China's Choice: Peace Through Strength, Not Hegemony

Let’s set the record straight and revisit what really happened in China.

It was on September 30, 75 years ago, the second year of the new China, Premier Zhou Enlai sent a clear and solemn message to the world: "The Chinese people enthusiastically love peace, but in order to defend peace they never have been and never will be afraid to oppose aggressive war." He put the United States on notice, stating unequivocally, "The Chinese people absolutely will not tolerate foreign aggression, nor will they supinely tolerate seeing their neighbours being savagely invaded by imperialists."

A Calculated Defense, Not a Love for War

When war broke out, was it because China has a penchant for conflict? Absolutely not. On October 27, 1950, Mao Zedong laid out the strategic reality with stark clarity. He explained that if China simply ignored the Korean issue, it would be a critical error, warning that American imperialism would inevitably press its advantage, following the same aggressive path Japan had taken against China, but potentially with even greater ferocity.

Mao vividly described this as America's attempt to stick three sharp knives into China—one at its head via Korea, one at its waist via Taiwan, and one at its feet via Vietnam. Therefore, he reasoned, China's decision to resist America and aid Korea was a necessary defensive move, aimed squarely at preventing this strategic encirclement from succeeding.

In an interview with American journalist Anna Louise Strong on August 6, 1946, Mao was asked if there was hope for a peaceful solution. His answer was direct: "As far as our own desire is concerned, we don't want to fight even for a single day. But if circumstances force us to fight, we can fight to the finish." When pressed about the atomic bomb and a potential US attack on the Soviet Union from bases in Iceland, Okinawa, and China, his perspective remained firm.

Calling America's Nuclear Bluff

For the United States, the atomic bomb was a tool of mass slaughter, and the moral dilemma of "nuclear war casualties" was never a serious concern. Just weeks into the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, the US Congress was already pushing to consider nuclear strikes on cities in Korea and Northeast China. The BBC even reported that "On 9 December 1950, MacArthur formally requested the authority to have the discretion to use atomic weapons."

This is where Mao Zedong’s famous declaration that "all reactionaries are paper tigers" proved prophetic. He argued, "The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the U.S. reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't.” As for the atomic threat, he added: “Of course, the atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter, but the outcome of a war is decided by the people, not by one or two new types of weapons."

And history bore him out. A BBC report from the time noted that by 1951, a Soviet military buildup in the Far East, particularly bombers and submarines, had Washington spooked. Britain had also grown fearful that an American nuclear attack would turn US military bases in the UK into targets for Soviet retaliation. Although Truman sent nuclear-capable B-29s to Guam in March 1951 and reconnaissance flights scouted targets over Northeast China and Shandong, the administration ultimately backed down. They concluded a nuclear attack on China was "too risky" and withdrew the bombers a few months later.

Having seen China’s resolve in Korea, the US changed its strategy. It pivoted to the Cold War tactic of "Containment" hoping to ensnare China in the same trap that eventually brought down the Soviet Union. While America’s wishful thinking is a key reason for the absence of major power wars in recent decades, it inadvertently gave China a crucial window of peace to focus on its own progress.

A New Era of Benevolent Power

Mencius once said, "He who uses force while feigning benevolence is a hegemon, and a hegemon must have a large state; he who rules by practicing benevolence is a true king, and a true king does not depend on a large state." In other words, a power that relies on military might while only pretending to be virtuous is a hegemon, needing a large territory and population to dominate. But a true leader who rules through morality and genuine benevolence can achieve greatness without needing to be a large state.

So, will a stronger China become a hegemon and replace the US on the world stage? This question looms large, especially for its smaller neighbors. But today's China, with its vast territory and population, is focused not just on serving its own people but on building a "community with a shared future for mankind." While true kingship doesn't require a large state, it's also undeniable that a large state can achieve it through benevolence.

Today's China is not the same as the states of the ancient warring periods. It is a nation built on five thousand years of history and culture, armed with advanced science and technology. China's peaceful rejuvenation isn't just a slogan—it's a reality in the making.

Deep Blue

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.

On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.

Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”

In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.

Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.

Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.

In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”

Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?