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
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if