Reversals are so commonplace in history that for the Mountain to come to Mohamet, sparing him the arduous climb to its holy heights, need cause little surprise. Xi Jinping has come to Washington, where he was lavishly received and duly honored by President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Xi is General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and President (actually Chairman) of the state, the People’s Republic of China. Mr. Trump also unites party and state.
The New York Times (9/26) reports: “The trip was certainly a propaganda boost for Mr. Xi, who has sought to cast himself as an equal to Mr. Trump on the world stage.” Mr. Trump’s standing on the world stage and at home is at a low point, however, while China’s and Xi’s keep rising, so the opposite may be closer to the truth. Desperate to improve his standing, the US president would like to have some of Xi’s stature and prestige imparted to him. The resulting enthusiasm with which Trump treated his guest has disquieted the numerous US China hawks, an effect the US president may have indirectly sought.
At the summit, as many American observers have remarked, sometimes snidely, pageantry dominated. But the fact is leaders don’t usually negotiate; they simply stamp approval, usually publicly; negotiations are hammered out by subordinates. And cordial dialogue is far preferable to confrontation or the refusal to meet. Compare what the main European leaders have done with Russia, bent as they are on policies that seriously risk all-out war. Britain, France, and Germany have been continuously alarming their publics, claiming Russian aggression is coming any moment. Their aim is to justify the militarization of their economies, domestic austerity, and declining industry due to boycotting Russian energy.
In a European vein, much of the American nomenklatura and cognoscenti cast aspersions on the US-China summit. Why is the Mount Olympus of world government receiving a “communist dictator” in such high style? Commentator after commentator felt compelled to gravely insist, indignation laid on thick, that China was supplying arms to Iran or targeting data that (somehow) led to the deaths of three US soldiers in Kuwait or in Jordan. The evidence is far from conclusive, though it is conclusive that US-Israeli aggression (also known as a crime against the peace) started the war, and thus Washington and Tel Aviv bear the responsibility for those deaths and too many others. Such details the TV commentators are strictly schooled to ignore. Olympians disdain acknowledging responsibility and casually speak in the passive voice of a war that somehow broke out between the US and Iran. Nor does it cross their minds that the US sends arms to Taiwan, a detail uppermost in the minds of most Chinese. Had Trump not paused the (enforced?) sale of $20 billion worth of arms to Taiwan, there would have likely been no visit. So here is one takeaway for Xi: a message to Taiwan’s ruling DPP party not to take US support for granted.
Another forgotten but relevant detail, recently disclosed in the Financial Times, concerns the C430L transfer of Russian solid-fuel technology to Iran, a far more worrisome missile capability with its horizontal, low-level trajectory.
As for Taiwan the strictly schooled media habitually claims that it is a democratically ruled island that China “claims” to own. The reality is more complex, as Chas Freeman, a major authority on China, has shown. He was Nixon’s interpreter in China as well as Asst Secretary of Defense (1993-94) and ambassador to Saudi Arabia. One can find his writings on www.chasfreeman.net.
Three of his key points: One, the absurdity of treating international relations with the simplistic formula democracy versus autocracy; two, the costs of substituting militarism for diplomacy to assert national authority and interests; and three, Washington’s misguided effort to foment tensions between China and Taiwan. Freeman credits Washington with handling the Taiwan issues successfully until the 1990s when Russia went into Western receivership. But as China became more developed, US-China relations began slipping back into Cold War (Korea, Vietnam) dueling dogmas.
Freeman writes: «To normalize relations with Beijing, successive U.S. presidents gave specific commitments in three carefully negotiated joint communiqués. These documents – issued in 1972, 1979, and 1982 – are the foundation of Sino-American relations. In them, the U.S. government promised that it would no longer maintain official relations with Taipei, that it would have no troops and military installations on the island, and that it would sell only carefully selected defensive weapons to Taiwan on a restrained basis. In the third communiqué, the United States agreed to limit the quality and reduce the quantity of its arms sales to Taiwan . . . Over the succeeding decades, Washington has progressively eroded or set aside every one of these strictures”
These quotes by Freeman have been transferred from my article in SettimanaNews 12/29/2023 titled Chas Freeman A Prophet for Our Time, comparing him to Jeremiah.
[https://www.settimananews.it/informazione-internazionale/chas-freeman-prophet-for-our-time/]
It need cause little surprise that such an authoritative and articulate insider voice has not been platformed on mainstream media, print or tv.
