I'm posting this official op-ed marking Secretary of State Blinken’s visit just days ago, not because I accept its truthfulness (I don’t: it projects onto the US many of Beijing’s own failings, in my view), nor because I hold the US blameless (an attribute, in my view, of the cosmos, not of any sentient life-forms found in it it).
It’s a valuable case in point of turns of thought and language found scattered like the diced fruit in a slice of raisin toast. Like claims of US ‘two facedness’ and ‘lack of sincerity’, vs. ‘Beijing’s baselines’: this Substack has from episode #1 been intrigued by such raisins.
Below is my translation of Gao Wencheng, Realising the San Francisco vision requires PRC and US to meet each other halfway, Xinhua, 24 April 2024 (高文成, “旧金山愿景’变’实景’需要中美相向而行”, 新华网 (in Chinese). Those interested can check my parallel-format version here.
San Francisco vision: US meeting each other halfway
US Secretary of State Blinken visited the PRC 24–26 April 2024, following up the agreement, reached by Sino-US heads of state at the November 2024 San Francisco meeting, on maintain dialogue, manage differences, promote cooperation, and strengthen coordination in international affairs. Welcoming this visit, the PRC proposes five major goals
establishing correct cognition
strengthening dialogue
effectively managing differences
promoting mutually beneficial cooperation
jointly shouldering major power responsibilities
Blinken's visit schedule maintains positive momentum of Sino-US high-level interaction, agreement on keeping up the overall stability of their relations via liaison.
Yet turning this into a chance for bettering their relations entails both sides graspit it in unison and moving closer.
Close liaison between the PRC and US has been kept up since early 2024, sending positive signals, in line with their interests as well as expectations of peoples of the world that Sino-US relations improve.
Presidents Xi and Biden exchanged congratulatory letters in early 2024 on the 45th anniversary of normalised Sino-US diplomatic relations. Xi met with US business community reps and strategic academic community on 27 March; on 2 April, he spoke by phone with President Biden at the latter’s request.
Guided by the heads of state diplomacy, the PRC and US have since the San Francisco meeting held a series of major contacts at all levels and fields
Heads of both diplomatic security, economic and trade finance, climate change, law enforcement, agriculture, culture, etc. agencies have kept up contact via visits, meetings, phone calls, working group meetings, etc.; their militaries have resumed liaison and dialogue
Over 20 mechanism consultations, set set up or restarted by the San Francisco summit, remain operating
US Treasury Secretary Yellen recently visited the PRC, insisting she does not seek 'decoupling' from the PRC and calling on both sides to maintain liaison
Sun Yun, director of the the PRC Project at the US Stimson Center, argues that high-level Sino-US interaction 'sends the rest of the world a stable message, symbolising pursuit of stability by both sides’
renowned US scholar Joseph Nye argues that high-level contacts matter: it is 'helpful to find some topics that can convince the public that the two can benefit from cooperation.'
Yet we notice no diminution of US 'two-facedness' on the issue of PRC relations. While they have stabilised and are no longer in free-fall, the US stubbornly persists with containing the PRC: a strategy displayed in unreconstructed misreading of the PRC, constant renewal of the means by which Washington suppresses it, frequent abuse of Beijing on such issues as the South China Sea, Xinjiang, economics, trade and scitech.
Negative factors in the two countries’ recent relation remain very prominent:
State Department issuance of a human rights report to discredit human rights in Xinjiang
US, Japan and Philippines leaders’ meetings formulating anti-PRC measures
301 investigations1 of numerous PRC industries
suppressing PRC industry development via a hyped-up 'PRC overcapacity doctrine’
Just before Blinken's visit to the PRC, some US media were still discrediting normal PRC economic and trade cooperation with Russia, highlighting the 'pressure' purpose of Blinken's visit to the PRC, not least warning it against 'helping Russia' etc., fomenting hostility before the visit. This lack of respect or sincerity in dialogue mentality does not help to create a communicative atmosphere, with only negative impact on the effectiveness of liaison.
US hawkishness toward the PRC is more obvious in election years. It comes as no surprise that relevant issues are often hyped.
It must be clarified that the PRC is willing to liaise and cooperate with the US in bilateral or multilateral fields on the basis of mutual respect, equality and reciprocity.
the US cannot liaise or talk cooperation while interfering in PRC internal affairs and damaging its interests
To cooperate, rather than fixate on differences, we must keep in mind both sides’ common interests; to have dialogue, we cannot use 'warning' or 'threatening' tones
dealing with the PRC 'from a position of strength' is doomed to fail. Dialogue and cooperation must be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial
Cooperation cannot work by caring only about one's own demands and ignoring the concerns of the other.
The US side spoke much of Blinken's demands during this visit. It should lower its posture, show sincerity, attend to PRC goals for the visit.
iIn exchanges with the US, Beijing's baselines and red lines are transparently clear, its policies highly consistent and stable. It welcomes Blinken's visit and is willing to promote stabilising and improving relations via dialogue. But Chinese people pay attention to reciprocity, and dialogue must be based on mutual respect and equality. The US side must realise that it cannot liaise for liaison’s sake, nor say one thing but do another.
President Biden reiterates that the US doesn’t seek to engage in a 'new Cold War', nor to change the PRC system, contain its development, or oppose it by bolstering alliances; does not support 'Taiwan independence', has no intention of conflict with it, or seek to 'decouple' from it. What the US needs to do is to enact Biden's above-mentioned commitments, working with the PRC to realise the 'San Francisco Vision', rather than keeping up blockage, containment or suppression in the name of 'rivalry'.
Sino-US relations in 2024 should value peace, adhere to the baseline of non-conflict and non-confrontation, constantly enhancing positive expectations; focus on stability, not making trouble, provoking or crossing [red] lines, and maintaining overall stability; fulfilling their respective commitments with actions based on trust, and turning the 'San Francisco Vision' into a 'reality'.
Given these three principles, the US side should eliminate wrong words and deeds, enact the 'San Francisco Vision' with sincerity and action, add more bricks and less sabotage, and work with the PRC to create an atmosphere and conditions to bilaterally build up positive factors. This is the key to Blinken's visit achieving constructive results; an inevitable requirement for promoting healthy, stable and sustainable development of Sino-US relations.
Section 301 allows the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and act against trade practices deemed to violate US rights under trade agreements or ‘unjustifiable’, ‘unreasonable’, or "‘discriminatory.
The Trump administration used Section 301 to target PRC policies and practices related to IPR, tech transfer, and innovation.
These ‘301 investigations’ allow imposition of tariff or other trade measures on the PRC if the USTR deems its policies or practices harmful to US interests
Ongoing 301 investigation into PRC intellectual property and tech transfer measures is is deemed a source of tension in Sino-US trade relations and a potential trigger for a trade war between the two