On February 17, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's remarks at the Munich Security Conference drew global attention. "In the international system, if you're not sitting at the table, you're on the menu," he said. This sentence is reminiscent of the scene in science fiction, where the Trisolarans drove the earthlings to Australia and established a real jungle world, and Tomoko said to humans: "Food? Look around you, isn't it all food? This seems to convey a harsh reality: in the international political arena, it is either a predator or a ** eater.
Blinken's words are not only a warning to traditional allies, but also a threat to new allies. He mentioned Germany and India, respectively, as traditional "allies" of the United States and "new allies" eager to woo them. The implication is clear: choose to stand at the dominant table of international affairs, or be forced to be on the menu.
In this chess game of international politics, India's response is quite profound. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's answer shows India's insistence on its status and its rejection of the United States. He bluntly said: "Is this a problem? Why is this a problem? If I'm smart enough to have multiple options, you should admire me, not criticize me. This response is both an expression of India's pride and a manifestation of India's commitment to independence.
India's refusal is not accidental. India has a strong sense of self-esteem and is reluctant to become a vassal of the United States. Although India actively encircled and contained China, it refused to be an ally of the United States. This independent stance has made India firm and unshakable in international politics.
The dissatisfaction of the United States with India is also evident. India does not listen to the United States on some important issues, and its dissatisfaction with the United States is growing day by day. In particular, in the case of Russia, the energy deal between India and Russia has caused displeasure in the United States. This also reflects the anxiety of the United States in maintaining its hegemony.
In this international political game, the positions and choices of each country are crucial. The United States is trying to maintain its hegemony, while India is sticking to the principle of independence. Blinken's warning and Jaishankar's response illustrate the complexity of international affairs and the intriguing and rivalry between the open and the covert.
Historically, the United States has been the architect of the international order, with some countries becoming its allies and some even being excluded from the dominant table. But China's rise and the independent choices of other countries have challenged U.S. hegemony. China is emerging on the international stage, and countries such as India are pursuing their own development paths.
Although the G2 concept proposed by the United States, that is, the idea of China and the United States co-governing the world, has become a hot topic for a while, the disparity in reality and the contradictions between countries have made this concept more and more unattainable. China's insistence on independence and refusal to become a vassal of the United States has been China's long-standing national policy.
Blinken's phrase "either at the table or on the menu" may reflect the reality of power politics, but countries are also showing growing autonomy and the courage to make independent choices. In this multipolar world, the interaction between countries has become more intricate and more worthy of our deep consideration.
In international affairs, every country has the right to choose its own path of development and should not be forced to become food for others. While maintaining independence, all countries can jointly build a peaceful, stable and prosperous international order through dialogue and cooperation. This is perhaps a more ideal world, one that is no longer limited to "tables" and "menus".