In recent months, high-level exchanges between China and the United States have begun to become frequent, and the level of engagement reached its peak when the top leaders of the two sides met in San Francisco. This high-level engagement and harmony raises questions about how long they can lastHow much of a difference can it play?
In fact, although both China and the United States are sending positive signals to the outside world, we cannot ignore the fact that the United States is unlikely to relax its vacillation with China's neighboring countries, nor will it abandon its "Indo-Pacific strategy". Although the United States does need some cooperation with China at present, competition is the main theme of China-US relations. Therefore, in the current situation, the atmosphere of harmony may only be a temporary appearance, and in fact the dark current between the two parties may be more complex and far-reaching.
As a friendly federation, China dispatched Y-20 transport planes to Nepal with relief supplies immediately after the occurrence of the first disaster in Nepal. This move has been appreciated and followed by many people. However, the subsequent development of events was unexpected.
A week after the arrival of aid from China, Nepal** suddenly announced a ban on the use of the Chinese social media app TikTok. Nepal** claims that TikTok has been used as a tool to disseminate "hate speech" and ** content, which has had a negative impact on social harmony. However, I have some doubts about this reason. I admit that the issue of social media needs to be regulated, but not only TikTok in China, but also other social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Why is Nepal** only banning social software in China?
In addition, there are also Western ** reports that Nepal will send anti-corruption ** to investigate the Pokhara International Airport built by Chinese companies in Nepal. China has denied that it is one of the Belt and Road projects financed by China, saying it has limited knowledge of Nepal's internal situation. This series of incidents makes people wonder: why did Nepal make two consecutive moves against China when Sino-Nepalese relations should be good?
From my personal observations, this situation can be interpreted in two ways. First of all, due to the special geographical location of Nepal, it is surrounded by India on three sides, adjacent to China on only one side, and separated by the Himalayas in the middle. For Pokhara International Airport to operate normally, in addition to China's opening up of relevant airspace, India's support is largely needed. However, it is well known that India does not have a friendly attitude towards the small neighboring countries and will not accede to their demands. As a result, Nepal turned its attention to China and tried to get China to change its "loans" to "grants" in the hope that China would abandon the debt. However, China** politely refused, making it clear that the debt was executed according to the contract. While this amount is only a small part of the Belt and Road Initiative for China, concessions could set a bad example for other countries and turn China into a "wealth boy".
Second, when I got to the bottom of it, I found that Nepal's foreign minister visited the United States in early November, and after returning there, he introduced two measures against China in a row. This raises my suspicions, the United States has always been not optimistic about China's application software, and even during the Trump era, it tried to force the acquisition of TikTok many times, and even this year did not give up, and enlisted the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada to put pressure on China. Therefore, there is every reason to suspect that the United States and Nepal have entered into some kind of deal privately. The U.S. provided $500 million to Nepal, which is a direct **. However, the United States has clearly stipulated that this agreement is "superior to Nepal's domestic law", which is actually shaking Nepal's national sovereignty, and its purpose is obviously to draw Nepal into the camp of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Although such a deal is difficult to change the foundation and mutually beneficial cooperation of China-Nepal relations, it does bring a certain amount of ** to China-Nepal relations.
It is undeniable that China-Nepal relations have a deep foundation for cooperation and have common interests under the Belt and Road Initiative. This foundation will not be shaken by the "$500 million" of the United States. However, China also needs to think about a more flexible and nuanced approach to dealing with its neighbors. While maintaining friendship and cooperation, we must also avoid being easily poached by the United States. Maintaining stable relations with neighboring countries is particularly important in the current situation.
In summing up this issue, I would like to emphasize that there is an equal contradiction in the competition between China and the United States. Although the United States needs some cooperation with China at the moment, it is impossible for the United States to give up interfering and vacillating China's neighboring countries. Therefore, we should remain vigilant and be aware not only of the positive elements of China-US relations, but also of the possible undercurrents in them. Only by maintaining a high degree of vigilance and seeking win-win cooperation with neighboring countries can we achieve a more stable position in the international arena.