By Furqan Khan
Great Power Politics Fellow, PoliTact

Context

President Donald Trump is set to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping this week in Beijing, a summit originally scheduled for April and was stalled due to the ongoing US-Iran war. With the conflict carrying enormous economic consequences due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, it is likely to be a major point of discussion at the summit. What was expected to be a reset moment for US-China relations is now overshadowed by the Middle East conflict, which carries significant implications for the global economy.

Conflict at an Impasse Stage

After the initial Islamabad Talks failed to ease tensions between Iran and the United States, Pakistan’s shuttle diplomacy has reopened the lines of communication between Washington and Tehran. Tensions escalated after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to the US’ refusal to end the blockade of Iranian ports. While a ‘fragile’ truce remains in place, negotiations are stalled and fears of escalation are growing as the two parties recently exchanged fire in the Persian Gulf. After rejecting Iran’s proposal to open the Strait of Hormuz and end the war, which also suggested delaying negotiations over the nuclear program, Trump reviewed another 14-point proposal from Iran, but has expressed doubts – and later rejected another version. Meanwhile, domestic opposition in the US to the war is growing, which has already cost $25 billion. Moreover, the conflict has caused extensive damage to the US military assets across the Middle East and raised the gasoline price to its highest level in four years.

In the big picture, as the US jumps into another war in the Middle East, diverting its resources from the Pacific, it is pertinent to highlight what this conflict means for China, and its interests in the Middle East, as it also embroils in great power competition.

What is at Stake for China?

Since the beginning of this conflict, China has consistently condemned the US-Israel joint strikes on Iran in February that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and demanded an immediate ceasefire. China has released numerous statements criticizing America’s broader approach to international affairs, and calling the US’ blockade of the Strait of Hormuz “dangerous and irresponsible.” Without mentioning the Iran war or blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, President Xi has criticized American actions in the Gulf, saying that the world may be returning to the “law of the jungle.”

China has substantial stakes in this conflict. It relies heavily on the Strait of Hormuz for more than a third of its energy imports. China remains Iran’s largest trading partner, and over 80 percent of its crude goes to Beijing. At the same time, China has deep economic and investment ties in the Gulf states, and the Strait of Hormuz being critical for its energy supplies, Beijing has leveraged diplomacy to seek an end to this conflict.

The China Hand

The US has accused both China and Russia of providing dual-use equipment and satellite imagery enabling Iran to target US positions in the region. The New York Times and CNN reported, citing US intelligence sources, that China was preparing a shipment of weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, to Tehran. China has denied these claims, calling them “untrue,” and stating that China opposes such “ill-intentioned conduct.”

As he is set to meet President Xi this week, Trump also played down Chinese assistance to Iran, mentioning Chinese President Xi Jinping’s reassurance that China is not providing any weapons to Iran, while warning of “big problems” for Beijing in case they do so.

The war benefits China in many ways. The spike in oil and gas prices is pushing American allies, from the European Union to the United Kingdom – and from South Korea to the Philippines, into China’s clean energy infrastructure. They see it as a long-term solution to protect their economies. China may also be relieved seeing its rival getting bogged down in yet another war with declining credibility among its allies and the diversion of the American fleet from the Pacific. The US military has already expended an enormous amount of critical munitions that could potentially be used in a future conflict with China. China also appears most resilient in terms of energy security, given its huge oil reserves – the largest in the world. According to a recent report, China has enough oil stored to cover seven months of imports via Hormuz.

However, a conflict with wider economic and security risks reverberating throughout the region is not what China wants. Prolonged instability will threaten global markets and cause supply chain challenges. Moreover, the rising oil prices is already hurting the Chinese economy, making the Iran war and opening of the Strait of Hormuz a central concern for the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting.

China’s Leverage Over Iran

China has a strategic partnership with Iran, which is reflected in the 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed in March 2021. This included a massive $400 billion Chinese investment in Iran and defense cooperation in exchange for the discounted purchase of Iranian oil. The partnership allows Tehran to bypass Western sanctions while giving Beijing long-term energy security. China has also expanded its diplomatic footprint in the region by brokering a peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2021, helping the two rival Gulf states restore diplomatic relations.

Despite strong economic and security ties with Iran, China’s leverage has been limited. Nonetheless, Beijing’s role has been consistent, limited, and largely predictable. Chinese officials have used their conventional shuttle diplomacy, where Foreign Minister Wang Yi dialed nearly all regional partners and played its role in the UN Security Council, calling for a negotiated settlement. Beijing also joined Islamabad, the principal mediator in this conflict, to issue a joint ‘five-point initiative’ to end the war in the Middle East. At the same time, as both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported, China actively pursued the Iranians to agree to the initial two-week-long ceasefire.

A week before the Trump-Xi summit, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi met FM Wang Yi in Beijing, where Araqchi supported President Xi’s four-point proposal to end the conflict, reaffirming his “trust” in China. As part of his regional diplomacy, FM Araqchi also met Russian President Vladmir Putin in Moscow to discuss the war and continue “consultation” on regional and international issues. Trump held his own phone call with Putin during which the later expressed interest in playing an active role in ending hostilities in the US-Iran war. Trump, however, rebuffed the proposal and instead pressed Putin on ending the Ukraine war.

China’s response reflects a cautious great power strategy, where Beijing is concerned about the risks of conflict escalation but is also reaping its limited geopolitical benefits. It has not been pursuing the role of a mediator but rather a great power concerned about its broader interests in the region. Nonetheless, given its diverse energy sources and limited strategic commitment to Iran, China appears to be confident at managing the risks of this conflict.

Trump-Xi Summit 2026

As the two leaders meet this week, the Iran war and the resulting energy crisis will likely be a potential point of discussion. Trump’s announcement to continue the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which China uses to import one-third of its energy needs, complicates the process of seeking a reset on major issues, including bilateral trade with China.

Tensions are already mounting as the two powers are taking actions against each other’s firms. The Trump administration recently sanctioned China’s largest refiners and threatened secondary sanctions against Chinese banks for facilitating Iran’s economy. Beijing has blocked Meta’s $2 Billion bid to acquire the AI startup Manus, an attempt to keep cutting-edge AI technology inside China.

The rare Trump-Xi summit is an opportunity for both competitors to bring the US-China relations on track following their trade truce in October last year. Trump realizes this and has been seeking a deal with Iran before the Summit. He wants to meet Xi from a position of strength and not with an unresolved conflict he started, alongside Israel, two months ago, which may now be giving the Chinese side an advantage. With the Iran war hanging over the summit, the meeting will may fall short of the expected outcomes in seeking a reset to the US-China bilateral relations.

Related Articles

Geopolitics Of Islamic World And Middle Power Alliances After Iran Attack – Mar 22, 2026
The End Of Strategic Altruism: Putin’s Visit And The New US-India Reality – Jan 13, 2026
From Oslo To Trump’s Abraham Accords And 20-Point Peace Plan For Gaza – Oct 12, 2025
Israel Airstrike Targets Hamas Negotiators In Doha, Threatening Gaza Ceasefire Talks – Sep 15, 2025
Gaza Ceasefire Plan And US-Iran Tensions – April 26, 2025
Two-State Solution, Future Of Gaza, And Iran – February 25, 2025
Assad’s Demise And The Shifting Balance Of Power In Middle East – Dec 26, 2024
The Escalating Middle East Crisis And President Elect Trump – Dec 5, 2024
China’s Belt And Road Initiative And India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) – Oct 5, 2023
Iran’s Potential Retaliation For Haniyeh’s Killing And Wider Consequences – Aug 30, 2024
The Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project: Economic and Geopolitical Realities – Sep 27, 2024
Great Power Rivalry And China’s Deepening involvement In South Asia, Gulf States – Aug 4, 2023
What Does President Biden’s Visit To Israel And Saudi Arabia Imply? – Aug 4, 2022
What Does The Potential China, Iran Economic and Security Deal Mean? – Aug 9, 2020

The post Iran War Overhangs Trump-Xi 2026 Summit appeared first on Politact.

Context

As Biden administration formulates its Pakistan policy, and reviews the Afghan peace deal reached in February last year – a debate is raging in both US and Pakistan based think tanks on the future of US-Pakistan relations. It is like a new season of an exciting Netflix drama serial, only that this one has been continuing for about two decades. For all intents and purposes Biden administration represents Season 4 of the US-Pakistan serial which has seen many twists and turns. During this period, several terms were used to represent the ties, such as ‘frenemies’ or a troubled marriage heading towards a divorce.

If we use this analogy, the serial started right after the 9/11 attack – represented by season 1 under Bush, followed by Obama’s season 2, and Trump’s season 3 just concluded on January 20^th.

What may happen in season 4 requires an understanding of the plot. And the great debate ranging in the think tank world represent this assessment. One of the assertions is that although the nation has maintained an important position during the previous administrations, its likely to be low on Biden’s priority list. This emphasis is not much different than the approach adopted under Trump where military aid was cut to Pakistan. A greater emphasis was towards global adversaries than on countering extremism or promoting human rights. The analysts are thus suggesting areas around which convergences can be built.

Some have mentioned that Pakistan can help build bridges between US and China, just as it can between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Others have emphasized trade as the focus, and cooperation in dealing with the pandemic and climate change. As the balance of power in the Muslim world is shifting away from the Arab world and towards the peripheral nations of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, the country can play an active balancing role vis a vis the global powers.

On the other hand, Pakistan is stressing it has moved away from geopolitics to geoeconomics, as witnessed by CPEC like initiatives. This has been a consistent message from Pakistan’s National Security Advisor, Moeed Yusuf, who recently spoke at the Karachi council on Foreign Relations and Woodrow Wilson Center.

Under the Coronavirus induced circumstances, this could be interpreted to mean that the nations focus is on economics and less on engaging in another kinetic phase in Afghanistan – which has devastated Pakistan’s social fabric and economy. And this mantra goes along with the policy the present Prime Minister Imran Khan adopted when he came to power in 2018 – that it can help in making peace but not in the continuation of war. Just about the same time, US also shifted its position, which resulted in direct talks with the Afghan Taliban. Previously, Taliban had consistently refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, calling it a puppet.

In essence, as opposed to the thrust on military solutions that had remained the hallmark of Bush and Obama administrations, under Imran Khan, Pakistan’s assistance was focused on facilitating the peace talks with Afghan Taliban. The concentrated efforts, and cooperation from China, Russia, and Iran, resulted in an agreement between the US and Afghan Taliban in February 2020.

The peace deal was not arrived at easily and there were obstacles at each step of the way, consistently from the same sets of players. The very first challenge perhaps came from President Karzai when Taliban were allowed to open an office in Doha in 2013, carrying the sign and flag of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He argued that peace talks should be Afghan led.

In September 2019, the talks between the US and Taliban were abruptly broken off by President Trump – when peace deal was nearly at hand. Reportedly, he called-off talks due to an attack carried out by Afghan Taliban in Kabul that killed an American soldier. The confusion remained for some time if Trump had permanently abandoned the talks or if it was a temporary suspension. Moreover, he faced severe push back from Ashraf Ghani’s government. Senior former US officials with experience in Afghan affairs recommended US should not pullout before a real peace agreement, or in other words a responsible withdrawal.

Even when the deal was signed, everybody knew that the next step of intra-Afghan talks will be even more difficult, especially because of the role of spoilers, especially India. Heating global power tussles between US and China during the Trump administration added another dimension of worries. Up to now, global powers have cooperated when it comes to Afghanistan. Can it stay that way is not guaranteed.

As Biden administration evaluates its Afghan options, it is important to keep perspective of how we arrived at this juncture, what has already been tried. More importantly, to not get distracted under different pressures, especially when domestic challenges are mounting for the US. Keeping in view the historical context, about what can be achieved in Afghanistan at present – may not be possible six months from now.

How Did We Get Here?

Season 1 – 9/11 Attack (2001-2008)

Bush administration had been in power for about nine months when September 11 attacks struck the US. America launched Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) on October 7, 2001 with military strikes against Al Qaeda (AQ) and Afghan Taliban. The Taliban government crumbled quickly. While there were confrontations like the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters mostly retreated to fight another day.

Early on US pressured Pakistan to join what later became known as the Global War on Terrorism. The nation had been one of the few, including UAE and Saudi Arabia, that recognized the Taliban government. The military ruler General Pervez Musharraf decided to support the US and to go after former allies, the Afghan Taliban.

In the aftermath of the 1999 short and bloody Kargil conflict, then the army chief Pervez Musharraf had overthrown the civilian government in October 1999, removing Nawaz Sharif from power. For this US had slapped sanctions on his government, which were in addition to the ones imposed on Pakistan and India in the aftermath of the 1998 nuclear tests. For Musharraf’s support in Afghanistan, Bush lifted all sanctions on Pakistan in October 2001.

The 9/11 attacks presented an opportunity for Musharraf to gain international credibility. It was only later the realization dawned that AQ and Taliban had mostly slipped away from Afghanistan into the ungoverned Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

While US got distracted by going into Iraq in 2003, Bush administration increased pressure on Pakistan to launch military operations in FATA to eliminate what it termed as safe havens. Pakistan moved nearly hundred thousand troops from the Indian border towards Afghanistan to tackle the issue. US also conducted thousands of drone strikes in FATA between 2004 and 2018 to go after the extremist leaders hiding there. But Pakistan’s military operations in FATA, including the Lal Masjid operation in July 2007, accompanied by drone strikes, started to create an ominous backlash internally. It was unclear if the US drone strikes were occurring with Pakistan’s acquiescence – but it would publicly protest the strikes vehemently as violation of its sovereignty.

Many high value targets and facilities were hit in Pakistan as extremist reprisal spread, with thousands of civilian and soldiers killed and maimed. According to Dawn newspaper, Pakistan’s economic loss in the war against terror was a figure around $126.79 billion. The security and political turmoil, including the civil-military divide, was reflected by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

By this time, the internal politics of Pakistan had gotten fully intertwined with the support it was providing US in the war against extremism and at what cost. While Musharraf had become increasingly unpopular, and US grievances with him grew, the death of Benazir Bhutto demonstrated that this was a battle for Pakistan’s survival too.

The Mumbai Attack in November 2008, just about a month and a half before Obama was inaugurated on Jan 2009, created fresh headaches for Pakistan on how it was dealing with good and bad extremists.

Season 2 – Obama’s AfPak

On assuming power, President Obama initiated an exhausting evaluation of the US Afghan policy, which later adopted the acronym of AfPak. The late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke was appointed to lead the office, whose mandate was to originally include India, but that part was dropped due to heavy lobbying from the country. This may have been a critical mistake, as India remains opposed to any negotiated settlement with Afghan Taliban.

At the time it was assumed that the new policy would break from the Bush era focus on kinetic approach, and tilt more towards a diplomatic surge and a search for political solutions based on a regional emphasis. Obama’s assessment went through a metamorphosis of sorts and ended up being an evaluation of the entire US foreign policy. Reappraisal of policy involved the critical questions of what is at stake for America in Afghanistan? Dealing satisfactorily with this inquiry required evaluating US interests globally, understanding how they are related and then prioritizing in terms of the prevailing economic recession at the time.

The strategy that finally emerged represented the competing institutional influences that shape American foreign policy. Obama had to balance domestic economic realities with the perception of appearing weak on national security threats, a leverage he did not want to offer to the Republican Party. Additionally, he also wanted to fulfill his campaign promises of pulling troops out of Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan. Specifically, the new strategy opted for sending 30,000 more troops while setting a timeline for an exit to begin by July 2011.

The new US policy was followed-up with a process of strategic dialogue with Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. What transpired from this dialogue with India was a civil nuclear deal, the groundwork for which was laid during the Clinton administration. On the other hand, Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package ran into controversy because of provisions that many in Pakistan thought compromised its sovereignty. The Raymond Davis incident in January 2011 further validated Pakistan’s apprehensions. At the same time, Mumbai attacks and dealings associated with David Hadley, increased cooperation between US and India against groups such as LeT based in Pakistan.

Thus, the feeling of mistrust between US and Pakistan continued to increase, with both actors blaming each other for playing a double game. The Operation Geronimo gave further evidence of how deeply each party distrusts the other, while claiming to be strategic partners. The subsequent Memogate Affair, followed by the Salala Incident on November 26, 2011 further dented the relationship. A perception grew that the Civil-Military divide in Pakistan was being exploited.

During Obama’s tenure, war against extremism had expanded quite wide and included Yemen, Syria, and Libya. Moreover, by 2011 and onward the extremist threat had transformed as many new groups came in to being, such as Daesh (also known as ISIS and ISIL). Moreover, the Arab Spring related upheaval was further destabilizing many regimes in the MENA theater, to be exploited by extremists and other global adversaries.

As US was over-consumed by the war against extremism, China and Russia were resurging. China launched the Belt and Road global infrastructure initiative in 2013, with CPEC being one of its main arteries. At the cost $62 billion China plans to upgrade Pakistan’s infrastructure, build modern transportation networks, numerous energy projects and special economic zones.

While US remained busy with the war against extremism, the economy was impacted. The 2008 recession had a significant impact on the American middle class and a thought was taking shape that China, and even American allies, were exploiting Globalization – and US was paying. These sentiments were galvanized and channeled by Trumps ‘America First’ mantra.

Season 3 – Making American Great Again and ‘America First’

While July 15, 2015 Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) was a significant step in the direction of negotiated settlement to conflicts, only a year and a half later President Trump reversed the deal. On the Middle East Peace Process, he went ahead to make the controversial decision of accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Trump also stepped out of the Paris Agreement and annulled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama had pushed and was signed in 2016. In essence, Trump was against multilateralism and multilateral institutions and preferred bilateral approach to issues. Trump stated in his speech at the 74^th UN session:

“Globalization exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. Those days are over.” He went on to add, “Around the world our message is clear, America’s goal is lasting, America’s goal is harmony, and America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end.”

While on the political and economic front he declared: “If you want freedom, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. The future does not belong to Globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to strong, independent nations.”

Following this principle, Trump supported direct talks with Afghan Taliban leading to the peace agreement. If it had not been for the Coronavirus, Trump would have likely won the election.

The storming of the Capitol Hill on January 6, and the events associated with the recent concluded US elections are reflective of the tremendous stress US is under to chart out its future direction; whether it be the globalized one or based on America First. The coronavirus has added to the woes – where many have lost jobs and the lifestyle of others acutely impacted – adding to the public anger and stress.

Irrespective of who is to blame for what transpired on January 6th, Biden administration would have to focus on how to bring the disillusioned, and the Trump supporters, back into the system. This is the best approach to prevent matters being further exploited. This implies Biden would have to address the concerns reflecting by the America First mantra – to provide jobs and to improve the economic well being of the Americans.

Season 4 – ‘America is Back’

Delivering a speech virtually at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, President Biden stated unequivocally that America is back. “I’m sending a clear message to the world,” Biden addressed the security conference. “America is back. The transatlantic alliance is back. And we are not looking backward.”

On the other hand, soon after his acquittal from his impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump stated: “Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun”. His acquittal from Senate trial means Trump can run for office again in the election of 2024, which is likely to be the most consequential in American history.

The domestic politics is becoming increasingly polarized and that is directly linked to the state of the economy, which has been seriously dented by mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic. In such conditions, it would become increasingly challenging for the US to concentrate on foreign affairs, especially on the ‘unending wars’.

And it is in this domestic and global context the US-Pakistan relations, and the associated Afghan conflict, will unfold. There is no appetite left in Pakistan, and perhaps amongst European allies as well, for the continuation of the war other than supporting a reasonable exit. Whatever could be done, has been done, and now the responsibility lies squarely on Afghans. This message needs to be delivered – accompanied by reduction in violence on the Afghan Taliban side – associated by agreed withdrawal of troops on the part of the alliance.

The mantra of Trade not Aid is more prevalent as far as Pakistan is concerned. While China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey, have all supported the resolution of the Afghan conflict and have not linked it to their other frictions with the US, this cannot be assured in the future.

In other words, if US would make things difficult for China and Russia in other places and matters, they will now likely reciprocate in Afghanistan. While re-engaging with Iran on nuclear talks, and suspension of sanctions, may buy some favors with Iran – coming in and out international agreements have casted a long-term impact on US credibility. There was a time when American word was taken as ironclad, and leadership changes did not matter. Now US is telling the world to accommodate its dysfunction and confusion.

One of the fundamental question at this point is, to what extent will Afghanistan become a theater where global power tussles are going to play out. And thus – how critical is Afghanistan to undercut China and Pakistan’s influence in the region – and this is where the role of India, the Indo-Pacific, and the related Quad strategy fits in. The answer to this question makes the decision for US and NATO easier – if they should leave now and fight somewhere else – or stay. In other words, will Afghanistan remain an area of cooperation amongst global powers – or will competition ensue.

The post US-Pakistan Relations And Afghanistan Under Biden appeared first on Politact.

Myanmar’s President Thein Sein stated that the violence could harm the process of democratic reforms. Some 300 Rohingya, mainly women and children, have attempted fleeing to Bangladesh using boats. However, the Border Guards of Bangladesh prevented them from doing so.

Rohingya Muslims have been denied recognition as one of Myanmar’s ethnic minority and are considered foreigners and illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
According to the UN estimates, there are 800,000 Rohingya Muslims living in Rakhine state. On the other hand, Bangladeshi official’s claims there are about 300,000 Rohingya in their country.

Myanmar is quickly emerging as another host spot where the shifts in the balance of power between the West, China and India are playing out.

The post Clashes Between Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims And Rakhine Buddhists Continue appeared first on Politact.

Philippines is holding talks with US about the possibility of its Navy ships operating out of Philippines in the future. Reportedly, China’s increasingly aggressive posturing over territorial disputes and energy rights in the South China Sea triggered the move.

China is asserting presence in the South China Sea, claiming its sovereignty over the disputed islands of Spratly and Paracel, both believed to be rich in natural gas and oil reserves. Tensions have led to skirmishes between Chinese patrol boats and vessels from the Philippines and Vietnam. China is also preparing to deploy its aircraft carrier and the move has alarmed Philippines.

The final decision on US deployment in Philippines will be taken in March and will be the first concrete indication of future strategic interests of US in the Pacific since Obama announced revised defense strategy. Though, China has not shown any immediate reaction to the return of US Navy in Philippines, a backlash is expected. China feels these designs are to encircle it and counter its influence in the region.

The post Philippines Seeking Assistance Of US Military To Counter China appeared first on Politact.

Context

China’s Vice President Xi Jinping concludes a four-day visit to Washington Saturday, after spending time with President Barack Obama and other top US officials. The visit was watched intensely by Chinese media. Xi Jinping is largely expected to become the next Chinese President in a power hand-over scheduled for next year. While the timing of the trip may have been awkward, it also served to show that the ties that bind the US and China are stronger than many had thought.

Analysis

Official Chinese media have been closely reporting on the four-day visit of Vice President Xi Jinping to the United States, watching the actions of the man everyone assumes will be the next President of China. Xi Jinping was a guest of US Vice President Jo Biden, who accompanied the Chinese statesman throughout most of the visit.

While the past few weeks were fraught with US-China tension over the Iran sanctions, the Security Council veto and Obama’s State of the Union address which targeted China in an unfriendly manner, the visit was very well received on both sides, considering. This was in large part due to the fact that the focus of the tour was chiefly on matters where the two countries are eager to cooperate, such as agriculture and economic growth.

Xi is widely considered a very socially charming personality with easy manners, which saw him in good stead while meeting farmers and agricultural industry-men in Iowa, where he also reunited with an old acquaintance, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. The agricultural connection between the two countries is a key area of trade, with one in every four rows of soybeans produced in the US being exported to China. While in Iowa, Xi singed the largest ever single import promise of soybeans from the US, at $4.31 billion. The growth in demand for soybeans in China is being fueled by a growing middle class who are consuming more meat; therefore farmers are requiring more protein-rich fodder for their livestock.

While there were mostly pleasant exchanges during the Vice President’s visit, there was also a few subtle messages being sent between Xi and US President Obama belying the fractures which still plague the relationship.

Addressing business leaders at the US-China Business Council and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, Xi was airing concerns about the new US defense policy, as well as touching on the issue of trade barriers:

“China welcomes the United States playing a constructive role in promoting the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time we hope the U.S. will truly respect the interests and concerns of countries in the region, including China.

“To be frank, it is very important for addressing China-United States trade imbalance that the United States adjusts its economic policies and structure, including removing various restrictions on exports to China,” Xi said. “This will help balance China-U.S. trade, stimulate economic growth and job creation in the United States and improve the balance of U.S. international payments.”

President Obama had directly addressed the issue of trade imbalances as well as China’s trade policy with Xi in their meeting, however Xi made remarks that he thought China had progresses significantly in balancing out its trade policy.

Awkward Timing

The visit comes at an awkward time for the US, as the political landscape is riddled with tension over the upcoming elections. Also, Republican candidates, particularly Mitt Romney have been hammering the Obama administration for being too lenient with China. The timing also coincides with the scathing remarks from US envoy to the UN Susan Rice, who said she was “disgusted” by the veto. “The international community must protect the Syrian people from this abhorrent brutality,” she said. “But a couple members of this council remain steadfast in their willingness to sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant.” These strong words were not re-uttered on Xi’s visit, however the underlying tensions between the two nations was still felt during his stay.

While most officials were keeping their language friendly during the visit, President Obama raised a few eyebrows by reiterating his State of the Union remarks about China’s unfair trade policy while at a tour of a Boeing manufacturing plant. This was just days after the two sat down for talks in Washington.

While the timing may have been awkward, it also served to show that the ties that bind the US and China are stronger than many had thought. The two countries are too mutually invested in each other to let the relationship crumble over relatively small issues. This visit by Xi Jinping may have been fundamentally a meet-and-greet for the leader-in-waiting, but it was really a testament of the necessity of the US-China relationship to both countries, despite its many fissures.

The post China’s Vice President Xi Jinping Visits US appeared first on Politact.

Context

Tuesday, 24 January 2012 saw US President Barack Obama delivered his third State of The Union address to Congress. While the overall theme was getting the US economy back on track, there were some interesting references to China and Iran. The President’s speech was received with mixed feelings both abroad and at home.

Analysis

This year’s State of the Union address has been heralded as the start of President Obama’s 2012 election campaign. The gifted orator was compelling and eloquent in his speechifying, however this was not enough to silence his critics.

At home Obama’s speech was met with a somewhat icy reception by Republicans, with Republican Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels among the most vocal of the President’s decriers. Daniels was chosen to deliver the official GOP response to the President’s speech, which he labeled, ‘extremist’ and ‘divisive’ saying that “No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant effort to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others.”

He was referring to the planned tax hike for millionaires, which would see them pay a 30 percent tax on their income. The GOP is viewing this as tantamount to class warfare, and to chastising and penalizing entrepreneurship and achievement. Obama, however, made it clear he was serious about adjusting taxes in favor of the middle class:

“Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”

Unfortunately for the President, someone didn’t do their homework and it turns out Warren Buffett’s secretary earns a healthy 250,000 to 500,000 per year and is hardly a representative of the majority of US tax payers. This incident has been grabbed by the media and almost overshadowed the rest of the President’s speech.

China

China was made mention of a number of times in the speech, and all in the context of economic competition. The President seemed to crow that it was getting more expensive to produce goods in China, stating that he is creating a new Trade Enforcement Unit to deal with countries “like China” who are perpetrating unfair trade practices. In this vein he mentioned that there were already a number of trade cases against China, and that he would go after countries where US movies, music and software were pirated. He further stated that he would not “cede wind or solar or battery industries to China” and claimed that their competitiveness is the result of unfair subsidies.

The complex US-China relationship was reduced to a tit-for-tat on economic competitiveness and trade practices and the Chinese were quick to take note of it. Another part of the speech which were of particular interest to China was the quip by Obama that:

“The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”

Chinese media particularly focused on this quote, which comes on the back of months of tension between the two nations, which ratcheted up a level when Obama unveiled his new Defense Strategy with a refocus on the Asia Pacific.

Interestingly, Indian media was primarily focused on the Chinese elements in Obama’s speech, glad that its biggest rival in the region economically was coming under the spotlight in such a prominent and unflattering way. That being said, it would have noticed a veiled reference to its own huge black market for pirated goods in Obama’s speech as well.

The way in which China was dealt with in this year’s State of the Union address is quite a departure from Obama’s previous two speeches, which were much more forgiving toward China. This harder tone comes at an opportune time for the US, where China is in no position to take up an economic fight and is more concerned with domestic issues than with any problems abroad. China will see a leadership transition this year and is spending the majority of its energy in trying to ensure that takes place without mishap.

Russia And Other Nations

The only reference to Russia in the State of the Union address was as an ‘emerging market’ that the US could move its products into. This mild reference is no doubt due to the Russian Reset put into place in 2009. However, with Russia opposing the US on Iranian sanctions, and relations straining over the US ambassador’s interaction with Russian dissident groups, the Reset could be headed for stormy waters.

Obama was perhaps being overly optimistic when he commented that the international community was behind the new Iranian sanctions, with China and Russia both in opposition, this is a slightly (read: very) skewed assessment. However he did mention that all options were “on the table” with regards Iran, qualifying this remark by saying he has a preference for diplomacy and negotiations to resolve the Iranian issue.

With regards Israel, Obama reaffirmed the US’s “ironclad” support for their security, which was a message to Israel, and all her neighbors in the Middle East.

Over all, this year’s State of the Union speech has been taken as much for what it said, as what it didn’t say. Some of the most pressing issues in Washington, such as “Obamacare” were off the agenda, public pensions, and even foreign policy were largely untouched. For Republicans, it was chiefly viewed as rhetoric, for Democrats, it was the start of a long haul to the ballot box in November. For the President, there was one theme that stood out: he feels hamstrung. The party divide in Congress makes it very difficult to get anything done, and Obama’s numerous pleas in his speech for Congress to work together and get new bills “to his office” or “on his desk” speak volumes.

The post Obama’s State of the Union Address appeared first on Politact.

Context

Navigating the stormy waters of relations with China has always been a delicate job for the US, especially if China refuses to follow suit with the new sanctions on Iran. China’s position on Iran will be a cause of concern in the US, but how Washington responds will be a clearer indication if a more serious confrontation is in store. In addition to economic and military options, the social media has become an increasingly lethal soft weapon that China is concerned about.

Two major events are weighing in on the status of US-China relations: the recent announcement of a shift in focus for the US toward the Asia Pacific, and the new US sanctions against Iranian oil trade. Both events have uncovered a new nexus of complexity in the US-China relationship.

Analysis

US Sanctions On Iranian Oil

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who conducted a five-day tour of the Arabian Peninsula recently, has defended China’s decision to maintain trade relations with Iran: “China’s oil trade with Iran is normal trade activity… legitimate trade should be protected, otherwise the world economic order would fall into turmoil.” His tone is in keeping with the sentiment in Beijing that the unilateral sanctions form the US impinge on China’s sovereignty and relations with other states.

At the same press conference in Doha where he made these remarks, Mr. Wen also chose to send a message to Iran, saying: “We believe that, no matter what the circumstances, the security of the Gulf of Hormuz and normal shipping passage through it must be guaranteed, because this is in the interests of the whole world.” He also added that China “adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.”

While Iran must be pleased that China is maintaining trade ties, the last sentiment regarding nuclear weapons would be a slap on the wrist for Iran, as China normally stays quiet on this subject and has in the past supported Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program.

For the US and China, resolving the issue of the sanctions will be tricky. China is Iran’s largest export partner in crude, and to grant a waiver to China, or to allow China to trade unhindered will more or less render the sanctions defunct. With Russia expressing similar sentiments to China on the sanctions issue, the US will have a tough time making the sanctions squeeze Iran in the right places, as two of the region’s biggest influences are standing by Iran on this issue.

New US Defense Strategy

Beijing is now watching US movement in the Asia Pacific with a more suspicious eye. It is no secret that the US intends to counteract Chinese influence in the region, particularly in valuable sea-lanes, by boosting military aid to allies in the region and bolstering the US’s own military presence.

This sentiment was confirmed recently by US Senator Joseph Lieberman at a press conference in Manila who stated that “we simply cannot allow one nation, in this case China, to exercise disproportionate control over these waterways,” referring to the South China Sea. At the same press conference, Senator John McCain reiterated however that “we do not foresee a conflict or confrontation with China,” but that boosting military ties with neighbors and allies in the region is Washington’s way to ensure China stays in check.

At the same time former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was in China, offering similar sentiments. “A conflict between China and the United States would weaken both societies,” Kissinger told Chinese media. “You realize we can only exhaust ourselves by conflict, and that is the guiding principle of foreign policy.”

A Veiled Threat

China, and Russia too, have been watching the uprisings in the Middle East with much concern. The civil unrest in the region has taken a huge toll in just over a year and radically changed the landscape of the Middle East. China’s concern is that dissidents within China will seek to replicate the Jasmine Revolution and seek to instigate a popular uprising.

It is interesting to note that as China takes the route of negotiated settlement and against sanctions, in case of both Iran and Syria, US has been more vocal of late regarding China’s human rights record and the lack of freedoms in China. Only recently the US ambassador to China Gary Locke told reporters at a Washington press conference that the political situation within China was “very, very delicate” he further highlighted the success of a number of demonstrations within China, however clarified that “I think it would take something very significant, internal to China, to cause any type of major upheaval.”

The US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul has similarly highlighted Russia’s human rights record, and come under fire for meeting with government opposition groups and civil rights groups.

Both China and Russia would be aware of the perception that the US had something to do with igniting the Arab Spring uprisings via the use of social media and activating civil society activists. The increase of noise about the Chinese and Russian human rights could be seen as a veiled threat to these countries, particularly if they refuse to comply with the Iranian sanctions.
This is a new tactical weapon for the US, one which uses much fewer resources and is far less risky for US interests. Furthermore, the US would not have to “exhaust itself” to incite unrest in China, but if a Jasmine Revolution were to happen, China would exhaust itself with the US watching from the sidelines.

Weighing the Options

The US and China both have a lot at stake where their relationship is concerned. Both states are testing boundaries with each other, and it depends on how flexible these boundaries are, and how far they are stretched as to whether conflict develops into more than just a diplomatic row.

China has been unhappy for quite some time with the US’s renewed push into the Asia Pacific, and particularly the US’s “you either with us or against us” diplomacy, which doesn’t sit well at all with China’s diplomatic style. This was evident with the US reaction to the sinking of the South Korean vessel the Cheonan in March of 2011, and of course with the unilateral sanctions on Iran. Moreover, China’s ability to disagree with the United States is somewhat of a source of pride in Beijing. The US’s continual drawing of diplomatic lines in sand on issues that concern China will inevitably take their toll. If there is one thing to ignite a row with China that could potentially spark conflict, it’s interfering in areas China deems their own.

For the US, China is of great importance economically, yet poses a conundrum because of its vast difference in culture – both civil and political – as well as its history of human rights abuses. The rise of China in the Asia Pacific region is of great concern for the US because the region has been a US stronghold since the end of World War II.

The underlying truth for both countries is as Kissinger put it. Conflict between China and the United States would significantly weaken both countries, and neither country has a public with much of an appetite for war at this point.

This leaves a tricky minefield of diplomacy to steer in the months ahead. The US will need to tread carefully as it implements its new Asia policy – particularly as pertains to the disputed Spratly Islands. How both countries resolve their differences over the Iran sanctions will shed more light on the likelihood of tensions escalating and thus PoliTact will be monitoring this situation carefully.

The post The Scope Of Growing US-China Tensions appeared first on Politact.

President Obama has issued a new defense strategy of limiting the country’s armed forces at a time of tight budgets, but also promised to maintain US as the most powerful military force- ready for the full range of contingencies and threats. He said strong presence will be maintained in Asia Pacific and budget cuts will not harm the security of the country.

US is shifting its focus from Europe to Asia-Pacific and for this a strategic alliance has been announced with Australia. For the counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, US plans to rely more on unmanned drones for surveillance and attacks, as done in Iraq.

President Obama states that they will continue to invest in critical alliances and partnership, and especially remain vigilant in Middle East. He vowed to get rid of “outdated Cold War-era systems” and instead aims to strengthen intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as counterterrorism. He said defense spending will grow at a slower pace, compared to after September 11. Obama has already earmarked defense budget cuts of $489bn over 10 years.

The post Obama Redefining Defense Strategies And Spending appeared first on Politact.

China reached a milestone in its space technology by launching trials for its Beidou satellite global positioning system. This will make it come closer to its only competitor US. If China successfully launches its 35 satellites as scheduled by 2020, it will be free from current dependence for navigation on the U.S. global positioning network (GPS) signals and Russia’s similar GLONASS system. This will be a breakthrough in the precision attack capability of the PLA.

This technology will be imperative for Chinese military, alongside the expanding surveillance, imaging and remote sensing satellites. China denies that the satellite network will pose a military threat.

China accelerated its efforts on space technology after 1996 when PLA found out that it could not track US aircraft on the Taiwan Strait. Though China still lags behind US and Russia in this technology, however, it is rapidly becoming state –of –the-art competitor in the space surveillance.

The post China Nearing A Key Milestone In Space Technology appeared first on Politact.

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton on Friday wrapped up her Myanmar visit. Clinton accompanied by Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner and US Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Myanmar Derek Mitchell met with Myanmar officials to discuss cooperation between the two countries.

Myanmar President, U Thein Sein told the US State Secretary his government was commitment to a peaceful democratic process. Clinton expressed her hope for a greater US-Myanmar partnership and extended cooperation in helping Myanmar set up its banking system in collaboration with the World Bank. She also spoke of a new roadmap which would removes sanctions, and normalize relations between the two countries. She extended an invitation to Myanmar officials to visit US early next year. Clinton on her visit also met with the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) Aung San Suu Kyi at her residence.

The post Hillary Clinton Ends Strategic Myanmar Visit appeared first on Politact.