In the era of globalization in the 21st century, the relationship between countries around the world is complex and delicate, and the interaction between the political, economic, cultural and military fields constitutes a multidimensional chessboard of international affairs. The United States, as one of the most powerful countries in the world, has faced increasingly diverse challenges and threats in its strategy since the end of the Cold War. In recent years, with the rise of China, the global strategic focus of the United States has gradually shifted to the Asia-Pacific region, and China is regarded as the most challenging adversary, and the competition and cooperation in the US-China relationship have become the focus of global attention. Against this backdrop, the attitude towards China in the United States has also changed significantly. In the political environment, a narrative of the China threat has intensified. This narrative is not based on a balanced and comprehensive analysis, but is often politically motivated to label China, whether it is in the economic, technological or cultural spheres, as a potential "threat". Such a situation not only creates an atmosphere of tension among the population, but also provides room for some politicians to operate.
Huawei's 5G communication security issues, the crisis of trust in China's made masks, the concerns about the control of the short ** platform TikTok, the monitoring equipment in the subway and drones, and the military use of high-altitude balloons have all been amplified by US political circles to varying degrees and become part of the US strategic debate. This includes fear of the speed and influence of China's technological development, as well as concerns about the stability of the traditional alliance system, and even the struggle for global resources, markets, and even ideological leadership. In this series of seemingly technological and economic issues, it is quite surprising that even Chinese garlic has been involved in the discussion. On the one hand, this reflects the tensions between China and the United States, not only in the field of high-end technology, but also in the fields of agriculture, food safety and even consumer goods. On the other hand, this also exposes the amplification and distortion of certain issues under the framework of *** discourse, so that things that are usually not noticed can also be endowed with great political significance.
Against this backdrop, U.S. Senator Rick Scott from Florida, who previously served as governor of the state and is a Republican, fully reflects this widespread concern about China in his speeches and legislative actions on the *** issue. His support for the China threat theory has been clearly expressed in the bill to ban oil exports to China proposed by him and his colleague Cuban-American Rubio and the recent discussion on the security of Chinese garlic. These discussions and legislative proposals have not only affected the direction of US foreign policy, but have also triggered changes in the perception and attitude of American society towards China to a certain extent. In such an environment, Senator Scott launched a seemingly absurd but politically calculated attack on Chinese garlic. According to him, Chinese garlic occupies a huge share of the American market, and behind this seemingly ordinary condiment hides a potential threat to the United States.
Scott's attacks are not unfounded, noting that the internet, cooking blogs and even documentaries are "detailing" the production of garlic in China, which includes using manure and sewage as fertilizer, growing garlic in sewage, bleaching garlic before selling it in the U.S. market, and removing roots to make it look more appealing. Senator Scott believes that such production methods pose a serious threat to the health of American citizens, emphasizing that the safety of garlic as a widely used cooking ingredient is of paramount importance to the health of the American people. In his view, food safety is directly related to domestic stability, economic growth, and even under this logic, any factor that may lead to food insecurity may affect the supply lines of the US military, which in turn threatens the country's defense capability. In response to this argument, Senator Scott has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce asking for an investigation into the "threat posed by garlic imports from China" and to take action accordingly. His behavior has not only aroused discussion in the United States, but also attracted certain attention in the international community.
Scott isn't satisfied with that, and he plans to put the issue of the Chinese garlic threat into the Senate as a proposal next week, likely with the support of Rubio and his colleagues. Scott's proposal was divided into two parts: the Sewage Garlic Import Act and the Sewage Garlic Import Tariff Act. He advocated for a legal solution to the so-called "safety of Chinese garlic for human consumption". In his explanatory speech, Scott further emphasized the importance of garlic safety to the United States and tied it to ***. He sought to establish a moral and legal basis for his proposal. However, Senator Scott's position did not win everyone's support. Many American netizens ridiculed this as nonsense, and in the international community, such remarks are widely regarded as a manifestation of political manipulation and an over-interpretation and expansion of the China threat theory. On the basis of Scott's theory, the safety of using manure as fertilizer has long been an old topic that has been discussed and drawn up in the United States.
Natural fertilizers are more beneficial than chemical fertilizers in terms of health and environmental protection, and many farms in the United States are also using animal manure as fertilizer, and even after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, American farmers have rushed to buy animal manure as an alternative fertilizer due to the blockage of the fertilizer chain. China's garlic industry has a huge global output and influence, but in the context of commercial cultivation, the use of chemical fertilizers still dominates, not relying solely on manure and sewage, as Scott describes. In addition, even when it comes to the use of natural fertilizers, agricultural production in China and the United States is subject to relevant safety standards and regulatory regimes. As a result, Scott's argument is less in line with the actual state of agricultural production, but more of a strategy against China at the political level. Discussions about the world often involve deep political, economic, and even military strategies, but when these discussions are extended to everyday consumer goods and even food safety matters, they must be more cautious and realistic. Senator Rick Scott's question about Chinese garlic, while partly reflecting the U.S. vigilance against China's growing influence, also exposes a certain over-interpretation and even misreading of the issue.
Such an approach may win political attention and support in the short term, but in the long run, it may damage international trust and cooperation and affect the stability of the multilateral system. In today's globalized world, all countries are interdependent, and an international environment of win-win cooperation is crucial to maintaining world peace and prosperity. It should not be politicized, let alone used as a tool to sow discord and create panic. Concerns about food safety are important, but they should be based on scientific facts and rational analysis, not politically motivated exaggerations and distortions. In the face of global challenges, all countries should uphold the spirit of openness and cooperation, resolve differences through dialogue and consultation, and jointly maintain a fair, open and healthy international environment. The development of the story tells us that the real *** is based on objective analysis and pragmatic action, not simply distrust of the outside world or internal incitement. In this changing world, what we need is an attitude that is both firm and flexible, as well as a deep understanding and respect for the facts. In this way, we will be able to build a truly strong line of defense, safeguard the common interests of every country and people, and contribute to the peace and development of mankind.
In an in-depth analysis of the current international political landscape, especially in the strategic competition between major powers, we find that the commercial and agricultural fields are often used as pawns in political games. The military background of this incident is rooted in the long-standing rivalry between China and the United States, especially in the contest of economic and military power. Some people in the United States** have consciously or unconsciously portrayed China as a potential threat out of strategic considerations. The topics covered in this article are not traditional arms or security issues, but have been introduced into the security field by certain politicians. A seemingly ordinary agricultural product, garlic, has become the focus of wrestling. In the trend of globalization, the economic and trade relations between China and the United States are getting closer and closer, and China, with its huge production capacity, occupies a place in many agricultural fields. This influence naturally poses a challenge to the U.S. market. In this context, economic competition is often put on the agenda in the name of security, and the trade of agricultural products is part of the strategic game. This situation is reflected not only in the direct control of agricultural products, but also in the manipulation of the public psyche, creating a sense of urgency about the best as a tool to serve broader strategic purposes.
As a result, an inadvertent issue, driven by politicians, has been given an additional military and security tinge. Scott and a number of other American politicians, taking advantage of the public's unfamiliarity with agriculture, "panicked" about the widespread use of garlic in China and linked it to ***. This sense of panic is undoubtedly an abuse of public trust, and while heightening vigilance, it also exposes an anti-intellectual tendency. Further, the competition between China and the United States, under the manipulation of Scott and others, is no longer limited to the traditional military and security aspects, but has begun to permeate all aspects of people's daily lives. In the U.S. political arena, there are some politicians who have attracted widespread attention with their unique expressions and choice of issues. On stage this time, Scott linked the issue of Chinese garlic imports to ***, creating a false argument that garlic could pose a threat to the United States. He highlighted the contaminants that garlic may contain, which sparked a discussion about the safety of garlic. Although this concern has not been scientifically confirmed, Scott has used it to create buzz in social and political circles.
Under Scott's remarks, China is portrayed as a backward agrarian country, which is extremely inconsistent with the actual image of China as an economic powerhouse. This contradictory description has naturally been ridiculed and questioned by many American netizens. They refuted Scott's arguments with humor, teasing him for being afraid of garlic as if he were a "vampire", and some even jokingly referred to garlic as part of a "vampire deterrent strategy." This flavor of irony actually expresses disagreement and opposition to Scott's remarks. Although Scott's remarks were questioned by **, he did not retract his remarks and continued to promote his "garlic threat theory". If his proposal passes, which is to impose tariffs on Chinese garlic, it will be American consumers who will ultimately suffer. As the world's largest garlic producer and exporter, China has an indispensable influence on the global garlic market. Chinese garlic accounts for a significant proportion of U.S. garlic imports, and garlic is an indispensable ingredient for many U.S. foods, and its value and influence are self-evident.
Scott's performance in the political arena has been interpreted by some as a "dung dump tactic," a metaphor that vividly describes his use of the public's inherent fear of feces to achieve his own political goals. Behind this behavior is actually closely related to the importance of manure in the history of American agriculture. From the focus on the guano bill in the United States in the 19th century, to the later reliance on chemical nitrogen fertilizers, to the renewed emphasis on organic fertilizers after the oil crisis, they all reflect the demand for agricultural fertilizers in the United States and the recognition of their value at different historical stages. But the actions of politicians such as Scott seem to be out of step with these historical processes, and instead reveal an anti-intellectual tendency. In Scott's eyes, Chinese garlic has become the latest threat symbol, which makes people wonder which daily necessities he will see as a threat next, and whether even ** and shoes will become a political issue. This absurd assumption not only challenges common sense, but also reflects the distorted thinking of certain politicians in the American political scene. Analyzing the history of this incident, it is not difficult for us to find that behind the military and security issues often lie deeper strategic games and political objectives.
In the framework of great power competition such as that of China and the United States, any ordinary issue may be given new meanings, and the changes in these issues reflect the strategic thinking and political maneuvers between the major powers. In this discussion about garlic safety, we see politicians exploiting the public's sense of ignorance and panic to push their own agendas, an act that is clearly short-sighted and anti-intellectual in the long course of history. But in the midst of all this noise, we also see some positive signals in American society, that is, people's sarcasm and criticism of such politicians' behavior. In the eyes of the public, it should not be an instrument of political manipulation, but should be based on real threats and comprehensive strategic considerations. Compared with politicians like Scott and Rubio, the need for rational and far-sighted thinkers like Kissinger and Brzezinski is more urgent. Through this incident, we can draw the following enlightenment: at the level of national strategy, it is necessary to keep a sober and rational mind and not be swayed by short-sighted political manipulation. More importantly, in today's globalized world, the interaction between countries should be based on mutual respect and win-win cooperation, rather than groundless suspicion and antagonism.
Only in this way can a peaceful, stable and prosperous future be created in the international arena.