After 40 years, the US and China are still trapped in their own political bubbles

Robert Delaney says China’s state-controlled media environment has never been conducive to Western values, despite hopes that trade would change China. Meanwhile, in the US political bubble, few understand why Chinese accept one-party rule

3-MIN READ3-MIN

President Xi Jinping visits Zhanqi village in Sichuan province. In the US political bubble, it is hard to understand why Chinese people accept a system in which, as Xi says, “the party leads everything”. But to many Chinese, a US government that can be shut down by a fight over a border wall is not a strong alternative. Photo: Xinhua

Robert Delaney

Robert Delaney is the Post’s North America bureau chief.

Published: 3:01am, 8 Jan 2019Updated: 3:54am, 8 Jan 2019

The United States marked the 40th anniversary of official bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China with a warning to US citizens visiting the country to beware of its “arbitrary enforcement of local laws”. A day later, Chinese President Xi Jinping ordered the People’s Liberation Army to prepare for combat and war.

The anniversary, the travel warning and Xi’s order are not directly related to each other. But the confluence of paranoia and militaristic jingoism at this moment is about as difficult to ignore as a swastika at a peace rally.

How did a trade war, multiple arrests of Chinese citizens by the US government on espionage charges and sabre-rattling become the backdrop to the 40th anniversary of bilateral relations? That is the wrong question. Here’s a better one: how did two countries with political systems that are irreconcilable on just about every level become interconnected so quickly?

And the answer is: the US’ idealism, in hindsight, was unreasonable. The 40-year bilateral relationship was mostly a geopolitical game that China played brilliantly and won. And no one can take that victory away from Beijing without upsetting global peace and security.

In 2005, when then US deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick asserted that China’s integration into the global economy would make Beijing a “responsible stakeholder”, he failed to take into account the depth of the ideological chasm between the two countries.