The two countries held a high-level dialogue in Anchorage, Alaska, and officials from both sides were uncharacteristically saber-rattling. The official media in mainland China also took the opportunity to promote nationalism and incite the public to resist the US. Some mainland scholars believe that the U.S. and China have entered a turning point in the Cold War, and even estimate that China has prepared for a second Pacific war.
On March 18, U.S. Time, Yang Jiechi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a high-level Sino-U.S. dialogue with Secretary of State Blinken and Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Sullivan in Anchorage. Chinese official media labeled the dialogue “strategic” to elevate its importance, but Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s remarks underscored that China was using the meeting as a platform to launch a propaganda campaign against the U.S. side.
Following opening remarks by U.S. officials, Wang said that in the past few years, Sino-U.S. relations have encountered unprecedented difficulties due to the unjustified suppression of China’s legitimate rights and interests. This situation has harmed the interests of the two peoples and undermined world stability and development, and should not be allowed to continue. China was, is and will never accept unwarranted accusations from the United States, and at the same time we demand that the U.S. side completely abandon its hegemonic practice of interfering in China’s internal affairs. It’s time for the U.S. to change this old habit.
In a rare move, the official Xinhua News Agency on Friday (19) published Wang Yi’s extensive condemnation of the U.S. at the meeting in the first place, without a statement from U.S. officials. The People’s Daily even prepared a series of graphics for release on mainland social media to promote Yang Jiechi’s speech.
Some netizens compared the history of the Qing Dynasty’s oppression by the Western powers to the U.S.-China talks, proving that Xi Jinping‘s diplomatic ideas of “looking at the world from a level perspective” and “rising from the east and descending from the west” were truly implemented. Sina Jiangsu netizen “modern charcoal seller” commented that this is not a negotiation, but a war of public opinion. Another netizen praised Yang and Wang for “fighting for the Chinese people” and said that he disliked the U.S., that the Chinese are not to be bullied and that China will be strong. The report on U.S.-China relations ranked second on Sina’s Hot 100 with more than four million hits that day.
The diplomatic gesture of war wolves is really a show by the top brass and domestic public opinion
Wu Qiang, a former lecturer in the political science department of Tsinghua University who followed the meeting, said in an interview with Radio Free Asia on the same day that Chinese and U.S. officials were tit-for-tat and had no sincerity in finding a solution to their differences: “The Chinese side seems to have come to argue, which seems to indicate that they are under great pressure to seek this dialogue and are not prepared to make any concessions in this dialogue. Perhaps this war-wolf diplomatic posture is actually a show for the highest level.”
Compared to Yang Jiechi, Wang Yi’s rhetoric was the most intense that day. In addition to criticizing and condemning the U.S. side also referred to the “New Year’s Eve call” between Xi and Biden, saying, “The consensus reached between the two sides has pointed the way for China-U.S. relations to get back on the right track. The international community is highly concerned about our dialogue here, about whether each side can really show sincerity and goodwill, and about whether we can send a positive and upbeat signal to the world from here.”
In an earlier interview with this station, Wu Qiang had expected no progress to be made in this high-level U.S.-China dialogue. He still thinks so today. Wu Qiang went on to say, “It will only convince both sides how wide and deep the differences that exist between the two sides are, and it should be a turning point for the U.S. and China to move toward a new Cold War. Both sides will intensify their long-term preparations after these talks, preparations that Beijing may have to make for a second Pacific war against the United States.”
Tough on the outside to welcome agitation against U.S. self-aggrandizement
Taiyuan international relations scholar Zhang Yong told the station that it has been proven many times that the tougher Chinese officials are with the U.S., the more they can stir up anti-American sentiment among the people: “The tougher you are, the more popular you are, and the more you can stir up the so-called national pride inside and outside the Chinese Party. Being tough on foreign countries has also become the CCP’s political correctness. In this case, just show the party and outside that we are tough and, in Xi Jinping’s words, be men. This is all interpreted by the mouthpieces as China being strong. For China to talk to the U.S., no matter how it ends, he has a set of explanations.”
Wu Qiang believes that in the national view this dialogue between China and the U.S. has been far from the path of resolving differences, more like a diplomatic war, citing the example of the Vietnam War: “Vietnam’s foreign minister at the Paris peace talks, ignoring the rules of the game and speaking at length about empty nonsense, which is typical of a kind of peace talks in a state of war, and a war-wolf posture.”
Some scholars believe that Chinese diplomats are using the venue of the dialogue between the two countries as a battlefield for propaganda this time, which is a characteristic of communist countries. But the use of diplomacy as propaganda will cause China to lose international support.
[Who doesn’t follow diplomatic protocol?]
Looking at the process, Blinken and Sullivan each spent less than 2.5 minutes on their opening remarks. Yang Jiechi, however, spent more than 16 minutes cursing the U.S., not allowing the interpreter to interject throughout. He then spent more than 3 minutes to add to his remarks, and Wang Yi spent another 4 minutes to fill in the blanks
Blinken left the reporters behind, and Sullivan spent less than 2.5 minutes each to add to his remarks, but Yang Jiechi criticized him for “not following basic diplomatic etiquette”.
Is this really the case ?
Recent Comments