when sullivan came to beijing, two articles appeared on the internet
2024-08-30
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
this article is reproduced from [global times new media];
it's very interesting to look at them together.
in recent days, us president’s national security advisor sullivan has been conducting a new round of china-us strategic communication in my country.
brother gengzhi noticed that just before sullivan arrived in beijing on the 27th to start his three-day trip to china, the british financial times published an article, which seemed to be trying to build momentum for sullivan's visit to china and seize the right to speak for the us side.
the reason why i say this is that although this article reviews the three "strategic communication" meetings between china and the united states in vienna, malta and bangkok, and affirms the importance of these meetings in stabilizing sino-us relations, this article is actually written from the perspective of the us official. therefore, this article not only contains a lot of us government propaganda, but also expresses the us's dissatisfaction with china on two major issues, believing that china is "unsympathetic."
these two major issues are the taiwan issue and the us's characterization of sino-us relations.
according to the report of the financial times, the us is dissatisfied because their representatives have repeatedly told china that "the united states does not want to provoke a war across the taiwan strait", but china has never bought it; at the same time, the us representatives are also troubled by the fact that china cannot accept the us characterizing sino-us relations as a "competitive relationship" while hoping to carry out some cooperation with china.
however, what is interesting is that in addition to the financial times, hong kong's south china morning post also published an exclusive interview with charles freeman (chinese name fu limin), a former senior american diplomat and chief translator of then-us president nixon's delegation to china, on the eve of sullivan's visit.
the reason why i used the word "interesting" to describe this interview with fu limin is that the article in the financial times, which criticized china for "not understanding" the united states from the official perspective of the united states, was actually explained clearly by fu limin, a senior in the american diplomatic circle.
for example, on the taiwan issue, although the us claims that they "do not want to provoke a war in the taiwan strait", fu limin said that he believes that the us taiwan policy is constantly intensifying cross-strait confrontation rather than encouraging communication and reconciliation - especially the us arms sales and arming of taiwan.
he also pointed out with concern that many people in the united states, and even some people in the taiwan authorities, have turned the taiwan issue into a "purely military issue."
a "debate" on us taiwan policy held by the brookings institution in april this year also confirmed fu limin's concerns to a certain extent. because the focus of several american experts participating in the "debate" was on how the us government should prevent beijing from "reunifying" taiwan by force, but no one mentioned how to peacefully resolve the cross-strait issue. once it comes to how to resolve it, they either beat around the bush with rhetoric such as "arming taiwan and deterring beijing are the prerequisites for peacefully resolving the taiwan issue", or change the subject and say that they should consider taiwan's "public opinion" - even if this "public opinion" has long been distorted by the island's overwhelming anti-mainland propaganda and the united states' continued demonization and smearing of china's international image, political system, social livelihood and other aspects.
so, when the us says that "the us does not want to provoke a war across the taiwan strait", how can china possibly understand? who is it trying to fool?
secondly, as to why china cannot accept the us claim that sino-us relations are a "competitive relationship" but still hopes to cooperate with china, fu limin also gave a very clear reason in his exclusive interview.
he mentioned that while china was opening its market and discussing cooperation with other countries, the united states was constantly generalizing national security and undermining the international trade system of the world trade organization. at the same time, it was the united states, not china, that took the initiative to provoke trade wars and technology wars. most of the current u.s. china policies are aimed at hitting china's exports and technological development.
so how can china accept the us's rather arbitrary characterization of sino-us relations? if you infringe on my interests, i have to endure it silently, but if you seek cooperation with me, i have to welcome you with a smile?
in fact, when facing the visiting sullivan, the chinese side has made its words as clear as possible.
on the taiwan issue, china has made it clear that "taiwan belongs to china and china will surely reunify. 'taiwan independence' is the biggest risk to peace and stability in the taiwan strait. the us should implement its promise not to support 'taiwan independence', abide by the one-china principle and the three sino-us joint communiqués, stop arming taiwan, and support china's peaceful reunification."
in terms of relations between countries, china's position is: "the security of all countries must be common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable. the security of one country cannot be based on the insecurity of other countries. national security needs to have clear boundaries, especially in the economic field, which must be scientifically defined. the united states should stop suppressing china in the fields of economy, trade and science and technology, and stop undermining china's legitimate interests. using 'overcapacity' as an excuse to engage in protectionism will only harm global green development and affect world economic growth."
therefore, if the us government truly "does not want to provoke a war across the taiwan strait" and sincerely hopes to find the right positioning for sino-us relations with china, then the us representatives should read the words of their predecessor fu limin and look at china's statement this time, instead of pretending not to understand china's demands.
otherwise, it can only mean that the united states is now indeed trapped in a self-centered, "narcissistic future view of history" - as yang jiemian, a well-known chinese international relations scholar, said, and fu limin also recognized in his exclusive interview; it has lost the ability to empathize with other countries.
