China calls for cooperation in fight against climate change
Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry via video link on Wednesday. Photo: AFP
US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry is on his second visit to China this year, hoping to promote China-US cooperation on the climate issue. As the climate issue is a common concern of all mankind, Beijing and Washington jointly promoting the full implementation of the Paris Agreement benefits not only the two countries, but also the entire world.
However, US expectations - separating the cooperation on climate issue from the entire China-US ties, giving such joint work a special hype in disregard of the overwhelming complexity of other aspects of the bilateral relationship, making the Joe Biden administration look righteous and reasonable through the lens of climate cooperation, helping the administration win more points politically - seem quite absurd.
The overall US policy toward China has been so wicked. It has imposed a whole-of-government and wide-scale crackdown on China. Then the US suddenly put on a friendly face on the climate issue, inviting China to cooperate with it as if nothing has ever happened. The US wishes to ask China to make new concessions that go beyond the latter's own promises to coordinate US leadership. As Chinese people often ask, "What on earth are you talking about?"
The US strategic containment against China has severely divided the world and threatened China's long-term security. Objectively speaking, the US has destroyed the foundation for the world to do something great together. The COVID-19 pandemic is surging across the world but countries are acting in their own ways. This is the result of political antagonism in today's world.
The US is, on the one hand, making the utmost effort to divide the world, while on the other, building a drawbridge over the huge gap among the major powers. The rope of the drawbridge is held in Washington's hand. The US lowers the drawbridge when it needs it, and raises it up when it doesn't need it any more. It shows Washington's unscrupulous desire to control the world. Is there any reason for China to let the US get whatever it wants?
China and the US can work together on the climate issue and carry out necessary cooperation. But it is obviously hard for the entire Chinese society to accept placing such cooperation in the arrogant logic of the US' China policy of "competition, cooperation, and confrontation," or letting the US arbitrarily define the political implications of China-US cooperation on the climate issue. The US lacks both morality and justice to do so, and it lacks a compelling force to ask China to offer what the US wants.
Cooperation must be mutually beneficial. This is both the principle of sticking to the facts and a strategic morality. If the US continues its comprehensive containment of China, and keeps pushing the hostility between the two countries, it will create constant pollution in the space for bilateral cooperation. This is common sense and conventional wisdom. Many of the US policies toward China are zero-sum, leaving the world a strong impression that the US would not be satisfied until it suffocates China's development. Under such circumstances, Chinese society's willingness to cooperate with the US can hardly be immune to the impact of vigilance against the US.
Washington should not have thought that showing a little willingness toward cooperation in its comprehensive containment of Beijing is "mercy" to China. If they really think that way, they will find no grateful Chinese.
When it comes to climate, China believes that cooperation is necessary, as stated earlier. But if the cooperation has other extended meanings aimed at boosting Washington's political gains, such cooperation must be considered in the big picture of China-US ties. As China is a powerful major country, it has unique influence in many international affairs around the globe. No matter in which field the US hopes to cooperate with China and at the same time promote the US benefits, such joint work must be linked with the entire China-US relationship.
China wants to improve its ties with the US, but China will not do everything to please the US. The major power relationship between China and the US should be on an equal footing and follow the basic principle of mutual respect. If the US ever attempts to treat China forcefully in this logic - asking China to keep putting up good shows, ones that are thought good enough to satisfy the US, then the US returns the favor by relaxing tensions - it is totally wrong. This is not the way the Chinese people like to deal with other countries, and we do not want such "improvement" in China-US relations at all.
US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said on Wednesday that Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman would seek to show China on her upcoming visit to the country "what responsible and healthy competition can look like." He also noted that the US wanted to ensure there were "guardrails" in the relationship and that competition did not spill over into conflict.
`
From our perspective, there's nothing wrong with the literal meaning of these words. China does not want competition to spill over into conflict as well. It would be good for both countries and the world if the two sides could work together to set up "guardrails" to prevent the kind of escalation that is widely feared.
`
Yet, experience suggests that Washington often says one thing and does another, using beautiful concepts as their brand of bullying and forcefully reshaping the meaning of those concepts. For example, Washington often talks about "rules," but the world has seen the US consistently commit the most brutal violations of the rules on which the United Nations system is based. The rules they talk about are actually a framework for protecting the interests of the US and its major allies. They are also a behavioral norm to force other countries to maximize those interests.
`
If China and the US want to set up "guardrails" between their competition, they must follow the principle of equality and mutual benefit and follow the spirit of the UN Charter. Washington must not unilaterally set boundaries for China's behavior, nor can it advocate its interests to harm China's core interests even more.
`
Such "guardrails" would be a unilateral guardrail for the US but a prison circled by a wire fence for China. If Sherman had come to China with such a purpose, the Deputy Secretary's trip would probably have achieved little more than a taste of Tianjin's delicious steamed stuffed bun.
`
The "guardrails" between China and the US to prevent conflicts must include the following contents:
`
First, the US should stop interfering in China's internal affairs, abandon its obsession with "transforming China" and refrain from narcissism with the outward aggression of American values. It is the fundamental principle for building a security wall between major countries to respect each other and refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.
`
Second, the US military should not press closer to China's core interests, but should keep the necessary distance. Especially in the Taiwan Straits, the US should not give secessionists in the island of Taiwan a sense of military dependence and encourage them to stir up the tension. That would be very dangerous. In the South China Sea, the US cannot directly intervene in disputes. If it tries to influence the direction of the situation in the South China Sea through military pressure, it will lead to a high risk of conflict.
`
Third, the US must not turn its competition with China into an aggressive suppression of China's development. Its attempts to gang up allies to keep China out of the world's major supply chains will eventually lead to a fundamental conflict with China if they go any further. A conflict like that would produce a wide divergence, destabilizing and creating long-term uncertainty in international relations, and ultimately shaping China and the US as life-and-death strategic enemies.
`
In general, the US cannot attempt to attack China's system, or divide China, or block its development path. These are the foundations of the "guardrails" between the two countries. If the US breaks these three rules, it is proactively attacking China, not competing with it. And China will fight back no matter the cost.
`
So, the US needs to have basic honesty. It should not try to deceive itself. For example, if the authorities on the island of Taiwan under Washington's support or instigation cross the redline of "independence" - the People's Liberation Army will definitely stop it with force. If the US intervenes, a military confrontation between China and the US will take place.
`
China has no intention to confront the US, but it is a national principle for China to defend its core interests. The US can't unilaterally define the "guardrails" between the two countries out of its own interests, because they need to be defined by both China and the US to advance the interests of both countries. The US has extensive experience in international relations, and hopefully, Washington will not be confused about the core problem of how to engage in competition, instead of conflict, with Beijing.
Results of Sherman’s China visit depend on US attitude
US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman will visit North China's Tianjin from July 25 to 26, a visit arranged after the US proposal to exchange views on China-US relations, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry late Wednesday night. Sherman is scheduled to visit Japan, South Korea and Mongolia from July 18 to 25. Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is leaving for his trip to Singapore, Vietnam and the Philippines on Friday.
`
This time, the US is taking the initiative in proposing exchange of views on China-US relations. This shows that the Biden administration has made some progress in evaluating its China policy and may begin to implement these policies next.
`
Washington is eager to communicate with Beijing because it is increasingly aware of the need to cooperate with China on many issues.
`
The US may also want to use Sherman's visit to pressure China on issues such as Xinjiang, the Taiwan Straits, and South China Sea.
`
US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a briefing on Tuesday that the US will engage with China "when it's in our interests to do so, and we do remain interested in doing so in a practical, substantive and direct manner." During Sherman's talks with her Japanese and South Korean counterparts in Tokyo on Wednesday, the three sides agreed that they oppose "any unilateral attempts to change the status quo" in the East China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.
`
This is a typical feature of the US' current China policy. "Our relationship with China will be competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be," as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in March.
`
Despite pressuring China on Xinjiang, the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea, Washington may also believe it won't affect pragmatic cooperation with Beijing in some other areas.
`
However, China will make its principles clear during Sherman's upcoming visit. China focuses on cooperation, controls competition, and avoids confrontation in handling China-US relations.
`
During the recent weeks, Washington has intensified its blame on China in terms of the so-called massive cyberattack. It has also issued a blanket warning to US firms about the risks of doing business in Hong Kong, and passed a bill that would ban all goods from or made in Xinjiang unless importers can prove they weren't made with "forced labor." We must show the US that China firmly safeguards its sovereignty, security and development. We firmly oppose the US' interfering in China's internal affairs and harming our national interests. These are all basic principles that China will make clear.
`
During Sherman's visit, China and the US may have practical discussions on some specific issues including climate change, Afghanistan, Iran and improving the working environment of diplomatic personnel and institutions in the two countries. China will make a very thorough clarification on its principles, while also leaving some room for China-US cooperation on specific issues.
`
Defense Secretary Austin previewed his Southeast Asian trip on Wednesday, saying that he will, "make clear where we stand on some unhelpful and unfounded claims by China in the South China Sea." Clearly, the South China Sea will be a key point of his trip. Vietnam and the Philippines are two countries that Washington wants to rope in the most in terms of the South China Sea issue.
`
Together with Sherman's Asia tour, the US aims at showing Asian countries that it will continue attaching importance to the region, and making it clear to China that it will carry on the Indo-Pacific Strategy to pressure China.
`
After Chinese top diplomats resolutely refuted the US' rude manners during Alaska talks in March, the two countries almost haven't had any face-to-face senior-level dialogues since. The US Department of State said Sherman's visit is "part of ongoing US efforts to hold candid exchanges" with China in order to "advance US interests and values and to responsibly manage the relationship."
`
Nonetheless, the US' attitude won't be different from that during Alaska talks. Strategic competition with China is still the keynote of US' China policy. This won't change. Thus, the US will not stop interference in China's internal affairs, and will continue piling pressure on Xinjiang and other issues.
`
The "candid exchanges" are possible if the two sides exchange views frankly. As for "responsibly managing the relationship," it may be hard to do. This will depend on whether Washington plans to properly handle its ties with Beijing. If Washington's China policy is dominated by the use of pressure and rhetoric of competition, then relations between the two countries will only worsen.
`
After White House Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific Kurt Campbell said in early July that China and the US can "coexist in peace," Washington is now proactively seeking dialogue with Beijing. But this does not necessarily mean Washington is becoming more rational toward Beijing. For example, Campbell said, "We do not support Taiwan independence," yet the US has sent more military aircraft to the island. Similarly, the US is calling for dialogue while it is still trying to impose more pressure on China.
`
On many issues, Washington says one thing and does another, making it unreliable.
`
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Li Qingqing based on an interview with Wu Xinbo, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Strong words are being hurled at each other but there is calibration in the cursing.
THERE’S this memorable anecdote in Mario Puzo’s crime classic, The Godfather, where the mafia don from New York sends his henchman to reason with a Hollywood mogul who is standing in the way of his godson getting a film role perfect for him in every way, except that he has alienated the studio big shot who now hates his guts.
Where words fail, more potent nudges are sometimes needed – in this case, a horse’s head placed in the studio chief’s bedroom while he is asleep, blood and reedy tendons included, did the trick. It persuaded the man that the favour requested, and declined, is serious business. And thus he yields, shouting invectives and threats at the actor and his Italian origins, the consigliere who had reached out to him with the initial contact on behalf of his boss, and the mafia.
But not a word against the Godfather, himself. Genius, writes Puzo, has its rewards.
There’s no special genius, and even less reward, in the acrimonious exchanges that are causing a tailspin in ties between the world’s two biggest military powers and economies.
If anything, it bespeaks dangerous brinkmanship as a once-overwhelmingly dominant hegemon confronts a resolute challenger now picking a cue or two from its own playbook on how to throw weight around.
Nevertheless, the curses the movie mogul held back from uttering came to mind as I checked around the region about the goings-on at the Asean Ministerial Meeting and related meetings with dialogue partners hosted earlier this month by Vietnam.
Perhaps the two warring sides were mildly cramped by the fact that the conference did not take place in a single hall but over video link. Even so, while both the United States and China did robustly put forth their positions, each seemed to be taking care to keep the attacks from getting too immoderate.
Indeed, the rare frisson, according to Asian diplomats privy to the talks, came when China’s Vice-Foreign Minister Luo Zhaohui, standing in for Foreign Minister Wang Yi, dropped an acid comment about “drunken elephants in the room”.
Faint light at the end of the dark tunnel of US-China ties? Maybe not. But then again, maybe.
Some cultures, particularly in Asia, teach their young that even insults have to be measured; if you spit up at a person high above you, the mucus falls back on yourself. If you do that to someone far below you, it is a waste of time to descend so low. Insults have to be exchanged between equals. But most important of all, never insult so completely that the door to a reconciliation is closed forever. Perhaps that’s what we are witnessing.
A real estate and casino mogul before he ran for his first elected office, which happened to be the US presidency, the New York-born and raised Donald Trump, whose most trusted counsel is close family, has ordered his administration to pile on his strategic adversary the most intense pressure seen in a halfcentury. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has enthusiastically fallen in line, as have his key deputies, including Max Pottinger. Other arms of US government such as the Pentagon have fallen in line as well.
In July, two aircraft carrier groups led by the USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan conducted war games in the South China Sea, joined by subsurface vessels and nuclear-armed bombers. Technology links built up over decades are being torn apart like the wanton act of a child and within the US, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is putting Chinese nationals and Americans of Chinese ethnicity under unprecedented scrutiny.
Trump’s long arm has even snatched Meng Wanzhou, the powerful daughter of the Huawei founder, one of China’s most respected tech tycoons.
Chinese diplomats and media have pushed back, and unfeelingly for a nation where the virus was first identified, sometimes suggesting that the US could learn a lesson or two from Beijing on how to control a pandemic. Also mocked at have been the racial tensions and the rioting that have scarred the US in the wake of the pandemic and the resultant economic hardship.
Nevertheless, through it all, most of the US vitriol has targeted the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), not the Chinese nation.
In a landmark speech in July at the Nixon Presidential Library, Pompeo declared that the “free world must triumph over this new tyranny”. At the Asean forum earlier this month, he underlined US “commitment to speak out in the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s escalating aggression and threats to sovereign nations”.
This week, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell began his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by saying he was there to “discuss the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party to the US and the global order” in three geographical regions, before going on to say that “it is now clear to us, and to more and more countries around the world, that the CCP under general secretary Xi Jinping... seeks to disrupt and reshape the international environment around the narrow self-centred interests and authoritarian values of a single beneficiary, the Chinese Communist Party”.
Just as the US has tried to separate the CCP from the Chinese people, Trump and Xi have been careful to not throw barbs directly at each other.
Indeed, Trump has claimed to have a “tremendous relationship” with Xi and he has described Xi as a “man who truly loves his country” and is “extremely capable”. He has also stressed that the two will be friends “no matter what happens with our dispute on trade”, and he also has spoken of his liking and “great respect” for China. On the other side, Chinese anger seems to be largely directed at Pompeo, rather than his boss.
At a recent panel discussion I moderated for the FutureChina Global Forum, I asked Professor Randall Kroszner, former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System and who currently serves on the advisory board of the Paulson Institute, which works to promote US-China ties, whether he saw wiggle room for a patch-up after the election.
“Ultimately, there’s an understanding that major economic and military powers need to have connections, need to be able to talk and work with each other,” Prof Kroszner responded.
“There is a lot of manoeuvring and posturing that’s going on right now, but I don’t think anyone wants to burn any bridges. They want to make sure the bridges are still there, even if there are some blockades now.
“(That said) I don’t see those obstacles being removed right now.”
For now, of course, it does look as though things will get worse before they get better.
In July, the US shifted position on the South China Sea, proclaiming that it held as illegal all of China’s claims outside its territorial waters. This has emboldened some, Vietnam and the Philippines particularly, to be more assertive with China over the South China Sea dispute.
Still, some in Asean suspect a certain fakery in all this, a sense that a lot of the noise coming from the US is mere posturing. There are few illusions about China either.
Indeed, the lull in assertive Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea witnessed in the lead-up to the Asean ministerial meet and forums is generally seen as nothing more than temporary easing of pressure to get a “good meeting”.
Malaysian Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein spoke for many when he said the South China Sea issue “must be managed and resolved in a rational manner” and Asean has to “look at all avenues, all approaches, to ensure our region is not complicated further by other powers”.
Indeed, some even think Trump is capable of doing a deal with Beijing the week after election day, should he win.
Already, the latest iteration of the TikTok deal is being called by some analysts as a watered-down version of what Trump originally sought to demand, something that had been on the table months ago, although it is not quite clear if China could live with it.
Likewise, it is not lost that China has held back on announcing its own blacklist of US firms – “unreliable entity list” as it is called, although its intentions were announced more than a year ago.
Beijing is said to be staying its hand to both not exacerbate tensions, as well as to wait for the US election results. While the document explaining the unreliable entity list is 1,500 characters long, the attached clarifications are double in length – suggesting much of this is shadow play.
If a deal needs to be made, the Pompeos and Pottingers can always be switched out and more moderate voices brought in; Trump does not shrink from letting people go. Indeed, given that he is said to harbour ambitions about a 2024 presidential run, it might even help Pompeo’s political career to be made a casualty of a rapprochement with China, so he can distance himself from the deal.
Still, it hardly needs to be said that Trump is capable of busting every code in the book, spoken or unspoken. With the election looming and his own standing in pre-election surveys not looking too promising, he let fly this week at the United Nations, returning to his “China virus” theme, boasting about three US-developed vaccines in Phase III trials, and the unprecedented rearmament of America under his watch. America’s weapons, he declared, “are at an advanced level, like we’ve never had before, like, frankly, we’ve never even thought of having before”.
Judging from Chinese media, Beijing read it for what it was; while made to a global audience, the speech was targeted at the domestic voting public. Nevertheless, it did not go without a response.
An editorial comment in the Global Times on Wednesday reminded Trump that the “hysterical attack on China violated the diplomatic etiquette a top leader is supposed to have”.
In short, never omit to leave that bit of margin for a future reconciliation.
by Ravi Velloor, is an associate editor at The Straits Times, a member of the Asia News Network (ANN) which is an alliance of 24 news media entities. The Asian Editors Circle is a series of commentaries by editors and contributors of ANN.
Trump's speech jeopardized the atmosphere of this UN
General Assembly, and threw the assembly's theme astray. His hysterical
attack on China violated the diplomatic etiquette a top leader is
supposed to have. This means Washington elites do not take the UN into
consideration and pay no heed to diplomacy.
Both Xi and Trump addressed the General Debate on Tuesday
with pre-recorded videos. Xi emphasized unity and cooperation, while
Trump mentioned China 12 times, making the country his most outstanding
stunt. Judging from such different performances, it is easy to tell
which side was more reliable. If the 21st century would finally become a
century of divisions, the US ruling elites shall be regarded as the
sinners of history.
As strong as the US is, it's not a country that serves
its people heart and soul. That's why the coronavirus is so ravaging in
the world's most developed country.
Foreign Minister Wang was furious and seriously warned the United States that 2 million troops are ready at any time?
1. At the press conference, a reporter asked Wang Yi, a spokesperson for the outreach ministry: US President Trump wanted to send his own investigator to China to investigate the epidemic-related situation. If China has deliberate responsibility for the spread of the virus, Need to bear the consequences, do you have any comments?
2. Wang Yi’s answer: The virus is the common enemy of all mankind and may appear at any time and anywhere. Like other countries, China has been attacked by the new coronavirus and is the victim, not the perpetrator, nor the virus. "accomplice".
At that time, H1N1 flu was first diagnosed in the United States and broke out in a large area, spreading to 214 countries and regions, resulting in the death of nearly 200,000 people. Has anyone asked the United States to compensate?
In the 1980s, AIDS was first discovered in the United States and quickly spread to the world, causing pain to many people and many families. Has anyone sought compensation from the United States?
The financial turmoil that occurred in the United States in 2008, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, and eventually evolved into a global financial crisis. Does anyone demand compensation from the United States?
The United States must be clear that their enemy is a virus, not China.
3. Wang Yi went on to say: If Trump and Pompeo were not guilty of geriatric madness, then they should be clear that China is not the one that was allowed to be trampled on by the "eight-nation coalition", nor is China even Iraq. Venezuela, not Syria, is not where you want to come, what you want to check.
China is not guilty, but you are not qualified, nor are you qualified! In the early stage of the epidemic, we took the initiative to invite WHO and Chinese experts to conduct a joint inspection in the epidemic area, and put forward preliminary inspection results on the outbreak and spread of new coronavirus.
The investigation request made by Trump is purely unreasonable and is a manifestation of hegemony. They override the United States above international organizations and all humankind, and it seems that only they can be trusted. But is the United States really credible? Iraq and Venezuela are a lesson.
4. We have to warn Trump that if we want to calculate China's abacus, it is better to think about it. Because 1.4 billion people will not agree, China's 2 million army is not a decoration, but China's steel Great Wall. China's Dongfeng missiles are not used to rake, but to fight dog jackals.
China's nuclear submarines are not used to travel on the seabed, but to combat uninvited guests. Chinese nuclear weapons are not used to frighten anyone, but from self-defense. Anyone who wants to taste something, think about it, you tell me.
5. We want to warn Trump that if China wants compensation, it will count from the time when the Eight-Power Allied Forces invaded China, until the cases that Wang Yi has just proposed are counted together. You have to compensate the old historical accounts of China and the world.
6. Now China is in a very good position in the world, the first to control the new coronary pneumonia, the first to enter the stage of economic recovery, and now it is to increase horsepower to export anti-epidemic materials to the world, China is catching up with the total economy The time to go beyond the United States is also greatly advanced. This is unacceptable to Trump. The United States has been dragged into the quagmire by Trump. At this time, Trump wants to make China and the world feel better. Harmfulness is indispensable, anti-Trumping indispensability is absolutely indispensable, and wicked people have their own harvest!
I hope that every Chinese can turn this article out so that our China becomes stronger and stronger and support all patriotic groups.
Illustration: Chen Xia/GT
by Ravi Velloor, is an associate editor at The Straits Times, a member of the Asia News Network (ANN) which is an alliance of 24 news media entities. The Asian Editors Circle is a series of commentaries by editors and contributors of ANN.
