Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

China's Choice: Peace Through Strength, Not Hegemony

Blog

China's Choice: Peace Through Strength, Not Hegemony
Blog

Blog

China's Choice: Peace Through Strength, Not Hegemony

2025-09-25 14:01 Last Updated At:14:01

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

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Poland just shut down all border crossings with Belarus indefinitely, citing 'national security.' This snips a vital trade route across Eurasia. Oddly, this comes right after Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit to Poland, where both sides signed a deal to keep the China-Europe Railway Express running smoothly.

The Polish government did a complete U-turn, and many see this as a Western power play. Ta Kung Pao called the railway the 'steel camel caravan' linking China and Europe. Since 2011, over 110,000 trains have run, hauling goods worth $450 billion, connecting 128 Chinese cities with 229 across 26 European countries. Poland's prime Central European spot turned it into Eastern Europe's logistics hub, creating tens of thousands of jobs and fueling its economy.

The Grand Chessboard and Eurasian Stakes

So, what's Poland really up to by messing with a lifeline that can't afford even a single day off? What gives Poland the right to play this kind of grand strategy? Time to dust off Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard'—an 80s global strategy classic still packed with truths today.

China is now the world's biggest trade market and top industrial power. Thanks to the China-Europe Railway Express, it's tapped into what the US sees as the ultimate geopolitical prize—the vast Eurasian continent. This rise happens just as the US global power starts to wane, making this all the more sensitive.

Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington both warned: whenever US dominance slips and a new powerful player rises, global chaos looms. They knew the rise and fall of power is unstoppable. But instead of stepping back, they preached pre-emptive tactics—ideas that evolved into America's famous 'soft' and 'smart' power strategies.

US Strategies to Maintain Global Dominance

In Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations,' he argued the West must “achieve greater political, economic, and military integration and to coordinate their policies”, so no other civilizations can go “exploiting differences among them”. His China game plan? “Slow the drift of Japan away from the West and toward accommodation with China”. The most crucial point: "to maintain Western technological and military superiority over other civilizations."

His final advice? Stick close to Europe to protect their shared civilization's values and interests: "Those will best be advanced by eschewing these opposing extremes and instead adopting an Atlanticist policy of close cooperation with its European partners to protect and advance the interests and values of the unique civilization they share."

Brzezinski, an American scholar who was born in Warsaw, pushed Sir Halford Mackinder’s idea of the Eurasian 'Pivot Area,' championing Central and Eastern Europe—the geographical 'heartland'—as America's springboard. He famously quoted Mackinder:

'Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland;

who rules the Heartland commands the World Island;

who rules the World Island commands the world.'

Poland: Just a Pawn in the Big Game

The World Island isn't just Eurasia—it includes Africa, too. This zone is crucial for America's global grip. Despite not being Eurasian, the US dominance here is a historic 'exception.' How long they keep this edge will decide their global reign. Step away from Eurasia, and America risks becoming a minor player.

Besides watching Russia closely, Poland's real backer is NATO's leader—the US, the current master of Eurasia. So, the China-Europe Railway Express isn't just a trade route; it's a frontline in the China-US tussle. Poland is just a pawn on this grand chessboard, moved by forces beyond its control. Can Poland really say no to the US?

The US still holds key advantages. If it can rally Europe together, China will have to grind this out with patience and time.

Recommended Articles