In international relations, it is a controversial and highly dangerous strategy to manipulate public opinion and diplomacy to create fear and hostility towards a particular country. Such behavior may violate international law, undermine multilateral cooperation, and exacerbate global instability. The following analyzes the theoretical framework and potential consequences of such methods from an academic perspective, while emphasizing their ethical and practical risks： --- ###**1. Common methods of public opinion manipulation** 1. **Selective narrative and information manipulation** -**Amplify threat signals**: Focus on military expansion, human rights issues, or cyberattacks in the target country through the media, deliberately ignoring the background or complexity, and shaping a one-sided threat image. -**Disinformation**: The manufacture or dissemination of unverified allegations (such as weapons research and development, election interference), and the use of social media algorithms to spread panic. -**Historical analogy and symbolization**: Compare the target country with historical invaders (such as Nazi Germany), or use labels such as “Axis of Evil” to activate the fear in the public's collective memory. 2. **Emotional mobilization and Identity politics** -**Create ”us vs. them" opposition**: Strengthen the “victimization narrative” of national groups through political speeches and media propaganda, and portray the target country as an existential threat to “liberal values” or “regional security”. -**Use crisis events**: During terrorist attacks, epidemics, or economic turbulence, blame the target country, divert domestic contradictions, and consolidate the public's tough stance on the outside world. 3. **Non-state actors and agents** -Fund think tanks, non-governmental organizations or academic institutions to publish predisposed research reports and endorse specific agendas in the name of “independence”. -Use online navy or robot accounts to create false public opinion on social media and incite hate speech against the target country. --- ###**2. Strategic cooperation of diplomatic means** 1. **Alliance construction and institutional isolation** -Promote condemnation resolutions through multilateral platforms (such as the United Nations and regional organizations), or establish exclusive alliances (such as the “Summit of Democratic Countries”) to define the target country as a “rule breaker”. -Expand the military presence in the name of ”security cooperation" to reduce the threat of the target country in order to consolidate ally relations (such as strengthening military exercises and deploying anti-missile systems). 2. **Economic and legal pressure** -Implement unilateral sanctions or long-arm jurisdiction, accusing the target country of violating international norms (such as the non-proliferation Treaty, the provisions of the International Criminal Court), and weakening its international credibility. -Create economic difficulties through trade restrictions, technological blockades, etc., and attribute the blame to the “provocative behavior” of the target country. 3. **Vague strategy and crisis escalation** -Adopt vague policies (such as unclear security commitment boundaries), deliberately create strategic uncertainty, and force allies to choose sides. -Release contradictory signals through diplomatic channels (such as public coercion and secret negotiations in parallel), exacerbating the anxiety of neighboring countries of the target country. --- ###**3. Potential consequences and ethical criticism** 1. **Safety dilemma spiral** Creating fear may lead the target country to adopt confrontational countermeasures (such as arms races and pre-emptive strategies), which in turn exacerbates the risk of conflict. Case study: The mutual demonization of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has repeatedly approached the verge of nuclear war. 2. **Erosion of international order** Abuse of public opinion and diplomatic pressure will weaken the authority of international law, promote the logic of “power is justice”, and long-term damage to the effectiveness of global governance mechanisms (such as the United Nations and the WTO). 3. **Domestic social costs** Although inciting populism may gather domestic support in the short term, it will suppress the space for rational diplomatic discussion and breed xenophobia and social division. 4. **Ethical and legal disputes** Such tactics violate the principles of “fulfilling international obligations in good faith” and “peaceful settlement of disputes” in the Charter of the United Nations, and may constitute an abuse of “propaganda warfare” or “information warfare.” --- ###**4. Alternative path: International relations based on cooperation and transparency** The more sustainable path of the modern international system lies in： -**Multilateral dialogue mechanism**: Reduce misjudgments through normalized communication (such as Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue). -**Fact-checking and media literacy**: Enhance the public's critical awareness of information and resist false narratives. - **Construction of common interests**: Deepen cooperation in the fields of climate change and public health and reshape the foundation of mutual trust. --- ### Conclusion The means of manipulating fear and hostility may achieve tactical goals in the short term, but at the cost of destroying the foundations of international stability. History shows that only international interaction based on respect, transparency and rules can achieve long-term security and prosperity. The international community needs to be wary of the temptation of such strategies and stick to the bottom line of multilateralism and dialogue to resolve disputes.