Why Kerry’s visit to Beijing ended in failure
The visit to China by John Kerry, the U.S. president’s special envoy on climate change, from August 31 to September 3, was widely covered by the Russian media in the second half of August. And understandably so – unofficially John Kerry, as former State Department chief, is a confidante of US President Joe Biden, and his terms of reference go far beyond just the climate agenda. I recall that in April 2021, John Kerry “accidentally” met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in India.
So, you will not find the results of John Kerry’s talks with China in the TASS newswire and the main domestic media, except for REGNUM (an article by Vladimir Pavlenko, a well-known expert on China). However, this result, in my view, largely predetermines the future of Sino-US relations.
As reported by Reuters, during the talks John Kerry tried to convey to the Chinese side that “the climate is not ideological, it is not political and it is not a geostrategic weapon.” However, via videoconference, Chinese State Counsellor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Sino-US climate cooperation could not be separated from the broader form of Sino-US relations.
“Everyone who met with you will have to spend two weeks in quarantine, but we are willing to pay that price to discuss cooperation with the US on issues of mutual interest,” Wang Yi told John Kerry, as pointed out by Reuters, later deleting that quote from his piece. It can now only be found in a retelling by other sources.
In a separate video conference with Kerry, Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng urged the US to “create a good atmosphere of cooperation”, Reuters reported, citing Xinhua news agency, to which Kerry responded that the US was ready to improve ties between the two countries. From this lengthy Reuters report, it is difficult to get a picture of the talks that took place; one must turn to Chinese sources.
A dedicated editorial in the government publication Global Times is titled “Washington Can’t Determine Sino-US Climate Cooperation.” The article frankly states that US expectations to separate climate cooperation from other aspects of Sino-US relations seem rather absurd.
“The US wants to ask China to make new concessions beyond its own promises (China’s carbon targets), coordinated under US leadership. The Chinese often ask, ‘What are you even talking about?'”.
The article goes on to point out that the overall US policy towards China has been flawed. US strategic containment of China has seriously divided the world and endangered China’s long-term security.
According to the editorial, it is difficult for the entire Chinese society to accept that the US cooperate in the arrogant logic of “competition, cooperation and confrontation” towards China, or allow the US to determine the policy implications of Sino-US cooperation on the climate issue on its own. “To do this, the US lacks both morality and fairness, and it lacks the power of persuasion to ask China for what the US wants.”
“Washington should not have thought that showing a little cooperation in its comprehensive containment of Beijing was a ‘mercy’ to China…Regardless of the area in which the US hopes to cooperate with China and, at the same time, advance US interests, such cooperative work must be related to all aspects of Sino-US relations.”
The article ends with the following paragraph: “If the US ever tries to abuse China according to the logic of asking China to keep putting on a good show to satisfy the US, and then the US will repay the same by easing tensions, it is completely wrong. The Chinese people don’t like treating other countries this way, and we don’t want this kind of ‘improvement’ in China-US relations at all.”
Following Kerry’s talks, already in another article, the Global Times voices the position of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who said that cooperation on climate change cannot be separated from the rest of the China-US relationship.
“The US should go along with China and take positive actions to put the bilateral relationship back on the right track,” Wang Yi said.
He also said, “the reason for the deterioration of China-US relations is the strategic underestimation of China. Whoever started the trouble should put an end to it. The ball is now in the US side.”
Another Global Times publication points out that a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, Yang Jiechi, spoke to John Kerry by video conference and said that for quite some time, China-US relations have been facing serious difficulties because of wrongful US actions that interfere in China’s internal affairs and harm China’s interests. Yang said the confrontation between China and the US was not good for anyone and urged the US to consider the bilateral relationship rationally and go towards China.
On the US side, the Voice of America, according to analysts, described what happened as a diplomatic embarrassment. As Chinese diplomats were giving John Kerry another lecture. “The whole thing that happened is a joke at the expense of the US. The Chinese Communist Party ‘laughs [profanity]. You can quote me on that,” said Anders Korr, long-time China scholar and publisher of Political Risk magazine.
Another characteristic incident occurred on 31 August, during a closed-door meeting on Zoom organised by the National Committee on US-PRC Relations. Where the new Chinese ambassador to the US, Qin Gang, denounced the current direction of US policy towards China and warned the US leadership against the “disastrous consequences” of using a “textbook Cold War”.
During the Q&A session, Evan Medeiros, a Georgetown University professor who previously served as director of the National Security Council on China, Taiwan and Mongolia in the Obama administration, asked what steps the US and China could take to improve bilateral relations. Qin Gang replied undiplomatically, “If we cannot resolve our differences, please shut up,” National Review wrote.
On September 9, it was reported that US President Joe Biden had initiated a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Associated Press report indicated that the White House harboured hopes that the two sides could work together on issues of mutual interest, including climate change and preventing a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, despite growing differences.
However, Beijing has refused to be pressured by the US and has expressed scepticism about developing relations between the two countries until Biden reduces his criticism of China’s domestic issues. “This position is not in the basic interests of the two nations,” Jinping said.
Chinese analysts polled by the Global Times explained that the phone call, which took place at the request of the US, highlighted Washington’s growing concern and the need to cooperate with China on key global issues. At the same time, the US should take more action to correct previous mistakes and respect China’s core interests, rather than expect China to cooperate if it is seen as an adversary.
Interesting details about the phone call were reported by Axios, a news portal that often gives out credible insider information from Joe Biden’s administration.
According to the anonymous source, Biden wanted to “test the assumption” that negotiations at the “leadership level would be more effective” than those of officials ranked lower. According to the insider, previous talks had not been very fruitful, “and frankly, we were not very satisfied … with the behaviour of our interlocutors”, the anonymous source said.
Axios writes that when Special Envoy on Climate John Kerry visited China, senior Chinese officials strongly rejected the US proposal to treat climate cooperation as a separate issue on top of other, more contentious bilateral issues.
Worse, they communicated with John Kerry only by video link, sending a “junior official” to meet the former secretary of state in person. These Chinese diplomats, on the other hand, had no problem when they met in person with a Taliban (an organisation banned in Russia) delegation just a few weeks earlier.
According to the anonymous source, Joe Biden’s aim is to establish a “steady state of affairs” between the US and China, “to establish a fence” so that they have a “tough competitive position” that does not devolve into an unintended conflict. Axios points out that, previously, the White House administration has touted plans to engage with China in greater coordination with allies, but the administration has so far made no tangible progress in this direction.
Worse, they communicated with John Kerry only by video link, having sent a “junior official” to meet the former secretary of state in person. At the same time, these Chinese diplomats had no problem when they met in person with a Taliban (an organisation banned in Russia) delegation just a few weeks earlier.
According to the anonymous source, Joe Biden’s aim is to establish a “steady state of affairs” between the US and China, “to establish a fence” so that they have a “tough competitive position” that does not devolve into an unintended conflict. Axios points out that, previously, the White House administration has touted plans to engage with China in greater coordination with allies, but the administration has so far made no tangible progress in this direction.
Of course, this is primarily due to China’s economic influence over neighbouring countries. However, I note for myself that few are aware that the conflict between South Korea and Japan over the forcing of Korean women to work in brothels for the Japanese military during the Second World War still prevents close relations between the two countries, even to confront China under US auspices.
As Western publications point out, China has begun a profound transformation and calls it a “cultural revolution 2.0”. Domestic observers describe it as a “transformation of capitalism”.
It is quite obvious that China has begun to break away from the Western development paradigm, focusing on “qualitative” development, the basis of which in the “14th Five-Year Plan” will be investment in human capital. With the introduction of more and more regulations in various business sectors at the beginning of 2021, the level of the stock indices was clearly not of interest to the Chinese leadership. Since the start of the year the Hang Seng Index has fallen by 15% while US indices have continued to rise.
Of course, it is not without problems, a number of even state-owned companies defaulted, the largest real estate holding company China Evergrande Group is experiencing serious difficulties. China could have poured money into these problems as they do in the West and nobody would pay attention to it but the Chinese leaders are deliberately worsening the situation.
China is deliberately dumping excess “fat” on Chinese companies, encouraging them to re-finance in China, focusing their attention on the domestic market. In early September, Fang Xinghai, deputy chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, said that the malicious influence of individual foreign investment institutions on the market as a whole must be prevented.
There will be an improvement in the domestic system for issuing and listing foreign companies and in the system for supervising the listing of companies abroad. The supervisory authority will further strengthen its capacity to oversee the risks of capital inflows and outflows.
On September 2, Xi Jinping announced that the country would set up a stock exchange in Beijing, where trading would be conducted in renminbi. It can be assumed that, if necessary, the Chinese leadership will force key corporations to delist on the US stock exchanges and list on the Beijing stock exchange.
In this way, China is trying to break old corporate habits and ties of Chinese companies with the West, to reduce dependence on the US in particular. Judging by the results of John Kerry’s visit to China and Joe Biden’s subsequent call to Xi Jinping, one may say that the Chinese leadership is successfully moving in that direction – increasing the political and economic sovereignty of the country.
In fact, China has grown to the point where it is already imposing a negotiating agenda on the US, and sooner or later, the US will have to realize and accept this.
Oleg Ladogin, RUSSTRAT