On March 18, in freezing weather in Anchorage, Alaska, top diplomats from China and the United States met face to face for the first time since the Biden administration took over, albeit while sitting at white-cloth tables quite far from each other amid concerns over Covid-19, and perhaps political toxins.
The socially distanced meeting started with an unexpected exchange of tough words, when opening remarks ran over the agreed eight minutes and went on for about 90 minutes in front of the cameras.
Although the world was stunned by the unusually fiery exchange, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman later said had a “a strong smell of gunpowder”, this high-level meeting was just a dramatic representation of the current state of relations between China and the US.
Indeed, in the first two months of the Biden administration, bilateral relations largely stayed the same as during the Trump years. The only positive sign was the phone call between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping on the eve of the Spring Festival on February 11, which preceded the high-level dialogue in Alaska.
As former president Donald Trump’s legacy lingers in the US, it is not surprising that Biden administration officials felt they had to justify any positive outcome of this important bilateral meeting on home ground by openly taking a tough stance on China.
Their position was, in fact, inevitable. After all, according to the most recent Pew Research Centre survey, 90 per cent of Americans see China as a competitor and about half think it is urgent for the US to limit China’s power and influence. The pressure on Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, the top US envoys at the talks, is obvious.
For the Chinese officials at the meeting, it was also necessary to take a hard tone in response to US criticism and express unambiguously China’s impatience with Western arrogance, for the benefit of the home audience.
But this was not the most stunning aspect of the Chinese response. Nor was it Beijing’s reiteration that it will not stand for provocation on issues concerning sovereignty, national security and core interests.
Rather, it was the statement, loud and clear, to the world – but especially the US and its allies – that China is now in a position of strength to deliver. Following the Alaska meeting, China countered American and European sanctions by announcing its own sanctions against a dozen European individuals and entities, including members of the European Parliament.
After that dramatic beginning, the first high-level meeting in Alaska ended without a joint statement or press conference; it seemed to be an anti-climatic affair with, as the Chinese would say, “a tiger’s head and a snake’s tail”. Nevertheless, both sides characterised the meeting in positive terms. Thus, the dialogue itself could provide some hints for the immediate future.
04:07
Alaska summit: China tells US not to underestimate Beijing’s will to safeguard national dignity
Alaska summit: China tells US not to underestimate Beijing’s will to safeguard national dignity
First, the rivalry between the two “adversaries” will continue, if not worsen, despite the change in the US administration. Under Biden, “America is back”, in the sense that it is taking the same attitude but a different approach towards China. In other words, whereas Trump took on China alone, Biden is joining forces with allies to compete against China.
So it was that ahead of the first dialogue with China, the Biden administration not only attempted to strengthen its Indo-Pacific strategy by holding a summit with Japan, India and Australia on March 13, Blinken was also dispatched to Japan and South Korea for meetings.
Consequently, China is facing not only the US but also an emerging anti-China alliance. In response, the Chinese foreign minister met his Russian counterpart right after the Alaska meeting.
China’s ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, said on March 17 that the US’ bilateral relations with other countries should not “target a third country or harm a third country’s interest”. If the US is reaching out to allies to muster more courage to deal with China – like people who feel the need to sing while walking at night – Washington should know that such a gesture is neither necessary nor very meaningful to China.
Second, some form of bilateral collaboration may be possible in limited areas. For example, the two sides agreed to tackle climate change together, as the world’s leading economies have a responsibility for protecting the environment.
Similarly, although Trump poisoned the atmosphere for US-China relations with his racist rhetoric, Biden officials also agreed with their Chinese counterparts on adjusting travel policies and facilitating the work of diplomatic and consular missions, as well as the media.
Last, but not the least, they agreed to hold more talks. No one knows exactly how much progress the two sides can make in the next four years. If the first dialogue is any indication, let’s hope that the next round of discussions will be held in a warmer place in China.
Xu Xiaobing is director of the Centre of International Law Practice at Shanghai Jiao Tong University Law Schoo
