Nova Guerra Fria EUA-China: da contenção à convivência? Já não era sem tempo… - Chen Qingqing and Yan Yuzhu (Global Times)

 Finalmente, parece que os paranoicos de Washington estão se convencendo que a estratégia de contenção da China e até de hostilidade está fadada ao insucesso, inclusive porque ela era absurda e até ridicula. Vamos aguardar o encontro Biden -Xi Jinping para ver se os paranóicos pararam de pautar a política externa da grande potência mundial.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 

Global Times, Pequim – 12.11.2021

Sullivan's remarks suggest softer tone on US-China ties, but 'words alone are not enough'

Experts warn of duplicity of Washington's China policy

Chen Qingqing and Yan Yuzhu

 

The latest remarks of US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, which claimed that the Biden administration is not seeking a fundamental transformation of the Chinese system, appeared to signal a softer rhetoric of the Biden administration on bilateral relations, but experts warned that China should remain vigilant on the duplicity in US' China policy and potential flip-flops. 

Sullivan told CNN that the goal of America's China policy is to create a circumstance in which two major powers are going to have to operate in an international system for the foreseeable future. "And we want the terms of that kind of co-existence in the international system to be favorable to American interests and values," he said, noting that under such a circumstance, the rules of the road reflect an open, fair, free Indo-Pacific region and an open, fair, as well as free international economic systems. 

The senior US official admitted that the Chinese government does have a different approach to many of those issues, and the goal of America is not containment and not a new cold war.Sullivan also pointed out that "one of the errors of previous approaches to policy toward China has been a view that through US policy, we would bring about a fundamental transformation of the Chinese system," which is not the object of the Biden administration. 

Those remarks showed that the Biden administration tried to play down its rhetoric on US-China relations compared to earlier this year, as it understood that consistently emphasizing confrontation or rivalry doesn't benefit long-term bilateral relations, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Monday. 

"In diplomacy, the current US government is also trying to distinguish itself from the former Trump administration, and we welcome this change," the Chinese expert said. 

From high-level meetings between US and China officials in Alaska in March to Tianjin talks in July, to the latest face-to-face interaction between senior diplomats of the two countries in Zurich, Switzerland in October, there have been positive signals from the frank conversations and interactions between the two countries. 

The US appeared to have adjusted its reckless and unrealistic strategy of dealing with China from the position of strength, especially after it corrected one mistake on the two lists that China presented to the US in July by resolving the issue of Huawei's senior executive Meng Wanzhou, some experts said. 

From an objective perspective, the US has no ability to change China's political system, and Sullivan's remarks also showed that the US government has given up on the fantasy of changing Chinese system through keeping in touch with the country or suppressing it, Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times on Monday. 

But US political elites, especially in the Biden administration, have aspired to change China's political system for a long time. Then they gradually found out that it's a "mission impossible" whether by means of pressure from the Trump administration or a cooperative rivalry strategy from the Biden administration, Xin noted. 

"The problem is not that the US government does not want to change China, but the US does not have the ability to do that, and would only hit a bumpy road if not working with China," he said. 

The two countries have multiple fronts to work on together including some urgent issues such as climate change, COVID-19 epidemic prevention and economic recovery. 

"For example, on trade, the Biden administration had planned to continue pressuring China with added tariffs imposed by his predecessor. But those tariffs hurt America amid the epidemic," Xin said, noting that Sullivan's words could be seen as a strategic pledge that the US is willing to respect China's core interests.

Although the objective of the Biden administration is not to change the Chinese system, Sullivan pointed out that it is to shape the international environment so that it is more favorable to the interests and values of the US, its allies and partners 

"Although Sullivan tried to play down the rhetoric on China, he indicated the purpose of the Biden administration is to create an environment that is unfavorable to China," Lü said. 

On cross-Straits tensions, Sullivan said that the US government has no intention of changing the status quo, claiming that the US government continues to adhere to the one-China principle and the so-called Taiwan Relations Act. 

Over the past few months, the US has been advancing its salami-slicing trick in challenging China's bottom line on the Taiwan question. For example, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley recently claimed that the US has the ability to "defend Taiwan" and US military aircraft landed on the island, which were seen as severe provocation. 

Regarding the Taiwan question, "not changing the status quo" is just the same old story in a different context of time and space when the US is more worried about the Chinese mainland changing the status quo by force, Xin noted. "Those words were also meant for the island, that the US will not support the secessionists in the island to change the status quo of the Taiwan Straits which is a restraint to 'Taiwan independence' and the DPP authority," he said.

It's impossible for the US to abandon strategic ambiguity over Taiwan which would draw itself into a deep dilemma, the expert warned. 

US has no better choice but to stick to strategic ambiguity, which is currently the best option to meet its interests and avoid a US-China conflict, according to experts. 

"We should remain cautious on the duplicity in the US' China policy - in other words, saying one thing and doing another," Lü said. 

A obsessão em culpar a China pela Covid-19 está distorcendo os relatórios oficiais: Marcos Cordeiro Pires (Unesp) - Global Times

  Uma entrevista sobre a obsessão do momento...

Global Times, Pequim – 23.8.2021

US sensationalizes COVID-19 origins tracing as propaganda game: Brazilian professor

 

The deadline of the 90-day investigation into the coronavirus origins set by the Biden administration draws near, and US intelligence agencies are reportedly gearing up their efforts to compile a report. Do these intelligence agencies have the ability and reliability to trace where the virus comes from? What consequences will politicizing the origins tracing bring to the world? Global Times (GT) reporters Li Qingqing and Yu Jincui talked to Marcos Cordeiro Pires (Pires), a professor of political economics at Sao Paulo State University, Brazil over these issues.

 

GT: Regarding the coronavirus origins tracing, you said the US only accepts results that can convict China. Why do you say so? 

Pires: First, it is necessary to consider that nowadays, the truth of the facts have been overshadowed by the irrationalism of the so-called post-truth. In this communicational and semiotic framework, facts are distorted in favor of narratives that justify the prejudices associated with a particular political or social project. This is not new and has been gaining strength since the 1980s with the rise of neoliberalism. Today, the evolution of IA (Information Architecture) and social media is reinforced with clear political goals like Q-Anon and its instrumentalization by the Republican Party. Lies are reproduced on a large scale, with the help of algorithms, to create an "alternative truth." In this regard, China has been unfairly criminalized for having been wrongly accused of leaking the coronavirus, destroying the US jobs, and becoming the new "Evil Empire," as Ronald Reagan referred to the former USSR.

The anti-China rhetoric created by Donald Trump has become so ingrained in American society that it has become a trap from which Joe Biden cannot escape. Looking at the November 2022 elections, Biden and the Democratic Party are looking to maintain tension with China to rally support. For this, he can't look weak with China. Furthermore, lobby groups interested in a new Cold War, such as The Committee on the Present Danger: China, or groups that want to change the Chinese socialist system, such as the National Endowment for Democracy or Heritage Foundation, have strongly influenced the political system and, consequently, in the media and public opinion, forcing the government to deal harshly with China. In this context, the rhetoric that the virus's origin was an accidental or deliberate leak from a Wuhan laboratory has become almost a consensus. In this sense, any report that says this is false will fall into disrepute because the narrative built on Chinese guilt is already ingrained in public opinion. Thus, even if the investigations were done honestly and presented evidence of the impossibility of the leak, the final report would say "that it is not possible to 100 percent rule out" this hypothesis, leaving room for conspiracy theories.

GT: US intelligence agencies are preparing an investigation report on the origins of the virus and the report will be released soon. The US debacle in Afghanistan has shown the world how inept the US intelligence services were in misjudging the Afghanistan situation. Do these agencies have the ability and reliability to trace where the virus comes from? 

Pires: We can never underestimate the investigative capacity of the US intelligence sector. The agencies have a lot of money, technological capabilities, highly educated personnel, and a vast network of collaborators spread worldwide, within governments, media, social institutions, and universities. Edward Snowden's 2013 leaks showed the coverage of the US intelligence network, which has increased since then due to the evolution of big data and artificial intelligence. So, if the intelligence services were to seriously address any issue, it is very likely that they would build a report that is well-founded in facts. But that is not what it is about: The information will be politically manipulated to offer the government the narrative that interests the containing China policy because, at this moment, it is what is more convenient to the strategic objectives of the US elites.

GT: What influences will a report that aims to convict China have? In your judgment, what will the US do next? 

Pires: We assume that the report that will be released on August 26 will be used against China, regardless of the accuracy of its information. If no evidence is found, there will be a caveat that "the Chinese authorities did not cooperate with the investigations," so we cannot say that this possibility is 100 percent safe. So they will continue to pressure China in search of a supposed truth that fits the original narrative. There will always be the hypothesis that an "anonymous source close to Chinese authorities" has shown evidence of virus manipulation. Still, that source will never be revealed, leaving the case open. The pressure on the virus's origin will persist until another event arises to continue putting China on the defensive. This was the logic of the Cold War, and this is the logic that is prevailing today.

GT: For future origins tracing investigations, more than 25 million Chinese netizens have petitioned to probe the US' Fort Detrick biolab. Some international scholars also believe other countries, including the US, should allow WHO teams to access facilities on their soil. What's your take on this? 

Pires: In a context where mankind faces many global challenges, such as the pandemic, climate change, ocean pollution, and so on, cooperation is the only possible way to solve problems that affect everyone. If, since the beginning of the pandemic, the US had adopted a strategy based on science and international cooperation, the world would suffer much less than today, with 211 million people infected and almost 4.5 million dead. Cooperation and support for multilateralism is the most rational solution available to the international community. However, when the ideal world is confronted with the real world, we see that there are many limitations. The US will never open its chemical weapons laboratory to international inspection, any more than it will allow its citizens to be tried for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. Being by far the hegemonic power, they have the power to dictate their own rules, at least for now. Here is the basis of your double-standard behavior: Do as I say, don't do as I do! 

GT: Have you ever anticipated that the pandemic could be politicized like how it is today? Who is politicizing the pandemic? What consequences will politicizing the issue bring to the world?

Pires: As a Brazilian and researcher, I have reflected a lot on COVID-19 in Brazil and the world. Since March 2020, I have followed the politicization of the issue. At that time, Brazilian citizens of eastern origin (Japanese, Chinese and Koreans) were victims of racist aggression in the streets for accusing them of transmitting the coronavirus. 

In mid-2020, we thought that the development of vaccines would overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. But we didn't count on the denial, lies and anti-vaccination stances spread worldwide by the US far-right groups, which hit hard in Brazil, and how this posture contributed to delaying the fight against it and the spraying of new virus strains. 

As we are seeing, the countries that most used science and social mobilization showed the best results in containing the pandemic, such as China, Vietnam, Singapore, or South Korea. On the other hand, in those countries where denial and individualism prevailed, the situation got out of control, such as the US, Brazil, Latin America and Western Europe, which populations have suffered the most from infections and illnesses. Brazil, for example, shows a death rate that reaches 2,700 per million.

Concerning the latter, the far-right groups have sought to boycott any collective action, in addition to creating false narratives about fanciful medicines, denying the lethality of the virus, and doing anti-vaccination campaigns. Besides this, they still accuse China of having made the "Chinese virus" for geopolitical and economic purposes and defame Chinese vaccines. These problems go on.

GT: Brazil was one of the earliest countries which approved the use of Chinese COVID-19 vaccines and has carried out sound cooperation with China in this regard. When it comes to the origins tracing and opposing the politicization of the issue, what kind of cooperation do you think could the two countries conduct?

Pires: As we mentioned above, the theme of COVID-19 in Brazil is highly politicized, especially by President Jair Bolsonaro and his far-right supporters. During the pandemic, Bolsonaro, his family, and his followers attacked China, Ambassador Yang Wanming, and governors seeking to establish partnerships with China.

Bolsonaro has already been proud to be called the "Trump of the Tropics," and, since 2019, he has had a bad government, not just in managing the pandemic. By the way, a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission is underway in the Federal Senate, which has revealed numerous crimes committed by its government, including blaming and delaying the purchase of Coronavac vaccines, developed by the Sinovac laboratory. Today Bolsonaro threatens the country with a coup d'état that will guarantee him power indefinitely. But Brazilian society is on alert.

Even considering that Bolsonaro blocked the dialogue with China, there is much room for bilateral collaboration, as Brazil is much larger and more complex than the current ruler. State governments, the National Congress, the Judiciary, state governors, capital mayors, universities, research laboratories, and companies have greatly valued their relationship with China. There are common themes in which the dialogue is very fluid, such as trade, investments, scientific research, and the New Development Bank management. As soon as Jair Bolsonaro's government passes, relations between Brazil and China will return to the historical axis of cooperation and mutual respect.

 

Quem ainda fala em “decoupling” das economias dos EUA e da China? - Global Times (Beijing)

 Na verdade, Biden ainda não revisou oficialmente a insana política comercial de Trump, nem a guerra tecnológica que este último deslanchou contra o país asiático, para MAIOR PREJUÍZO das empresas e consumidores americanos. 

Quando vai cessar a loucura?

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

 

Global Times, Pequim – 7.5.2021

China-US trade rises 50% Jan-Apr, highlighting inseparable bilateral economic ties

 

Trade between China and the US continued an upward trend in the past four months, official data showed, highlighting inseparable economic relations between the two countries, although a political chill still exists.  

In the first four months of the year, China’s trade with the US rose 50.3 percent year-on-year to 1.44 trillion yuan ($222.8 billion), making the US its third largest trading partner after the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and EU economies, according to data from the General Administration of Customs on Friday.

China’s exports to the US rose 49.3 percent while imports gained 53.3 percent, and the trade surplus with the US was 653.89 billion yuan, an increase of 47 percent.

Although growth slowed a little bit compared to the two countries' trade rise in the first three months of this year, it is still “under expectation” in the eyes of several Chinese economists, who stressed that it shows that China is still in a stable position to implement the China-US phase one trade deal.

The large increase in imports and exports between China and the US shows that both sides have demand, Tian Yun, vice director of the Beijing Economic Operation Association, told the Global Times, adding that China is implementing the China-US phase one trade deal, but China will increase demand accordingly, instead of blindly expanding imports to the US. 

He said China-US relations will be in a state of “political chill and economic heat” this year, and the balance of trade between China and the US requires the US to liberalize rather than restrict exports to China.

The growing surplus shows that the reason cited by the former Trump administration to collect tariffs from China is “groundless,” Gao Lingyun, a trade expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, who closely follows China-US trade issues, told the Global Times on Friday.

He said the widening data is in contrast with US ambitions to reduce the gap — one of the key motivations for former US president Donald Trump to launch the trade war with China.

Currently, most of the tariffs remain in place under the new Biden administration.  

The reason why there is still a big jump for China’s exports to the US is the demand on exports of anti-epidemic materials, and growing imports is due to the fact that China is in progress of completing the China-US phase one trade deal, and rising prices brought by depreciation of the dollar is also one of the pushes for growing imports, Gao added.

US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said on Wednesday that she expects to engage "in the near term" with Chinese officials to assess the implementation of the China-US phase one trade deal, and the outcome will affect how the Biden administration deals with punitive tariffs imposed on Chinese goods, Reuters reported.

As the US government has expressed an expectation of holding a dialogue with leading Chinese trade officials for a review of the phase one trade deal — the first time since US President Joe Biden took the White House — Chinese experts urged the US to remove at least part of the punitive tariffs imposed on Chinese products to show sincerity for the trade deal's smooth implementation.

China-US trade spiraled up by a striking 61.3 percent in yuan terms in the first quarter of this year to reach 1.08 trillion yuan. This growth outpaced all of China's other major trading partners including Japan, the EU, and ASEAN economies.

5G: governo volta atrás na disposição em barrar a Huawei - Global Times (China)

 Mais uma derrota para os aloprados do governo, sobretudo para o patético chanceler acidental.

SOURCE / COMPANIES        GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

Brazil ditches US drive to strangle Huawei: report

Trump administration’s move fails, decision makers return to business

By Chu Daye Published: Jan 17, 2021 10:00 PM

   

A visitor checks out a Huawei device at the Huawei Campus in Dongguan, Guangdong Province on August 10, 2019. Photo: VCG

The telecommunications sector will see a back-to-square-one moment, in which business considerations regain their rightful position from political considerations, Chinese analysts said on Sunday, after reports that the Brazilian government became the first in the world to backtrack on its opposition to Huawei's 5G bid.
The Brazil will not seek to bar the Chinese telecommunication giant from its 2021 5G network auctions in June, Reuters reported, citing local newspaper Estado de S. Paulo.
Financial costs potentially worth billions of dollars and the exit of US President Donald Trump are forcing President Jair Bolsonaro, who had opposed Huawei on unproven grounds, to backtrack on his opposition to Huawei's bid, the paper said.
Chinese analysts said the reported move is significant as it makes Brazil the first country to change its stance on Huawei after Trump's election loss.
Fu Liang, a Beijing-based telecom industry expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that as Trump leaves the White House and the US failed in its promise to provide badly needed vaccines to Brazil, which has been hit hard by the virus, Brazil's committed pro-US stance naturally did not materialize.
Brazil has the second-highest COVID-19 death toll after the US, and the government is being criticized for a slow vaccination process.  
Brazil's reported move to allow Huawei to bid is a setback for the Trump administration's so-called "Clean Network" scheme, for which it painstakingly lobbied around the world, coercing and luring countries to shun Chinese high-tech companies. The Brazilian development indicates the Trump administration's campaign to smear and exclude Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei is likely to fail globally, analysts said.
"Without the stick-and-carrot approach of the Trump administration, more countries will fall back to a neutral stance after they ventured to move against Huawei," Fu said. 
Fu predicted that more countries, including the UK and Canada, will take a similar approach as Brazil. As for the so-called "Clean Network" scheme, it will likely be changed under Joe Biden, according to Fu.
Under pressure from the US, countries including the UK moved to ban Huawei. But their plans left room for a future change.
Yi Beichen, a veteran mobile internet observer, told the Global Times on Sunday that while it remains to be seen whether Brazil will be followed by other countries, the development showed that in 2021, more telecom carriers will make their decisions based on business, not politics. 
Despite the ruthless crackdown by the US, Huawei still held its No.1 position as a global telecommunication gear provider with a 30-percent market share for the first nine months of 2020, per data from market intelligence firm Dell'Oro.
This was due to Huawei's worldwide advantages in cost, technology, and security in 5G technologies, analysts said.
"Brazil's reported move complies with business logic. Will that backtrack score a win for the country's consumers and cause more countries to follow suit? That depends on Huawei's service," Yi said.
However, as the world is still new to the 5G technology, and the fast-changing global situation, Huawei still faces challenges to defend its position, Yi said.
Fu agreed, saying that there have been calls in the Western world to have more telecom hardware providers than the few current giants such as Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung.
The world is getting polarized and countries are doing their best to protect their own interests, Fu said.

O conflito (ainda verbal) entre os EUA e a China - três artigos

Agradeço IMENSAMENTE a meu amigo e colega Pedro Luiz Rodrigues por me abastecer diariamente dos mais ricos materiais da imprensa internacional sobre temas da mais alta relevância para minha informação, reflexão e depois elaboração eventual de minhas próprias análises sobre os temas em pauta. 

Como sempre ocorre, não “compro” todas as análises e opiniões contidas nessas matérias, mas procuro refletir e opinar com base em meu próprio conhecimento, e em outras leituras, e a partir daí elaborar alguma opinião levando em conta o interesse dos brasileiros, individualmente, da sociedade brasileira e do Estado brasileiro, nessa exata ordem. Ou seja, não é por ser diplomata (mais anarco, do que disciplina, ou afeto à hierarquia) que vou defender os interesses do Estado brasileiro, cujas políticas (de governos) são muito influenciadas por suas elites — civis, militares, econômicas e políticas —, que nem sempre possuem o melhor julgamento do interesse nacional, em relação ao qual, repito, o interesse dos indivíduos passa antes dos interesses dos dirigentes ou do Estado.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

China’s catastrophic success:

US strategic blunders fuel rivalry

Deepening enmity could amplify Beijing’s assessment that

Washington may pursue the overthrow of the CCP as an end goal.

John Culver

Lowy Interpreter, Sydney – 25.7.2020

The Trump administration publicly identified China as a great power competitor in its November 2017 National Security Strategy. 

From Beijing’s perspective, China and the United States have been moving toward a strategic “systems rivalry” for the past decade. The CCP apparently reached this strategic conclusion after the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis and framed some of the more dire implications for its rule in the 2012 CCP “Document No. 9”.  

Beijing assumes that this rivalry will last decades. It could involve periods of “cold war” and military conflict – especially in East Asia, where US alliance responsibilities and Chinese sovereignty claims and “red lines” converge. From the CCP’s Marxist-Leninist perspective, the side that best marshals superior domestic stability, economic performance and relevance to international conditions will prevail.  

If Beijing comes to see US antagonism to CCP rule as structural and bipartisan – especially in the aftermath of the 2020 US elections – China’s self-imposed restraint to prioritise stable US relations and drive economic reform and growth would be greatly weakened.

Beijing saw China’s “composite” national power as rising relative to that of the United States. But this was only partially due to China’s correct choices. 

Beijing assumed that as Washington saw China closing the gap in “comprehensive national power” it would react, seeking to blunt China’s ability to challenge America’s status as global hegemon and dominant power in the Indo-Pacific.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, China had been both restrained and constrained in its response to what it saw as US economic, trade, financial wars and information aggression. Beijing still recognised a need for a predictable, and if possible, stable, relationship with Washington. To borrow a phrase, China adopted a hedging strategy over the past three years of “fighting without breaking/splitting”. (斗而不破 ).

Beijing saw the trade war as largely motivated by US domestic politics.

But the past may not be prologue. As Wang Jisi, “dean” of the Chinese America-watching community noted in April

The deepening enmity of US-China strategic rivalry is eroding core CCP assumptions that competition would remain bounded – by nuclear deterrence, deep economic integration, shared stewardship of financial stability and cooperation on global challenges such as pandemics – and may be amplifying Beijing’s assessment that the US is on a trajectory to pursue overthrow of the CCP as a strategic goal.  

If Beijing comes to see US antagonism to CCP rule as structural and bipartisan – especially in the aftermath of the 2020 US elections – China’s self-imposed restraint to prioritise stable US relations and drive economic reform and growth would be greatly weakened. For the CCP, the relatively peaceful, stable global and regional environment that prevailed in the late bipolar Cold War and post-Cold War would end. Economic growth and rising prosperity would diminish as sources of regime legitimacy. Defence of the CCP system, fuelled by nationalism, and more active cooperation with Russia and other US adversaries, could become more prominent.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position or views of the US government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

*

Broad support helps China withstand US shock wave

Global Times, Pequim – 29.7.2020 – Editorial

The US has launched an overall suppression against China, and is trying to rope in Western countries to form an anti-China alliance. The world has bad expectations for China-US relations. But Chinese society has withstood the US-initiated new shock wave in a relatively stable manner

First, the US hastily started a new cold war against China, and US society is far from forming a consensus on it Part of the new cold war comes from the US elites' true will and motivation, but a large part is because of the Trump administration's attempt to divert domestic attention to achieve reelection. The new cold war cannot be regarded as the US' established strategy toward China. It will be tested by time.

Chinese society has formed a broad consensus of avoiding a new cold war with the US, and breaking Washington's strategic containment by expanding opening-up and doing our own things well. China's strategy is very practical, while the US needs to make every effort to make changes. Every step the US takes may face huge resistance.

Second, Washington has faced a bad beginning. 

Third, the China-US trade war prepares Chinese society for bigger challenges from the US. It shows Chinese people that US strength is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the flaws in the US system. All this, coupled with Washington's intensified anti-China political show, has reshaped the Chinese people's understanding of the US. The impression that "the US is outstanding in every aspect" has completely collapsed among Chinese people. More Chinese people now believe China and the US have their own strengths. Chinese society is confident when facing the US.

Fourth, China and the US are competing for the support of other Western countries and most countries worldwide. It is generally believed that the US has a great advantage in persuading Western countries. But this is not the case.

Western countries have similar values with the US. However, the US requires them to follow in opposing China by giving up their own interests. China encourages them to be relatively neutral, which is more in line with their own interests. China's suggestion is a normal choice for these countries, but the US requires them to make painful changes. Which country is more likely to succeed?

Fifth, in the face of the US' frenzied suppression, China has acted calmly. China has only carried out countermeasures. China's countermeasures are reciprocal and do not expand to other areas. On US global suppression, China is its most powerful opponent. The US attacks are exhausting, and China's counterattacks are orderly. China's endurance has shown its advantages.

Sixth, Washington tries to completely destroy relations with Beijing, which has posed serious risks to US national interests, and also harmed world peace. Washington has lost in terms of morality and justice. This will generally help China accumulate more resources to resist US suppression.

Seventh, there are still some Chinese people who worry about the US turning against China. Some of them simply find it hard to adapt to sudden changes, and most of them worry that China will be trapped into self-isolation and conservatism under US pressure. However, these are all within the scope of the Chinese people's ability to adjust. Since the trade war, China has been moving forward steadily. We have every reason to believe that the more we fight, the wiser we become, and the more we mature.

*

Beijing to balance nationalism with pragmatism in US relations

Sarah Zheng, Kinling Lo and Jun Mai

South China Morning Post, Hong Kong – 29.7.2020 

Beijing - 

Analysts say that despite the “Wolf Warrior” attitude from Chinese diplomats, official rhetoric and online nationalists, Beijing has stopped short of overly provocative steps and has not, or cannot, retaliate with equal force to American diplomatic volleys.

Tensions flared last week when the US ordered China’s consulate in Houston to close within 72 hours over alleged espionage activities. Beijing reacted by closing the American consulate in Chengdu, rather than shuttering high-profile offices like the one in Wuhan that was temporarily closed during the pandemic or more significant US consulates in Shanghai or Hong Kong.

Despite framing the closure in Chengdu as “necessary”, “appropriate” and “reciprocal” – and allowing for a live stream of the event to be viewed by millions – it highlighted Beijing’s balancing act in trying to please its domestic audience without pushing bilateral relations to the brink.

“Basically, it intended to show that China stands firm but does not want to escalate the situation,” said Zhang Baohui, a political science professor at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. “China’s overall approach, as a rising power, is how not to move the US towards a full-fledged cold war.”

Tensions between China and the US began to simmer when, in mid-2018, Washington fired the first shots in a trade war that continues to this day. Although US President Donald Trump has dismissed further trade talks with China, Beijing maintained it was still committed to the “phase one” trade deal the two sides signed in January.

Relations have only worsened as the major powers clashed over technological competition, corporate espionage, the coronavirus pandemic and Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, and the South China Sea.

Last Thursday, when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged democratic-leaning Chinese citizens to more aggressively “induce change” from the Chinese Communist Party, Foreign Minister Wang Yi was busy working to improve relations with Germany. 

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the speech showed Pompeo was “launching a new crusade against China in a globalised world” and urged the world to “step forward to prevent him from doing the world more harm”.

In early July, Wang sent out a public call for reconciliation and dialogue “as long as the US is willing”. But just over a week later, he said the US had “

lost its mind, morals and credibility

” and said the Trump administration’s “America First” policy had induced bullying and egoism.

Cui Lei, an associate research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing, said the party was still seeking to ease the situation, as had happened after previous moments of heightened tensions; particularly after the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and in 2001 when a US aircraft and Chinese fighter jet collided near Hainan.

“Beijing’s strategy is both to maintain stability, express goodwill and to preserve, at least on the surface, a sense that they will not give in,” Cui, a former diplomat, said. “As long as the US does not want to go to war, there is still room for negotiations.”

When the US sanctioned senior Chinese officials in July over Beijing’s repression in Xinjiang, the most prominent being Politburo member and Xinjiang party secretary Chen Quanguo, China responded by sanctioning lawmakers Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Smith and the relatively unknown official Sam Brownback, the US ambassador at large for international religious freedom.

Also in July, Beijing reacted to the US State Department’s approval of a US$620 million missile upgrade package to Taiwan by sanctioning Lockheed Martin, a move of little consequence because the US weapons supplier has limited business interests in China.

Shi Yinhong, a government adviser and US specialist at Renmin University in Beijing, said China had largely avoided equal reciprocation to US actions in recent years.

“China has less in its toolbox to retaliate with, compared to sanctions that the US and its closest allies, including the UK and Australia, could use,” he said. “Regular use of tit-for-tat could also give Trump exactly what he wants, and further isolate China internationally. And it would get the domestic public used to a strong response and further stimulate the appetite for US hawks in China.”

It is difficult to gauge domestic public sentiment in China because of tight censorship and fears of expressing positions in contrast to the official political line.

On China’s highly regulated social media platforms, state media coverage of the US-China row has spurred more nationalistic, anti-American sentiments. This could put pressure on the leadership to not appear weak against perceived US grievances.

Zhu Feng, an international relations professor at Nanjing University, said there was a “wide spectrum of public opinions” but that they may not necessarily influence Beijing decision-making.

“For domestic purposes, China did try to avoid looking weak with the decision in Chengdu and as part of its ‘Wolf Warrior diplomacy’, but I think China has been clear in trying to avoid the new cold war the US now wants to impose on China,” he said.

Some have also suggested that tensions between the powers could ease after the US presidential election in November, citing that Trump has sought to blame Beijing for American woes from the coronavirus pandemic. The US makes up more than one-quarter of the nearly 16.5 million cases globally.

But American lawmakers have coalesced around a bipartisan consensus pushing for a more aggressive approach to counter Beijing’s increasing assertiveness.

Shen Dingli, a Shanghai-based expert on China-US relations, said every action from either country would guarantee a reaction in the current atmosphere, with no end to the downward spiral on the horizon.

“This has become an infinite loop of action and reaction, and every step of it is taking Sino-US ties closer to the edge of a breaking in ties,” he said. “As long as neither country says, ‘We will not make any moves after being attacked’, then this loop obviously will not stop.”