Da Wei on China-U.S. Relations following Xi-Biden meeting in San Francisco

The Director of CISS and Professor at Tsinghua University talks about Taiwan, South China Sea, fentanyl, panda, etc.

Da Wei, Director of the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) and a Professor at the Department of International Relations, School of Social Science, Tsinghua University, is a leading Chinese scholar on China-U.S. relations.

Recently, he talked to CISS’s in-house podcast on China-U.S. Relations following Xi-Biden meeting in San Francisco and Pekingnology is happy to present its transcript, with Prof. Da’s blessing.

Da’s research expertise covers China-US relations and US security & foreign policy. Da has worked in China’s academic and policy community for more than decades. He worked in the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) for more than two decades and his last position there was Director of the Institute of American Studies.

Host:

Hello and welcome to the CISS Podcast. This is the On The Spot series by China Forum. In this series, we return to the platform of international forums and webinars where leading minds in academia, government, business, technology, and media deliver novel, collaborative responses to the global issues of today. Hello and welcome to the CISS podcast - on the spot series. This is Beibei with China Forum, Tsinghua University. In today's podcast, we'll talk about the recently concluded meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden in San Francisco. What has been accomplished and what challenges remain between China and the U.S.? How do we read the messages sent out by the top leaders from the two countries? Can the face-to-face meeting between the presidents of the world's two largest economies usher in a better phase of global development?

Here on our podcast today is Professor Da Wei, Director of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University. Please stay tuned.

Thank you, Professor Da, for joining our show.

Da Wei

Thank you for having me.

Host

I think it's fair to say that the four-hour face-to-face meeting between President Xi and President Biden has grabbed more attention internationally than the rest of the summit, even though it was on the sidelines of the annual conference. What do you think the somewhat anxious global audience expected of this meeting?

Da Wei

First of all, I need to say it's not a part of the APEC meeting. It's not a side meeting of APEC summit. It's a separate one. But it was held before the APEC summit and the U.S. actually invited President Xi for this summit separately. So we can say we have two summits - we have the bilateral first, then the multilateral, the APEC meeting. And I think the fact that we can have this summit is important. I will say the most important part is we can have this summit rather than a concrete outcome from the summit. Why do I say that? Because we all know that China US relations has experienced a lot of difficulties in the past five or six years. Actually, to be honest, all over the world, people are worried about this bilateral relationship. And then last November in Bali, when the two presidents met, they had a summit and they sent out a signal of stabilizing this bilateral relation. The two sides were trying to stabilize these bilateral relations. That's quite important. But after that, we know what happened, the so-called balloon incident and other negative incidents. But I mean, after sending a signal last year, then something happened, I think people continue to doubt if this signal is something reliable. I think the suspicion was still there. So after all those turbulence this year, that the two leaders can sit down together again to reaffirm the signal they sent last year, I think, is very important because after those turbulence, you send the same consistent signal to the world. So that, I think, will increase the credibility of this signal.

Host

And we did see in the media some pictures of handshakes and friendly smiles. So that's a very positive message.

Da Wei

Yes. If you do something for once, it's okay. It's one thing. But if you do it twice, that means something probably different. And if you do something for the second time after some difficulties and turbulence, you still do the same thing. I think that will be quite credible. I think it's a stronger message.

I think this message is that the two countries, both China and the United States, want to manage this bilateral relationship. They want to prevent this relationship from free fall, from further deteriorating.

I think this is the clear signal. And because these are two biggest economy in the world and also two military powers. So I think this signal of stabilizing the bilateral relations is critical for the whole world. I think all the countries, business communities, militaries, ordinary people, we are all looking forward to that signal. That's why to some extent I say, yes, having a summit per se is very important, is the most important goal. But at same time, I need to say we should not underestimate the importance of sending signals itself and how meaningful it is to have this summit.

Host

And what do you think has been accomplished by this important meeting between President Xi and President Biden?

Da Wei

I think, of course, we already discussed sending signals. Beyond that, I think, of course, the two sides have some concrete cooperative agenda now. For example, China and the U.S. are working together on fentanyl issues, for example. This is something where the U.S. side really wants China's help. The two sides agreed to cooperate on that. And the U.S. lifted its sanction over China's Institute [of Forensic Science] in the Public Security Ministry.

Host

What's the significance of lifting the sanction? Because the agreements to curb fentanyl production shows China's recognition of U.S.'s domestic concern, so we thought in response, President Biden lifted the sanction against the IFS, which is Institute of Forensic Science at China's Ministry of Public Security. What does that mean, lifting of this sanction?

Da Wei

It's quite obvious because the anti-drug, anti-fentanyl effort in China is mainly implemented by the Ministry of Public Security. So this is part of China-U.S. Law Enforcement Corporation. This is very basic logic. You cannot ask the Chinese side to work with you on law enforcement issues, while at the same time I sanction your labs, your centers in the Ministry of Public Security. So you need to sweep those obstacles in law enforcement cooperation.

Host:

That they put there in the first place.

Da Wei

Yes. And actually, the US also sanctioned some equipment that is really badly needed by Chinese police to try to monitor those drugs. So this is, I think, a very basic requirement. And of course, I'm happy that the U.S. has done that, declared they agreed. I will say this is kind of precondition.

Host

It's basic to facilitate what they want to do in the first place.

Da Wei

Yes, exactly. But anyway, the two sides agreed on that issue. The two sides also agreed to have more people-to-people exchanges. China also declared some concrete proposals like inviting 50,000 young Americans to visit China within five years. So those are very concrete proposals. And the two sides also agreed on, for example, to resume military-to-military dialogues. I think that's also quite important. The two sides, I think, have some agreements on the climate change issue. I believe that the two sides will declare more on climate change in the following months. Basically, those are the very concrete issues that the two sides agreed on.

Host

That we can see in the media so far.

Da Wei

Yes. So it's a productive summit, I will say.

Host

And also regarding the resumption of high-level military talks, we see in the news that from the U.S. side, U.S. officials have been actually quite anxious about the resumption of military dialogue for the two countries for months by now. But what does this mean in detail, like high-level military talks? Do they agree to call each other at certain intervals? What does this mean?

Da Wei

Those dialogues, including of course, hotlines [would work] if some crises, no matter the South China Sea or just like the so-called balloon incident, happened over the US territory space or cyberspace. When we have some problems or crises, the leaders of the two sides can call each other. And it also includes many dialogues between the senior military officials of the two sides, for example, American officers who are in charge of maritime security and the leaders of China's so-called combat zones. So those military officers at different levels can meet regularly and they can cultivate kind of common understanding on some situations, for example, on South China Sea. We'll exchange views at least. We may disagree with each other, but I need to understand how you view this and how I view this through this kind of dialogue. And with those dialogue mechanisms, probably in the future, I'm not sure, but it's possible that in the future, the two sides can build more so-called crisis management measures or what we call confidence-building measures (CBMs) to make the other side feel more safe, to give them more confidence.

And [the two sides should] also try to develop more rules when something bad happens. For example, if the airplanes collide or if navy ships collide on the high seas, how shall we avoid those kinds of crises? And once it happens, how should we deal with it and avoid its escalating from a minor crisis into a conflict or even a war?

Those crisis management and CBMs are not in this summit. But mechanisms and the dialogues pave a way for future discussion and negotiation between the two militaries which will make the two sides safer.

Host

President Biden and other U.S. officials have repeatedly voiced their concern of possible "misconceptions and miscommunication" between the two countries. And at the summit, President Biden said to President Xi that "we have to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict." So I get the strong sense of this fear-for-the-worse mentality from the U.S. side. But then the irony part is that it's the U.S. that can't seem to stop provoking China, both in trade and militarily -with its aircraft carriers sailing close to China and U.S. fighter jets flying over South China Sea. I mean, if you don't want conflict, maybe the smartest solution is to not come too close to other country's territories. So what message is the U.S. military trying to send with its provocative maneuvers around China? Can it afford to keep up this provocation?

Da Wei

This is a great question. I think many people here in China ask the same question. Even some military officers I met also ask similar questions. I mean, from China's perspective, this kind of discussion about the guardrails could mean that the US want to continue to infringe on China's interest safely, right? They want to infringe on China's interest while during that process, they don't want to get harmed themselves. So to some extent, I think this argument is reasonable. I think the U.S. side needs to consider this argument carefully. I think it's reasonable and it's still here. I mean, this summit and future discussion or negotiation will not solve this issue, this concern from China side, unless, as you said, the U.S. side stops those provocative actions. I think this is the only way. But of course, I don't expect the U.S. side to stop, or even decrease their provocation. I think the U.S. will continue to do that.

Host

What's their purpose? What message are they trying to send, "Just because we can"?

Da Wei

I think this is a long story. But basically, the U.S. is doing three kinds of things. For example, on maritime issues, they are doing three kinds of things.

Firstly, they have what they call FONOPs. FONOPs is Freedom of Navigation Operations. This is the U.S. navy operation. They do it from 1979, something like that, and do all over the world, not only close to China. The U.S. Navy tries to challenge the so-called excessive maritime claim. For example, some countries including China requires foreign navy ship to get approved before they enter its territory water while the U.S believe this is inconsistent with the international law. So then they intentionally sail in that territory without a notification to you and show that you violate the international law and I don't follow your rules, and I want to challenge your excessive maritime claims.

Host

But if you fly too close to me, are you challenging international laws?

Da Wei

No, different countries have different interpretations about the international law. The U.S. believe that you're violating the international law. And if I don't sail in this territory, that means, probably we've all accepted your argument or your claims. So I want to challenge your limits. Yes, I think this is one of the things. The other thing is, for example, they send their ships across the Taiwan Strait between the island of Taiwan and the mainland. They say, we have the legal right to do that. To be honest, I think the U.S. does have the legal right to do that because most of the water in Taiwan Strait is the high sea. It's not the territory water. So the foreign military vessel have the right to sail across the strait. But the problem is, usually the U.S. side, the U.S. Navy or other navies, will sail from the east side of the Taiwan island because the waterline there is better, the water is deeper. So it's more reasonable to sail from the east side of the Taiwan Strait. But they intentionally sail from the western part of the island and across the strait. They want to send a political signal that I have the right to sail here. The third thing they do is intelligence surveillance. They are collecting China's military intelligence so they send their aeroplanes very close to China's territory space. And sometimes, Chinese military aircrafts want to push them far away from China's territory space. Sometimes it poses risks like what we saw in the year 2001. We have the so-called EP-3 Incident where a Chinese pilot died basically and an American surveillance airplane was landed on Hainan Island.

So all those things, I will say, we need to distinguish between legal issues and political issues. If the U.S. believes they have the legal right to do something, for example, sail across the Taiwan Strait - okay, we can discuss if you have legal right or not. For example, does the U.S. Have the legal right, the so-called FONOPs? Or does the U.S. have a legal right to collect intelligence in China's exclusive economic zone (EEZ)? That's something debatable. Yes, the U.S. can do something legally; I agree. But even if you are doing something legally, as you said in your question, politically, it's provocative.

Host

If you feel like it's getting dangerous. There's a good reason.

Da Wei

And the U.S. is trying to challenge China politically. They want to change the political signal that "I can sail here." Then they do something legally. Okay, but Chinese navy ships and Chinese military aircrafts are also doing something legally. Right? So both of us may have legal rights, but you are doing something politically and then it could be risky. But then you cannot say, "I [can] do something for political purposes while you cannot do something the same or similar, as you pose a threat to me."

So here I think the the argument from the Chinese side is quite reasonable because all those activities happened in the water are very close to China rather than places close to the States or Hawaii or some places. So you are challenging China politically, not legally. It's politically, I think. And we can admit that in some cases you have the legal right. But in all those cases, I think the U.S. is challenging China politically and militarily.

We also have our legal right to have our own response. Yes, that's risky. But as said in the question, the best way is for the U.S. to decrease or even stop all those provocations. That will solve the problem. But the U.S. side, I don't think they want to do that. We say the U.S. is a hedgemon, right? That's the way the hedgemon behaves, unfortunately.

Having said all these, we don't agree with the U.S. on no matter FONOPs or surveillance or other things. I still think the safety of military activities is important. We don't want to have a war because of those minor crises. And we don't want our soldiers die or injured from that, right? So that's the reason why the Chinese side agreed to have these military-to-military dialogues. Fundamentally, we don't agree what you [the U.S.] are doing here. But we still want to show our genuine willingness to work with you, to talk with you, and to reduce the likelihood of any crisis or loss of the life or other things during the crisis, right? So I think the Chinese side has already shown its genuine willingness. So I think the U.S. side also needs to do something.

Host

They should take this opportunity, right? And speaking of possible conflicts, I remember earlier this year, Dr. Henry Kissinger, called on both Washington and Beijing to stand back from their standoff, which he described as being at "the top of a precipice." So do you think that after this meeting between the two presidents, will the standoff now move to safer grounds?

Da Wei

I don't think so. I think we have a chance to have a more manageable relationship. But I think the fundamental characteristic of these bilateral relations is now dominated by some negative things, very unfortunately, I will say. Fundamentally, the nature of these bilateral relations has become a negative one. It has been a positive one since early 1970s till very recent history. Of course, in these bilateral relations, we have the positive side and the negative side. But in the most period of the past 50 years, I think the positive side was the dominant side. But in the recent five or six years, I will say the negative side has become a dominant part of this bilateral relations and it will continue. We will not see any fundamental change in that regard.

The change is, though this will be a negative one, competitive one, hostile one, no matter which term we use, we try to manage it from evolving into a hot war, of course, and a complete Cold War, like the Soviet Union and the U.S. had during that Cold War, particularly the complete decoupling of the two economies and the blocks building and military confrontation. We don't want that. So this negative nature will not change. But I think we have a chance to control the level of this confrontation or competition, and prevent it from developing into something worse.

Host

Now, regarding the messages sent out by the two leaders at the summit, I really enjoyed reading President Xi Jinping's speech at the APEC CEO Summit on Thursday [sic. The speech referred to is most likely the speech delivered by Xi at the welcome dinner by friendly organizations in the United States on Nov. 15]. And I think it sends out a message of hope for better cooperation with an emphasis on economic cooperation on development. And it was also a very sincere invitation for business to come and invest in China. And this is the assurance of welcome and goodwill from literally the highest level of the country. So what do you think President Xi's message means for the business community in the U.S. and in the wider world?

Da Wei

Before I answer your question about business community, I also want to say something about that speech. You mentioned the speech at the dinner. I think this is a really great speech, particularly for two parts. I like the two paragraphs very much. The first one was the paragraph he mentioned about fentanyl. We touched upon fentanyl earlier. I think not only did he say we will work with the American side on that issue, he said that we understand the pain, the suffering of the American people, particularly the younger generation from these drugs, and we will work with them. So I think that's very important - that the Chinese leader shows this kind of empathy to the suffering of the American people. So I think this is a very, very human side of the speech. It's not just a principle, a policy, it's about the feeling, right? The feeling, the suffering. I think that's very touching.

I would like to let you know that China sympathizes deeply with the American people, especially the young, for the sufferings that Fentanyl has inflicted upon them.

And the other part is where he talked about the pandas. He mentioned the American people love Pandas and the California people want pandas to come back. And he specifically pointed the San Diego Zoo. I know the American people really love Panda. And when President Xi made that speech, I was in a meeting with some American friends and one of the American friends is from San Diego. And I told her about this speech and I told her about the panda thing. She was so happy and she shook my hands and said, "Wow, that's so good! Did President Xi really mentioned San Diego?" I said, "Yes, San Diego Zoo." She said, "that's fantastic!" I mean, this kind of speech and this kind of gesture of goodwill are really, really helpful.

I was told that many American people, especially children, were really reluctant to say goodbye to the pandas, and went to the zoo to see them off. I also learned that the San Diego Zoo and the Californians very much look forward to welcoming pandas back. Pandas have long been envoys of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples. We are ready to continue our cooperation with the United States on panda conservation, and do our best to meet the wishes of the Californians so as to deepen the friendly ties between our two peoples.

Host

I remember going to the San Diego Zoo and I had an absolutely great time there. So I think they will really welcome pandas from China. And actually, I just read this in the news. There are only 4 pandas left in the U.S. now and they're all in the Atlanta Zoo.

Da Wei

And they will go home soon. So before this announcement of President Xi, some experts in the U.S. told me that there will be no panda at all in the U.S. next year. So I'm happy that this time we're going to send pandas back to the US. I used to live in Washington, D.C., so I really know people there in D.C., how much they love pandas. They have panda stars. During my time in D.C., [the panda star] was Taishan - that's Mount Tai. That baby panda was born in the U.S. and on Washington Post, they tried to collect the name from the public. And it's still on the Metro ticket of Washington, D.C. today. So I think those kind of things bridge the two peoples.

I think one of the challenges between the two countries is the economic and trade relations. We used to call it the ballast of bilateral relations. You know in the ancient times, when people build a ship, they put some very heavy stones in the ship to make the ship stable. So we used to call economic and trade relations of the two countries as the ballast. But I would say in the past ten years, this ballast has become shaky and rolling in the ship, making the ship even more unstable. But without these economic ties, I think the bilateral relations will deteriorate into some kind of Cold War. Let's recall the history of the Soviet Union and the United States. I think one of the fundamental differences between today's China-U.S. relations with the old U.S.-Soviet relations is we have much stronger economic and trade ties.

Host

So interwoven.

Da Wei

Yes. All intertwining, interconnected between the two countries. Host You are always stepping on your own toe when you are trying to step on the other side's toe. But in the past ten years, we have a lot of troubles. And also after the COVIS, I think the U.S. business community, some of them are leaving China. And also, we are witnessing this kind of relocating of the supply chain. Some people say "selected decoupling" or now as the American side says "derisking." No matter how you define it or use which term, the fact is that the two countries, two economies - we used to be called as Chimerica; that's like one country, Zhong Mei Guo (中美国), so it is intertwined and interwoven into one country - but gradually, we are experiencing this very painful divorce of the two.

Host

It reminds me of the fact that Governor Gavin Newsom when he was in China, I think he said something like "divorce is not an option" between the two countries.

Da Wei

But we're not divorcing, we are having troubles. So strengthening the confidence of the business community is really, realy important for China-U.S. relations. And of course, it's also important for China. Because China, of course, wants to continue our economic development. And also currently, China's economy is facing a lot of challenges. Of course, we want more foreign investment and we want stronger economic ties. So all those rely on the cooperation, collaboration with the American business community.

And San Francisco is also a place very famous for high tech industries, right? It's close to the Silicon Valley. So Silicon Valley used to be part of China's successful story. But now the two high tech industries are really decoupling, I think.

Host

But it's a forced decoupling because both sides want to work together. Da Wei I will not say completely forced. I think the two sides do have some concerns about the other side, because the technology is developing very fast and sometimes we really have some security concerns. For example, can you just trust AI technology developed by the other side? I think it's understandable that both sides have some kind of concerns. But having concerns does not mean we need to decouple. First, we should discuss and try to ease some of the concerns, solve some of the concerns. This is one choice. The other choice is, yes, there are some concerns that we can not agree on and solve, and we can also put it aside. We will work in other areas. Host Then we can cooperate.

Da Wei

Yes, the American side has always kept on saying the so-called "small yard, high fence." That is, every country or both countries have a yard that they need to protect. Yes, I agree. Every country has a small yard, but we need to keep the yard as small as possible. And now the yard is obviously too big. And we need to make it small and also reduce the size of it.

And also we need to keep the position of the fence stable. I mean, if you keep on moving that fence every day - today the fence is here, the other day I will push it one meter away, then the business community will have a very strong sense of insecurity. So we need to stabilize the position of the fence and decrease the size of the yard, and of course, protect our own interests and security.

So I think for all those reasons, it's quite important that President Xi can deliver a speech directly to the business leaders who are also leaders of high tech industries or some scientists there. I think that's really, really important.

Host

And in President Xi's speech [at the APEC CEO Summit on Nov. 16], he said, "China has become a synonym of the best investment destination, and that the 'next China' is still China." I love that expression. And I think there's so much truth in that. Yes, no one else can compete with the size of the market.

Da Wei

Exactly. I think this sentence you cited is aimed at some suspicion or uncertainty of the outside world to the future of China. So they have some doubts about China's direction. For example, as China gets more powerful or richer, maybe China will rely less on foreign investment, or will close the doors, or will rely on themselves? I think there is this knid of suspicion and doubts in the U.S. and also in other countries. So I think what President Xi said is important. So in the future, "next China" will still be China. China is always a big market and open to the foreign business community. And it's still an opportunity for both China and the foreign investors. So I think what he said is trying to ease the concern or solve the suspicion of the foreign business community and American business community. I think it's very precisely targeted.

Host

And also, I mean, simply no other country can offer the most complete industrial system in the world as we have here in China.

Da Wei

And also China has such a big population. India now has a bigger population. But as you said, China's market is better, at least currently, larger, more developed. And also the basic infrastructure is better. And also China's technology, the engineering is quite powerful. The Chinese market is still very attractive. So I think this is the message that President Xi wanted to send to the business community there.

Host

That was Professor Da Wei, Director of CISS, Tsinghua University, sharing his thoughts on the latest development of the U.S.-China bilateral relations.

Below are two articles previously shared on Pekingnology by Fu Ying, Founding Chairperson of the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS), Tsinghua University.