Before the first U.S.-China high-level meeting even took place, the two countries disagreed on the characterization and terminology of the meeting. Chinese officials used the term “high-level strategic dialogue” to promote the meeting, while Secretary of State Blinken made clear that it was not a “strategic dialogue” and that the two sides were addressing a range of issues that contained serious differences. Chinese officials have also hinted that they expect to resume the hundreds of exchanges and dialogue mechanisms that have existed in the past, while the U.S. side wants to see substantive results of Chinese improvements on issues of concern to the United States.
China Qualifies “High-Level Strategic Dialogue” Blinken: Not “Strategic Dialogue”
The Chinese Foreign Ministry announced on March 11 that “At the invitation of the U.S. side, Yang Jiechi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission, and Wang Yi, Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister, will meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Anchorage from March 18 to 19. The high-level U.S.-China strategic dialogue will be held in Anchorage.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian also wrote in a written statement that he hoped the United States “will stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, focus on cooperation and manage differences in accordance with the spirit of the call between the two heads of state, and promote the return of U.S.-China relations to the right track of healthy and stable development.”
China characterized the meeting as a “high-level strategic dialogue,” but the U.S. State Department, which was the first to announce it on the 10th, did not use that term.
Secretary of State Blinken also made clear at the hearing on the 10th that “this is not a ‘strategic dialogue.’ At this Time, the United States has no intention of initiating a series of follow-up contacts. For the two sides to have sustained engagement afterwards, the United States must see substantial progress and concrete results from China on issues of concern to us.”
In a brief tweet, Blinken also emphasized that he will work with Yang Jiechi and Wang Yi “on a range of issues, including where we have serious differences.”
Both Blinken’s statement at the hearing and the White House’s interim national security strategy guidance released last week identified China as the biggest threat facing the United States.
Global Times: Hopes to Resume U.S.-China Exchange Mechanism Blinken: No intention yet to launch follow-up engagement
Chinese official media Global Times reported on March 11 that the likely substantive outcome of the high-level meeting would be “the resumption and establishment of the U.S.-China exchange mechanism.” The report cited analysts as pointing out that during the Obama administration, the U.S. and China had more than a hundred regular exchange mechanisms, but in the late Trump administration, the relevant mechanisms have been reduced to less than ten.
Matt Pottinger, a former deputy national security adviser who led China Policy under Trump, told the Biden administration in his first public remarks since leaving office in early February that he hoped they “would not fall into the Chinese negotiating trap.”
Booming said China is adept at using various fancy names like “strategic dialogue” to adopt a delaying policy when negotiating. He recalled that in 2017, former Trade Representative Lighthizer showed cabinet members a chart showing the increasing number of conversations between the U.S. and China over the past two decades, while the U.S. trade deficit with China and China’s intellectual property violations have escalated.
Bomen said a key U.S. strategy under Trump has been to not allow China to stretch out the negotiations too long and not let the Chinese side dominate the agenda.
Recent Comments