At the crucial moment, senior Chinese and American officials met in Rome.
On one side is State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and on the other side is US Secretary of State Blinken.
This should also be regarded as a short-term engagement. A few days ago, it was Blinken who suddenly issued a Taiwan-related statement, openly declaring that the United States supports Taiwan's participation in the United Nations system, which was strongly refuted by the Chinese side.
Now, meet in Rome.
Will there be another quarrel?
Watching the videos of the two sides, the overall situation is still very diplomatic, there is no shaking hands and elbows, but it is also treated with courtesy, and the US side even said that the talks were conducted in a "frank atmosphere".
Looking at the Foreign Ministry press release, Wang Yi pointed out at the beginning: In recent years, due to the erroneous China policy pursued by the US side, Sino-US relations have suffered a comprehensive impact. The United States wantonly interfered in China's internal affairs, and the current Congress has issued more than 300 anti-China bills...
These, friends who care about international news, should all look at it. What I am most concerned about is the Taiwan issue, after all, this is the area with the strongest gunpowder flavor at present.
In the Foreign Ministry press release, Wang Yi's expression on the Taiwan issue accounted for a fairly important proportion, with a total of 8 sentences and 3 demands.
Every sentence is very direct and frank, but also with strong dissatisfaction.
The first sentence, "The Taiwan issue is the most sensitive issue between China and the United States." Once the handling is wrong, it will cause subversive and overall damage to Sino-US relations. ”
With "most", you can know the serious consequences, subversive, and overall destruction.
The second sentence, "Recently, the situation in the Taiwan Strait has been tense again, and the US side has repeatedly claimed that this is caused by China's change of the status quo." ”
Nor did it shy away from listing the U.S. allegations directly. Not surprisingly, in this meeting, Blinken must have repeated the same cliché.
In the third sentence, "This is not a fact at all, but a gross misleading of the international community." ”
Directly refuting, the United States, you are falsifying and seriously misleading the international community.
The fourth sentence, "The real status quo of the Taiwan issue is that there is only one China, Taiwan is a part of China, and the mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." ”
The United States is fake, then I will talk to you about the truth.
Fifth sentence, "Historical experience has proved many times that any change in this status quo will seriously damage the stability of the Taiwan Strait and even create a crisis in the Taiwan Strait." ”
Talk to Blinken about history and make it clear that the continuation of the current situation may lead to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait.
The sixth sentence reads, "The crux of the current situation in the Taiwan Strait is that the Taiwan authorities have repeatedly tried to break through the one-China framework, and the US side's connivance and support for the 'Taiwan independence' forces is also to blame." ”
Wang Yi analyzed the root causes and the crux of the problem: First, the Taiwan authorities are not dead-hearted thieves, and second, the United States has connived and supported them.
In the seventh sentence, "To stop the development of the 'Taiwan independence' tendency is to safeguard peace in the Taiwan Strait." We advise the US side to realize the serious harm of 'Taiwan independence.' ”
Twice again, I have pointed out "Taiwan independence," and I would like to advise the United States to polish your eyes and realize the harm of "Taiwan independence," which is a serious harm.
The eighth sentence, "We demand that the US side pursue the real one-China policy, not the fake one-China policy; we demand that the US side fulfill its commitments to the Chinese side instead of treacherously; and we ask the US side to truly implement the one-China policy into action, rather than saying one thing and doing one thing." ”
Here comes the point, three requirements, meaning quite clear:
1, you can't engage in fake one-China policy;
2, you can not fail to talk about credit;
3, you can't just talk and don't practice.
But it can be seen that China is very dissatisfied with the performance of the United States.
What did Blinken say?
In the Foreign Ministry press release, there is this sentence: Blinken reiterated that the UNITED States will continue to adhere to the one-China policy. Blinken said that the US side agrees that the United States and China should develop bilateral relations in the spirit of mutual respect, and is willing to maintain communication with the Chinese side, manage differences responsibly, and avoid confrontation or even crisis.
The one-China policy, Blinken still reiterated. As for the specific content, I don't know, but there is definitely a confrontation.
It is very interesting that on the same day of the meeting with Wang Yi, Blinken was interviewed by CNN, on the Taiwan issue, the outside world noticed that the top US diplomat played tai chi in various ways.
The dialogue is roughly as follows.
CNN Hostess: President Biden said last week that if China attacks, the United States will participate in defending Taiwan. Your spokesman said that the U.S. position had not changed. So I just want you to clarify: Does the United States directly promise the Taiwan government that if China attacks, we will protect Taiwan?
BLINKEN: There has been no change in our policy. By the way, we have a long-standing commitment that Biden strongly supported when he was a senator in the Senate, that is, to ensure that Taiwan has the ability to protect itself under the Taiwan Relations Act, and we stand by that commitment. The President strongly supports this, and we want to make sure that no one takes any unilateral action that would undermine the status quo. That hasn't changed.
Hostess: You're the Secretary of State, and that's a very, very perfect foreign policy narrator, so, I'm just wondering, for those who don't speak that language, can you clarify what that really means? If Taiwan is attacked, will the United States protect Taiwan? Can you cool down a bit, yes or no?
BLINKEN: blablablabla...
Hostess: Okay. I'll ask again. Biden was particularly clear that the United States would. You don't say that, do you?
BLINKEN: For a long time, the President, including when he was a senator voting in favor of the Taiwan Relations Act, has made it clear that we will take all necessary measures to ensure that Taiwan has the means to protect itself...
Do you understand?
Biden suddenly said last week that the United States would assist in the defense of Taiwan, which caused an uproar. Because if that's the case, it's a change.
I see that many analysts believe that Biden may have said the wrong thing again, even if it is the so-called "Taiwan Relations Act", it only declares that the United States will make Taiwan have the ability to defend itself, and never mentions that the United States should assist in defending Taiwan. So much so that the US side then urgently clarified: US policy has not changed.
If nothing has changed, it's that Biden is saying bald again.
The CNN reporter chased after it, and Blinken could not accuse Biden of saying the wrong thing, nor could he fall into the trap of CNN's words, so he could only play Tai Chi with all kinds of ruts.
Finally, CNN's headline is: After Biden assisted in defending Taiwan, the United States retreated!
But there is one point, I believe blinken should also be clear: the Taiwan issue is too sensitive, if the United States is reckless, it may really be shaking the mountain.
As for the UNITED States' defense, does the United States really have the guts to do so? Dare to pay a heavy price?
But for China, the United States is clearly too hypocritical. Wang Yi put forward "three demands" for the United States, which were very direct, frank and very clear, and the United States really wanted to make a good comparison and carry it clearly.