Author: Keka; Translator: O.G. Megalol; Proofreading: Bluesky；Page：Rain
In a statement issued on Wednesday (December 16), Admiral Phil Davidson, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, claimed that China did not attend the “Maritime Military Security Meeting” related to the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) originally scheduled from December 14 to December 16. He also stated that ” this proves to be a warning to all states forming agreements with China.”
In response to Davidson’s accusation, Liu Wensheng, spokesman of the Chinese Navy, said in a statement that “China provided suggestions to the United States on topics and arrangements on November 18, but the United States did not adopt them.” Then he criticized the United States for “forced pushing the idea of the topic, shortening the meeting time, and changing the nature of the meeting”, and “the responsibility rests entirely with the US.” that China was not present during the meeting.
Liu Wensheng’s statement is worthy of scrutiny.
1. Before November 18, have the United States and China made arrangements for the meeting’s agenda and arrangements? If there is an arrangement, the Chinese side’s suggestion will be extravagant and unreasonable, and it is reasonable for the U.S. not to adopt it;
2. If there is no arrangement before November 18, then the Chinese side will provide issues and arrangement suggestions, but the U.S. side can choose not to adopt them; then, when the U.S. side will provide suggestions, the Chinese side may also choose not to adopt them. So why did the United States’ side become a “forced agenda”?
3. Even if the two sides have differences in the topics and arrangements of the meeting. The significance of holding a meeting is to eliminate discrepancies and form a consensus. It can be seen from the statements of the two parties that the United States has been carefully preparing for this meeting. This is a video conference. There is no home or away venue. So why hasn’t China prepared to participate in the meeting? The answer is simple; they just don’t want to resolve differences through negotiation. If the meeting is not revolving around the topics and arrangements The Chinese raised, there will be no meeting. So who is pushing the issue?
4. From November 18 to December 18, there is one month in between. Suppose the Chinese side is not going to attend the meeting. Has the U.S. side been notified? If not, then aren’t they leaving the U.S. hanging? It is a pure waste of the other party’s time and energy. Such behavior is either that of a coward or a rascal. It is neither civilized nor moral!
5. How do you understand “changing the nature of the meeting”? The meeting’s nature is only communication and negotiation; can it be changed into quarrel and struggle? People would say that they met for exchanges and consultations. Who would say that the two sides met for quarrels and struggles? This is not what a human would say. To say “changing the nature of the meeting” means that you have already confessed your crime.
In any case, this incident marks the end of the “Maritime Military Security Consultation Mechanism” signed by China and the United States in 1998.
And it has significantly increased the possibility of a “first shot” on the maritime territory
No matter the consequences, there is only one rule that punks go by, they listen not to reason but the the fists of those stronger.
Edited by：【Himalaya Hawk Squad】-Click spark adobe