Weekly Overview
Member question: ‘‘Was the Anchorage meeting really a carnage of American diplomacy ? Or were there any gains for our side too?’’
You could certainly make that assertion, and unless there were some specific commitments/promises on important bilateral issues behind closed doors (unlikely), one can confidently dismiss the whole Anchorage meeting as a tragic blow to US standing.
First of all, let’s start with the protocols.
Why did the American side agree to the protocol?
If beyond agreement, they also volunteered/suggested the format of the meeting, then that is an overwhelming level of incompetence on the US side.
The negotiated rules that allowed each side a 2 minute opening remarks slot (that China went on to grossly violate) was unnecessary and harmful.
Post event joint press conferences make sense: they can highlight and solidify agreements reached in the meeting, by turning it into a public utterance for global media to record forever.
But why the opening remarks? In front of the media corps? What was the point of that?
Did Blinken really not realize that China was not going to say anything nice in return to his rebukes on Xinjiang - a highly sensitive and anger provoking issue for China?
Adding Taiwan and Honk Kong to the list of concerns, Blinken then said that ‘‘Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability”.
And then reasoned that precisely for that reason ‘‘they’re not merely internal matters, and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues here today.”
Yes but.. you can do that and prevent China hijacking the narrative.
Why give them an opening to argue back face to face? Why give them that oxygen? That air time?
This is not a school debate - Blinken can and should focux on Xinjiang issues, but in forums where China cannot then instantly strike back and change the narrative.
Doing this face to face, and in public, defeats the whole purpose of isolating China in the narrative war.
It allows them to immediately change the subject - as they did. Striking back and accusing America for its own supposed failures on racism etc.
Attempting to appeal to millennials world-wide, China even cited the BLM movement.
At the end of the day 1 of the meetings, China was in total control of the narrative.
Everyone already knows about Xinjiang, Taiwan and Honk Kong - that US would press China on those was not surprising, and therefore not driving the social media/media coverage.
What was interesting and exciting for the global audience, was China’s Yang Jiechi, director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission Office, going on a 13 minute attack against the US - breaking all protocols and engaging in a vicious instance of whataboutism.
What about BLM, what about your own human rights problems?
Essentially: who are you to lecture us?
And precisely that became the dominant narrative - A rising power openly challenging the dominance of a current superpower in decline.
China was simply not going to accept the teacher/pupil frame anymore.
They wanted the whole world to know that - and they achieved that aim.
Situation was so bad, that the State Department spokeswoman Jalina Porter had to make the following comment:
‘‘We know that sometimes these diplomatic presentations can be exaggerated, or maybe even aimed at a domestic audience”.
Right, if you did know that (as you should) then why agree to these protocols?
What could have Blinken done instead?
Where he could still berate China, but without letting them to argue back in the open - shout back total garbage into the faces of the US delegation.
Easy:
1. Blinken makes an opening statement framing the Anchorage meeting…but not in Anchorage - at the State Dept press office in DC (or at the airport on the way to Anchorage);
2. Media narrative and frame established;
3. Blinken arrives at Anchorage - there are no opening remarks - they immediately delve into discussions;
4. Tightly agenda controlled post-event press conference where Blinken highlights bilateral agreements, and cites Chinese commitments - forcing his counterpart to confirm/commit in public.
None of this long tables of diplomatic delegates facing each other for public opening attacks and counters in a setting that reminds of a low-production value high-school debate..
So the protocol was a total farce.
But going back to Porter’s comment, was she correct that this was aimed at a domestic audience?
Certainly - but only in part.
There were two more aims behind the Chinese delegations’ belligerent theatrics:
1. Establish the aforementioned narrative;
2. Raise the cost of conflict for all other US allies.
China additionally wanted to warn all US allies of a very high cost of confrontation.
Coming into the Anchorage meeting, they were no doubt encouraged by the fact that Australia’s senate disgracefully failed to condemn Chinese conduct in Xinjiang as acts of genocide.
And that failure was doubly embarrassing for the US, given that it was only few days after the QUAD meeting - where coordinating on security measures against China, and countering its incursions on ‘‘rule based order maritime order’’ was one of the explicit public, and joint agreements..
So now was the time for China to press its advantage, and to remind the rest of the US allies about costs of conflict with a rising superpower - I have no doubt that their openly contemptuous treatment of the US delegation achieved that aim.
So to answer the first part of the question - yes, it was a total slaughter.
What about potential gains?
Well, Blinken (and the mainstream media) would claim that there was some alignment on Iran.
Indeed, Blinken claims that the US/China interests on Iran ‘‘intersect’’.
(side note: it is notable that Blinken already chose a word requiring a lower threshold of mutual agreement. He did not go for ‘‘overlap’’ or ‘‘we share similar interests’’. Blinken himself realized that anything more than ‘‘intersect’’ would be a bit too ridiculous - it would be a claim even harder to defend).
To which I say nonsense.
How would they intersect? What common interests do China and US share on Iran?
A think-tank academic would probably claim that China would not want a rogue state like Iran to have nuclear weapons - even if it is unlikely that China would ever be deliberately targeted at any point.. what if the weak Iranian state collapses, and the nukes get into the hands of terrorists/ paramilitaries? That is a threat to all humanity .. and that certainly includes China.
But this would not be a practical analysis - only a theoretical point.
In practice, Pakistan (that is a direct neighbor of China) is far more likely to ever succumb to state institutional failures, and lose control of its nukes to a variety of terrorist groups on its territory.
By this logic, China must be worrying day and night about this possibility - and acting in accordance.
In reality, any potential nukes that Iran may end up developing, would have to be kept in secret and protected so well from both US/Israel, that the probability of a non-state militia ever getting its hands on these weapons is miniscule.
So.. on the contrary. It is in China’s interests that Iran should cause as much headache and attention drain on the US.
From China’s perspective, the longer the US/Iran conflict drags, on the better.
In addition to being strong enough to withstand US pressure, why would China also not be interested in Iran’s regional proxy warfare?
Why would China be against Iranian efforts to become a bulwark against America’s Israel/Arab alliance in the Middle East?
The more space America dominates (either directly or via alliances) the more difficult is China’s ascend.
Secondly, if US/China interests on Iran did in fact intersect, then why did China not confirm it in public?
Why did we not get a corresponding statement from China to that effect?
The only public statement that came out of China following the Anchorage meeting, was them urging both sides to ‘‘agree’’ to a nuclear deal, observing that there were ‘‘new developments’’ in the Iranian nuclear program.
But a) making that appeal to agreement means nothing - China loses absolutely nothing in making that statement - in return gains a cloak of global responsibility and reasonableness, and b) noting that there were new developments in the Iranian nuclear program is like saying that the sky is blue. It is a completely neutral, banal statement.
Note how they did not mention their ‘‘concern’’ for that rapid new development - because that would be taking sides ..against Iran.
Indeed, shortly after that statement, Iran and China signed a 25 year strategic partnership and cooperation agreement - where China will invest $400 billion in Iran over that period (significantly reducing the impact of the US maximum pressure campaign sanctions).
In addition to direct investment benefits, the deal is also designed to reduce Iranian dependency on trade with western countries (that are observing US sanctions).
So much so for having intersecting interests…
And besides, if there really was some sort of alignment, then why did Blinken not secure a public commitment on a specific issue? A mere statement even?
If there really was a genuine alignment of at least some extent on this issue, then not securing its public utterance would amount to a diplomatic malpractice.
If there was a specific promise that was made in private, but not announced in public, then.. that means nothing - given that US / China are adversaries and that there are no effective informal/private means of securing commitments.
These are not two allies quietly agreeing via backroom diplomacy..
But there was something that US did in fact gain from this conference: urgency needed to move its allies.
The whole world saw how China was ready and willing to counter-attack quite viciously against the ‘‘rule based world order’’.
America must now use this fact to drive up the urgency and necessity of a stronger cooperation and coordinated China response in all of its alliances.
US/EU sanctions and Chinese response: narrative still developing, and will be covered in the next cable.
Russia’s Siloviki waste no time in consolidating power
As predicted in the previous cables, Russia’s siloviki/security apparatus wing is tightening its grip over power in Russia.
Putin now signed a law that allows his civil servant appointees to serve beyond the previous age limit of 70.
Given that most of the siloviki wing officials are at/around that age (millennials are simply not that great at consolidating hard power in Russia) , their formal titles are now secure.
Some Russian political operatives claim that this was to ensure the formal title of Nikolai Patrushov - Secretary of Russia’s Security Council.
Patrushov (who is so morally repugnant, that he makes House of Cards characters seem like teletubbies in comparison) being the most important leader of the siloviki wing, is 69 years old - so at first sight, it is indeed quite plausible that this law was primarily passed for him.
But then again, strictly speaking his is not an executive role - to which the age limit applies.
His role is primarily advisory.
A more plausible scenario - the law was designed for other siloviki leaders - who whilst being certainly less important, were still loyal to Putin.
FSB leader - and Navalny poisoning team lead, Alexander Bortnikov comes to mind.
He is also 69 years old.
In addition to formalizing and entrenching their power within Russia, the siloviki are (once again predictably) also demonstrating more aggression in the realm of foreign policy too.
Making use of the rally ‘round the flag effect after Biden’s killer comments, they decided to revisit and reignite the conflict with Turkey.
Partly taking revenge for Turkey’s success in Libya (now formally acknowledged and confirmed), and partly striking back after the Karabakh war embarrassment (where Turkish drones deployed by the Azeri side, destroyed Russian S300 SAMs used by Armenia), Russia decided to hit back and attack Turkey’s interests both in Syria and in Karabakh.
In Syria, Russia is pummeling Turkish positions in the north - the primary location of pro-Turkey rebels.
In Karabakh, Russia backed (and formally recognized by absolutely no one - not even by Armenia itself) ethnic Armenian separatists voted to make Russian the second official language.
Readers may remember that protecting Russian speaking minorities was an excuse used by Russia to intervene and invade both Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine in 2014.
May I suggest a pattern here?
I have long been warning that Russian ‘‘peacekeepers’’ in Karabakh could provoke and ignite a new war, and that they would thereafter use to destroy the Southern Gas Corridor - the new (even if still inadequate) alternative gas route to Europe.
Therefore, this second incident should be yet another warning sign for the Biden admin.
Luckily, solution is not too difficult or complicated so far - before Russia can act unilaterally for much longer, the US and EU must send their own UN mandated (actual) peacekeepers.
No serious force is needed. There are no active hostilities at the moment.
The 44 day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia was decisive in its result.
Armenia lost, and is unwilling to fight anytime soon - neither is it in their interests to do so anyways.
Much better for them to finally open up to trade and normal relations with both Turkey and Azerbaijan (and end the Russian vassal state status).
The main concern is Russia.
But even a few hundred peacekeepers with a UN mandate could very well spoil Russian plans of escalation.
Finally, renewed Russia/Turkey hostilities is an excellent opportunity for the US/Turkey rapprochement.
No better time than now - when siloviki and consequently Russia’s aggressive foreign policy is in its full swing.
US could use this opportunity to not only get back Turkey’s goodwill, (creating further wedges between Turkey and Russia) but also do so on its own terms - perhaps securing more concessions on S400s.
But for that to happen, we need to see some effort to that effect from Blinken and his team.
If only there was any time left from the countless and totally useless press conferences praising indirect diplomacy with Iran…
We urgently need another Clark Clifford at the White House.