Editor's note: This article has been deleted.
Due to the outbreak of the global pandemic, the recent tensions between China and the United States may have been overlooked to some extent. In fact, the cracks between China and the United States have reached a peak after the trade war, and the consequences are likely to gradually emerge after the easing of the pandemic. At a time when the world needs to set aside differences and work together to face the pandemic, why does the China-US relationship seem irreparable?
The most direct cause of this dispute is the expulsion of journalists by both sides. Since September last year, the differences between the two sides in terms of news reporting have been brought to the forefront, starting with the US demanding that Xinhua News Agency and China International Radio register as "foreign agents". In the "Asian sick man" incident, China expelled Wall Street Journal reporters, and the United States immediately demanded that Chinese media reduce the number of employees in the US. Subsequently, China expelled reporters from three major US newspapers on March 17.
In the tense atmosphere, a tweet about the origin of the virus added fuel to the fire.
On March 12, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian tweeted a series of astonishing tweets. He borrowed some remarks from the director of the US CDC at a congressional hearing, suggesting that the origin of the novel coronavirus may be in the United States and demanded an explanation from the United States. What is most fatal is that Zhao Lijian extended this to the Military World Games held in Wuhan in October last year, suggesting that US soldiers brought the virus to Wuhan during the games.
It is worth noting that after Zhao Lijian sent this tweet, several Chinese diplomats abroad reposted it at the same time.
The idea that the United States is the origin of the virus has been circulating in China for a long time and is not new. However, no matter how you express it domestically, at most it represents the attitude of individuals or a certain group of people. As a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, Zhao Lijian's remarks represent the perception and attitude of a country, which is completely different in weight.
Indeed, Zhao's remarks immediately triggered a strong backlash from the US government and media, making it a trending topic in the United States. The US State Department rarely summoned Chinese Ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai to protest, and subsequent phone calls between US Secretary of State Pompeo and China mainly revolved around this issue, demanding an explanation from China. While it is common for Americans to be criticized, it is rare for them to protest against such a heavy accusation.
Subsequently, both Pompeo and Trump made rebuttal remarks on this matter. Pompeo deliberately used the term "Wuhan virus" in his speech, while Trump was even more sharp, using the term "Chinese virus".
To be frank, both Pompeo and Trump's statements are extremely wrong. The virus is a threat to all of humanity, and emphasizing its regional origin is a biased perception similar to racism. However, if you throw dirty water at others and they throw it back at you, it can be considered as getting what you asked for.
Today, we will not discuss who is right, but instead think about the purpose and means of a country's diplomacy.
Many people who are used to the wolf warrior-style clamor in recent years may think that this is how Chinese people have always been towards the outside world. But that's not true. If we take a look at pre-Qin history, especially the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, we will find a diplomatic history of China that is unimaginable.
The Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods were aristocratic eras in Chinese history, so diplomacy between states reflected a certain civilization. For example, before two countries went to war, they would send envoys to each other according to the template in the Book of Songs, using poetry and music to express respect for the enemy and the reluctance to go to war, with a mix of firmness and flexibility. Although it was hypocritical, this kind of civilized dignity actually left room for both sides to retreat. For example, when the hegemon Duke Heng of Qi attacked Chu, before the war, the envoy from Chu said, "If you use virtue, who would dare not submit? If you use force, Chu will turn its cities into fortresses and the Han River into a pond. Even though we are outnumbered, we have nothing to fear." This non-submissive and non-arrogant attitude resolved the conflict.
From many preserved diplomatic expressions in "Zuo Zhuan" and "Strategies of the Warring States", you can see that even in a tense situation, the words used were extremely euphemistic, never direct or rude. Even in the foolish era of the Qing Dynasty, many of its diplomatic envoys were well-mannered, such as Guo Songtao, who knew the true situation of his country and would not provoke unnecessary trouble.
As a tool representing a country's position and the pursuit of national interests, diplomatic language is actually very different from ordinary language. The purpose of diplomatic language is to maximize national interests and to ease conflicts rather than escalate contradictions. Therefore, the manner and intensity are important, and ambiguity, tactfulness, and non-aggressiveness are basic requirements. Words like "deep regret," "seeking consensus," and "exchanging views" actually have rich implications. That's why we used to call some correct nonsense "diplomatic rhetoric". These elegant words not only represent the dignity and demeanor of a country, but more importantly, they ensure a degree of flexibility in the rapidly changing diplomatic situation, especially when you are not the strongest.
Undoubtedly, the most rigid diplomatic language system in the world is North Korea's. They talk about eradicating others from the face of the earth every day, but does it work?
Unfortunately, the North Korean-style rhetoric has become our problem as well. Most people may not know that the tone of China-US relations can be traced back to the "Three-View Education Movement" about seventy years ago. Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, instructions were issued at the upper level regarding current affairs propaganda, proposing the "Three-View Education Movement" to "enable the entire people to correctly understand the current situation, establish confidence in victory, eliminate the fear of the United States, and launch propaganda campaigns on current affairs in various places." The "Three-View" refers to: hating the United States, despising the United States, and ridiculing the United States.
This propaganda tone was somewhat eased after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, especially after Deng Xiaoping's statement that "countries that have good relations with the United States have become prosperous." However, it has not been fundamentally abandoned. This has resulted in many contradictions among the Chinese people that we see today—on the one hand, they have to admit the strength of the United States, and on the other hand, they believe that this strength is only that of a robber, without any civilized or institutional considerations. Most Chinese people are grateful for the good life brought about by reform and opening up, but it is difficult for them to connect this kind of life with the improvement of China-US relations. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the latter is the ballast stone of China's diplomatic efforts in the reform and opening up era.
The cost of Zhao's spokesperson's tweet is likely to be too high. For the China-US relationship, which has not yet recovered from the trade war and the expulsion of journalists, this can be described as adding insult to injury. In the unprecedented global pandemic, it is no longer important where the outbreak originated, but not everyone is willing to bear the blame. This childish way of shifting blame not only incites domestic nationalistic sentiment, but also brings real harm without any real benefits internationally, making the motives behind it difficult to understand.
On March 16, Navarro, a US trade hawk, said in an interview that the United States would recall its medical industry chain from China; on March 18, tariffs on some goods exported from China to the United States were raised to 25%. The harm of decoupling is mutual, but there is definitely one side that is heavier and less able to bear it.
The importance of China-US relations goes without saying. Many Chinese people find it hard to imagine that this is actually closely related to their own interests. During the thirty years of isolation and enmity with the United States, it is unnecessary to say how badly things went; during the forty years of reform and opening up and friendship with the United States, it is unnecessary to say what benefits were gained. Whether you acknowledge it or not, the results can be seen in just a few years.
What is most regrettable is that in the midst of mutual accusations, the terrifying iron curtain has already descended. Regardless of whether Trump is re-elected or not, the precedent he has set has become a consensus among the two major parties in the United States and the political arena, and it is difficult to reverse. If one party's diplomatic thinking and policies do not undergo significant changes, the current rift in China-US relations will only become an insurmountable divide for a generation.