The U.S.-China relations has hit the bottom since the two nations ever had relations. There are numerous scholarly books about China policies and assessments on China's future in relation to the world development. Recently, the focus seems to shift to the confrontation between the two great nations as the U.S. officially designating China as her most serious competitor with policies and actions treating her as the enemy similar to targeting the Soviet Union as the enemy of a Cold War. The U.S. won the Cold War witnessing the collapse of the Soviet Union, but she also faced a new world where China has become the fastest growing nation in all aspects. Naturally, the U.S. has shifted her foreign policies focusing on China, but one troubling sign seemed to be that the U.S. was not doing an honest reflection on what she did wrong and what China did right but putting the blame on her missing the attention on China and letting her grow strong. Hence the remedy seems to be accelerating the pace that the U.S. used to do in foreign policies against a rising power and hoping she would succeed in stopping China's rise.
 
China is a different country with 5000 years of history and with many periods as the strongest nation in the world. The U.S. is a young country with only 246 years of history, but with a very successful track record making her feel exceptional. When comes to foreign affairs and international relations, the U.S. obviously exhibited the following characteristics: 1. No respect for history, especially history beyond her own hence likely to bias her judgment on other countries such as China. 2. Being a self-centered strong nation being too used to get her way by unilateral actions. 3. Accepting and practicing hypocritical policies, for example, on religion, freedom, democracy and human rights, using double standards. As a Christian nation the U.S. often acts against Christian beliefs and values in foreign countries. As a country with slow progress of 250 years of still imperfect democracy, the U.S. expects others to copy her system instantly with no consideration of their history and cultural inheritance. Having history of human rights violation on Indians, Blacks, Asians and Mexicans and serious discrimination still present today, the U.S. often waves the HR flag to interfere the domestic issues in other countries to the point of making regime change. These U.S. foreign policies have alienated the majority of countries in the UN, hence making the U.S. as an unsupported country. 
 
Today, the U.S. is being challenged by China that should be viewed as an opportunity to make an honest thorough reflection on her foreign policies and international relations, particularly with China. This task is critical and difficult from psychological point of view, but as a great nation it must be done, as we know confrontation with the threat of war is not a rational option. This article would like to make an attempt to do a self-reflection on the U.S. foreign policies and US-China relations for one purpose only, that is to stimulate our scholars and experts to think about the reflection. Hopefully the end result will make the U.S. to revise her current policy and course of action to deal with China. We shall use a number of qualifiers such as O, honorable, M, mutually beneficial, N, necessity, S, selfish or self-centered, C, calculated. D, double standard, and H, hypocritical to characterize our past U.S. policies in the past century or so. This qualitative calibration of our past foreign policies shall lead scholars to think deeper on the changing US-China relations and come up with an honest assessment and hopefully a guide to a correct China policy.
 
Chronologically, we can list our major foreign policies and characterize them with impact on China in mind using the above qualifiers as follows:
1.   1823 Monroe Doctrine (OMSD)
2.   1900 Joined Eight Nations to Invade China (SH)
3.   1914 WW I (SC)
4.   1929-39 Depression and U.S. Tariff to Protect Jobs (NS)
5.   1942-5 WW 2 (ONSCH)
6.   1942-79 ROC-KMT/Taiwan (OMSC)
7.   1948-52 Marshall Plan (OMNSC)
8.   1950-53 Korean War (SCH)
9.   1955-75 Vietnam War (SCH)
10. 1971-79 PRC-Nixon-Carter (MNSCD)
11, 1945-62-91 Cold War with the Soviet Union with Cuban Crisis (ONSC)
12. 1950-2020  American Policy on Tibet and HR (SCDH)
13. 1997-2019 Return of Hong Kong to China by UK – HK Issue (SCDH)
14. 2018-2021 U.S.-China Trade War First Phase (NSC)
15. 2019-2022 U.S. Technology Sanction against China (SCDH)
16. 2020-2022 Xinjiang Sanction against China (SCDH)
17. 1947-2022 US China Policy Ignoring China Peaceful Rise as a Fact-China's Departure from Soviet Union(1960)-SCO(2001)-Dialoque Organization(2002)-BRICS(2009)-AIIB-BRI(2013-2022) (MNSCDH)
18.  1950-2022 NATO against Soviet Union/Russia- Kosvo-Afghanistan-Iraq-Libiya-Iran-Ukraine (SCDH)
 
The above list is certainly an oversimplified tabulation with not enough details on each foreign policy and what events exactly happened. But they are well known topics that most people should be familiar with. The qualifiers are not intended to place right or wrong judgment since foreign policies are not easily judged by moral standards. However, the list provides logical base to conclude that the U.S. China policy over the years have largely driven by U.S. self-centered or selfish considerations, primarily with the goal to keep the supremacy of the U.S. In diplomatic language, it is saying that the U.S. would like to keep a rule-based world order based on her rules and calculations. The U.S. has been used to make the rules and China and some others are now questioning those unilaterally determined rules. When the rules are fair to all and beneficial to participants, then there will be no problem. When countries rise and find the rules not fair or not advantageous to them, they will demand new rules to be determined by multilateral parties. The present U.S.-China tension is fundamentally rooted in this cause.
 
Regarding China's rapid rise and her demand for a fair role on the world stage, so far, the U.S. essentially has taken a rigid position that the U.S. expects to maintain the rules. The U.S. will apply sanctions to enforce the rules or pull out of the organization. The latter threat was quite effective when the U.S. commanded nearly 40% of the world economy and maintained a military power no one could challenge. However, since China has risen to be the number two economy of the world, it is natural that she is concerned about the rules that will limit her growth. In a plain language, China wishes to have her citizens to elevate to economic middle class status, that means China will advance further in technology elevating her manufacturing industry to higher technology levels pressuring the U.S. The fact that China has already moved to the forefront in 5G, quantum computing and communication as well as AI technology which essentially making China the world's number one hi-tech manufacturing country not just a dominant low-tech manufacturing country. This of course is a threat to the U.S. and her high-tech industries.
 
The present U.S. China policy is targeting China as a hegemonic enemy assuming she will behave exactly as the U.S. has been. This assumption will lead the two competing nations into the Thucydides trap to war as prescribed by the hegemony theory. However, the U.S. has ignored the fact that China has risen peacefully without launching wars or through territory expansion, therefore, there must be peaceful ways of competing between these two great countries, each blessed with rich resources and separated by an ocean.

​ 
On May 21st, 2022, people of Australia elected a new Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, candidate of the Labor Party. Albanese defeated Scott Morrison of the Conservative Party ending his nine years rein of the Australian parliament. Morrison has been frequently in the limelight of the world stage because of his outspoken manner in particular following the drum beats of the U.S. and U.K. against China. Despite of the fact that China is a major trade partner of Australia contributing to its economic growth, Morrison often toots his horn in orchestration with the “China Threat” tune promoted by the U.S. Australia is thousands of miles away from China separated by the Pacific and Indian Oceans with no issue of any territorial dispute. In fact, Australia enjoys a very profitable trade surplus with China in exporting, iron and coal as well as wine and agricultural products. Australia also has a significant number of Chinese students studying in Australia contributing foreign exchanges to her higher education. One wonders why Morrison would take an anti-China stance to destroy their trade relation as well as other diplomatic even cultural exchanges. In the last few years, Australia suffered in her economy, compounded by the COVID Pandemic and effect of climate change, in addition, the Australians also witnessed Morrison’s inconsistent foreign policies, flipping warm and cold to China, antagonizing China as well as alienating France in his joining AUKUS and canceling of the French submarine deal in favor of the U.S. submarines.
 
There are plenty of reasons for Morrison to lose the election, but on the flip side we should analyze why and how Albanese win the election and how different Albanese will be. On the surface, Albanese is a polished politician, a good speaker (although with a strong Aussie accent difficult for foreigners to catch his every phrase) and one knowing how to use timely political slogan - Change for a better future. He projected a positive can-do image by touting several campaign principles - He will bring Australians together, he will bring better life for next generation, and he will care for the disadvantaged and underprivileged. Of course, he also promised to work hard on climate war, healthcare, renewable energy and pumping up the economy. One of the major issues is foreign policy and we wonder whether he will bring change or improve the relationship with China. The China issue is not an isolated one since it is now clear, President Biden following Trump is continuing ‘targeting China’ as the most critical competitor, a long code name for ‘enemy’. When the U.S. made it more open and direct that China is a threat, she utilized all her media power to paint a picture of China Threat not just to the U.S. but to the entire world. Of course, there is no justification to crown China as a world threat since China never invaded any other country and she is the only nuclear power declared that she would never first use nuclear weapon nor on anyone with no nuclear force. China threat is a fictional creation; China is simply working hard and effectively to give her 1.4 billion people a better life - an objective every leader including the new Australian PM desires to fulfill.
 
Whatever reason Morrison found comradeship with President Trump and his successor Biden regarding China Threat, the Australians should now rethink carefully, during the transition from Morrison to the new MP. Why would China be a threat to Australia when she needs and buys energy and food from Australia. The Russian-Ukraine war is a good example, the Cold War and detente are a mutual threat. Expansion of NATO closer to Russia’s door step increases the threat to Russia. Now the conflict broke out, the U.S.-EU-NATO are sanctioning Russia, but the energy exporting country can fight back. EU with energy dependence on Russia is really hurt. Australia like Russia is an energy exporting nation, there is no one placing missiles or military bases to her door step. Where is the threat? The Solomon Islands? The Chinese government simply wants to protect her people in Solomon Islands from riots and anti-China activists. There is no threat from China to Australia in the huge Southwest Pacific Ocean nor to the U.S. The history of colonialism is long passed, people on earth must abandon the racial discrimination produced by colonialism and consider all mankind are one body with a common destiny that is to live a better life. Americans, Australians, Chinese …. all have the same desire and the same right to live a better live.
 
We can not predict whether Albanese will bring a positive change to the Australia-China relation, but the new PM has the opportunity to do so. Albanese is only 59 years old (Born March 2, 1963 Sydney), a parliament member since 1996, He became the leader of the opposition Australian Labor party (ALP) in 2019. He was the deputy prime minister during the Kevin Rudd government and served as a cabinet member (Communications, Urban Infrastructures Cities and Arts of Australia. (2007-2013) As the leader of the Australian Labor Party, he should be aware of that the ALP has at least 1.2 million Chinese Aussies as members. It is no brain-er that a good Australia-China relation will be good for the party and good for the country especially economically The current U.S. anti-China policy has already rekindled the racial discrimination induced hate crimes in the U.S., not only the anti-black anti-white hate crimes but also the anti- Chinese and anti-Asian hate crimes. The U.S. government is arguing that anti-China is not against the Chinese people, it is against the CCP government. Who are they kidding? The CCP government has the highest people support (rating) of all governments on Earth according to international survey. As observers of Aussie politics, we congratulate Albanese for winning the election as people voted for change. The PM's first foreign trip will be attending the QUAD summit in Tokyo this May. PM Albanese has an opportunity to think and act independently for Aussies benefits not someone else's selfish plot. Perhaps Albanese and Modi, PM of India, together they will guide QUAD onto a peaceful course for world peace.



​

 
Since the end of World War II, the world has become polarized, dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, both sides adopted the 'hypothetical enemy' national strategy and designated the other as a constant ‘targeted enemy’, resulting in all-round hostile confrontation in political ideology, diplomacy, military, economics, technology, space, and even cultural, artistic and most apparently constant media confrontation. This 'targeted enemy' national strategy has been in a stalemate for the two superpowers more than 45 years. It has greatly hindered human development, national progress, and advances in people's well-being. The progress achieved in military competition, such as arms race and misguided space technology yielded little real benefits but more harm to human beings. Finally, the Soviet Union disintegrated but it did not represent a success for the US "targeted enemy" national strategy, rather a failure of the Soviet Union's "targeted enemy" national policy. This is because that the Soviet Union has neglected the basic requirements of the people's ‘livelihood’ economy. Looking back at history from today's world situation, it can be said that the "targeted enemy" national strategy of the United States has not been successful. America would be a greater nation simply because of her rich resources, ingenious immigrants and American's ‘can do’ spirit, none of these has anything to do with her ‘hypothetical enemy’ strategy. Unfortunately, this strategy is still continuing and causing a slow decay in the U.S. due to the wars it started.
 
The U.S. has become a great world power after World War II for a variety of reasons, including its history, geography, resources, growing immigrant population and international situation. The U.S., in her thinking of maintaining her power status, is unfortunately latched on the "targeted enemy" strategy to gather the energy and power of the people within the country. Perhaps, because the United States is a country of immigrants constantly attracting immigrants from foreign lands. However, such a ‘targeted enemy’ strategy is a negative policy for uniting citizen's minds and gathering national strength. It takes a lot of energy and resources to cultivate negative thinking for a long enough time to produce irreversible ‘hypothetical or imaginary enemy’ profile, and often it requires creating false images and stories to characterize the ‘targeted enemy’. The result is that the strategy will be detrimental to the targeted country, causing opportunities to misguide or derail both countries’ national development, receiving only short-lived gains, and getting long-term damages that are difficult to reverse or to make up for. For example, the U.S. and Russia basically have many similarities. Both are big countries with rich resources, and most of their people believe in the same God. The U.S. also has many Russian immigrants and other immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Now the U.S. and Russia have become permanent enemies all because of the ‘targeted enemy’ strategy. This strategy has many theoretical faults with long-term impact. Furthermore, it takes a huge amount of manpower, material resources and time to create a targeted enemy, or to switch one or to add one to an existing theme. Today, the U.S. wants to create China as the targeted enemy, we can see all the handwritings on the wall. The U.S. has spent a lot of energy and resources to create false stories, such as genocide, virus spreader, loansharks, etc., to paint China as a threatening war monger, but the progress is zigzagged with lots of loopholes and not very convincing internationally, simply because China is not a real enemy but a rising competitor. China has never invaded or occupied any other country but offered mutual economic development. One of the critical ills the targeting China as enemy has created in the U.S. is division in her society and sharp rise of hate-Asian crimes.
 
Adopting the ‘targeted enemy’ national strategy on the basis of political ideology requires one’s own political and economic system to be perfect. Although the U.S. is the world's largest economy, but there is no perfect political and economic system in this world, only different systems suitable to each nation’s geographic conditions, history and natural resources available. So different systems cannot be characterized to be wrong at all, but every system must work with each other by bilateral and/or international agreements. As a world power, the U.S. naturally has great influence, but using an ‘hypothetical enemy’ national strategy to establish a targeted enemy unilaterally has no theoretical foundation. The hypothesis will be destroyed by changes happening in the international arena and denounced by the international community. When the ‘targeted enemy’ was forced upon a nation, small countries may not dare to speak out except being angry, but big countries will behave differently. China and Russia are good examples. The U.S. should think deep about whether targeting them as enemies, singly or together is a right or smart national strategy at all.
 
It is definitely unnecessary to apply the hypothetical enemy strategy to other small countries. Spending a lot of energy to build an enemy image does not create great cohesion in one’s own country. People’s perceptions of other small countries are shallow, sometimes, insensitive, so to apply the hypothetical enemy strategy to small country is really not worth the effort, only causing rift and future regret among the immigrants from the small countries or tarnishing the great power’s national image. For example, Cuba, a small neighbor of the U.S. has been designated as an hypothetical or targeted enemy by the U.S. for more than a half century. Is it beneficial to the U.S.? Not at all, except it created a strange political phenomenon in the U.S. For example, the Cuban-born Senator Marco Rubio has been involved in creating China as a targeted enemy in his senate career, hyping up China's human rights issues rather than caring about US-Cuba relations. Rubio seems to be against his conscience caring less about US-Cuba trades or Florida domestic issues than Xinjiang’s cotton production or Hong Kong’s street protests. Now Rubio is viewed as a traitor by many Cubans and ex-patriots, regarded as persona non grata in China, and cast as an opportunistic politician in the U.S.
 
Using ‘hypothetical or targeted enemy’ as a national strategy to deal with major powers is costly and risky with outcome difficult to predict. The Soviet Union is an example. Fortunately, the U.S. national policy was not defeated, but it was not a lasting plan, since the U. S. felt compelled to ally with China to rival with the Soviet Union. In 1990, the Soviet Union disintegrated on its own, but Russia still exists. Russia’s revival with a different system was apparent. And her rise could not be ignored but not wise as another ‘targeted enemy’. History has shown to us that it is difficult to maintain the cohesion of the U.S. for long by relying on the ‘target enemy’ strategy and the chances of failure are great and devastating. The Vietnam War is a good example. North Vietnam and Russia were the mortal enemies of the U.S. and the South Vietnam at the start of the war, but in the end, the Vietnam War ended by the North and South Vietnam unified. The biggest stain in U.S. history. The U.S. seems to be obsessed with the ‘targeted enemy’ national strategy, one enemy defeated must continue with another hypothetical enemy. China is the latest example, but China is completely different from the Soviet Union. Today, it will take a great deal of energy to create a ‘substitute’ hypothetical enemy. How much the U.S. national strategists wish they could simply turn off Russia and turn on China as the targeted enemy. But there are too many contradictions, too much difficulties and too uncertain in gains versus losses. Today's complex US-China confrontation is precisely created by the U.S. ‘targeted enemy’ national strategy. Using other countries' internal affairs to find reasons to create a hypothetical enemy has no basis in international law since other countries' internal affairs do not have impact on the U.S. national interest nor security. Interfering in other nation’s domestic affairs to create a hypothetical enemy for uniting the American citizens has a fragile foundation and likely creating U.S. own domestic issues. The current U.S. target China national strategy has already created a domestic security problem - anti-Chinese extended to anti-Asian crisis. The increase of hate-Asian crime in the U.S. not only tearing apart American societies but also worsen the racial discrimination issue in the U.S. This hurts the U.S. international image and causes concern in the international community. As a result, we see that the Southeast Asian countries have either refused to choose sides in the US-China confrontation or taken the China side.
 
The hypothetical enemy or targeted enemy national policy is time-consuming and laborious. On the contrary, the targeted enemy country does not have to respond in the same way. The response tactics of the targeted enemy can be selective and focused, according to the international situation and its own historical evolution. The Ukrainian-Russian war today is a good example. Of course, the U.S. is continuing with Russia as her targeted enemy, but the U.S. is also creating China as her hypothetical enemy and her targeted enemy in the future. Can the U.S. hold China to stand in line with her to condemn Russia and be the targeted enemy later, is that possible? A practical thinking? China's response tactics can be flexible for her own interest, since China does not have to treat the U.S. as an hypothetical enemy, nor Russia or Ukraine. China can play her cards based on reasoning, facts, and long-term interests. Thus, China is maintaining a normal diplomacy and mutually beneficial relations with Russia and Ukraine, doing business as usual and urging both sides to cease fire and negotiate. The U.S., on the other hand, is obviously bound by her ‘targeted enemy' national strategy, and can only rely on its buddies (AUKUS and NATO) to support an unsymmetrical war that could have been avoided if the U.S. (and NATO) were not adhering to a ‘target enemy’ strategy. Now they are riding a tiger not knowing how to get off.

To sum up, politicians do not have crystal balls seeing the future and it is absolutely impossible to predict and control the future. Therefore, the 'hypothetical enemy' or the ‘targeted enemy’ national strategy is a misguided policy for harming others and not benefiting oneself. The U.S. should reflect on her past and charter a new strategy. Examining the Ukraine-Russian war with a causality analysis, it is clear that the war is the direct result of a 'targeting Russia' strategy which was driven by the U.S., NATO, and EU. It is absolutely necessary for Ukraine (and NATO and EU) to abandon the ‘targeted enemy' strategy and explore good neighborliness and peaceful co-existence approach as the way to govern their relations with Russia and other neighbors. Hopefully, they will be able to manage their foreign relations and not become a pawn of sacrifice in a 'targeted enemy' game in the future. Taiwan has been very concerned about the situation in Ukraine. In fact, Taiwan is clearly a pawn in the U.S. ‘targeting China’ strategy. Taiwan should understand that the ‘targeted enemy' strategy is a negative policy which can only harm others, oneself and possibly the world, especially he pawn. Taiwan should learn a lesson from the U.S.-NATO-Ukraine-Russia war and come away with a clear understanding that there is a bright opportunity in the future for Taiwan by simply abandoning the ‘hypothetical enemy‘ strategy！Only positive thinking can bring cooperation and mutual benefits. Only positive thinking can bring positive changes to political and economic systems. Mainland China and Taiwan have such an opportunity.


​