Blinken in China: why history shouldn't be a guide on superpower rivalries

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, meets Chinese President Xi Jinping and Wang Yi, Chinese Communist Party's foreign policy chief, in Beijing on Monday. AP Photo

This week saw the highest-level US visit to China for five years, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a series of meetings with senior officials in Beijing, culminating in 35 clearly productive minutes with President Xi Jinping. The State Department said Mr Blinken had had “candid, substantive and constructive discussions”, while Mr Xi commented that progress had been made and agreement had been reached on some issues. “This is very good,” he said.

If there wasn’t a huge breakthrough, the visit did mark a big improvement on recent relations. US President Joe Biden said Mr Blinken had done “a hell of a job”. Mr Xi said: “The two sides have agreed to follow through the common understandings President Biden and I had reached in Bali.” That counts as a reset, and shows that progress is possible. Further high-level meetings are not only possible – they’re now in the pipeline. Mr Blinken even stated “we do not support Taiwan independence”, which was helpful, given his boss’s so-called slips of the tongue on the matter. The meeting marked “a new beginning”, senior Chinese diplomat Yang Tao said.

Given what has just happened, which demonstrates what is possible with goodwill from both sides, a period of silence – in fact, a very long period of silence – would be welcome from the generals, politicians and foreign policy analysts who have been maintaining with increasing ferocity that war is inevitable between China and the US.

Ever since the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison coined the term “the Thucydides trap”, based on the ancient historian’s contention that “it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable”, armchair warriors have cited this thesis as proof that the US and China are destined for conflict. Either that, or the parallel is with Germany and the UK before the First World War. Or for some (frequently the same people), we are forever reliving the 1930s, and any perceived concession to China is always “appeasement”.

These analogies have been trotted out so many times they have become tedious. More importantly, however, the levels of certainty they suppose are completely unwarranted. It reminds me of my time at university, when far-left fellow students were forever stating “Chomsky says” or “according to Gramsci”, and assuming that mention of the fabled names meant their arguments needed no further justification.

But history is a guide, not a straitjacket. Human beings have agency, and we can avoid war if we want to. There may well be hardliners on both sides – ultra-nationalist Chinese, and superhawks in the US – who do see this as a “Contest for Supremacy”, as the Princeton academic Aaron Friedberg titled his 2011 book on what he saw as the US-China “struggle for mastery in Asia”. And some of them (not Prof Friedberg) may actively want military prowess to determine that contest.

But there are plenty of other people who think that any “struggle” should be confined to the economic sphere. There are even some of us who still quaintly believe that the emerging multipolar world can be defined by “win-win co-operation”.

Disagreements, over a wide range of issues, will continue. There are real fears, rarely stated frankly by leaders in South-East Asia, over how forcefully China will pursue its – disputed – claims in the South China Sea, and whether US “freedom of navigation operations” and aid to Taiwan may lead to unintended conflagrations. But as it stands now, there is no issue that necessitates war.

Anti-China feeling may appear to be growing in Washington, and Donald Trump – who could well return to the presidency – has long criticised Mr Biden as being too soft on Beijing. But despite Mr Trump’s rhetoric, the American Enterprise Institute’s Derek Scissors recently pointed out that when he was “actually in charge … in his first four years our dependence on China rose in trade, investment and supplies of essential goods like health care”.

Moreover, one of Mr Trump’s signature policies has been to end “the era of endless wars”. He has significant company on the right in this, from Senator Rand Paul to the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The Democratic presidential contender Robert F Kennedy Jr has similarly called to “bring the troops home. We will stop racking up unpayable debt to fight one war after another”. The military, he said, should “return to its proper role of defending our country”. This is probably one of the reasons why a poll from last week, released by The Economist and YouGov, showed Mr Kennedy with the highest approval ratings of any of the current 2024 presidential candidates.

Mr Xi, on the other hand, has stressed that China needs “a peaceful and stable international environment” for his country’s “great rejuvenation” to be realised.

The Global South doesn’t want war, nor do some US allies. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently warned against assuming conflict in the Asia-Pacific was bound to happen. “The fate of our region is not pre-ordained, it never was and it never is,” he said.

Sometimes it feels as though the only people who want war are those who constantly trumpet its inevitability. Perhaps they could let the reality of this week’s meetings influence their worldview. No one wants to overstate their importance, but talks that are going to lead to more talks is still a good result.

“We’re on the right trail here,” said Mr Biden, when asked about Mr Blinken’s trip. It’s time for some common sense. Surely everyone – even the doom-mongers, if they can get over themselves – can agree on that?