On Monday, China’s People’s Daily newspaper published an article, “Firmly Grasp the Correct Direction of the Development of Sino-US Relations.” Written by Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Le Yucheng, it evinces Beijing’s deep discomfort with U.S. policy toward it.
The first takeaway is that Le’s name is attached to the article. Only the fifth-highest-ranking Chinese foreign policy official, Le sits under President Xi Jinping, Central Foreign Affairs Commission chief Yang Jiechi, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Foreign Affairs Ministry Party Secretary Qi Yu. Putting Le’s name atop the article thus shows China’s continued hypersensitivity at being perceived as weak. Le’s attachment allows Beijing to send a message to Washington, but in a way that offers a pretense against the Standing Committee being overly concerned by the state of U.S. relations.
That matters, because the letter’s content makes quite clear that Beijing is very concerned over the current direction of U.S. foreign policy. “Regrettably,” Le writes, “some U.S. politicians have recently acted perversely and provoked disputes, maliciously attacked the Communist Party of China and China’s political system, challenged China’s core interests, interfered in China’s internal affairs, deliberately denied the history of Sino-U.S. relations, and carried out comprehensive suppression and containment on China.”
Phew. Le says this American aggression has provoked the “most severe and complex situation since the establishment of diplomatic relations.” But there’s hope, says the glorified foreign ministry errand boy. China does “not export ideology, nor do we intend to engage in institutional competition.” Moreover, Le claims, China does not seek hegemony [and] does not engage in military expansion.”
Even by Chinese Communist Party standards, this is truly ridiculous stuff. China’s pursuit of global hegemony is proven by its feudal mercantile foreign policy and its imperial seizure of the near entirety of the South China Sea. Le says that if the United States is willing to close its eyes to this reality, both nations can entertain more beneficial enterprises. Le even offers a template here. Since 2000, he says, “the two sides have strengthened coordination and cooperation in the field of counter-terrorism and non-proliferation.” Oh, and also on climate change action.
These claims are what the British would call “codswallop.” Or what Americans might call BS.
China’s carbon reduction commitments are a de facto Monty Python sketch. But China’s assertion that “non-proliferation” is an opportunity for negotiation is equally ridiculous. China is very much in favor of arms control, just as long as that control doesn’t involve it! China’s extraordinary investment in hypersonic glide vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles illustrates its view that proliferation is a top priority rather than a global problem. It bears noting here that the U.S. and Russia are putting aside issues such as NATO, Ukraine, Syria, and nerve agents in order to pursue nonproliferation talks. Both sides see an interest in fewer nuclear weapons, even as they retain profound disagreements on other issues.
Still, Le says that nothing good can come of U.S.-China relations unless Washington accepts China’s red lines. Namely, America’s willingness to remain silent and passive on “Taiwan, Hong Kong-related, Tibet-related, and Xinjiang-related issues.” These “are related to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as China’s core interests and concerns. China has no room for compromise on these major issues and does not allow any interference from outside forces.”
The U.S. obviously cannot accept these diktats. Taiwan is a democratic partner of the United States, and Hong Kong is due U.S. support in response to China’s unlawful breach of its treaty commitments under the Sino-British declaration. And when it comes to Xinjiang, no nation can morally accept China’s imposition of literal Nazi-style genocide and slave labor on millions of innocent Muslims.
That’s ultimately what this letter encapsulates: the collision of two very different governing systems, and two very different perspectives on humanity’s future. For all its real flaws, the United States believes in the democratic rule of law, treaty obligations, and the protection of basic human rights. Communist China believes the opposite — that the democratic rule of law must be bent to its agenda, that treaty obligations are worth only the paper they’re written on, and that human rights are worthless unless subjectively defined by the Standing Committee.
This dichotomy of understanding explains why the U.S. and China are now engaged in their escalating standoff. It’s not that China and the U.S. are unwilling to compromise at the diplomatic table, but rather that their major respective interests are ultimately incompatible. Le and his bosses want a return to the good old days when China could clink glasses with American presidents and simultaneous thieve the world’s oceans and hundreds of billions of dollars of intellectual property, the days when the West accepted China’s imperial rise, in guilt over the Opium Wars.
Fortunately, those days are gone.
