Sino-American relations are, once again, in a downswing. Beijing objected to US President Barack Obama’s receiving the Dalai Lama in the White House, as well as to the administration’s arms sales to Taiwan. There was ample precedent for both US decisions, but some Chinese leaders expected Obama to be more sensitive to what China sees as its “core interests” in national unity.
Things were not supposed to turn out this way. A year ago, the Obama administration made major efforts to reach out to China. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to “being in the same boat,” and that China and the US would “rise and fall together.” US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he spent more time consulting his Chinese counterparts than those in any other country. Some observers even referred to a US-Chinese “G2” that would manage the world economy.
The G2 idea was always foolish. Europe has a larger economy than both the US and China, and Japan’s economy is currently about the same size as China’s. Their participation in the solution of global problems will be essential. Nonetheless, growing US-Chinese cooperation within the G20 last year was a positive sign of bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
Whatever the concerns regarding the recent events related to the Dalai Lama and Taiwan, it is important to note that the deterioration in US-Chinese relations began beforehand. Many US members of Congress, for example, complain that US jobs are being destroyed by China’s intervention in currency markets to maintain an artificially low value for the yuan.
A second issue was China’s decision not to cooperate at the UN conference on global climate change in Copenhagen in December. Not only did China resist measures that had been under negotiation for the preceding year, but Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s (溫家寶) decision to send a low-level official to meet with and point a finger at Obama was downright insulting.
China behaved similarly when the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany) met to discuss sanctions against Iran for violations of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Again, China sent a low-ranking official.
What happened to those promising early signs of cooperation? Two reasons for the change in Chinese behavior — seemingly inconsistent at first glance, but in fact perhaps mutually reinforcing — seem possible.
First, a political transition is expected in 2012, and, in a period of rising nationalism, no Chinese leader wants to look softer than his rivals. This helps to explain the recent crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as the detention of human rights lawyers.
In addition, China may be approaching an economic transition. Some Chinese argue that anything less than 8 percent growth would be inadequate to ensure sufficient job creation and fend off social instability. But, as the US’ savings rate begins to rise, China’s export-led growth model, which has promoted employment in China at the cost of global trade imbalances, may no longer be possible. If China responds to entreaties to revalue the yuan, it may need to look tough on other issues to appease nationalist sentiment.
The second cause of China’s recent behavior could be hubris and overconfidence. China is justly proud of its success in emerging from the world recession with a high rate of economic growth. It blames the US for producing the recession, and now holds some US$2 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves.
Many Chinese believe that this represents a shift in the global balance of power, and that China should be less deferential to other countries, including the US. Certain Chinese academics are now writing about the decline of the US, with one identifying the year 2000 as the peak of US power.
This overconfidence in foreign policy, combined with insecurity in domestic affairs, may combine to explain the change in Chinese behavior in the latter part of last year. If so, China is making a serious miscalculation.
First, the US is not in decline. Americans and others have been predicting decline regularly over the years: after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957; again when former US president Richard Nixon closed the gold window in 1971; and when the US rust-belt economy seemed to be overtaken by Japanese manufacturers in the 1980s. But when one looks at the underlying strength of the US economy, it is not surprising that the World Economic Forum ranks the US second (just behind Switzerland) among the most competitive, while China ranks some 30 places below.
Second, that China holds so many US dollars is not a true source of power, because the interdependence in the economic relationship is symmetrical. True, if China dumped its dollars on world markets, it could bring the US economy to its knees, but in doing so, it would bring itself to its ankles.
China would not only lose the value of its dollar reserves, but would suffer major unemployment. When interdependence is balanced, it does not constitute a source of power.
Third, despite Chinese complaints, the dollar is likely to remain the major global reserve currency, owing to the depth and breadth of the US’ capital markets, which China cannot match without making the yuan fully convertible and reforming its banking system.
Finally, China has miscalculated by violating the wisdom of Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), who advised that China should proceed cautiously and “keep its light under a basket.”
As a senior Asian statesman told me recently, Deng would never have made this mistake. If Deng were in charge today, he would lead China back to the cooperative relations with the US that prevailed early last year.
Joseph Nye, a former assistant US secretary of defense, is a professor at Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS