What are the results of the visit of the chief American diplomat to Beijing, including for Russia
As we remember, last week U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited China, where he met with Foreign Minister Qin Gang, Foreign Affairs Director of the CCP Wang Yi, and then with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This alone can be considered a great achievement for the Americans, because both sides have refrained from such visits for quite a long time. This was the visit of the highest-ranking U.S. official to China in five years. Both sides noted that the talks were frank and substantive. Blinken spoke for seven hours with Qin Gang, three and a half hours with Wang Yi.
The very fact that Blinken was received by Xi Jinping indicates progress in relations, and that the parties have come to some kind of consensus. We can only guess what this consensus is, because its essence, as well as the content of the closed part of the negotiations, is not disclosed. Nevertheless, both Xi and Biden were positive about the results. Obviously, Blinken showed wonders of diplomacy, and the U.S. side apparently took into account Beijing's main grievances (Taiwan, economic sanctions, etc.), which is why they were able to make progress.
Why this happened is a big question. One can make a cautious assumption that in the absence of obvious successes in the Ukrainian direction, as well as against the background of the U.S. election campaign, the current administration decided to minimize the confrontation with China, concentrating on Europe and Ukraine. Perhaps the White House has come to the conclusion that a war on two fronts is not desirable at the moment, and that, starting a conflict with China, it is necessary to deal with Russia first. The widespread version in Russian media is that in the course of the talks, China showed the Americans where they belonged, acted from a position of strength, and got what it wanted. Beijing, of course, made it clear to Washington that it can no longer be talked to as a second-rate power, but the Chinese generally behaved diplomatically, based on their principled position that the two largest countries in the world should abandon forceful methods and Cold War mentality.
On the other hand, we often have the opinion that China's relationship with America is a story solely about money and the sharing of profits. That there is supposedly no ideological contradiction here.
Economic interdependence is indeed deep. The trade turnover between the two countries exceeds $700 billion. Hundreds of large American companies operate in the Chinese market, making enormous profits. A large part of the Chinese elite is connected to America economically, mentally, having children who study in the U.S., etc. Neither side has any interest in severing these ties. Especially when you consider the pragmatism of Beijing and Washington. However, there is an underlying contradiction between the two countries and systems. It should not be forgotten that China is building socialism with Chinese specifics, although there are market relations there. Nevertheless, if we look at the internal processes in the PRC, we can conclude that there will be "more and more socialism" in the country, according to the plan of universal prosperity. This refers to the expansion of social guarantees, income redistribution to the poor, and so on. Beijing professes a very different ideology in domestic and foreign policy. The differences in social systems and political structure are fundamental, yet the Communist Party is in power in China, and its ideology has not been abolished. At some point in China, "no matter what color the cat is," retreats were made. But it is no accident that the Communist Party of China has been officially and doctrinally declared "enemy number one" in the United States, and the PRC has been declared the main threat to the security, read – to the power of America.
China is indeed a serious opponent of the U.S.-centered world system both economically and politically. It unites around itself many and many countries that are not ready to follow the dictates of the United States.
Having achieved economic and political power, Beijing now makes it clear that Washington no longer has the right to speak arrogantly as it did 40 years ago. Nevertheless, China's policy itself is non-confrontational, and it is no longer characterized by the bloc mentality and forceful methods typical in the United States. Beijing seeks to avoid an essentially inevitable confrontation with the U.S. for as long as possible, or to manage it without bringing it to open conflict. The Chinese proceed from the old principle: When diplomats talk, guns are silent. Apparently, Washington has decided to take a time-out in "containing China," which explains the success of the Blinken mission.
In Russia, attention was drawn to some of Xi Jinping's statements, interpreting them as a return to the concept of "Chimerica," that is, an agreement between the two major powers to divide the world into spheres of influence and joint management. But this is not true at all. Beijing is well aware that it may be possible to agree on this, but it is unlikely that the U.S. will abide by these agreements. Moreover, this concept fundamentally contradicts the principles of China's foreign policy. Rather, it is an appeal to the U.S. to share responsibility for the fate of the world and its survival in the era of nuclear weapons and the technological race.
The reaction of President Biden right after the Secretary of State's trip, who called President Xi a "dictator", on the one hand is explained by the continuing confrontation between the two countries, on the other hand by the fact that allegedly in Beijing Blinken had gone too far, and Biden put him in his place and brought relations to the old denominator of conflicts. But the context is important here. The swear word came out of the elder of the American politics during the election rally and in the course of raising money for the election campaign. And what would you not do for money and to please a voter? You have to take into account that 51% of Americans believe China is America's number one enemy. Not Russia or even North Korea. The results of American propaganda and brainwashing are evident. Since Trump's presidency, China has been presented in the United States as the main culprit for all domestic and foreign woes. And only in recent years they began to blame Russia for everything (from high gasoline prices to social instability). In addition, U.S. policy toward China has not yet changed. The main areas: the technological containment of China, the transfer of high-tech production to the U.S., restrictions on exports to China, and the creation of anti-Chinese blocs, including military ones.
What conclusions should Russia draw? Domestic propagandists yearn for a conflict between the U.S. and China, almost a war over Taiwan and a global exchange of strikes. They say Russia would benefit from it. I don't think so. Because this, as in Ukraine, could lead to a world war. So we should not provoke the Chinese by calling black as white. Russia can keep on scaring the West with a military alliance with Beijing, but the Chinese will not go for it due to their long-standing principles and documents defining their foreign policy. On the other hand, the global stability that China is trying to ensure (in cooperation with Russia, by the way) is beneficial to Russia. However, it is also primitive to imagine that China could allegedly "betray" Russia by agreeing with the United States. Relations between countries do not fit into the framework of relations between people and are much more complex. There are no friends and enemies here, there are interests, and this should be taken into account. The PRC, realizing that confrontation with the United States is inevitable in the future, is interested in close relations with Russia. Russia are covering a certain part of the Chinese need for energy resources. The level of political relations is unprecedented in history; they are based on a whole series of fundamental documents that both countries adhere to. A lot has been achieved here.
Although the trade turnover between the two countries is growing rapidly, it is still three and a half times less than the U.S.-China trade turnover. For example, the Chinese have been telling for years that they are willing to abandon American soybeans and buy whatever Russia can produce. Russian sluggishness has led to the fact that U.S. soybeans have been replaced by Latin American countries. There are many other areas of economic cooperation, including high-tech. That is what should be concentrated on, domestic development (as China has been doing for the past four decades), making Chinese partners more and more interested.
At the same time it is necessary to firmly defend the interests. Friendship is friendship, but our tastes differ. We should not forget that China has a strategic partnership (just like with Russia) with a hundred countries around the world. And it is not particularly friendly with anyone, promoting its own interests in a pragmatic way. We need to make sure that Russian and Chinese interests coincide. There are quite a few opportunities for this, and today there are many more than at other historical stages. Despite the best efforts of American diplomacy, the age of a kind of U.S.-Chinese symbiosis is passing.
Mihail Morozov, "Trud" columnist