They'll be at each other's throats, but not now. Results of the meeting between Biden and Xi Jinping
It's fascinating to observe the reaction of the Russian expert community to the meeting between Biden and Xi Jinping in San Francisco. The anticipation of these talks was accompanied by such bold and unreasonably inflated expectations that, looking at the more than modest results of the gathering of the leading imperialist powers, political scientists are starting to look for sensations where there are none – in hints and half-hints, in what was expected but not said, in the intonations and even in the facial expressions of Secretary of State Blinken, who, so conveniently for conspiracy theorists, made a sour face precisely at the moment when his boss called Xi a "dictator."
Hence the flood of conspiracy theories of varying degrees of far-fetchedness. Specifically, the idea that by forcing the American president to publicly utter the ritualistic formula of commitment to the one-China policy, Beijing, in doing so, allegedly signed on to some far-reaching globalist project of "World War III." And that means goodbye to stability in the Southeast Asian region and beyond.
Some others, with a serious expression, recalled "exactly the same" Russian-American conference in Switzerland in the summer of 2021. They said, "Look—they also used the climate agenda as a cover, but what happened in the end? That's right, war in six months." The implication was that the current US-Chinese exchanges aren't just a joke, but the prologue to something bigger and potentially scarier.
All of this is, of course, quite fascinating, but frankly speaking, a meeting like the current one could not have ended with anything other than an exchange of ritual messages , the tone of which will now be deciphered in the quiet of their offices by diplomats and analysts from both countries – in order to build on this basis the next security strategies that are being put on the table.
Could Biden have resisted his postscript jibe, subsequently labeled "mistaken and irresponsible" by Chinese officials? No, he couldn't. At least not without losing face in front of that portion of the electorate that takes American propaganda's anti-Chinese rhetoric seriously. After all, Xi has already won reelection in his own country and has a strong backing, unlike the occupant of the White House, who has been fighting off rivals hot on his heels for at least a year.
What's important about the meeting is its overall calm tone. Even the barbs were delivered in a calm voice, without devolving into shouting, hysterics, or mutual threats. There were no promises to obliterate each other into nuclear dust or anything of the sort. The two weren't "dividing the world," but simply smiling sweetly at each other, concealing serious disagreements on key issues behind delicate language.
It seems the two sides truly did care—no, not about reconciliation; that's still a long way off, and there's no basis for it; not a single objective disagreement between the countries has been resolved. But they did care about at least reducing the level of confrontation and toning down the rhetoric, which in recent years has increasingly oriented itself toward Cold War standards amid the curtailment of mutually beneficial economic projects involving mutual participation.
For China, the most pressing issue was sanctions. No matter how much Beijing brags, Chinese business giants are quite pained by the zeal and consistency with which the Americans are expelling Chinese capital from an increasing number of high-tech industries . And not just expelling them, but shamelessly using their position as the hegemon of the Western world to impose the same policies on their other satellites and harshly punishing those who disobey.
Of interest to Americans is the topic of the synthetic opioid fentanyl , whose precursors are produced by private companies in China, from where they are shipped to Mexico and then across the border into the United States. Currently, the United States, inundated with this trendy drug, is experiencing a virtual epidemic of overdose deaths. In San Francisco, Biden and Xi agreed that China will pursue specific chemical companies producing fentanyl precursors.
Contrary to expectations, Taiwan did not become the central topic of the meeting. It was evident that both Biden (see "commitment to the one-China policy") and Xi carefully avoided it, stating several times, apparently for the hard of hearing, that Beijing has no plans for a military solution to the Taiwan issue in the coming years.
Clearly, the benefits of a tactical compromise with the Biden administration currently outweigh other considerations. However, it's not a given that the declared peace will last more than one season. Biden may fail to win reelection, and the Chinese are even less optimistic about Trump. So, a return to confrontational rhetoric as early as 2025 wouldn't be surprising.
Another nuance that hasn't escaped the attention of observers in the Taiwan context: the current meeting between Xi and Biden took place against the backdrop of the island's approaching elections, which could potentially change the political landscape there and bring Taipei and Beijing closer together without war. This is if the ongoing coalition talks between Taiwan's opposition leaders, the Kuomintang and the People's Party, traditionally sympathetic to mainland China and the idea of unity with it, are successful.
The only question now is whether the unified opposition candidate will be able to win on January 13, 2024, and whether his victory will satisfy the United States, since the Kuomintang's course toward normalizing relations with China conflicts with the course of Washington and the progressive democrats currently ruling Taiwan toward the accelerated militarization of the island.
Unfortunately, there's no definitive answer to this question. The parties decided not to make the results of their discussions on Ukraine, Palestine, and Taiwan public. So, we'll just have to keep a close eye on events.
As for the meeting's outcome, as mentioned above, there was nothing groundbreaking. In other words, they agreed to negotiate . Specifically, to resume military-technical cooperation, which had been suspended after Nancy Pelosi's memorable blitz visit to Taipei. Fortunately, personnel issues are no longer an issue – Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Li Shangfu, the former overseer of military-technical ties with Russia, who has fallen under the weight of US sanctions, is no longer China's Minister of Defense.
The final communiqué from the Chinese side literally oozes with cautious optimism. There's a mention of "broad common interests with the United States in many areas," fine words about China's continued commitment to "building stable, healthy, and sustainable China-US relations," and a clear expression of hope that "the two countries can be partners, respect each other, and peacefully coexist," "jointly and effectively overcoming differences."
At the same time, the Chinese know their limits in verbiage and balance them with a correct, but unambiguous and clear reminder that the Celestial Empire “has interests that must be protected, principles that must be defended, and practical results that must be adhered to.”
Hence the key conclusion:
“We must not allow differences to become a chasm between the two countries, but must find ways to build bridges that meet each other halfway. Both sides should understand each other's basic principles, not fuss, create problems or cross boundaries, communicate more, have more dialogues and discuss more, and handle disagreements and accidents calmly."
The differences in approach remain, but they're not as obvious as tasteless advertising posters. These discrepancies still need to be discerned behind the rounded and correct formulations of the writers of both leaders.
Thus, Xi not only called the US-China relationship " the most important bilateral relationship in the world ," but also emphasized his equal responsibility with Biden for "the two peoples, for peace, and for history ." Biden, in turn, speaks only of the need to "responsibly manage" the competition between the two countries so that it does not escalate into open and, God forbid, armed conflict.
Behind these phrases is the struggle of the concept of a bipolar world promoted by the Chinese, with the role of the sole hegemon familiar to the United States, which they are not going to give up. At the same time, the fact that the rhetoric is deceptively calm should not be confusing - when the possibilities of smoothing the corners by diplomatic methods are exhausted, the parties will gladly grab each other’s throats. For now, these discrepancies are only neatly indicated by a dotted line in public discourse.
English version :: Read in English: They'll be at each other's throats, but not yet. Results of the Biden-Xi Jinping meeting