"Before the Tianjin Dialogue, Sheman still came with the banner of 'Dialogue of Strength'. She thought she was well prepared, but China did not take this trick. We see your essence of being strong on the outside and being tough on the inside."

"This Sino-US Tianjin confrontation is a display of a 'comprehensive, thorough and strong' Chinese discourse. This new style of change suddenly attracted widespread attention from home and abroad."

"Before the Tianjin dialogue, Sherman still came with the banner of 'Dialogue of Strength'. She thought she was well prepared, but China did not take this trick. We see the essence of your strong outside and being strong at the same time."

"This Tianjin talks were actively requested by the United States to negotiate with us. There are many views on the Internet that the United States has requested us. What do you think?"

On July 26, Xie Feng, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of China and Deputy Secretary of State of the United States held talks in Tianjin. This is also the second face-to-face talks between China and the United States after the Anchorage dialogue. Through such talks, how can we interpret the expression of Chinese discourse?

In the 109th episode of "This Is China" broadcast on Oriental TV on August 16, Professor Zhang Weiwei, Dean of the China Institute of Fudan University, and Professor Huang Renwei, Executive Vice President of the Institute of "Belt and Road" and Global Governance of Fudan University, shared his opinions on the expression of Chinese discourse.

Zhang Weiwei's speech

Everyone must remember that on March 19 this year, our Director Yang Jiechi said to the US representatives in the high-level strategic dialogue between China and the United States in Anchorage, USA: "I will say something now. You are not qualified to say in front of China that you are talking to China based on the status of strength." I remember that our "This Is China" once specially created a program for this dialogue, with the title "A milestone dialogue", which marked the beginning of China's new "Line-Looking Diplomacy".

On July 26 this year, China and the United States held another talk in Tianjin. I call it "a verbal battle between China and the United States". This should be a new benchmark for China's "seen diplomacy". Its biggest feature, I think, is China's confidence and initiative, which is particularly reflected in the discourse confrontation between China and the United States.

I personally have always advocated the construction of a comprehensive, thorough and powerful Chinese discourse. Because the West is all-round, straightforward and extremely arrogant about China's discourse encirclement, our discourse counterattack or take the initiative should naturally be comprehensive, thorough and powerful. That is, what Chairman Mao said back then, using language that the invaders can understand to deal with the invaders is military, and I think the same is true for discourse struggles.

This Sino-US Tianjin confrontation is a display of "comprehensive, thorough and powerful" Chinese discourse. This new trend of the trend suddenly attracted widespread attention from home and abroad. I pushed it to my short video account "Weiweidaolai" as soon as possible, and wrote three words: Well said!

first look at "comprehensive".

When meeting with US Deputy Secretary of State Sherman, our State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi listed the "three bottom lines" to the US, involving "system", "development" and "sovereignty", and comprehensively outlined the core concerns of the Chinese:

First, the United States shall not challenge, slander or even attempt to subvert the path and system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Second, the United States must not try to obstruct or even interrupt China's development process. China urges the US to cancel all unilateral sanctions, high tariffs, long-arm jurisdiction and technological blockade imposed on China as soon as possible.

Third, the United States must not infringe on China's national sovereignty, let alone undermine China's territorial integrity.

When talking about the human rights issue in the United States, Deputy Foreign Minister Xie Feng gave a highly concise and quite comprehensive explanation from the three dimensions of reality, history and the world. He pointed out: The US should first solve its human rights issues. From a historical perspective, genocide was carried out on the indigenous people; from a realistic perspective, passive fight against the epidemic caused the deaths of nearly 620,000 Americans; from a world perspective, long-term military destruction and provoking wars with lies, bringing deep disasters to the world.Xie Feng then questioned the United States, why do you regard yourself as a spokesperson for global democracy and human rights?

Of course, when I talk about "comprehensive", it does not mean that any problem must be fully covered. This does not mean that when talking about any problem, we must have a comprehensive grasp of the overall problem. In this way, even if you focus on one point, it is "forced to the back of the paper".

Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng held talks with US Executive Deputy Secretary of State Sherman (data photo/official website of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

This is related to the second point I want to say: "Thorough".

In his speech, Deputy Foreign Minister Xie Feng refuted the "three-point method" that the US often uses in recent talks about Sino-US relations, which is the so-called "competition when it is time to compete, cooperation when it is possible, and confrontation when it is necessary."

Xie Feng analyzed this way: the US's three-point method of "competition, cooperation, and confrontation" is a "disguised way" to curb China. This is a very thorough characterization. As we all know, "scandid" refers to tricks specially used to fool others. Then Xie Feng made an analysis of this "disguised method". He said this, what Americans say is that "confrontation and containment are the essence, cooperation is the expedient measure, and competition is the discourse trap."

He further explained: When the United States seeks China, it requires cooperation; in areas with advantages, it decouples and cuts off supply, blocks and sanctions; and in order to curb China, it does not hesitate to engage in conflict and confrontation. Therefore, the United States only wants to solve the issues of concern to the United States, and only wants to get the results the United States wants to get, and benefit unilaterally. It not only wants to do bad things but also wants to take up all the benefits. How can this be true in the world?

I think with "comprehensive" and "thorough", your words will often be very "strong".

I remember that before Sherman's visit to China, a spokesperson for the US State Department once again told reporters that the US side's visit "must start with strength and status" and talks with China. Our Foreign Minister Wang Yi immediately publicly pointed out that China will not accept the US's attitude of claiming to be superior. If the United States has not yet learned how to get along with other countries with an equal attitude, then we have the responsibility to work with the international community to give the United States this lesson.

I think behind this strong discourse is our "comprehensive and thorough" grasp of the general trend of the entire world and the decline of American hegemony.

This time, the Chinese representative used a language to show strength, or to the Americans' words, it was a language that started from strength and status. I have always believed that American culture and even the mainstream culture of the West only recognize strength and only recognize the winner is a culture of strong people. Therefore, when we should show our strength, we must show our strength. Whether it is hard power or soft power, the logic of the two is consistent.

Frankly speaking, the vast majority of Americans do not understand that Chinese people advocate the virtue of modesty. They have a straight-line thinking. Today, when the United States is aggressive towards China, instead of talking about many implicit diplomatic rhetoric to the United States, it is better to directly point out the problem so that both sides can face the differences and face how to resolve differences or control differences; if the United States must choose to confront them, it will be confronted.

This time, our strong words and proactive attacks are to give the United States a "make up lesson". This is not only reflected in words, but also in actions.

Faced with China's sanctions, White House spokesman Psaki claimed at a press conference that he said the United States would not be intimidated by China's behavior. In the past, other countries told the United States that we would not be scared by you. Today, Americans also said this, and I was very happy to hear it. Only when you feel this way can Americans mature.

Immediately afterwards, the day before Deputy Secretary of State Sherman officially visited China, Zhong Sheng of the People's Daily published another article entitled "The US side wakes up, don't say it's unpredictable." This is also a strong Chinese discourse manifesto. It points out: "The US side should completely give up the desire to treat Taiwan and Hong Kong as pawns. If you choose to continue invasion, China will resolutely counter and accompany you to the end. China's attitude, do what you say! Don't say it's not predictable!"

China's strength and initiative this time are also reflected in the fact that we have left some "home homework" for the US representatives, specifically, "two lists": one is a list that requires the US side to correct its mistakes, including 16 items, including urging the US side to unconditionally revoke visa restrictions on Chinese Communist Party members and their families, revoking the extradition requirements for Meng Wanzhou; the other focuses on key cases of concern to China, with a total of 10 items, including some cases of some Chinese students being rejected for visas to the US, and Chinese citizens being treated unfairly in the US, etc.

This practice of leaving a list after negotiations was the consistent practice of the United States for other countries in the past. This time, the Chinese "treat the same person as the same person" and it is very good. I think if the United States wants to really improve Sino-US relations, it will do the same as the list.

The strong confidence and active spirit demonstrated by China this time are also related to many provocations surrounding this visit to the United States.

Originally, the United States faced various contradictions, especially the pressure of domestic inflation, and China needed to help alleviate many internal problems in the United States. But the United States is used to being the king of the world. On the one hand, it seeks China, and on the other hand, it also needs to reflect its superiority, and even continues to play with the so-called "extreme pressure" that Trump has made.

In many aspects, it directly challenges China's core interests: for example, the United States plays the "Taiwan card". On July 15 and July 19, US military transport planes landed at Taiwan airport twice; it plays the "Xinjiang card", and the US Senate proposed a motion to order US companies to withdraw from the so-called "supply chain" in Xinjiang; it plays the "Hong Kong card", and on July 15, the United States announced sanctions on seven deputy directors of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Central People's Government and issued a business warning to US companies in Hong Kong; it plays the "South China Sea card", and US warships illegally entered our territorial waters of the Xisha River again; the United States also played the "virus tracing card", Biden asked US intelligence agencies to come up with the results of the virus tracing investigation within 90 days, etc.

Originally, China did not intend to pay attention to the US side, and Sherman's visit was conducted at the request of the US; of course, it would be good that she came, and she would give us a chance to "make up" the US. I think there will be more and more "make up" in the future.

We have said many times in this program that China is very calm today, while the United States is very confused. The inflationary pressure in the United States is huge. If it continues, there is a greater financial and economic crisis than in 2008. The United States has made at least two mistakes in recent years:

One is after the outbreak of the epidemic in the United States, just like after the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, it did not think about institutional reform, but instead flooded the land with money to print money, dilute debts, and transfer the crisis. Today, the U.S. debt has reached a record $28.5 trillion, a 5.7-fold increase from 5 trillion in 2000. Anyone with a discerning eye knows that this approach is to quench thirst unless a country is willing to be a "taker".

The second mistake is that the United States launched a stupid trade war against China. As a result, in three years, most of the increased tariffs were borne by American companies and American consumers. Now it is engaged in financial easing, and China will never be a "taker", so the United States will naturally become a place of inflation, which may endanger Biden's midterm election next year.

These two things actually further prove that the judgment our program has made on what the United States has done in the past few years is accurate and reliable. I remember when the United States provoked a trade war, we judged that the United States would lose the trade war.

We talked about three points at that time: First, the United States shoots itself in the foot; Second, the United States is the general who is incompetent and exhausts the three armies. With such a decision-making level, how can you have the nerve to come out to fight; Third, you are fighting yours and I am fighting mine, you can start fighting, but when it ends and how it ends, the United States will no longer be able to do so.

Isn’t this the situation today? In the words of Chairman Mao, this trade war was, "We will fight as long as the United States, and we will fight until we are completely victorious."

I remember that I also talked about a conversation between me and local scholars at Yale University in the United States in 2018. At that time, American scholars asked me, when will China give up state capitalism? I said, "Wrong, we are practicing Chinese socialism, not state capitalism."

I said, when the crisis broke out in the United States in 2008, it was Chinese socialism that saved you American capitalism; the Chinese people's genes are to be kind to others, work together, and help each other. We have increased our holdings of US Treasury bonds in large quantities, and at the same time, we have entered a period of relatively loose monetary monetary policy and introduced the "Four trillion (Plan)" policy, which has comprehensively improved China's infrastructure, including the construction of the world's largest and best high-speed rail network.

But when the United States recovered from the crisis, it was ungrateful. I said at Yale University that it is only a matter of time before the next financial crisis breaks out in the United States. For China itself, socialism with Chinese characteristics is the only way to prevent this crisis from spreading to China, so China cannot give up socialism. This is China's magic weapon to defeat the enemy.

I said that when the next crisis in the United States breaks out, please don’t come to China for help again, you American capitalism will be overcome by yourself. How to build a community with a shared future for mankind? We are all exploring, but its basis can only be win-win cooperation, not the zero-sum game that the United States pursues is self-righteous and harms its neighbors.

How should we deal with an ungrateful country that repaids grudges and revenges? One thing is certain: we do not make the mistake of "farmer and snake".

Huang Renwei’s speech

Hello everyone! Professor Zhang has already explained the content of the Tianjin dialogue in detail just now. I will add two more points:

The first point is that we need to understand the background of this dialogue.

Biden was elected in January 2021, and it has been more than half a year since then. At the beginning, we still had a little fantasy, thinking that he could improve Sino-US relations a little more than Trump; but for six months after he came to power, China-US relations did not improve. He corrected Trump's stupid behavior, but kept all the most vicious things about Trump.

We also try our best to resume dialogue. Several forms of dialogue have been going on - first, a telephone conversation between President Xi Jinping and President Biden, then a telephone conversation between Yang Jiechi and Blinken, then a dialogue held in Anchorage, Alaska, and then this time, there are four U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Secretary of Commerce in the middle to contact their Chinese counterparts, which adds up to five more formal high-level dialogues.

The worst of them was Anchorage. In that conversation, Americans tasted the head-on blow from China to them for the first time. Yang Jiechi said, "You are not qualified to say in front of China that you talk to China based on your strength and status." This sentence puzzled the Americans.

It can be said that I have been studying Sino-US relations for thirty or forty years, and it is the first time I have heard the general manager of our diplomacy say such things. This sentence summarizes our experiences and lessons over the past few decades. This time we will tell you clearly that you are not that good, and we think of you too well.

Logically speaking, after Americans tasted our pain at the Anchorage talks, they should calm down and stop talking in this tone. But unexpectedly, before the Tianjin Dialogue, Sherman still came under the banner of "Dialogue with strength".

Sheman visits China (data photo/official website of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Before they came, she thought she was well prepared. She went to Europe first, held the EU and NATO summits, then had a dialogue with Putin, then went to India, held a meeting with the UK, and held a summit of the four Indo-Pacific countries. She thought she had already laid out this big situation and was waiting for you to jump into this pit.

However, China does not take this trick. We see the essence of your strength on the outside but being tough on the inside, and being fierce on the inside.

First of all, all the so-called allies are perfunctory and fooling you, saying "Okay, okay, let's build China together." When it's really done, they will retreat and let you rush forward by yourself.

Its essence is very weak, and the weakest essence is that there is a big problem with the US economy.

The epidemic in the United States has put its inflation to a limit for two consecutive years - the inflation rate is about 5%, and the US Treasury bonds have reached its limit - it is almost $30 trillion, and with the stock market bubble of more than 30,000 US stocks, it takes one of these three points, and the other two will collapse.

For example, if it wants to raise interest rates and reduce inflation, the stock market will collapse; if it prints less money, no one will buy US bonds - now the Federal Reserve is buying US bonds, not foreign countries are buying US bonds; if there is less money, the stock market will collapse, and US bonds will not be issued, but we cannot issue more money, and the inflation will be caused.

At this time, it thought of China. If China could help it, the United States would be able to overcome this difficulty, just like the 2008 financial crisis. But it was embarrassed to say that it asked several ministers to call us, but these economic ministers were shy and refused to speak directly, just saying that we wanted to talk and discuss, and we didn't say anything.

We have seen through its weak nature, so the United States had to use another set, which is to conduct some major military exercises and to make some allies come and go to the South China Sea. As a result, like the United Kingdom, the aircraft carriers dare not come, and they slipped away when they arrived in the Philippines.

The official Twitter message released by the British aircraft carrier strike group

We do not buy the big problems, and we do not buy the small problems.

Sheman is the Executive Deputy Secretary of State. We contacted Xie Feng, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, to talk to her. When she saw that Xie Feng was lower than her - aren't you belittle me? No, I won't come. She wants this face. At first, we Wang Yi did not go to the National Committee, but later we gave her face and asked Xie Feng to talk. After the talk, Wang Yi gave her a last lesson and taught her the "three bottom lines". In the end, the Americans did not mention Xie Feng in the report, but only mentioned Wang Yi, saying that we are a deputy secretary of state, Wang Yi is a national committee member, and the level is a little higher than her. The Chinese attach importance to her.

I will add the previous background, and you can know what kind of heart she was when she came - I am still the boss, you Chinese still have to listen to me, not only listen to me, but also help me to help me overcome the difficulties. She wanted to get such a set of results, but not only did she not get it, but we also taught a lesson.

Another thing is, how about the United States after this talks?

Chairman Mao said, Americans are very arrogant, and they are unreasonable in everything they can be unreasonable. If you are reasonable, it will be absolutely necessary. If you have no choice, you will be reasonable.

In fact, after the Tianjin talks, the United States continued to want to repay us with its so-called strength and suppression, so Biden publicly said that China had launched a cyber attack, and then Blinken went to India to meet "Tibetan independence" people, Defense Secretary Austin also went to Southeast Asia, met officials from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore, and then conducted a large-scale military exercise around the world.

In other words, the United States did not get anything in Tianjin, so it took a set of actions after the meeting. Especially in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, it has issued some difficulties - for example, the House of Representatives is not allowed to use China maps with Taiwan; Biden has created another "Hong Kong-related memorandum" to give some "protection" to students engaged in "Hong Kong independence"; the US Securities and Exchange Commission has suspended some conveniences for Chinese companies to list and raise funds in the United States; urging US capital and American companies to withdraw from Hong Kong; etc. They made so many moves less than ten days after the Tianjin talks.

We are also ready for both soft and hard work.

We sent Ambassador Qin Gang to Washington, and once we went there, we took the initiative to conduct public relations. Qin Gang said, "The door to Sino-US relations has been opened and will not be closed." This sentence is also very important, that is, no matter who you want to engage in a Cold War or containment.

Then on the issue of virus traceability, we not only do not follow the American game of chess, but we play another set of things, which is to hit the Fort Detrick problem, and fight hard, so the whole world knows it. Now the United States is a little nervous, so it said not to trace it back; but it has been traced back, so it can't be taken back. Now I will let you talk about what happened to Fort Detrick, and the whole world will ask what's going on.

These things prove that it is difficult to think about Sino-US relations well, and it is easy to think about bad things. Moreover, in this dialogue, the United States' so-called approach of taking advantage of strength and suppressing China has been seen through. We will not be fooled by it, nor will it give it benefits. So, Americans need to rethink.

roundtable discussion

Host: From Anchorage Dialogue to Tianjin Dialogue, our thinking is very clear, which is what Teacher Zhang said, "comprehensive, strong, and thorough", including the "three bottom lines" and "two lists" that were finally taken out. These are all "open conspiracies". In Chairman Mao's words, let's spread it out and tell you. But the question now is, when we spread it out, we are so thorough and comprehensive, how much has the United States accepted? Can it be read thoroughly?

Zhang Weiwei: I think this is not easy, it takes some time. I remember that Sino-Soviet relations improved because of a speech by Brezhnev in Tashkent in 1982, which was to recognize China as a socialist country. Deng Xiaoping said that we should send a little signal and we can also talk to the Soviet Union, but put forward three conditions, requiring the Soviet Union to eliminate the "three major obstacles" - reducing its troops from the borders of Outer Mongolia and the Soviet Union, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, reducing support for Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, etc. The Soviet Union did not recognize these things at first, and finally resumed relations in 1989. These "three obstacles" were overcome, and there were only six or seven years in between.

. I feel that China-US relations will probably take longer, but I think this "list" is very important, which is to put it forward very clearly. The "three bottom lines" are very important and involve our core interests. If you want to change it, just change it from here bit by bit. Of course, in the end, both parties to the negotiation will have some compromises and concessions, but it must be an interactive process. Everyone faces the problem head-on and then solves the problem. I think this is a very good attitude.

Huang Renwei: We have been talking to Americans for so many years, and they often talk about us, "You talk about more empty principles and few things to talk about. Can you tell me something specific about what you want?" In the past, Americans always thought that what we were talking about was not specific. Now, Americans talk about more "empty" and what democracy, values, and human rights are discussed. We talk about very specific and realistic things. You cannot touch these "three bottom lines". If you want to do these things, you don't want to talk about them if you can't do them. So I think this is a historic turning point in Sino-US relations.

Host: We didn’t like to point out everything in detail before, just you can understand the implication. But Western countries just don’t understand it. If they understand it, they don’t pretend to understand it. Anyway, you haven’t spread it out. So for China this time, is this breakthrough in such a discourse expression very big?

Zhang Weiwei: I think a very important one is that in our foreign exchanges, we are increasingly "knowing our enemy and knowing ourselves" - in the past, we always talked about "knowing ourselves and knowing our enemy", but now I think it is very necessary to emphasize "knowing our enemy and knowing ourselves" and put understanding the other party in a priority position.

I met our comrades in Xinjiang not long ago. I also said, you must know your enemy and be close to yourself, don’t always explain, there is nothing to explain, the nature of this group of people has changed, so just tell me where your problem is. For example, we are more anti-terrorism. China's anti-terrorism is more than a hundred times better than the United States. We have not had violent terror cases in Xinjiang for four years. In the United States, you are violent terrorism every day. In addition to shootings, you have engaged in anti-terrorism wars in more than 20 countries, killing more than 800,000 people and displaced more than 37 million people. You must grasp its weaknesses and then tell Xinjiang stories well in languages ​​that it can understand.

US military vehicles broke into a residential area in Afghanistan and were thrown into something by the masses to "satisfaction"

Host: Why is the United States from "real" to "virtual"?

Huang Renwei: In fact, it cannot be "real" now. To "real" it, it must have a demand for China - if you want to "real", lend me money and borrow one trillion yuan. This "reality" is revealed in front of the whole world, but I can't do it now. It asked so many allies to siege China together, but in fact it couldn't siege it.

The second one cannot be "real" because it uses the so-called "freedom of navigation" to say everything in the South China Sea. In fact, it dares not say "I want to destroy your island" or "If you want to fight, I will fight you in the South China Sea." It cannot be "real" economically or militaryally. It can only be deceived by values, democracy, and human rights.

What we want it to do now is "real". The first is to correct Trump’s unreasonable tricks over the past four years, such as Communist Party members are not allowed to obtain visas to enter the United States. There are nearly 100 million Chinese Communists, and with their families, there are at least 300 to 400 million people. If you count all grandparents, there are more than 500 million, and you don’t sign them, what is this?

dare not say it explicitly, small things cannot be "real" and big things cannot be "real", so now we will grasp its weakness. If you want to ask for it, you must do what you should do and correct what you should correct. That is what Xie Feng said, "We must get all the benefits and do bad things." In this case, we will no longer be fooled.

: , which is highly consistent. When we look at the United States, it is a bit like adults looking at children. We can see this trick of playing tricks that are particularly clear. We have also talked about this show many times that in the United States at this moment, there is no real strategist - maybe there is one among the people, but it cannot be found in the government. This is a tragedy for the United States. When it comes to strategists and strategists can influence its decisions, I believe the opportunity for improvement of Sino-US relations will come.

Huang Renwei: It also has strategists, but in this atmosphere, no one has adopted the strategists after they speak out.

Host: Important strategists like Brzezinski and Kissinger are currently not visible in American politics. Famous scholars like Stiglitz also proposed that the United States should reflect on it, but the proportion of people who truly agree with his views, at least among the US government or the group of people in politics, is probably very small. China-US relations are of course very, very important issues for the United States, but when it deals with such important issues, does it have a common pattern that it is difficult for it to jump out of this pattern for a while?

Stiglitz (data photo)

Zhang Weiwei: is, Americans have been used to the world's leader for so many years, so they can't let go of their mentality, which is its biggest problem today. I always say that sometimes this has something to do with the inheritance of a country's cultural genes. Chinese civilization is a civilization that has seen the world, and has experienced ups and downs; the United States has not experienced so many setbacks, including wars, and its local area has not experienced any wars, so many experiences cannot be compared with Chinese civilization.

So, from the perspective of the Chinese, many problems are very clear, and we Chinese have a structure to deal with problems. Let’s do it together to solve many problems. But now, there are indeed not many people in the United States who can truly understand China, and even fewer people who can truly understand China and Sino-US relations, and can also influence US decision-making. This is the dilemma of the United States today. You have to wait and be patient.

Huang Renwei : Now the United States has been like this since Trump. There are not many people in the far-right wing, but the voice is very loud, like Congress is almost completely controlled by them. There are also some people in the Congress who are willing to develop relations with China, but no one dares to come out. So the U.S. Congress is now constantly issuing bills, and these bills often cross the limit. How could such a thing happen without a map of China in Taiwan? This was unimaginable before. Such a big country and such a political atmosphere, further down, its path may become narrower and narrower.In the end, when it has no way out, it will make some desperate, crazy actions, and the real danger is here.

You see, the "three bottom lines" we mentioned are all about safeguarding China's legitimate interests and legitimate rights, and safeguarding our core interests. No word threatens the United States. However, it regards all these as threats. If these three sentences are done, the US hegemony will end and the US will no longer be able to use hegemony to put pressure on it. The US says that if we can't suppress China, more and more countries in the world will have to sing opposites to the US. In short, it regards these normal requirements for China to safeguard its rights as a threat to the United States. So the two forces of the far right and "Deep State" are controlling the situation.

Host: Professor Zhang has always said in the program that every place needs ideological liberation, and ideological liberation is a very important prerequisite for this place to achieve better development. So when we discuss Sino-US relations, we observe the United States in depth, and we will also find that the United States needs a deep ideological liberation.

Huang Renwei : They have no Communists, how can they liberate their thoughts?

Asked Interactive

Viewers: This Tianjin talks were actively requested by the United States to negotiate with us. There are many opinions on the Internet that the United States has requested us. What do the two teachers think?

Zhang Weiwei: This epidemic has changed human history, and the world is leaning towards China and socialism at a faster speed. Now it is proved that this judgment is basically tenable, and the United States is more demanding on us at this moment. This is a big judgment. In fact, after the epidemic, I remember that when Biden was still running, we talked about several issues he raised - the economic crisis in the United States, the epidemic crisis in the United States, the climate change crisis in the United States, and the racial conflicts in the United States - we cannot resolve the racial conflicts in the United States. The other three require China to cooperate, and you have something to ask for. So at that time we came to a clear conclusion that the balance of power began to change.

is more obvious this time. As mentioned earlier, both Teacher Huang and I mentioned, one is internal inflation and the other is internal debt issues such as high internal debt. These issues all require China. It hopes that China will be a "taker", and we have made it clear that this matter cannot be done; if China really needs help, I'm sorry, you have to do it one by one according to the "list". At this time, we have room for negotiation.

Improvement or helping relations between major countries must have a big atmosphere. This atmosphere must be friendly in order to carry out large-scale cooperation and help each other, otherwise it will be difficult.

Huang Renwei : The United States has something to ask for us, which is a big problem. The Chinese market is too big. Without the Chinese market, the future of the United States will be terrible. China's fiscal capacity is too strong. The largest country that can buy US Treasury bonds is not Japan, but China. The United States is in this debt crisis and it will definitely not be able to get out. The debt is getting bigger and bigger, and it can't even pay back the interest, let alone capital.

So this dilemma is a dead end and cannot be discovered. It does not ask for China, and no one in the world can help. Japan's domestic debt is also very high, twice the GDP, and Europe is also heavily in debt, making it even more impossible for other poor countries. So this is a fundamental and structural problem that the United States has to seek from us.

But it identifies China as its biggest opponent in terms of ideology and geopolitics. Its biggest difficulty needs to be solved by finding the biggest opponent. This is a fundamental contradiction. Especially in the current situation, if you want something in China, you can't say it, but you can't ignore it. Let’s see how it left in the next step. I can’t think of a good idea. At least I will release Meng Wanzhou first. This is a signal.

Audience: Looking back on our history, in 1858, China and the United States signed an unequal treaty in Tianjin - the Sino-US Tianjin Treaty. More than 100 years later, this high-level talks chose Tianjin as the city, and China set a clear bottom line for the United States for the first time.Is this considered a diplomatic psychological pressure strategy?

Zhang Weiwei: I personally think that we may not have made this connection deliberately, but as a commentator, the views you are talking about are quite interesting. After the failure of the Second Opium War, the United States talked with the Chinese, saying that we should enjoy the same interests and that the conditions that other countries enjoyed were also enjoyed, and we could only agree. At that time, the country was weak and had no choice but to do so. But today we will give it a lesson and give it a "list". The national strength has undergone earth-shaking changes, which is a good thing.

Huang Renwei: I also studied history, and this time there is no necessary connection with the Tianjin Treaty in history. The United States followed Britain and was a British friend. The British and French coalition forces fought to Beijing, but the United States did not send much troops, but they also wanted to take advantage of it. We are not trying to humiliate the United States in Tianjin. We have often held important diplomatic activities in cities outside Beijing for some time, such as Wuhan, Chengdu, and Guilin. We have various diplomatic activities carried out in various provinces, which has expanded the Chinese people's horizons and allowed more foreigners to understand China outside Beijing.

I think it's good to let Sheman go to see Tianjin. Tianjin is not a small place, it's also a big wharf. The Americans used to bring us into a desolate Arctic Circle like Alaska, and they didn't treat us well.

Audience: In recent times of confrontation between China and the United States, we can clearly feel that our Chinese delegation has changed its previous diplomatic style and has become very tough. So I'm curious whether this transformation is a persistent one? So in the next ten years, as China's strength increases, what new model should be adopted for exchanges between China and the United States? Or what new rules will be made more conducive to our country's future diplomacy?

Zhang Weiwei: In fact, the word used by General Secretary Xi Jinping is very good, that is, we can "look at the world in a straight line". "Light-headed" means seeking truth from facts. "Light-headed" allows us to be more calm and see clearly your strengths and weaknesses, and not easily be fooled. We have created a new model of "horizontal diplomacy" in Anchorage, and now we will go a long way along this road.

Especially countries like the United States, we may have looked straight in a certain strategic sense, but sometimes we are too subtle in expression; now we use language that Americans can understand more clearly, specifically and vividly, and I think this style will continue. If the United States still often does this and continues to show arrogance and arrogant look, I think we will definitely continue to "teach" it and deal with it in language that the United States can understand and understand.

Huang Renwei: In fact, we have a concept - "new type of major power relations", which means no conflict, no confrontation, and mutual respect. In fact, one of the theme words in it is "mutual respect". "mutual respect" is a basic requirement for us to deal with Sino-US relations. You don't respect me, China, what cooperation should we talk about? What to talk about without conflict or confrontation? However, the United States has never accepted the concept of "new type of big power relations" and it does not consider China to be a big power. Most importantly, it does not recognize “mutual respect.” What do you respect each other? Do you respect your Communist system? It doesn't admit these.

So now we are going to use mutual respect, not to establish any rules, not to ride on the head of the United States, but to do what we should have, what we should say, and what we should do. Even if we are strong in the future, we will not surpass this. The hegemony after the United States becomes stronger is completely different from the need for the United States to respect China's core interests after the United States becomes stronger.

This article is an exclusive article by Observer.com. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's opinion. It may not be reproduced without authorization, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer.com WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.