SO: the U.S. and China are bickering over whether the upcoming meetings in Alaska should be called a “strategic dialogue”
The U.S. says they shouldn't. China insists they should.
Why, you may wonder, does either side care about something so trivial? My thoughts:
THREAD
The U.S. says they shouldn't. China insists they should.
Why, you may wonder, does either side care about something so trivial? My thoughts:
THREAD
First off, here’s Blinken’s description to members of Congress on Wednesday:
“This is not a strategic dialogue -- there’s no intent at this point for a series of follow-on engagements”
That seems clear enough, right?
“This is not a strategic dialogue -- there’s no intent at this point for a series of follow-on engagements”
That seems clear enough, right?
Well… here’s what China says:
MFA spokesman Zhao Lijian later released a response to Blinken’s remarks, describing the meetings on March 18-19 as a “high-level strategic dialogue” being held “at the invitation of the U.S.”
Hmmmm….
MFA spokesman Zhao Lijian later released a response to Blinken’s remarks, describing the meetings on March 18-19 as a “high-level strategic dialogue” being held “at the invitation of the U.S.”
Hmmmm….
So what’s the deal?
On one level, it’s simple: Biden needs to show domestic audiences that he’s maintaining much of Trump’s tough approach to Beijing. And Xi needs to show that he’s no pushover – especially because the meeting will take place on U.S. soil
On one level, it’s simple: Biden needs to show domestic audiences that he’s maintaining much of Trump’s tough approach to Beijing. And Xi needs to show that he’s no pushover – especially because the meeting will take place on U.S. soil
On another level, many China hands argue that the PRC likes to ensnare the U.S. in convoluted dialogues to bog down American negotiators while China modernizes its economy and military
Hence, perhaps, Biden’s call for “practical, results-oriented engagements” when he spoke to Xi
Hence, perhaps, Biden’s call for “practical, results-oriented engagements” when he spoke to Xi
For me, though, the key reason China wants to use the term “strategic” stems from the way Chinese diplomacy is used to shore up the CCP's legitimacy at home
Dai Bingguo, China’s former top diplomat, explains this in his appropriately-named memoir, “Strategic Dialogues”
Dai Bingguo, China’s former top diplomat, explains this in his appropriately-named memoir, “Strategic Dialogues”
In the 2000s, Dai stewarded China into a series of formal dialogues with other powers that aimed to reassure them about its rise and signal to domestic audiences that China had arrived on the global stage…
… China insisted on naming them “strategic dialogues” – a label that made countries like America and Japan uncomfortable. After all, the memory of the Tiananmen Square massacre loomed large
Still, the dialogues went ahead. The U.S. began a Strategic Economic Dialogue with China in 2006. It was later expanded and renamed the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) under Obama
The U.S. saw the dialogues as a way to make progress on issues from intellectual property theft to the looming risk of conflict between an established power and a competitor. Dai’s focus was elsewhere…
“Before the 21st century, which major country would agree to enter into a strategic dialogue with China like they do today?” Dai wrote in 2016.
“None of them!” he answered. “ They looked down on you and thought you weren’t qualified to enter into strategic dialogue with them.”
“None of them!” he answered. “ They looked down on you and thought you weren’t qualified to enter into strategic dialogue with them.”
China is now the world’s second-largest economy, with one of the world’s most potent militaries. Its diplomats, however, are preoccupied with proving that the PRC has finally made it. Think of that next time you hear Zhao insist that China has entered a “strategic dialogue.” ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
