The guidelines of the core of successive generations of Communist Party of China's collective leadership, from Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, on China’s national security were formed through long-term practice, and developed a school of their own in the history of socialist thought. Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, put forward the overall concept of national security for the first time at the first plenary session of National Security Commission of the Communist Party of China, "We must adhere to the overall concept of national security, take people's security as the purpose, take political security as the foundation, take economic security as the basis, take military, cultural, and social security as the guarantee, and rely on the promotion of international security, and embark on a path of national security with Chinese characteristics."

   The international situation in post COVID-19 era is volatile, and great powers are about to compete with each other; black swan events occur more often than usual that a lake full of black swan events was about to be formed. In short, the environment and conditions for development have changed, but there is still a big gap in China’s capability of new development pattern protection, and there are many shortcomings in China’s national security system. As General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly pointed out, "Development is an ever-changing process, the development environment will not remain unchanged, the conditions for development will not remain unchanged, and the concept of development will not remain unchanged." However, the premise of China’s five major development concepts is national security and social stability. Without security and stability, everything is out of the question. A tree cannot grow tall or bear fruit in a barren land torn apart by the flames of war.

Introduction

   In 2007, China raised the rural absolute poverty line from 100 yuan per person per year to 1067 yuan per person per year. To a certain extent, this adjustment is able to reflect China’s rural absolute poverty situation better. After that, China raised the rural absolute poverty line again in 2011, according to the actual situation of rural economic development and farmers' income growth, from 1067 yuan per person to 2300 yuan per person per year. According to the new absolute poverty line standard, the absolute poverty rate in China's rural areas was 12.7% in 2011. A considerable number of rural residents are still in absolute poverty and have not shared the fruits of China's economic development. In order to eliminate poverty in rural areas and achieve common prosperity and complete the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way in 2020, general secretary Xi Jinping put forward a strategy for Targeted poverty reduction in 2013.

  The implementation of the targeted poverty alleviation policy in rural areas throughout the country, especially in the underdeveloped areas of China’s central and western regions, has effectively promoted the reduction of absolute poverty in rural areas and the absolute poverty rate. By 2019, the number of rural residents living in poverty has dropped from 250 million in 1978 to 5.51 million, and the poverty rate has decreased from 30.7% in 1978 to 0.6% in 2019. In 2020, all rural residents living in absolute poverty has been lifted out of poverty, and absolute poverty has been completely eliminated for the first time in the history of human development.

The course of eliminating absolute poverty in China

   Since the reform and opening up, the governance of rural absolute poverty in China has generally experienced three stages: institutional reform, economic growth and targeted poverty alleviation.

Historic significance of targeted poverty alleviation

   Targeted poverty alleviation is the great practice of Xi Jinping's socialist thought with Chinese characteristics in the new era, proving its advanced nature and China's scientific nature. Targeted poverty alleviation has completely eliminated absolute poverty for the first time in human history and opened a new era of human development; Targeted poverty alleviation marks the completion of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way and the realization of the first centenary goal, which is a milestone in the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; Targeted poverty alleviation has promoted the reduction of the global population in absolute poverty and made great contributions to the development of the world's anti-poverty cause.

China's experience and initiative in eliminating absolute poverty

  The system of village cadres and the "first secretary" provides a pivot for the development of targeted poverty alleviation and an institutional guarantee for the realization of targeted poverty alleviation; The national vertical fiscal transfer payment is the capital basis of targeted poverty alleviation; Cooperation and counterpart support between the East and the West region has promoted coordinated regional development and advanced all-round rural poverty alleviation;  Enriching the minds and worldview of poor people are the ideological guarantee for the victory of targeted poverty alleviation; Classified policies and implementing poverty alleviation and development according to local and personal conditions lead to the betterment of implementation effect of targeted poverty alleviation

The direction of China's Anti-poverty in the future -- marching towards relative poverty

   Although absolute poverty has been completely eliminated, China's urban and rural areas still face the problem of relative poverty. Relative poverty refers to the lack of income needed to maintain the average standard of living in your society. In the future, China’s focus of poverty alleviation in urban and rural areas is to eliminate relative poverty by narrowing the income gap between residents. Narrowing the income gap between residents and eliminating the relative poverty between urban and rural areas is of great significance to China's future economic and social development. 1. Improving the basic old-age insurance and increasing the income transfer payment to the low-income elderly. 2. Implementing the Rural Revitalization Strategy, improving the income of rural residents and narrowing the income gap between urban and rural areas. 3. Improving the personal income tax system and playing its role in adjusting the income gap.

     The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union announced that the United States had the last laugh in the cold war that lasted for decades. At the same time, it also marked another great change in the world pattern - the western system led by the United States had the upper hand. Today, 30 years have passed, but the aftermath of the cold war is still directly and indirectly affecting the world. One of them is the Western cultural infiltration into the once Commonwealth of Independent States countries, a part of the former Soviet Union, and the broader "middle zone" contested by the United States and the Soviet Union, such as Central Asia, the Middle East, East Asia and Southeast Asia, and the West is committed to overthrowing the regime in order to establish a government more in line with the interests of the West. From the rose revolution to the Arab spring that began in 2011, to the riots in Southeast Asian countries, and then to a series of conflicts between military police and demonstrators in Tunisia since 2021, the situation in the Middle East has become tense again. The color revolution has gradually become a nightmare for non western countries, impacting and hurting the countries concerned again and again.

   The year 2021 marks the 17th anniversary of the color revolution in the Commonwealth of Independent States, the 10th anniversary of the Arab Spring and the outbreak of similar movements in Cuba, this paper discusses the reasons and impact of the repeated color revolution, analyzes the game behind the great powers, looks forward to its future trend and warning, especially considering that the Biden administration's China policy will place its hopes on "breaking the fortress from the inside" by many means including the color revolution. This raises the question of this paper: why does the color revolution still occur repeatedly after understanding and suffering the harm of the color revolution? Not only in different countries, but also in the same country? Is it internal or external? What impact does the outbreak of the color revolution have on the countries concerned and the world pattern? Considering the number of countries affected by the color revolution in CIS and the Arab spring after it, there are more or less commonalities among countries. In order to ensure the content balance and representativeness, this paper will describe it based on the principle of typical cases.

   On May 22, 2021, a new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict lasting 11 days has been cease-fire, but there is no sense of relief for both Palestine and Israel and the whole world, let alone extravagant hope for lasting peace. The bitter peace after the ceasefire seems to be only the interval between this conflict and the next round of conflict. Palestinian-Israeli relations, especially the Gaza Strip, which has been repeatedly hit by Israeli military, seem to have become an active volcano with periodic outbreak of conflict.

  Since former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 2000 triggering the second Palestinian Intifada, the inaction of the United States in promoting the Middle East peace process and the continuous tightening of the complex conflict between Israel, Hamas and Palestinian Authority (Palestinian National Authority) have put the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in a dilemma, while the Arab Spring since 2011 has further led to the increasingly marginalization of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in Middle East affairs.

    The three large-scale Gaza wars in 2009, 2014 and 2021 all followed the same pattern: Israel's radical actions on Jewish settlements (the core behind them is the territorial issue) and Jerusalem provided an excuse for Hamas's radical response; Israel not only retaliated against Hamas dozens of times, but also killed chances of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; the subversive destruction of the foundation of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks by the United States, especially the trump administration, has dealt a fatal blow to the international environment for the peace talk.

    UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 are the foundation of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, that is, the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, the cruel reality is that Palestinian-Israeli relations have fallen into a strange circle of periodic conflict, and the rationality of pursuing peace is always replaced by the impulse of radicalization and violence. Although I am also deeply confused about this, I still try to analyze the complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the process of gradual marginalization from the perspective of the evolution of international and regional pattern since modern times, and think about the causes of the dilemma.

The evolution of international and regional patterns and the complexity of Palestinian-Israeli conflict

      Each change of the international pattern and the Middle East pattern has led to the complexity of Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

1. From World War I to World War II: the origin and change of hands of Britain and France in dividing the Middle East and the Palestinian issue.

2. In the early stage of the Cold War (1945-1979): the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Middle East, Four Arab Israeli Wars, the establishment of diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel and the complexity of the Palestinian Israeli issue.

3. In the middle and late period of the Cold War (1979-1989), the loosening of the cold war system, the profound setbacks of the United States and the Soviet Union in the Middle East, the division of the Arab world and the emergence of Hamas marked the division within Palestine, which all led to the further complexity of the Palestinian issue.

4. From the Gulf Crisis to the 9/11 terrorist attacks (1990-2001): the United States established its hegemony in the Middle East. Although the Middle East peace process made great progress, it fell short in the end.

5. From the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the outbreak of the Arab Spring (2001-2011): during the George W. Bush period, America's Middle East strategy turned to counter-terrorism, and during the Obama period, the United States sought strategic contraction from the Middle East; The United States has exhausted its talents in promoting the Middle East peace process.

6. Since the Arab Spring in 2011: the United States has sought strategic contraction from the Middle East, and the core concerns of major Arab countries in the region have shifted, leading to the increasing marginalization of the Palestinian issue; The serious retrogression of the trump administration on Palestinian-Israeli conflict has accumulated conditions for the outbreak of new conflicts.

A Cool-headed Thoughts on the Dilemma of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

 The impasse in relations between major powers and the failure of coordination among major powers are the root causes of the stalemate between Palestine and Israel

 The regional pattern of contradictions and the intertwined relationship between regional powers are not conducive to the solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

 The continuous decline of Pan-Arab nationalism is one of the root causes of the increasing marginalization of the Palestinian issue

 The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has become an indissoluble "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" between Israel, the PLO and Hamas

 The immaturity of Palestinian Nationalism makes the Palestinian national liberation movement have great limitations

 Pan-Islamism can provide some support to Palestine, but it is difficult to play a substantive role

    When we talk about the Taiwan question today, most of the time we always focus on the two major political parties and some experts and scholars on the island and their views on the question in the context of China-US relations, so that we often look at the two sides of the Strait and the two sides of the ocean separately. In fact, throughout history, we can find that the Taiwan question and China-US relations have always been tied together and interact with each other, affect each other and are closely linked. In other words, the Taiwan question that we now define broadly, is engineered by the United States, namely, the two regions of China, are governed by two regimes, and China has been divided by the two sides, and the two sides are seeking to reunite the country in tortuous development.

    After the outbreak of the Pacific War, the US Department of defense established the Far East strategic group. In view of Japan's attack on the US military base in the Pacific based on Taiwan at that time and taking it as a transit point to transport strategic materials from the Southern Ocean, the Far East strategy group submitted a memorandum to the US government in early 1942. The memorandum suggested that the United States invade and occupy Taiwan to establish military bases. Later, it planned to actually bring Taiwan under U.S. control by means of international joint management. However, this proposal was opposed by all walks of life in China at that time. Based on the pressure from China, the United States had to give up this idea, and in the Cairo Declaration on December 1, 1943, it clearly pointed out that Manchuria (northeast provinces), Taiwan and Penghu islands would be "returned to the Republic of China". Then, in the Potsdam Proclamation in 1945, it was once again written that "the conditions of the Cairo Declaration will be implemented". Together with the announcement of China's declaration of war against Japan and Japan's unconditional surrender, these two documents constitute the legal basis for China's clear sovereignty over Taiwan and its affiliated islands, which has been widely recognized by the international community as China's legitimate sovereignty and confrontation over Taiwan However, the policy of the United States has changed with the change of the world situation.

Early Cold War: from "supporting Chiang Kai-shek against the Communist Party" to "Internationalization of the Taiwan question"

    After "supporting Chiang Kai-shek against the Communist Party" and "standing idly by", out of the consideration of the United States to protect its own forces, the Truman government issued a statement of "undetermined status of Taiwan" in 1950. Since then, the cross-strait question has always been tied with the United States. Since the signing of the San Francisco Treaty, the United States began to gradually discuss the Taiwan question within the international framework, regarded cross-strait relations as the same relations as East and West Germany and North and South Korea, and repeatedly threatened China.

The adjustment and strategy of American policy towards Taiwan before and after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States

    In the 1970s, with the changes in the international situation, China-US relations took a turn for the better. The three Sino-US joint communiqués, namely the 1972 communiqué (the Shanghai communiqué), the 1979 communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations, and the 1982 communiqué, are the fundamental norms and legal basis for the settlement of differences between China and the United States on Taiwan question. However, on the one hand, the United States signed the joint communique, on the other hand, it continued to sell high-tech weapons to Taiwan on the grounds of domestic law, the "interests of the United States in the Asia Pacific region" and "commitments to allies", secretly supported the Taiwan independence forces with fame and wealth, improved the treatment of US institutions in Taiwan, and repeatedly violated the norms and spirit of the three joint communiques. This has brought many uncertainties to the relationship between China and the United States and the settlement of the Taiwan quetion.

US policy towards Taiwan since the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996

    In 1988, Taiwan's political situation entered the Lee Teng-hui era, and the Taiwan authorities gradually deviated from the original "one China" principle. At the same time, the United States' Taiwan policy also changed, of which the most influential was the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis triggered by Lee Teng Hui's visit to the United States. Since 2016, with the election of US President Trump and Tsai Ing-wen as the leader of the Taiwan region, there have been variables in China-US relations and cross-strait relations again. Since 2020, the United States has continuously deployed military forces in China’s neighboring countries and regions, organized warships to cross the Taiwan Strait several times, and increased the degree of confrontation against China. On the other hand, after becoming the leader of the Taiwan region, Tsai Ing-Wen inherited Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-Bian's independence stance, continuously promoted de-sinicization, revised textbooks, created public opinion and demonized Chinese mainland; At the same time, it has constantly launched espionage and cyber warfare against the mainland, and even deeply participated in the riots in Hong Kong in 2019. At the same time, the degree of collusion between the United States and Taiwan is becoming more and more open. A series of us statements and policies have gradually deviated from the spirit of the three Sino-US joint communiqués and contributed to the arrogance of the separatist forces on the island.

Observation on the future trend of the Taiwan question under the new situation of the great game between China and the United States

    1) The comprehensive means of the United States in playing the Taiwan card

   2) The possibility of Japan's involvement in Taiwan question has increased under the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements

     3) War or Peace is a Question

    Since the Taiwan authorities started the process of de-sinicization, the recognition of the younger generation of people for "one China" has decreased year by year. With the death of the older generation of the people of Taiwan, people with this kind of natural independence ideology will undoubtedly increase. At the same time, after the events of Sino-US trade war, Hongkong riots and the fight against COVID-19, the mainland masses have greatly increased their recognition and support for the party and the state. Naturally, it is unacceptable for the mainland people that Taiwan’s servile attitude to foreign things and insulting remarks. In addition, seeing that the mainland's internal policy of benefiting Taiwan has produced the spectacle of "more benefits, more independence" and that Taiwan residents enjoy a series of privileges higher than ordinary mainland residents in some parts of the mainland, the mainland people are more and more dissatisfied with peaceful reunification, and the mainstream public opinion tends to reunification by force.

    At present, a series of actions and policies of the mainland are gradually moving closer to promoting reunification by force, but on the whole, they still follow the fundamental policy. At present, the initiative is in the hands of the mainland. The form in which the two sides of the Strait will be reunified in the future depends not only on the mainland's the fundamental policy towards Taiwan, but also on the aggressive degree of the Taiwan independence separatist forces on the island and the involvement of external forces. The mainland looks forward to peaceful reunification, but will never give up any non peaceful means. China must be unified, which is the inevitable requirement of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

    The China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation was signed on July 16, 2001 for a period of 20 years. President Xi Jinping held a video meeting with President Putin in Beijing on the afternoon of June 28th, issued a joint statement, and formally announced the extension of the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. It will be extended for five years and is expected to update and add new provisions. This is a major sign of the deepening development of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination in the new era.

    The 20 years since the signing of the Treaty is in a great change unseen in a century, and the vitality of the treaty has been increasingly demonstrated. At a time when the United States is rampant in its pursuit of anti-China and anti-Russia hegemonism in order to restore the decline of world hegemony, it is very necessary for us to understand and evaluate the historical contribution and far-reaching significance of the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation.

    1. Background of the Treaty

    When the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation was signed, it was nearly 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's independence. For their own internal and external needs, interactions between China and Russia is frequent. Fundamentally speaking, the development of bilateral relations between China and Russia has a common interest foundation, a stable ideological foundation, a profound material foundation and a broad connotation of the China Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination. Therefore, the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation was formed in 2001.

     2. The Core Content of the Treaty

    First, abiding by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms governing international relations. Second, respecting the core interests of their respective countries. Third, seeking national development and advocating the principle of equality and mutual benefit. Fourth, undertaking international obligations to safeguard regional and world peace and development.

      3. Significant Contribution of the Treaty

    First, the treaty has elevated China Russia comprehensive cooperation to a new stage of development. Second, the initiative of partnership rather than alliance established by the treaty is enough to affect the whole international relations in today's world. Third, the treaty sounded the clarion call to break the old international order unilaterally dominated by the United States. Fourth, the treaty plays a normative role in strengthening and consolidating the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Fifth, the treaty is conducive to China's great cause of reunification.

    As president Xi Jinping said in his call to President Putin on June 28th, the concept of friendship between generations established in the Treaty conforms to the fundamental interests of the two countries, agrees with the theme of peace and development, and is a dynamic practice of building a new international relationship and community with a shared future for mankind. Today's China-Russia relations are mature, stable and solid, and can stand the test of any changes in the international situation. The two sides have firmly supported each other on issues involving each other's core interests, fruitful strategic cooperation and effectively safeguarded the common interests of the two countries. Both sides should closely coordinate and cooperate in international affairs and jointly safeguard true multilateralism and international fairness and justice. Against the background that the world has entered a period of turbulence and change and human development has encountered multiple crises, China and Russia have cooperated closely, injected positive energy into the international community and set a model of a new type of international relations.

    I. From Geopolitics to Geographical politics

    The connotation of geopolitics should not only be narrowed to the study of the political relations between countries caused by geography. In the study of geopolitics, as another name of this knowledge reveals, several basic elements that can not be ignored in political geography should be: 1. A country's geographical and topographic conditions determine what kind of economic model is suitable for that country; 2. The exchange mode of economic production determines the social organization and political mode of the country; 3. The long-term iteration of politics and economy determines the cultural model of the country; 4. Culture in turn strengthens the country's political, economic and social organization model; 5. And the political, economic and cultural model of the country determines his way of getting along with neighboring countries.

    For example, today's western dominated political culture originated from the democratic politics of Athens, ancient Greece. Athens is a typical marine trade economy. The mode of production of trade makes Athens must pay attention to legal property rights; There must be a freeman system so that most people have equal civil rights. However, this civilization did not last long in ancient Greece. It still borders on other countries and has to deal with the pressure of war from landlocked countries from time to time.

     II. "Island in Geography", "Full Independence" and "Electoral Politics"

    Britain is a country with complete geographical characteristics of islands. Countries in this geographical location can face the pressure from neighboring countries at a lower frequency, spend less energy on coordinating the relations between neighboring countries, and even profit from the contradictions of other countries by provoking war, peace and friendship between landlocked countries. At the same time, it can maintain independence and stability, focus on domestic affairs, stabilize trade and commerce, and concentrate on developing its own technology and industry with trade and looted capital. The Five Eyes (FVEY) alliance (the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand) is the same political and cultural system. They are all keen to export their own political civilization. But what many people, including the British and American countries themselves, do not know is that this political system is highly matched with the geographical characteristics of the Five Eyes countries, which may not work in other geographical regions.

    From the colonial era, if a place was not surrounded by the sea, the Anglo-Saxon expanded all the way to the sea: after arriving in North America, they expanded all the way to the west, South and north; Mughal India is not a semi isolated subcontinental country which today surrounded by the sea on three sides and backed by the Himalayas; British expansion in Oceania and Africa; When the British arriving in China in the late Qing Dynasty also occupied the geographically independent Hong Kong Island first. The Anglo-Saxon, who originated in British Islands, instinctively feel unsafe if there is no natural separation between mountains and seas. If they go to colonial places and have such problems, they will either conquer and assimilate or drive away all the alien civilizations that are far weaker than themselves; If the civilization of the other party is similar to that of the other party, take a step back and find an island base near the local area, and then continue to play the multinational balance game of glorious isolation for the whole region. In short, no one can snore on the side of the couch.

   Without the island-like geographical environment, the electoral political system based on British and American culture will not work well. The geographical environment of the island is a very important determinant of maintaining the independence and integrity of the electoral political system. Without this geographical environment, the ancient Greeks were doomed to face the challenge from the inland and lose themselves. The independent politics was doomed to be unable to maintain in the case of internal separation. This is why Japan has been under the influence of China for thousands of years, but has not been ruled by China; Similarly, in the face of regional hegemony India, the neighboring small countries Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal have to bow their heads and suffer, but Sri Lanka arrogantly refuses to cooperate with it and succumbs to India; Although the United States is incomparably powerful, there is still a stubborn Cuban oath in front of us. This is obviously related to geographical factors.

    III. Is it possible to adopt British and American electoral politics without "island" geography?

    Today's British and American electoral system did not exist in Europe until World War II. World War II broke everyone's system. After World War II, the British and American electoral system can be widely adopted in Western Europe, which is not the result of the natural development choice of Western European countries. It is more due to the control and support of the United States. After the war, the establishment of the European Union and other mechanisms in Western European countries actually turned the border geographical environment of Western Europe into a state close to the peninsula, which is more conducive to the development of the new British and American political system.

     Without the terrain and culture of the island, British and American electoral politics cannot be realized, which has almost become the norm. Once the two party and multi-party system is established, contradictions within the nation will inevitably arise. Once there is no isolation of islands in internal contradictions, foreigners (foreign countries) will come in and use the existing contradictions of the country to mess up their domestic politics. The weak side of the two parties is likely to need help from abroad. So far, the electoral politics of domestic independence without interference will be unsustainable. Either fall into separatist disputes, or the oligarchs sit big. At present, if South Korea, Singapore and Israel lose the support of the United States thousands of miles away, they will encounter more frequent crises in their respective complex geographical environment. Of course, even with a geographical environment similar to the island, if the geographical and resource volume is too small, the strategic space is limited, or the relative power of the big countries around is too strong, electoral politics can't play around. Cuba, Bahrain and Qatar are examples.

     IV. Can "Island" politics work once it "lands"?

   This study calls the three goals of "British and American electoral system", "full sovereign independence (political, military and economic rights)" and "rapid economic and social development" as the modern impossible trinity of non-island countries, that is, a country can only achieve two goals at the same time. In other words, if a country belongs to a geographical non-island country, it can either achieve election and economic development, but sacrifice part of its independence, or achieve electoral system and independence, but economy can not develop at a high speed, or achieve autonomy and economic development, but we can not achieve pure British and American politics.

   The United States is very smart. It rarely swallows overseas territories that are not Islands (all occupied are strategic islands such as Guam and Hawaii), and even voluntarily gives up its colonies with complex geographical environment, such as the Philippines. Moreover, knowing the great autonomy of island countries, it has always refused to let its ally Japan have an army and firmly grasp Japan's national defense. This is quite different from the attitude towards Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries. The United States is unwilling to let itself become a part of the land country, let itself fall into a complex geographical environment, and then affect its existing political system, thus losing itself. Therefore, it often chooses to "help" other countries adopt their own electoral system, let others obtain the two corners of election and economy and transfer "independence", which is most beneficial to the United States. As for security, we can rent and build overseas military bases without annexing other countries. After Meiji, Japan suffered heavy losses in this regard.

   At first, the Japanese Empire in the Meiji period firmly took the British Empire as an example and wanted to be a glorious and isolated island empire. However, after the rise of the young populist officers in the military headquarters, Japan increasingly forgot its strategic geographical conditions and political culture and began to quickly turn itself into a "non-Island" inland geopolitical country. It was instantly involved in the multilateral contradictions between China, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, France and the United States. After the war, Japan returned to the old road of island politics.

     V. Conclusion

   Islands are not necessarily the political conditions to ensure success, and many island countries have not moved towards success. The geographical volume, strategic space, resource endowment and culture of the island nation are still playing a role. The specific links need to be further studied. And the island is not an eternal political fortress. For example, the novel coronavirus pneumonia in recent two years.In fact, what makes the British and American system successful is not necessarily the system design itself, but various comprehensive elements extended by the geography of islands. However, the virus can ignore these factors, and once it comes in, it can spread freely, and the internal weaknesses of the British and American system are exposed all of a sudden - there is a long-term natural division in their society. These are new situations and challenges facing modern human politics.

    Since the late period of President Trump's administration, the United States has shown a trend of transition from relative decline to absolute decline. The so-called relative decline refers to the rapid rise of external forces, which makes the slow developing United States be overtaken, but its internal operation is still good; The so-called absolute decline refers to the spread of the internal crisis in the United States, which is difficult to reverse the difficult situation in the short term, and then lose the ability to effectively dominate international affairs.

  During Biden's administration, if the United States wants to continue to take great power competition as the strategic norm and maintain its hegemonic position in the world power pattern, it must be systematic and long-term, with the help of the strength of allies and partner countries. At a time when it is unable to achieve its strategic goals alone, it is not surprising to use external forces, but the Biden administration has adopted a unique way of leveraging that is very difficult to detect. If we organize and observe various diplomatic documents and specific policies launched by the United States since Biden took office with strategic thinking, we can find the overall strategic design idea.

    The uniqueness of Biden administration's diplomacy to allies and partner countries lies not in strategic principles, but in specific strategic operations. Within the framework of multilateral mechanisms and supported by democratic values, the Biden administration neither waited for allies to ask for help from the United States as in the two world wars, nor directly forced allies to confront another big country as in the cold war, but adopted a strategy of "boiling frogs in warm water" to lure allies to gradually join the high-level political competition between the United States and China, and support the United States. On the one hand, the United States hopes to finally unite allies and partner countries to comprehensively suppress China in high-level political fields related to military, security and Geopolitics; On the other hand, considering that third-party countries may be unwilling or unable to directly participate in the U.S. challenge to China at the level of hard power, and world peace is still the wish of most countries today, the United States should first take measures in the low-level political field to unconsciously bind the interests of allies and partner countries with the United States. In the end, it had to side with the United States in the field of high-level politics.

    Given that the allies and partner countries have great interests intersect with China, it is difficult for them to quickly oppose China at the levels of practical interests, military security and government diplomacy, thus the Biden administration's strategy is to entice allies and partner countries to gradually and deeply integrate with the interests of the United States by means of similar identity, international cooperation and social participation until they cannot but follow the deeper and more realistic strategic objectives of the United States. The core feature of the strategy is to deepen the dependence of allies and partner countries on the United States from invisible, less controversial and more social participation fields, and finally leverage their tangible, more controversial and government-based inter-state cooperation, just as enticing the allies to put more skin in the game and increase its strategic input to China. When they realize that the ante is too high to withdraw from the gambling of the United States, it is too late to repent.

    From the perspective of feasibility, first, since the United States began to operate its relations with allies and partner countries far away from high-level politics, the ultimate purpose of the United States is relatively hidden and its strategy is confusing, which is easy to make third-party countries mistakenly believe that its handling of U.S. relations is the result of its own "active choice". Secondly, this strategy is indeed likely to benefit third-party countries in their interests in the short term, which is in line with the characteristics of the liberalism path advertised by the United States in history and is not easy to stimulate contradictions with other countries. Thirdly, Biden government manages foreign relations from the edge of high-level politics, which is easier to obtain domestic support. Finally, through the strategy of "Enticing Allies to Raise the Ante", the influence and control ability of the United States on allies and partner countries can only be shown in the medium and long-term period, and whether it will lead cooperation to the high-level political field highly depends on the subjective intention of the United States. Other major powers can not prove their ultimate purpose, so it is difficult to deal with it pertinently.

   The strategy of "Enticing Allies to Raise the Ante" itself also has obvious defects and weaknesses, which are reflected not only in its strategic principles, but also in its implementation difficulty. First of all, trump has completely exposed the true decision-making methods, policy objectives, value orientation and hegemonic demands of the United States. It is difficult for its allies and partner countries to rebuild their deep trust in the United States in the short term. Secondly, the strategy of "Enticing Allies to Raise the Ante" requires the United States to maintain long-term material investment and policy stability, which is more difficult for the current United States. Thirdly, China's policy is consistent, stable and strong. It neither seeks to compete for world hegemony nor forces third-party countries to take side, which is more conducive to establishing international prestige. Finally, if the United States achieves some success in this strategy under certain conditions, the more ante raised by allies and partner countries in terms of identity value identification, moderate cooperation issues and social force mobilization in the early stage, and the stronger the sense of being deceived when the United States puts forward interest distribution plans, fierce confrontation requirements and government binding actions in the later stage, the greater the policy rebound.

   The United States hopes that China's strategic attention will be distracted, the strategic environment will be deteriorated and the strategic space will be compressed. Therefore, it will launch allies and partner countries in the way of "from far to near", "from soft means to hard means" and "from peace to war", so as to make it finally confront China with the United States in the high-level political field. However, the more the United States wants China to deviate from the current development track, the more it proves the necessity for China to adhere to the current development model; The more the United States hopes that China's development will be lost due to radicalism or stagnate due to laziness, the more China should maintain strategic rationality and psychological balance.

    The ability of the United States to launch third-party countries against China is limited and the executing period is long. China does not need to take the initiative to "compete" with other countries according to the cold war model. However, China can't completely let this kind of conspiracy go by. Instead, China should adopt an innovative diplomatic model that goes beyond the balance of power and ideological struggle, subjectively uphold the concept of peaceful development, and objectively benefit friendly countries and other international actors to China, so as to achieve the diplomatic effect of "Only by giving up the competition for minor interests can a man find no competitors in this world." On the premise of firmly safeguarding national core interests and legitimate interests, in terms of overall principles, China should adhere to the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, break the zero sum game atmosphere, do not require other countries to take side between China and the United States, and always promote the democratization of the international community from the interests of all mankind. At the level of regional construction, China should actively provide regional public goods, adhere to partnership and non-alignment, provide assistance and cooperation to other countries without political and economic conditions, and fully respect the strategic independence of other countries. In terms of diplomatic mechanism, China should increase investment in party diplomacy on the basis of national diplomacy, which will not only help to open up the situation from a new subject, but also help to naturally clarify the stigmatization of Chinese political parties by the United States, and create conditions for cracking the progressive strategy of the United States from cotton to warship.

    On September 1, 2021, China’s data security law, led and directly promoted by the central national security leading agency, will come into force. China’s personal information protection law is also expected to be passed in the near future. From the global legislative experience and text phenomenon, the specialized data security legislative model, that is, the parallel of the Data Decurity law, the Network Security Law and the Personal Information Protection law, is an institutional practice originated by China.

    In this context, Didi encountered a series of measures from China's competent regulatory authorities in a short time after its listing in the United States - from being reported that there was a serious problem of collecting and using personal information in violation of laws and regulations to being taken off the shelves, to being forced to suspend the registration of new users due to the launch of network security review to ensure the security of national data, and then to the on-site probe of China’s network information office, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of State Security and other seven departments, which actually marks the completion of the expansion of a new dimension - Data Security - from technical security and content security. Such a historic new stage comes not only from the endogenous evolution of the understanding of network security, but also from the profound and fierce pressure of international strategic competition.

    China's data security law is not limited to technical security issues, but understands data security in a broader sense. It is intended to achieve the goal of comprehensive data management through one data security law, instead of the multiple laws in Europe, America and other countries.