The flags of the United States and China are on display at the stand of the American International Chamber of Commerce (AICC) during the China International Trade in Services Expo in Beijing, China, May 28, 2019.
Jason Lee | Reuters
BEIJING – A recent US strategy paper on China that was read widely in Washington, DC, met only a fleeting response in Beijing as the limited public debate focused on one point: The author misunderstood China.
“The Longer Telegram” was released in late January He suggested how the new US administration should deal with a rising China by laying out a detailed critique of the Communist Party government under the president. Xi Jinping.
The newspaper said that the effective approach of the United States on China requires “the same disciplined approach it applied to defeat the Soviet Union.” “The US strategy must remain laser-focused on Xi, his inner circle, and the Chinese political context in which they govern.”
The anonymous author is a “former senior US government official,” according to Washington-based Atlantic Council Research Center Which published the long paper.
The piece attempts to replicate a historical document that shaped Washington’s policy on the Soviet Union – dubbed “The Long Telegram,” sent from Moscow in February 1946 at the dawn of the Cold War.
So far in Beijing, the newspaper has not been discussed much by major state media, except for the uproarious state-backed tabloid Global Times, and even then, almost entirely in English. “Longer Telegram” is a late-stage dominant farce. Read the title of one review article.
On the The official news site of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, An article in Chinese portraying the strategy piece as possessing an old-fashioned mindset, and her view of the country contrasts with a modern one. State media report on a Chinese woman The ability to get out of poverty.
In response to a question from a Global Times reporter, the Chinese Foreign Ministry criticized The Longer Telegram for its call to contain China.
The ministry said, according to an official translation, that such comments against the ruling Communist Party were “a collection of rumors and conspiracy theories” and that attempts to push US-Chinese relations toward conflict would lead to “complete failure.”
The sporadic nationwide comments come as tensions escalate between the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, and are managed by vastly different government regimes.
“The Longer Telegram” has sparked a lot of controversy in the world of US foreign policy, with critics saying the newspaper is misrepresenting China and focusing too much on Xi’s role. But many agree with the newspaper’s call for a more deliberate US policy toward China.
This growing cohesion on a tougher US stance on China is a source of concern in Beijing.
“The Longer Telegram” does not represent the Chinese reality nor is it a good starting point for dialogue, said Chen Yami, deputy director and associate research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies under the state-backed think tank.
According to Chen, the mistake the newspaper makes is that it is not applicable in this situation, as China has not said it wants to replace the United States. She added that it is the United States that cares about whether to lose its central location in the United States. Globalism.
Critics say the state-dominated system in China benefited from being allowed to join the World Trade Organization in 2001 without quickly integrating the kind of free market and rules-based system that countries like the United States advocated.
To counter these developments, The Longer Telegram says the United States should establish clear red lines and points for Beijing’s national security, which, if crossed, would lead to a resolute American response.
Some of those red lines include a Chinese military attack or an economic blockade on Taiwan, according to the report, which also said that the United States must firmly resist any Chinese threats to America’s global communications systems.
The original author of “Long Telegram” in 1946 was American diplomat George Kennan, who Moscow responded to the US State Department’s inquiry about Soviet foreign policy. Kennan He published a related article next year in Foreign Affairs, under the pseudonym “X”. In 1952 he began a brief stint as the US ambassador in Moscow.
Kennan emphasized in his paper that the Russians were intent on expanding the Soviet regime around the world and against coexisting with the West. He believed that instead of appeasing the United States, the United States should use pressure to achieve cooperation With the Soviet government, or even its internal collapse.
For more than 70 years – including the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 – the United States has led the so-called liberal world order in which international institutions lay the foundations for a world order.
This shift began in the past decade or so, with the growing economic and technological influence of China, along with former US President Donald Trump’s one-man approach to foreign policy.
It is not clear what the president does Joe Biden He will take, but stick to a tough stance on China, albeit on a more calm tone than the previous administration.
“The challenges with Russia may be different from the challenges with China, but they are quite real.” Biden informed the European allies in a speech last week.
Biden made his first phone call as president with Xi earlier this month. The US President and the First Lady also released a video clip congratulating the Lunar New Year, which was widely shared on Chinese social media.
Comments scattered on the internet about “The Longer Telegram” were still dismissed.
In a nearly 30-minute-long video from Feb.5 and over 900,000 views, Fudan University Professor Xin Yi said The newspaper rejected Kennan’s attempt as a joke.
Online article of February 7 by Zhongnan University of Economics and Law professor of law Qiao Xinsheng said in an online article that the strategy The paper failed to accurately analyze the difficulties the Soviet Union faced The United States should not expect China to “disintegrate”.