中华人民共和国
北京美国中心（Beijing American Center） 
2023年6月19日 
 
布林肯国务卿：各位晚上好。 今天没什么新闻，对吧？ 
首先，我要感谢伯恩斯大使（Ambassador Burns），感谢我们驻中国外交使团的全体成员，过去两天里，我有机会与他们在一起。这个团队在一个关键时刻服务于世界上最重要的驻外机构之一，我为他们代表国家所做的一切感到无比自豪。 
在过去两年半的时间里，美国在国内外采取了一系列有目的的战略步骤，以加强我们的国家和我们在世界上的地位。 
我们在基础设施、技术、工业产能和竞争力方面进行了历史性投资。我们深化了与世界各地的盟友和伙伴的接触和协调，这在几年前是难以想象的。 
这就是美国和中华人民共和国之间的关系——世界上最重要的关系之一——所处的背景。 美国和中国都有义务负责任地管理好这种关系。这样做符合美国、中国乃至世界的最大利益。 
我们对中华人民共和国所构成的挑战有清醒的认识。美国将推进与许多其他国家共享的未来愿景：与各国共同维护及更新多年来保障全球和平与安全的基于规则的秩序，从而建设一个自由、开放、稳定和繁荣的世界。 
为了构建这个未来，我们首先从外交开始，包括与中国的外交。我来到北京就是为了加强应对高层沟通的挑战，以明确各自在存在分歧的领域的立场和意图，并探讨我们在应对共同的跨国挑战方面在利益一致时可以合作的领域。所有这些我们都做到了。 
在北京，我与习近平主席进行了一次重要谈话。我还与中国外交官员王毅主任和秦刚国务委员进行了坦诚、实质性和建设性的讨论。我对东道主所给予的热情款待表示感谢。 
在每次会谈中，我都强调了高层直接接触和持续沟通是负责任地管理分歧并确保竞争不转向冲突的最佳方式。我也从中国外交官员那里听到了同样的观点。我们都同意需要稳定两国关系。 
在这些会谈中，我们就地区和全球挑战进行了充分讨论，其中包括俄罗斯对乌克兰的侵略战争。我再次强调了欢迎中国与其他国家一道，在联合国宪章（United Nations Charter）原则的基础上，为寻求公正的和平发挥建设性作用。我们还谈到了朝鲜日益蛮横无理的行动和言论。鼓励朝鲜民主主义人民共和国负责任地行事，停止发射导弹，开始就其核项目进行对话，符合国际社会所有成员的利益。而中国在促使平壤参与对话并终止其危险行为方面处于独特地位。 
我提出了美国对中华人民共和国在台湾海峡以及南中国海和东中国海的挑衅行动的关切——越来越多的国家也有同样的关切。关于台湾问题，我重申了美国长期以来所持的“一个中国”政策。这一政策没有改变。它以《台湾关系法》（Taiwan Relations Act）、三个联合公报（Joint Communiqués）和六项保证（Six Assurances）为指导。我们不支持台湾独立。我们继续反对任何一方单方面改变现状。我们继续期待通过和平方式解决两岸分歧。我们始终致力于履行《台湾关系法》规定的责任，包括确保台湾有自卫能力。我们还讨论了一系列双边问题，包括遵循拜登总统和习近平主席去年年底在巴厘岛的会谈内容，继续制定指导两国关系的原则。 
我们就各自的经济政策交换了意见，其中包括我们对于中国对美国企业的不公平待遇的关切。今天，我参加了在中国经营的美国企业领导人举行的会议，了解到美国企业所面临的问题，包括美国企业最近所遭受的惩罚性措施。我还了解到美国企业希望在中国继续经营并扩展其业务。因此，我在会议中努力澄清了对我们的做法的任何错误认识或误解。 
对美国和许多其他国家而言，去风险和脱钩之间存在着重大区别。过去一年，我们两国的贸易额有所增长——事实上，去年比任何时候都高，接近7000亿美元。健康而稳健的经济合作对美国和中国都有利。正如耶伦（Yellen​​）部长上周在国会作证时所说——她是这样说的，如果与中国脱钩并中止与中国的所有贸易和投资，那对我们而言将是灾难性的。 
我们支持去风险和多元化。这意味着投资建设我们自身的能力以及安全、有韧性的供应链；为工人和企业争取公平的竞争环境；抵制有害的贸易行为；保护我们的关键技术，以免这些技术被用来对付我们。我明确表示，我们将继续采取必要的有针对性的行动来保护美国国家安全。 
我在会谈中还讨论了人权问题。 美国和国际社会对中华人民共和国在新疆、西藏和香港等地侵犯人权的行为持续深感关切。我还特别提出了被不公正拘押的美国公民以及面临出境禁令的人士。 对我来说，没有比确保美国海外公民的安全和福祉更重要的工作了，而且我将继续加紧工作，确保他们获释并安全返回家园。 
在我们努力解决分歧的过程中，美国准备与中国在有共同利益的领域展开合作，包括气候、宏观经济稳定、公共卫生、粮食安全和禁毒等方面。 
在粮食安全方面，我们认为中国可以在缓解全球粮食不安全方面发挥关键作用。 我强调了支持长期扩展《黑海谷物倡议》（Black Sea Grain Initiative）的重要性，该倡议使乌克兰得以出口近3200万吨粮食，其中约1800万吨运往发展中国家。长期扩展这项倡议对于避免世界上一些最贫穷、粮食最不安全的国家出现粮食短缺以及价格飙升至关重要。 
我把合成阿片类药物和芬太尼问题作为一项重点要务提出，这在美国造成了一场危机。芬太尼是18至49岁美国人的头号杀手。我明确表示，我们需要更大的合作来解决这一重大问题。我们同意探讨建立一个工作组或采取联合行动，以便切断助长加剧这场危机并造成死亡人数日益上升的前体化学品的流动。 
最后，我们讨论了加强学生、学者、商务人员之间的交流的重要性。这有利于我们的公民、我们的经济和我们的关系。今天，我有机会会见了这些交流项目的一些参加者，他们非常出色。在我参加的会谈中，我们讨论了加强教育交流，并承诺努力增加两国之间的直飞航班。 
为了继续就这些和其他重要问题进行对话，我预期未来几周有更多美国高层官员访问中国。我们也欢迎更多中国官员访问美国。为此，我邀请秦刚国务委员兼外交部长访问华盛顿，他同意在对双方合适的时间前来访问。 
今晚晚些时候，我将前往伦敦参加乌克兰重建会议（Ukraine Recovery Conference），我还将有机会在那里向盟友和合作伙伴介绍这次访问的情况，并继续加强我们的一致性。 
我们对管理这种关系的挑战不抱任何幻想。在许多问题上，我们有着深刻甚至强烈的分歧。我们将始终遵循最佳行动路线来促进美国人民的利益。而美国在通过外交途径成功管理复杂、重要的关系方面有着悠久的历史。找到一条前进的道路是两国共同的责任——我们这样做既符合我们双方的利益，也符合世界的利益。

 
米勒先生: 下面我们将接受提问。先请彭博社的伊恩·马洛（Iain Marlow）提第一个问题。 
问: 谢谢。感谢您，国务卿先生。中国指责美国拜登政府通过限制北京获取关键技术，包括您提到的半导体，来进行经济遏制。您是否担心未来美国在这一领域的举动会破坏当前稳定中美关系的努力，并可能迫使中国在其他领域采取报复性措施？ 
其次，在中国举行的会谈之后，您对中国最高领导人对乌克兰问题的立场有什么印象，他们是否仍有可能向俄罗斯提供、或最终提供致命性武器援助？或者他们是否有意利用他们对弗拉基米尔·普京的影响力来实现冲突的外交解决？谢谢。 
布林肯国务卿: 非常感谢，伊恩。关于问题的第一个部分，我此行要做的重要工作之一是打消我们的中国东道主认为美国正在寻求从经济上遏制他们的想法。 我们没有。正如我所说的，我们不是要脱钩；我们是要去风险，实现多样化。 
我的意思是，首先，关于脱钩或经济遏制，我认为这种观点完全没有事实根据。正如我提到的，去年我们的贸易关系达到了历史最高水平——贸易额约为7000亿美元。美国对中国的直接投资达到了自2014年以来的最高水平。顺便说一下，有大约30万中国学生在美国学习。我会见了很多美国公司，至少与其代表见面，包括商会，他们仍然对在这里拓展业务非常感兴趣——这非常符合我们的利益。 
我还向东道主指出，中国广泛的经济成功也符合我们的利益。我们在迅速从新冠疫情影响中复苏方面做得很出色，经济正在增长，失业率非常低，对未来的投资也极其巨大。但是，当其他国家取得增长和进步时，我们也能从中极大地获益——当涉及中国这样世界上最大的经济体之一时尤为如此。因此，寻求脱钩根本不符合我们的利益。正如我所提到的，你也听到了耶伦部长几天前在国会所说的，脱钩实际上将是灾难性的。 
然而，对我们而言，显然符合我们利益的是，确保某些特定技术，例如中国可能用于推进其极不透明的核武器计划、建造高超音速导弹的技术、可能用于压制性目的的技术等——将这些技术提供给中国不符合我们的利益。我也对此非常明确地表述了立场。因此，我们正在采取的行动，已经采取的行动，以及必要时将继续采取的行动，范围非常有限，且经过审慎制定，旨在增进和保护我们的国家安全。我认为这是一个非常重要的区别。 
而且我们并不是唯一这样做的国家。事实上，当下的金句“去风险，不脱钩”实际上出自欧洲委员会主席乌尔苏拉·冯·德莱恩（Ursula von der Leyen）之口。这一提法很好地反映了许多国家正在采取的做法，既是因为维持与中国的经济关系——贸易和投资——的重要性，也是因为对中国正在利用其获得的技术所做的一些事情的关切。因此，我花了一些时间，确保我们非常清楚地说明了美国正在做什么以及不会做什么。 
至于向俄罗斯提供在乌克兰使用的致命性武器援助，我们和其他国家已经得到中国的保证，即没有、也不会向俄罗斯提供在乌克兰使用的致命性武器援助。我们对此表示赞赏，而且我们没有看到任何与此相矛盾的证据。然而，我们仍然对中国公司、企业可能向俄罗斯提供用以推进其在乌克兰的侵略的技术表示关切。我们已要求中国政府对此保持高度警惕。
米勒先生：请O Globo的马塞洛·尼尼奥(Marcelo Ninio)提下一个问题。 
问：谢谢。我有一个关于金砖国家（BRICS）——巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非的问题。去年，中国对金砖国家具有特殊的重要性，尽管政府表示它不是反中国和美国的集团，但很多人就是这样看的。最近的事态发展给持这种想法的人提供了理由。有来自美国的指称说南非向俄罗斯提供武器。而中国希望扩大金砖国家。已经有近20个国家排队想加入金砖国家，其中大部分来自全球南方（Global South）。我国总统卢拉在中国严厉批评美元在世界经济中的垄断地位。所以我的问题是：美国政府如何看待金砖国家？是否将其视为由中国主导的对西方和美国的挑战？谢谢。 
布林肯国务卿：好的。首先，作为一项总体原则，我们长期以来一直主张各国应该能够自由地与其他国家组成任何其所希望的团体。这是我们非常坚决支持并长期捍卫的原则。 
关于金砖国家，我们与其主要成员保持密切接触。实际上，本周印度总理莫迪将对华盛顿进行国事访问。当然，几个月前我们欢迎了卢拉总统来到华盛顿访问，他与拜登总统进行了非常富有成效和建设性的会晤。因此，我们与金砖国家的各个成员保持全面接触，而且将继续这样做。 
米勒先生：接下来请美国之音的张蓉湘提问。 
问：晚上好，国务卿先生。 
布林肯国务卿：晚上好。 
问：我希望您在这次新闻发布会上能发布更多的新闻。关于台湾，在与中国国家主席习近平的35分钟的会晤中，台湾问题是如何得到讨论的？美国官员表示，台海军事冲突将是——我引用他们的话——“一个令全球关切”的问题。台湾将于2024年举行总统选举。民主选举是否会成为台海军事升级的借口？您如何回应中国的立场，即台湾是内政，跟美国没有关系，而且在这个问题上没有妥协的余地？谢谢。 
布林肯国务卿：谢谢。从我们与中国关系正常化的最开始，回溯到许多年前的三个公报，对我们来说，最根本的是关于台湾的任何分歧都将以和平方式解决的理解。这是我们看待双边关系的基石。 
而在过去的近五十年中，中美两国一直在负责任地处理这个问题。我们继续坚持 “一个中国”的政策，包括遵守三个公报、《台湾关系法》和六项保证。我们不支持台湾独立，我们明确表示反对任何一方单方面改变现状。我们在政策上一直是明确和一致的，保持几十年来帮助维持海峡两岸和平与稳定的现状非常重要。所以，我向中国外交官员再次强调了这一立场。拜登总统在与中国的接触中也多次明确表达了这一点。 
与此同时，我们和许多其他国家对中国近年来采取的一些挑衅行动深表关切，这一情况可以追溯到2016年。之所以引起了不仅是美国而且是如此众多的国家的关切，其原因在于如果在台湾问题上出现危机，很有可能导致一场经济危机，这将影响全世界。每天有50%的商业集装箱运输通过台湾海峡。70%的半导体在台湾制造。如果由于一场危机而被迫中断，将对全球几乎每个国家产生巨大影响，这就是为什么对中国采取的一些挑衅行动的关切日益加深的原因。我也非常清晰地阐明了这一点。 
拜登总统坚信，我们与中国的关系在过去五十年中的一个成功方面，就是对台湾问题的负责任的管理。我们继续坚信这是至关重要的一点。 
米勒先生: 接下来请凤凰卫视的倪晓雯提问。 
问: 谢谢您，国务卿先生。我来自凤凰卫视。我们知道，一段时间以来，美国一直在推动与中国对话。与此同时，我们看到美国已将一些中国公司列入实体清单，并通过限制性的《芯片法》禁止对中国的芯片出口，还计划限制对高科技领域的投资。 因此中国认为美国既在寻求对话，同时也在遏制中国。 就此，我想问，美国将如何应对这些关切，并展示沟通的诚意？ 谢谢。 
布林肯国务卿：就像我所指出的，这实际上是我们的会谈的一个重要部分。正如我几分钟前向另一位同仁表明的，对我来说重要的是，我们要阐明——我已经说过——这两者之间的区别极其鲜明，有人说我们试图遏制中国并在经济上脱钩，而我们实际上正在做的是去风险并在我们的供应链方面实现多样化。
正如我所言，与中国的经济关系至关重要；而且当这种关系公平时，对世界各国都是非常有益的事情。在各国正努力从新冠疫情中复苏的时候，正如美国已经非常成功地做到的那样，我们希望看到世界各地，当然包括中国这样的主要经济体，实现增长并取得成功。这符合我们的利益。但同时我已经指出，向中国提供可能被用来对付我们自己的技术并不符合我们的利益。在中国以非常不透明的方式加强其核武器计划、生产高超音速导弹、并将技术用于压制其本国人民时，将这些特定技术提供给中国怎么会符合我们自己的利益呢？其他国家也持有同样的看法。
因此，再次强调，这不是试图切断、根除或阻碍经济关系。相反，我们认为经济关系应当得到加强，但要以关心我们的工人和企业的方式进行。我今天听到了很多对此表示关切的声音。但与此同时，我们可以、将会、也必须采取必要的措施来保护我们的国家安全。如果情况反过来，毫无疑问中国也会采取完全相同的行动。
米勒先生：最后一个问题，有请CNN的凯莉·阿特伍德（Kylie Atwood ）。
问：谢谢，布林肯国务卿。我想进一步问一下您之前的一句评论，然后我还有两个问题，和这里的习惯做法一样。
您说您得到了中方的保证——或者说美国得到了中方的保证，说他们不会向俄罗斯提供致命性武器援助。这些保证是今天特别对您做出的吗？您是否认为这是中国领导层作出的最终决定，鉴于美国过去曾说过中国考虑向俄罗斯提供致命性武器援助？
我的第二个问题是：中国有关官员是否同意建立一条危机沟通渠道或军方之间的沟通渠道，以便双方在同意的情况能够下可靠地使用？这些渠道将在何时建立？
总体而言，您是否可以说美中关系今天的状况比您到访之前要好？
布林肯国务卿：谢谢。关于向俄罗斯提供在乌克兰使用的致命性武器援助的问题，做出有关保证并不是今天才出现的新情况。这是中国最近几周所表述的立场，他们不仅对我们，而且对许多其他提出这种关切的国家反复表示，他们目前没有、将来也不会向俄罗斯提供在乌克兰使用的致命性武器援助。这是一项重要的承诺和一项重要的政策。正如我所言，目前我们还没有看到任何与此相抵触的情况。但令我们关切的是中国的私人企业可能会提供协助，有时涉及双重用途的物项，有时其明确意图就是增强俄罗斯在乌克兰的军事能力。这是一个令人关切的问题，我已经向中国外交官员指出，并敦促他们大力监管这种行为。
关于危机沟通和军方之间的渠道，这也是我在此次访问中反复提出的问题。我认为确保我们具备这种军方之间的沟通渠道至关重要。我们看到的最近发生的一些空中和海上的事件进一步凸显了这种必要性。目前，中国尚未同意就这个问题向前推进。我认为这是我们必须持续努力解决的问题。重建这些渠道非常重要。如果我们一致认为我们有责任负责地管理这种关系，如果我们一致认为确保关系中的竞争因素不转变成冲突符合我们的共同利益，那么我们肯定可以达成一致看法，并认识到确保我们双方的沟通渠道包括军方之间的渠道的必要性。
因此，这是我们将持续努力解决的问题。正如我所言，目前没有即时进展，但这继续是我们的一项重点要务。
最后，关于这次访问本身，很明显，两国关系处于不稳定状态，双方都认识到需要为稳定关系做出努力。具体而言，我们认为，正如我所说，建立更好的、开放的沟通渠道非常重要，既可以防止误解和误判，也可以确保竞争不会演变成冲突。我们不仅在今天和昨天恢复了这样的沟通方式，而且我认为我们可以预期在未来几周内会有其他高层官员的访问——中国官员为此目的访问美国。
其次，重要的是利用这次访问来稳定关系，以便能够面对面地直接提出我们感到关切的问题以及存在深刻分歧的领域。这些分歧是众所周知的。有双边挑战；还有全球问题、区域安全问题、价值观、人权。我们确实花费时间非常详细地提出了这些问题并进行了讨论；这也是有益的——确保我们清楚地了解这些分歧，清楚地了解对方的意图。
最后，这是一个我们为了两国人民的利益、为了世界各地人民的利益而探索合作领域的机会——气候、全球经济稳定、全球健康、芬太尼，以及——正如我提到的——我们两国人民之间的实际交流。
因此，我认为，就我们为这次访问设定的目标而言——建立开放的沟通渠道，直接提出关切的问题，基于我们的共同利益探索合作领域——我们在这次访问中都达到了。但进步是艰难的。它需要时间。它不是通过一次访问、一次旅行、一次谈话就能取得的。我的希望和期望是：此后我们将会更好地沟通，更好地接触。当然，这并不会解决我们之间的所有问题。远非如此。但至关重要的是，做我们双方都认为有必要做的事情，这就是负责任地管理我们的关系。这样做符合美国的利益，符合中国的利益，也符合世界的利益。我认为，我们在过去两天中朝着这个方向迈出了积极的一步。
谢谢您。
米勒先生：谢谢您。 
问: 如果中国不与你们就建立军方沟通渠道进行接触，美国为什么要在未来几周内继续进行会谈？ 
布林肯国务卿：因为，正如我们所见，我们不会在任何一天在我们之间的每一个问题上都取得成功，但是在许多领域——根据我们为这次访问设定的指标，我们已经取得了进展，我们正在向前推进。不过我要再次强调，所有这些问题都无法通过一次访问、一次旅行、一次谈话得到解决。这是一个过程。我的希望和期望是我们现在有了更多接触。
归根结底，在推进我们的利益、捍卫我们的价值观并确保我们明确表达我们的意图方面，最好的做法——最好的做法就是通过直接接触、通过外交，而这正是我的职责。
我认为，我们举行的会谈非常坦率、非常深入，在某些领域具有建设性，而在其他领域，我们还有很多工作要做。
米勒先生：谢谢您。 
布林肯国务卿：谢谢。 
米勒先生：谢谢。
 
欲查看原稿内容: https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-antony-j-blinkens-press-availability/
本译文仅供参考，只有英文原稿才可以被视为权威资料来源。

REMARKS
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE
BEIJING AMERICAN CENTER, BEIJING
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
JUNE 19, 2023
 
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Good evening.  Slow news day, huh?
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to Ambassador Burns, to our entire Mission China, with whom I’ve had an opportunity to spend time over the past couple of days.  This team serves at one of the most important posts in the world at a critical moment, and I could not be prouder of how they represent our country.
Over the past two-and-a-half years, the United States has taken a series of purposeful, strategic steps – both at home and abroad – to strengthen our country and our standing around the world.
We’ve made historic investments in our infrastructure, technology, industrial capacity, competitiveness.  We’ve deepened our engagement and alignment with allies and partners around the world in ways that would have been unimaginable a few years ago.
That’s the backdrop for the relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China – one of the most consequential in the world.  Both the United States and China have an obligation to manage this relationship responsibly.  Doing so serves the best interests of the United States, of China, indeed, of the world.
We are clear-eyed about the challenges posed by the PRC.  The United States will advance a vision for the future that we share with so many others: a free, open, stable, and prosperous world with countries upholding and updating the rules-based order that has for years safeguarded peace and security globally.
To shape that future, we start with diplomacy – including with China.  I came to Beijing to strengthen high-level challenges of communication, to make clear our positions and intentions in areas of disagreement, and to explore areas where we might work together when our interests align on shared transnational challenges.  And we did all of that.
Here in Beijing, I had an important conversation with President Xi Jinping.  And I had candid, substantive, and constructive discussions with my counterparts Director Wang Yi and State Councilor Qin Gang.  I appreciate the hospitality extended by our hosts.
In every meeting, I stressed that direct engagement and sustained communication at senior levels is the best way to responsibly manage our differences and ensure that competition does not veer into conflict.  And I heard the same from my Chinese counterparts.  We both agree on the need to stabilize our relationship.
During those meetings, we had a robust conversation about regional and global challenges.  That includes Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.  I reiterated that we would welcome China playing a constructive role along with other nations to work toward a just peace, based on the principles of the United Nations Charter.  We also spoke about North Korea’s increasingly reckless actions and rhetoric.  All members of the international community have an interest in encouraging the DPRK to act responsibly, to stop launching missiles, to start engaging on its nuclear program.  And China is in a unique position to press Pyongyang to engage in dialogue and to end its dangerous behavior.
I raised U.S. concerns – shared by a growing number of countries – about the PRC’s provocative actions in the Taiwan Strait, as well as in the South and East China Seas.  On Taiwan, I reiterated the longstanding U.S. “one China” policy.  That policy has not changed.  It’s guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiqués, the Six Assurances.  We do not support Taiwan independence.  We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.  We continue to expect the peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences.  We remain committed to meeting our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act, including making sure that Taiwan has the ability to defend itself.  We also spoke about a range of bilateral issues, including continuing to develop principles to guide our relationship, as discussed by President Biden and President Xi in Bali late last year.
We exchanged views on our respective economic policies, including our concerns about China’s unfair treatment of U.S. companies.  During my meeting today with U.S. business leaders, who are operating in China, I heard about the problems that U.S. businesses are facing – including recent punitive actions against American firms.  I also heard that U.S. companies want to continue and indeed grow their businesses here.  And so, in my meetings, I sought to clarify any misperceptions or misunderstandings about our approach.
There is a profound difference, for the United States and for many other countries, between de-risking and decoupling.  Our countries traded more over the last year – in fact, more than ever over the last year – nearly $700 billion.  Healthy and robust economic engagement benefits both the United States and China.  And as Secretary Yellen testified before Congress last week, it would be, as she put it, disastrous for us to decouple and stop all trade and investment with China.
We are for de-risking and diversifying.  That means investing in our own capacities and in secure, resilient supply chains; pushing for level playing fields for our workers and our companies; defending against harmful trade practice; and protecting our critical technologies so that they aren’t used against us.  I made clear that we’ll continue to take targeted actions that are necessary to protect U.S. national security.
In my meetings, I also discussed human rights.  The United States and the international community remain deeply concerned about PRC human rights violations, including in Xinjiang, in Tibet, and Hong Kong.  I also specifically raised wrongfully detained U.S. citizens and those facing exit bans.  There is no higher priority for me than the safety and well-being of U.S. citizens overseas, and I’ll continue to work intensively to secure their release and their safe return home.
As we work to address our differences, the United States is prepared to cooperate with China in areas where we have mutual interests, including climate, macroeconomic stability, public health, food security, counternarcotics.
On food security, we believe China can play a key role in alleviating global food insecurity.  I underscore the importance of supporting a long-term expansion of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which has facilitated the export of almost 32 million tons of grain from Ukraine; with approximately 18 million tons going to developing countries.  A long-term expansion is critical for avoiding food shortages in the some of the poorest, most food-insecure countries in the world, as well as price surges.
I raised as a priority the issue of synthetic opioids and fentanyl, a crisis in the United States.  Fentanyl is the number-one killer of Americans aged 18 to 49.  I made clear that we need much greater cooperation to address this critical issue.  We agreed to explore setting up a working group or joint effort so that we can shut off the flow of precursor chemicals, which helped fuel this crisis and a growing number of deaths.
Finally, we discussed the importance of strengthening people-to-people exchanges between students, scholars, business travelers.  That benefits our citizens, our economies, and our relationship.  Today, I had an opportunity to meet with an impressive group of alumni from those exchange programs.  In my meetings, we discussed enhancing educational exchanges and we committed to work to increase direct flights between our countries.
To continue dialogue on these and other important issues, I would expect additional visits by senior U.S. officials to China over the coming weeks.  And we welcome further visits by Chinese officials to the United States.  To that end, I invited State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin Gang to visit Washington, and he agreed to come at a mutually suitable time.
A little later this evening, I leave for London to attend the Ukraine Recovery Conference, and I’ll also have an opportunity there to brief allies and partners on this visit and to continue to strengthen our alignment.
We have no illusions about the challenges of managing this relationship.  There are many issues on which we profoundly, even vehemently disagree.  We will always take the best course of action to advance the interests of the American people.  But the United States has a long history of successfully managing complicated, consequential relationships through diplomacy.  It’s the responsibility of both countries to find a path forward – and it’s in both our interests, and the interests of the world, that we do so.

 
MR MILLER:  We’ll take a few questions.  The first question goes to Iain Marlow with Bloomberg.
QUESTION:  Thank you.  Thank you, Secretary.  China has accused the U.S. of economic containment over the Biden administration’s efforts to limit Beijing’s access to key technology, including semiconductors, as you mentioned.  Are you worried that the future U.S. moves in that area will derail the current efforts to stabilize ties with China, and might force the Chinese to take retaliatory measures, perhaps, in other areas of the relationship?
And after your talks here in China, secondly, what’s your impression of the top leadership’s stance on Ukraine, whether they are still likely to provide, eventually, lethal aid to Russia?  Or are they at all interested in using their influence with Vladimir Putin to bring about a diplomatic solution to the conflict?  Thank you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks very much, Iain.  So, on the first part of the question, one of the important things for me to do on this trip was to disabuse our Chinese hosts of the notion that we are seeking to economically contain them.  We’re not.  And as I’ve said, we are not about decoupling; we’re about de-risking and diversifying.
And here’s what I mean by that.  First, when it comes to decoupling or economic containment, I think the facts simply belie that proposition.  As I mentioned, our trade relationship reached the highest number that it’s ever hit last year – about $700 billion in trade.  American foreign direct investment in China has reached levels that we haven’t seen since 2014.  Parenthetically, we’ve got about 300,000 Chinese students studying in the United States.  We have many American companies that I met with, or at least their representatives here, including the Chamber of Commerce, that continue to be very interested to do business here – and it’s profoundly in our interest.
I also noted to our hosts that China’s broad economic success is also in our interest.  We have done a remarkable job rebounding from COVID and having a growing economy – very low unemployment, tremendous investments in our future.  But we also benefit tremendously when there is growth and progress in other countries – especially of one of the world’s largest economies, when it comes to China.  So, it simply would not be in our interest to seek to decouple.  And as you – as I mentioned and as you heard Secretary Yellen say to Congress just a few days ago, in fact, it would be disastrous.
However, what is clearly in our interest is making sure that certain specific technologies that China may be using to, for example:  advance its very opaque nuclear weapons program, to build hypersonic missiles, to use technology that may have repressive purposes – it’s not in our interest to provide that technology to China.  And I also made that very clear.  So, the actions that we’re taking, that we’ve already taken, and as necessary that we’ll continue to take are narrowly focused, carefully tailored to advance and protect our national security.  And I think that’s a very important distinction.
Now, we’re also not the only ones doing that.  In fact, the phrase of the day, “de-risk, not decouple,” was actually put forward by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.  And it reflects very well the approach that many countries are taking, both because of the importance of sustaining economic relations – trade and investment with China, but also because of concerns about some of the things that China is doing with the technology that’s getting to them.  So, I spent some time making sure that we were very clear about what we’re doing as well as what we’re not doing.
With regard to lethal aid to Russia for use in Ukraine, we and other countries have received assurances from China that it is not and will not provide lethal assistance to Russia for use in Ukraine.   We appreciate that, and we have not seen any evidence that contradicts that.  What we do have ongoing concerns about, though, are Chinese firms, companies, that may be providing technology that Russia can use to advance its aggression in Ukraine.  And we have asked the Chinese Government to be very vigilant about that.
MR MILLER:  The next question goes to Marcelo Ninio with O Globo.
QUESTION:  Thank you.  I have a question about the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.  And last year, China has been within special importance to the BRICS, and even though the government says it’s not an anti-China and U.S. bloc, many people see it this way.  The last development gave some reason for people to think like that.  There was claims from the U.S. that South Africa is giving weapons to Russia.  China wants to expand the BRICS.  There is almost 20 countries already lining up to join the BRICS, mostly from the Global South.  And my president, President Lula, here in China said that – criticized very strongly the dominance of the dollar in the world economy.  So, the question is:  How does the U.S. Government sees the BRICS?  Does it see it as a China-led challenge to the West and to the United States?  Thank you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, first, as a general proposition, we have long stood for the proposition that countries should be able to freely associate with other countries in any groupings that they want.  It’s something that we stand very strongly for and have defended for a long, long time.
When it comes to the BRICS, we’re deeply engaged with its leading members.  In fact, this week Prime Minister Modi of India will be in Washington for a state visit.  And of course we welcomed President Lula to Washington several months ago, where he had a very productive and constructive meeting with President Biden.  So, we’re engaged across the board with members of the BRICS, and we’ll continue to do that.
MR MILLER:  For the next question, Nike Ching with Voice of America.
QUESTION:  Good evening, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Good evening.
QUESTION:  I hope you make more news from this news conference.  On Taiwan, how was Taiwan discussed in your 35 minutes meeting with the Chinese President Xi Jinping?  U.S. officials have said that military conflict in the Taiwan Strait will be, quote, a global concern.  Taiwan will have a presidential election in 2024.  Should a democratic election be a pretext to any military escalation in the Taiwan Strait?  How did you – how do you respond to China’s position that Taiwan is an internal issue – that is not an American concern and upon which where there is no room for compromise?  Thank you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  From the very beginning of our normalization of relations with China, going back to the three communiques many years ago, fundamental to us, in that, is the understanding that any differences regarding Taiwan will be resolved peacefully.  That is foundational to how we understand our relationship.
And for the past almost five decades, this is an issue that China and the United States have managed responsibly.  We remain committed to our “one China” policy with the three communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, the six assurances.  We do not support Taiwan’s independence.  We’ve made clear that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.  We’ve been clear and consistent in our policy, and it’s very important that we preserve the status quo that has helped maintain peace and stability across the strait for decades.  So, I reiterated that to our Chinese counterparts.  President Biden has also made that repeatedly clear in his engagements with China.
At the same time, we and many others have deep concerns about some of the provocative actions that China has taken in recent years, going back to 2016.  And the reason that this is a concern for so many countries, not just the United States, is that were there to be a crisis over Taiwan, the likelihood is that that would produce an economic crisis that could affect quite literally the entire world.  Fifty percent of commercial container traffic goes through the Taiwan Strait every day.  Seventy percent of semiconductors are manufactured on Taiwan.  If as a result of a crisis that was taken offline, it would have dramatic consequences for virtually every country around the world, which is, again, why there has been rising concern about some of the provocative actions that China has taken.  I also made that very clear.
President Biden believes strongly that one of the successful aspects of our relationship with China, going back five decades, has been the responsible management of the Taiwan question.  We continue to believe that that’s essential.
MR MILLER:  The next question goes to Ni Xiaowen with Phoenix TV.
QUESTION:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  I’m from Phoenix TV.  We know for some time now the United States has been pushing dialogue with China.  At the same time, we saw the United States has included some Chinese companies to its entity list and restricted CHIPS Act – chips exports to China and plan to limit investment in high-tech sector.  And China believes the United States is both seeking dialogue and the same time containing China.  So, I want to ask how will U.S. address these concerns and to show sincerity to communicate?  Thank you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, as I noted, this was actually an important part of the conversations that we had.  And as I suggested to our colleague a few minutes ago, it was important to me that we make clear the very clear differences between allegations that we’re trying to contain China and decouple economically, as opposed to what we’re actually doing – which is, as I’ve said, de-risking and also diversifying when it comes to our supply chains.
As I mentioned, the economic relationship with China is vitally important; and also, when it’s fair, a very positive thing for countries around the world.  And at a time when countries are trying to rebound from COVID, something the United States has done very successfully, we want to see growth, we want to see success, in every part of the world, including, of course, in the major economies like China.  It’s in our interest.  But at the same time, as I said, it’s not in our interest to provide technology to China that could be used against us.  And at a time when it’s engaged in a buildup of its nuclear weapons program in a very opaque way, when it’s producing hypersonic missiles, when it’s using technology for repressive purposes against its own people, how is it in our interest to provide those specific technologies to China?  And other countries feel the same way.
So, what this is about, again, is not trying to cut off, eliminate, hinder economic relations.  On the contrary, we think that they should be strengthened but in a way that looks out for our workers, that looks out for our companies.  And I heard many concerns about that today.  But at the same time, we can, we will, and we must take steps necessary to protect our national security.  If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt that China would do exactly the same thing.
MR MILLER:  And the final question goes to Kylie Atwood with CNN.
QUESTION:  Thanks, Secretary Blinken.  I just want to follow up on one comment you made earlier, and then I have two questions in classic fashion here.
You said that you have received assurances – or you said the United States has received assurances from China that they will not provide lethal aid to Russia.  Were those assurances specifically made to you today?  And do you believe that is a final decision on behalf of Chinese leadership given the U.S. has said that they are considering providing lethal aid to Russia in the past?
My second question:  Did your Chinese counterparts agree to set up a crisis communications channel or military-to-military channel of communications that both sides could reliably use if they agreed to it?  When will those channels be set up?
And then generally, can you say that U.S.-China relations are in a better place today than they were before your visit?
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks.  So, with regard to assurances on providing lethal assistance to Russia for use in Ukraine, this is not – this is not new today.  This is something that China has said in recent weeks and has repeatedly said – not only to us, but to many other countries that have raised this concern – that they are not and will not provide lethal assistance to Russia for use in Ukraine.  And that’s an important commitment, an important policy.  And as I’ve said, we’ve not seen anything right now to contradict that.  But what we are concerned about is private companies in China that may be providing assistance, in some cases dual use, in some cases clearly directed at enhancing Russia’s military capacity in Ukraine.  That is a concern, and it’s something that I pointed out to our Chinese counterparts and urged that they be vigilant in policing that.
With regard to crisis communications and military-to-military channels, this is also something that I raised repeatedly during this trip.  I think it’s absolutely vital that we have these kind of communications, military to military.  That imperative, I think, was only underscored by recent incidents that we saw in the air and on the seas.  And at this moment, China has not agreed to move forward with that.  I think that’s an issue that we have to keep working on.  It is very important that we restore those channels.  If we agree that we have a responsibility to manage this relationship responsibly, if we agree that it’s in our mutual interests to make sure that the competitive aspects of the relationship don’t veer into conflict, then surely we can agree and see the need for making sure that the channels of communication that we’ve both said are necessary to do that include military-to-military channels.
So this is something that we’re going to keep working on, and as I said, there’s no immediate progress, but it is a continued priority for us.
Finally, with regard to the trip itself, look, it was clear coming in that the relationship was at a point of instability, and both sides recognized the need to work to stabilize it.  And specifically, we believe that it’s important to, as I said, establish better lines of communication, open channels of communication, both to address misperceptions, miscalculations, to ensure that that competition doesn’t veer into conflict.  And we were able not only today and yesterday to move back to those kinds of communications, but also I think we can anticipate in the weeks ahead visits by other senior officials – Chinese officials coming to the United States for that purpose.
Second, it was important to use this visit for purposes of stabilizing the relationship to be able to directly raise, face to face, issues of concern, places where we have profound differences.  Those disagreements are pretty well-known.  There are bilateral challenges; there are global issues, regional security issues, values, human rights.  And we did, in great detail and at some length, raise them, discuss them; and that is also beneficial – to make sure that we have clarity between us on these differences, clarity on intent.
Finally, this was an opportunity to explore areas where we might cooperate in the interests of our own people, in the interests of people around the world – on climate, on global economic stability, on global health, on fentanyl, as I mentioned – on exchanges, actually, between our people.
So, I think on – in terms of those objectives that we set for this trip – establishing open communications channels, directly raising issues of concern, exploring cooperation in places where it’s in our mutual interest to do so – we did all of that on this trip.  But progress is hard.  It takes time.  And it’s not the product of one visit, one trip, one conversation.  My hope and expectation is: we will have better communications, better engagement going forward.  That’s certainly not going to solve every problem between us.  Far from it.  But it is critical to doing what we both agree is necessary, and that is responsibly managing the relationship.  It’s in the interests of the United States to do that.  It’s in the interests of China to do that.  It’s in the interests of the world.  And I think we took a positive step in that direction over the last two days.
Thank you.
MR MILLER:  Thank you.
QUESTION:  Why should the U.S. engage in continued talks over the coming weeks, if China won’t engage with you on setting those military-to-military channels of communication?
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Because, as we’ve seen, we’re not going to have success on every issue between us on any given day, but in a whole variety of areas – on the terms that we set for this trip, we have made progress and we are moving forward.  But again, I want to emphasize none of this gets solved, resolved with one visit, one trip, one conversation.  It’s a process.  And my hope and expectation is that we’re more engaged in that.
At the end of the day, the best way that we can advance our interests, stand up for our values, and make sure that we are very clear about our intent – the best way to do that is through direct engagement, through diplomacy, and that’s my responsibility.
The meetings that we had, I thought, were very candid, very in-depth, and in places constructive, and in other places we have a lot more work to do.
MR MILLER:  Thank you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.
MR MILLER:  Thank you.