​  
The President of the U.S., Joe Biden, and the President of China, Xi Jinping, held a virtual summit on November 16, 2021 from 8:45 – 12:15 AM (Washington DC time, 8:45 PM, 11-15-2021). Thanks to today's internet technology and media's diligence, I was able to watch the live broadcast of their opening remarks, 3 hours commentators' kibitz from Taiwan on their anxious expectations of this summit, later the press conference of Zhao Li-Jian, spokesperson of China's Foreign Ministrym answering queries for the details of the summit, and the formal readout of the virtual summit by U.S. National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, via a zoom broadcast hosted by John R. Allen, President of Brookings Institution (BI), which was immediately followed by a BI panel discussion, moderated by Suzanne Maloney, VP and Director, Foreign Policy (FP) with panelists: Jessica Brandt, Policy Director, AI and Emerging Technology Initiative and Fellow, FP, Ryan Hass, Senior Fellow and Michael H. Armacost Chair, Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies, FP, Cheng Li, Senior Fellow and Director, John L. Thornton China Center, and Joshua P. Meltzer, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development. All of the above were taken in within 16 hours, free of charge! While everything is fresh on my mind, I will present my view on this highly anticipated G-2 leader summit in this column, “Meaning of Xi-Biden Virtual Summit, Readouts and Comments”.  
 
First, I watched the opening of the virtual meeting on a Taiwan live broadcast so I might follow the Taiwan news commentators on this most sensitive U.S. - China issue. President Biden made the opening remarks first with Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen and Kurt Campbell, Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific present. From the opening, both sides said nothing striking except both felt contact and dialog were necessary to manage the relations whether competing or cooperating. From the U.S. participating slate (missing the trade representative, the secretary of commerce and the secretary of defense), one would anticipate no significant and concrete negotiations on trade and military matters at this summit. Sure enough, no specific mentions of them at the end. The Taiwan issue was very sensitive to China and to the current pro-independence administration in Taiwan. With Blinken and Campbell at the summit, there should be some serious discussion on the Taiwan issue. Many political commentators (divided by pro-unification versus pro-independence) there seemed to realize that the U.S. would not support either positions. Taiwan being an unsettled issue is actually fulfilling the best interest of the U.S. One school of thoughts discussed in the open is that Taiwan to Mainland China is comparable to that of Ukraine to Russia in the context of U.S. foreign policy – both as pawns of chess. This thought deserves a future discussion. Watching Biden and his staff's mannerism at the summit opening (concentrating in taking notes), I got the feeling that the U.S. team was not so confident in this diplomatic encounter (胸无成竹）。
 
The routine press conference of China's Foreign Ministry took place after the summit. (coincidentally?) Naturally, the details of the summit were queried. Mr. Zhao was prepared to describe the summit with four points (1234). There is ONE most important issue, the Taiwan issue, Xi iterated China's position, the one China principle and the Shanghai three communiques. The second point is TWO leaders reached the agreement that US-China relations are important, both need to manage well their domestic affairs, be responsible to the world and not engage in a cold war. There are THREE principles: 1. mutual respect, 2. peaceful coexistence, and 3. cooperating for mutual benefit, governing the US-China relations. The fourth point is to act on FOUR matters: 1. Act like a responsible great nation, 2. promote mutual benefits and apply positive energy in all areas, economy, education, military, …, 3. apply constructive means to manage differences and problems, and 4. increase cooperation on important issues and maintain fair and just world order. This readout concretely summarized China's concerns. More press questions followed, the answers could be netted out as: Two leaders agreed in maintaining close contact and moving towards each other. Hong Kong is China's domestic matter. Reducing tariff question was deflected to other department for answer (obviously, no trade solution was reached and work needed in the days ahead.) Both sides discussed Korean Peninsula situation but the Winter Olympic invitation did not come up and no further meeting date set. The summit appeared to be a good meeting offering the two sides a chance to exchange thoughts and reflect. Xi called Biden an old friend, in Chinese culture that has to be interpreted as a positive friendly gesture with expectation of improving relationship. Biden supported the Taiwan Act and claimed that he understood the Taiwan issue. What I am afraid is that Biden may fail to crisply compare China in 1979 and China today. In 1979 Taiwan was much wealthier than Mainland China and Mainlanders had a rosy perception about Taiwan and the U.S. Today, 2-3 generations later, most Mainland citizens understood that 'exceptionalism' (American term but Chinese uses confidence民族自信）lies in ability, self-reliance and hard drive.                     
 
In the readout at the BI zoom broadcast, Jake Sullivan emphasized that Biden had made significant achievements in the FP area like alliances, Quad, AUKUS, global minimum tax, etc. then stressed that the value of a virtual meeting is more than phone calls (Jake is certainly aware of BI's platform and audience.) He summarized the summit opening as Biden giving his clear vision to Xi, raising his concerns on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and South China Sea and a fair amount of discussion on Taiwan issue. Biden welcomed the US-China joint climate statement and expressed that two could work together on North Korea and energy issue. Biden said China's climate act is not a favor to the U.S. There may be a hidden message which we may explore later. In my opinion, John Kerry did a superb job on the climate issue despite of a cold relation between the two countries. The U.S. is working for the international system not against China. The U.S. will stand up for her values. Sullivan's readout is not as crisp as Zhao's (above, 1234) and Deputy Minister, Xie Feng's readout (outlined as 3421). The order of points chosen by Xie might indicate the pragmatism of China's foreign ministry in carrying out its missions, prioritizing issues and having a better diplomatic attitude in solving international relation problems (in contrast to hypocritical manners). The Q&A covered “next step, meeting atmosphere, technology competition, and how to control nuclear weapon escalation”. As expected, Sullivan stayed on official ground and emphasized the value of leader to leader interaction in resolving problems and dealing with strategic issues. Jake painted a positive image on the atmosphere question: They were familiar with each other, referring to the past, both realizing the weight of responsibility needed to be shouldered responsibly. Jake said Biden is always Biden, he will not stand down on hard issues, the discussion on Taiwan was incredibly direct. China for sure was direct but would the U.S. move away from ambiguity?  (糢糊政策）That remains to be seen, hopefully not driven by no means. (束手无策）
 
The BI panel was interesting but more like restating everyone's specialty and beliefs. Summarizing the panelists remarks relating to the summit, the main points are: The US-China relation was dysfunctional, the summit tried to restore and put a floor underneath. Biden faces DC pressure, the summit sent a message that the relation was not a free fall. Nothing said about tariff but important not to walkout of trade negotiation. Some level of relation is better for the U.S. The cooperation of allies is essential. Will Taiwan issue become clear? U.S. bipartisan support for Taiwan was decades long but Biden reiterated no support for Taiwan independence. Both leaders mentioned the past, used good tone and wanted no cold war. Both called out public health as an issue, a good thing. Xi's relaxing travel rules for foreign business people may lead to more contacts. Though relation is tough, it is not impossible to work together. There is a tendency to form a two-block system (trade, energy, IT, navigation, military, …), but do we want that to happen and should we avoid zero-sum game? The real competition is how each delivers results of good governance to each country. Very clearly, the BI panel is encouraging the administration to improve US-China relations!
 
Was the all-night tracking of the Xi-Bi summit worthwhile? Definitely not for everyone. However, being the first to know the facts, I am more confident to accept mass media's conclusions. For Xi-Bi summit, we see WSJ headline: “Biden Xi Cool Down Hostilities in Virtual Meeting”, NY Times Headline: “Biden and Xi Pledge More Cooperation, but Offer No Breakthrough” and BBC China Correspondent Stephen McDonell: “This does appear to be a genuine attempt at a reset and we should actually expect this to alter global geopolitical relations in a concrete way.” Dr. Wordman agrees. 
 
 
 

 
A Chinese Canadian journalist, Joanna Chiu, has just published a book, entitled, China Unbound - A New World Disorder (Annansi Press 2021 Canada), one more book (not quite as those bashing China books mushroomed out in the recent two years) that is taking an ideological stand of liberal democracy against authoritarianism or totalitarianism. I read her very well written introductory chapter and an author interview and book review by Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, entitled, How Unheeded Warnings about China Are Now Hurting Chinese Canadians (Axios Interview, October 26, 2021). From what I have read, I have sensed that there is a spin in the interview article which is contradictory to my observations on China view by Chinese diaspora in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Africa and Asia. It is true that there is a ‘bashing China’ movement surging up, for instance in Australia, UK and the U.S., but that effort, though seemingly endorsed by government official positions, is not accepted by the majority of global Chinese diaspora. The mainstream media, though more visible, does not reflect the organic view expressed in cross-nation Internet community such as mailing lists, blocs, and social media. Before we elaborate on this observation, we first discuss the main points about China expressed by Ms. Chiu, who is a Hong Kong Born, Canada educated, Chinese Canadian journalist reporting on human rights and discrimination issues.
 
Ms Chiu described her great-great-great grandfather’s life as an immigrant to Canada, being badly mistreated and discriminated. He went back to Hong Kong and years later Ms. Chiu’s father immigrated back to Canada. It is understandable that Ms. Chiu has a strong feeling about racial discrimination as shown in her book discussing how hate crimes surged when the Pandemic was blamed on China (example, Kung Flu was used to call the COVID-19 virus). She also was critical of China’s handling of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. On this issue, there are ample evidence showing that the “genocide” and “concentration camp” stories are fabricated charges. Many witness accounts can be found on the YouTube not only showing Uyghurs’ prosperity in Xinjiang but as a whole they grow more in population than Han people. They also have far better education and job opportunities than China’s neighboring Muslim populations who become envious of the Uyghurs. XinJiang’s cotton industry grow to 60-70% of world market share which is the real concern of the West about Xinjiang. Unfortunately, there is always a few dissidents who get featured in the West mass media for bashing China purposes. Ms. Chiu is obviously influenced by her sources of information thus formulating her opinion about China accordingly. But we cannot ignore the vast organic views, especially views of those visitors to Xinjiang having no axe to grind.
 
Chiu’s reporting on Human Rights perhaps alienated the Chinese government leading to sanctioning her entry to China. Human Rights is a noble topic to discuss, but ignoring historical discrimination and cruelty in colonial days and today’s HR issue (such as American Indians and blacks in North America) but selectively picking on Tienanmen event, one incident happened more than three decades ago, just do not sit well with anyone with an objective mind. The understanding and interpretation of HR and discrimination issue cannot rely on a few selected interviews or documented cases simply because of the complexity involved. China’s national policies evolve with time just like the U.S. human rights movement progress with time. The slope and direction of change are far more important than one or two data points. Chiu accuses the current day’s oversimplified and opposing views about China, but she seems to fall into the same trap by making oversimplified conclusion on Chinese government, Xi’s ideology and Chinese people’s reaction to the ever changing CCP and China instead of drawing on the broad opinion of Chinese Diaspora about China. Globally and recently, Chinese diaspora is converging in support of China simply because of China’s performance as a nation, rising economically, lifting people out of poverty and improving living conditions including minorities in significant strides. In contrast, the West has slowed down in progress and has been transforming from self-confident to feeling threatened. Chiu’s report on rising hate crimes against Chinese in Canada is a clear evidence.
 
Chiu is confused with systemic discrimination in US/Canada arising from racism (which was received by many Chinese for years and perked up recently when relation with China being politicized, distorted reports from media and government's  manipulations) and personal discrimination. In Chiu’s case she took a political stand with Canadian government (Huawei, Ms Meng and Kovrig), wrote biased articles demonizing China about Xinjiang and got revenged by other Chinese Canadians. It was China’s unyielding position that finally won the freedom for Ms. Meng, Global Chinese diaspora overwhelmingly approve China’s actions. Calling those Chinese Canadians working for China is ignoring the fact that more Chinese diaspora are disgusted by “China bashing” hence taking revenge on Chinese Canadian journalists who wrote negative stories about China.
 
Sadly, the U.S. democracy over the past 250 years made slow progress and lost in major goals in building a government system really for the people not for a few financial oligarch or organizations to control the country. China’s one-party system is definitely more authoritarian but it is more for the people (regardless whether it is afraid of people’s uprising or out of true ideology). China would moderate capitalists control and their wealth power to lift people out of poverty elevating into middle class. That is why China now has a large middle-class population (more than the U.S., EU or any other country). Chinese citizens now travel the world spending money,  helping or saving other nation’s economy like that of Italy, Australia or Canada. The Anglo-Saxon countries felt threatened but reacted with an unfair competition plan by building an alliance targeting China. The West claims that the target is on CCP not on Chinese people. But CCP enjoys 80-95% approval ratings in China. Here in the West, the political leadership can hardly get above 50% favorable rating. Our political leaders felt threatened. Unfortunately they seemed to recall only the history of dealing with a weak China and Asia during colonial days using military force to solve disputes. But time has changed, China has risen. China never exported her system to other country like the U.S. did. The so-called China Threat is all internally generated or fabricated to cover up the government’s incompetence (taking ten years to build a subway, no high speed rail, deteriorating infrastructure, etc. in contrast to CCP’s successful continuous five year plans for decades). A real solution is to wake up and honestly reflect on our past successes and failures and contemplate how to compare, cooperate, and compete with China for the benefits of the people.
​
Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.
 

​
The achievement of US superpower status owes to its historical evolution, abundant resources, and various geopolitical factors. The U.S. foreign policy has its legacy shaped by many of its elites. Most ordinary citizens are led by the elites through media reports and their influence. Today’s U.S. China Policy and the people’s reaction to it are shaped and led this way, however, the American people must be aware of its consequence, which is re-trotting the road towards another war just like the Korean, the Vietnam, the Iraq and the Afghanistan Wars. This article speaks out on this issue, hoping to arouse the awakening of the American people from 'war addiction'.

I. Americans’ glory

The U.S. is a big rich big continental country securely shielded by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Though racial discrimination exists, America is an immigrants’ heaven with abundant opportunities for foreign elites. Immigrants were very helpful in US 250 years of nation building. Fortunately, George Washington, a great leader, successfully led the revolution, gained the independence of the U.S. and served as its first president. Luckily, many brilliant political figures in the early American history chartered the Declaration of Independence, formulated a three-branch separate power federal government and advanced a democratic system gradually expanded people's rights to vote. Then happily, President Lincoln made the right decision to abolish the slavery system and fought the pro-slavery South. Though he was assassinated, the unity of the U.S. was preserved. The abandonment of the slavery system made the U.S. an even more desirable country for immigrants. Therefore, more elites from countries in stress immigrated to the U.S.

In the two world wars, the U.S. has learned some valuable lessons: Don't join a war lightly unless it is absolutely beneficial to the U.S. and don't bring any war to the homeland. In WW I, the U.S. didn't suffer any loss but gained profits. In WW II, the U.S. made profits by selling large amounts of steel to Japan for its invasions in Asia until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. WW II did not cause devastating injury to the U.S. as it did to many nations; on the contrary, it made U.S. a world power. Unfortunately, it also caused some American elites to like participation in war. The American military-industry-enterprises can sell weapons for high profits, addictive like opium. Once the military-industrial-complex Is addicted to opium; it cannot stop, the underlying cause for the U.S. to launch wars so easily and frequently post WW II, mostly for profits and less for world prosperity, human rights, justice, and poverty alleviation.

II. The Myth of American Hegemony and the Thucydides Trap

The hegemonic behavior of the U.S. is controversial. In the struggle against hegemony in the era of the communist Soviet Union, the actions of the U.S. were praised by the liberal camp. The contemporary American elites are influenced by the thoughts of two international relations and foreign affairs masters (scholars) on foreign strategic policies. One is John Mearsheim (12/14/1947), West Point Military Academy (1966-70), Air Force, Master from Southern California (1974), and PhD from Cornell (1980). He is currently a professor at Chicago University. His theory of hegemony and offensive realism is that great powers will always take the path of confrontation following hegemony, competition will never stop, hence war is the endgame. He considers U.S. - Russia, and U.S. - China are all hegemonic struggle.

Another master is Graham Allison (3/23/1940), Harvard Bachelor (1962), Oxford Bachelor (Marshall Scholar 1964), Harvard PhD (1968) and has been teaching at Harvard since then, having students all over the world. Based on the Greek history, he deduced a Thucydides Trap theory - Powerful countries cannot escape the Thucydides trap, meaning competition leading to war. These two scholars made a great influence on American diplomatic and military strategy. However, in the Korean War (6/25/1950-7/27/1953), the U.S. did not gain much benefit but only split Korea as thorns on the Chinese border. The 20-year Vietnam War (11/1/1955-4/30/1975) finally ended by Americans’ war-weary protests. The U.S. didn't gain any ground except leaving a Communist Party pursuing capitalism in Vietnam. The Gulf (1/17/1991-2/28/1991), the Iraq (3/20/2003-12/15/2011) and the Afghanistan (10/7/2001-8/30/2021) wars were the most protracted ones consuming a lot of U.S. resources, but in the end the U.S. hastily withdrew from Afghanistan. These wars were not directly engaged by two hegemonic powers. Mearsheimer had openly opposed the Iraq War.

III. The U.S. Has Become A Serious "War Addict"

In the U.S., drug abuse is a problem. Many drug addicts and traffickers create social problems - homeless population and drug-related crimes. If it weren’t for the US government engaging in drug trafficking and arms sales, these problems should be easily solved. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) once had created an airline to transport drugs and got exposed later. In South America, CIA also used the profits from drug trafficking to purchase weapons and to support its training of militants to overthrow the “unfriendly” government (Example, the Iran-Contra affair: toppling the Nicaragua government). Trafficking drugs and selling arms can reap huge profits and launching a war will consume weapons. Under the lure of profits, the U.S. arms dealers and military-industry-enterprises will lobby the defense agencies and the U.S. Congress to start wars. Then arms will be manufactured, sold abroad and consumed. Huge profits change hands and military budgets are increased to support weapon development and war expenses. The military-industry-complex and the U.S. government basically became a ‘war addict’.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established to counter the Soviet Union’s expansion, but the collapsed of the Soviet Union made NATO expanded rather than reduced in membership. Expansion of NATO naturally required supply of arms. The U.S. has military bases all over the world with troops stationed in allied countries. Of course, these bases need funding. American military-industry-companies certainly had continued lobbying members of Congress to pass needed military expenditures. Demanding payments from allies for U.S. troops stationed there and raising military budget despite of ballooning national debt are basically hegemonic behavior. Using military force to settle conflicts of interest is also a part of the above mentioned ‘war addict’ behavior. However, allies such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea have already felt the pressure to pay ever higher ‘military protection fee’. Reasonable thinkers have already expressed concern, but the U.S. foreign policy is still creating tensions, causing right-wing politicians in various countries to support the ‘war addict’ behavior. (Recent Example, Taiwan is buying $billions of war gear under the tension created by the hyped U.S. anti-China policy) This war addiction is more serious than the opium drug addiction in the United States.

IV. Americans Must Wake up from War Addiction

From a personal point of view, living on debt or borrowing money to survive is not a way to raise a family. It not only creates great pressure on oneself, but it also ruins the future of one’s next generation. The same principle holds for nations. The national debt of the U.S. has reached US$23.3 trillion (2020), and the average total debt per person (approximately 233 million adults) has reached US$80,000 to US$100,000, more than two years of mean personal income of U.S. citizens. Can this debt be forgiven? Can the U.S. renege this debt using military power? This type of thinking is very dangerous, it will inevitably support the prediction by Mearsheim and Ellison - breaking out to war. But with today’s proliferation of nuclear weapons, mankind cannot survive a nuclear war, everyone will be perished. Therefore, it is time for the American people to wake up and cure the ‘war addict’ behavior. First of all, the American people must stop letting military-industry-enterprises sell arms for high profits, and then spend money to lobby the government to support them, launching wars-developing weapons-selling arms: a cyclic process.

American people should urge the Congress to levy a high tax on military-industrial-enterprises and limit their senior corporate officials' salaries. Their bonuses must be determined based on how many jobs generated and how much workers’ social welfare paid not just on profits. Lobbying expense must be limited and profits must be used to create jobs and to pay worker benefits before paying dividends. Legislation must be enacted to prevent brewing the above-mentioned ‘war addict’ behavior and never ending cyclic process. Only by stopping the ‘war addict’ cyclic process, investors' funds can be diverted back to much needed national infrastructure construction projects and much desired high-quality domestic jobs. In fact, the American people should understand that the above discussion is a simple and easy-to-understand truth. The American people must assemble their energy to correct the above-mentioned wrong policies and stop the ‘war addict’ behavior, including the current anti-China strategy. With the rich natural resources possessed by the U.S., it will not take many years to make her truly prosperous and strong if the American people can really cure their government’s ‘war addict’ behavior.




​