US Trilateral Summit Sends an Anti-China Message, Says East China Regular College

China's whole strategy is to isolate thePhilippines, isolate Australia with their economic coercion, isolate Japanby not accepting their fish to be exported.Our strategy is to flip that strip and make the isolated party China.They're the ones that are isolated in the South China Sea as it relates to thePhilippines. They're the ones that are isolated whenit comes to trying to use economic coercion to coerce Australia to changetheir posture. And they become the isolated party,which is why they throw in the towel of that effort.The US ambassador to Japan, Rahm.

Emanuel, they're speaking to us as PrimeMinister Fumio Kishida prepares to meet with President Biden at the White Houseand the South China Sea is expected to be top of the agenda.When can China and Biden hold security talks on Thursday with PhilippinePresident Ferdinand Marcos Jr. So Biden and Kishida said to me onWednesday today as well before that. But let's get a bit more analysis onwhat this all means. Joseph Gregory Mahoney is with us fromShanghai. He's a professor of politics atinternational Relations at East China Normal University.Oh, yeah.

First and foremost, Professor, thanksvery much for joining us. How important and significant is thismeeting in your eyes and how do you think Beijing's will respond to it?Well, you know, I think we of course, we had to put it in the context of therecent Yellen visit, which was trying to promote some sort of positive image withrespect to bilateral ties. But, you know, there's always this, youknow, one step forward, two or three steps backwards that we see from theU.S. whenever there's this sort of positiveoutreach to China. And I think, you know, clearly whatwe're seeing here with the meetings with.

Philippines and Japan is this effort toreally establish once and for all, certainly with the Marcos presidency,which has been much more amenable to Washington than his than hispredecessors, to establish once and for all this U.S.strategy, which which appears to be driven by the need to sustainmilitary capacities in on China's borders, including the SouthChina Sea. And one of the things that we're we'renot really told about from the U.S. side is the extent to which itsmilitarization of the South China Sea, including incredibly dangerous anddestabilizing actions by nuclear.

Submarines, some of which we've learnedabout through accidents, have led China to take a stronger position there abovewater. And of course, the irony here is that,you know, before we started seeing these meetings that are that are coming now,you know, the longstanding history had been that no, no, other than that.And in terms of the Philippines history, the US and Japan had probably broughtthe most harm to that country over the last century or so.And so now we're having this positive meeting about a threat that is is notreally real. Could you be more specific?What threat do you consider not really.

Real?Well, you know, I think when we look at a lot of strategic analysis, one of thethings that led China in to the South China Sea to take a stronger positionthere was not the desire to harvest more fish or to take oil in contested watersfrom Vietnam. And on this point, I think Emanuel iswrong. I think China's relationships withVietnam have improved over the last few years, and that is being well-managed.But but to counteract what the U.S.has constructed underwater, which is, according to a number of experts, anunderwater sonar wall enacted by a.

Submarine strategy that aims to be ableto impose a naval blockade at a moment's notice should Washington want one.And China has been struggling. This is part of this struggle related tothe value, but also in the South China Sea, to push back against theserestrictions as a matter of of self-defense.But the U.S. has characterized this as China takingan aggressive position against its neighbors and drawn the Philippines andJapan into this narrative as strategic partners.Understood. So let's let's, I guess, take a stepback bec ause we're literally in between.

Two fairly significant events, Yellen inBeijing, in China. And of course, we're going into thistrial out between the three countries that we just talked about there, theformer largely positive for relations. The latter I can't seem to think of ascenario where that would put Beijing under a under a favorable light.Net net next week, do you think, Joseph, how do you think this relationship.Are we better or worse off between China and the U.S.?Well, you know, I think Yellen made the point that relations now are better thanthey were a year ago without acknowledging that they were worse lastyear due to false assertions regarding.

An errant weather balloon, assertionsthat were later conceded were false by the Pentagon.But, you know, again, I think that Yellen I don't see her visit as apositive. I think she came here selling a lie.A lie that Bloomberg itself has suggested is is false with with regardto overcapacity. And I think she came to to foreshadowmore protectionism in tariffs. And keep in mind, she was doing the samething in Africa last year, promoting the disproven story about BRI, promotingdebt traps. So I think she's become this veryeffective grandmotherly figure that has.

Attracted some positive attention inChina, some Chinese admirers giving her her attention to Chinese femalecolleagues appreciation for Chinese cuisine at her genial demeanor whenmeeting with Chinese officials. But I think her real purpose was to comehere and to sow fear, particularly as we are expecting some positive firstquarter reporting with the Chinese economy, with theunderstanding that consumer and investor confidence still isn't where it needs tobe. And as you say, she has the charm.She brings the charm. And what is her role, do you think, nowwhen it comes to diplomatic relations.

With China?Is she more the leading face, more so than Anthony Blinken now?I think so. I think Blinken has spoiled his image.You know, we've had so many members of of Blinken in China where he comes andsays something positive and then, you know, 10 minutes later or a day later,his message is being undercut by Biden directly.And Blinken himself has, as you know, been someone who's promoted a lot ofanti-China discourses, including the the the spy balloon nonsense.So I think that he has he's taken more of the role of being the lead andpromoting positive relations with.

Countries like Japan, the Philippines,and trying to advance the anti-China narrative in Europe.Whereas Yellen has taken the lead here and inChina. And Joseph, to build on your earlierpoint there, then, do you think Beijing sees through this veneer, thisovercapacity narrative veneer? Absolutely.You know, the Beijing knows as well as Bloomberg knows that this is not a realissue. Beijing said that, you know, the U.S.should examine this issue objectively and with an eye to understanding themarket.

We all know why the United States is acompetitive and EVs. We know that their legacy automobileindustry suppressed the development of that industry for decades.And we know that China has been very open and competitive.And it is especially almost a textbook casewith regard to how they welcomed Tesla and others and forced the Chinese heavyindustry to compete. And that's one of the reasons why it hasemerged in the forefront of of. That that market worldwide.But, you know, the other point here is that, you know, Beijing is very muchaware that this is an election year and.

That there's a lot of pandering.Right. And that Biden needs Michigan.He's is fighting a tough battle. He needs Michigan.There are a lot of autoworkers there who are afraid of competing with Chinabecause they don't have good products. And he's pandering to those votes.So, you know, China understands as every year that we have an election year withthe United States, we see China being targeted.So I think China's trying to maintain a positive narrative, trying to still keepto this this positive image that they that they took out of the APEC meetingbetween Xi and Biden late last year, but.

Also trying to avoid getting into anegative discussion, realizing that the real goal here, I think, is to try toconvince Europe to come along and to keep moving forward with Chinese goodswhere Chinese goods do have a foothold. And, of course, the tremendous successthat these Chinese leaders have had in Australia.So the real battle here is not about the US market.It's about these other markets that the U.S.is also trying to influence.

Sharing is caring!