. The latest high-level meeting had plenty of drama, but the plot is growing stale. Neither side’s opening position has changed much in the past decade
. From China’s perspective, unless the US treats it with ‘respect’, relations won’t get much better
It’s been less than a week since the United States and China met in Anchorage, Alaska, their first high-level meeting after Joe Biden became president. Reports of a testy exchange quickly swept the media circuit, with implications that the relationship was deteriorating right in front of everyone’s eyes.
This was no ordinary diplomatic tête-à-tête. There was strong language instead of a banquet. No agreements were hammered out and there was nothing to sign or announce.
Despite the media blitz, none of this should come as a surprise. Both sides played to the camera in a made-for-TV-moment where Beijing, Washington, and their respective audiences back home got exactly what they wanted – an image of toughness and resolve. In that limited sense, the meeting was a complete success.
Things could have gone worse. The talks could have been cancelled at the last minute, either side could have refused to continue after the opening remarks, or diplomats could have been recalled from capitals in protest.
That would have sent an unambiguous message that tensions were not only rising, but that the relationship itself was fraying. Clearly, both sides saw that a managed diplomatic sparring match was better for their ratings than cancelling the show before airtime.
As expected, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken took a firm stance on human rights and political issues. He led with remarks on the US following a rules-based system. He went on to highlight the US’ “deep concerns with actions by China, including in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyber attacks on the United States”. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan added that US allies were also concerned about China’s actions.
Blinken and Sullivan’s comments were reportedly well received at the White House with a CNN correspondent tweeting: “Biden says he’s proud of his secretary of state after Blinken got into a heated back-and-forth with his Chinese counterpart during their first meeting yesterday.”
Meanwhile, China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, countered: “What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centred international system…” Foreign Minister Wang Yi added that the US should “fully abandon the hegemonic practice of wilfully interfering in China’s internal affairs”.
China’s state news agency, Xinhua, lauded the Chinese delegates’ “strong response”, but still characterised the talks as “candid and constructive”. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a press briefing that the US “provoked the dispute in the first place, so the two sides had a strong smell of gunpowder and drama from the beginning in the opening remarks”.
This latest season of the US-China diplomacy show certainly has plenty of drama, but the plot is growing stale. Not much has changed in either sides’ opening positions over the past decade. These statements and retorts could have easily been made five or 10 years ago, with different actors playing the same parts.
None of the acrimony should have been a surprise, especially after Washington imposed sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials over the electoral overhaul of Hong Kong just a day before the meeting. Beijing, for its part, barred Tesla cars from Chinese military complexes over spying concerns, which Elon Musk refuted.
What is slightly different this time around is the bluntness with which China’s diplomats expressed their disdain for US policy. The wolf warrior diplomacy that countered Donald Trump’s assertiveness is now thinly disguised as consternation, laced with subtle insults.
It’s always been clear that China isn’t going to do what it perceives that the US wants. From China’s perspective, unless the US treats it with “respect” (the code word for not bringing up Xinjiang, Hong Kong, or Taiwan), relations won’t get much better. However, relations have largely persisted in the past despite these very same issues.
And a complaint that the US did not observe diplomatic protocol and went over time in its remarks is hardly new. Unlike chess, there’s no time keeper at these meetings. Time creep is not uncommon, and it’s also a tactic for controlling the narrative.
Far greater diplomatic slights occurred when president Barack Obama first visited president Hu Jintao in 2009. After already signalling he would continue his predecessor George W. Bush’s “soft” stance on China (Obama even put off a meeting with the Dalai Lama as a nod to Beijing), his remarks while meeting Chinese students were censored. Hu didn’t even answer questions during a customary heads-of-state press conference. Relations were described afterwards as “rocky”. And still, relations persisted.
None of what happened in Anchorage is illustrative of what may come next, now that the cameras are off. What was discussed behind closed doors, where the real negotiations took place, remains unclear.
But this much is fairly certain: the US will continue to build on its alliances, strengthen relations with India, and use its post-Covid-19 economic surge as an incentive for countries to cooperate. Tariffs and sanctions will remain in place.
For its part, Beijing will ignore the world’s human rights concerns, continue to militarise the South China Sea, sell itself as the protector of free trade, and leverage the promise of its growing market to make political gains.
Even on issues where agreement may be easier, the plot gets confusing. Xinhua reported that a decision on a joint working group on climate change was made in Alaska. Blinken’s statement merely said that “on climate, our interests intersect”. This type of talking past each other is also, unfortunately, not new.
What we’re left with is guarded pragmatism on both sides where not much changes, diplomatic relations remain intact, and talks are likely to lead to more talking. That’s about as much success as the bilateral relationship can handle at the moment.
