Dialogue better than confrontation
If China, US keep expectations low, cooperate on global issues, they can try to improve ties
The two-day dialogue between the top diplomats of China and the United States, which concluded on March 19, proceeded according to the expectations of the two sides and defined bilateral relations in terms of cooperation, competition and confrontation.
The Alaska talks have yielded more-than-symbolic deliverables. According to China’s post-dialogue statement, the two sides have agreed to establish a joint working group on climate challenge. And the US statement emphasized that both countries need to maintain cooperation to deal with the climate crisis.
The difference in the details of announcements show that both sides recognize the urgency to deal with the common challenge facing humankind but still differ in their approach to the problem.
However, as US special presidential envoy for climate John Kerry said in January, the US must deal with China on climate change as a “critical standalone issue”. Climate change can be and should be a front in which both countries should reset ties.
In contrast to the US-Japan and US-Republic of Korea 2+2 talks, China and the US were represented by their top officials in charge of security and foreign affairs at the talks in Anchorage, Alaska.
While the Chinese side was led by top diplomat Yang Jiechi, a member of the Communist Party of China’s top decision-making body, and State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the US side was headed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.
Since late last year, Wang has been asking his US counterpart to adopt the differential approach the two sides adhered to in Alaska to steer bilateral ties in a positive direction.
In Alaska, the two sides agreed to separately prepare a first list of issues of cooperation, a second list of issues of differences, and a third list on how to manage and control those differences.
In a similar vein, Blinken indicated before the Anchorage talks that the US will work with China whenever possible, compete with China when necessary, and fight against China when it must.
Although Blinken sounded blunt, he, officially, did not label China as a rival. Instead, US President Joe Biden and his national security team have defined China as a “very serious challenge”, while labeling Russia as the US’ arch enemy.
China and the US, in addition to cooperating in the fight against climate change, have also agreed to boost global efforts to contain the novel coronavirus pandemic and take necessary measures to restore normal visa-issuing facilities.
The two sides reportedly also discussed how to resolve the Korean Peninsula and Iranian nuclear issues.
Beijing and Washington are competing in many fields, with trade being the main area of competition. Perhaps that is why the Biden administration has not reversed its predecessor’s trade policies.
In particular, it has not withdrawn the tariffs on Chinese goods imposed by former US president Donald Trump. Recently, the Biden administration also urged China to reduce the State’s role in the Chinese economy. Therefore, trade issues will continue to influence Sino-US relations.
And Sino-US confrontation, especially the mutual charges, at the opening session of Anchorage talks, will continue to haunt both sides for some time to come.
Blinken’s opening remarks can be interpreted as unwarranted arrogance, inviting strong response from the Chinese side. Yet, China views the overall talks as being constructive and candid.
According to prior arrangement, China and the US were supposed to deliver much shorter opening remarks at the Alaska talks. But they spent nearly one hour sharply criticizing each other, casting a shadow on not only the Alaska dialogue but also, perhaps, the talks in the future.
Probably, such frank display of dissatisfaction may become the new normal and, hence, the two sides should not have high hopes from one round of bilateral dialogue.
They might be pleased to make any headway at high-level talks given the low level of mutual trust, but the lack of mutual trust could spiral into an unending squabble benefiting neither China nor the US.
The US needs to understand that it cannot position itself as a preacher of norms and morality. And the Chinese side should know that, if it does not agree with the US, it can adopt an approach of “agreeing to disagree” to keep alive the diplomatic discourse.
But the fact that China and the US are likely to continue engaging in bilateral dialogue in an effort to jointly resolve regional and global issues is far better than the two sides confronting each other on every possible issue as happened during the Trump administration.
As long as China and the US keep their expectations low, and cooperate on common global issues, they should be able to arrest the slide in bilateral ties and make renewed efforts to improve the Sino-US relationship.