Late last month, Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo (戴秉國) and Vice Premier Wang Qishan (王岐山) led a large delegation of senior Chinese government officials to Washington to take part in the first US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). Based on Taiwan’s longstanding bilateral friendship with the US and the recent improvements in cross-strait relations, we should pay close attention to the first senior dialogue between China and the US since US President Barack Obama took office.
Since establishing diplomatic ties in 1979, relations between China and the US have been fragile and in constant flux. Apart from leadership summits, most US-China dialogues have been carried out via bilateral discussions between different ministries. This practice has caused discrepancies between policy statements and implementation, leading to misunderstandings and distrust which have influenced overall bilateral relations between the two.
To deal with these problems, beginning in August 2005, the two sides decided to converge dialogues and use a cross-departmental format. By the end of last year, the US and China had held six “Strategic Dialogues” (the administration of former US president George W. Bush preferred the term “Senior Dialogues”), and five “Strategic Economic Dialogues,” in which problems were dealt with in a comprehensive way. After Obama took office, China and the US merged these two dialogues to a single track — the S&ED — to handle increasingly complex bilateral affairs.
The issues discussed in the first US-China S&ED included the global financial crisis and economic recovery, climate change, energy, environmental protection, regional security and development. It would be unrealistic to expect fundamental solutions in one round of discussion for such a wide range of issues. However, the S&ED was still significant and the following four points are worthy of close attention.
First, the US’ strategy toward China has been basically consistent over the years and has achieved certain results. During Bush’s time in office, former deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick said in New York in 2005 that it had been US policy for 50 years to “fence in the Soviet Union” while the goal of the past 30 years was “to draw out China” into the international community while encouraging it to become a “responsible stakeholder.” Today, the Obama administration is continuing to hold this strategic vision and refine it.
Second, China’s rise in economic and military power has received a great deal of attention in Washington. In past senior dialogues, China sent vice premiers to lead the delegations, while US ministerial-level officials led delegations. During the 2007 Strategic Economic Dialogue in Washington, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice declined an invitation to a luncheon, asking former labor secretary Elaine Chao (趙小蘭) to represent her. But last year, Rice chose to commute more than one hour to Annapolis, Maryland, to personally participate in that dialogue. This time around, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally led the US delegation.
Third, the Department of State has regained a leading role in running US policy toward China. Over the past decade, Washington’s policy circle has sometimes jokingly said that the US’ China policy was run by the Pentagon for a long period after the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, and that in recent years policy has been run by the US Department of the Treasury because of the increasingly complex nature of bilateral trade issues. The current convergence to a single dialogue mechanism to some degree symbolizes Clinton’s efforts to reclaim a leading role in the US’ China policy.
Fourth, competition between the US and China is not a zero-sum game and will not necessarily harm Taiwan’s interests. During a speech given at the start of the S&ED, Obama said: “The pursuit of power among nations must no longer be seen as a zero-sum game. Progress — including security — must be shared.”
While many had expected that the Taiwan issue, and in particular the issue of arms sales to Taiwan, would be brought up in every US-China dialogue, veteran China watchers said Taiwan would not have been a focal point of the recent discussions. It is important to note that the schedules and representative levels of senior dialogues planned between Taiwan and the US have not been affected by the S&ED at all. By the same token, institutionalized cross-strait talks and negotiations should not be viewed as a zero-sum game as these will also pose no damage to US interests.
Alexander Huang is a non-resident senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS