當年今日
關於我們

Editorial: Did Yang Jiechi fall into Blinken’s trap? | Apple Daily HK

蘋果日報 2021/03/25 09:24


By Fong Yuen
The Sino-U.S. meeting did not see a happy ending. Both sides arrived with unkind intentions, and both had likely been prepared for both options of agreeing and disagreeing. The U.S. broke the convention by accusing the CCP of human rights violations in its opening remarks, which would normally be all greetings and weather chit-chat), and the Chinese side immediately pulled out its counter plan of attack, and Yang Jiechi fired his machine gun for 17 minutes. The U.S. was attacked, so Blinken asked the press to return for his response. Yang Jiechi was still upset, so he, too, asked the press to stay for yet another counterattack. With that, the U.S. gave up, otherwise that would be it for the meeting.
China’s response was applauded by the “little pinks”, and the U.S. has received mixed reactions from the ruling and opposition parties. Yet from an outsider’s perspective, Yang Jiechi’s 17-minute long speech was all the cliché of foreign propaganda, and it was only surprising that it was so unrestrained on a diplomatic occasion. He blew through the pre-conference two-minute limit agreement (every speaker on the U.S. side exceeded tens of seconds and was not considered a violation, unless each side is now to keep a stopwatch that goes off) with an attitude that was pompous and audacious. He used the U.S. racial issues around Black people to counter the U.S. accusations against the CCP’s human rights issues. But as everyone can see, the U.S. issues are sporadic civil actions, and the government and the media have been on the same side with condemnation. The incident was quickly settled; the CCP’s issue, however, is governmental action. It is one that has been taking place systematically over a long period of time, and one in which the government has never admitted its wrongdoing. The two issues cannot be far more different in nature. Placing the two together to argue is but a means to create chaos with the intention of distracting.
Blinken responded that throughout history the U.S. has its imperfections, and has reversals and takes steps back when there are mistakes. A hallmark of U.S. leadership is “a constant quest to, as we say, form a more perfect union. And that quest by definition, acknowledges our imperfections, acknowledges that we’re not perfect,” said Blinken, and that the confrontations are open, public, and transparent, “not trying to ignore them” or “pretend they don’t exist”. Stating that the process is sometimes “painful” and “ugly”, Blinken insisted that the country has every time “come out stronger, better, more united.” He was well-spoken, broad-minded, and confident. It was a step back in order to get ahead. Blinken also referred to something Biden had said to Xi Jinping, that “it’s never a good bet to bet against America.” It was a warning, an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Yang Jiechi’s frantic of course had its reasons. Prior to this meeting, Biden organized the “quad alliance security talks” which achieved remarkable results in targeting China. Subsequently, Blinken and Austin visited Japan and Korea, and had once again publicly pledged to protect the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands. The U.S. has also reiterated its sanctions on 24 officials in China and Hong Kong, and imposed new penalties on large state-owned enterprises such as Huawei
In the detailed arrangements for the talks, the U.S. demanded that the Chinese undergo virus testing, did not arrange meals, nor hold a joint press conference. With no joint communiqué, the U.S. was displaying a cold demeanor to welcome the Chinese who had go all the way to the icy and snowy Alaska. Yang Jiechi had cup noodles in the hotel (which was obviously fake news), and all of these were not “hospitality” (to quote Wang Yi). So why such deliberate neglect from the U.S.?
Be it diplomatic strategy or arrangements, the intentions were clear. The U.S. obviously did not hope for much in these talks. With little expectations? Why talk? Some comment that they were aimed to test the bottom line of each other. In fact, both sides should have a good understanding of each other’s stance, so there is really not much to test. By asking China for a dialogue, the U.S. wanted to use the resumption of the Sino-U.S. diplomatic contact to lure the CCP to cooperate on climate issues. Coincidentally, China is also interested in using cooperation on climate issues to exchange for diplomatic recoupling. That could have resulted in something, yet the plan fell apart when Blinken mentioned human rights issues in his opening greetings and angered Yang Jiechi. Unable to extinguish the blazing anger in his heart, Yang turned it into fuel and blasted his words all the way to an almost irreversible point. Yang Jiechi’s blazing anger obviously did not come from his cup noodle, but it was because Xi Jinping has been angry at the U.S. for quite some time now. Both the U.S. and the Chinese sides treated the talks as a performance show on the stage to proclaim their values and bottom lines. Both achieved their goals. The difference lies in that the CCP’s values are shoddy and its attitude was despicable, while the U.S. values were positive, neither meager nor overbearing. Although Blinken was not tough enough, he was likable. He kept his calm in a diplomatic occasion and did not display his emotions. It was clear confidence. Yang Jiechi was arrogant and crude while Blinken was cool as a cucumber with his retreats and advances. Round one in, it was clear who had the upper hand.
If the U.S. was indeed in a weak position, it would have shown its goodwill prior to the meeting and hospitality. Opting for the opposite, it was a clear move to provoke the CCP. Letting the CCP go frantic on a diplomatic occasion allowed the whole world to witness its unmannerliness and intransigence. It made it much more effortless for the U.S. to convince its allies to besiege the CCP.
After Blinken and Austin visited Korea, the latter has begun amending its neutral position. The E.U. has even imposed sanctions on Xinjiang organizations and officials almost while it was talking with the U.S. The fallout with the E.U. immediately drew tit-for-tat reprisals from the CCP, and it does not look good for the Sino-E.U. relations. As the Sino-E.U. relations go down a slippery slope, the China-E.U. investment pact sealed earlier in December follows along down the drain.
By angering the CCP, the U.S. is now reaping the benefits. China’s outburst felt tremendous at the moment, yet the consequences are immense. In comparison, it is clear who gained and who lost. In the game of diplomacy, it is not a matter of momentary snippets, but a long-term investment. The besiegement of the CCP by Western countries is set in stone, and yet Xi Jinping is still having his “Rise of the East, Fall of the West” sweet dreams. As the West unites relentlessly, the CCP resists stubbornly, and the world will have no peace.
Click here for Chinese version
---------------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE
To download the latest version,
Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play