Relations between the US and China have been at a low point in recent months. Tensions over US arms sales to Taiwan, US President Barack Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, disputes over the value of China’s currency, a supposed snub of Obama by Chinese leaders at the Copenhagen climate summit in December and the rupture between Google and China have all played a role.
However, Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) visit to Washington for the nuclear security summit, which followed a phone conversation between him and Obama, has set the stage for a serious and calm exchange of views on a range of bilateral and international issues, including Iran’s nuclear program. This calming of the diplomatic atmosphere was helped considerably by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner delaying his report to Congress on whether or not China is a currency manipulator. Geithner even made a quick stop in Beijing on April 8 to meet Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan (王岐山), prompting reports that China may let the yuan float more flexibly.
Nevertheless, before anyone concludes that US-China ties are warming up, it is worth noting that the two countries have starkly different views on how to manage their relationship.
Take the recent Obama-Hu telephone conversation. Reports in the US following the hour-long exchange praised it as a turning point in bilateral relations, and headlines emphasized that Obama worked on Hu to achieve a common stand in sanctioning Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Yet Chinese news releases gave no indication of such a “breakthrough.” Instead, they stressed Hu’s demand that the US side “properly handle” the Taiwan and Tibet issues, which represent China’s “core interests.” There was not even a mention that the two leaders discussed Iran, other than one line saying that they exchanged views on international issues of common concern.
Such discrepancies reflect a broader perception gap. On the US side, the emerging consensus is that the Obama administration began its term committed to working closely with China on a range of issues. It took extra steps in not being openly critical of China’s currency policy, launched the high-profile US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, delayed a meeting with the Dalai Lama prior to Obama’s China trip and showed substantial patience with China’s concerns at the Copenhagen conference.
That conciliatory approach, however, which brought about domestic criticism for Obama, did not seem to be appreciated by the Chinese. Instead, China displayed sharp anger at the US arms sale to Taiwan, something that has been going on for decades, and to Obama’s low-key meeting with the Dalai Lama. Many in the Obama administration now ask: What is the point of being nice when there are no obvious benefits?
On the Chinese side, the initial accommodating approach by Obama, although met with a level of caution and skepticism, was perceived as an inevitable reflection of China’s rise and more equal status with the US. After all, many argue, China continues to buy US treasury bonds and now shoulders the largest amount of US debt, thus financing whatever the US is doing, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to healthcare reform at home.
China has played a vital role in getting the global economy onto a speedier path to recovery, thanks to its effective stimulus package. China is also expected to help resolve the nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran, two counties that are hostile to the US but less of a threat to China.
So China’s leaders felt a sense of betrayal when Obama, shortly after his positive visit to Beijing, went ahead with the arms sales to Taiwan and the meeting with the Dalai Lama. Many mainstream, liberal-minded Chinese academics complain that there is no fresh US approach to China. Rather, these are old policies that do not accommodate China’s new status or respond to “Chinese kindness.”
The problem is not a lack of communication channels. Both countries have interacted with each other for almost four decades. There are no language problems, few cultural barriers and plenty of conferences and personal correspondence. We have seen elegant op-eds written on both sides, more or less articulating how one side is right and the other side wrong. The end result? They talk past each other rather than with each other.
The fundamental issues in today’s US-China relations are the strategic visions that both governments are developing to cope with China’s rise. Americans tend to think that what is good for the US must be good for the world. China — and much of the world, for that matter — however, may not agree. Chinese leaders, for their part, tend to believe that nothing matters much if it is not good for China in the first place.
Both countries must acknowledge that they have their own domestic and foreign policy priorities. Some may be shared; some not. Others may conflict. To accommodate and bridge their different interests, the US and China need to engage in more than just frank discussions. Tangible strategic concessions from both sides must be made in order to promote cooperation and avoid confrontation.
Jiang Wenran is chair of the China Institute at the University of Alberta and senior fellow of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. He is a former public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press
RSS