The challenge faced by both Beijing and Washington in the 21st century is how to build a new security architecture in East Asia instead of continuing the existing one.

There is no doubt that a reform of any military power is a great improvement or even a subversive demolishment of the old system. India's reform process has only just started and it already faces many challenges and fears that New Delhi will face more tasks in the overhaul process. India's military reform in a short period still seems relatively radical.

The more Washington upholds the Quad, the more countries will see through the essence of the bloc – which is a pure creator of crisis, confrontation, chaos, and antagonism. Thus, the Biden administration's goal to legitimize its campaign will be resisted by more and more countries.

ASEAN was founded against the background of the Cold War, from which the members have clearly learned lessons.

As two major countries with vital roles in East Asia, China and Japan have broad consensus on regional cooperation.

India will continue to pursue its major power status. But serving as a staging post for US, India will merely play the role as a follower. As a result, India's international status and image will be undermined, so will be its national interests.

The SCO can play an important role in the Afghan issue because it represents an international voice to express SCO member states' position and concerns about Afghanistan. This is a positive step. It holds the potential to greatly promote the coordinated resolution of the Afghan issue.

China and ASEAN countries should regard South China Sea as a "test field" of building the maritime community with a shared future. In this way, we can truly build the South China Sea into a common homeland of regional countries for shared prosperity, and contribute to the human being's peaceful use of oceans and the establishment of a new maritime order.

The right of foreign ships to navigate in the sea areas under the sovereign jurisdiction of the coastal state is not derived from freedom of navigation. The claim that such right of navigation is equivalent to freedom of navigation will obviously undermine the rights of the coastal state. It will hence upset the balance of rights and obligations between the coastal state and other states.

Although India has not formally joined the Five Eyes, it has established different forms and levels of intelligence sharing with members of the group. In this regard, China must be vigilant against the future impact of intelligence sharing between India and the Five Eyes.

No matter who wins the race for leadership of Japan's LDP, there is already a consensus within the party on continuing policies that emphasize a close US-Japan alliance. Thus, the China-Japan ties will likely keep the status quo or even deteriorate.

The first India-Australia 2+2 dialogue indicates the two countries are warming up to each other. But as their cooperation is unbalanced – concentrating merely in politics, but little in economy, there is nothing for China to worry about.

$1 billion invest annually from US to Pacific islands to counter Beijing? Not likely.

US' “20-year war” has come to an end, costing billions of dollars and causing hundreds of thousands of casualties among the Afghan people. What can the US learn from this? What lessons have been learned? Will it happen again?

US did not hesitate to lash out at the new Afghan cabinet. But who made Taliban where it is today? If US is so against the force, why did it sit on negotiation table with Taliban, reached an agreement with it and abandoned Ghani government?

Modi's visit to the US signals he hopes India-US ties to move closer. A Chinese idiom goes, “Those who have the same illness sympathize with each other.” But as India leans closer toward the US, its strategic autonomy will continue to fall flat.

The Taliban should safeguard their national independence while avoiding conflict and confrontation especially in their interactions with the US and the West in general.

Australian forces' decision to “challenge" China's amended Maritime Traffic Safety Law stands to simultaneously undermine the seriousness of international law, China's interests and regional security. It will be a no-win contest.

Japan has limited choices. Even if it is unwilling to commit itself to defending Taiwan at home, it has to follow US' lead on the Taiwan question.

India's main purpose in catering to the West is to build its image as a so-called democracy by smearing China and Pakistan.

Afghanistan is an independent sovereign state and belongs to the Afghan people. US and India's idea of ceding their influence in Afghanistan to others shows the arrogance of their hegemonic mind-set.

China and Russia are cooperating on the Afghan issue, but the two countries are not aiming at establishing a new Quad mechanism.

The US' hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan will to some extent shake the Indian strategic community's confidence in the US' credibility as well as the US' ability and willingness to fulfill its commitments to its allies and partners.

Japan is well aware that it cannot benefit if a military clash breaks out between China and the US.

The failure of the US and some other Western countries in Afghanistan has once again proven that the emphasis on only strikes will not be helpful to fight terrorism. And putting the interests of some countries above others and even humankind cannot fundamentally solve the problem of international terrorism.

Australia has burned bridges behind itself.

India has long praised itself as the largest democracy in the world. It is therefore favored by the US and the West, allowing itself to enjoy a benign environment for development. However, democratic chaos has been repeated in this South Asian country, making it a target of criticism of both Western and Indian scholars.

Even if the UK from time to time sends warships or carrier strike groups to Asian waters, those activities are only short-term. They have very limited influence on the regional situation, if any whatsoever.

Afghanistan, as well as other ethnic groups and lands, has suffered from the political interference of the great powers. But now they will have the opportunity to strive for their own happiness with the people of the world under the multilateral order of equality, mutual benefit and friendship.

Washington thought it could lead the other countries by the nose by touting out the so-called democratic values. But such a baton does not work anymore. These countries eye pragmatic interests, and will not serve US hegemony.

As US Western allies are questioning its capabilities and seeking more autonomy on policy, Washington's plan for a strategic shift and great power competition by withdrawing from Afghanistan has appeared unreasonable and powerless without support.

The new refugee crisis is directly linked to the political upheaval triggered by the hasty withdrawal of the US military.

Taiwan is only one card in the eyes of the US. But Afghanistan was one card for multiple usages.

For the Biden administration, Harris' trip should consolidate the Indo-Pacific Strategy in Southeast Asia to start competition with China from a better "position of strength." However, the problem is many Southeast Asian countries do not believe their vision of the Indo-Pacific is completely consistent with the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Countries in the Indian Ocean should be wary of the expansion of the Colombo Security Conclave, a mechanism that might become a trap set by India to maintain its dominance in the region and realize its geopolitical ambitions.

Will Kamala Harris rope in Asian allies and partners to roil South China Sea waters during her SE Asia trip? Even the staunchest US allies, for instance, NATO members,, don't want to worsen their ties with China because of South China Sea issue.

If the situation in Afghanistan worsens, Biden may need China's help more, rather than solicit bipartisan consensus to suppress China.

India is a country with the ambition to develop into a global power. It needs to rely on itself regarding both development and security. Only with autonomy can New Delhi improve its international status and gain international respect.

Could US end its strategic profligacy in a decent way? Witnessing Kabul's “Saigon moment,” one has to ask: How much capacity does the US still have to stay in its position as the so-called leader to lead its partners to meet various challenges?

HRW has provoked politically and socially toxic environments through consistently fabricating misleading information and launching groundless attacks against Cambodia since the early 1990s

The fact is that China will never intervene in Afghanistan in the way the US has done in the past 20 years. Instead, China has offered constructive suggestions that are totally different from the US approach, and that may lead to results the US approach can never achieve.

Australia has its own national interest to prioritize rather than serving Washington's strategy to preserve its global hegemony. It therefore takes prudence and wisdom for the Morrison government to think wisely before it leaps into the anti-China trap set up by Washington.

Japan must strictly abide by international law and the norms of international relations. It must adhere to its commitments made in the Japan-China Joint Communiqué, and fully respect the one-China principle It must fully implement Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. There is absolutely no gray area in this regard.

The US' conventional deterrence capability in the Western Pacific has relatively declined. It is eager to unite allies and partners to strengthen its conventional deterrence capabilities against China, which reflects its strategic anxiety.

The US and Japan want to drag ASEAN members in geopolitical conflicts mainly to create trouble for China. However, this approach is against the interests of Southeast Asian countries.

In words, Washington has repeatedly underlined to maintain ASEAN centrality in regional cooperation. But in reality, Washington has been acting "from a position of strength" toward ASEAN members in multilateral situations.

The Biden administration's senior officials have recently kicked off frequent visits to Asia. Their tasks are inherently contradictory.

How many evil deeds have been done in Australia's notorious offshore detention centers? Why has Australia's immigration policy come under so much fire? Under the hypocritical mask of “human rights preacher” are undiscovered crimes and evil deeds.

The visits of senior US officials did not ease the concerns of Southeast Asian countries, but continue to strengthen the pressure of regional countries to take sides.

US needs to draw India into its strategic competition with China, but it still pressures India on human rights issues. This clearly indicates India is of little value to the US beyond the issue of containing China ideologically and geopolitically.

Duterte's decision to keep the VFA can be seen as a compromise to domestic pro-US political forces. It doesn't mean Manila will align itself closely with Washington to confront Beijing.

The Japanese ambassador's void promises and futile support carry no actual substance. It is simply out of the question that Japan, itself ensnared in the deteriorating pandemic, would lend a helping hand to Australia's economic plight.

If Islamabad has any need in this regard to combat terrorism, Beijing will surely provide assistance.

On the fifth anniversary of the ruling today, the best and ultimate way of “commemoration” is to throw it into the dustbin of history.

50 years after Gough Whitlam's visit to China, it is imperative today's politicians in Canberra should modestly learn his political sagacity. Australia's anti-China campaign has reaped in for itself nothing but economic and political losses.

Against such a background, it's impossible for Quad to replace ASEAN as a main regional security order platform.

Although Washington still has a heavy influence on the Asia-Pacific, its dominance of the region is destined to weaken in the future, and will eventually end.

If history has any lesson to these ancient civilizations, it's a combination of historical events, structural shifts, and bold initiatives that can help rectify a new stability in China-India ties.

One year since the Galwan conflict, we have seen few Indians seriously reflect on why China-India relations have deteriorated to such a point today.

Now, China has raised propositions that meet the interests of every party involved in the Afghanistan issue. However, whether or not the issue will be settled depends mainly on the effectiveness of consultations between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

In addition to following Washington, Tokyo has also made some active adjustments. It is generally believed that Suga has inherited policies from former prime minister Shinzo Abe, but Suga has also made some changes considering demands from Japan's domestic politics. For example, some factions within the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) have hyped up Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong and human rights issues. As president of the LDP, Suga has to take such an anti-China public opinion trend into account.

As for China, it needs to strengthen its cooperation with regional countries, including Malaysia. It also needs to increase military exchanges and mutual trust between Beijing and Kuala Lumpur. This will prevent US agitations from affecting bilateral relations between the two.

The trend of Japan's eagerness to tie its economy to national security has raised concerns about whether it will repeat its mistakes in history. For Japan, sticking to peaceful development and win-win cooperation is without doubt the best solution. This means working with China and other countries to promote regional integration mechanisms such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the China-Japan-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. These are feasible choices that serve its national policy and long-term interests.

To what degree Manila can be used to check China has become a yardstick for Washington to evaluate the value of the Philippines. This reflects that the US regional strategy has been on a track that focuses on China-US competition and a crackdown on China. When an ally is judged by whether it cooperates with the suppression of China, this is also an indication of a distortion of the US regional policy.

China does not seem to understand the extent of the incompetence and naivety of the Australian leadership. Thinking people and intellectuals in Australia are appalled at Morrison and his government. However tough Chinese sanctions and harsh words have only given Morrison the domestic ammunition he needs to bolster his claims that China is aggressively expansionist and seeks to dominate the region.

Judging from relative videos and photos, Australian troops conducted indiscriminate attacks and killings of Afghan civilians. This will make the Afghan people extremely disgusted with Australia, and also arouse the Islamic world's strong dissatisfaction with Australia's practices. Australia has created a strong negative image of itself in Afghanistan and the Islamic world. It cannot be ruled out that some extremist forces will take retaliation against Australia in the future. This kind of retribution will cause great anxiety for Australia.

Such hostile attitudes are partly the result of last year's border standoff between China and India. Besides, the Indian government, which has fanned the flames of nationalism, should also be held accountable. However, New Delhi is aware that it cannot link such large-scale disasters on its soil with China.

In the international political game, a country without its own strength can only be a chess piece, not player. Whether the future global landscape or situation in Asia will change as India wishes, the Indian factor is only one element, not all.

The Indian Express mentioned that, “India wants a good neighbourly relationship with China while also realising the full potential of its partnership with the US, and more broadly, with the West.” The best way for India to maintain its balance against China and the US is to return to the state of affairs before the border conflict with China and tilt a little bit away from the US.

Right now, political ties are at low ebb, while economic exchanges continue to flow between China and Japan. But bilateral relations are not as strained as those between Beijing and Canberra.

Although India has been a key player in trade and politics in Nepal, there was a decent amount of discomfort when India decided to ban all vaccine exports for COVID-19. The commitment and help toward this humanitarian crisis will touch the lives of millions.

Considering that the current epidemic situation in India is too severe, the Modi administration will mostly focus on preventing the virus from further spreading. India will not have excess power and military resources to create conflicts on border area, since some military resources will be used to help control the epidemic.

The response of Quad countries toward India's help request should sound the alarm bell for India. The US is moving close to India because of its need to contain China. Such closeness could dissipate accordingly as the US improves ties with China.

Relying on nationalism to mobilize Indian society may cause more troubles. In fact, India's new outbreak is related to the country's rising nationalism.

The time-tested China-Pakistan partnership is higher than the Himalayas, sweeter than honey and firmer than steel. Those who are jealous of Pakistan's prosperity and progress brought by such relations always want to stir up troubles.

Political relations between the two countries are very sound, with their differences on the South China Sea under management. In this context, even if the US steps up its attempts to woo Vietnam, the South China Sea issue will not make a big wave in China-Vietnam relations.

With India suffering from the virus, Pakistan has put aside past enmity to provide aid. India should reflect on the course of its pro-US diplomacy over the years. It ought to rethink its return to strategic autonomy.

By issuing a statement concerning Chinese vessels at Niu'e Jiao, the EU is behaving like a clay giant failing to bridge the gap between hope and reality. The EU should not stir up the South China Sea and sacrifice its real interests with regional countries.

The US has been attempting to bind India to its anti-China chariot. But when it is about support with practical moves, the US has stepped back with its commitment to take care of Americans "first and foremost."

Facing China's growing military strength and regional influence, the US believes resorting to the traditional strategy of relying on allies and partners is the best option for it to establish a new regional order dominated by the US.

Some Australian experts believe Canberra could have just let the Belt and Road deal lapse and not approve new agreements. But it chose to scrap the deal. This truly shows that Australia does not care about its relations with China anymore.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are vital to US' counterterrorist strategy. Some analysts believe the US has geopolitical demands in Afghanistan where the US has more counterterrorist cooperation activities than in Pakistan.

The new wave has made people suspect that the Indian government's early case data may be fake - misguiding the public that the country has successfully contained the epidemic in order to lift the lockdown early.

The Five Eyes is merely an intelligence-sharing alliance. The US now wants other members of the alliance to join the boycott of Huawei, as well as to take a stand on China's so-called human rights issues in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

Those who see the cooperation between China, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan as a counterweight to Quad harbor a Cold War mentality. The cooperation of the four shows what real multilateralism is.

In dealing with the issue of Japan's discharge of contaminated radioactive wastewater, China should timely adjust its traditional position and policy on the judicial settlement of international disputes.

In the long run, Japan may believe its strategic interests are closer to that of the US and containing China may seem more beneficial for Japan. Japan may only try to maintain a balance between China and the US when it is forced to do so.

China's Coast Guard Law is far more scientific and reasonable than those in some other countries, which allow use of force but don't specify how it will be used. China's law can avoid the abuse of force.

Instead of making irresponsible remarks, it's better for the US president to declare defeat as its campaign of war on terror was nothing but a big flop.

Japan needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of expressions like, "there is something special in the US-Japan relations." If Japan completely falls back on the US, it will certainly harm its relationship with China, especially economically.

The US "intrusion" of Indian's EEZ is indicative. It highlights Quad has reached its ceiling and its internal contradiction is about to emerge.

Studying foreign experience in digitalization, along with other developed countries, Chinese experience is worth mentioning.

Many countries have made an independent choice between following the US in containing China and deepening cooperation with China, in order to safeguard their vital interests.

India is attempting to secure its balance between the two major military powers that are also India's old and new military partners. It may be not feasible and even leave both Russia and the US feeling unpleased.

Following the US' lead, Japan has been quite noisy recently in terms of China affairs. It shows that Japan suffers from diplomatic myopia and lacks foresight.

As China has repeatedly stressed, with the Coast Guard Law, China's maritime law-enforcement activities will be more scientific and standardized.

It remains to be seen if Japan will become the next one in the region that ties itself to the US chariot regardless of the consequences.

India can't achieve its development by getting on the US chariot. India-US proximity now is different from the rapprochement of China and the US (1972-2000). The US is using India to contain China, which squeezes India's resources for economic development.

The practicality of India's decision to become a NATO partner is almost zero.

Claiming losing Taiwan would be seen the end of US predominance in Indo-Pacific region, Ferguson exaggerates the significance of Taiwan. If the US has any military conflicts with China over the Taiwan question, then this would end the US predominance in the region.