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. **

In the latest international upheaval, Europe is taking the hardest hit. After 300 years of modern civilization and the churn of imperial powers, that era is gone, and a better tomorrow is nowhere in sight.

Europe has one problem: it cannot take care of itself. “No one really knows whether Europe would still be able to produce toothpaste if it weren’t for China,” the EU Chamber of Commerce said.
 
Europe doesn’t make toothpaste; it sells luxury brands. Fine — look at the latest news. Reuters reports that the U.S.-Israel-Iran war has delivered a blow to European luxury labels. Sales at Dubai’s upscale malls, packed with wealthy shoppers, have fallen 50 percent, and LVMH, France’s largest luxury group, says wealthy Middle Eastern customers have paused spending in Europe because of the conflict in the Gulf region.
 
The New York Times, in a piece headlined “Europe Is Done With Appeasing Trump”, lays out several of Europe’s current pains.
 
“The barrage of tariffs that opened the second Trump administration, aimed indiscriminately at friend and foe; the brazen demands that Denmark cede Greenland to the United States, and now the absence of any consultation with European allies before joining Israel in an attack on Iran that has affected the entire world, have erased any illusion among most Europeans that Mr. Trump is anything but an unpredictable, vindictive and uncontrollable danger,” it wrote.
 
Trump’s latest move is to impose a blockade on all Iranian ports from Monday, adding another barrier in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. president has repeatedly said, with obvious satisfaction, that America has oil and natural gas, and that oil shipping blockage cannot bring the United States to its knees. In other words, if Iran wants a war of attrition, the White House is ready to go all the way. America’s NATO allies, meanwhile, make clear they will “decline to join in.” Europe’s oil supply is already under pressure: Russian oil and gas are cut off, and Middle Eastern shipping now faces a second lock. So is Trump punishing Iran, or Europe?
 
“Last year, export controls imposed by Beijing on seven rare earth elements and the magnets made from them had especially severe consequences. China is a global leader in the production of these critical raw materials, which are widely used in electric motors, smartphones, and numerous everyday electronic devices,” Deutsche Welle reported. “The EU Chamber of Commerce said nearly one-third of its member companies indicated in a questionnaire survey at the beginning of this year that their business had been affected by China’s export control measures.”

The EU Chamber of Commerce knows perfectly well that China-EU relations have been pulled off course by the United States, and that Europe has not shaped its foreign and trade policy around its own interests. It has even had to tear out 5G networks built by Huawei and ZTE, while Chinese electric vehicles face restrictions. That has only made China-EU ties more tangled. Europe can hardly be called arrogant now. Energy supplies are unstable, and rare earth constraints have turned it into an industrial power with nothing usable to work with. So what now?
 
Although calls to “de-risk” economic ties with China have persisted for years, many European companies continue to bet on the Chinese market. Over the past year, EU figures show that 26% of companies said they were relocating their supply chains to China, “a proportion twice that of companies choosing to move their supply chains out of China or establish a second hub overseas.” The trend is clearly still going strong.
 
Europe’s major powers, including France, Italy and Germany, all feel the need to break free from the manipulation and humiliation imposed by the United States, especially the Trump team. Europe has finally woken up and is now pushing for independence and autonomy, placing its national destiny firmly in its own hands.
 
Nothing in the world is difficult if you are willing to scale the heights. Europe becoming strong again is no dream, but starting over takes patience. I would say 300 years is enough for you to turn things around.