Looking back at 2025, the global situation has been ever-changing, with issues such as Sino-Indian, Sino-Filippine, and Sino-Japanese relations continuously influencing our national strategy. These issues also call for a more proactive and effective response from China to the complex and changing international situation.
Looking ahead to 2026, how should China be more proactive? How can we showcase a new posture in regional security and on the world stage? Observer.net has invited international affairs expert Gao Zhikai to analyze potential cognitive blind spots in these issues, thus opening up new ideas and perspectives.
[Dialogue/Observers.net, Tang Xiaofu]
Observers.net: In the past year, you have drawn three "Gao Zhikai Lines" for the Philippines, India, and Japan, and you have been called by many netizens as the "ceiling of liberal arts students." From the perspective of shaping international public opinion and competing for international voice, what role do you think these three lines play?
Gao Zhikai: In 2025, I drew a line along the Ganges for India, called the "Gao Zhikai Line"; I also drew an east longitude 118-degree line for the Philippines, as the western boundary of the Philippines; recently, I also drew a line for Japan, south of latitude 30 degrees is not Japan's territory, meaning that Japan's territory ends at latitude 30 degrees, and the Ryukyu Islands, which stretch 1200 kilometers south of latitude 30 degrees, are not part of Japan's territory. The Ryukyu Islands have the right to achieve independence according to the UN principle of decolonization and become a separate country.
These three lines actually provide a good policy option for China's foreign work and have been widely regarded as a major breakthrough in China's foreign work. In fact, the original intention, methods, and impacts of the three lines differ significantly.
For a long time, India has taken the line drawn by MacMahon as the Sino-Indian border line. What is this? China never accepts the so-called "MacMahon Line" as the Sino-Indian border line. The Chinese government did not participate in or accept the "MacMahon Line". If India wants to take a line drawn by the British as the truth and force us to accept it, this is absolutely impossible.
So I told the Indians, in the past, the British launched the Opium War and subsequent aggressive wars, forcing unequal treaties upon us, which we have now overthrown. The British once occupied Hong Kong Island through war and forced the then Chinese government to sign an unequal treaty, permanently ceding it. Now, we have recovered Hong Kong. India, what courage and bravery do you have to say that a line drawn by a British person, MacMahon, must be the Sino-Indian border line?
If India insists on taking the line drawn by the British as the truth, then I, Gao Zhikai, can also draw a line along the Ganges. This line is now widely known as the "Gao Zhikai Ganges Line." The original intention of this line was to thoroughly expose the falsity, illegality, and unacceptability of the MacMahon Line, but it has opened up a new situation for us.
Gao Zhikai proposed in his 2025 dialogue with Observers.net that if the Indians cling to the so-called "MacMahon Line," China could also counter-propose the "Gao Zhikai Ganges Line."
What does that mean? When the Indians persistently insist on the "MacMahon Line" as the Sino-Indian border line, we can set a new topic and propose drawing a line along the Ganges, thus forcing the Indians to make a choice between two evils. I believe that the eventual recovery of the Tsona region will be closely related to the "Gao Zhikai Ganges Line." If India refuses to return the Tsona region it occupies, we must be prepared to meet the Indians along the Ganges.
As for the Philippines, for several decades, the Philippines has been causing trouble in the South China Sea. They claim that islands and reefs such as Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, and Xianbin Reef are their territories, and they bring up all kinds of distorted theories.
In September 2025, I was invited to attend the Manila Forum held by the Philippines, and I solemnly pointed out: In 1898, the Spanish-American War took place, with the United States winning and Spain losing. Finally, the United States forced Spain to sign the 1898 Treaty of Paris. It specified that the Philippines, which had been under Spanish colonization for 300 years, must be handed over to the United States. When the United States took over the Philippines, it forced Spain to define the boundary of the Philippines, specifying that the east longitude 118-degree line was the western boundary of the Philippines.
Over the past few decades, the areas where the Philippines has been causing trouble, such as Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, and Xianbin Reef, are all west of the east longitude 118-degree line, not east of it. That is to say, if the Philippines continues to regard the east longitude 118-degree line as its western boundary as stipulated in the Treaty of Paris, then the actions of the Philippines in Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, and Xianbin Reef have crossed the east longitude 118-degree line, occupying our islands and reefs.
Therefore, I raised a key question to the Philippines: Does the Philippines still recognize the east longitude 118-degree line as its western boundary? If it does, then it must withdraw to the east of the east longitude 118-degree line.
If the Philippines says that it no longer recognizes the east longitude 118-degree line as its western boundary, its intention is clear: it wants to cross the east longitude 118-degree line to the west and invade our territory. Then I proposed: If the Philippines wants to destroy its own western boundary and no longer consider the east longitude 118-degree line as its western boundary, I can also cross the line to the east—what goes around comes around, right?
If China crosses the east longitude 118-degree line to the east, where would it go? I told the Filipinos: First, this is a hypothetical question; second, it depends on the interaction between China and the Philippines; third, theoretically, if China crosses the east longitude 118-degree line to the east, it can theoretically proceed all the way to the eastern boundary of the Philippines, that is, to the Pacific Ocean.
Think about it, what kind of country is the Philippines? It not only destroys its own western boundary, but also provides us with sufficient reasons to legally proceed all the way to its eastern boundary, which would be a catastrophe for the Philippines. This is shocking to the Filipinos.
I noticed that after I pointed out on September 17th that the Philippines should regard the east longitude 118-degree line as its western boundary, otherwise there would be consequences, the Philippines went silent for three weeks from September 19th to October 7th and 8th. The Philippine Coast Guard Command issued a statement, and the Philippine Foreign Ministry also issued a statement, the content of which was basically incoherent:
First, they said the Philippines should not be influenced by certain forces, implying not to be influenced by Gao Zhikai.
Second, they said the Philippines' boundary should not be constrained by the boundaries set by former colonial powers, essentially saying that they no longer regard the east longitude 118-degree line stipulated in the Treaty of Paris as the western boundary of the Philippines—of course, the Philippines didn't have the courage to state it clearly and directly.
Third, they cited a boundary line between the Sulu Islands and Britain, which was established between the United States and Britain, the colonial power in Malaysia at that time, but this has nothing to do with the Philippines' infringement on China's sovereignty in the South China Sea.
Therefore, I think we should clearly point out: the east longitude 118-degree line is the western boundary of the Philippines, and accordingly, the Philippines should stop crossing the line to骚扰, occupy, and dominate China's islands and reefs and relevant waters, otherwise it will bear the consequences.
This provides new ideas for our country's relevant departments: we not only need to protect every island, every reef, and every sea area, but also need to be more actively prepared, ready to cross the east longitude 118-degree line to the east, making the Philippines' attempt to infringe and dominate China's sacred territory completely fail.
As for the Japanese side, everyone knows that there are the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation in history, which are two pillars of the international order established after Japan's unconditional surrender in 1945, and are crucial. The Potsdam Proclamation clearly states that after Japan's unconditional surrender, Japan's territory includes only four islands, namely Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido, as well as some small surrounding islands designated by the victorious countries and the allied countries. That is to say, Japan's legal territory is limited to its four large islands.
The Potsdam Proclamation (Chinese copy), preserved in the Second Historical Archives of China. Source: Second Historical Archives of China
After careful investigation, I found out that in 1946, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers made a clear regulation: the area south of latitude 30 degrees does not belong to Japan. This is clearly written down, and such instructions fully conform to the spirit of the Potsdam Proclamation. Therefore, I first clearly stated that the southern boundary of Japan is at latitude 30 degrees, and the Ryukyu Islands south of that are not part of Japan. The Ryukyu Islands are illegally occupied by Japan.
After Japan's unconditional surrender in 1945, the Ryukyu Islands were managed by the United States as a trust territory. In 1971, the United States secretly transferred the management rights of the Ryukyu Islands to Japan. However, even then, the Americans did not involve the sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands. According to the United Nations regulations, these occupied and colonized territories have the right to decolonization. Therefore, I call on us to definitely support the Ryukyu indigenous people in exercising their legitimate right to decolonization and ultimately achieve the goal of supporting the independent establishment of Ryukyu.
These declarations are crucial for Japan, as they clearly define the southern boundary of Japan: it cannot exceed the latitude 30-degree line further south. That is to say, since 1971, Japan has always considered the Ryukyu Islands as its territory, which is illegal, wrong, and lacks legal basis. Therefore, there is a very critical issue between China and Japan, which is how to deal with the Ryukyu indigenous people.
Additionally, in the 19th century, Japan forcibly occupied Ryukyu and renamed it "Okinawa." I suggest that our government should no longer use the term "Okinawa" from now on, and continue to use "Ryukyu," instead of saying "the people of Okinawa," but rather "the Ryukyu indigenous people."
Some people say that the current population of the Ryukyu Islands is mostly Japanese, because they were immigrants from the Japanese mainland. Therefore, we should emphasize the Ryukyu indigenous people. We should define those who lived in Ryukyu before Japan's military occupation and their descendants as the true Ryukyu indigenous people.
From this perspective, it is illegal for Japan to deploy military bases in Ryukyu, and even to deploy offensive weapons and surface-to-air missiles on Yonaguni Island, which is only 110 kilometers away from Taiwan. This is an armed threat against China, including the mainland and Taiwan, and actually marks the rise of the new Japanese fascism and new Japanese militarism, which must be firmly stopped.
After clarifying this boundary, we can breathe a sigh of relief, because previously Japan was not so close to us—If the Japanese say that the Ryukyu Islands are all Japanese territory, then the distance from Ryukyu to Shanghai, China, and the Chinese East Coast would be very close. But since the area south of latitude 30 degrees is not Japan's, the actual distance between Japan and China, especially the Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang coastlines, is much farther.
From this perspective, defining the latitude 30-degree line as the southern boundary of Japan is crucial for better handling of Sino-Japanese relations and ensuring that Japanese fascism and new Japanese militarism do not resurge.
Observers.net: You proposed the "Hook and Spear" security theory before the Beijing Olympics. This analytical framework can also be applied to complex international public opinion fields. Do you think we should accurately define which ones are "hooks" that confuse the vision and consume our energy, and which ones are "spear-type" accusations aimed at undermining our fundamental stance? Based on this distinction, how should we carry out differentiated strategies?
Gao Zhikai: The "Hook and Spear" theory and practice was an important theory I proposed before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This theory received many comments from the relevant departments of the state and the then Political Bureau Standing Committee, and contributed importantly to the successful hosting of the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics. Personally, I believe that the "Hook and Spear" theory is a theory for generations.
In short, the core of the "Hook and Spear" theory is: some things are like hooks, don't fall for them; some things are like spears, which are weapons and ammunition that kill, and must be removed immediately. The greatest danger lies in confusing the two, treating hooks as spears or spears as hooks, thereby causing chaos within ourselves.
I give an example: There are multiple reasons why Japan was forced to surrender unconditionally in World War II, one of which was the American use of atomic bombs. From this perspective, the biggest spear in human history is the two atomic bombs dropped by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But was Japan surrendered by the spear or the hook?
After the atomic bomb attacks, Americans scattered countless leaflets in Japan, threatening that if they did not surrender, they would use thousands of atomic bombs to completely destroy Japan. In fact, the United States produced three atomic bombs: the first was tested in the desert, the second was dropped on Hiroshima, and the third on Nagasaki. After dropping these two, the United States had no more atomic bombs left, and it would take some time to produce the fourth. Therefore, Americans used the atomic bombs as a hook to scare the Japanese, and the Japanese fell for it. If the Japanese had known that the United States had no more atomic bombs, they might not have surrendered unconditionally in August 1945, and might have resisted for another half year. If that were the case, the war process would have changed, and that is a matter of historical speculation. I give this example to show that people often confuse hooks and spears, and we must distinguish between them.
I give another example: regarding Japan's current attempt to develop new Japanese fascism and new Japanese militarism, what is the biggest spear? It is not the few words spoken by Takahashi Hayato, but the Japanese attempt to develop nuclear weapons. If Japan develops nuclear weapons, it would be like having a huge spear, which will certainly destroy the stability of Sino-Japanese relations and the entire East Asian order. The current stable order is based on Japan's unconditional surrender in 1945, and if Japan possesses nuclear weapons, it will be a dangerous moment for the resurgence of new militarism and new fascism.
Therefore, I believe we should focus our efforts to resolutely stop Japan from developing nuclear weapons and not tolerate Japan possessing this giant spear. I even shouted: The day Japan develops nuclear weapons is the day Japan perishes. Not only the Chinese people should not allow the Japanese to develop nuclear weapons, but the people of the world who love peace should not allow it either.
Does Japan have any hooks? I think some of Japan's actions are both hooks and spears. For example, Japanese officials frequently visit the Yasukuni Shrine, where the Class A war criminals sentenced by the Far East Military Tribunal or who died in prison are enshrined.
Why does Japan keep visiting these "ghosts"? Why don't they cut ties with the ghosts of Japanese fascism? This shows that they have not separated themselves from the heinous crimes committed by Japanese fascism and want to "use the ghosts" to retrace the path of militarism. We firmly oppose and demand that this be stopped.
But when a Japanese politician visits the Yasukuni Shrine, is it a hook or a spear? Personally, I think it is both a hook and a spear. The Yasukuni Shrine is located in the center of Tokyo, and Japanese politicians can easily enter. When they go there, do we have to condemn and demand an apology?
I recently proposed a suggestion: to transform moral diplomacy into legal diplomacy. In the future, we should not protest every time something happens. Can we predefine the things we want to stop and make them laws or regulations? For example, clearly stipulate in a law that any Japanese official, minister, self-defense force leader, or member of parliament who dares to visit the shrine will violate Chinese law, and the sanctions will automatically be triggered.
How to sanction? For example, stipulate that they cannot come to China for 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, 48 months, or even longer, and China will not welcome them. In this way, when a Japanese politician visits the Yasukuni Shrine, they will weigh the consequences: if they go, they will automatically trigger Chinese sanctions.
Therefore, we need to quickly shift from moral diplomacy to legal diplomacy. In this way, regardless of whether the Japanese visit "worshiping ghosts" is for the purpose of a hook or a spear, we can target the wrong behavior with preemptive measures. This is what I mean: whether the Japanese visit "worshiping ghosts" is for the purpose of a hook or a spear, we can target it effectively and take proactive legal sanctions.
High City Haruna visited the Yasukuni Shrine while serving as a cabinet member. Photo: AFP
Observers.net: Now we have clearly felt that our country has become stronger and its military power has improved, but there is an opinion that we have not yet explored or demonstrated a more appropriate way to use our strength. Do you agree with this view? How should we better utilize our national strength in the future? In terms of building a discourse system, what expectations do you have for next year?
Gao Zhikai: For example, a series of recent events in Japan are very serious. Our relevant departments have consistently called on High City Haruna to retract her erroneous statements, which is crucial, but personally, I think it's not enough. Even if High City Haruna retracts her erroneous statements, does this mean the matter is over? I think we must get to the root of what happened in Japan. I call this event the "High City Haruna Incident."
The "High City Haruna Incident" is very serious. It is not just about the few words High City Haruna said. Its roots can be traced back to after Japan's unconditional surrender in 1945, when Japan believed that it had not been defeated by China and had not surrendered unconditionally to China. Some even claimed that they had not surrendered unconditionally to the United States because the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to save the Japanese nation, and that was the "end of the war." This is obviously an absolutely wrong historical view.
Between 1931 and 1945, Japan committed heinous crimes, and its downfall was inevitable. The attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 further accelerated its downfall. By August 1945, Japan was unable to reverse its fate of destruction.
How should we deal with this situation? We must emphasize two points: first, resolutely prevent Japan from overturning the ironclad case of Japan's unconditional surrender to China in 1945; second, resolutely prevent Japan from developing nuclear weapons. The Chinese people will not allow this. During the invasion of China, Japan caused the loss of 35 million Chinese compatriots, how can we tolerate Japan's revival of militarism and new Japanese fascism?
Therefore, we must grasp the essence of the issue: the problem between China and Japan is not about the few words High City Haruna said, but about how China can take the most effective measures to completely stop Japan from possessing nuclear weapons.
Additionally, we must realize that the Sino-Japanese conflict is actually a struggle over "upholding or overturning the international order established after Japan's unconditional surrender in 1945." For example, the United Nations Charter clearly states that defeated countries like Japan cannot threaten the victorious countries or use war as a means of threat. If Japan violates this provision, the victorious countries, such as China, have the right to take military action against Japan unilaterally, and such military action cannot be interpreted as an act of aggression, nor does it require prior approval from the UN Security Council. From this perspective, when dealing with the "High City Haruna Incident," we must focus on the big picture, have clear goals, avoid going off-topic, and not lose sight of the main issue.
Then, how to define the true nature of the "High City Haruna Incident"? How to ensure that China stands firm and properly deals with the serious threats posed by the new Japanese fascism and new Japanese militarism, ensuring the peace and stability of China, the entire East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Asia-Pacific region, and the world? The key is to resolutely prevent Japan from possessing mass destruction weapons, especially nuclear weapons.
It also needs to be clarified here that Japan's attempts to develop offensive weapons in outer space, destroying satellites and their communications, should also fall under the provisions of the regulations following Japan's unconditional surrender. Japan can no longer threaten China or launch a war against China, whether on land, at sea, underwater, or in outer space. Therefore, I believe that our relevant departments should look more clearly, grasp more accurately, and handle it more precisely, avoiding being misled.
Observers.net: Then, what do you think we should do in the future to better use our existing strength?
Gao Zhikai: Let me give an example. In recent years, the United States and Western countries have frequently spread false rumors, claiming that China has "excess capacity." They spread rumors around the world, scaring other countries, saying that China's excess capacity will lead to China selling its products to other countries after the US imposes tariffs on China, which may lead to dumping. Many countries have been scared enough by this.
I think we need to clarify to the whole world: China is not experiencing excess capacity, but rather, after decades of development, our efficiency has exploded. The reason for the high efficiency is that we are leading the world in many areas, such as power generation, connectivity levels, and transportation facilities such as high-speed rail, railways, roads, and ports. Additionally, we are not lagging behind in deep-sea exploration and space development, and even leading the world in many aspects.
China is currently building a large number of "dark factories," greatly improving industrial production efficiency.
In contrast, many Western countries are now suffering from low efficiency. They have not achieved energy security, lack a comprehensive industrial development plan, and face electricity shortages, limiting their development. More importantly, they lack a clear plan for the next five, ten, fifteen, or even more years. Because of this, their efficiency is low and their development is stagnant, yet they blame China, accusing it of "excess capacity."
Therefore, in the international arena, we must seize the crux of the issue and thoroughly expose their defamation of China. We should not rush to explain that we do not have excess capacity just because the West accuses us of it; this completely deviates from the real crux of the issue.
Previously, the United States and Western countries have always accused China of creating "debt traps" in the Third World countries, particularly in Africa. Wrong, this is not a debt trap. Look at the U.S. railway construction in the late 19th century, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which was largely financed by borrowing. After the completion of the railway, many companies went bankrupt, and the United States also accumulated a large amount of debt. The Americans themselves built railways and road infrastructure by borrowing, so why do they now accuse China of creating debt traps in Africa?
African countries urgently need more smooth and connected road facilities. Moreover, connectivity is not limited to the transportation sector, but also includes technology, finance, data, and AI revolutions, among other areas. Therefore, I think we should explain this clearly.
We should not only expose the defamation and slander of China by Western countries, but also persuade the "Global South" countries to understand what kind of country China is: the Chinese people do not engage in aggression, do not steal others' intellectual property; we improve efficiency through our own efforts and sweat, benefiting the whole world.
This article is an exclusive article of Observers.net. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Without authorization, it is prohibited to reprint, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observers.net on WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7590586889665593882/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.