Event:
Before and after the launching of special military operations in Russia in February 24th, China and the United States had gone through four rounds of calls or meetings, namely, in February 22nd and March 5th, State Councilor and foreign minister Wang Yi answered the phone with Secretary of state brin. In March 14th, Yang Jiechi, chairman of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and director of the office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission, held a meeting with assistant president Sullivan of the US national security affairs in Rome, Italy. On March 18, Xi Jinping made a video call with US President Biden at request. Three of them were at the invitation of the US side.
Viewpoint:
Throughout the topics and statements of China and the United States in the four rounds of confrontation, we analyze them from five perspectives:
First, in view of the situation in Russia and Ukraine, China continues to call for peace, and the United States is blindly concerned about its own interests and ignores the security demands of various parties.
In many phone calls and meetings between China and the United States, China has always emphasized respecting and safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, and “determining its own position and policy according to the merits of the matter itself”. The situation in Ukraine has been interpreted so far for complex reasons, but it is directly related to the US government’s decision on NATO’s eastward expansion. When China called Blinken in February 22nd, it said that “any country’s reasonable security concerns should be respected”. In March 5th, it further expressed its hope that the US side would attach importance to the negative impact of NATO’s continuous eastward expansion on Russia’s security environment and seek to build a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism. However, the US side continued to slander China’s position. Blinken, in March 16th, took the CNN interview as an excuse. China has not resolutely opposed Russia’s aggression. China has stood on the wrong side of history.
Compared with the US statement, the White House press release defined the situation in Russia and Ukraine as “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine” in the Sino US call on February 22. The White House press release in the Sino US call on March 5 proposed “Moscow’s premeditated, unprovoked and unreasonable war against Ukraine”, and stressed that “the world is working together to deny and respond to Russia’s aggression and ensure that Moscow will pay a high price.” The United States and the NATO group have directly ignored the security demands of Russia, and continue to make actions to stimulate tension and hype the crisis.
In many phone calls and meetings between China and the United States, China has always called for peace. During the call between China and the United States on February 22, China clearly hoped that all parties would exercise restraint and ease the situation through dialogue and negotiation; After the Russian side launched a special military operation on February 24, China and the United States called again on March 5. China expressed its opposition to all actions that are not conducive to promoting a diplomatic solution, but to arch fire and pour oil to escalate the situation. On March 9 and March 21, China provided 5 million yuan and 10 million yuan of humanitarian aid to Ukraine respectively. Compared with the United States, although the United States claims to be committed to the peaceful settlement of the crisis, it is also transporting lethal weapons and increasing military deterrence while negotiating between the two sides, which is tantamount to adding fuel to the fire and undermining the peace talks.
Second, the so-called sanctions against China by the United States are only verbal threats, and the Democratic Party has no motivation to increase sanctions against China and damage its basic interests in the election campaign.
Since the escalation of the situation in Russia and Ukraine, the United States has not only continued to increase sanctions against Russia, but also tried to threaten China to participate in sanctions against Russia. On March 7, the White House press secretary pusaki said that China’s non-compliance with anti Russian sanctions may lead to retaliatory measures by the United States; On March 8, U.S. Commerce Secretary Raymond said that for “Chinese enterprises that do not comply with U.S. export control measures against Russia”, the United States will cut off the supply of U.S. equipment and software required for their products.
On March 11, the securities and Exchange Commission of the United States disclosed a delisting risk list including five Chinese companies, which triggered a sharp decline in U.S. – China concept stocks and Hong Kong stocks; On March 13, Jack Sullivan, a US national security adviser, claimed on CNN’s TV program that if China tries to provide alternative methods for Russia through “large-scale support”, there will be “absolutely serious consequences”.
However, from various recent calls and meetings between China and the United States, we have not seen that the United States has directly proposed any substantive sanctions. Although after the video call between the two heads of state on March 18, the White House press release mentioned that President Biden “described the impact and consequences of providing material support to Russia in case of brutal attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians”; However, at a later press conference, when asked about the sanctions against China, officials of the White House National Security Council were vague and refused to list the specific measures. (the original words are: “the president described the implications, you know, if China provides material support to Russia as it prosecutes this brutal war, but I’m not going to talk – I’m not going to, sort of, publicly lay out our options from here.)
The US side’s sanctions against China were a false shot, but they did not fall into practical action. In our analysis, on the one hand, it is because the United States hopes to coerce or force China to take relevant actions through relevant statements. However, China’s position is firm and its position has never changed. In the short term, the United States has a stronger demand for the stability of China US relations, so it is difficult for the United States to substantively implement the sanctions.
On the other hand, it is for the election interests of the Democratic Party. The US side’s further imposition of sanctions on China is nothing more than continuing to exert pressure in the fields of economy and trade, tariffs, science and technology, finance and so on. However, these are not conducive to the election interests of Biden and the Democratic Party. Most of the large companies and multinational enterprises behind him refuse to impose tariffs on China, hoping to achieve greater success in the Chinese market. Therefore, the Democratic Party itself has no motivation to further amplify the tension between China and the United States in the field of economy and trade. Of course, for the White House and the Democratic Party, in the plight of Biden’s continued decline in support, in order to comply with China’s Anti China sentiment and make hawkish remarks on China, it can also confuse the public and win the hearts of the people.
Third, with the continuous interpretation of the situation in Russia and Ukraine, Biden took the initiative to seek to “put a fence” on China US relations, reiterated his opposition to Taiwan independence and reiterated his “four noes and one unintentional”.
Although the US side has repeatedly said that it will not seek to change China’s system and oppose “Taiwan independence”, its actions are obviously inconsistent with its statement. During the “cloud meeting” between the two heads of state last November, Biden clearly stated the principle of “four noes and one no intention”, that is, “the United States does not seek to fight a” new cold war “with China, does not seek to change China’s system, does not seek to oppose China through strengthening alliance relations, does not support” Taiwan independence “and has no intention of conflict with China”.
However, some words and deeds of the United States run counter to these goals. On February 11, the White House released the “US India Pacific strategy” report, which publicly listed China as the primary challenge in the region, and also tried to incorporate “using Taiwan to control China” into the US regional strategy. It can be seen that the US side has not fulfilled its commitments, is still making wrong words and deeds on Taiwan related issues, and is still sending wrong signals to “Taiwan independence” elements. When Yang Jiechi and Sullivan met in Rome on March 14, they solemnly warned the US side, “asking the US side to recognize the high sensitivity of the Taiwan issue and not to go further and further on a very dangerous road”.
With the continuous interpretation of the situation in Russia and Ukraine, on March 18, the US side took the initiative to invite the first video call between China and the US dollar, proposed to “build some common sense barriers”, and reiterated that there was no change in its policy towards Taiwan.
According to the US embassy in China, Biden said on March 18 that “we need to build some common sense barriers… Our responsibility as leaders of China and the United States is to ensure that the competition between our two countries does not turn into conflict” Xi Jinping said, “some people in the United States have not implemented the important consensus reached between us, nor have they implemented Mr. President’s positive statement. The United States has misread and misjudged China’s strategic intention. If the Taiwan issue is not handled well, it will have a subversive impact on bilateral relations.”
In the press release issued by the White House on the China US dollar summit, it was also clearly stated that “the president reiterated that the US policy towards Taiwan has not changed and stressed that the United States continues to oppose any unilateral change in the status quo”. In the Chinese press release, it can also be seen that Biden reiterated the principle of “four no’s and one no intention”. Compared with the call between Chinese and American foreign ministers on March 5 and the meeting between China and the United States in Rome on March 14, there was no statement of the US side on Taiwan related issues in the press release. In this first meeting, the US side implemented “no change in Taiwan policy” in black and white, which also shows that the US side takes the initiative to seek the stability of China US relations in the short term and does not want competition to turn into conflict.
Fourth, China US consultations in the economic and trade field have been put on hold for the time being, but Biden continues to promote the construction of a “China exclusion” supply chain. Before the mid-term election, politicians from both parties are expected to take turns to stage a “show” against China.
Judging from the four rounds of calls and meetings, it basically did not involve negotiations in the field of economy and trade. Since the end of last year, there has been an obvious easing signal in the field of China US economic and trade. The USTR of the US Trade Representative Office published the tariff exclusion list of 549 commodities in October 2021. In November, US Treasury Secretary Yellen publicly said that the Biden government is considering reducing tariffs in some areas to China and may consider reducing some tariffs in a “mutually beneficial way” to slow down the recent rising trend of prices in the United States. However, from the fourth quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2022, China and the United States have not reached an agreement on a new round of trade negotiations.
We believe that the reason is that since the second half of 2021, under the impact of many factors such as the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, high inflation and repeated epidemics, the support rate of President Biden has fallen rapidly, and the degree of decline is even greater than that of President trump in the same period. In 2022, the Democratic Party is about to usher in the mid-term election examination. Under the increasingly strong pressure of American conservatism, the Democratic Party’s control over the house of Representatives is in jeopardy. The pressure of China’s election situation makes President Biden have to conform to the sentiment of Chinese hawkish voters, thus losing the window period of easing economic and trade relations with China.
The negotiations between China and the United States in the field of economy and trade are temporarily put on hold, but in the field of science and technology, Biden still promotes the “small courtyard and high wall” strategy to create a new environment for the “exclusion of China” supply chain. After experiencing the test of the epidemic on the global industrial chain, Biden also realized that the American industrial chain could not be “completely decoupled” from China. Under the hollowing out of American industry, the manufacturing cost was high and the competitive advantage decreased significantly. Therefore, Biden also refused to return to cptpp. However, in order to maintain its dominant position in the field of cutting-edge science and technology, Biden continued to promote the blockade against China in the core areas, and united his allies to realize “de Sinicization” in the supply chain.
Since taking office, Biden has completed a comprehensive evaluation and review of the supply chain of four categories of key products (semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging, high-capacity batteries, key minerals and materials, as well as medical supplies and APIs). On the one hand, Biden has increased the supply of relevant products in China (such as increasing major investment in key minerals), on the other hand, it has increased unnecessary sanctions against Chinese enterprises (such as Chinese photovoltaic enterprises), Unite multiple countries to form an alliance (such as in the semiconductor field) to create a new environment of “China exclusion” supply chain.
In the second half of this year, as the mid-term elections approach, the two parties will again exert pressure on China in terms of human rights, ideology, Xinjiang, China and Taiwan. Before the election, the two parties raised the “Anti China flag” and fired guns at each other, which is a customary operation in American politics in recent years. Especially in the geopolitical tension this year, it is expected that the closer to the mid-term elections, the more intense the “Anti China performance” of both sides to attract hawkish voters will be.
Fifth, in the talks with Europe, China has always supported dialogue and did not want to see unwarranted sanctions hurt people’s livelihood, but the United States “tied” Europe to the chariot and watched the fire from the shore.
Since the escalation of the situation in Russia and Ukraine, in its calls with Germany, France and other European countries, on the one hand, China stressed its support for the resumption of dialogue between NATO, the European Union and Russia, and was willing to maintain communication and coordination with France, Germany and Europe and play a positive role in the hope that “a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism can be reached through negotiations”; On the other hand, China stressed that “unrestricted sanctions will undermine the stability of the international industrial chain and supply chain, exacerbate the food and energy crisis and hurt the people’s livelihood of all countries.” Compared with the United States, Europe is more dependent on Russian energy, and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will continue to squeeze Europe’s economic recovery space; In addition, more than 10 million Ukrainian refugees have been displaced, and the refugee problem will also become a shadow over the European continent.
In contrast, when we observe the conversation between the president of the United States and European leaders, we have only a few words about “diplomatic efforts”. On March 16, Russia and Ukraine prepared a ceasefire and withdrawal plan on the premise of Ukraine’s neutrality and disarmament; However, on March 18, the Ukrainian side took a tough attitude again, saying that the Ukrainian side would never make concessions on some issues, such as territorial issues. On March 19, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine continued, but the United States had been interfering and obstructing the negotiation process. The US commitment to Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and continuous arms and military support have become the biggest dependence of the current Ukrainian political party to ignore the humanitarian crisis and be willing to fight a “proxy war”, which also forces Europe to continue to face the risk of “the largest war since World War II”.
Risk tips
The global epidemic has been repeated and the situation in Russia and Ukraine has warmed up again.
