Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, em viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas.
O que é este blog?
Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.
President Biden speaks with Chinese President Xi Jinping virtually in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Nov. 15, 2021. Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
Don’t call it a reset.
But the White House made clear Monday that President Biden wants to talk with Chinese President Xi Jinping sooner rather than later, reviving efforts to shore up lines of communication and defuse some tensions in The World’s Most Important Bilateral Relationship (™).
“I can’t give you a date because there’s no date set,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan said. “But President Biden has indicated his willingness to have a telephone conversation with President Xi once they’re back and in stride coming off the National People’s Congress.”
That annual legislative convention, which wrapped up Monday, formally gave Xi an unprecedented third presidential term. He has also filled senior government posts with loyalists who will strengthen his hand as he grapples with an economy that appears to be faltering.
My colleague Ellen Nakashima reported “a U.S. official said that Sullivan was ‘trying to signal’ willingness to reengage. ‘I know the president wants to be clear that we want to keep the lines of communication open.'”
“The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the matter’s sensitivity, said it is likely a conversation between the two leaders will eventually take place. But, the official cautioned, ‘it takes two to have a call.’”
China hasn’t yet agreed, in other words.
BALLOON TENSIONS
A Biden-Xi call would be the most visible effort yet to overcome the latest flare-up of tensions, sparked in late January by a Chinese spy balloon that lazily hovered over sensitive U.S. military sites across several states before a U.S. fighter jet took it down off the South Carolina coast.
Waterballoon (The Daily 202 isn’t going to mindlessly tack on the usual scandal suffix “-gate” when this is available) led Secretary of State Antony Blinken to cancel a visit to China at the last minute.
And last week, Xi delivered his sharpest, most direct public criticisms of the United States, saying America and its Western allies “have implemented all-round containment, encirclement and suppression against us.”
On Monday, he vowed to build his military into “a great wall of steel” to protect Chinese economic and security interests.
“We believe there is competition, and we welcome that competition,” Sullivan told reporters aboard Air Force One on the way to California. Biden was headed there to celebrate a deal to equip Australia’s navy with nuclear-powered submarines, a response to Chinese ambitions.
“But there is no need for conflict, there is no need for confrontation, there is no need for a new Cold War,” Sullivan said. “And we will look to work with China in areas where it’s in our mutual interests and the wider world’s interest to do so.”
Sullivan also played down bipartisan anger in Waterballoon’s aftermath, saying it “has come from voices, of course, not within the U.S. administration” and underlining “President Biden sets the terms of this relationship, and he sets the tone for this relationship for the U.S. government.”
CHINESE DIPLOMACY
If it happens, the call will come after two interesting developments in China’s international diplomatic outreach.
China helped broker an agreement last week between regional archrivals Saudi Arabia and Iran to reestablish diplomatic relations. The deal, which Xi appears to have personally worked for, was seen as a major success for Beijing.
And the Wall Street Journal’s Keith Zhai reported Xi “plans to speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the first time since the start of the Ukraine war, likely after he visits Moscow next week to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
“A direct conversation with Mr. Zelensky, if it happens, would mark a significant step in Beijing’s efforts to play peacemaker in Ukraine, which have so far been met with skepticism in Europe.”
“The new surge of diplomacy reflects a conviction on the part of Mr. Xi and the Communist Party that China can offer an alternative to the U.S.-led model of international relations by relying on commercial ties rather than military might to sway the decisions of other countries,” Zhai wrote.
A nova Guerra Fria econômica e tecnológica começou quando os EUA cometeram o terrível erro estratégico de considerar a China um adversário no campo da hegemonia global, em lugar de um parceiro na construção de um mundo multipolar deficiente. Sim, deficiente, mas pelo menos não dominado pela ideia de uma competição pela liderança global.
De 1972, quando Nixon vai ao encontro de Mao, até o início dos anos 2000, quando os EUA reinavam absolutos, mas quando a China começava a flexionar os seus músculos econômicos ao ingressar na OMC, EUA e China eram aliados tácitos, senão táticos, no confronto com a URSS, a inimiga de ambos, mas em forte declínio nos anos 1980, até desaparecer como entidade estatal, mas sobreviver como desafiante nuclear, na velha Rússia que nunca se desfez de seus sonhos imperiais.
Os dez anos que abalaram o mundo, entre Gorbachev e Ieltsin, também representaram o começo do grande erro estratégico dos EUA, ao humilharem a Rússia e ao tentarem diminuir, conter, confrontar a irresistível ascensão econômica da China. Esse erro estratégico está bem representado pelo livro de Graham Allison sobre a falsa e equivocada “armadilha de Tucídides”, ou seja, o embate entre a Atenas americana e a Esparta chinesa. Escreverei mais longamente sobre porque eu considero esse livro de Graham Allison como o “mais perigoso do mundo”, depois do Mein Kampf de Adolf Hitler.
No momento, só tenho a lamentar que as posições opostas dos EUA e da China caminhem para uma nova confrontação similar em tensão a uma Ucrânia-Berlim ou a uma Taiwan-Cuba, dos tempos “clássicos” da velha Guerra Fria geopolítica da era bipolar. A nova Guerra Fria econômica e tecnológica não precisaria ter essa nova bipolaridade que se desenha entre EUA-UE vs China-Rússia. Não precisaria, mas está tendo esse efeito. Talvez estejamos entrando numa nova fase dos velhos confrontos interimperiais que se estenderá pelos próximos 20 ou 30 anos, mas sem conflagração direta entre potências rivais: “apenas” uma nova e inútil corrida armamentista e um novo atraso de mais meio século no não desenvolvimento dos países pobres e regiões miseráveis.
O mundo perde, mas quem perde mais serão os países pobres; quanto ao Brasil e América Latina, permanecerão marginais e irrelevantes como sempre foram, meros fornecedores de commodities para o Ocidente e a nova e dinâmica região da Ásia-Pacifico. E não há nenhum “Não-Alinhamento Ativo” que resolva essa marginalidade estrutural da América Latina.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
'Conflict and confrontation'
CNN Meanwhile in America, March 7, 2023
We’ve written before about how volatile domestic politics in both Washington and Beijing threatens to tip the rivalry between the two super powers into open confrontation.
The fallout from the flight of a suspected Chinese spy balloon’s flight over the US last month sent the US capital into a frenzy -- and disagreements over Ukraine and Taiwan are making things worse.
Now, we’re getting a view of how hostility towards the US is becoming the default position for senior Chinese leaders, and one that is a political imperative in President Xi Jinping's new leadership team.
In one of his first appearances as China’s new foreign minister, Qin Gang warned Tuesday that “conflict and confrontation” with the United States is inevitable if Washington does not change course, delivering a stern and wide-ranging rebuke of US policies for his first news conference in the new role.
Qin had a reputation in Washington, where he was until recently the Chinese ambassador, as temperate and diplomatic -- while being an uncompromising messenger for Xi’s hawkish nationalism. But back in Beijing, he struck a different note, accusing the US of aiming to contain China and overreacting to incidents like the spy balloon.
“If the United States does not hit the brakes, but continues to speed down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can prevent derailing, and there will surely be conflict and confrontation,” Qin said on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress in Beijing. His remarks on Taiwan got the most attention in DC, following Washington’s warnings that China shouldn’t send arms to Russia. “Why does the US talk up respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity on the Ukraine issue, but does not respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on the issue of Taiwan?” Qin said.
“Why does the US ask China not to provide weapons to Russia while it keeps selling arms to Taiwan?”
Estranho que as duas maiores economias do mundo sejam "desconectadas" uma da outra. Ou melhor: não é a China que pretende "descasar", ou as grandes companhias americanas, que ganharam muito dinheiro com a China nas últimas três ou quatro décadas, mas sim os americanos, por razões não exatamente econômicas, e sim de competição estratégica.
Os grandes impérios em competição – como a Alemanha e a Grã-Bretanha imperiais, por exemplo, na época da belle époque – realizavam sua corrida armamentista, isto é naval, antes da Grande Guerra, mas mantinham uma interação econômica bastante intensa.
Até onde essa iniciativa de um "falcão" da House vai prosperar, e até que limites ela pode prejudicar os próprios EUA?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
House committee on China starts two-year drive to ‘decouple’
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) is chair of the House select committee focusing on the U.S.-China relationship.. (REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz)
Rep. Mike Gallagher said he doesn’t blame past leaders for betting that inviting China into the global economy would induce Beijing to follow rules set by liberal industrial powers, notably the United States, and become a good global citizen, perhaps even embrace political reforms.
But it’s time to cut our losses.
“Everyone made the same basic bet on China,” Gallagher told The Daily 202 in a phone interview on Sunday. “That bet made sense. It was logical. But it failed. So now we’re trying to extricate ourselves.”
The Wisconsin Republican, a former Marine counterintelligence officer, chairs the weeks-old House committee on China. The panel holds its first hearing Tuesday, kicking off what he says will be a two-year effort to map a way for America to “selectively decouple” the two economies.
The committee will take a big-picture look at Beijing’s military rise, its threats to take over the democratically self-governed island of Taiwan by force, and its overt and covert efforts to influence public opinion by silencing critics and spreading propaganda.
THE FIRST HEARING LINEUP
Gallagher will set the tone with the first hearing, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday. The unusual evening schedule could widen the audience: Most congressional hearings occur during the day, when working Americans have a harder time tuning in.
Matthew Pottinger, a longtime China hawk who served as the top Asia policy official on former president Donald Trump’s National Security Council.
H.R. McMaster, a retired U.S. Army Lt. General who served Trump as national security adviser.
Tong Yi, a Chinese human rights advocate and former secretary to one of China’s most prominent dissidents, Wei Jingsheng. Gallagher said Tong was “about as credible as any human being” on the topic of China’s domestic repression of critics.
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Gallagher said Paul, added to the list by Democrats, would detail the economic damage to the United States from Chinese competition.
“Our hope is to come away from this with a better sense of why the CCP is a threat and why someone in Northeast Wisconsin or other parts of the country should care about that threat,” Gallagher said, using the abbreviation for the Chinese Communist Party.
WITH 2024 LOOMING, CAN THIS STAY BIPARTISAN?
As The Daily 202 chronicled back in December, Gallagher may have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stitch Republicans and Democrats together on sweeping policy responses to the challenge of China. That doesn’t mean there won’t be disagreements, even profound ones.
“We’re not going to agree on 100% of everything,” he said Sunday. “There may be times when I want to go further and more aggressively than the Democrats want to go, and vice versa. But we’re going to try to preserve the bipartisan center of gravity.”
Gallagher said “there’s a lot of disagreement about how exactly” America limits its economic relationship with China, but pointed to “a recognition in both parties” that this must happen.
“I think we can come up with a coherent framework for selective decoupling that has the buy-in of 70% of Congress,” he said.
A ‘TENSE DIALOGUE' WITH CORPORATE AMERICA
The committee will also look at the troubled and sometimes troubling relationship between corporate America and China, especially instances in which big firms, Hollywood, or the NBA have sometimes bent over backward to accommodate Beijing.
Gallagher said his panel “is going to be calling certain businesses, certain industries, to either testify before, or talk to behind closed doors, the committee, and explain what the trade-offs are to doing business” in China. It could be “a tense dialogue at times.”
“I understand why major American companies have a massive presence in China — same reason John Dillinger robbed banks: That’s where the money is,” Gallagher said. “And I get that the ship of state is an aircraft carrier, it doesn’t turn on a dime, so we’re not going to selectively decouple overnight, and I’m not calling for a complete decoupling.”
But American taxpayer dollars cannot be “unwittingly funding Communist genocide or PLA [People’s Liberation Army] modernization.”
IS BIDEN A PARTNER? OR SOMEONE TO PRESSURE?
“It depends on the issue,” according to Gallagher, who said he sees an administration “divided” along several lines. The National Security Council and the Pentagon seem more inclined to confront China, he said, while officials whose top priority is fighting climate change believe in “a more cooperative relationship with China.”
But there’s room to work together on issues like high tech, clearing a backlog of U.S. weapons shipments to Taiwan, trade, and taxation, he said. And perhaps the committee can help “empower” more hawkish officials inside the executive branch.
“The American system is premised on the idea you can have competing views,” Gallagher said. “We’ll preserve room for honest disagreement and debate. It doesn’t need to be holding hands and singing Kumbaya all the time.”
Wang Yi says China, U.S. should find 'the right way' to get along in talk with Blinken
Updated 20:03, 23-Dec-2022
CGTN
China and the United States should follow the direction set by the two heads of state to explore the right way for the two sides to get along with each other as two major countries, and make due efforts for the well-being of their people and world peace and stability, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a phone conversation Friday with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The phone conversation was made at the U.S. side's request.
Last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden met in Bali, Wang said, which provided strategic guidance for steering bilateral relations out of grave difficulties and back to a healthy and stable track, sending a positive signal to the outside world. Wang is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee.
The teams on both sides have carried out a series of contacts in accordance with the consensus of the two heads of state, which are generally beneficial, Wang said.
However, it must be noted that the United States should not engage in dialogue and containment at the same time, neither should it talk cooperation, but stab China simultaneously, he said.
This is not reasonable competition, but irrational suppression. It is not meant to properly manage disputes, but to intensify conflicts. In fact, it is still the old practice of unilateral bullying, Wang said.
This did not work for China in the past, nor will it work in the future, he said, adding that China will continue to resolutely defend its sovereignty, security and development interests.
The United States must pay attention to China's legitimate concerns, stop containing and suppressing China's development, especially not constantly challenge China's red line in a "salami-slicing" way, Wang said.
Wang stressed that the two sides should focus on translating the consensus reached by the two heads of state in their Bali meeting into practical policies and concrete actions.
Noting that the recent meeting between senior diplomats of the two countries in the Chinese city of Langfang was in-depth and constructive, Wang called on both sides to step up consultations on the guiding principles for China-U.S. relations, advance dialogues at various levels and in various fields in an orderly manner, and resolve specific issues between the two countries through joint working groups.
The New Year should have a new outlook, Wang said, adding that it is the hope of people in both countries and around the world that China-U.S. relations will stabilize and improve.
A zero-sum mindset will only lead to mutual attrition and head-on collision between the two major countries, Wang said, noting that what is right and what is wrong is all too clear.
For his part, Blinken said the United States is willing to discuss with China the guiding principles for bilateral relations, manage the relationship in a responsible manner, and carry out cooperation in areas that meet the common interests of both sides.
The United States continues to pursue the one-China policy and does not support "Taiwan independence," he said.
The United States lauds China's leadership and its role as the presidency of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to promote an ambitious framework for biodiversity conservation, Blinken said, adding that he looks forward to the United States and China working together to promote the implementation of the framework.
Wang said that China will continue to follow Xi Jinping's Thought on Ecological Civilization, strive to build a community of life between man and nature, and is willing to join hands with all parties to safeguard the only planet we live on together.
The two sides also exchanged views on the Ukraine issue. Wang emphasized that China has always stood on the side of peace, of the purposes of the UN Charter, and of the international society to promote peace and talks. China will continue to play a constructive role in resolving the crisis in China's own way, Wang said.
Mini-reflexão sobre o primeiro encontro dos dois grandes (do momento)
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
EUA e China têm o DEVER e a OBRIGAÇÃO MORAL de se entenderem e de cooperarem EM FAVOR da Humanidade, em especial dos países mais pobres.
Isso não implica, contudo, proselitismo ou atitudes tutelares, como, por exemplo, corrigir “defeitos” recíprocos ou ensinar democracia e DH um ao outro.
Mesmo os EUA se considerando o “farol do mundo” em matéria de democracia, liberdades ou direitos humanos, melhor eles desistirem de tentar “ensinar” tudo isso aos chineses: seria não apenas ridículo, mas, sobretudo, inútil.
Não se pode implantar certas coisas de fora para dentro.
Os EUA, que já tentaram fazer isso no Afeganistão e no Iraque, que torraram trilhões de dólares do povo americano em terras distantes, sem compreender muita coisa de onde estavam operando, que mataram e corromperam muita gente nesses países e que deixaram uma bagunça ainda pior por onde andaram, aliás em toda aquela faixa que vai do Mediterrâneo oriental até a Ásia do sul, os EUA deveriam saber perfeitamente disso.
Por que não fazem como a China e criam o seu próprio Belt and Road em cooperação com os chineses e em perfeita coordenação com eles: nem precisam fazer infraestrutura— que isso os chineses fazem melhor e mais barato—, mas podem cuidar de vacinas (como faz privadamente o Bill Gates, por exemplo), de educação para os mais pobres, segurança civil e uma série de outra coisas em total coordenação e complementariedade com os chineses?
Se fizerem isso, sem proselitismo, os povos se encarregarão de construir seus próprios sistemas políticos, de acordo com suas tradições e cultura.
Pode não ficar perfeito, mas se chineses ou americanos tentarem se imiscuir nos assuntos internos desses outros povos, aí sim é que não dará certo.
A única coisa que EUA e China precisam fazer, nesta etapa de suas relações respectivas, boas ou más como são atualmente, seria parar de se atacarem mutuamente, cooperarem em terceiros paises, limitar seus gastos (inúteis) em armamentos defensivos e ofensivos, e tentar construir conjuntamente um mundo de paz e segurança, que é, aliás, o que prometeram fazer os quatro grandes (a França veio na rabeira) ao cabo da Segunda Guerra Mundial, lembram-se?
Fizeram? NÃO!
Vão fazer? NÃO SEI!
Mas é o que deveriam fazer EUA, China, UE e Rússia, com o resto do G20 atrás, mais as agências da ONU e os bancos multilaterais, regionais e de infraestrutura.
É possível? Possível é, mas é pouco provável que o façam agora, pois faltam estadistas para isso.
Todos os líderes nacionais são naturalmente pressionados pelos lobbies tacanhos em seus respectivos países, e ficam torrando dinheiro com populismo ordinário em cada lugar.
O mundo ainda não evoluiu o bastante para construir o verdadeiro globalismo.
Não o globalismo idiota dos paranoicos da conspiração mundial por uma governança supranacional antidemocrática, mas o globalismo racional da cooperação para a prosperidade conjunta da Humanidade.
Ainda é muito cedo para isso: só saímos da Guerra de Troia há pouco, parece que foi ontem, e ainda estão muito fortes as paixões e os interesses.
Mas, daria para fazer se os quatro grandes se reunissem, discutissem essa plataforma mínima de entente e cooperação, e depois a apresentassem ao resto do G20.
Vai acontecer? Difícil!
Biden e Xi até poderiam se entender num segundo ou terceiro encontro, este, de preferência, presencial.
Mas o Putin não está com cara que toparia uma coisa dessas: ele não aprendeu nada com sua amiga Merkel, e não está disposto a abandonar seu neoczarismo autocrático em favor de um programa de cooperação com os chineses na Ásia central, por exemplo; a única coisa que ele quer fazer é perturbar e espicaçar o G7.
A UE poderia fazê-lo? Certamente, mas ela ainda tem muita confusão interna, trata mal a Turquia e não sabe o que fazer com aquela massa de refugiados econômicos, da fome e das guerras civis que chegam continuamente da África e do Oriente Médio. Vai demorar um pouco.
Não esperem muito da Índia, da Austrália ou da América Latina, centrados em seus próprios problemas nacionais e regionais.
O Brasil vai demorar mais um pouco para se recuperar de anos (séculos?) de corrupção sistêmica e, agora mais recentemente, de uma excepcional desgovernança perversa, que praticamente destruiu qualquer possibilidade de cooperação entre as suas próprias elites para sanar graves problemas de administração pública num sentido ético ou simplesmente moral. Acho que ainda não estamos prontos para reconstruir tão somente o próprio país, reunificar a nação, para pensarmos num ambicioso programa de regeneração da Humanidade. Nossas elites são tão medíocres que sequer conseguem se entender para a restauração interna, quanto mais para a cooperação multilateral, verdadeiramente globalista, no sentido aqui esboçado.
Ainda estamos muito pertos de nossas próprias “guerras de Troia”, com traições ordinárias e de baixa extração, no sentido mais vulgar do maquiavelismo político, para podermos pensar em colocar a casa em ordem e construir, não a prosperidade global, mas um mero espaço econômico integrado na América do Sul: ainda somos mesquinhamente muito protecionistas para decretar unilateralmente o livre comércio no âmbito regional, e nossas lideranças econômicas muito tacanhas para tomar tal tipo de iniciativa.
Eu estou bem mais otimista com a relação Biden-Xi do que com nossa próxima (improvável) recuperação econômica e, sobretudo, política.
Falta um Homero, para discorrer sobre as intervenções dos deuses em nossos assuntos terrenos, e o Olimpo está muito longe.
Na verdade, carecemos de estadistas para sequer começar a equacionar os problemas principais e depois formular um diagnóstico realista, antes dos duros prognósticos que teríamos de enfrentar decididamente.
Não existe Homero à vista, mas as elites precisariam pelo menos começar a dialogar entre si. Elas seriam ao menos capazes de fazê-lo?
Como é mesmo aquela previsão sombria, segundo a qual os deuses primeiro enlouquecem aqueles que querem perder?
Acho que estamos no meio disso!
Essas elites medíocres vão finalmente se decidir a fazer alguma coisa antes de algum novo desastre em outubro de 2022?
Não tenho certeza quanto a isso. Acho que vamos tatear pelo pântano por mais algum tempo. Sorry pelo realismo.
O próprío título da matéria – "ameaça chinesa" – e as palavras dos interlocutores – "atitude belicosa da China" – refletem a postura confrontacionista dos EUA vis-a-vis a China.
Temas que deveriam ser resolvidos no plano multilateral – postura maliciosa da China no sistema multilateral de comércio, roubo de propriedade intelectual – estão sendo pressionados pela via bilateral. Não vai dar certo, assim como não vai dar certo os EUA se meterem nos assuntos internos da China. PRA
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the threat posed by China
Norah O'Donnell speaks with Secretary Blinken in a wide-ranging interview that touches on China's recent military aggression, winding down the long war in Afghanistan and the immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.
In his first 100 days, President Biden focused on the coronavirus pandemic, but over the course of his term, the Biden presidency will be defined by how the United States competes with China. In a few years, China's economy is expected to surpass the U.S. as the world's biggest.
To determine how the United States will deal with China's growing influence, Mr. Biden has chosen one of his closest aides as secretary of state. It falls to Antony Blinken to rebuild a depleted and demoralized State Department, repair U.S. alliances and champion what diplomats call "the rules-based international order" -- the written and unwritten code that governs how nations deal with one another. Rules that, he says, are now threatened by China.
Antony Blinken: It is the one country in the world that has the military, economic, diplomatic capacity to undermine or challenge the rules-based order that we-- we care so much about and are determined to defend. But I want to be very clear about something. And this is important. Our purpose is not to contain China, to hold it back, to keep it down. It is to uphold this rules-based order that China is posing a challenge to. Anyone who poses a challenge to that order, we're going to stand up and-- and defend it.
Norah O'Donnell: I know you say the goal is not to contain China, but have you ever seen China be so assertive or aggressive militarily?
Antony Blinken: No, we haven't. I think what we-- what we've witnessed over the last-- several years is China acting more repressively at home and more aggressively abroad. That is a fact.
Norah O'Donnell: What's China's goal?
Antony Blinken: I think that over time, China believes that it-- it-- it can be and should be and will be the dominant-- country in the world.
This past week, China's President Xi unveiled three new warships to patrol the South China Sea.
It already has the world's largest Navy - and could use it to invade Taiwan, a democratic island and long-standing U.S. ally.
Norah O'Donnell: Do you think we're heading towards some sort of military confrontation with China?
Antony Blinken: I think it's profoundly against the interests of both China and the United States-- to-- to get to that point, or even to head in that direction.
Norah O'Donnell: Let's talk about human rights. Describe what you see is happening in Xinjiang that maybe the rest of the world doesn't.
Antony Blinken: We've made clear that we see a genocide having taken place against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. More than a million people have been put into, choose your term, concentration camps, reeducation camps, internment camps. When Beijing says, "Oh, there's a terrorism threat," which we don't see. It's not coming from a million people.
Norah O'Donnell interviews Secretary of State Antony Blinken
Six weeks ago in Alaska, Secretary Blinken confronted Yang Jiechi, China's top diplomat, about genocide in Xinjiang and China's military aggression.
Blinken to Jiechi: We feel an obligation to raise these issues here today.
The exchange became an international incident caught on camera and not lost in translation.
Jiechi through translator: The United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.
Norah O'Donnell: If Xinjiang isn't a red line with China, then what is?
Antony Blinken: Look, we don't have-- the luxury of not dealing with China. There are real complexities to the relationship, whether it's the adversarial piece, whether it's the competitive piece, whether it's the cooperative piece.
Even before the meeting in Alaska, President Xi had warned about the dawn of a new cold war. During President Trump's time in office, China found the U.S. less predictable than past administrations.
President Trump: And I just announced another 10% tariff.
Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese products in response to what he called unfair trade practices -- and the theft of U.S. intellectual property. So far, the Biden administration has kept the tariffs in place.
President Biden: I also told President Xi that we'll maintain a strong military presence.
China may be the only big issue of the day in Washington in which Democrats and Republicans find common cause.
Norah O'Donnell: The Chinese have stolen hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars of trade secrets and intellectual property from the United States. That sounds like the actions of an enemy.
Antony Blinken: Certainly sounds like the actions of-- of-- of someone who's trying to compete unfairly-- and increasingly in adversarial ways. But we're much more effective and stronger when we're bringing like-minded and similarly aggrieved countries together to say to-- Beijing, "This can't stand, and it won't stand."
Norah O'Donnell: So is that a message that President Biden has delivered to President Xi?
Antony Blinken: Certainly in their-- in their first conversation-- they covered a lot of ground.
Norah O'Donnell: It was a, reportedly, a two-hour phone call?
Antony Blinken: It was. Yeah, I was there.
Norah O'Donnell: And so did President Biden tell President Xi to cut it out?
Antony Blinken: President Biden made clear-- that in a number of-- areas we have-- real concerns about the actions that--China has taken, and that includes in the economic area, and that includes-- the theft of intellectual property.
Norah O'Donnell: China's gross domestic product is expected to surpass the United States as early as 2028.
Antony Blinken: Well, it's a large country, it's got a lotta people.
Norah O'Donnell: If China becomes the wealthiest country in the world, doesn't that also make it the most powerful?
Antony Blinken: A lot depends on how it uses that wealth. It has an aging population. It has significant environmental problems. And so on. But here's the way I think about it, Norah, writ large, if we're talking about what really makes the wealth of a nation, fundamentally it's its human resources and the ability of any one country to maximize their potential. That's the challenge for us, it's the challenge for China. I think we're in a much better place to maximize that-- that human potential than any country on Earth, if we're smart about it.
Norah O'Donnell: China thinks long-term, strategically, decades in advance. Is America just caught up on the latest fires here and there? And we are not thinking long-term, strategically? And, as a result, China will surpass us?
Antony Blinken: What I've found looking at our own history, is that when we've confronted a significant challenge, significant competition-- significant adversity, we've managed to come together and actually do the long-term thinking, the long-term investment. And that is really the moment we're in now, and that's the test that I think we're facing. Are we actually going to rise to it? I-- President Biden believes we are.
Antony Blinken occupies a suite of offices on the 7th floor of the State Department, but he first worked for Joe Biden at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee nearly 20 years ago and has barely left his side since. In the Obama White House, Secretary Blinken held concurrent roles as an assistant to the president and the national security advisor for Vice President Biden.
Antony Blinken: It's been the most consequential professional relationship, and-- and also in many ways, personal relationship that I've-- that I've had.
Norah O'Donnell: How often do you speak?
Antony Blinken: It's pretty close to daily.
Norah O'Donnell: You speak to him every day?
Antony Blinken: In one way or another. We're pretty good at meetings. (LAUGH) So there are a few of those.
Norah O'Donnell: When I thought about the relationship that you have had with-- with President Biden over the years in the Senate and then when he was vice president, the only relationship that I could come up with, though I'm not a historian, was, of course, Secretary Baker and President George H.W. Bush.
Antony Blinken: I'd be flattered by any comparison to Secretary Baker. I actually-- I spoke to him on the phone a few months ago. And we talked about the importance of-- ideally, of secretary of state having a close relationship with-- with the president. He was extraordinarily effective for all sorts of reasons. But that was, I think, a source of-- of his effectiveness.
Secretary of State James Baker helped President George H.W. Bush end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The current secretary is in the midst of winding down America's longest war, in Afghanistan.
Norah O'Donnell: Are you prepared for a worst case scenario in Afghanistan, where the U.S. -backed government fails, and the Taliban takes over?
Antony Blinken: We have to be prepared for every scenario, and there-- there are a range of them. And-- we-- we-- we're looking at this-- in a very clear-eyed way. But Norah, we've been engaged in Afghanistan for 20 years, and we sometimes forget why we went there in the first place, and that was to deal with the people who attacked us on 9/11. And we did. Just because our troops are coming home doesn't mean we're leaving. We're not. Our embassy's staying, the support that we're giving to Afghanistan when it comes to-- economic support, development, humanitarian, that-- that remains. And not only from us, from partners and allies.
Norah O'Donnell: Somewhat related. Will the Biden administration close Guantanamo Bay?
Antony Blinken: We believe that it should be, that's certainly a goal, but it's something that we'll bring some focus to in the months ahead.
In this past Wednesday's address to Congress, President Biden spoke about his plans for immigration reform.
President Biden: For more than 30 years, politicians have talked about immigration reform and we've done nothing about it. It's time to fix it.
It's a subject not usually central to the State Department's mission. But we asked Secretary Blinken about it because of the refugee crisis on America's southern border.
Norah O'Donnell: Border crossings for undocumented immigrants have skyrocketed. In March, more than 170,000 people were taken into custody. That's the highest in 20 years. Are the policies of the Biden administration to blame?
Antony Blinken: No. What we're seeing is indeed-- a surge of people to the border. We've seen that-- in the past. But we inherited a totally broken system. Broken intentionally. And it takes time to fix it, and by the way, our message is very clear, "Don't come. The border is not open. You won't get in." But we have to understand what is motivating so many people to do this. And it is usually desperation.
Norah O'Donnell: (AFFIRM). But that's not new. I want to talk about the policies of the Biden administration, because President Biden did use his executive authority to curb deportation, to allow more asylum seekers to enter the United States. So are these new policies by the administration contributing to this surge?
Antony Blinken: We're focused when it comes to people coming in to making sure that-- that children-- unaccompanied minors are treated humanely and according to the law.
Norah O'Donnell: Is it problematic to tell migrants, "Well, no you can't come here," and then at the same time create a different situation on the ground that does allow them to come?
Antony Blinken: But-- but the point is that they're not. One-- one of the challenges that-- that we've had is that-- traffickers and others are trying to tell them that "the border's open." It's not.
Norah O'Donnell: But children are being allowed in, and then they're being--
Antony Blinken: Children are the one exception, because we-- we will not, it-- it is the-- it is the right thing to do. We are not going to abide the notion that children are kept in a precarious, dangerous situation. That is unacceptable.
Blinken himself is a father of two young children and hails from a family that only a few generations ago were themselves refugees. His paternal great grandfather, Meir Blinkin, emigrated to New York City from Ukraine, fleeing Russian oppression in 1904.
This coming week, the secretary of state will visit Ukraine to show support for the country currently in the throes of more recent Russian aggression
Norah O'Donnell: President Putin has amassed a very large force at the border with Ukraine, more than 100,000 troops. What is Putin up to?
Antony Blinken: (LAUGH) You're right. There are-- more forces amassed on the border with Ukraine than any time since 2014, when Russia actually invaded. I can't tell you that we know-- Mr. Putin's intentions. There are any number of things that he could do or-- or-- or choose not to do. What we have seen in-- the last few days is apparently a decision to pull back some of those forces and we've seen some of them in fact start to pull back.
Norah O'Donnell: That's been verified that they are pulling back?
Antony Blinken: Starting now. We're watching that very, very carefully.
Produced by Keith Sharman. Associate producer, Kate Morris. Broadcast associates, Elizabeth Germino and Olivia Rinaldi. Edited by Michael Mongulla.
