Zhou Xiaoming: In calling it a great power contest, the US is whitewashing its aggression towards China
September 05 , 2023
■ The US-China conflict is a struggle between an aggressor and a resisting party. Casting it as a geopolitical contest suggests both parties share equal responsibility.
■ Worse, to justify its unprovoked aggression, Washington has gone to great lengths to paint China as the attacking party and itself as the victim.
By Zhou Xiaoming, a senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization(CCG) and former deputy permanent representative of China’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office in Geneva.
Tensions between China and the United States are widely described in the West as a great power competition or geopolitical contest between the world’s largest economies. But this suggests they share equal responsibility for their fraught ties when they play distinctively different roles.
Contrary to the US accusation that Beijing is responsible for the lack of communication, for instance, Washington is the real culprit. Both governments once had more than 100 bilateral mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation that covered areas from health, education and climate change to trade and the military.
Over the years, these set-ups addressed many concerns and contributed significantly to the development of ties – until many were effectively ditched by the Trump administration.
The Biden administration apparently saw no need to fully resurrect the mechanisms, because they had failed to get the United States what it wanted. It tries to put in place what it considers would work in its favour, and force these things down China’s throat.
When that fails, Washington attempts to shift responsibility for the communication breakdown. For instance, it blames China for declining US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s request for a meeting with China’s Defence Minister Li Shangfu at a security forum in Singapore in June.
But Washington had shut the door on that meeting in the first place by slapping sanctions on Li for his role in China’s military purchases from Russia in 2018. Despite China’s push to have the sanctions removed, the Biden administration maintained that it should not prevent Li from meeting his American counterpart.
One wonders if Austin would still be keen to sit down to a meeting with Li if China had sanctioned him for his role in arming Taiwan, a move many Chinese believe would put Austin in the same awkward position as Li. Could we expect Washington to view Beijing’s sanctions on Austin the same way it deems its measures on Li?
Since the pandemic, the US has drastically cut Chinese direct round-trip passenger flights. Until this month, only 12 per week were allowed, or around 8 per cent of the pre-Covid-19 level of 150. Although the US is set to allow this to increase to 24 from October 29, flights will remain a fraction of pre-pandemic levels. The reason? Washington’s reported insistence on ensuring a so-called “level playing field”.
Due to Washington’s sanctions against Moscow, American airlines are no longer permitted to fly over Russia, making their trips longer and more expensive. Chinese carriers are not subject to such restrictions. This prompted US carriers to cry foul, accusing Chinese carriers of gaining an unfair cost advantage. As a result, Washington reportedly demanded that Chinese airlines avoid flying through Russian airspace as a condition for approving more direct flights.
Rather than prioritise the surging demand for flights from students, tourists and businesspeople, the US Department of Transport said its “overriding goal is an improved environment wherein the carriers of both parties are able to exercise fully their bilateral rights to maintain a competitive balance and fair and equal opportunity”.
But the higher costs incurred by US airlines has nothing to do with China. Rather, it is an issue to be sorted out between the US and Russia. How can a reasonable man forbid someone else from selling property at a better price than his own when he has damaged his own house because of a brawl?
These are not isolated cases. Washington’s role as the attacker and China as the defender is on full display in their frictions in all other fields.
In politics, the US regards China as an existential threat and arch adversary. It has effectively launched an all-out campaign to contain China. Beijing has, however, taken a non-confrontational approach, believing the Pacific is big enough for both countries. It calls for a peaceful coexistence and working together for win-win results.
In security, the US reportedly maintains 313 military bases surrounding China and conducts about 1,500 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over the South China Sea a year. In contrast, China has done nothing menacing in the waters off America.
On the economic front, Washington is waging a trade war against China, slapping punitive tariffs on many Chinese imports and blacklisting more than 1,600 Chinese entities and individuals. In a bid to cripple China’s hi-tech sectors, the US has banned exports of advanced semiconductor chips to the country.
Admittedly, China is becoming more inclined to retaliate. But the country has always only been on the defence. And its countermeasures are principled and measured, not intended to escalate tensions. They are designed to ensure that China is the true master of its own house.
The conflict between China and the US is, therefore, a struggle between an aggressor and a resisting party. Casting the tensions between the two countries as a geopolitical contest distorts the very nature of the conflict, and is akin to equating the victim with the aggressor.
And yet, to justify its unprovoked aggression against China, Washington has gone to great lengths to paint China as the attacking party and itself as the victim.
To address one of the critical issues of our times, the rest of the world should be clear-eyed, seek to identify the attacking party and hold it responsible. As a Chinese saying goes, he who tied the knot is best positioned to untie it.
From SCMP， 2023-9-5
