US foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s foreign policy agenda upended by Israel-Hamas war – podcast

      by

      In a TV speech on Tuesday Joe Biden pledged unwavering support for Israel after Hamas militants killed hundreds of civilians including US nationals on Saturday. More than 900 people in Gaza have been killed in retaliatory airstrikes by Israel, which has enforced a ‘blockade’ of the area, sealing off 2.3 million people from food, fuel and other supplies.
      Despite some Democrats calling for de-escalation of the situation, Biden said Israel not only had the right to defend itself, but a ‘duty’ to do so. So how else might the US be able to influence the war? As some at home use this moment to blame Biden, what can his administration do to keep his foreign policy plans on track?
      This week, Jonathan Freedland is joined by Aaron David Miller – who served for two decades as a state department analyst, negotiator and adviser on Middle East issues – to discuss what the US president should do next

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 225 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Hamas attack on Israel might be setback for Palestinian cause in US just as progress was in view

      by

      If Hamas intended to remind the world that the Palestinians are still there after years of marginalisation and international indifference to occupation and deepening oppression, then its bloody assault on Israel certainly achieved that.At the same time, the attack that Joe Biden called “pure unadulterated evil” might represent a huge setback for the Palestinian cause in the US just as the political debate and public opinion was gradually shifting away from decades of often lockstep support for Israel in Washington.Pictures of slaughtered children among the 1,000 dead, and traumatised Israeli survivors filling US television screens begging for the return of abducted relatives, prompted an outpouring of revulsion across the US political spectrum and among ordinary Americans.Yet, Palestinian and more dovish pro-Israel groups who have worked for years to push a more open debate about the Israel-Palestinian conflict said there were signs of it paying off in the reaction to the Hamas attack.Hadar Susskind, president of Americans for Peace Now, sister organisation of the Israeli peace movement, said that where once there would have been only unequivocal denunciations, some politicians and others wanted to give a more nuanced take that took account of the Palestinian reality.“Right now, it’s very difficult. Over the last years we are having better, more reasonable conversations in our political sphere. Not perfect by any means but we’ve been moving in the right direction. This is a very, very difficult moment. Everybody who’s talking about it needs to deal with this. But I think we are dealing with it from a different baseline,” he said.“I spoke to a number of members of Congress and congressional staff and others this week who were trying to figure out how to say things that are hopefully helpful and positive but also true and not simply trying to score points for your side.”Several politicians strongly denounced the “horrific acts” by Hamas but said the attack did not happen in a vacuum and that the way to end such violence was to “end Israeli military occupation and apartheid”.Before the Hamas attack, Americans for Peace now and likeminded groups had been hoping to build on shifts in US public opinion seen in a Gallup poll earlier this year that found for the first time more Democrats were sympathetic to the Palestinians than the Israelis by a margin of 11%, a significant shift from a decade ago.Two years ago, a Jewish Electorate Institute poll found that 58% of American Jewish voters support restrictions on US military aid to prevent Israel using it to expand West Bank settlements. One-third agreed that “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to racism in the United States” and one-quarter said that “Israel is an apartheid state”, numbers that shocked some Jewish community leaders.Once unswerving US political support for Israeli governments has also eroded as they move ever further to the right. In August Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic senator, called on Biden to “get more personally engaged” in stopping “racists” in the Israeli government from a land grab in the occupied territories and committing “gross violations” of Palestinian rights or risk damage to the US’s credibility.Yousef Munayyer, former executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, said it is too early to predict the lasting impact but that the attack has forced the Palestinian issue back onto the agenda.“Moments of this scale tend to have longer developing impacts on everybody. I would emphasise that it’s hard to walk away from this moment over time and continue to ignore this issue. People around the world, including here in the United States, have dropped the issue of Palestine and peace. The urgency of addressing this issue and resolving it should be clear to everyone,” he said.For years, Israel has worked to marginalise the Palestinians abroad as well as at home, and to curb even non-violent means of protest and action, including pushing laws in the US to punish boycotts as antisemitic.The Biden administration paid lip-service to a two state solution that appeared to amount to little more than cover for inaction and an unwillingness to confront the reality of the Israeli prime minster Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated statements that he would never permit a Palestinian state.Susskind said that the recent attack forces the Palestinians back onto the agenda “in a bloody, murderous, horrific way”.“The world is paying attention to the Palestinians, and specifically to Hamas, which is not accidental. That’s a fact. There are many moments in history and people in different countries forcing attention by committing horrible acts,” he said.“Obviously the Biden administration is being forced to pay attention right now. Nobody in this moment is talking about what I would call the positive agenda, how to make things better, a peace process kind of agenda. When this immediate fighting comes to an end, we’ll see what happens. I think there is going to be an Israeli reckoning for Netanyahu and his government, and then we’ll see what comes out of that.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe direction of that debate in the US is also likely to be influenced by Israel’s military response over the coming days and weeks. While the focus for now is on the Israeli casualties, the rising toll among Palestinian civilians in Gaza who cannot flee the enclave is likely to demand growing attention.Munayyer is concerned that Israeli rhetoric is being turned into action.“Now we are likely to see mass atrocities being committed as the Israeli military is out for vengeance in the words of the Israeli prime minister. So a lot of people’s reactions to understanding all of this are going to be impacted by what is still to come in the days ahead of us,” he said.Large-scale Israeli military assaults on Gaza in 2008 and 2014 were instrumental in shifting public opinion in the US, especially on university campuses.The response to the Hamas attack has also divided the US Jewish community which is largely united in its condemnation, but has differences over whether to acknowledge the occupation and Israeli government actions as a cause of continuing conflict.Susskind said Americans for Peace Now declined to sign a statement by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations denouncing the assault by “Iran-backed Hamas terrorists”.“We didn’t sign it because although I agree with most of what it said, it also called the Hamas attacks unprovoked and that’s not true. The Hamas attacks were horrific. They are war crimes. They are inexcusable. I condemn them, unequivocally 100 times over. But unprovoked is not true,” he said.“This attack does demand a military response. I am not a pacifist. But there is a difference between the military response and some of the language that you’ve seen from Israeli political leaders and others who are calling for war crimes in return. The response to that, is not to go in and indiscriminately kill Palestinian people. That’s not an acceptable answer. War crimes are never okay, by anyone.”The “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group J-Street was strident in its denunciation of Hamas and support for military action to defeat it.But Debra Shushan, J-Street’s policy director, said the attack obliges US politicians to recognise that things cannot go on as before. She said it is right, for now, for Washington to focus on Israel’s “legitimate right of self-defence in accordance with international law” and securing the release of Israelis abducted to Gaza.“In the longer term, there are many questions that must be asked about flawed policies and narratives. I expect fertile ground for a recognition that a return to the status quo ante of “managing the conflict” is unacceptable. The vision for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a negotiated end to the occupation of Palestinian Territory, and a future of genuine security, self-determination and equality for Israelis and Palestinians must prevail.” More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Israel crisis is horrific. Republicans say it’s a ‘great opportunity’ to attack Biden | Andrew Gawthorpe

      by

      This week the eyes of the world have been fixed on the horrific panorama of violence in the Middle East. Once all of the dead are counted, it is likely that nearly as many Israelis will have died in a single day as in the entire second intifada, which lasted from 2000 to 2005. The death toll is also growing in Gaza, with no telling how high it may reach. The United States has dispatched naval forces to the region amid fears that the conflict may spiral to include Hezbollah or even Iran, an eventuality which could see the US join the fighting directly. The region is a tinderbox – and one wrong move could set it ablaze.In the US, steady and sober leadership is needed. Americans may be among those held hostage in Gaza, and the risk of a wider war is ever present. Now is not the time for partisan point-scoring. Unity shouldn’t mean a stifling consensus – there’s plenty of room for discussion about what the best American response to the situation should be – but it should mean agreement around basic norms of constructive debate and decision-making. This should also be a time in which everyone can agree that it’s important that the US government is able to perform its basic functions smoothly, both to ensure good decisions are made and that lives are protected.Unfortunately, Republicans seem incapable of rising to the occasion. From the first hours in which the world began to learn of the horrific events unfolding in southern Israel, prominent Republican figures have seemed just as interested in blaming Joe Biden as they have Hamas.One of the party’s first reactions came from Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, who greeted news of the greatest atrocity in Israeli history by calling it a “great opportunity” for Republican presidential candidates to criticize Democrats. The candidates themselves seemed to agree, with many leaping into the fray to pin the blame for the attack on Biden’s supposed “weakness”.Perhaps most disgusting and divisive has been the spectacle of Republicans telling outright lies in order to claim that the Biden administration is directly “complicit” in the attack, as Senator Tim Scott has claimed. Donald Trump and others say that the Biden administration helped finance the attack with a recent deal in which $6bn in Iranian oil revenue was unfrozen in exchange for the release of five American hostages. But this money – not a cent of which has yet been spent – is controlled by Qatar and can only be used by Tehran to purchase humanitarian supplies. Meanwhile, it’s clear that this attack has been in the work for months – far before the deal was even struck.Cheap and partisan attacks not only make it difficult to have a serious discussion about American foreign policy – they also allow Republicans to avoid talking about the ways in which their own actions have made the US less prepared for a serious international crisis. The Republican senator Tommy Tuberville is single-handedly blocking 300 routine military appointments, including many top posts in the Middle East, in protest of the Pentagon’s abortion policy. And he’s signaled he has no intention of changing his mind.Senators Rand Paul and JD Vance have also placed blanket holds on confirming nominees to the state department – in one case because Vance wanted them to fill in a “wokeness questionnaire” first. Among the positions that remain unfilled with a permanent appointments are the state department coordinator for counter-terrorism and ambassadors to both Israel and Egypt. Meanwhile, thanks to Republican dysfunction, there is currently no speaker of the House, making it unclear how additional US aid might be made available to Israel or Palestinian civilians if it is needed.In order to avoid the sort of partisan point-scoring that Republicans are engaging in, it should be made clear that these facts almost certainly had nothing to do with the decision by Hamas to launch its attack. The attack is not in any way the fault of the Republican party. But what is the fault of the Republican party is the fact that the US government is lacking crucial personnel at a time of grave international crisis.Hamstringing the ability of the Biden administration to act might even be a feature rather than a bug of the Republican response. If the party recognizes the unfolding horror primarily as a “great opportunity” to hammer the Democrats, then that opportunity can be maximized by making it as difficult as possible for the Biden administration to respond effectively. This is a grave charge, not to be made lightly. But how else to explain a party which refuses, in a time of possible war, to let the military appoint the officers it wants to their posts in the war zone?It is a perilous sign that Republicans would rather engage in partisan criticism rather than a constructive discussion over the best and most humane policies for the US to adopt. The party no longer believes in the basic idea of a functioning, competent government, even in the face of a regional war. As the Biden administration makes tough decisions about how to save American lives and stop the war from spreading, it can expect little help from across the aisle.Republicans have made the choice to put their own narrow interests over those of the nation. They could at least have the decency to stop pretending otherwise.
      Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States and the creator of America Explained, a podcast and newsletter More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      AOC decries ‘bigotry and callousness’ at pro-Palestinian rally in New York

      by

      Criticising a pro-Palestinian rally held in Times Square in New York City in the aftermath of Hamas attacks on Israel which left hundreds dead, the progressive congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “It should not be hard to shut down hatred and antisemitism where we see it.”The attacks, including the killing of at least 260 concertgoers and the taking of hostages, sparked a new war between Israel and Hamas. In Gaza, Israeli airstrikes killed hundreds. By Tuesday, the Israeli death toll approached 1,000.The Sunday rally in New York, endorsed by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and promoted by the group’s New York chapter, attracted a crowd of more than 1,000. Some chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied” and there were reports of a Nazi emblem being shown and Israeli flags burned and trodden on.Amid attacks from Republicans, Ocasio-Cortez, a New York representative popularly known as AOC, was among Democrats to condemn the rally.Speaking to Politico, she said shutting down hatred and antisemitism was “a core tenet of solidarity”.“The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment,” she said.“It also did not speak for the thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting Hamas’s horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under occupation.”Earlier, Ocasio-Cortez was among leading congressional progressives to call for a ceasefire. In a statement, she said: “I condemn Hamas’s attack in the strongest possible terms.“No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives.”Cori Bush, a progressive congresswoman from Missouri, said that while she “condemn[ed] the targeting of civilians”, to “achieve a just and lasting peace” in the Middle East, “US government support for Israeli military occupations and apartheid” should be ended. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Aukus could weaken China deterrence,

      by

      Doubts about Australia’s willingness to join forces with the US in a war against China are being cited by congressional researchers as a potential obstacle to the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal.A new research paper looks at the US plan to sell Australia between three and five Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s but suggests the idea “could weaken deterrence of potential Chinese aggression”.That stage of the deal aims to help Canberra bridge a “capability gap” before Australian-built nuclear-powered submarines begin to enter into service in the 2040s.The paper, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, aims to provide members of the US congress with a neutral summary of key arguments likely to be raised by supporters and sceptics of the plan.It lists six “potential arguments from sceptics”, including that the sale could weaken deterrence “if China were to find reason to believe, correctly or not, that Australia might use its Virginia-class boats less effectively than the US Navy would use them”.That weakening of deterrence could also be the case if Beijing were to conclude “that Australia might not involve its military, including its Virginia-class boats, in US-China crises or conflicts that Australia viewed as not engaging important Australian interests”.The report cited comments by the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, in March that the Aukus deal did not include any pre-commitments to the US regarding involvement in a potential future conflict over Taiwan.
      Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
      The report added: “Virginia-class boats are less certain to be used in a US-China conflict over Taiwan, or less certain to be used in such a conflict in the way that the United States might prefer, if they are sold to Australia rather than retained in US Navy service.”In another argument that may embolden Republican critics of the submarine sale, the paper noted “the challenges that the US submarine industrial base is experiencing in achieving a desired construction rate of two Virginia-class boats per year”.The ability of the US to build replacement submarines for Virginia-class boats sold to Australia was “uncertain”, according to the paper first reported by the Australian Financial Review.The paper also suggested that the costs for Australia to acquire, operate and maintain Virginia-class submarines “could reduce, perhaps significantly, funding within Australia’s military budget for other Australian military capabilities” – especially if the figures “turn out to be higher than expected”.“If this were to occur, there could be a net negative impact on Australia’s overall military capabilities for deterring potential Chinese aggression.”The Australian government has repeatedly argued it will retain sovereign control of the submarines, despite arguments from the former prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating that the multi-decade arrangement relies on US support and reduces Australia’s room to move.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut the new paper suggested it might be “more cost-effective to pursue a US-Australian division of labor” under which US submarines would perform both American and Australian missions “while Australia invests in other types of military forces”. It pointed to such arrangements between the US and its Nato allies.The paper also mentioned concerns about the impact of a potential accident, even though it said the Australian navy was “a fully professional force that would operate and maintain its Virginia-class boats in a manner fully adhering to the US Navy’s strict and exacting safety, quality-control, and accountability standards”.It said the sale “would unavoidably make another country responsible for preventing an accident” with a US-made submarine and any significant problem “might call into question for third-party observers the safety of all US Navy nuclear-powered ships”.On the other side of the ledger, the paper said supporters could argue that the Aukus deal “would substantially enhance deterrence of potential Chinese aggression by sending a strong signal to China of the collective determination of the United States and Australia, along with the UK, to counter China’s military modernization effort”.“The fact that the United States has never before sold a complete SSN [nuclear-powered submarine] to another country – not even the UK – would underscore the depth of this determination, and thus the strength of the deterrent signal it would send.”Instead of waiting for Australia to build its own submarines, the interim sale of Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s “would substantially accelerate the creation of an Australian force” of nuclear-powered submarines.That would “present China much sooner with a second allied decision-making center” for submarine operations in the Indo-Pacific region, “which would enhance deterrence of potential Chinese aggression by complicating Chinese military planning”. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden vows to lead by example on curbing weapons of mass destruction

      by

      Joe Biden has accused Russia of “shredding longstanding arms control agreements” but pledged that the US would “lead by example” in limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction.In his address to the UN general assembly, Biden castigated the Putin regime for its suspension, in February this year, of the 2010 New Start treaty, the last arms control agreement between the two countries.That suspension, coupled with Russia’s withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty in 2007, was “irresponsible and makes the entire world less safe”, the president said.However, Biden insisted that the US “is going to continue to pursue good faith efforts to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction and lead by example, no matter what else is happening in the world”.The statement appeared to be a confirmation that the US would continue the policy it has pursued since Vladimir Putin’s suspension of New Start, by not going beyond the treaty’s limits of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, and 700 deployed delivery systems.At the time of Moscow’s suspension of the New Start treaty, Russian officials said their government would continue to observe those limits, but there have been no inspections of Russian nuclear weapons facilities since the start of the Covid pandemic, and Russia has ceased to share data that was required by the agreement.In his speech, Biden said the US also remained committed to diplomatic means to containing North Korean’s nuclear weapons programme and would “remain steadfast in our commitment that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons”.Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association, welcomed Biden’s statement on the New Start limits.“I’m glad that Biden said this to keep the flame going, if you think about how you don’t have much room in a UN speech,” Kimball said. “It’s a positive signal that the United States remains ready to engage in serious dialogue on nuclear weapons production and arms control despite whatever else has happened in the Russian relationship.”In his address, Biden urged the UN general assembly to uphold the UN charter in its approach to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, framing it as a matter of principle, national sovereignty and territorial integrity that was essential to all UN members.“Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalise Ukraine without consequence,” Biden said. “But I ask you this: if we abandon the core principles … to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?“I respectfully suggest the answer is no,” the president added. “We must stand up to this naked aggression today to deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow.”Much of the rest of Biden’s speech was dedicated to the principles of global cooperation to take on basic issues of poverty, human rights and the climate crisis. The US and other supporters of Ukraine are well aware that many countries at the UN, especially the developing nations in the Group of 77, are becoming restive at the focus on Ukraine, when the death toll from conflict, famine and climate change is so enormous in the global south. Biden stressed that he takes these concerns seriously.“My country has to meet this critical moment to work with countries in every region, in common cause to join together with partners who share a common vision of the future of the world,” he said. “The United States seeks a more secure, more prosperous, more equitable world for all people, because we know our future is bound up with yours … No nation can meet the challenges of today alone.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US and Iran expected to complete $6bn prisoner swap deal

      by

      The US and Iran are expected to pull off a controversial prisoner swap on Monday involving the unfreezing by the Biden administration of $6bn (£4.8bn) of Iranian oil money held in South Korea since 2018.Tehran and Washington are due to swap five prisoners each, including the conservationist Morad Tahbaz, a British-American citizen.In an elaborate and delicate diplomatic deal, months in the making, the five Americans are due to be flown from Tehran to Qatar before transferring to flights to Washington.Republicans and some former Iranian political detainees have accused Joe Biden of striking a deal with the world’s No 1 terrorist state that will only encourage Iran to keep hostage taking as a central part of its diplomatic arsenal. The state department says the money that is being released is Iranian-owned oil money frozen by the Trump administration in 2018 when the US left the Iran nuclear deal.Last week three European countries including the UK accused Iran of building stocks of highly enriched uranium that could have no possible civilian purpose.The US says the prisoner swap’s mediator, Qatar, will ensure that the unfrozen money is only spent on goods – primarily food, agricultural goods and medicine – that are not subject to sanctions. Critics say it will be impossible to police, and that the US threat to pull out if Iran breaks the agreement is bogus.The path to the swap reached a turning point when the state department agreed a waiver facilitating the release of the cash from South Korean banks to accounts in Switzerland and Doha.The five Americans have already been transferred out of Evin jail in Tehran to various hotels in the capital. They are due to be flown initially to Doha before flying to the US for a homecoming.Tahbaz was left in Iran when the British Iranian dual nationals Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori were released as part of a deal negotiated by the then UK foreign secretary, Liz Truss.The identities of five Iranians that are being granted clemency in the US have all been made public by Tehran. It is not clear that all of them want to return to Iran. Most of them were jailed for breaches of US sanctions.The deal is a coup for Qatar, which has acted as a mediator between two countries that deeply distrust one another. The Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, due to speak to the UN general assembly on Tuesday in New York, is likely to laud the deal as another sign of US weakness.Michael McCaul, the Republican chair of the House foreign affairs committee, has accused Biden of being naive and returning to the mistakes of the past .The Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis described Biden’s decision as outrageous, adding that it “has sent a signal to hostile regimes that if you take Americans, you could potentially profit … A rogue regime should know that if you touch the hair on the head of any American, you will have hell to pay.”Richard Ratcliffe, the husband of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, has criticised the timing of the release, so close to the anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death in Iranian police custody.It is not clear if the deal will lead to a wider diplomatic breakthrough, or a new, less ambitious route to constrain Iran’s civil nuclear programme in which Tehran agrees to lower its stocks of highly enriched uranium.Iranian Americans, whose US citizenship is not recognised by Tehran, are often pawns between the two nations. In the last week there have been reports that three dual nationals were arrested in Iran and it was confirmed two weeks ago for the first time that Johan Floderus, an EU diplomat based in Iran, has been jailed since April 2022. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Top US and Chinese diplomats meet in Malta to smooth strained relations

      by

      Top US and Chinese diplomats met in Malta over the weekend as the world’s two largest economies attempted to smooth strained relations and clear a path for their respective presidents – Joe Biden and Xi Jinping – to meet in November.According to both Beijing and Washington, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan met multiple times with China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, in Malta, where – according to separate statements – “candid, substantive and constructive” talks were held.A readout from the White House on Sunday said the two officials had discussed the US-China bilateral relationship, global and regional security concerns, Russia’s war against Ukraine, and issues around the Taiwan strait.China’s foreign ministry said the sides came away with an agreement to maintain high-level exchanges and hold bilateral consultations on Asia-Pacific affairs, maritime issues and foreign policy.The meetings are the first to be held between Sullivan and Wang since May, four months after Biden ordered American fighter jets to shoot down a Chinese-operated balloon off the US coast. China condemned the downing as “a serious violation of international practice”.The balloon’s downing later caused the Biden administration to cancel a trip to Beijing by the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken.Strained US-China relations over American support for Taiwan, trade frictions around intellectual property and a Chinese military buildup – particularly in the area of hypersonic missiles, which the US does not have – put in doubt a meeting between Biden and Xi at an Asia-Pacific economic cooperation (Apec) meeting in San Francisco in November.Last week, China’s top security agency hinted that any meeting between the two leaders depended on the US “showing sufficient sincerity”. Biden and Xi have not met since November 2022, when they had a three-and-a-half-hour sideline meeting at the G20 in Bali, Indonesia.After that meeting, Biden said the US will “compete vigorously” with China while insisting that he’s “not looking for conflict”. Xi said the countries need to “explore the right way to get along”.But Xi was a no-show at the G20 summit in New Delhi, India, last weekend. Biden later expressed disappointment but added that he was going to “get to see him”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSunday’s read-out provided by the White House said the meeting between Sullivan and Wang was part of “ongoing efforts to maintain open lines of communication and responsibly manage the relationship”.The statement added that the talks had built on the Bali conversation, the meetings of Sullivan and Wang in May, and US diplomatic visits to Beijing over the past several months by Blinken, treasury secretary Janet Yellen, special climate envoy John Kerry and commerce secretary Gina Raimondo.The US notice said that Sullivan “noted the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan strait” during the meetings. According to the Chinese foreign ministry statement, Wang cautioned the US that Taiwan is the “first insurmountable red line of Sino-US relations”.Reuters contributed reporting More