Antony Blinken's Trip to China
A rare moment of diplomacy from the Biden administration.
Antony Blinken, the Secretary of State for the Biden administration, recently took a trip to China where he met with top Chinese officials, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, in an attempt to ease tensions between the US and China. Both sides have expressed that the talks were “constructive”, which was somewhat of a surprise given the current state of US-China relations.
By all accounts, the relationship between the US and China has deteriorated over the last several years, a trend that’s only been exacerbated in recent months. According to a statement made by Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang during Blinken’s visit, that relationship had reached “the lowest point since its establishment.” Many pundits and politicians within the US claim that deterioration is due to China’s actions, but anyone who’s immune to the propaganda can see how blatantly obvious it is that the US has been the aggressor.
Blinken, who was the first US Secretary of State to visit China since 2018, was originally scheduled to take this trip back in February. However, due to the hysteria from the alleged “Chinese spy balloon” that flew over the US at the time, Blinken abruptly canceled. It wasn’t immediately clear if or when the trip would be rescheduled, and it was actually reported by Politico back in April that in response to Blinken trying to reschedule his visit, China was “giving him the cold shoulder.”
That Blinken still had a productive visit to China after such a setback is a rare moment of diplomacy from the US, especially compared to how poor Blinken’s performance has been when it comes to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The first time Blinken spoke with his Russian counterpart after the war began was in July of last year, five months after Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, and even that brief conversation lacked any talks of a ceasefire. The US has been entirely absent when it has come to peace talks and negotiations to end that war (unless you count sabotaging them) and as America’s top diplomat, Blinken carries much of the blame for that absence.
UFOs, Balloons, and Cold War Hysteria
The Meat of the Meetings
Blinken landed in China on Sunday, June 18, where he met with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang for over five hours. According to the South China Morning Post, the discussions “were meant to reduce friction over a range of issues, including Taiwan, the war in Ukraine and US-led tech containment.” After the meeting, both Blinken and Qin agreed to conduct more talks in the US sometime in the near future.
On Monday, June 19, Blinken met with China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, as well as Chinese President Xi Jinping. There was speculation that Blinken would meet with Xi during his visit but it wasn’t confirmed until right before that meeting took place. Blinken and Xi only spoke for around half an hour, but it’s been reported that they both agreed on the need to “stabilize” US-China relations.
Blinken’s trip has mostly been regarded as a success, at least from the establishment, but that doesn’t mean the US got everything it wanted. “After meeting Xi,” reads an article from the Associated Press, “Blinken said China is not ready to resume military-to-military contacts, something the U.S. considers crucial to avoid miscalculation and conflict, particularly over Taiwan.”
According to YouTuber Beau of the Fifth Column, China’s decision to reject the proposition of setting up an official military-to-military line of communication likely has to do with the tensions between the US and China over Taiwan.
“Those lines,” he said in a recent video, “are for maintaining the status quo.” However, “they [China] don’t want the status quo.” He goes on to say that China “wants Taiwan” and for “the United States to back off.” He later elaborates that an official line between the two militaries would put China in a less strategic position:
They [China] could, let’s say, mobilize … and they do it in a very obvious way, so the United States sees it. The United States’ response, well that’s going to be monitored by China. But if that official line of communication exists, where it’s top brass to top brass, during that phone call the Chinese leader would indicate “Well that’s just a training exercise,” so then the US doesn’t respond. It is in China’s national interest to not really have that line right now.
I’m skeptical that China wants to invade Taiwan anytime soon, (to be fair though, I felt the same way about Russia invading Ukraine up until it happened) but China has stated that its goal is for eventual reunification with the island — by force if necessary — so Beau’s theory does make sense. It could also be that China doesn’t want to cooperate with the US more than it already has without better assurances that the US will cease its provocations, considering that the US is responsible for the vast majority of the recent escalations between the two countries.
An Island For an Island
During Blinken’s visit, the Chinese officials he met with all emphasized the importance of the US maintaining its longstanding “One China” policy, which means that the US does not view Taiwan as an independent state but rather as a renegade province of China. That has been the official policy of the US since the late-70s, but the US has strayed from that policy more and more in recent years. However, at a press conference after his meeting with Xi Jinping, Blinken reaffirmed that policy by stating that the US does not support Taiwan’s independence.
That statement caused Blinken to receive a wave of backlash, particularly from those on the “America First” right, but as I just explained, that policy is not new, and the US’s recent signals of a potential shift in that policy have been a major cause of contention between the US and China. Blinken reaffirming US support for a policy that’s been in place for decades is one of the only sensible positions the Biden administration has taken toward Beijing, and it’s unfortunate that many people on the right — the same people who somehow seem to recognize the failure of the last 20-plus years of “forever wars” in the Middle East and also that the US should end its involvement in the war in Ukraine — are such hawks when it comes to China.
https://twitter.com/LafayetteCahill/status/1670895143686209538
As I stated above, the US has increasingly signaled support for Taiwan over the last few years, including in the months preceding Blinken’s trip. Some examples of such behavior are:
Then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi visiting the island back in August 2022.
Current Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy hosting Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in California in April of this year.
President Biden stating that the US will militarily defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion — which goes against the US’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” on that issue — not just once, not twice, but four separate times.
Several recent attempts by Congress to send billions of dollars in military aid to Taiwan.
The US sending over 200 troops to Taiwan to train the island’s armed forces.
Those examples were each a blatant provocation toward China, and they all evoked a response. While the tensions between the US and China have been on the rise since before Biden took office, all of the examples I just mentioned occurred during his administration, which is why Blinken’s recent diplomatic mission to China yielding any positive results at all was fairly unexpected. With such a cluster of provocations all taking place within such a short amount of time, is it any wonder that US-China relations have deteriorated so badly?
Nancy Pelosi's Reckless Trip to Taiwan
Considering the amount of hostility Biden has shown toward China during his term (and don’t let his son Hunter’s shady business dealings in China fool you, Biden has indeed been very hawkish toward Beijing), this recent change in tone from his administration is notable. One possible reason for this shift could be the fact that Taiwan has presidential and legislative elections coming up in 2024, and a potential war with China over closer ties with the US is on the ballot thanks in large part to an up-and-coming pro-China political party gaining popularity in the polls.
As The South China Morning Post reports:
The opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) has risen to become the island’s second most popular option, in survey findings predicted to send “super shock waves” through major elections next year.
The ruling, independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is projected to emerge victorious when Taiwan votes in presidential and legislative elections in January, in what has for decades been a two-party contest with the Beijing-friendly main opposition Kuomintang (KMT).
But the latest poll findings may foretell a turning of the tide, observers said, with the TPP’s standing likely to offer a “meaningful third choice”.
The article goes on to say that “Apart from leaving the KMT behind, the TPP was just 2.4 percentage points behind the DPP,” and it ends by saying that, Ko Wen-je, the TPP’s 2024 presidential candidate “has been reported to be Beijing’s preferred presidential candidate in the January elections, mainly due to his stated belief that Taiwan and mainland China are a family.”
While the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party is still leading in the polls, it appears that their victory in the upcoming elections is uncertain. That uncertainty might have played a role in the decision by Blinken, and the Biden administration more broadly, to pivot away from an openly pro-Taiwan stance, at least temporarily. After all, it would be much harder to sell war propaganda about China being a threat to Taiwan’s democracy if the people of Taiwan democratically choose to move closer to Beijing.
Personally, I don’t see Blinken’s latest statement as a genuine shift in policy but rather a ploy to bide some time until the elections are over and a clearer picture emerges of Taipei’s willingness (or lack thereof) to be a proxy in a US-backed war. That being said, some diplomacy is better than no diplomacy, and any de-escalation of tensions is a move in the right direction.
The day after Blinken’s trip to China, it was reported by The Wall Street Journal that China is negotiating the establishment of a joint military training facility in Cuba. Earlier this month the Journal also reported that Cuba agreed to allow “China to establish an electronic eavesdropping facility on the island," and that “The revelation about the planned site has sparked alarm within the Biden administration because of Cuba’s proximity to the U.S. mainland.”
When writing about the latest reporting from The Wall Street Journal for Antiwar.com, Dave Decamp succinctly explains a significant difference between China’s alleged conduct in Cuba and the US’s conduct in Taiwan, despite the similarities:
Taiwan is roughly 100 miles from the coast of mainland China, about the same distance Cuba is from Florida. The major difference between the two islands is that China considers Taiwan its own territory, while the US does not claim Cuba.
In response to the Journal’s reporting, the same “America First” right-wingers have come out in full force to criticize China, with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) going as far as suggesting an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that would give President Biden the authority to “take out the Chinese assets in Cuba”.
The idea that the US should be allowed to spread its military all across the globe uninhibited but that other countries like China and Russia shouldn’t be able to do the same, or even be allowed a sphere of influence in their own regions, is entirely absurd. Unfortunately, however, that appears to be the dominant attitude in Washington, and Gaetz’s latest suggestion epitomizes that perspective. That isn’t to say that China, Russia, or any other nation exerting influence through military force is justified, just that it’s extremely hypocritical for the US to criticize such actions when it is obviously the worst offender.
When speaking on the Ron Paul Liberty Report about the prospect of China setting up a military facility in Cuba, cohost Dan McAdams explained why Cuba would be willing to allow China to do so despite objections from the US:
The US has basically kicked Cuba in the face for 60 years, done everything we could to try to destroy them, tried to kill their leaders, all kinds of crazy stuff, for 60 years. … By doing this, we’ve isolated Cuba. Cuba doesn’t look to the US as an ally or a friend, or even someone to negotiate with. … And this really underscores the failure of US diplomacy, which is always one sided.
Cuba has every right to cooperate with China, and the US intervening to stop that cooperation would be similar to Russia invading Ukraine due to fears of Western influence in a country right on its doorstep. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is immoral and unjustified (which it is), then the same would be true of any US interference in Cuba. If the US wants to prevent China from creating military installations on the island, then maybe it should cease its involvement in Taiwan.
From Tensions to Diplomacy and Back Again
As was to be expected, whatever decrease in tensions that came out of Blinken’s trip was short-lived. After Blinken arrived back in the States, the US government quickly returned to inflammatory rhetoric and military action.
On June 20, the very next day after Blinken's two-day trip, President Joe Biden called Xi Jinping a “dictator” who was “embarrassed” about the alleged spy balloon entering US airspace earlier this year. Biden's remarks prompted a response from the Chinese government, which lodged a formal complaint with the US ambassador in Beijing. Regardless of how one feels about Xi Jinping or the Chinese government, we should all agree that the President of the United States of America should choose his words more carefully, especially during a time of such heightened tensions.
That same day, a US Coast Guard cutter transited the Taiwan Strait, which China viewed as provocative. Why the US Coast Guard has any business being right off of China's coast is a question worth asking, as it's exactly that sort of conduct that has led to the deterioration of relations that Blinken's visit was ostensibly meant to mitigate.
Those are just the latest examples of the US provoking China, but they are far from the worst cases of such behavior. Some irresponsible rhetoric from our geriatric president pales in comparison to the US vastly increasing its military presence in the region, particularly in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
As Caitlin Johnstone recently wrote:
The US empire has been surrounding China with military bases and war machinery for many years, in ways Washington would never tolerate China doing in the nations and waters surrounding the United States. There is no question that the US is the aggressor in this increasingly hostile standoff between major powers.
Overall, Blinken's trip to China appears to have been little more than some highly publicized lip service to the idea of de-escalation rather than a real attempt at diplomacy. Nonetheless, given the state of US-China relations before Blinken's visit, any progress made on that front is worth acknowledging. Unfortunately, I don't expect the Biden administration to continue down this trajectory in the long term, but for now, I'll take whatever amount of diplomacy they're willing to engage in over them actively increasing tensions. Blinken’s track record as the US’s top diplomat is still lacking immensely, however, and his recent trip to China didn’t even come close to making up for his inadequate performance elsewhere.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoy my writing, feel free to subscribe to my Substack, or you can follow me on Twitter, Minds, or MeWe.