Li Qiang’s Attempt to Appease the United States Undermines National Dignity; His Remark that “China and the U.S. Are Like a Married Couple” Is Self-Humiliating

Beginning to Betray Xi? Li Qiang’s Weakest Support for Xi at the Two Sessions (AI-Generated Image)

[People News] During his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Li Qiang made an incongruous statement, asserting that “China and the U.S. are like a married couple: they may quarrel but ultimately need each other.” The remark was jarring, for no one would seriously equate Sino-U.S. relations with those of a marital partnership.

A marriage is built on mutual affection and willingness, leading to the formation of a community of shared destiny. If affection continues after marriage, the couple is fortunate; if not, it typically evolves into familial devotion—lifelong commitment through shared hardship. Of course, if two spouses prove fundamentally incompatible, divorce ensues, akin to a mismatch that even fate cannot reconcile.

Do Sino-U.S. relations resemble those of a married couple? On closer reflection, even at their warmest, the two nations never exhibited the mutual dependency of a true partnership. Marriage presupposes knowledge of each other’s family background, social ties, educational levels, and, in modern contexts, compatibility of temperament, interpersonal conduct, and fundamental values. The United States and China diverge sharply in values, clash in geopolitical interests, and share little cultural or institutional commonality—thus, the metaphor of marriage is untenable.

Since World War II, the U.S. has led the democratic camp, while the Chinese Communist Party aligned with the Soviet Union, placing the two blocs in stark opposition. During the Korean War, the two militaries fought bitterly. Later, amid Sino-Soviet tensions, Washington exploited the rift: Nixon’s diplomacy opened relations, ushering in the CCP’s reform era. Those were the best years of U.S.-China relations.

Yet even then, the relationship was more akin to that of cordial neighbors—help extended when needed (largely America assisting China), but with clear boundaries and no intention of “living together.” Neighbors may cooperate or fall out depending on interests. When in need, Beijing could address Washington deferentially; when not, it would undercut U.S. influence. If the “American imperialists” are unrelentingly hostile, how could the two ever be “husband and wife”?

In truth, Washington has seldom schemed against Beijing as extensively as Beijing has strategized against Washington. China used the U.S. to counterbalance the USSR, to acquire capital and technology, and to exploit America’s global standing for economic and diplomatic gains. Once it had “bided its time,” Beijing turned adversarial, seeking parity with Washington and aspiring to shape “global governance.”

If two spouses harbor separate agendas, calculating against one another, cohabiting by day only to dream separately at night, they cannot claim true partnership—indeed, they would not even qualify as good neighbors, who at least aspire to mutual aid.

Li Qiang’s analogy was inappropriate and mistimed. With Trump openly castigating the UN at the General Assembly and the U.S. Department of Defense mobilizing hundreds of generals for war planning, the global community recognized the Sino-U.S. rivalry as a strategic contest. In that climate, Li Qiang’s “China-U.S. as spouses” remark sounded like supplication to Americans and sycophancy to outsiders—embarrassing and a diminishment of national dignity.

Everyone knows the U.S. and China are vying for global preeminence. The “axis of evil”—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—is challenging U.S.-led international rules in a bid to supplant America and reorder the world. Where, in this dynamic, is there any intention of forming a marital bond? Since there is none, why the affected posture? The U.S. will not be swayed, and the world views it as ludicrous. Chinese diplomacy has descended to a discreditable nadir.

If Beijing truly wished for partnership, why stage the grandiose September 3rd military parade? Why invite Russia, North Korea, and Iran to demonstrate against the U.S. and the West? That event provoked the White House and Trump; the Pentagon renamed itself the Department of War, and Washington reversed course on the Russia-Ukraine war while summoning 800 senior officers for briefings—a clear signal of preparation for conflict, aimed squarely at the CCP-led axis. The entire world grasped this, save Li Qiang, who feigned ignorance.

If Beijing is prepared for full confrontation, it should show resolve—“fight to the death if necessary”—which would demonstrate backbone. But to oscillate between posturing for conflict and lowering oneself to seek favor is tantamount to exposing weakness, reducing both dignity and leverage—akin to a Guan Dao falling into a latrine: unfit for display in either civil (wen) or martial (wu) realms, degrading in every respect.

At present, the CCP’s political strategy is at its most disordered. It is uncertain whether to integrate with or oppose the world, whether to pursue harmony or confrontation, whether to prioritize the people’s welfare or the Party’s survival. Its policies are improvised, reactive, and incoherent—ostensibly flexible but, in essence, chaotic.

The leadership resembles a headless fly, blindly thrashing—sometimes weak-willed, sometimes misdirected. Such vacillation is a harbinger of dynastic decline. Li Qiang’s ill-conceived remarks in America starkly reveal the CCP’s perilous trajectory and the fragility of its current position.

(Adapted from the author’s Facebook post) △