Recent friction between China and the US has caused a lot of concern for the future of Sino-US relations among observers. The question is whether US President Barack Obama administration’s China policies really are becoming tougher as some observers say.
Some think the US has rebounded from the financial crisis and reduced its reliance on China, while at the same time it has gotten fed up with Beijing’s military and strategic expansion, and is therefore actively trying to come up with a plan to contain China. Others think containment is incompatible with globalization and is a misinterpretation of US policy.
The Obama administration of has not changed its China policies, and it continues to apply the carrot and the stick through its “smart power” diplomacy because it wants to find a way to perpetuate its position as the leader, even if it is unable to cooperate or reach compromises with China on major global issues.
Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor who coined the term smart power, says the concept is a combination of hard and soft power, and the crucial point is to combine the two in a way that they benefit both parties rather than create divisions between them. After his inauguration, Obama has relied on smart power diplomacy in a forceful attempt to remedy the damage to US soft power (its attraction) caused by his predecessor George W. Bush’s reliance on hard power (the ability to threaten and entice). This is why Obama has stressed listening, negotiation and contact as a way to mend the US’ international image and foreign relations.
US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton has made four week-long visits to Asia since her appointment, a clear indication that the US intends to return focus to the region. The US has been quite successful in this endeavor, as is reflected by the fact that Clinton’s statement that the US is opposed to any country backing up any sovereignty claim with military force or the threat of military force won the support of 12 countries at the recent ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi.
Although Clinton never named a potential adversary, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) picked up on the challenge and said Clinton’s speech was in fact an attack on China, and he publicly refuted the US’ “biased position.” On forums at the Xinhua news agency’s Web site, the word “smart” in “smart power” had been replaced by “clever and deceitful,” and users remained skeptical about Obama’s speech in Tokyo where he stressed that the US is not trying to contain China, and that China’s rise is helpful to international security and prosperity.
China sees the US’ smart power diplomacy as “clever and deceitful” diplomacy because it feels it is an empty phrase. In addition, it also feels the US needs Beijing to buy up US bonds to be able to handle the financial crisis, while China’s performance has been extraordinary. This is why China is merciless in its response to Clinton’s statement. On the one hand, it will not compromise when it comes to China’s core interests, and on the other hand, it will not lightly accept international responsibility.
This is also the reason why several of Obama’s attempts to use smart power have been rejected by China. Examples include: The joint declaration issued by Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) does not match the conclusion of the Copenhagen climate conference; when Obama wanted to follow up on the sale of arms to Taiwan by sending US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on a good will tour to China, the visit was rejected; when the US avoided directly condemning North Korea and instead held a joint military exercise with South Korea, Beijing protested and said the exercise threatened China’s national security; and when the US praised the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) and said it would facilitate regional peace, stability and prosperity, China stressed the importance of a US review of its arms sales to Taiwan.
These examples show clearly that Hu has shifted from late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) more low key foreign policy, toward the more assertive diplomacy of his predecessor Jiang Zemin (江澤民). China is now responding in a tough way to Obama’s smart foreign policy, making the US appear weak and Obama inept, so that China finally can take center stage on the international arena.
However, Beijing’s high profile highlights the fact that China is no different from any other country that has risen to international prominence. They all bide their time while creating space for themselves before they slowly begin to challenge the strong powers of their time and finally create a dominant position for themselves.
As a consequence of China’s disregard for Obama’s smart power diplomacy, there is now reason to talk of a China threat, and the US can claim both legitimacy and necessity when continuing its strategic deployments in the East Asian region in the post-cold war era.
Emerson Chang is director of the Department of International Studies at Nanhua University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS