Last week’s China-USA meeting began with brief statements from Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Disagreements between the United States and China, they said, are also shared by the world. They then described a few of America’s recent successes, including its control of the pandemic, a growing economy, and revitalized alliances, before pointing out that China’s economic and military coercion was problematic. The American delegation said they would discuss those concerns, along with others, “frankly and clearly” during the closed-door session. The opening statements from the Americans were businesslike and to the point, making general statements about values and rules.
The Chinese, on the other hand, were not about to explain how they would discuss their concerns, whether in this way or that. After touting China’s success in ending poverty and nearing complete modernization, Yang Jiechi began a series of broad criticisms of the American system:
The United States and its allies are responsible for wars throughout the world, while China is interested in “peaceful development.”
The United States prefers regime change and imposes its will on other countries through force. The USA should stop “advancing its democracy.”
The United States is divided and large portions of the American public do not support the government.
Yang Jiechi and Wang Yi said China is interested in a new international system that is not dominated by “a few.” The current system in which the United States and its European and Asian allies are the most prosperous and set the rules of the world order is, by its nature, antithetical to Chinese plans for the world. China wants a “new international relations,” based on fairness, justice, and mutual respect, according to the Chinese diplomats. What China means by this is that it should get the treatment a superpower deserves. It wants the deference the United States has been given by other countries in the latest international system. In other words, new arrangements should be developed that place China in a leadership position. To drive the point home further, The Global Times, a publication controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, followed the Anchorage meeting up with an editorial stating that the “so-called rules-based international order...is centered on the US, and on white supremacy.”
What are China’s requests? To quickly usher in the new period of international relations, China would like the United States to:
Cease interference in Xinjiang, Taiwan, and Tibet
Improve its own human rights record
Refrain from military action
Cease opposing authoritarian regimes
Stop suppressing China’s rise. Instead, focus on economic competition while seeking win-win results
Forego making statements about universal rights or values because the United States does not speak for the world
Quit adding sanctions and, preferably, remove them
Secretary Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan responded to the Chinese delegation’s lengthy criticisms and recommendations by saying they are hearing a very different story than that of the Chinese. Other countries, they countered, are satisfied with their relationships with America. Moreover, the United States does not hide its problems, unlike China. Sullivan went on to tout America’s alliance system as both an important part of the international system and a source of economic strength.
A few observations: the American delegation was hesitant to express strong emotion. First, it did not accuse China of specific malpractices, at least in this public exchange. Second, none of China’s behavior was described as insulting or offensive; it was instead suggested China was breaking the rules of the international order. Blinken and Sullivan clearly felt the need to respond to Jiechi and Yi’s extended critiques, but they largely did not express their offense at the accusations, except when describing them as “long-winding” or “long-winded.” The Chinese spoke with the language of respect, fairness, and injustice, and the American delegation would do well to mirror that language.
To more effectively bolster its case against China, the United States might employ two strategies:
1. Provide examples, even if broad.
2. Define terms.
Many of China’s accusations could be countered with examples of areas in which Washington has strong disagreements with Beijing. For instance, the United States may mention “physical attacks along borders” in reference to the India-China territorial disputes. American diplomats could mention Chinese interference, such as economic and academic interference in Australia, economic coercion of Taiwan, unfair development and seizure in the South China Sea, and other examples. America can be the spokesperson for countries without a powerful voice by using the language of fairness and justice. Notably, American diplomats need to explain what values are “universal” and “basic.” Secretary Blinken described economic and military coercion as “assaults on basic values,” but did not explain what those values were. Without being specific about those values, the claim is easily dismissed.
The Anchorage summit revealed two issues I addressed in my previous piece, Biden’s Policy for the World that are central to a China strategy. The first: what human rights or values should the United States encourage, or even pressure, other countries to adopt? The second: should American have a strategy to advance its style of government around the globe?
Cover image: https://www.france24.com/en/diplomacy/20210319-tensions-flare-on-camera-at-first-us-china-summit-of-biden-presidency