Policy Alert #228 | March 25, 2021

Following the Quad summit, top members of the Biden foreign policy team embarked on their first overseas visit in mid-March. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met with their counterparts in Japan and South Korea but yielded different results in each country. The meeting in Japan led to a joint statement reaffirming the U.S.-Japan alliance while emphasizing China’s rising assertiveness in the region. In particular, the statement criticizes China’s recent actions regarding Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the East and South China Sea, while it also confirms U.S. commitment to defend Japan, including the disputed Senkaku Islands. In contrast, although the two sides in South Korea have discussed China’s rising influence and its role in pursing North Korean denuclearization, the joint statement reaffirms the U.S.-South Korea alliance without naming China.

After Japan and South Korea, Secretary Austin visited India to meet with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while Secretary Blinken joined National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Anchorage, Alaska for the Biden administration’s first top-level diplomatic meeting with China, which turned out to be a heated discussion with unusually contentious remarks between the two sides. In addition to the issues raised in the joint statement with Japan, Blinken told the Chinese delegation that China’s actions “threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability,” which is “why they’re not merely internal matters.” China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi, the director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, surprisingly provided a lengthy rebuttal aimed at challenging Washington’s demand for Beijing to change its behavior.

Specifically, Yang argued that China would only follow “the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called ‘rules-based’ international order.” Yang also made clear that the U.S. “does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.” Moreover, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated Beijing’s demand for Washington to “fully abandon the hegemonic practice of willfully interfering in China’s internal affairs” – “a longstanding issue” that “is time for it to change.” In response, Blinken refuted the Chinese statements by noting that his counterparts around the world had expressed “deep concern about some of the actions your government has taken” and that “it’s never a good bet to bet against America, and it’s true today.”

After the meeting, the U.S. accused the Chinese delegation of grandstanding and violating the protocol of the meeting, whereas the Chinese side blamed the U.S. for first exceeding the time limit and for not respecting diplomatic protocol by sanctioning 24 Chinese and Hong Kong officials one day before the meeting. Despite the heated exchanges, the Alaska meeting has resulted in a joint working group on climate change between the two countries.

In this Policy Alert, we examine how the Rising Powers are responding to the rising diplomatic tension between the U.S. and China.

China

After the U.S.-Japan joint statement, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian responded by stressing “there is only one system in the world, and it is the UN-centered international order; there is only one set of rules, and it is the basic norms governing international relations with the UN Charter as its cornerstone.” In addition, Zhao emphasized China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, the South China Sea, and the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands while accusing “the two countries colluding to meddle in China’s internal affairs and malign China.”

Unlike his previous combative remarks, Zhao provided a positive outlook on the future of U.S.-China relations after the Alaska meeting: “We hope the US can meet China halfway and following the spirit of our heads of state’s telephone conversation on the eve of the Chinese lunar New Year, focus on cooperation, manage difference and bring bilateral relations back onto the track of sound and stable development…[We] hope in the following closed-door meetings, the two sides can have thorough communication on implementing the spirit of the phone call between the two heads of state, and bring the bilateral relationship back to the right track through this dialogue.”

Four days after the Alaska meeting, Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited China and met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, after which the two sides issued a joint statement pushing for a summit of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council “to facilitate direct dialogue and discussion of solutions to problems facing all human beings and help maintain stability of the world.”

During Lavrov’s visit, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying commented that the visit will “cement the sound momentum of the high-level bilateral relations and bring the two countries closer in the strategic collaboration on international affairs… China is ready to work with Russia to follow through on the consensus of the two heads of state…and advance China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era at greater scope, in wider areas and at deeper levels.”

• In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, Steven Roach, a Senior Fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute of Global Affairs and former Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and Chief Economist at Morgan Stanley, proposes that for U.S.-China relations to move forward, both sides should first redirect their attention to economic and trade issues: “Trapped in the politics of America’s bipartisan groundswell of anti-China sentiment, US President Joe Biden’s team appears to be staying the course set by the previous administration… And China, trapped in a mindset born of a ‘century of humiliation’, compounded the problem with its assertive and defensive response… A better way would be for both sides to go back to basics – the economic and trade issues that have long anchored the US-China relationship. That doesn’t mean dismissing other tough issues. It means re-establishing common ground and mutual trust before expanding the agenda.”
• In an op-ed for the state-run China Daily, Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, foresees that the Biden administration’s policy to simultaneously take on Russia and China will further elevate the two countries’ existing partnership: “[There] is likely to be more collaboration in the domain of national security, ranging from techniques to bolster domestic stability to defense technologies to counter perceived US military threats. Enhancing the compatibility and interoperability of the Russian and Chinese armed forces through more frequent and more sophisticated joint exercises could be another possibility.”

India

After Japan and South Korea, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visited India to deepen security cooperation between the two countries. Austin first met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who outlined his vision for the strategic partnership between the two countries and emphasized the important role of bilateral defense cooperation in India-US ties. After the meeting, Modi tweeted “India and US are committed to our strategic partnership that is a force for global good.”

Austin also met with Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, after which the two sides issued joint remarks. Singh announced that the U.S. and India will expand “military-to-military engagement across services, information sharing, cooperation in emerging sectors of defense, and mutual logistics support,” while India will invite “U.S. industry to take advantage of India’s liberalized foreign direct investment policies in the defense sector.”

• An editorial from the liberal Indian Express raises a few concerns of political headwinds facing the deepening U.S.-India partnership: “There is the looming prospect of legally mandated US sanctions on India triggered by the purchase of the S-400 advanced air-defense missiles from Russia. Austin said he had not talked about sanctions, since India is yet to acquire the missiles… [The] current negative narrative in Washington about Indian democracy taking an illiberal turn may not be a problem today but could become one later.”
• In an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times, Wess Mitchell, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, sees that an Indian partnership with NATO would be a natural extension of the tightening U.S.-India relations: “In the near-term, India would derive strategic-signaling value from even the appearance of drawing closer to the Western Alliance at a crucial, early phase of Beijing’s transition to a more aggressive posture… Longer-term, India would derive military-strategic benefits from partnership with the world’s most powerful alliance… Partnering with NATO would not significantly constrain India’s broader geostrategic options. Egypt and Israel are both NATO partners who maintain defense relationships with Russia.”

Japan

Following the meeting with Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said China-related issues took up the majority of his two-way talks with Blinken and expressed strong opposition to the China’s “unilateral attempt” to change the status quo in the East and South China Seas. Meanwhile, Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi said that Japan, which has increasingly worked side-by-side with the U.S. military, will bolster extended deterrence and readiness across domains including space and cybersecurity by deepening coordination and aligning security policies.

• An editorial from the liberal Asahi Shimbun urges the U.S. and China to boost dialogue and cool down bilateral tensions: “No party in the international community wants to see the two countries spiral into a head-on confrontation… Washington should carefully coordinate its policy toward China with its partners, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and Europe… Under the banner of a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific,’ Japan has been seeking to rally countries for a diplomatic initiative to counter China’s increasing assertiveness. While enhancing its cooperation with Washington under the framework of its ‘value-based’ diplomacy, Tokyo should also embark on its own independent dialogue with Beijing.”
• An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun sees the contentious exchange during the Alaska meeting as a demonstration of China’s self-righteous behavior and praises the Biden administration for showing strength: “There is no end to the list of ways in which China has not hesitated to use force in its attempts to change international systems that the United States has built based on freedom and the rule of law… In previous high-level talks with China, past U.S. administrations often failed to solve pending issues because they put too much priority on avoiding confrontation and making a show of cooperation…The Biden administration takes the stance that China has to change its behavior before bilateral relations can move forward… In preparation for a protracted U.S.-China confrontation, Japan and other U.S. allies need to enhance deterrence against China’s military buildup and establish a system that does not rely on China in the field of advanced technologies.”

Russia

After meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticized the U.S. for the “destructive nature” of its intentions to “undermine the UN-centered international legal architecture relying on military-political alliances of the Cold War era and creating new closed alliances in the same vein.”

During an interview with China’s state-run Xinhua News, Lavrov emphasized that “China is a truly strategic partner of Russia and a like-minded country, and their mutually trusting and respectful dialogue should serve as an example to other countries.” In particular, Lavrov noted that “the formation of a truly multipolar and democratic world, are unfortunately being hindered by Western countries, particularly the United States. In response, Russia and China are promoting a constructive and unifying agenda and hope that the international governance system would be fair and democratic.”

• In an op-ed for The Moscow Times, an independent newspaper based in Moscow, Vita Spivak, a China analyst at UC Rusal, sees the Russian and Chinese economies becoming increasingly integrated: “It’s likely that Russia will be able to sell more gas to China, though as far as pipeline gas is concerned, the Chinese market is increasingly becoming a buyer’s market…The fourteenth five-year plan is good news for Russian agriculture, in addition to the usual Russian exports to China such as hydrocarbons, metals, and fertilizers… The technology part of China’s latest five-year plan is also extremely important for Russia… Given its escalating confrontation with the West, Russia will become increasingly integrated into China’s tech orbit.”
• In an interview with state-owned Sputnik News, Glenn Diesen, a Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an Editor at Russia in Global Affairs, argues that to maintain its influence among European allies, Washington needs to keep Russian energy and Chinese technologies away from Europe: “China is currently establishing itself as a European power as its technologies and strategic industries are penetrating the European market… The EU has recognized the need to establish ‘strategic autonomy’ from the US to assert ‘European sovereignty,’ although there is an impulse to retreat into the trans-Atlantic partnership… The US has had great difficulties in terms of converting the security dependence of the Europeans into geoeconomic loyalty, as evident by the Europeans still buying Chinese technologies and Russian energy.”