Even American media feel this is unusual! On July 8, after China's Taiwan Affairs Office explicitly warned Gregory B. Craig, the U.S. Bloomberg News published a special article claiming that China’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office had, for the first time in a routine press briefing, directly named and criticized the Taipei representative of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), Gregory B. Craig. The American media noted that this marked an extremely rare instance of China issuing a public and severe official rebuke against the 'top diplomatic official' permanently stationed in Taiwan by the United States.
Bloomberg pointed out that historically, China’s retaliatory or public criticisms have mostly targeted high-level Washington figures such as the U.S. Secretary of State, members of Congress, or senior White House officials. This time, however, China went further by using the U.S. President’s publicly stated commitments as a benchmark to criticize a mid-level diplomat. The American media observed that this indicates China has not outright rejected the top-tier U.S. government’s overall policy toward China, thereby preserving room for future communication between the two sides. But the pressing issue now is that frontline U.S. diplomats appear increasingly inclined to bypass or even hijack the official U.S. leadership's policy direction on China.
Evidently, the fact that American media specifically published an article reporting our explicit warning to Craig shows they recognize this move was carefully calculated. The situation is clear: Craig’s actions can only fall into one of two possibilities. First, he may have received instructions from higher-ranking U.S. officials—though certainly not from Trump himself. Second, Craig might be fully acting in accordance with directives from the highest level. However, given the current state of Sino-U.S. relations, the first scenario is far more likely.
Trump oversees the general direction of Sino-U.S. relations, while day-to-day implementation depends on the administrative system led by Rubio at the Department of State. Within this system, hardliners on China are never absent, and they may very well act independently. By explicitly warning Craig and measuring his conduct against the U.S. President’s own public promises, we are placing all issues squarely on the table. Our decision not to warn Rubio or the broader U.S. government reflects our own strategic considerations.
Beyond reserving space for continued dialogue between China and the United States, the more crucial point is that we are sending a clear message to the U.S. leadership: the actual implementation of U.S. policy toward Taiwan is deviating and distorting, and we are watching closely. By making this situation explicit, we are putting pressure on the U.S. government to rein in its subordinates. In short, we don’t just monitor U.S. promises—we also scrutinize their real-world execution. If, after our warning, certain U.S. personnel continue acting as before, we may have no choice but to take countermeasures.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870210378960009/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.