Skip to main content

On the Vietnam Crisis: China Is Duty-Bound to Shoulder Its Rightful Responsibility as a Great Power!

2008/6/9 19:50:44

China is a great power, and a great power should act like one. A great power — regardless of motivation, be it humanitarian, responsible, or economic — should carry itself with the bearing befitting a great power. Otherwise, not only will the big bosses of the underworld laugh in scorn, but the smaller, weaker nations will also gradually abandon you, their hearts turning elsewhere.

Due to geography, certain countries naturally share intrinsic connections. Weaker nations will ultimately be drawn into the orbit of their respective great powers — unless that great power is particularly deranged, in which case they can only look past geography and seek distant alternatives. Such an outcome, in the end, only harms the great power itself.

Of course, being a great power doesn't necessarily correlate with territorial size, though the correlation is quite high. A country with vast territory that lacks certain fundamental strengths will quickly decompose on its own, and with external encroachment and secessionist forces, it can hardly maintain a stable existence. Such strength is superficially economic, but ultimately cultural. And the bearing and magnanimity of a great power determine the bearing and magnanimity of its culture. A petty, narrow-minded nation cannot possibly produce a culture of any force. The influence on other countries follows the same logic — superficially economic, ultimately cultural.

Therefore, whether domestically or internationally, a nation's magnanimity and bearing carry decisive significance.

China has been cowering under the remnant instruction of "don't take the lead" for many years now in a manner most unbecoming of a great power, but no one's words are eternal truths. The world perpetually changes, and this instruction is clearly outdated. If one can argue that China should not yet take the lead globally, then in regional matters, if we still refuse to lead, still hypocritically tell the world, "We're still very poor, we're still a developing country, we can't do it, we can only tinker with our own affairs, we can't be seen in public" — then this is not just hypocrisy; it is shamelessness.

To borrow a phrase whose source is quite shameless but whose basic content is not: a person cannot be this shameless. Nations are no different. This ID absolutely does not want to see our own country capping itself with this shameless steamed-bun hat just for the sake of not taking the lead — and moreover, this shameless steamed-bun hat cannot even guarantee the nation's economic security; it actually increases the risks.

This ID wrote an article years ago specifically pointing out that China's national defense's greatest historical mission at this stage is to ensure that all future wars involving China take place beyond its borders. The same logic applies to economic and financial wars involving China — fight them outside the gates, detonating all the bombs out there. The border is the last line of defense — this should be a basic consensus among all Chinese people.

So, is it possible to fully achieve such a situation? Absolutely. The simplest method is to have multiple layers of defense. All defense in depth must fundamentally rely on a systematic network formed with our neighboring countries. This inevitably requires us to take the lead — otherwise, if you're not the North Star, why would anyone rally around you? And the rallying nations — for them, rallying is fundamentally a survival necessity. It is precisely through such rallying that this group of nations forms an organic system, with every country in it greatly strengthening its ability to resist external threats.

To earn others' ultimate rallying, you must first display the basic bearing of a great power, letting facts proclaim to all: you are the North Pole. This Vietnam crisis is precisely such an opportunity. A tiny fraction of China's massive foreign exchange reserves would suffice to handle all the problems — certainly better than letting CIC or other prodigal sons squander it through fire-sale dealings. The capital and effort invested can of course be negotiated for a reasonable return — as long as it doesn't give the impression of profiteering from others' misfortune. Using government bond rates as the benchmark with a certain discount would be a very reasonable price.

Big brothers and big sisters must act like big brothers and big sisters. If you don't step up when your little brothers and sisters are in trouble, you'll only be despised by everyone. So — what about a great power?