MA XUEJING/CHINA DAILY
Editor’s note: China and the US, as the two biggest economies globally, should overcome challenges and restore bilateral relations, which is not only crucial for both countries but also for the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world. Three experts offer their insights to China Daily.
What does easing of Sino-US ties signify?
By Yuan Zheng
High-level interactions between China and the United States have increased in recent months, fostering a warmer atmosphere. New dialogue mechanisms and communication channels have been established, including the creation of working groups to tackle economic, financial, and business issues. The two countries are also engaging in dialogue and negotiations on diplomacy, climate change, the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation.
Last month, Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited the US, laying the groundwork for the participation of President Xi Jinping in the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in San Francisco from Nov 14 to 17 and the meeting between the Chinese and US leaders.
Both Beijing and Washington are working to normalize bilateral ties, with the US reiterating its commitment to the one-China principle and its stance that doesn’t support “Taiwan independence”. The US side has stressed it does not seek “decoupling” from China, and the Joe Biden administration has extended the agreement between the two countries on cooperation in science and technology by six months. In a reciprocal gesture, China has signed agreements to make its first bulk purchase of US agricultural products in six years. That the deal is worth billions of dollars shows China’s willingness to improve relations with the US.
While there has been a slight improvement in Sino-US relations due to high-level interactions, it’s important to realize that no substantial breakthrough has been achieved. Both countries are engaged in primary-level dialogue and communication, but a lack of strategic mutual trust has prevented the two sides from reaching a consensus on any issue, especially because the US is yet to take any substantial action to rebuild mutual trust.
Also, the Biden administration continues to exert pressure on China by resorting to a two-pronged strategy. In August, Biden signed an executive order restricting investments in sensitive technology sectors such as semiconductors, quantum computing and artificial intelligence, and demanded that US companies report their investments in other technology sectors in China to the US administration. And on Oct 17, the US Department of Commerce imposed new export controls, significantly restricting exports to China.
Worse, the Biden administration approved a new economic deal with Taiwan, providing military assistance to the island through the presidential drawdown authority and then announcing the 11th round of arms sales to Taiwan, in a bid to support Taiwan in resisting reunification by force.
On the South China Sea issue, the US continues to sow discord between China and its neighbors. It has strengthened its relations with Vietnam and is supporting the Philippines in its provocative moves at China’s Ren’ai Reef. The US has also imposed illegal sanctions on Chinese officials citing the so-called Tibet issue, which is a direct interference in China’s internal affairs.
Besides, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, after visiting China, said that it is no secret that there are differences between the US and China, and Washington will continue to stand for its interests, stand up for its values and continue to do things and say things that Beijing doesn’t like.
The US’ current policy toward China is a combination of engagement and dialogue alongside strategic competition. The dialogue helps the US in the strategic competition with China. In fact, the improvement in Sino-US relations can be largely attributed to the Biden administration’s tactical adjustments in its policy toward China. The reasons behind these adjustments are not complex.
First, Biden’s moves are in response to concerns raised by rational voices within the US that have warned that the US’ China policy is unbalanced, emphasizing that intensive competition with China leads to excessive tensions.
Second, the Biden administration recognizes the need for China’s cooperation to address various global issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, regional instability, climate change, economic and trade matters, international finance, and the opioid crisis in the US.
Third, as the host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting, the US is keen to demonstrate its global leadership and improve its international image. It attaches great importance to persuading China’s top leadership to participate in the APEC event and arrange for a meeting between the two countries’ leaders.
And fourth, Biden is strategically positioning himself for the 2024 US presidential election. It is a known fact that China-related issues will feature prominently in the presidential debates next year, which makes Biden’s approach toward China a strategic and tactical move rather than a fundamental shift in policy. In fact, the US has been adjusting its China policy since the Barack Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” strategy.
Whether from the perspective of the US’ China policy, the current state of Sino-US relations or the US’ domestic political landscape, the Biden administration does not intend to fundamentally change the current policy of taking a tough stance against China.
As long as the US maintains its sense of superiority, its hegemonic mindset and its ideological biases toward China, it will not change its “China-containment” strategy.
Given these facts, China should adopt a prudent strategy to manage both competition and cooperation with the US, even seeking cooperation through competition. China must always keep its interests in mind when seeking common ground with the US, and make it a priority to ensure that the US’ “five noes” commitments (the US does not seek a new Cold War, does not seek to change China’s system, does not seek to confront China through strengthened alliances, does not support “Taiwan independence” and does not seek conflict with China) are realized, while also identifying areas where its interests intersect with those of the US to expand cooperation.
Constructing a genuine safety barrier, as Biden intends to build, is essential to effectively preventing the escalation of Sino-US competition and conflicts. After all, a stable Sino-US relationship is in the interest of both nations and plays a pivotal role in global peace and regional stability.
The author is deputy director of the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
The views don’t necessarily represent those of China Daily.
Washington must stay true to one-China commitment
By Li Zhenguang
In recent years, conflicts, disputes and other regional hotspot issues have caused uncertainty about the world’s future. In all this, the Taiwan question stands out as one of the most prominent regional flashpoints, and it’s a focal point in Sino-US relations.
The collusion between separatist forces in Taiwan and certain US politicians and organizations have repeatedly escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait. If not effectively addressed, the situation could spiral out of control, leading to disastrous consequences not only for the region but also for the entire world.
The Taiwan question is a core interest of Beijing. Defending this core interest involves maintaining peace and stability across the Strait, opposing and eradicating all forms of “Taiwan independence” activities and external interference in the Taiwan question — in short, not allowing any force to separate Taiwan from the motherland.
When it comes to matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Chinese people and government have no room for compromise. No one should expect Beijing to accept the separation of Taiwan from the motherland.
This is the 21st century, not the 19th or 20th century, a century when China has become an economic powerhouse and a big military power. So China will not allow its territory to be divided or its sovereignty to be violated.
The Taiwan question has always been the most sensitive subject in Sino-US relations, affecting the nature and direction of this crucial bilateral relationship. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during his meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington on Oct 26-27, emphasized that the current global situation is complex, and Sino-US relations have reached a critical crossroad.
In such a situation, the handling of the Taiwan question is a key indicator of in which way Sino-US relations will move. Ably managing the Taiwan question will contribute to the positive development of bilateral relations, benefiting China and the United States, as well as the Asia-Pacific region, and even the entire world.
On the other hand, the mishandling of the Taiwan question could significantly increase the risk of a direct confrontation between Beijing and Washington, leading to instability in the Asia-Pacific and the world beyond. Recognizing the critical impact of the Taiwan question, Wang, during his meeting with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Washington, said that the biggest threat to peace and stability across the Strait is “Taiwan independence”, and the most significant challenge to Sino-US relations, too, is “Taiwan independence”, which should be resolutely opposed.
Wang also made it clear during his meeting with US President Joe Biden that the one-China principle and the three Sino-US joint communiques are the pillars of bilateral ties and, therefore, should be firmly upheld. The principle and communiques highlight the political commitments of the US. Adhering to the principle and abiding by the three communiques will contribute to the proper handling of the Taiwan question and put Sino-US relations back on a healthy development track.
Since the Taiwan question is critical to the overall stability and positive development of Sino-US relations, it should be effectively managed based on the existing Sino-US political foundation. In recent years, the Taiwan Strait has come close to witnessing a conflict, often due to the instigation of certain US political forces which use the Taiwan question to fulfill their own narrow political goals, sending the wrong signals to “Taiwan independence” forces on the island.
The misguided signals from the US have emboldened the Taiwan secessionists. Combined with their increasing collusion with some US politicians, the misguided signals are the root cause of the complex and challenging situation across the Strait. It is the obligation of the US therefore to maintain peace and stability across the Strait. More important, the US should unequivocally oppose “Taiwan independence”, in order to improve Sino-US relations and maintain peace and stability across the Strait.
The results of the upcoming elections in Taiwan early next year will be pivotal moments that could affect the political landscape of Taiwan, the situation across the Strait, and cross-Strait as well as Sino-US relations. They will also serve as a test of the US’ commitment to the one-China principle.
The Taiwan question is critical to achieving the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. If the US fulfills its political commitments, upholds the one-China principle, opposes “Taiwan independence”, and refrains from sending misguided signals to the “Taiwan independence” forces, the separatist forces on the island will think twice before making any rash moves. This in turn will pave the way for peace and stability across the Strait and the healthy development of cross-Strait relations. It will also contribute to the stability and sustainability of Sino-US relations and help prevent misunderstandings.
The US adhering to the one-China principle is not only in the interest of both China and the US and their peoples but also in line with the international community’s expectations.
The author is deputy director of the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Beijing Union University.
The views don’t necessarily represent those of China Daily.
White House must drop conflicting goals
By John Milligan-Whyte
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum has created a growing and prosperous regional economy through trade and investment liberalization by reducing costs of cross-border trade, assisting businesses and promoting cooperation in technologies. APEC focuses on reducing the gap between developing and developed members and improving the investment environment in the APEC’s 21 members that produce nearly 50 percent of the world’s GDP.
US President Joe Biden is seeking APEC members’ support for Washington’s restrictive trade and economic policies toward China and a meeting with the Chinese leader to reduce tensions and improve US-China relations. These conflicting goals are typical of US policies that seek China’s support for the US’ core interests and goals while the US seeks to undermine China’s core interests and goals.
The US wants to get as many of China’s 200 trading partner economies as possible to support its geopolitical and economic policies toward China, and to shift the demand for advanced technology products away from China to companies in the US and its allies and partners.
However, APEC members want to trade with both the US and China. They do not want to be forced to choose sides in dangerous economic and technology confrontations between the world’s two largest economies and military powers.
Way back in 2010, the Brookings Institution suggested that the APEC needs to be reinvented, because it has “disadvantages” in advancing US policies as the APEC does not require its members to enter legally binding obligations. Instead, it uses a non-confrontational method to promote dialogue and consensus-oriented decision-making among the 21 APEC members, and give equal weight to all members irrespective of the size of their economy. “Requiring consensus is beneficial for representing all members but achieving unanimity between 21 members is difficult and APEC’s effectiveness is limited by how fast the group can come together and agree.”
For its China policy to succeed, the US needs to persuade or coerce as many other economies as it can into complying with Washington’s goal of “decoupling” or “de-risking” from China by changing well-established supply chains involving China.
However, the US’ moves to realize its geopolitical goals by imposing economic and financial sanctions on other economies are damaging the economic growth, and increasing inflation, interest rates and consumers’ costs of living of the US, China and other APEC members.
The US also wants other economies to comply with its “small yard with high fence” policy seeking to create high-tech trade barriers, in a bid to limit China’s ability to compete with the US. But the US’ technology war against China is damaging the existing global supply chains of chips and other high-tech products which the US, China and other APEC members depend on to maintain or boost their economic growth.
The US’ decision to seek “decoupling” or de-risking from China by building “small yards with high fences” has created opportunities for APEC members to play new, important roles in securing the global supply chains. This has created economic development opportunities for APEC members, which can benefit the US and China, too.
In this regard, the governments of APEC members need to take measures to ensure the US’ disputes with China do not have a catastrophic impact on their economic and national security. In recent years the US has not been a reliable trade partner or security provider for countries. Thanks to the Donald Trump administration’s “America first” policy, the world came to know the US’ economic and trade policies are not politically reliable, and the US has started wars that it couldn’t win, and then abandoned its allies in such wars.
What the US has to offer APEC members currently is the demand that “don’t trade with China”. Since withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the US has not created a forward-looking trade arrangement and nor has it made it clear whether its nascent “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity” will ensure easy market access and create enduring revenue and investment opportunities that the US and its allies’ governments and companies need to make risky major investments in.
In stark contrast, China is expanding its economic sphere of influence through the Belt and Road Initiative, creating markets for the goods and services provided by companies of APEC members including China, facilitating advanced communication with the Digital Silk Road, and providing infrastructure financing through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank, which will increase the APEC members’ economic opportunities.
The APEC can use its non-confrontational process to prevent the implementation of the US’ geopolitical strategy which seeks to abruptly break the global supply chains, and take measures to ensure APEC members have the freedom to choose Chinese or other countries’ technologies according to their individual needs.
Above all, APEC governments need to do what they can to reduce the potentially catastrophic competition between the world’s two largest economies. The shared goal of the US, China and the APEC should be “mutually assured prosperity”.
The author is chairman of the America-China Partnership Foundation.
The views don’t necessarily represent those of China Daily.
