Results of the APEC summit for the USA and China. Trying to play the game "peace for two"

Results of the APEC summit for the USA and China. Trying to play the game "peace for two"

The APEC summit in San Francisco, California has ended, and now it is quite interesting to observe the reaction on a variety of information platforms, including Russian ones. The summit is being discussed everywhere, and the reason is clear - the two main APEC participants: the USA and China, are meeting at a time of maximum cooling in relations.

This material proposes to focus not on the fact that Biden called Xi Jinping a “dictator”, or some purely psychological nuances of this meeting: who looked and how, where they turned, where E. Blinken’s gaze was, how “constrained” looked like the Chinese leader, etc., but on the basis on which, in fact, APEC was founded - issues of mutual trade.

It is clear that, given the health of J. Biden, E. Blinken, who was sitting next to him, watched his every phrase. E. Blinken had been preparing this meeting for almost a year, but still missed the “dictator” at the press conference, although the real context of the phrase was much less harsh.

However, it was not for nothing that the cameras showed in the foreground more than once or twice not military administrators, but the Ministers of Finance D. Yellen and L. Foan, the Minister of Commerce of the People's Republic of China V. Wentao and the US Secretary of Commerce D. Raimondo.

It is also interesting to see the presence of such figures as Q. Qi, the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee and Xi Jinping’s inner circle, and J. Carrey, J. Biden’s special envoy on climate issues. Both represent what we like to call the “deep state.”

As a small illustration, on the eve of the summit, J. Carrey met with the Iranians, and, obviously, not on the climate agenda, given that at the same time, E. Blinken was already exchanging messages with Tehran through the “courier mail” of Iraqi Prime Minister M. Al-Sudani.

Many observers logically put Taiwan issues first in the negotiations, but both the composition of the participants and the details of the negotiations show that Taiwan, despite the importance of the problem for the United States and China, is part of a more general economic model for future relations, the foundations of which the parties tried to lay during the negotiations.

Each side identified five such foundations or, as the Chinese leader put it, “pillars.”

Chinese stems are arranged in the following order.

The first is the formation of "correct perception of each other“or the correct perception of the characteristics of each of the parties, the characteristics of the management system, goal setting, values, etc. "red lines".

The second is the effective management of disagreements on the principles of deliberation and prudence.

The third is the promotion of mutually beneficial cooperation, since “The common interests of the two countries in the current conditions have not decreased, but increased».

The fourth is the shared responsibility of the leading countries (China and the United States), while such dialogue should include other countries.

Fifth is the promotion of cultural and humanitarian ties.

J. Biden, from the US side, also identified five theses that directly relate us to the last meeting on the island. Bali in Indonesia.

“I reiterate the 5 promises I made at the Bali meeting: the United States does not seek a new Cold War, does not try to change the Chinese system, does not seek to intensify an alliance against China, does not support the independence of Taiwan, and does not intend to enter into conflicts with China.”

“The US and China are interconnected economically. Washington is happy about China’s development and prosperity, does not seek to put pressure on or restrain China’s development, and does not seek to break with it; the United States is committed to the one-China policy.”

Referral to confirmation of agreements on the island. Bali was one of the cornerstones of the entire dialogue. The theses show that this was one of the main conditions of the Chinese side. It turns out that the United States maintains continuity on basic issues, and everything else is “excesses” that can be resolved on dialogue platforms.

It is clear that this is a kind of “Aesopian language” of diplomacy, but it is important that the five foundations and five promises lay the foundation on which the negotiation process can be built.

What is important is how the parties described the zones of international conflicts during the general meeting of delegations. For example, the official communiqué from the Chinese side sounds like this:

“After the talks, Biden hosted a reception for Xi Jinping, during which the leaders exchanged views on international and regional issues of common interest, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

Let us note that Ukraine, Russia, and Iran, by the way, are not in the text, and much more space is devoted to climate issues. And this is not because the topic of Europe is not of interest to the participants. It’s just that on the root issue of Israel and Palestine, China and the United States have a common point of contact - the two-state principle. On other issues there is no such fundamental consensus, and accordingly, the discussion is taken out of public brackets. This is a very important nuance.

The fact that the United States generally agrees to “divide in two” becomes clear from the introductory addresses. J. Biden:

“San Francisco is the city where the Chinese first arrived in the United States, the place where the United States and China participated in the signing of the UN Charter.”

Chinese leader:

“It is impossible for China and the United States to do without communication; trying to change each other is unrealistic.”

And as a summary:

“The globe is big enough to accommodate both China and the United States. The success of one of the two states gives opportunities to the other.”

But the extent to which this summary was heard in the United States could just be understood from the context of the sensational phrase where the word “dictator” sounded. The word is discussed, but the context is not very good.

“Well, that’s what he is. He is a dictator in the sense that he runs a country with a communist form of government, which is completely different from us."

It is clear that the Chinese Foreign Ministry reacted, and E. Blinken shook his head, but in essence, J. Biden simply confirmed what was said at the meeting, that China is what it is - “communist.” It’s unlikely that all this sounded outwardly successful, but in fact it only confirmed S. Jinping’s thesis that “trying to change each other is unrealistic”, that is, agreement with one of the “five pillars”.

It looked really awkward, but this is J. Biden and this is the American media. In the end, if the “questioner” with such questions had not been allowed into the hall, we would not have known the White House’s opinion on the recognition of Chinese identity, which is already a very significant value achievement for the US administration.

The specifics on issues of mutual trade, which, in fact, occupied the second part of the negotiations after the “value base”, were first voiced by the Chinese side in the person of the official representative of the State Committee for Development and Reform of the People's Republic of China L. Chao.

China is targeting

“It is reasonable to reduce the negative list for foreign investment and remove all restrictions on foreign investors coming into the manufacturing industry.”

Revise or Cancel

“Regulations and policy documents that do not comply with the Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Investment and regulations for optimizing the business environment.”

Beijing is also going to

“ensure fair competition for foreign investors in areas such as government procurement, full or partial exemption from taxes and fees, licensing qualification requirements and project declaration.”

The next step is to

“in a unified manner and in a coordinated manner, resolve issues relating, in particular, to land use and energy consumption.”

According to L. Chao,

“a series of events on international industrial and investment cooperation will continue.”

Investors will be provided with

“favorable business environment and amenities for production and business activities.”

It is clear that if this program was announced after a meeting between the leaders of the United States and China, then we are talking about the fact that China intends, first of all, to allow American investors not just back into the market, but into such a sensitive part of the market as government procurement. But the point is not so much in sensitivity, but in the volume of such a market segment.

In essence, China and the United States are agreeing that the United States will remove technological barriers in exchange for the opportunity to receive a share for their investment companies from China's predominant position in regional trade, as well as from volume orders in the state. sector.

The logic of the current US managerial elite, which is mainly represented by the banking sector and investment financiers, is clearly felt here. And it is quite logical that China came out first with these theses.

This is a kind of “slap in the face” to Trumpist ideas about the “industrial revival of conservative America.” But in its value cluster, the United States is no longer an industrial base, but an investment center that sells services, finance and technology.

However, China today is not only and not so much a “factory”, but also an investment center and an assembly shop, which has taken on the role of a trading intermediary, albeit on a global scale. After all, what is today labeled “made in China” is largely assembled from components that were produced in neighboring regions, packaged and sold through Chinese sites.

In these theses we see the core of the negotiations and the prototype of the model for dividing the world economy into two sectors. Such a model, if taken to its logical conclusion, in theory can help avoid a crisis in relations between the two countries: China receives opportunities for extensive growth, and the United States receives growth in stock markets and the banking sector.

The scheme is potentially too promising for the parties to treat it as a political fiction or a cover to prepare for a phase of aggravation of relations.

“The Asia-Pacific region will have the greatest impact on global economic growth over the next 30 years,”

- said J. Biden.

So China is being asked to share profits as the main economic moderator of the region - in exchange for the fact that the United States will not interfere with further Chinese trade expansion.

All this does not mean that, in military-political terms, the United States will leave Southeast Asia somewhere, stop building military facilities in the Philippines, or stop sailing around Taiwan. Quite the contrary, they will partly increase military activity by constantly monitoring the state of the Chinese Navy.

Every time someone on Wall Street feels that the investment base in China is not yet “open enough to investors,” local flare-ups will occur. If China is not vigilant enough, then the United States, without changing the general agreements, will, if possible, grab some regional military-political “piece.”

But all this is no longer the alarmist prototype of the “Great War”, which the military and politicians in both the USA and China had previously begun to openly talk about.

The United States, of course, would not be itself if it had not considered the most sensitive issue for China—Taiwan—with its own specific casuistry. On the one hand, the United States said it would continue supplies weapons to Taiwan, and J. Biden notified the Chinese leader about this.

On the other hand, the United States has existing arms contracts with Taiwan. The last one is from 2022 to 2028. The contract is “penny” by the standards of the arms market ($45 million).

The PR effect of the statement looks serious, but in practical terms it is the supply of spare parts for certain types of equipment. But such a statement can be sold to critics from the Trumpists and some Republicans.

Considering that the parties are renewing and even strengthening channels of exchange between the military, all this can again be considered as a kind of basis on which a future model of relations can be built even before the elections in Taiwan. China and the United States will still need to decide on the “Taiwan formula,” but so far the base clearly does not look confrontational.

In general, we can once again be convinced that it was not in vain that the IMF updated its reports and studies on “geoeconomic fragmentation” and the division of the world economy into blocks immediately before the APEC summit. China and the United States still really intend to form a model of such relations, without breaking the global financial system or exacerbating confrontation.

This does not mean that it was agreed upon at the summit, it means that they are trying to put those very “supports” under it. In this regard, today guessing who “won” or “lost” at the summit is largely pointless, since both sides came out of it with results, although the PR effect in the United States is traditionally slightly higher. The main test of these results will be the elections in Taiwan in mid-January 2024.
21 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    19 November 2023 06: 12
    The only thing in which the United States is ahead of China (in fact, not on paper) is technology. Although the Chinese have made good progress in technology, it’s not for nothing that Huawei is being spread rot. Therefore, it is vital for the United States to maintain China’s lag at least in science and technology, since they can work in a way that the Anglo-Saxon Chinese (no longer) can.
    At the same time, the Chinese are many times larger in population than even the United States, but rather the population, which apparently now needs to be taken into account instead of NATO. And an order of magnitude in production capacity. Yes, the level of technology is lower, but due to economies of scale, China is approaching parity with the United States, which worries them very much.
    As soon as China considers itself stronger or at least equal, its rhetoric and behavior will change, and no sanctions or diplomatic outcries will stop it.
    You don’t have to look far for examples - Russia is resolving the issue with the fascists at hand, Azerbaijan has resolved the issue with Karabakh.
    Israel is trying to resolve the issue with Palestine, not caring about the interests of the United States, which does not need another mess in the Middle East right now.
    1. +2
      19 November 2023 11: 20
      In short, disagreements remain. Competition/rivalry continues.
    2. +3
      19 November 2023 11: 48
      Quote: VicktorVR
      but due to economies of scale, China is approaching parity with the United States, which is very worrying for them.

      In my opinion, the United States may be concerned exclusively with the Chinese technological breakthrough, as you indicated at the beginning of your comment, and nothing more. They are quite happy with a giant assembly factory and one and a half billion inexpensive labor. Have Chinese hands become more expensive? No problem, there are still more than two billion in India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam, the bulk of simple mass will be produced there, and more complex mass will be packaged and handled in China. But not Chinese technological sovereignty; the American rulers cannot allow this. The world is ruled by the Fed and Microsoft with Google, and no Huawei should interfere in this “world order”... Note that the Americans started the “world noise and trade war” not when China began to “bake” its destroyers and aircraft carriers, but when Huawei came to the North American market...

      To Article:
      China and the United States still really intend to form a model of such relations, without breaking the global financial system or exacerbating confrontation.

      Why escalate? So far this is not beneficial to anyone. American strategists will try to make the enemy “tame” again, especially since China now has no other choice, since the American and European markets have no alternative for them. Well, if the Americans don’t succeed (in any case, the United States is not yet ready for a global war), then the time has come for an operation to military-economically strangle the Asian giant. Apparently, eastern strategists are reasoning in exactly the same way: to hold back the huge sales markets in the USA and the EU for a while, “throwing a bone” to overseas stockbrokers, and at the same time complete the next scientific and technological revolution of the 5th order, finally form their own value cluster, and prepare the PLA for the global conflict of the future. ..
      Well, I don’t believe in the attempts of peaceful coexistence of two huge hungry sharks in one body of water, they only gave themselves time to prepare for the final battle for absolute domination of the planet...
      1. +2
        19 November 2023 14: 56
        Quote: Doccor18
        Well, I don’t believe in the attempts of peaceful coexistence of two huge hungry sharks in one body of water, they only gave themselves time to prepare for the final battle for absolute domination of the planet...

        This is provided that the shark (PRC) challenges another shark, and does not join its flock.... for now the situation is unclear.

        In general, why did Xi Jinping go to the USA, despite the declared rivalry and tense relations? Problems in the economy (c) ... Although Joe Biden is old, and as a politician he is controversial, there is truth in his words when he speaks about problems in the Chinese economy and personally in Xi... because China's development model has reached a turning point, debts/problems have accumulated, economic growth is slowing + population decline/aging, etc. all this does not add prospects to China as a whole) and then economic/political pressure from the West began (sanctions/restrictions, etc.) and everything affects the economy.... if Xi takes the path of confrontation, then there is a risk of losing many achievements/to embitter the population inside China and lose power. Does he need it???

        Therefore, when Xi Jinping declares that there is enough room in the world for the United States and China, he is not lying, he needs cooperation with the West to solve current problems), the United States needs guarantees that China will not challenge their world order and will play by the established rules and It is not yet clear which way the story will go. If the symbiosis of the economies of the USA + Europe / China continues to exist, then what kind of gap can we talk about? It is not profitable...

        And if after Xi a leader like Hu Jintao comes to power, then many processes may generally go in the opposite direction.
        1. +2
          19 November 2023 18: 37
          Quote: Aleksandr21
          ...about the problems in the Chinese economy and Xi personally... because China's development model has reached a turning point, debts/problems have accumulated, economic growth is slowing + population decline/aging, etc. all this does not add prospects to China as a whole) and then economic/political pressure from the West began (sanctions/restrictions, etc.) and everything affects the economy..

          The problems of the PRC can only be solved by a rapid technological leap into the future and the furious development of education and science. If the PRC is led by ambitious politicians, then they want a great future for their country, but it will never happen if they play by the rules of overseas democrats. It seems to me that Xi understands this very well, so with his peace-loving rhetoric he is only gaining time for the country...
          Quote: Aleksandr21
          If the symbiosis of the economies of the USA + Europe / China continues to exist, then what kind of gap can we talk about?

          There will no longer be symbiosis, since China has grown from the status of “just a factory”, but has not yet reached the status of a technological superpower, and on this path the Chinese have only one obstacle - an overseas superpower...
          Quote: Aleksandr21
          It is not profitable...

          Not profitable yet...
          The US and EU markets are huge, it is difficult to replace them, and in addition, it takes time to gain absolute scientific and technological independence.
          Quote: Aleksandr21
          And if after Xi a leader like Hu Jintao comes to power, then many processes may generally go in the opposite direction

          Then China's days as a superpower will be numbered...
    3. +3
      19 November 2023 12: 00
      You do not take into account that China is alone, and against it are the combined forces of the USA, Korea, Japan and many others.
      1. +1
        19 November 2023 12: 42
        Quote: Kmon
        You don’t take into account that China is alone, and against it... Korea, Japan

        Not everything is as simple as it seems... Of course, politically, R. Korea and Japan are moving in a pro-American vector, but economically... everything is much more interesting: the largest trading partner of these two states is China. Moreover, economic interconnection is only increasing from year to year. What does it mean? This means that politics and economics, contrary to established dogmas, are separable...
        1. +3
          19 November 2023 12: 55
          Before the First World War, they also wrote that in the modern world, due to close economic ties, a major war was impossible. If a crisis occurs, politics and not economics will come first.
    4. +3
      19 November 2023 22: 30
      China does not seek dominance! At least not yet feel As stated in the article, they really occupied a niche as a production link between the 3rd world and the Golden Billion, led by the USA, and this, oddly enough, suits the Golden Billion. Humanity is taking the next step in development, the basis of economic power is now technology (as salt and spices once were, then metallurgy, today oil). Americans today almost completely control all advanced production, wherever you spit, they have patents or any rights to technology everywhere.
  2. +2
    19 November 2023 06: 44
    Now this is exactly how everything is decided. Fifty-fifty. 50% real affairs 50% PR moves. This cooperation cannot change anything in the world. Neither curb wars nor overcome poverty. But the whole world was shown that there are only two hegemons in the world...
  3. +1
    19 November 2023 08: 01
    That is, nothing has changed, and as I understand it, the United States will supply as much weapons to Ukraine as will be enough to support the Russian Federation. But the Russian Federation (the leadership), getting involved, must somehow decide (without looking at supplies from the West) how to defeat Ukraine, I wonder how.
    1. +1
      19 November 2023 09: 25
      how to defeat Ukraine..? Is there such a goal? The Kremlin is talking about it less and less..
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 20: 49
        Under victory now I imagine at least a protectorate over the annexed territories and Ukraine’s non-entry into NATO
        1. -2
          19 November 2023 21: 56
          this is no longer enough, otherwise one is simply taken aback by the purgon carrier’s statements - denazification does not imply the elimination of the Kyiv regime.
  4. +6
    19 November 2023 09: 42
    Older people remember the euphoria of "detente."
    The hegemon is trying a second time to sell the same product to the “comrades” and destroy them with soft power. It is naive to believe that the proletarian (China) will not produce from hundreds of millions of workers many millions of intelligent engineers, who in turn will give rise to thousands of scientific developments, which will determine China’s technological leadership in the future. And an attempt to maintain leadership in technology without enormous industrial power is fruitless. Thus, the hopes of the capitalist (USA) to maintain dominance are based only on maintaining the existing financial pyramid, where the only beneficiary is the “golden billion”.
    Well aware of the inevitability of collapse if trends continue, the United States is trying to lull China with promises to resolve the problems that have arisen, while they and their allies are feverishly preparing for war in the Pacific.
    The summit showed a general unpreparedness for a major war in the coming years, which is both good and bad for Russia. On the one hand, Armageddon in the Far East is postponed, on the other, the United States has a free hand in Europe and an escalation of the conflict can be expected.
    Some pause on the eve of a major war could be used to re-industrialize the country and resuscitate science, but the experience of developing the promises of the last twenty years and the position in which we find ourselves as a result of “getting up from our knees” do not inspire optimism.
    1. +4
      19 November 2023 14: 36
      The achievements of science and technology do not directly depend on the size of the population. Korea is a medium-sized country in terms of population, but its influence in technology is enormous. First of all, conditions are important. How the striped ones once created their Valley.
  5. 0
    19 November 2023 12: 30
    I believe that Xi Jinping’s first visit to Moscow after being re-elected for a third term and the visit of Chief of the Army Zhang Yuxia should be considered in conjunction with the visit of Xi Jinping and He Lifeng to the United States.
    Both visits were aimed at the interests of the PRC:
    - To Moscow against the United States, in case of aggravation of relations, blockade of communications and military cooperation.
    - In the USA against Moscow with the aim of detente and improving relations, perhaps even to the detriment of Moscow’s interests. As XiJinping said, the world is big and there is enough space for both (!), the USA and the PRC (!). There was a proposal to divide the world into two, without the Russian Federation and the EU, which, presumably, would be included in the sphere of interests of the PRC and the United States, respectively. Biden rejected this proposal from XiJinping as categorically as possible, calling him a dictator, and the existing social system and governance system in China incompatible with Western democracy.
    Perhaps something will change, XiJinping will be obliged to resolve the Taiwan issue before the end of his term, and Moscow may be useful to him in this, just as Beijing is to Moscow in resolving the Ukrainian issue.
  6. -1
    19 November 2023 13: 46
    The Russian delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Alexei Overchuk arrived in San Francisco to participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. This was announced on Thursday, November 16, at the Russian Embassy in the United States.

    Next year, Russian citizens will reap the fruits of this delegation.
  7. +1
    19 November 2023 15: 19
    Mouse fuss, can six. The real ones who steered all these summits “before the light”, while the machine is steadily pushing green paper across the planet and China, which is not a member of the global pool, is breaking.
  8. 0
    21 November 2023 00: 22
    Asia-Pacific economic cooperation is a rather complex multi-level “construction” in which, at the moment, there are only two serious “soloists” - the USA and China... All other participants are a “backing up group”. The agenda was stated to be quite rich, including the Russian-Ukrainian “issue” and the attitude of all APEC members to this “issue”, including the main “soloist” - China... Among domestic analytical “skulls”, there was even a message that Behind Chairman Xi, at the summit, the shadow of V.V. Putin “loomed”, which supposedly did not allow Comrade Xi’s brain to “deviate from the general line” worked out in Moscow, Chairman Xi and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation... Having analyzed subsequent , after the summit, the “body movements” of its main “soloists” and “back-up dancers”, I will allow myself to make a cautious assumption that our “issue” was not discussed at all or very superficially and casually, without any “link to the American-Chinese global relations.. .. At the moment, these two “soloists”, next to them, do not see someone similar to them in terms of the share level of world GDP (Russia’s share in world GDP is about 1%)... And if we take into account the Chinese mentality, the role and specificity of the hegemony of the Chinese Communist Party and all its post-war activities, including rather complex relationships with the USSR and Russia, then, most likely, China views Russia at the moment not as a partner with “strategic views” on it, but rather as “ situational fellow traveler" (Russia), which, at the moment, is "very convenient" for it (China) to "cover its back" from the north, with its air defense - missile defense - nuclear "umbrella" until the moment when the Chinese nuclear shield "gets stronger" and its potential increases own air defense systems - missile defense, and, of course, as a source of cheap hydrocarbons, timber, minerals.... And as soon as Russia begins to “grow” economically and technologically and its share in world GDP begins to increase, then the question is “situational fellow traveler” - will be abruptly removed from the “agenda” and strategic competition will loom on the horizon of “warm friendly strategic relations between Russia and China”, and this is “a little about something else”, where, as they say in “foreign countries”: “Nothing personal , only business...." So, I think that the concept of “allies and other strategic partners”, voiced by the All-Russian Emperor - Alexander III, that “Russia has only two allies - its army and navy.... So we will adhere to it (the concept), both in domestic and foreign policy... The faster we understand this, analyze it and use it pragmatically, carefully, in relations with the outside world, the higher the “degree” of respect for others and theirs will be understanding... Something like this...
  9. 0
    21 November 2023 23: 37
    China is completely under the control of the United States, no matter what anyone says, and on many issues it critically depends. So they can’t escape their “friendship” with the striped ones.