Does brash, rash Zhao Lijian really speak for the Chinese government?

China’s old-school diplomats, such as its ambassador to the United States, are being drowned out by new voices like the foreign ministry spokesman
Mixed messaging is, of course, part of the diplomatic toolkit, but given the stakes in US-China relations, some tact and prudence would go a long way

Philip J. Cunningham

Published: 11:00pm, 17 Apr 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

The pragmatic, protocol-driven dialect of diplomatic discourse that has long served as lingua franca for US-China exchange is at risk of being replaced by trash talk, gratuitous insult and rash accusation. Old-school diplomats such as Cui Tiankai, currently China’s ambassador to the US, are being outshouted by brash new voices such as foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian.

Zhao recently borrowed a page from Donald Trump’s unorthodox playbook by whipping up a virulent misinformation storm on Twitter. In a series of five tweets, Zhao slyly insinuated that the US military might be responsible for the deadly coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.

“It might be the US Army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan,” he said. “… Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!”

It’s an earth-shaking claim, if not quite a full-throated accusation. Should there be even the slightest iota of truth to it, it would amount to a casus belli. Even in the absence of evidence, Zhao’s words have ignited a chain reaction, empowering haters on both sides.

Zhou Enlai was the exemplary diplomat of Cui’s youth, a model of protocol and cunning realism

There are signs of resistance and calls for restraint. The clearest counter-message to date has come from Cui.

Ambassador Cui has at least twice made a point of disputing his junior colleague’s conspiracy theory, saying it was “crazy” to suggest that the coronavirus might have been deliberately weaponised by the US military.

In a rare interview, Cui shot down Zhao’s unsubstantiated claims. He prudently suggests that the origin of the killer virus is a question best left to scientists.

Yet Zhao continues to carry out his duties as deputy director of the foreign ministry’s information department.

China's ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, made a point of disputing his junior colleague’s conspiracy theory about the origin of the coronavirus. Photo: Reuters

So, who really speaks for the party? Who speaks for Xi? Are duelling factions in Beijing battling for influence?

China analysts in the West have a long history of seeing factions in the Beijing leadership despite loud communist claims that none exist. The rift between Cui and Zhao probably speaks more to a generation gap than duelling factions.

Cui Tiankai, at age 67, is old enough to remember a time when the US and China had no ties at all. Zhou Enlai was the exemplary diplomat of his youth, a model of protocol and cunning realism.

Cui went on to serve in the UN and as ambassador to Japan. He has proved a tough negotiator, willing to argue vociferously for China’s interests, but he is also part of the Zhou tradition that values tact.

Zhao Lijian joined the party in the messy, murky aftermath of the Tiananmen massacre and eventually landed a job with the foreign ministry. He served in both the US and Pakistan, where he gained a profile for his anti-US commentary on social media.

In 2019, Zhao had a much-publicised spat with Susan Rice, the former US national security adviser. She described him as “shockingly ignorant” and a “racist disgrace”, imperiously demanding that he be recalled.

Not only did this contretemps not threaten Zhao’s job, but it bolstered his notoriety in China where standing up to the US is a proven way of burnishing nationalist credentials.

Zhao Lijian’s antipathy to the US is consonant with the nadir in relations following the US bombing of China’s Belgrade embassy on May 7, 1999 when his nascent career was just taking off. The US claimed it was an accident, China claimed otherwise, and the dispute has never been satisfactorily resolved.

Chinese diplomat known for Twitter tirades gets senior foreign ministry job

“Patriotic” Beijing students attacked the US embassy with bottles, paint and brickbats. The photo of beleaguered US ambassador James Sasser peering out of a broken embassy window aptly captures the abject tone in diplomacy at the time.

In contrast, future ambassador Cui Tiankai launched his career during the honeymoon of newly established US-China relations when Jimmy Carter reached out to Deng Xiaoping under the guidance of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michel Oksenberg.

Then US ambassador to China James Sasser peers through the heavily damaged door of the US embassy building in Beijing on May 10, 1999, following two days of attacks by Chinese protesters. Photo: Reuters

To Zhao, born the same year as Nixon’s visit to China, rapprochement with the US was ancient history. The bilateral partnership was so thick by the time Zhao got his foot in the diplomatic door that he could focus on its defects and challenge his elders who saw an essential relationship in need of constant consolidation and nurturing.

Both Cui and Zhao speak for the party, each in their own way. Mixed messaging is part of the diplomatic toolkit, and gaffes are par for the course. There are sharp differences in style and hints of regional differences as well, suave Shanghai versus blunt Beijing.

But more than anything else, the contrast in tone sounds like adult versus child, and given the stakes, it’s time for the adults in the room to stand up.

Philip J. Cunningham is the author of Tiananmen Moon, a first-hand account of the 1989 Beijing student protests

Post