Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist.

The crisis in Afghanistan, which exploded with the sudden collapse of the Ashraf Ghani government, left the Taliban in control, creating consternation over the possibility that the country may once again become a haven for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Already, an Islamic State affiliate has claimed responsibility for the August 26 Kabul bombing, which killed more than 160 Afghans and 13 U.S. service members.

Story continues below advertisement

China, Afghanistan’s neighbour, is also apprehensive. Adjacent to Afghanistan is Xinjiang, where China is cracking down on Muslim Uyghurs, who supposedly pose a terrorist threat.

The sea change in Afghanistan has presented China and the United States with common concerns – and a chance to work together against incipient terrorism.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken telephoned China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi several times in August to discuss Afghanistan. On August 29, Mr. Blinken sought to secure China’s support for a U.S.-initiated UN Security Council resolution, which focused on counter-terrorism and humanitarian assistance. The next day, China and Russia abstained while all the 13 other members voted for the resolution.

At least China did not veto the resolution.

Still, China is telling Washington that it must first change its overall China policy before Beijing will co-operate.

Canada must not by cowed by China’s pressure

We failed to heed the warnings on China. Kovrig and Spavor are paying the price

Mr. Blinken has defined the United States’s China policy as “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be and adversarial when it must be,” with competition characterizing the overall relationship.

But China doesn’t want the U.S. to be able to pick and choose when to co-operate and when to be adversarial.

Story continues below advertisement

During the Aug. 29 phone call, Mr. Wang brought up the wider issue of China-U.S. relations, noting that the two countries had recently exchanged views on such issues as Afghanistan and climate change.

“If Washington also wants to bring the China-U.S. relationship back on track, then it should stop slandering China and undermining China’s sovereignty, security and development interests,” the Foreign Minister told Mr. Blinken.

“Dialogue is better than confrontation, and co-operation is better than conflict,” he said. “The Chinese side will consider how to engage with the United States based on its attitude towards China.”

So Beijing will decide whether to collaborate on Afghanistan and other issues based on the United States’s overall attitude toward China, even though it knows such collaboration is good for both sides and for the world at large.

John Kerry, Washington’s special presidential envoy for climate change, received a similar message last week in China.

Mr. Wang told Mr. Kerry that, in the past, the two countries had co-operated on major issues including climate change, “delivering tangible benefits to the two countries.” The two countries, he said, “should respect each other and seek common ground.” But, he added, in recent years the bilateral relationship has taken a sharp turn for the worse, mainly because the United States has “made a strategic miscalculation” about China.

Story continues below advertisement

Now, he said, the United States should stop viewing China as a threat and rival, and cease “containing and suppressing China.” Instead, it should take concrete steps to improve relations and carry out co-ordination and co-operation at bilateral, regional and global levels.

Citing climate change, Mr. Wang said the U.S. wants co-operation on that issue to be an “oasis” of China-U.S. relations. “However,” he said, “if the oasis is all surrounded by deserts, then sooner or later, the ’oasis’ will be desertified. China-U.S. co-operation on climate change cannot be divorced from the overall situation of China-U.S. relations.”

According to the Chinese side, Mr. Kerry responded by saying that the U.S. was willing to work with China to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and create opportunities for addressing difficulties facing U.S.-China relations. That is to say, collaboration on climate could lead to an improvement to the overall relationship.

China is adopting a curious position. After all, if as the Foreign Minister said, co-operation is better than conflict, why spurn a chance to co-operate? And if, as he also said, the two sides should seek common ground, why give up the common ground when it presents itself?

Beijing is leveraging its ability to withhold collaboration to pressure the U.S. to change its overall China policy. But if the U.S. doesn’t yield, China faces the likelihood that Mr. Wang’s prophecy will come true and the relationship will be transformed into a gigantic desert of competition and confrontation.

On the other hand, if China co-operates when interests overlap, the overall environment is likely to improve and, using Mr. Wang’s metaphor, reverse desertification. Withholding co-operation has no upside, leading as it inevitably will to greater confrontation. But collaborating on issues where interests coincide will likely improve the overall atmosphere. The choice is China’s to make.

Story continues below advertisement

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies