Talks between the US and China’s top diplomats wrapped up in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who attended the meetings with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, described the talks as “tough and direct.”
At the conclusion of the talks, both sides made it clear that the US and China remain far apart on major issues. Each side paid lip service to the idea of cooperation where it is possible, with the Chinese officials appearing more eager to find common ground than their US counterparts.
China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi said the discussions were “direct, frank, and constructive.” The other Chinese official who attended the talks, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, hopes future interactions will be less confrontational and vowed that Beijing would protect its sovereignty.
“We hope the United States is not going to underestimate China’s determination to defend its territory,” Wang said. “China and the US should move toward each other while respecting each other’s core interests. On this common ground, China is willing to adopt an opening attitude to the United States.”
Blinken said he received a “defensive response” after raising issues the US has with China in his opening remarks on Thursday. “We certainly know and knew going in, that there are a number of areas where we are fundamentally at odds. And it was no surprise when we raised those issues directly, we got a defensive response.”
Blinken opened the talks by accusing China of threatening “the rules-based order” through actions in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, and alleged cyberattacks in the US. Sullivan followed Blinken and accused Beijing of “economic and military coercion ” and “assaults on basic values.”
Yang responded sharply to the US officials and criticized Washington for both domestic and foreign policy issues. “The United States uses its military force and financial hegemony to carry out long arm jurisdiction and suppress other countries,” he said. “It abuses so-called notions of national security to obstruct normal trade exchanges, and incite some countries to attack China.”
Speaking from Beijing on Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian blamed the US for setting a hostile tone. “It was the US side that … provoked the dispute in the first place, so the two sides had a strong smell of gunpowder and drama from the beginning in the opening remarks. It was not the original intention of the Chinese side,” he said.
The US took several steps ahead of the talks that made it clear the meeting would be contentious. Blinken visited Japan and South Korea with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin earlier this week. While meeting with his Japanese and Korean counterparts, Blinken slammed Beijing, accusing China of using “coercion and aggression” in the region. On Wednesday, the US slapped sanctions on 24 Chinese and Hong Kong officials.
Since Biden came into office, Chinese officials have called for better relations with Washington. But the Biden administration has had nothing but harsh words for Beijing, and US-China relations continue to decline.
How about showing the Chinese remarks as well? Here is transcript:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/How-it-happened-Transcript-of-the-US-China-opening-remarks-in-Alaska
Thanks. It’s US exceptionalism for itself and Israel and “(Washington) rules based order” for you. For China it’s UN based International Law.
Beyond corruption through pathetic guise of enforcement, the UN has nothing to do with the formation international law.
I only use it short-hand for all the treaties and conventions (UN Charter, Geneva, Nuremburg, Atlantic Charter, etc.) and the need for a 3rd party arbiter. Admittedly the UN is corrupt, was designed and has served from the beginning as a tool of US imperialism.
Still, Kofi Anan did declare the invasion of Iraq a war crime, the IAEA did pronounce Iran in compliance with the NNPT & co., and the Human Rights Rapporteur has declared the treatment of Assange an illegal detention and a crime of torture.
Anyway, I don’t see anything else. And it could be reformed, beginning by eliminating permanent Sec. Council membership.
Recent poles indicate that millions of Chinese and Russian citizens would love to move to a democracy like the US
This phoney Ant-War post strictly one sided., all pro Americas enemies
Well, you post here. But you’re not the only one who posts here.
How about showing the Chinese remarks as well? Here is transcript:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/How-it-happened-Transcript-of-the-US-China-opening-remarks-in-Alaska
Biden talks tough. China’s real answer? More than doubles its daily import of crude oil from Iran. China does not pay yet in dollars but that will be China’s next answer for Biden’s “tough talk”.
Exactly. And China is not Libya, who could be destroyed by fiendish, monstrous demonstrations of cruelty.
Old China did well in countering the brash upstart US, especially considering that participating in such vitriol is not the Chinese way, which normally includes avoiding interpersonal conflicts with an ambiguous smile and a head-nod.
I rather suspect this is carefully orchestrated from both sides. Remember: Biden on his first call with Xi, they spoke for 2 hours on the phone. By contrast he gave other leaders 5-15 minutes.
As you rightly pointed out, these type of vitriol – from both sides – are not normal. After all these are all *seasoned* diplomats. I agree with you this is not the Chinese style. but I would also emphasize neither do Blinken and Sullivan. Unlike the amateurish Pompeii, these are all mature, serious professionals. Only conclusion one can draw is this is done for show. Both sides are playing to their home audience as the defender of national interests, before slowly walking back to negotiate settlements.
I would argue that the US reps are not mature, serious professionals but narrow-minded operatives who have been totally indoctrinated in Washington to the US/Israel cult of world superiority, and will lie, cheat and steal to pursue their neolib strategies which are not done for show. This is why they are failing everywhere the US has problems, everywhere, and I expect it to get worse.
Narrow minded operatives yes, but also more realistic and professional at least when compared to Trump’s foreign policy. It’s a low bar. Stunning arrogance certainly. US partners are always junior, the variable is how extreme that attitude will be.
A seasoned idiot is still an idiot. The US doesnt hire quality for its government.
The diplomats from Iran, Russia and now China always seem like the adults in the room when compared to the tripe we trot out.
Elections have consequences.
…unless you’re an American.
If your implying that we had good diplomats previously, then I’d have to disagree.
…and we learn the consequences post-election, which we then label as democracy! It’s s new definition, much more truthful than the “government by the whole population” malarkey in the dictionary.
Those were not tough talks. Those were political posturing to domestic audiences.
What is displayed is poor judgment and a rush into disaster, conflict to serve those who profit from conflict, and to serve those who get votes from beating on the right target du jour.
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2021-03/20/content_77331005.htm
The article’s content doesn’t mention Russian collusion. Not so much as a flippant remark.
re: Blinken opened the talks by accusing China of threatening “the rules-based order”
In that quote Blinken shortened the usual phrase “the rules-based international order” or RBIO. What they mean by RBIO of course is dictates from Washington. One example is using US laws as international laws. For example the US currently holds India at risk of sanctions under Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.” It can’t punish Russia for selling weapons so it threatens to punish allies for buying them! It can’t punish US enemy Russia for producing natural gas but it (since the US has gas to sell) threatens Germany with sanctions for buying it, under the CAATSA! That’s the essence of “the rules-based international order” and it’s baloney, as China responded.
Blackmail the US policy is based on…….
If a nation chooses to do something against the US interests, why should we support it? If your neighbor postures to do ill will towards your family and home, do you support it?
No country anticipated how to deal with the unique sanctioning power of the US given to the US as a result of WW II. It will take time to find the best way to protect against this.
UN Charter, Article 1 — The Purposes of the United Nations are:
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Don, who is the picture of? You? Just asking. Of course I agree with you about the UN. It is the USA that is out of step, like a third generation panicky about its inheritance after seeing its parents squander it on show-off conspicuous consumption, such as nuclear aircraft carriers that impress no one but themselves.
It all depends what those US perceived interests are. If it’s US interest is to invade and destroy an independent sovereign nation for the sake of stealing its oil than we should most certainly assist that nation. The US is in such a case violating international law as laid down in the UN Charter and other international conventions. My question to you is are you in favour of breaking laws, and assist robberies? . .The two questions by the way you are posing are totally unrelated.
And the sanctions trouble you? All nations make decisions likewise, the worlds best economy that is not built on smoke and mirrors, slave labor and cheap plastic junk , makes decisions. If you dont like it, grow and diversify your economy . Simple right.
they did and that’s why us is throwing a tantrum as they r building cutting edge systems in every field. if ur comment was for argument’s sake then so be it, i as a nationalist cant begrudge another nationalist for that but if u truly think that then u r just someone who is a sheep who parrots propaganda and living in some dreamland
The US, using the UN, has a record of successfully messing with many other countries’ sovereignty (North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria etc.) but it won’t work with China, nor should it. Let’s hope this new realization spreads in the new multipolar world, free from US hegemony, with more cooperation and less war.
Are you the congressman from Nebraska?
The greatest war criminal nation on the planet (the United States of America) is running its mouth about a “Rules-Based International Order”?
ROFLMAO.
Yes, how they can brazen it out like that beggars belief.
Re: Antony Blinken opened the talks on Thursday by accusing China of threatening the ‘rules-based order’
>Secretary Blinken: … “Our administration is committed to leading with diplomacy to advance the interests of the United States and to strengthen the rules-based international order.”
>China responds: “What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called “rules-based” international order.”
>The Lowy Institute (Australia) agrees: “At the core of the rule-based order, in contrast, are treaties and customary rules of international law that meet the stringent criteria states have agreed on to demonstrate consent to be legally bound. . . The Philippines . . .exercising rights enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
>In fact the US is the only major country not ratifying UNCLOS (UN Convention for the Law of the Sea). In the United States there was vigorous debate over the ratification of the UNCLOS treaty, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to U.S. national interests. International law is bad, in the US view, so let’s talk about some nebulous undefined rules-based international order!. . .That’s exactly what China said, and they were correct.
Remember the old song, ” You have no better friend China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela Siam, than Don Bacon, of course its a pseudo name concocted in Petrograd by the GRU.
..an excellent read on the Taiwan situation
A Taiwan Crisis May Mark the End of the American Empire
America is a diplomatic fox, while Beijing is a hedgehog fixated on the big idea of reunification.
By Niall Ferguson, Mar 21, 2021 . .here
..and the PRC report on the Alaska meeting
China, US hold timely, helpful high-level strategic dialogue – Mar 20, 2021 . .here
There were some comments for the US:
> revoke illegal sanctions against Chinese officials and institutions, stop trying to mess up Hong Kong again
>genocide in China’s Xinjiang is the biggest lie of the century
>The Chinese side is ready to engage in exchanges with the US side on the basis of mutual respect
>The United States reiterated its adherence to the one-China policy on the Taiwan question.
This is all China BS, theoretically the civil war in China never ended between the democratic forces and the communist forces. The US rightly so supports democratic forces as it does all over the world. We know that your have bin a long time supporter of anything anti American and everything pro communistic and autocratic tyranny’s.
There were no major “democratic forces” in the civil war in China. There were authoritarian nationalists and authoritarian communists.
And here is the real story:
In his opening remarks,, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that he and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan would discuss “our deep concerns with actions by China, including in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyber attacks on the United States, and economic coercion toward our allies. Each of these actions threatens the rules-based order that maintains global stability. That’s why they’re not merely internal matters and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues here today.” He also alluded to the human rights violations of the Muslim Minority the non-Chinese Xinjiang Uyghurs, he referred to forced communist indoctrination, forced labor, woman being forcibly sterilization.