U.S.-China Summit Confirms Only Differences

China emphasized stability in relations, advocating for a constructive strategic stability. The U.S. was in urgent need of resolving pending issues ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

There were only three common agenda items, and a clear divergence of interests was evident between the U.S., which emphasized achievements such as fentanyl, and China, which asserted an equal relationship.

Professor Kang Jun-young assessed that there was a significant gap between the achievements claimed by both sides and the actual common agenda. The U.S. highlighted tangible results like fentanyl, while China focused on defining an equal relationship.

The original deadline was January 10, but the deadline was merely extended without any issues being resolved.

Structural issues such as rare earths, semiconductor supply chains, Taiwan, and North Korea's nuclear program were excluded from this meeting. This indicates that the meeting was symbolic, primarily demonstrating 'managed competition' rather than substantial problem-solving.

The U.S. maintained its existing stance of 'not supporting Taiwan independence,' and the Taiwan issue was not mentioned in the joint communiqué. North Korea's nuclear and Korean Peninsula issues were also omitted from China's announcement.

This suggests that while China expected a change in the U.S. position on the Taiwan issue, the U.S. showed its intention to maintain strategic ambiguity.

The U.S. Congress re-affirmed the 'Six Assurances' in 2016, and the Biden administration supported a $4.5 billion armament through the Taipei Act. Overcoming the limitations of the Taiwan Relations Act enacted in 1979 and the 817 Communiqué of 1982, the Reagan administration's assurances became the cornerstone of Taiwan's security. Despite the 1982 817 Communiqué's promise to reduce the volume of arms sales to Taiwan, the Reagan administration's 'Six Assurances' maintained the Taiwan Relations Act and guaranteed arms sales.

U.S. support for Taiwan has been continuously strengthened, with the re-affirmation of the 'Six Assurances' by the U.S. Congress in 2016 and the enactment of the Taipei Act by the Biden administration, leading to $4.5 billion in armament support.

For President Xi Jinping, the unification of Taiwan is an essential task for the completion of the 'Chinese Dream'. Instead of military invasion, China has employed gray zone tactics such as maritime blockade to exert psychological pressure on Taiwanese society, instilling the futility of US intervention.

China externally sends messages to diminish the US's willingness to intervene in Taiwan, using cognitive warfare for the unification of Taiwan, an essential task for President Xi Jinping to complete the 'Chinese Dream'.

This is the US's consistent stance against unilateral changes to the status quo, and it remains a structural feature that will continue as a diplomatic card in US-China relations.

The Tibet region is the source of major rivers in the Indochina Peninsula and borders Nepal. When natural disasters such as glacier melt occur in this region, China unilaterally controls upstream river data, exacerbating damage in downstream Nepal.

Nepal has high economic dependence on China, making it difficult to express diplomatic dissatisfaction. Consequently, Nepal is likely to respond by pursuing balanced diplomacy between India and China.

Rivers originating in Tibet connect to the rice-growing regions of the Indochina Peninsula, serving as a lifeline for downstream countries. However, China is weaponizing this upstream water resource information as a strategic asset and not properly sharing it with downstream countries.

Due to China's non-sharing of information, Nepal's border regions are left defenseless against glacier melt disasters. Despite Nepal's requests for sharing analytical data, unilateral control by the Chinese side continues.

Nepal is experiencing heightened anti-China sentiment due to disaster damage caused by data non-sharing. Given its high economic dependence, including the Belt and Road Initiative, India is likely to pursue balanced diplomacy that prioritizes practical gains rather than immediate sanctions against China.

Nepal is expected to refrain from diplomatic sanctions to secure its interests between India and China. Consequently, Nepal is likely to respond by pursuing balanced diplomacy between India and China.