Recently, the dialogue between China and the United States has been very intensive, and it covers many fields such as politics, economy, and military. On the Chinese side, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Assistant Secretary of State Conda, and White House National Security Council Senior Director for China Affairs Berthalan have also visited; on the US side, the Sino-US Financial Working Group held its fourth meeting in Washington, D.C., and Bank of China Governor Pan Gongsheng met with Fed Chairman Powell. In addition, the defense ministers of the two sides also held a video dialogue. Of course, the most noteworthy thing is the latest news from the Chinese side that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will visit China again this year after his first visit to China last year.
According to Xinhua News Agency, on the 22nd, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin announced that at the invitation of Wang Yi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs, US Secretary of State Blinken will visit China from April 24 to 26. It is reported that Blinken will visit Beijing and Shanghai during his trip. The US side disclosed that Blinken has three main goals for coming to China. At the same time, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials also said that China is mainly focused on five major goals. In this regard, we will talk about three topics.
First, Blinken's "treatment" has improved a lot compared with last year.
In June 2023, Blinken made his first foreign trip to China after becoming U.S. Secretary of State, and the atmosphere between China and the United States was not harmonious at that time. First, the negative impact of the visit to Taiwan by then Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi on the relations between the two countries is still fermenting; on the other hand, the communication between China and the United States has entered a state of stalemate because of the "balloon incident," because the United States not only did not listen to China's explanation, but also dispatched F-22 fighters to shoot down the Chinese balloon and did not even return the wreckage to China.
Against this backdrop, Blinken unilaterally announced that he would visit China in February of that year, but the trip did not take place in March, April, and May.
It wasn't until June that Blinken finally set foot on Chinese soil, but the "treatment" was mediocre. First, the Chinese side announced that Blinken's visit to China was "agreed by both sides" and was positioned as an ordinary work exchange; the other was that when Blinken arrived, there were no heavyweight officials on the Chinese side to greet him, and he walked out of the airport accompanied by the US ambassador to China. Perhaps, Blinken remembers his first visit to China vividly.
This year, China is completely different, first, China and the United States are in a good atmosphere of intensive dialogue, and second, it can be seen from China's announcement to the outside world that this time Blinken came with an "invitation", and it was an invitation issued by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, unlike last year, which was "agreed by both sides". I also hope that Secretary Blinken's second visit to China will make the dialogue between China and the United States more constructive and reach more consensus in a friendly atmosphere.
Second, what are the three major goals of the US side, and will China make concessions?
In fact, before Blinken set off, US State Department spokesman Miller disclosed that he would "talk about Sino-Russian relations" and "Sino-Iranian oil trade". The U.S. State Department has been more official about its three main goals: first, to make progress on key issues, second, to clearly and directly communicate concerns about bilateral, regional, and global issues, and third, to manage competition responsibly so that it does not lead to miscalculations or conflicts.
The first target, "key issues" may include Sino-Russian relations and Sino-Iranian trade. Previously, the US side has repeatedly complained that Chinese companies are "helping Russia" and "China is helping Russia build its defense industrial base", and has repeatedly issued sanctions against Chinese companies on this ground. But at the same time, the White House and the Pentagon have made it clear that they have not found that China is providing military assistance to Russia.
The just-concluded G7 Foreign Ministers' Joint Statement also sent a signal that the closer China is to Russia, the farther it is from the West. Obviously, this is a "multiple-choice question" that China is hoping for.
However, China did not take sides in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but remained neutral, and it can't be because the United States is fighting a "proxy war" with Russia, and China will also suffer from the fish in the pond, and it can't even maintain normal relations with Russia, and normal business dealings can't do it, right?
Similarly, after Iran and Israel "bombed each other", the United States introduced a domestic law to forcibly prohibit China from importing crude oil from Iran before preparing to sanction Iran. It is not a day or two that the United States has used its domestic law to "manage global affairs," but China will not abide by such a practice, because China is an independent sovereign country and has its own national interests and diplomatic direction. On this issue, even if Blinken comes in person, China is unlikely to make concessions.
The second goal should be to focus on international hotspot issues such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the situation on the Korean Peninsula.
The third target, which focuses on the Sino-US issue, is naturally the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. In the Taiwan Strait, the new leader of the Taiwan region is about to take office, and after the completion of his term of office, what attitude will he adopt on the cross-strait issue? Will it promote "radical Taiwan independence"? What role will the United States play behind it? Will it be able to implement "not supporting Taiwan independence" in a down-to-earth manner? All these are all things that the two sides should communicate face-to-face. In the South China Sea, the United States has not only encouraged the Philippines to step up its provocations, but has also repeatedly reaffirmed its security commitment to the Philippines and deployed intermediate-range missiles to northern the Philippines.
Third, what are China's five major goals? Will the United States compromise?
Taken together, China's five major goals include: (1) establishing a correct understanding, (2) strengthening dialogue, (3) effectively managing differences, (4) promoting mutually beneficial cooperation, and (5) jointly shouldering responsibilities as a major country.
First, it is necessary to clarify how China and the United States should get along, rather than "compete in the field of competition and cooperate in the field of cooperation" as the United States said, and the result is almost all "competition" or unreasonable suppression, the semiconductor field is the most obvious example, and recently it wants to suppress China in the field of electric vehicles. If the United States does this, it will not benefit China or the United States. Second, this is what China and the United States are currently doing, but the lively dialogue is not necessarily efficient, especially since the US side does not let go of the "hegemonic" mentality, which greatly affects the success rate of the dialogue between the two sides.
Third, on the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea issues, the US has repeatedly stated that it will "build guardrails between China and the United States to prevent miscalculations", but this has not been implemented. It is not difficult to find that in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, the United States is still escalating its actions and deploying medium-range missiles to the Philippine Luzon Island, with a range covering the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. When the United States and the Philippines recently held exercises, they also set the location in "disputed waters" for the first time.
Fourth, and fifth, it should be carried out only when the two sides reach a broad consensus, right? Taking climate change control as an example, the United States welcomes China's "emission reductions," but when China vigorously advocates the use of clean energy and promotes photovoltaic products and electric vehicles, the United States complains that "Chinese products are too cheap, making it impossible for American companies to compete and facing bankruptcy." Obviously, if it can't do it itself, it still blames China, so how can it cooperate? Does it want China to raise the price of its products to cater to the competition of the United States? This does not conform to the economic law in the first place.
Whether it is the Russia-Ukraine conflict or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, China is the promoter of peace, but the United States has repeatedly "rejected it with one vote" in the Security Council, completely ignoring the responsibilities of major countries for the sake of selfish interests, can it make improvements? On the whole, Blinken's visit to China this time is probably still playing the calculation of "hoping that China will make concessions," and it will be difficult for the United States to make a compromise.