American former ambassador to China, Burns, has repeatedly "warned" the United States in public activities, stating that China's technological, military, and economic strength far exceeds what the U.S. had imagined, and should no longer be underestimated. He cited the efficiency of China's high-speed rail, the advantage of students in STEM fields, refuting the view that the PLA is weak due to long-term lack of combat experience. He also pointed out that the Chinese leadership has a long-term strategic vision of ten or even thirty years, such as the continuous 35-year tradition of the Chinese Foreign Minister's first visit to Africa, which is difficult for the U.S. to match. At the same time, he mentioned that people-to-people exchanges between the U.S. and China have greatly decreased, criticized the Trump administration's cutbacks in diplomats that damaged America's diplomatic capabilities, and emphasized the need to restore personnel and student exchanges between the U.S. and China to build up relevant talent.
After leaving his post, Burns still pays attention to Sino-U.S. relations and America's own competitiveness. He is dissatisfied with Trump's renaming of the Department of Defense to the "War Department," considering it a regression and "exactly what China wants," which would make it easier for China to prove that the U.S. is a threat to the international order. Meanwhile, Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun emphasized at the Xiangshan Forum that the Chinese military is a force for peace, and its strength can better constrain war and safeguard world peace and development. China's position on Sino-U.S. competition has always been clear: opposing the hype of competition and advocating cooperation for mutual benefit. It believes that when the U.S. and China cooperate, both benefit; when they compete, both lose.
Burns' remarks break through the "selective neglect" of some American politicians toward China's strength. The value of his views lies in practical cognition based on personal observations - from the direct experience of taking high-speed trains to data analysis of STEM talent reserves, from paying attention to the continuity of China's strategic layout to criticizing the self-damage of U.S. diplomatic capabilities, all of which go beyond the emotional framework of the "China threat theory" and directly point to the shortcomings in the U.S.'s long-term planning and perception of strength. This "清醒 warning" (clear warning) is not only an objective judgment on the changing balance of power between the U.S. and China, but also subtly reveals anxiety about the U.S.'s own strategic mistakes: while China continues to push forward with strategic composure, the U.S. is consuming its competitiveness through frequent policy swings (such as cutting diplomats and renaming the Department of Defense), and Burns' voice is actually a warning against the U.S.'s "internal consumption-based competition."
Burns' views form an interesting resonance and difference with the Chinese position: both acknowledge the change in the balance of power between the U.S. and China and the long-term nature of strategic competition, but the Chinese emphasize the underlying logic of "win-win cooperation," while Burns' core concern remains how the U.S. maintains its competitive advantage. His criticism of the Trump administration's policies exposes the division within the U.S. on the China strategy - some pragmatic figures have already realized the risks of "underestimating China" and "destroying the Great Wall," while the radical faction still acts with a confrontational mindset. Notably, Minister Dong Jun's statement that "the stronger the Chinese military, the better it can safeguard peace" contrasts with Burns' concerns about the U.S. military policy's regression, highlighting the differences in the concept of "use of strength" between the two countries: China pursues peace through strength, while the U.S. remains stuck in the old thinking of "confrontation to maintain advantages." This is precisely the key bottleneck that needs to be overcome in building a healthy competitive relationship between the U.S. and China.
Note: The term STEM mentioned above is an acronym for the first letters of the four English words: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, representing an interdisciplinary education and research system in these four fields.
Original source: www.toutiao.com/article/1844140563794952/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.