The U.S.-China high-level talks in Alaska came to an end against a backdrop of fraught differences between the two sides. It was the first high-level dialogue between the two countries since the Biden administration took office, and thus attracted much attention. The dialogue took place in an atmosphere of a “new cold war” between the two countries, with Washington stepping up its allied diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific region on the eve of the meeting, and Beijing assuming a tough stance to overwhelm the U.S. in terms of momentum. After the meeting, the U.S. Secretary of State rushed to Europe to attend a meeting of NATO foreign ministers and meet with senior EU officials. Beijing hosted the visiting Russian foreign minister. During the Alaska Dialogue, China and the U.S. took firm positions and did not give in to each other, which triggered heated debates in the media and social networks. How to judge this Alaska High Level Dialogue between China and the United States? How do you predict the future of the world landscape? In this regard, we connected with New York-based American political commentator Mr. Chen Baokong.
CGN: The U.S.-China high-level talks in Alaska have sparked a lot of controversy, how do you evaluate the talks in general?
Chen Bukong: The overall impression of the U.S.-China talks in Alaska is a cold war, a new cold war, not the beginning of a new cold war, but the escalation of a new cold war. Because both the Time and place are clear: the place is Alaska, the atmosphere of the new cold war is the local climate, is -18 degrees. The U.S. demanded that the talks be held on U.S. soil, unlike the U.S. initiative to go to the allies. In addition, this reminds us of the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union had talks in Iceland, also in a very cold place. The time was also after the U.S. and a series of allied countries had met and consulted and formed a consensus. The Chinese side also repeatedly requested that this meeting take place. The general feeling is that the atmosphere was cold, as we all know: there was no meal, no luncheon, no dinner, no breakfast. This is despite the fact that the talks were held in three stages. Plus, during the talks, the two sides were fiery exchanges, especially coming up to quarrel, especially the opening remarks, eight minutes of opening remarks made into 90 minutes, an hour and a half. The world witnessed the opposing positions, the heated attitudes and the icy atmosphere expressed by each side. This is the overall atmosphere of the talks.
RFE/RL: Chinese representative Yang Jiechi was strong during the high-level talks in Alaska, stating clearly that the United States is not qualified to speak to China from above. This statement sparked a lot of praise on Chinese social media. What is your interpretation of this?
Chen Baokong: The performance of Yang Jiechi, the chief representative of the Chinese side and a member of the Politburo, was both surprising and unexpected. The unexpected thing is that Yang Jiechi himself is a dove, not a hawk, a moderate rather than a hardliner in the Chinese Communist Party. This time, he has changed from a dovish to a hawkish attitude. He broke the rule of opening remarks: two minutes per person, but he basically spoke for more than 16 minutes by himself, a serious violation and a serious time overrun, which surprised all the people present. Another surprise: I thought that after the Biden Administration came to power, China was eager to improve Sino-US relations and had made a lot of pleas to the US side to have this meeting, thinking that both sides would cherish this opportunity to show goodwill to each other. However, it was not expected that China would come to show its strength. In fact, it was expected, because at this stage of development of Sino-US relations, the Chinese Communist Party thinks it has risen and become powerful, and its economic strength and military power are catching up with the US, catching up with the US, and even claiming to surpass the US in many aspects. Therefore, at this time, the two sides have not entered into a war, but have entered into a state of cold war or a new cold war. This time, Yang Jiechi’s performance appropriately demonstrated this new Cold War pattern. It is just like the U.S.-Soviet era, when quarrels and even fierce quarrels broke out at every turn. The two sides have completely different demands, interests and concerns, and it is almost difficult to form a crossover. That’s why Yang Jiechi’s gesture has created a trend at Home because everyone knows, and it is obvious, that the reason why Yang Jiechi violated the time limit is because he wanted to incite nationalism at home, treating diplomatic work as propaganda work, and treating big foreign propaganda as big domestic propaganda. So on the Chinese side, under the concerted operation of the Party media and Party newspapers, and the operation of the national system, a nationalist frenzy was operated, so much so that Yang Jiechi’s language was printed as T-shirts and printed as cell phone covers, which were hotly sold and sold in the country. And many little pinko and self-made fifty-cent parties were very excited and frantic. But when the Chinese Communist Party disseminates Yang Jiechi’s language, most of the time it does not disseminate at all what exactly the U.S. side said, such as what exactly the U.S. representatives, Secretary of State Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan said. The Chinese Communist Party either just doesn’t report it, or they very much downplay it, or even take it out of context for the other side. So this time you can see: the CCP is just a deliberate diplomatic show and a deliberate propaganda war, mainly to brainwash the Chinese domestic population and to continue to reinforce nationalism, so-called patriotism.
RFK: What are the concerns and demands of both China and the United States in this high-level dialogue?
Chen Bukong: The concerns and demands of both sides were revealed in the opening remarks. Although the opening statement is very hot, but the main event in the closed-door talks. We saw that the U.S. side’s statement was about human rights issues, including Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong were mentioned. There was also concern about the Chinese Communist Party’s threat of force against Taiwan and its hegemonic behavior in the South China Sea. The Chinese side’s concern, it was receiving a series of so-called red lines: Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, and even the South China Sea, all of which are its red lines or core interests. But in the closed-door talks, it was revealed that the CCP in fact has only one red line, or a top priority red line: the ruling status and political system of the CCP cannot be compromised. This is a concern of the CCP. Because the Trump era, the Trump Administration has directly targeted the Chinese Communist Party’s system, but there are many quotes, like Secretary of State Pompeo (the former Secretary of State Pompeo), saying that they want to separate the Chinese Communist Party from China, separate the Chinese Communist Party from the Chinese people, and saying that the biggest lie of the Chinese Communist Party is its delusion that it represents the 1.4 billion people that it has destroyed, suppressed, and blocked. Also, the U.S. says: the CCP’s one-party dictatorship is contrary to the aspirations of the people and contrary to the world pattern. This is the Trump era. So the Chinese Communist Party wants this time: the Biden era does not touch its political system, one-party dictatorship. This is the same as when North Korea negotiates with the United States or other countries, the first thing it wants is for other countries to recognize its hereditary Kim Family regime, which is its top priority. As for the sufferings and hardships of the North Korean people, they are not at all under its concern. The same is true of the Chinese Communist Party. It is concerned about its one-party dictatorship and about the interests of his ruling party, that is, the vested interests of top officials. This is the top priority of the Chinese officials this time. As for whether the U.S. side agreed or not, there was no joint declaration or communiqué after the meeting, so it should be said that each side listened to the other side’s concerns and priorities, and then looked back to see how each side would act.
First, on the U.S. side: Before the talks, the U.S. Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State visited Indo-Pacific allies; after the talks, Secretary of State Blinken rushed to Brussels to attend a meeting of NATO foreign ministers and meet with senior EU officials. What do these U.S. actions indicate?
Chen Baokong: The U.S. actions show that one of the main strategies and tactics of the Biden administration in power is to unite with allies to deal with China and Communist China. So before the talks, it had to meet with its major allies in the Asia-Pacific region before it met with the Chinese Communist Party, so it met with the Chinese delegation in Alaska on March 18 on the way back from Blinken, and before that, it held the U.S.-Japan “two plus two” summit, that is, the summit of defense and foreign ministers. A “two plus two” summit was also held with South Korea. Later, the Secretary of Defense continued to visit India to consolidate this alliance between the United States and India. On top of this, and after good communication with allies, the U.S. held talks to show that it continues to consolidate the Indo-Pacific alliance formed during the Trump era in the Asia-Pacific region, from the U.S. to Japan, to India, and to Australia for this line of defense. Then talks with the Chinese side. And after the talks, the U.S. side’s actions were: on the one hand, there was a set schedule for Secretary of State Blinken to attend the NATO Foreign Ministers Summit, and on the other hand, it was also to inform NATO and the EU countries about the talks with China, and then it was rumored that the EU, the UK, and Canada took concerted action with the U.S. to impose sanctions on the Chinese Communist Party over the Xinjiang genocide. This shows the concerted action of the international community, the democratic world. This also shows that the Alaska summit actually ended in failure, that is to say, the negotiations broke down, and no consensus or intersection was reached, after which there was a series of actions by both China and the United States.
RFE: Let’s look at the Chinese side: before and after the talks, China tried two Canadians who were arrested two years ago, and after the talks, it received the visiting Russian foreign minister and expressed its friendship to North Korea. What is your view on this?
Chen Baokong: The Chinese side is moving the same way as the U.S. side, uniting some of its own allies. The trial of the two Canadian hostages was held on the day of the negotiations and after the negotiations. The trial of the two Canadian hostages was an attempt to bargain with the United States, knowing that the United States was likely to be concerned about Canada’s request for its help in getting the two Canadian hostages released. The Chinese side then took the opportunity to make an offer to the United States: If, say, the trial opens and the Chinese Communist Party gains something in the bargaining process in Alaska, then the Chinese Communist Party may be able to deport the two men through the trial. But if there is no gain on the U.S. side in exchange, the Chinese side will continue to hold the hostages. So this is a continuation of hostage diplomacy, a blackmail. In addition, immediately after the talks, the Chinese Communist Party invited the Russian foreign minister to visit China and sent the head of the Chinese Federation to meet with the North Korean ambassador. This shows that it also has allies, its only two allies: one is Russia and the other is North Korea. But it should be said that Russia and North Korea are at odds with China. They are just using each other. Because North Korea will also seek a breakthrough in relations with the United States to varying degrees; and Russia, too, wants China to form a cover with it and stand in its way to fight the West. But both Russia and China are of this mind. As soon as either Russia or the Chinese Communist Party improves relations with the West, it immediately abandons the other. So this time the Russian foreign minister went to China and had a proposal, which the Chinese side agreed to, that they want to extend the Russian-Chinese good-neighborliness treaty, the 20-year good-neighborliness treaty, the border treaty signed during the Jiang Zemin era. It is said that a clause will be added that when Russia and China are attacked by either side, the two sides will have urgent talks and consultations and communication. But there is no mention of mutual defense, and the absence of a defensive relationship means that there is no substantive alliance, but rather “urgent communication” and “consultation”, which is a superficial deterrent to other third parties. So there may be some more relations on the surface, but more importantly, Russian officials and leaders, Chinese officials and leaders, have been sanctioned by the United States, the European Union, the Western world. At this point in time, they’re barely finding a common ground. And the Chinese Communist Party especially at this time needs Russia and North Korea to endorse him. Because other than those two countries, almost all the neighboring countries and countries further away are on the side of the United States.
Recent Comments