Known Unknowns
Xi Jinping and Jo Biden not talking, Blinken's Beijing balloon, G7 emulates China, Hun Sen's Small State concerns, Cambodia's defence concerns
UPDATE: Beijing is no longer keen on holding high-level talks with the US government, because it has pretty much given up on the Biden administration, which is widely seen by China’s political elite as incompetent, ignorant about Chinese culture and history and extremely arrogant.
US media outlets claimed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will visit China in the coming weeks. Is the US State Department playing its usual tricks of manipulating public opinion by leaking information to the media? The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on Wednesday "I have nothing to share on that.”
China’s foreign ministry was rightly outraged by the G-7’s communique from last month’s summit in Hiroshima, Japan. A section titled “China” reiterated a number of the West’s anti-China cliches, suggesting Beijing was not committed to peace and equality in its global development goals. But many of the G-7’s hopes and desires for the world appear to have been lifted directly from official documents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen expressed his concerns over the uncertainty of geopolitical situation in the region, including the US-China tension, the Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines, and NATO’s trend to Asia and the Pacific region.
Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence, Tea Banh, today shared the Kingdom’s perspective over the current challenges in the world including COVID-19 pandemic, Russian-Ukraine War and the sanction, Myanmar conflict, and violence in Africa during his participation in the 20th Asia Security Summit in Singapore.
Xi and Biden: We Don’t Talk Anymore
By Lanxin Xiang
The two most powerful nations have entered a perilous phase of miscommunication and mis-signalling – which usually occurs as a prelude to an unexpected war.
Beijing is no longer keen on holding high-level talks with the US government, because it has pretty much given up on the Biden administration, which is widely seen by China’s political elite as incompetent, ignorant about Chinese culture and history and extremely arrogant.
Instead, Beijing may well be betting on the next presidential election to produce anyone but Joe Biden. Even Donald Trump, it would appear, can be dealt with because the former president put his cards on the table, disliked military alliances and loathed war.
On the issues of Taiwan, economic competition and geopolitical rivalry, serious communication between the two sides has become all but impossible, never mind negotiations based on common ground.
The sudden US urge for high-level diplomacy is thus seen as being motivated by two factors: the desire to alleviate the fears of its allies that the lack of communication may lead to another war, and to promote a propaganda campaign that China is being unreasonable.
A fundamental lesson that policymakers on both sides must learn is that, in great power diplomacy, one should never offer something the other side does not really need, or ask for anything the other side can never give. In other words, identifying and respecting each other’s vital interests, or red lines, is the only way to avoid war.
Not since the Cold War have we witnessed such a dangerous situation. It has become the new normal that the two most powerful nations talk past each other most of the time.
In the first decade of the last century, Britain was preoccupied with its “German problem”. The two powers had no clearly defined conflicting interests. Yet Britain saw itself as the defender of the status quo and imperial Germany as the challenger. Both sides made strategic mistakes. Their diplomatic efforts were often confounded more by a mismatch of intentions and temperaments than by real national interests, which were, in many respects, parallel.
The Anglo-German alienation was not created by bad intentions and devious long-term designs. Germany tried hard to show Britain the value of its friendship through offering a kind of Teutonic alliance for avoiding war with each other. A vicious circle started, however, when Germany began to show displeasure over what it considered to be the illogical and uncooperative behaviour of Britain for not considering such an alliance seriously.
In reality, Britain’s overriding concern was the challenge by France and Russia to its vast empire overseas, and Germany posed little threat to its position. But London was often unable to get its message through. Berlin decided that expressions of anger would be more persuasive. The Kaiser considered Britain’s intransigence to have been caused by Germany’s show of weakness.
What started as a serious effort to identify mutual interests slowly degenerated into a conflict at all levels. Any analysis of US–China relations should focus on how to avoid a similar misreading of the other side’s intentions. As the war in Ukraine reminds us, misunderstanding and miscommunication can lead to war.
Similarly, Biden’s central premise is that China is trying to challenge the status quo. China is seen as a rapidly rising power with a grudge against the liberal international order. The world must thus prepare for a struggle between democracy and autocracy, and there is no middle way.
But today, just who is defending the status quo, the United States or China? It is Washington that looks more like Wilhelmine Berlin. At the very moment of China’s decision to integrate fully into the existing international system, the US under Trump and Biden started to change the rules of the international order it created after World War II.
Just as China aspires to become a normal state, by which it means a self-sufficient great power which has had no urge for territorial expansion in its history, the criterion for “normal” is changing. As China has adopted multipolar diplomacy for maintaining peace in its foreign relations, the US has returned to a unipolar fantasy by building more military alliances for cold-war-style bloc politics.
In the security area, what the US offers China is peace in the Taiwan Strait, contingent on Beijing’s acceptance of there being two separate Chinese territorial entities: one China, one Taiwan. China can never accept this. In the economic area, the US offer is even less convincing. It recently adopted the European Union’s language, walking back on “decoupling” to embrace “de-risking”. This is meant as a gesture of goodwill towards China. But to Beijing, it makes little sense.
First of all, the Chinese leaders are psychologically prepared for decoupling and have begun to build various defensive systems, including through de-dollarisation of the international trade market. They are also aggressively promoting an autonomous hi-tech strategy. Secondly, China’s leaders are convinced that the overall US strategy is to contain China all round.
Third and most importantly, from the Chinese point of view, the biggest risk for both sides is the question of Taiwan, and the US side does not appear willing to do anything to “de-risk” the issue. Instead, it has heightened risks with such moves as high-level visits to the island.
As a result, Beijing is no longer so interested in communication, and exchanges between the two militaries have been kept minimal. The two most powerful nations have entered a perilous phase of miscommunication and mis-signalling – which usually occurs as a prelude to an unexpected war.
Read more here.
Lanxin Xiang is professor emeritus of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, and visiting fellow at the Schuman Center of Advanced Studies at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence. He is founder of PN Associates Strategic Consultancy, and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center.
Blinken’s Beijing Balloon
Global Times Editorial
After Bloomberg broke the news in the US, several media outlets, including CNN and Reuters, also claimed that the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will visit China in the coming weeks based on anonymous leaks from US officials. This does not rule out the possibility that the US State Department is playing usual tricks of manipulating public opinion by leaking information to the media. In response, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on Wednesday "I have nothing to share on that," neither confirming nor denying the news. However, one can sense the difference in attitudes between China and the US regarding Blinken's visit to China.
The attitudes of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chinese netizens were not like this back in January. At that time, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that China welcomed Secretary Blinken's visit and hoped that the US will pursue dialogue and win-win cooperation, not confrontation and zero-sum competition. The peoples of both China and the US, as well as the international community, had certain expectations for Blinken's visit to China to promote a turnaround in China-US relations. However, in February, the US side overreacted to the "unmanned airship incident" and unilaterally postponed Blinken's visit to China. This not only ruined a rare opportunity for high-level interaction and communication between China and the US, but also further damaged the mutual trust that has already been at historically low level.
Not long after, the US side once again showed interest and enthusiasm in restoring high-level communication with China. This included calling out to China in various international public occasions and frequently complaining about China's "ignoring, rejecting, or canceling multiple communication requests" from the US. Coupled with the various actions taken by the US that strongly contrasted with such appealing and aimed at containment and crackdown on China, it gave the impression to the Chinese people that Washington politicians were putting on a show for the international community. We not only will never cooperate with their performance but also need to maintain necessary vigilance against their true intentions behind the show. In this situation, Blinken's visit to China has deviated from its original purpose of communication.
Before seeing sincerity from the US side, the general sentiment in Chinese society is that it's necessary to temporarily keep the Americans at arm's length. We hope that during this period, the US side can regain some calmness and rationality regarding issues related to China. We also hope they can have a deeper understanding of the three principles proposed by the Chinese side for the coexistence of China and the US, which are "mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation."
Regardless of the circumstances, Blinken's visit to China is not a bad thing, and we certainly would not oppose it. However, it requires the US side to create a positive atmosphere and demonstrate sufficient sincerity and goodwill. Only then can this visit become a positive and substantive action to promote the healthy and stable development of China-US relations. In other words, if Blinken is indeed coming, it should not be turned into a "showy" visit where the form outweighs the substance.
China-US relations have been locked in a stalemate, in which many issues need to be resolved through strengthened communication between both sides. However, the agenda for discussions cannot be solely determined by the US side. The Chinese side has put forth four lists to the US side, i.e. the list of US wrongdoings that must stop, the list of key individual cases that the US must resolve, the list of Acts in the 117th Congress of high concern to China, and the list of cooperation proposals in eight areas. These all require the US side to take them seriously and provide an explanation to the Chinese side.
Many US media outlets claimed that the Taiwan question will be an important topic for Blinken's visit to China. It must be emphasized to the US side that the Taiwan question is China's internal affair and there is nothing to discuss with the US. However, the US side does need to explain to the Chinese side its bad policies and wrong actions in instigating "Taiwan independence." China's stance and red lines are clear, and its will and ability to maintain national unity and territorial integrity are unshakable. It is recommended that high-ranking officials from Washington review the three joint communiqués between China and the US before visiting China, so as to avoid China having to spend time making up missed lesson for the US.
As a matter of fact, the situation has become very clear now. The US' "maximum pressure" on China can no longer continue. The US' intellectuals and business elites have recently broken their years of silence and are increasingly speaking out and making reflections, which has put some pressure on Washington. Therefore, it has to declare that it wants to build "guardrails" and no longer uses radical words such as "decoupling." Instead, the US says it wants to "de-risk but not decouple." However, as an article in Foreign Policy said, US leaders and officials love to talk about how they don't want to "contain" China, but US policy toward Beijing now bends more in that direction than ever, and Washington needs to be "more honest."
We also note that although the White House has not confirmed the reports of Blinken's visit, it has expressed "confidence" that the US and China can "get back to the spirit of Bali." In fact, implementing the Bali consensus reached between the two heads of state is an issue that was long overdue by the US and it should make up for the growing gap as soon as possible. Whether this gap can be repaired and whether the tense nerves of the US-China relationship can be eased to some extent largely depends on whether the US has the sincerity to implement the consensus of the heads of state and repair the relationship between the two sides during its contact with China, or whether it is trying to test China's bottom line or even trying to pressure China to make concessions during the talks.
Read more here.
G7 Emulates China
By Wang Wen
With the component of realist international competition removed, the G-7 and China actually share many hopes and desires for global development.
China’s foreign ministry was rightly outraged by the G-7’s communique from last month’s summit in Hiroshima, Japan. A section titled “China” reiterated a number of the West’s anti-China cliches, suggesting Beijing was not committed to peace and equality in its global development goals.
It is thus ironic that, after reading the entire 19,000-plus-word communique, that I found that many of the G-7’s hopes and desires for the world appear to have been lifted directly from official documents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
For example, Article 1 of the G-7 communique states that it hopes to “strengthen our partnerships with African countries and support greater African representation in multilateral forums,” which is precisely a key goal of China’s foreign policy. Over the past few decades, Chinese foreign ministers have made a habit of making an African country their first destination for each new year.
Article 8 of the G-7 communique talks about “addressing potential risks to the stability, resilience, and integrity of the monetary and financial system,” which exactly matches one of the three major domestic development objectives proposed by China in 2017.
Article 10 states that “achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030, reducing poverty, responding to global challenges including the climate crisis, and addressing debt vulnerabilities in low and middle-income countries are urgent, interrelated, and mutually reinforcing.” This is a foundational concept of China’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The communique never mentions China’s extraordinary contributions to the United Nations’ 2030 goals, nor the vast amount of aid Beijing has provided to low and middle-income countries.
Article 14 of the communique goes on to “stress the importance of narrowing the infrastructure investment gap in low and middle income partner countries, including by delivering financing for quality infrastructure.” This is what China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been doing since 2013.
Over the past 10 years, China has signed cooperation agreements under the BRI with 151 countries, raising more than $700 billion for infrastructure and other cooperation projects. The G-7 communique, meanwhile, meekly reads, “We reaffirm our shared commitment to the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) and working together and aiming to mobilize up to $600 billion by 2027.”
I can only hope this better-late-than-never gesture doesn’t end as yet another broken promise and a pile of excuses.
Article 3 of the G-7 communique even pledges to “achieve a world that is human-centered.”
“Human-centered” is the key ethos found in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s report to the 19th National Congress of the CCP in 2017, and reiterated in the report of the 20th National Party Congress in 2022.
In many ways, then, the spirit of cooperation advocated in the G-7 communique matches the policy programs of the CCP. There’s no real benefit to debating whether the G-7 is copying the CCP, however. China welcomes countries wishing to emulate its development success. Over the past decade, many developing countries have followed the concepts embedded in China’s five-year plans. Some governments are learning how to implement the process by studying within China’s party school system. China’s party school is training qualified officials, who are learning much needed skills to form an efficient bureaucracy to better govern their country.
China is pleased that more countries are willing to study, absorb, and even copy China’s experience. From Beijing’s perspective, there is no reason to be unhappy that there are so many similarities between the G-7 communique and China’s propositions.
The focus of this column isn’t to argue about whether there can be a violation of intellectual property rights when it comes to a policy agenda. It’s to point out that when realist international competition is discarded, it’s obvious that the G-7 and China are striving to build a better world and satisfy people’s yearning for a better life.
When we look objectively at a number of development markers, we see that since the turn of the century, China has done far better than the G-7 in pursuing a better world and a better life for its people.
Chinese cities are far safer than those in the United States, France, Britain, and Italy. China has twice the length of high-speed railways than all of the G-7 countries combined. Chinese people spend 10 times as much as people in G-7 countries using electronic payments, and it’s possible China will soon become the world’s first cashless society. The growth of China’s digital economy is faster than any of the G-7 countries. This has led to lowering costs and increasing ultra-efficient express delivery, food delivery, and electronic ride hailing, enabling low- and middle-income earners to enjoy cheaper services in China.
When it comes to global engagement, Chinese infrastructure contractors are working on projects in more than 190 countries and regions around the world, accounting for about a quarter of the global infrastructure market, involving transportation, electricity, housing, communications, petrochemicals, environmental protection, and other fields. They are helping African countries build more than 10,000 kilometers of roads, more than 6,000 kilometers of railways, more than 80 large-scale power facilities, nearly 20 ports, numerous airports, and more than 80 percent of their communication infrastructure. These vital and pragmatic projects have significantly contributed to the growing prosperity and sustainable development of African countries.
China’s development and unequaled progress has also been achieved without going to war. Let’s not forget that Britain, France, and Italy brutally colonized the underdeveloped world in the 18th and 19th centuries, nor that Germany and Japan were guilty of murderous fascism in the 20th century. More recently, the United States has waged wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, as well as launching military interventions in Latin America.
China is achieving its success in manner that is the antithesis of the dreadful historical practices of G-7 countries.
The history of the early 21st century will clearly show China is the winner in the unnecessary competition between China and the G-7 countries in making a better world. Perhaps the drafters of the G-7 communique were reflecting on this fact, and that is why so many of China’s long-held policies are found in this year’s document.
I agree with Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, who wrote, “The G7 must accept that it cannot run the world. American hegemony and the group’s economic dominance are now history.” As part of his argument, Wolf referenced the rise of the BRICS grouping – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – as evidence.
But the diminished role of the G-7 isn’t due to the rise of BRICS countries. It’s because the G-7 continues to cling to its own self-interest, and developing counties can clearly see the G-7 has long been playing with a stacked deck.
China is fine with the G-7 copying its policy provisions, but also wants to see it match China’s results. I am reminded of a Confucian saying from 2,200 years ago: “When you see the virtuous, think the same.” If the G-7 can really help create a better world, China will be happy to learn from the G-7, just as it did in the 1980s.
The future world will not center on realpolitik under the logic of realism. Whether it is the United States, other G-7 countries, or China, the key to winning the future is not to defeat the other, but to do better.
In this regard, China, the G-7, and BRICS countries have to work harder together.
Read more here.
Hun Sen’s Small State Concerns
By Heng Panha
Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, this morning expressed his concerns over the uncertainty of geopolitical situation in the region, including the US-China tension, the Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines, and NATO’s trend to Asia and the Pacific region.
At the graduation ceremony of nearly 6,000 students of the Royal University of Law and Economics at Koh Pich Convention and Exhibition Centre in Phnom Penh, Samdech Techo Hun Sen said some countries are now declaring to dispatch their warships deeper into Southeast Asia and toward the South China Sea.
In addition, he continued, the Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines is also becoming a concern for ASEAN and other countries in the region because ASEAN has a unique point of being a nuclear weapon-free zone and countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
“Even though they (above-said concerns) do not pose any high risk in the region, it is the beginning of a dangerous arms race, and if this situation continues, the world will face a greater danger. Anyway, we remain optimistic that the world will find a compromise to manage relations, especially the tensions between the US and China to avoid the risk of Cold War recurrence,” he said.
The Cambodian Premier also shared his concern over the NATO’s new trend to Asia and the Pacific. “NATO is generally in the west, but now it seems to be heading towards our Asia-Pacific under this or that image,” he underlined.
Despite the geopolitical uncertainty, pandemic and climate change, Samdech Techo Hun Sen remains confident that Cambodia will exit the least developed countries (LDCs) status by 2027 and definitely achieve its goal of becoming an upper middle-income economy by 2030.
Read more here.
Cambodian Defence Challenges
By Heng Panha
Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence, Tea Banh, today shared the Kingdom’s perspective over the current challenges in the world including COVID-19 pandemic, Russian-Ukraine War and the sanction, Myanmar conflict, and violence in Africa during his participation in the 20th Asia Security Summit in Singapore.
Tea Banh said the COVID 19 pandemic was a disaster that all will never forget, nevertheless, all have triumphed over this pandemic through practical measures and a broad scope of cooperation.
On this issue, he also shared the Royal Government’s preventive measures, as well as the decision to allow MS. Westerdam to dock in Sihanoukville amidst the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic when her request to dock in numerous places was denied.
“I believe that this event is a great example that Cambodia has set in terms of humanity, indiscrimination, assisting each other and not being self-preserving during pandemic,” he said.
With regards to comprehensive cooperation, Cambodia last year initiated a concept paper concerning cooperation amongst the defence forces of ASEAN Member States in cross-border pandemic containment.
For Russia-Ukraine war, he continued, Cambodia opposed the use of force by one country against another, state separation and occupation of a sovereign state. Cambodia believes that termination of war requires mutual concession which includes stopping the use of force to solve problems, respecting international laws, pausing external encouragement to expand the war and ceasing economic sanctions.
“It is evident, that we do not have any specific models to follow in this situation, other than to acknowledge that we cannot end war through war. The most suitable choice is to end the bloodshed and return to the negotiation table in the spirit of a win-win outcome, as Russia, Ukraine, and other countries in that region will continue to live alongside one another as neighbours for hundreds of years into the future,” the Cambodian defence minister added.
At the same time, Tea Banh said any solutions should focus on honouring each other and all certainly do not want to see any one being forced against the wall.
“Cambodia supports all initiatives which provide a political solution to end this war, such as China’s 12 points initiative to resolve the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Cambodia appeals to international community to provide initiatives with similar objectives to obtain a political settlement. If the fighting continues both parties will ultimately endure tensions between major powers has hindered the harmonisation and prosperity of other nations. It is obvious that competing parties would not gain any substantial benefit, as it is inevitable that they remain dependent on one another for the long term,” he said.
On geo-political perception, he said Cambodia does not want to see either China or the U.S entering decline.
“The decline of one or both would bring about many risks for the region and as a member of ASEAN, Cambodia wishes to see changes in the practices of rival nations from tit for tat, to working together in order to achieve shared benefit, stability, and prosperity for the region and the world. We also wish to see the easing of tension, and a return to normalcy in the South China Sea, as well as finding an acceptable solution to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war,” he said.
The establishment and proceeding of mechanisms and partnerships introduced by some major countries within the region is being judged from different perspectives. It would be a perfect scenario, if these mechanisms or partnerships serve the purpose of encouraging peace, stability, and prosperity for the region.
Tea Banh said Cambodia needs to weight between transparency and each country’s interests. Cambodia has faced the issues of Ream Naval Base. Certainly, Cambodia would provide transparency of our activities to avoid misunderstanding. In relation to this point, Cambodia has clearly reaffirmed that we respect our laws and our constitution. Meanwhile, everyone should understand the requirements of each country such as the need for military modernisation, to serve its own interests as well as to be able to participate in promoting the peace and stability of the region.
For the situation in Myanmar, he underlined, it is a concern that greatly affects ASEAN’s credibility, as well as ASEAN centrality.
“In my perspective, the role of ASEAN is very important for the settlement, but success is still not guaranteed, if there is no true commitment from Myanmar themselves. Finding trust among relevant parties is the key to solving this issue. In Cambodia’s experience, the Win-Win Policy offered concession, value, and trust towards one another, which acted as a strong foundation for sustainable peace, harmonisation, and prosperity. This is another model that is derived from the inevitable combination of political will, national unity and the pure heartedness of external support, based on the spirit of shared benefits,” he said.
While there are still internal conflicts and civil wars occurring, especially in Africa, causing tremendous humanitarian crisis, peacekeepers are indeed a well-needed element. Acknowledging this, Cambodia is strongly committed to enhancing our capabilities and participation in peacekeeping operation under the United Nation’s framework, in order to help and build harmonisation for those in suffering. Notably last year, Cambodia initiated a concept paper to enhance ASEAN women’s participation in overseas peacekeeping operations.
Concerning the issue of climate change, Tea Banh said without a doubt, destruction of our ecosystem and pollution occurs all around the world. However, industrialised countries remain as major contributors to climate.
Read more here.