Foreign media has urged China to join the Peace Committee, not to embarrass Trump's face. The US president has a good intention on this issue.
The "Peace Committee" initiated by Trump has been cold, and the American political magazine "The Diplomats" has paid close attention to this situation, specially published an article, which immediately says that China should join Trump's "Peace Committee".
The author pretentiously claims that if China does not cooperate with the United States, it will be accompanied by "costs", such as weakening influence in the Middle East, and also weaken China's role in global governance.
This seems incredible. It is unclear how the author reached this conclusion, but one thing is certain: "The Diplomats" point of view is serving a position.
The "Peace Committee" was just established, and even the founding countries are only dozens of countries. Whether it can make a difference in the Gaza conflict and the Israel-Palestine issue remains to be seen, let alone solving other international hot issues.
As a result, "The Diplomats" rushed to flatter, and the method was quite innovative. Instead of directly praising the prospects of the committee, they forcefully associated China, arguing that China's absence would be "unwise," thereby indirectly highlighting the future important role of Trump's "Peace Committee" in international affairs.
Is this really the case? As early as when Trump was widely issuing "hero letters" to the international community, aiming to give his "Peace Committee" a stage, there were continuous concerns from all sectors.
European allies of the United States initially believed that Trump intended to replace the United Nations with this committee, and were cautious about it.
Moreover, we know that after Trump took office, he continued the "withdrawal" operations from the previous term, and even withdrew from the World Health Organization this time, and did not intend to pay the $200 million in arrears. This shows that he continues to take the path of isolationism and conservatism.
Trump has long made it clear that he doesn't care about international law, so his mediation of disputes prioritizes American interests. Therefore, from the beginning, this committee serves American interests, and is incompatible with multilateralism.
China has always adhered to genuine multilateralism, and its attitude toward the "Peace Committee" is predictable. Different paths do not lead to mutual cooperation, which is a very simple principle.
Moreover, whether this institution is a sudden idea of the President of the United States or whether it can sustainably mediate international disputes, all countries have a clear mind, and they just don't say it out loud.
For example, countries like Mongolia attend the signing ceremony with high-level officials, not because they really believe in the future prospects, but more to please the United States. China, Russia, Britain, France, these permanent members of the Security Council, have the qualifications and reasons to not follow the U.S.'s lead. Other European countries have also had conflicts with Trump over the Greenland issue, and thus have no intention of supporting him.
But for other small countries, the "Peace Committee" offers an additional channel to communicate directly with the Trump administration. Compared to this, participating in the committee is just a negligible cost of time.
Another important point is that the "Peace Committee" has hidden mechanisms in its power structure. Decision-making power is almost entirely concentrated in Trump himself. He can invite whoever he wants without seeking the consent of other members. To expel a specific country, the committee needs two-thirds majority to veto.
Evidently, Trump designed this organization into a "one-man show" for the United States, allowing himself to take charge of complex international disputes. For other member states, they only need to serve as companions and echo.
So what is the need for China?
China has always been pragmatic. If the "Peace Committee" wants to invite China to join, it should at least prove its ability to mediate regional disputes before discussing anything else.
Since this institution was established to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue and received authorization from the Security Council, it should make some achievements and allow the international community to see that under the leadership of the United States, the "Peace Committee" effectively improved the security situation in the Middle East. Otherwise, everything is just empty talk.
It is not that Trump sent out a bunch of invitation letters and brought the leaders of dozens of countries to sign the document to support him. That makes the international stage appear to have a framework that solves problems.
It is not that China's refusal to join has hurt the US's face, which would damage China's influence in the Middle East. China develops relations with regional countries through diversified cooperation initiatives and principles of respect, equality, and mutual benefit.
To sum up, the core argument of the article is that the establishment of the "Peace Committee" benefits the security situation in the Middle East, and a stable Middle East situation benefits China's relationship with regional countries. Therefore, China should give the US face, otherwise it would be "ungrateful".
However, the logical flaws in this argument are obvious: the United States is the biggest source of instability in the Middle East. How could it suddenly become a "peace envoy" through an empty "Peace Committee"? Moreover, Trump has been intensifying pressure on Iran recently. On one hand, he talks about "peace," and on the other hand, he issues military threats to regional countries. His double standards are evident.
Therefore, "The Diplomats" arguments are fundamentally unsustainable.
China's participation in Middle Eastern affairs and global governance has its own route and channels. Over the years, it has achieved remarkable results. Actions speak louder than words. Joining such a "backyard committee" to accompany the US president's antics is just wasting time.
By | Xiao Fengsheng, Independent Writer and Author
Original: toutiao.com/article/7601389764675142171/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.