Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, recorded a temperature as low as -18 degrees Celsius (nearly zero degrees Fahrenheit) in the early morning. A two-day high-level talk between the United States and China has just ended in this frigid place. The high pitch of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “wolf warriors” howl and the weak U.S. response, in contrast, are really worrying.
In short, the U.S. side fell into four traps set ingeniously by the CCP during the talks.
First, the holding of high-level talks between the United States and China is itself a CCP trap.
After Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, Anthony Blinken, the U.S. secretary of state spoke with Yang Jiechi, member of the CCP’s Politburo, and President Joe Biden spoke with CCP leader Xi Jinping. Judging from their public statements, each side took a different tone. In fact, as far as the current state of U.S.-China relations is concerned, it is the CCP that has begged the United States to stop the decoupling and sanction. Without substantial proposals (or concessions) from the communist regime, there would be no need for the United States to hold the meeting at all. Before the U.S. administration had any clear policy toward the CCP, it actually “invited” the CCP to come to the talks, falling into the “dialogue trap” set up by the CCP.
In a press conference afterwards, senior Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi said the China-U.S. talks were candid, constructive, and beneficial. “But, of course, there are still differences between the two sides,” he said.
“We came to the meeting with the hope that the two sides could enhance communication and dialogue on different fronts. The two sides should follow the policy of ‘no conflict’ to guide our path toward a healthy and stable trajectory moving forward,” he said.
Secondly, Yang Jiechi broke diplomatic protocol by speaking for 16 minutes, which was eight times longer than usual, and his speech was obviously scripted. In particular, Yang said in his speech, “I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize the universal values advocated by the United States or that the viewpoint of the United States could represent international public opinion.” This is a clear indication that in the future the CCP will no longer abide by the rules set by the United States.
This is a very serious provocation. U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn told The Epoch Times in an email: “Just as the Chinese delegation refused to comply with the agreed-upon rules of the meeting, Beijing refuses to comply with the rules-based international order.”
The U.S. side, however, sat there obediently and listened to the end. American conservative commentator Jack Posobiec tweeted: “The obvious move would be for Blinken and Sullivan to stand up for the U.S. and kick out the CCP delegation after being disrespected. But they aren’t. They’re going back tomorrow to lose even more face. Hard to say how they could be any worse at this.”
Thirdly, Yang Jiechi drew a “red line” for the U.S. side, not the other way around.
According to a report from Nikkei Asia, Yang said, first of all, that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.”
Yang added that the CCP’s “leadership and China’s political system are supported wholeheartedly by the Chinese people, and any attempt to change China’s social system will be futile,” according to a March 19 press release on the website of the CCP’s embassy in the United States.
Another point Yang made in his long speech was a series of security and human rights issues the U.S. had raised with the Chinese side, including the CCP’s persecution of Uyghurs, its crackdown on Hong Kong, its economic coercion of allies, its cyberattacks on the United States, and its acts of aggression against Taiwan. Yang declared these are all China’s internal affairs and that the communist regime “firmly opposes U.S. interference.” According to Yang, “What the United States should do is to … mind its own business … rather than making irresponsible remarks about China’s human rights and democracy.”
To sum up Yang Jiechi’s meaning in a sentence, it is what he said in his opening remarks that “there is no way to strangle China.” This implies that the CCP is not afraid to confront the United States and uses the confrontation as a means to deter the U.S. side from retreating without a fight.
The fourth trap lies in the U.S. side’s intention to seek cooperation with the CCP, even when facing such fierce confrontation. After the talks, Blinken spoke at a press conference about very specific areas where the United States and China could cooperate.
“But we were also able to have a very candid conversation over these many hours on an expansive agenda. On Iran, on North Korea, on Afghanistan, on climate, our interests intersect,” he said.
In addition, Biden administration officials said they were open to easing some of the visa restrictions imposed on Chinese citizens under the Trump administration. By doing so, the U.S. side swapped its offensive position with the CCP and willingly gave up its advantage.
In short, the Chinese Communist Party is more cunning and evil than most people can imagine. This round of talks was the CCP’s way of testing the waters, and now it has a clear picture of the United States’ intentions. It is expected to execute tougher and stronger tactics, step by step, targeting Taiwan, after it has finished with Hong Kong.
Of course, there are also discerning people in the United States, such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He was seemingly the first to review the meeting between the United States and China in Alaska, writing on Twitter, “Strength deters bad guys, weakness only invites war.”
The U.S. side has a good hand, but it can’t play it effectively. What is the problem? The U.S. policymakers must first recognize the evil nature of the Chinese communist regime and know themselves and their opponents in order to win.
Author and China expert Gordon Chang wrote on Twitter: “Yang Jiechi, in his opening remarks in Alaska, said, ‘there is no way to strangle China.’ Well, actually there is, and Beijing, with its increasingly dangerous conduct, will leave the world no choice but to do so.”
Hopefully, Chang’s voice will be heard at the U.S. policy-making level.
Wang He has masters degrees in law and history, and has studied the international communist movement. He was a university lecturer and an executive of a large private firm in China. Wang now lives in North America and has published commentaries on China’s current affairs and politics since 2017.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.