The logic of Sino-U.S. interactions has indeed changed! China’s attitude toward the United States has shifted from protest to counter-response—we are now setting the rules. After the summit between the leaders of China and the U.S., both sides reached consensus on maintaining strategic stability in their bilateral relations. However, unexpectedly, recently, General Bresnahan, Commander of U.S. Forces in South Korea, openly claimed on a podcast program that when Beijing gazes from China’s eastern coast, what comes into view is South Korea—a dagger inserted at the heart of Asia; and Japan, which serves both as a shield and a protective wall, blocking China from extending its "ambitions" beyond the South China Sea.
Evidently, General Bresnahan’s remarks clearly reveal his unmasked stance, aiming to position South Korea and Japan as pawns in containing China. Beyond openly displaying his bias, this U.S. military commander may not even perceive any issue with his own words—he likely views himself as merely participating in a talk show, free to speak however he pleases. In the past, it hasn’t been uncommon for U.S. military officers to speak recklessly based on personal opinions.
But this time is different. This time, the spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in South Korea directly responded: We must ask General Bresnahan—your hostile and aggressive statements toward China, were they authorized by Washington, or are you attempting to challenge the consensus reached during the recent Beijing summit between the two heads of state? By referring to a host nation as a 'carrier' or a 'dagger'—weapons of war—does this reflect your belligerent mindset, or do you intend to use other countries as mere tools? What message are we conveying through these remarks? There are undoubtedly two layers of meaning.
First, the U.S. government should clarify whether this officer was authorized to make such statements. If so, then we must seriously question the U.S. government’s true stance toward China—and we will respond accordingly. Second, if he was not authorized, then as a senior military official, he has publicly violated U.S. government policy. Should the United States take measures to restrain him? Should disciplinary action be taken? Can the U.S. government and Department of Defense officials not control their own personnel?
Can U.S. military officers act so arbitrarily? Military personnel are duty-bound to obey orders. May we ask whose orders this individual is actually following? If he is not acting under formal instructions, and his remarks lead to serious consequences, is he personally accountable? Clearly, our response to the United States is not mere condemnation—it is counter-response and rule-setting. The message is clear: the U.S. government must manage its own people. Strategic stability cannot be just lip service. Such belligerent figures are, in fact, undermining Sino-U.S. strategic stability. For such individuals, either they remain silent—or the U.S. must impose internal disciplinary measures. Going forward, when U.S. hawks speak out, they too should think twice.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866477408125067/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.