted a summit at his private residence in Delaware on September 21, involving his counterparts from Japan, Australia, and India to discuss the issue of Chinese influence.
The U.S. is working in its policies toward China in a Soviet-style manner, based on scenarios that ignite tensions in multiple regions of the world. The missile deployment scenario at the U.S.’s soft underbelly had previously provided Moscow with immediate gains, prompting Washington to withdraw its nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. Now, Washington is attempting to replicate that scenario but is the one deploying missiles to threaten China’s security.
Is there an American maneuver to draw China into a military confrontation with its surroundings, or is there a waning power that finds itself needing to replicate a previous scenario to regain some of its lost prestige?
