Editor's Note: U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is on her visit to China. She sees this trip as an opportunity to communicate and avoid miscommunication or misunderstanding. Does this "talking about talking" really help? Despite Yellen's denial, the U.S. actions under the name of de-risking share the essence of its previous decoupling attempts. What is behind the tricks? Einar Tangen, current affairs commentator, shares his views. The commentary reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

I'm Einar Tangen, and welcome to Reality Check. As U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visits Beijing, the reality is, the U.S. is the world's largest consumer, while China is the world's biggest producer. The U.S. is the world's biggest debtor, while China is the world's biggest saver. The U.S. depends on China to finance its deficits, while China relies on the U.S.'s capital markets to park its savings. However, the relationship, which for over three decades created robust inflation-free growth for the U.S., and prosperity for China, is in danger.

The U.S., with less than five percent of the world's population, consumes almost 20 percent of the world's yearly output, and owes 10 percent of the world's total debt. China, with 18.5 percent of the world's population, produces a little over 18.5 percent of the world's GDP. China consumes less than it produces, resulting in large trade surpluses. Its governmental planning, economies of scale, robust infrastructure, and consumer-focused innovation, have made it an indispensable part of the global supply chain.

But beginning with the Obama Administration's "Pivot to Asia," the relationship has steadily deteriorated. Washington, fearful that China's economic rise would challenge American hegemony, which entitles the U.S. to lead the world into a monotheistic combination of Liberal Democratic Capitalism, has embarked on a containment and public relations strategy, similar, in many respects, to what it did against a rising 1970's Japan.

China's success, using a different system, has created an existential dilemma for Washington, which took as gospel, that American Exceptionalism was justified, because it was the only way to align the world and prevent World War Ⅲ. Without the rationale of American Exceptionalism, there would be no justification for Washington's history of wars, political interference, treaty breaking, unilateral actions and disregard for international institutions and laws.

So, what started with misaligned hope, on Washington's side for regime change in China, and on China's side for peaceful economic rejuvenation, has now descended into an ideological conflict, where Washington repeats big lies as part of a long con. 

Against this backdrop, Beijing was, and still is, hoping that Secretary Yellen will address tariffs, investment restrictions, blacklists, and de-dollarization. But, given her speech in April at Johns Hopkins, and her Tweet upon arriving in China, which continued to emphasize security over economics. The U.S. seeks "healthy competition," but "we will take action to protect our national security when needed."

And her summation of her hopes for the trip, "this trip presents an opportunity to communicate and avoid miscommunication or misunderstanding." It's difficult to be optimistic. "Talking about talking" isn't going to change a situation in need of positive actions, nor was the hypocritical statements Yellen made to U.S. companies in China, about her concerns about subsidies and unfair treatment, given Washington massive tech subsidies, extensive blacklisting of Chinese firms and individuals, and pending curbs on U.S. investment in China. This wasn't helpful.

In the end, the divide threatening the U.S., China, and the world is about Washington's self-centered desire to maintain power regardless of cost, like Trump's unilateral tariffs, continued by Biden, which have hurt American consumers more than Chinese businesses.

While Yellen denies the U.S. wants to decouple, the Biden administration's verbal support for de-risking, and hostile trade actions, contradicts her. Decoupling and de-risking are like Alice in Wonderland's Tweddle Dee and Tweddle Dum, you can't tell them apart. Cynically speaking, decoupling and de-risking, are just cogs in Washington's public relations long con. Washington repeats false information about China, until people start believing it, as part of an effort to convince the world that peace depends on America's continued political, economic, and military hegemony. Washington for example, coerces nations into black-listing Chinese firms, like Huawei, and then accuses China of coercion.

The purpose is to create the illusion that the U.S. is the good guy, while anyone not in line with U.S. hegemonic supremacy, is a bad guy. An illusion eagerly repeated by the international media in print, radio, TV, and heavily manipulated social media.

So, when you hear about "decoupling" and "de-risking," or "talking about talking," keep in mind unless there are concrete actions, it is just a cynical PR game supporting a long-term con.

Script: Einar Tangen

Editors:  Liang Zhiqiang, Duan Jiaxin

Designer: Qi Haiming

Producer: Wang Ying

Chief editor: Ren Yan

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)