A group of scholars discussing restraint in US foreign policy at the Cato Institute in Washington on Wednesday rightly condemned such alliances, saying they had emboldened US allies to take provocative actions in the belief that Washington would always come to their aid regardless of what they do.
Clinton also claims that if the US doesn't lead the world, there will either be chaos or other countries will rush in to fill the void, and the choices they make will not be to the benefit of the US.
She clearly believes that the US is the savior of the world, and the world will come to an end without US supremacy. But does that suggest her "presidency" will be one of total US global dominance, leaving no room for the rise of countries such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia?
Such mentality is the most likely reason why the US has been engaged in constant wars. Scholars say the US has been at war 93 percent of the time since its founding in 1776. That is literally 222 out of 239 years, meaning the US has been at peace for only 17 years.
It is true that most researchers in China-US relations are worried by the lack of strategic trust between China, a rising power, and the US, the only superpower. But when US politicians like Clinton make these kinds of confrontational speeches, it only makes things worse.
In her speech, Clinton bellowed: "Countries like Russia and China often work against us".
Such rhetoric does not suit someone who aspires to being the president of the United States, especially because she knows full well China is not the villain and which country is.
Or, is she trying to reinforce Americans' misunderstanding of China with a definite purpose?
No one knows exactly how the US presidential election will play out, but whoever gets elected in November would do well to abandon the Cold War-type zero-sum mentality and pursue a path of 21st century win-win cooperation with China.
Contact the writer at chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com.