By Zheng Jueshi
The Anglo-Saxon style of international politics has historically adhered to the law of the jungle, where violence, robbery, and the survival of the fittest are the norms. However, this is usually cloaked in a beautiful disguise, using the pretexts of "democracy" and "human rights" to pacify citizens, manipulate allies, and deceive the world. In early 2024, then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken addressed a question about US-China relations at the Munich Security Conference, openly declaring, "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." This marked the first time a top US diplomat stripped away the facade of "democracy" and "human rights," brazenly exposing the evil of American politics. The world was taken aback, as this statement succinctly explained US foreign policy, revealing the distorted worldview and extreme cruelty of American politicians, as well as the brutal truth of a world dominated by Western imperialism.
Considering recent US actions in handling the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and various other issues, people have repeatedly been shocked by the real-life "menu" presented by the US. The world's leading power is firmly using strength, intimidation, and coercion to dominate, engaging in zero-sum and negative-sum games, no longer bothering to disguise its intentions, and revealing a terrifying level of "honesty." This is indeed a great tragedy and misfortune for humanity in the 21st century. Why, after hundreds of years, has Anglo-American political civilization regressed rather than progressed, and why does the shadow of imperialism persist?
People are curious about which countries and individuals are frequently mentioned in the eyes of American politicians, and which nations are deemed worthy of sharing the "delicacies" made from the "ingredients" of weaker countries and peoples. What is the order of priority? Recently, we have seriously contemplated and researched this issue, and we have attempted to outline the "menu" of Blinken and the Western imperialists, along with its hierarchy, for further discussion and refinement.
The American People at the Top of the "Menu"
At the very top of the "menu," surprisingly, are none other than the American people themselves! This is indeed unexpected and somewhat embarrassing. The general public in America is the first course on this special "menu," the first to be thoroughly exploited and consumed by figures like Blinken. From the outset, Anglo-Saxon colonizers brutally slaughtered and barbarically occupied the indigenous people who had lived on the North American continent for generations. The well-meaning Native Americans became the "Mr Dongguo" for the West, tragically ending up on the colonizers' table.
For over 200 years, US rulers have continually exploited their own citizens, enslaving, oppressing, and exploiting them. Despite grand proclamations of "democracy," "human rights," and "freedom," the lives of the American lower class have not seen substantial improvement; instead, they have increasingly fallen into dire straits. Vice President Kamala Harris's book, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis, accurately depicts the living conditions of the American working class.
Many American statistics also indicate that income inequality and wealth disparity are deepening. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, with the Gini coefficient rising to 0.485. The top 1% of ultra-wealthy individuals hold 38% of the nation's wealth, while the top 0.1% of households own 13.8%. In contrast, the bottom 50% of households only possess 2.5% of the total wealth, with a poverty rate of 12.4%. Over 40 million people live below the poverty line, yet figures like Blinken never consider how to address the poverty issues in their own country. After more than 200 years of "democratic" elections, the fate of the vast majority of poor people has not improved; rather, it has worsened. This not only highlights the hypocrisy of American-style democracy but also reveals that a large portion of the American populace has tragically been placed on the table by their own ruling class, with the saying "the rabbit eats the grass next to its burrow" coming to mind. The American public is not only unqualified to sit at the same table as figures like Blinken but has instead become the primary target for consumption.
In second place on the "menu" are America's close allies, friends, and all those who loyally follow the US. This is indeed a bit hard to bear, but it is the reality! Former Secretary of State Henry Alfred Kissinger once said, "To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." We find that Blinken and others organize their "menu" according to the ease of consumption, prioritizing convenience, minimal cost, and familiarity. The US bullies its allies, using them and then discarding them without hesitation.
"Eating Allies" and "Eating Friends": A Historical Pattern
Economically, the US maximizes its own interests through various means, often at the great expense of its allies. For example, it has long suppressed the Japanese yen and the Japanese economic and financial system, using the Plaza Accord to seize control of Japan's economic lifeline, leaving it in a state of stagnation. The US has also sought to sow discord within the European Union, aggressively undermining the euro's status while demanding that countries increase their investments in the US. Traditional allies like Canada and Mexico have faced frequent trade protectionist measures, and recently, the US has indiscriminately imposed tariffs on all countries, including its allies.
In geopolitical terms, the US views its allies as tools to achieve its strategic interests, forcing them into endless proxy wars and unnecessary conflicts that harm both sides. In its foreign policy, the US demands that all allies maintain a high degree of alignment with its positions, interfering in their internal affairs and stripping them of sovereignty. For instance, it has pressured its "closest partner," Canada, multiple times to adopt border measures that align with US interests, even suggesting that Canada become the "51st state." It has directly proposed the forcible occupation of Greenland from Denmark, coerced Panama to operate the canal according to US wishes, renamed the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "American Gulf," and sought to "manage" Gaza directly. The ongoing tragedy in Ukraine is another example.
The history of the US "eating" its allies and friends is extensive and includes individuals and companies that have made contributions to the US and demonstrated loyalty, as well as various "lackeys" around the world who might suddenly find themselves prioritized for consumption. Recent images of Trump meeting with leaders from Ukraine and European "powers" in the White House vividly illustrate this assertion.
In third place on the "menu" are the many developing countries in the Global South, including those in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These nations and their people, often referred to as "developing countries" or "third-world countries," have long been viewed as "easy pickings" by imperial powers. Their national strength pales in comparison to that of the US, leaving them powerless in the face of imperial hegemony and at risk of being easily exploited. It is tragic that these countries and their citizens are treated as mere pawns by figures like Blinken.
Globally, only the US has profited from endless wars against other nations, turning warfare into a lucrative business. From establishing its status as a creditor nation through neutral trade during World War I to securing global hegemony via the Lend-Lease Act in World War II, and then orchestrating countless regional wars and "color revolutions" to solidify its military, economic, and geopolitical advantages, the US has reaped immense profits from war. As a result, third-world countries have often become lambs to the slaughter, serving as testing grounds for US weapons, dumping grounds for American goods, and targets for resource exploitation.
In fourth place are America's enemies. Former President George W. Bush introduced the concept of the "Axis of Evil," identifying Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the world's primary sources of terrorism. This concept later expanded to include Syria, Libya, Cuba, and Sudan. The US has targeted these seven nations, believing they must either surrender to American demands or face military defeat, making them prime candidates for exploitation by figures like Blinken.
However, in recent years, the U.S. has adopted a more indirect approach toward its enemies, avoiding direct military confrontation. Instead, it supports pro-American forces and employs proxies to combat its adversaries. This strategy arises from the understanding that engaging in war with true enemies incurs significant costs and sacrifices. Over the past two decades alone, American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, justified in the name of counterterrorism, have cost trillions of dollars and resulted in the deaths of over 7,000 American soldiers. From the US perspective, this is far too costly.
Thus, the US is reluctant to directly "consume" its enemies, especially those armed with nuclear weapons, as this could backfire and result in severe consequences. For a country that operates under the law of the jungle, it is clearly more advantageous to first "consume" friends who are less likely to resist before turning to its enemies.
What About Russia?
Many may wonder about Russia. The US-Russia relationship is a continuation of the US-Soviet relationship. The former Soviet Union was viewed by the United States as the greatest security threat, leading to over 40 years of Cold War during which the two nations engaged in comprehensive competition across political, military, economic, and technological domains. The US employed various methods, including cultivating proxies, to peacefully evolve this "evil empire," ultimately leading to its disintegration, reduction to a state of weakness, and complete exploitation, the benefits of which are still felt today.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia inherited most of the Soviet military equipment, resources, and status, possessing nuclear capabilities comparable to those of the US. Although Russia's political system has fully Westernized and met the demands of the US and its allies, the US still perceives it as a substantial potential threat. For such a military power and nuclear state, bringing it to the table for easy consumption is both difficult and extremely dangerous; it can only be accomplished through cunning strategies.
As a result, while the two nations have never truly engaged in direct conflict, tensions and competitive dynamics have never eased, with frequent clashes over issues like NATO expansion and missile defense. The US has consistently sought opportunities to create trouble, erode Russian interests, or temporarily reach some form of compromise in exchange for its long-term strategic benefits and security. Unless Russia were to decline to the point of total impotence, the US would be hesitant to take rash military action against it. However, if Russia were to deteriorate to the level of a third-world country, the US would not hesitate to take decisive action.
China Makes It possible for the US to Bear All the Consequences
What about China? Among all countries, China is the only one that has repeatedly engaged in direct confrontations with the US, winning each time. In the past, the impoverished and weakened old China, wearing the humiliating label of the "sick man of East Asia," could only be victimized by foreign powers. From being a mere dish on the table for foreign aggressors to becoming the "toughest nut to crack" for the US, China has transformed from a nation of poverty to the world's second-largest economy and a major technological and military power. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people have risen through their courage, hard work, and wisdom.
The US certainly desires to bring China back to the table. Historically, the US has confronted China three times—during the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War—and each time ended in American failure, forcing the US back to the negotiating table. If we could achieve victories against the US when we were weak, how much more can we accomplish today? While the US may appear overwhelmingly powerful, its hegemony and bullying tactics are ineffective against a resolute China committed to defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The military parade on September 3 showcased China's hard power, soft power, and especially its determination to fight against hegemony. In response, US Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hegseth quickly stated that the US does not seek conflict with China. If core interests are at stake, China will fight fiercely and retaliate decisively, with the corresponding costs and sacrifices being something the US cannot bear. The philosophy of Anglo-Saxons is quite simple: despite their bloodthirstiness and eagerness for war, they prefer to engage in battles they can win with minimal casualties to their own forces. Once they realize that they cannot defeat you or that doing so would require immense sacrifices, they will sit down to negotiate and coexist.
Weak nations lack the qualifications and capabilities for such negotiations, but we do! The British, for example, first conducted war games to see if they could defeat China and retain Hong Kong. Even in the 1980s, the British realized they could not win against China at that time, which led them to negotiate in Beijing to resolve the Hong Kong issue. If war could solve problems, Anglo-Saxons would avoid negotiations and seek conflict instead. This is the harsh reality of a human society dominated by the US and the UK, which has not transcended the animal world; hegemonic politics is the norm. As Mao Zedong said, "American imperialists are arrogant; wherever they can avoid reason, they will. If they do reason, it is only because they are forced to do so."
If the US insists on seeing China as an enemy, we will certainly fulfill that expectation and become a very competent adversary, making it impossible for the US to walk away unscathed. It is impossible to suppress China without also inflicting harm on oneself. Therefore, the US can only create trouble for China through constant containment, sanctions, and blockades, while resorting to subversive tactics to erode both tangible and intangible interests. This includes launching various forms of infiltration and sabotage, as well as engaging in malicious competition through intermediaries.
From the perspectives of power, civilization, and will, China is the only country in the world capable of standing on equal footing with the United States, facing a far better international environment than the other countries on the "menu." More importantly, the Communist Party of China and the government are committed to a "global perspective," rejecting the Western logic of "might makes right" and striving to build a just and equitable global governance system while steadfastly upholding international fairness and justice. China will never collude with the US or sit at the same table to exploit other nations and share in the suffering of their people. Instead, we advocate for all countries to come together, engaging in mutual respect and shared interests, shouldering development responsibilities, and sharing in the benefits of development.
People of the World Must Unite
After Blinken's "menu theory" was introduced, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented, wishing the US a "good appetite," but advised, "don't choke at the democratic table." The spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, Stephane Dujarric, remarked that "the UN is an organization with a large table for 193 member states, where every country can sit down and participate together."
We must recognize that the "menu" proposed by figures like Blinken does not reflect the will of the American people but rather embodies the interests of a small ruling elite and the military-industrial complex. The peoples of the world, including Americans, are all victims of this evil ambition. People around the globe must unite, including the American people, to jointly address the hegemonic actions of American imperialism that trample on the dignity of humanity and disrupt the normal international order. We must promote the shared values of "peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom," walk the righteous path of peaceful development, and push the world toward a brilliant future of peace, security, prosperity, and progress, collaboratively building a community with a shared future for mankind.
At the same time, we must recognize that good intentions alone are not enough. In the face of such a cruel world and the malign neighbors of our global village, as a country standing on the side of human progress and justice, China has no choice but to resist. Compromise and retreat will only lead to further exploitation. We must unite, work diligently to strengthen our capabilities, and courageously fight back. Through uncompromising struggles and great victories, we will secure our inherent rights to existence and development, and educate figures like Blinken to learn how to coexist peacefully with all humanity, accepting the reality of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
The global village does not belong to the US alone; American politicians must learn to treat all countries and peoples equally. Every nation and every ethnic group has equal, inalienable rights to existence and development. For the peoples of the world, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is not only our right but also our duty and responsibility to all humanity. A world without China would ultimately descend into a "state of nature."
(Source: Ta Kung Pao; English Editor: Kiki)
Comment