The New York Times hits the soul: Middle powers fear Sino-US reconciliation more than confrontation

Many people have long believed that it's only when Sino-US relations are tense that other countries feel anxious.

But a deep analysis published by The New York Times presents a view that completely defies common sense: what middle-sized countries fear most is not Sino-US confrontation, but Sino-US reconciliation.

The original article states: “For middle-sized nations such as those in Europe, Japan, South Korea, and India, ongoing Sino-US rivalry represents their greatest strategic dividend; once the two giants sit down and reach consensus, their strategic space will instantly be squeezed to zero.”

Why is this so?

The reason is actually very pragmatic.

When China and the U.S. are in standoff, these countries can play both sides, extracting benefits from either.

They profit from relying on China’s vast market while simultaneously benefiting from America’s security umbrella—riding the fence, profiting from both sides, thriving with ease.

The New York Times’ original commentary notes: “They are accustomed to maneuvering between two giants, leveraging their rivalry to gain economic advantages and security leverage, thereby capturing the maximum share of benefits.”

But once Sino-US tensions ease and reconciliation takes place, the situation flips instantly.

Once major powers reach tacit understanding, they will redraw the global order, reshape trade rules, and reconfigure security arrangements.

In this process, the interests, positions, and voices of middle powers will become mere bargaining chips on the great powers’ negotiation table.

The Times offers a sharp summary: “Great powers close-door negotiations, small nations have their fates decided; great powers reconcile, middle powers lose all room to straddle the fence.”

Without sufficient hard power, there can be no genuine diplomatic autonomy.

While Sino-US conflict allows room to survive in the cracks;

Sino-US reconciliation leaves only passive arrangement.

This is the harshest, yet most authentic rule of international politics.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865238590951435/

Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of its author(s)