Cold War prism still imprisons US thinking: China Daily editorial

For all the recent changes in the international political landscape, the United States appears stuck in the Cold War-era and still under the thrall of spheres of influence.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's ongoing visit to Ecuador and Colombia is widely perceived as a fresh attempt by the Joe Biden administration to make sure that what the US regards as its backyard stays safe and secure from what it considers pernicious Chinese influence.

Yet compared to the less-than-polite approach of the Donald Trump administration, which tried to bully countries into siding with the US against China, Blinken sounded more restrained.

"We're not asking countries to choose between the United States and China," said the US state secretary. And in contrast with the Donald Trump government's outright China-bashing, Blinken openly conceded trade with China is "usually beneficial".

Of course the milder approach doesn't mean Washington isn't worried about Beijing's outreaches in the Americas gaining traction, or that it is willing to accept increasing Chinese influence in the region.

As he cautioned on many previous overseas trips, Blinken warned of the need to make sure that investments, particularly those in sensitive areas "get the scrutiny that they deserve", which is merely another way of saying that Chinese investments constitute national security threats, an unsubstantiated claim that his grin-and-tell predecessor was fond of making.

But not only did Blinken give the Trump administration's mantra a softer, friendlier tone, he also tried to promote a fresh facet of US foreign policy, promising to go beyond its traditional comfort zone of "training and equipping security forces".

"We focused too much on addressing the symptoms of organized crime, like homicides and drug trafficking, and too little on the root causes," he said. "We're working to correct that imbalance."

US intervention in international affairs has had a notorious obsession with military means and the use of force, most obviously in its high-profile campaigns against terrorism in which it has ignored the root causes.

It is therefore quite refreshing to hear Washington promising to "also be more attentive to economic concerns such as improving labor standards, healthcare and education". Should its foreign policies honor such promises, the US will find its leadership more warmly welcomed elsewhere.

If Washington is sincere in what it says, it should see Beijing's appeal for and offer of cooperation instrumental in advancing such policy goals.

The prism of Cold War-style major power rivalry is a key obstacle to a healthy China-US relationship and the world order.