US and China depend on each other for currency, trade, development and security: breaking this reliance would cause about the same consequences of the Cold War. But while the Cold War was a balance of terror with no carrot for either side and only the nightmare of a cataclysmic nuclear stick, a breakdown in the US-China relationship would bring greater poverty and political chaos Its rules are far more complicated and intricate than the zero-sum game played with the Soviets. There is too much to gain in developing the US-China relationship and too much to lose in breaking it.
China’s pivotal role in trying to get North Korea to commit to denuclearization and return to multilateral talks on its nuclear program could bring United States President Barack Obama a substantial reward for the long-standing US approach of peaceful engagement with Pyongyang. Furthermore, it would be Beijing’s first significant political contribution to Obama’s policy of a renewed and strengthened commitment with China. The positive signs over North Korea coincide with another hint of an improved mood between the US and China following the month-long spats over Google, US arms sales to Taiwan and the US president’s planned meeting with the Dalai Lama.
At the last weekend, China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi attended the Munich Security Conference in Germany for the first time. Jin Canrong, associate dean of the People’s University’s School of International Studies sees China’s presence at the conference as a thaw in China-US ties. In his view it was probably initiated – or at least approved – by Washington.
The thaw could well be the right time to summarize what had been going on between the two sides since Obama left Beijing at the end of his first official visit to China last November. A diplomatic flurry is going on in Beijing to mend fences and a couple of important visits are expected in Beijing after Chinese New Year which was observed on February 14. The two sides want to make sure Chinese President Hu Jintao will attend a nuclear disarmament summit in America in April.
GENESIS- ISSUES
At issue is a U.S. decision to sell Taiwan $6.4 billion in helicopters, anti-missile systems and other weapons a deal that was actually set in motion by the Bush administration.
At issue is a U.S. decision to sell Taiwan $6.4 billion in helicopters, anti-missile systems and other weapons a deal that was actually set in motion by the Bush administration.
China views Taiwan was a breakaway province but President Obama was right to give the go-ahead, according to US establishment. Doing otherwise would have spread doubts in Asia about the future of America’s commitment to security in that region. And it would tempt China into even more aggressive moves against Taiwan, which has been supported for decades by administrations of both parties.
By statute, Washington is obligated to supply Taiwan with defensive arms. China’s response has been to suspend military ties with the U.S., which were on the mend after a 2008 suspension prompted by a separate weapons package.
BEIJING’S STRIDENCY
What’s different this time is Beijing’s stridency. China is also making noises over Obama’s plans to meet with the Dalai Lama. Beijing also threatens to slap sanctions on the companies that supply the weapons to Taiwan, a move it has not made openly in the past.
Obama administration’s first moves toward China were conciliatory. Washington signaled that it would not press China on human rights. Before his Beijing trip last Nov, Obama put off a meeting with the Dalai Lama. He also soft-pedaled the human-rights question while he was there.
But China interpreted Obama’s moves as weakness and began testing the new president. The White House responded by rescheduling the Dalai Lama’s meeting and refusing to drop the Taiwan arms deal.
Obama invested much time in his first year wooing China. He went further than any of his predecessors in forging bilateral ties, but he felt that the Beijing important summit left him with little to show when he returned home. The Chinese did promise commitment on Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea, but with very few details, which was a bad sign. On the currency issue, they pledged the yuan would be revalued to the dollar, but "in due course". That is, it could be months or years before American exports could get a boost through devaluation.
At the beginning of 2010, almost as if to set the tone of the year, America unleashed a potential nuclear bomb – the Google case. The giant Internet company complained that some of its accounts had been hacked by China. And talked of no longer abiding by Chinese laws and not filtering its search engine in China. In short, Google threatened to pull out of the country.
Google row was in the making for months. Trouble began brewing after Taiwan-born Lee Kaifu left as China president of Google, and it is extremely complex. There are three aspects –all co-related and with a bearing on each other: freedom of the Internet and Chinese censorship, the security concern about government-sponsored hacking and control of the flow of personal information on the Internet, and the commercial ‘deal’ between Google and the Chinese government.
China felt cornered, as it does exercise censorship on the Internet, which is very difficult to justify, and, like many other governments, as it also keep a keen security eye on the web for strategic reasons. Yet while other governments sponsor counter-hacking initiatives, China has no limits to the state power. Therefore China’s hacking, combined with its censorship, sounds far more alarming than hacking by a democratic government.
In all this, the timing is important. The issue had been brewing for months, but the US administration green-lighted it just at the beginning of the year. Possibly, the combined effect of the Copenhagen failure and the Liu and Shaikh cases convinced Washington it might be the right time to send a message. For certain, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to up the ante on Google, delivering a tough speech on Internet freedom aimed at China on January 21, two days after the humiliating defeat the Democratic party tasted in their traditional Senate Seat from Massachusetts.
That defeat and the traditional battle cry in the Democratic camp for liberty and freedom in Red China set the stage for American announcement of sale of weapons to Taiwan. The timing of the sale announcement in the middle of the Google controversy, was apparently aimed to deliver a message- American dissatisfaction with Beijing
Obama needs quick results that can be shown in the mid-term elections in November. China’s leaders, who are unconcerned with electoral rigmarole, think of longer-term solutions and then tend not to rush (but drag their feet) on complex issues like Iran and North Korea. It seems very likely now that China will be more cooperative with America. However, it will be a complex year ending, perhaps with a major environmental agreement at the Mexico City summit.
China has no real, deep friends in the world whereas America, despite all its weakness, can command friendship and loyalty from many countries. The US can muster global forces around China or any country it deems a problem. America can command global public opinion and even influence Chinese domestic public opinion, whereas the Chinese government sometimes has a hard time commanding its own arena.
TAIWAN
The Sino-US relationship has undergone a change recently. Although US President Barack Obama adopted a low-key approach during his visit to China last November, he was humiliated by Beijing at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. This has forced Washington to take a tougher stance, and it has used the spat between Google and China as a point of departure. Both President Ma Ying-jeou’s transit stopovers in the US on his way to and from Latin America and the US announcement of the arms sales package to Taiwan involve what Beijing calls its core interests, and as a result, tension between China and the US has intensified.
It is obvious that the main reason the US gave Ma such a warm reception this time was Washington’s concern that his incompetence and isolation would accelerate his surrendering to China. Washington wanted to show its support for Ma. If China did not protest, the same kind of reception would probably be given to other presidents from Taiwan in the future. If it did protest, then the Taiwanese would understand that China would be unlikely to respect Taiwan regardless of how Ma played up to Beijing.
As for the US arms sales package, Washington is simply granting a request submitted by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) during its years in power — a package that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), as the then-opposition, vetoed. However, the arms deal is a watered down version that the US discussed first with Beijing, a move that diminishes the Taiwan Relations Act.
Ma Ying-jeou appears so pleased with himself that it is no wonder DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen is frustrated.
Although the US is making concessions to leave some leeway for Sino-US relations, Beijing’s series of reactions and retaliatory measures do not leave much room for manoeuvre. The sign that there may be some leeway is the fact that the top leadership has maintained its silence.
The Chinese retaliation has taken four forms: First, planned visits by military officials between China and the US have been suspended. Second, other Sino-US military exchanges have been postponed. Third, the next round of annual defense consultations at the deputy minister level on strategic security, multilateral arms control and non-proliferation have been postponed. Fourth, US companies participating in the arms sale to Taiwan face sanctions.
The first two measures are relatively insignificant. In light of Beijing’s hostility to the US, as well as the US’ military advantage, China would benefit more from such visits and exchanges.
The third measure means an end to China’s cooperation with the US on the issue of North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear weapons development and terrorism. But Beijing is already supporting these two countries, so Washington should not have high expectations. Perhaps it is a good thing that Beijing shows its true colours.
As to the fourth point, China purchases certain military products from US companies because it cannot produce them. It would be good for both national security and world peace if the US stops selling these items to Beijing. Ideally, other Western nations should not sell such products to China either. Unfortunately, profit concerns make that difficult for US and other Western enterprises.
The Sino-US relationship has undergone a change recently. Although US President Barack Obama adopted a low-key approach during his visit to China last November, he was humiliated by Beijing at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. This has forced Washington to take a tougher stance, and it has used the spat between Google and China as a point of departure. Both President Ma Ying-jeou’s transit stopovers in the US on his way to and from Latin America and the US announcement of the arms sales package to Taiwan involve what Beijing calls its core interests, and as a result, tension between China and the US has intensified.
It is obvious that the main reason the US gave Ma such a warm reception this time was Washington’s concern that his incompetence and isolation would accelerate his surrendering to China. Washington wanted to show its support for Ma. If China did not protest, the same kind of reception would probably be given to other presidents from Taiwan in the future. If it did protest, then the Taiwanese would understand that China would be unlikely to respect Taiwan regardless of how Ma played up to Beijing.
As for the US arms sales package, Washington is simply granting a request submitted by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) during its years in power — a package that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), as the then-opposition, vetoed. However, the arms deal is a watered down version that the US discussed first with Beijing, a move that diminishes the Taiwan Relations Act.
Ma Ying-jeou appears so pleased with himself that it is no wonder DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen is frustrated.
Although the US is making concessions to leave some leeway for Sino-US relations, Beijing’s series of reactions and retaliatory measures do not leave much room for manoeuvre. The sign that there may be some leeway is the fact that the top leadership has maintained its silence.
The Chinese retaliation has taken four forms: First, planned visits by military officials between China and the US have been suspended. Second, other Sino-US military exchanges have been postponed. Third, the next round of annual defense consultations at the deputy minister level on strategic security, multilateral arms control and non-proliferation have been postponed. Fourth, US companies participating in the arms sale to Taiwan face sanctions.
The first two measures are relatively insignificant. In light of Beijing’s hostility to the US, as well as the US’ military advantage, China would benefit more from such visits and exchanges.
The third measure means an end to China’s cooperation with the US on the issue of North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear weapons development and terrorism. But Beijing is already supporting these two countries, so Washington should not have high expectations. Perhaps it is a good thing that Beijing shows its true colours.
As to the fourth point, China purchases certain military products from US companies because it cannot produce them. It would be good for both national security and world peace if the US stops selling these items to Beijing. Ideally, other Western nations should not sell such products to China either. Unfortunately, profit concerns make that difficult for US and other Western enterprises.
CHINA RETALIATES?
Will China retaliate economically? Chaos would ensue if it lost the US market.
For the Sino-US confrontation, whoever backs off first will be considered a “paper tiger.” The US usually does not pursue defeated enemies, but give China an inch, and its rogue nature ensures that it will take a foot. This has been evident in the development of Sino-US relations over half a century.
As Washington constantly backs down, Beijing has elevated the Taiwan issue to a core interest in recent years, and this can come to affect other US spheres of influence in the future. The US used to offer protection to the KMT dictatorship in decades past, but today, Taiwan has transformed into a democracy.
Chinese Rear Admiral Yang Yi said in an interview with China News Service on Jan 6 that it was time for China to lay down the rules for the US. Yang also recently criticized Ma. By allowing a low-level official like Yang to insult Ma, Beijing is behaving like a bully.
Taiwan has effectively dropped a request for U.S. submarines averting what could be a new rift in tense Sino-U.S. ties. The move is also to avoid Beijing’s wrath. The island nation agreed with Washington in 2008 to a study on upgrading its aging submarine fleet but now will stop pushing the item to keep peace with Beijing. Taiwan hopes to get F-16 jets though to boost its airpower to deal with China’s growing numbers of Russian-designed Su-30 and Su-27 fighters.
For the Sino-US confrontation, whoever backs off first will be considered a “paper tiger.” The US usually does not pursue defeated enemies, but give China an inch, and its rogue nature ensures that it will take a foot. This has been evident in the development of Sino-US relations over half a century.
As Washington constantly backs down, Beijing has elevated the Taiwan issue to a core interest in recent years, and this can come to affect other US spheres of influence in the future. The US used to offer protection to the KMT dictatorship in decades past, but today, Taiwan has transformed into a democracy.
Chinese Rear Admiral Yang Yi said in an interview with China News Service on Jan 6 that it was time for China to lay down the rules for the US. Yang also recently criticized Ma. By allowing a low-level official like Yang to insult Ma, Beijing is behaving like a bully.
Taiwan has effectively dropped a request for U.S. submarines averting what could be a new rift in tense Sino-U.S. ties. The move is also to avoid Beijing’s wrath. The island nation agreed with Washington in 2008 to a study on upgrading its aging submarine fleet but now will stop pushing the item to keep peace with Beijing. Taiwan hopes to get F-16 jets though to boost its airpower to deal with China’s growing numbers of Russian-designed Su-30 and Su-27 fighters.
CHINA WRONGED?
The Chinese felt wronged in Copenhagen. China had gone in promising a 40% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020. It wanted no money in compensation for the cuts. China expected the whole world would applaud to its move, but was booed and cornered instead.
China realized the importance of global public opinion, but it chose wrong instruments – CCTV, the People’s Daily and Xinhua, which are always eager to take a slice of the pie rather than to make an effort to influence world public opinion. In fact, these big state media outlets are by themselves unconvincing, no matter what product they churn out. World doesn’t trust state media, especially the voice of an authoritarian state. No surprise therefore, China doesn’t get a sympathetic press on the global scene.
Senior Chinese military officers have proposed that their country boost defense spending, adjust PLA deployments, and possibly sell some U.S. bonds to punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan. Experts from China’s National Defence University and Academy of Military Sciences articulated this stand in interviews to the Outlook Weekly, a Chinese-language magazine published by the official Xinhua news agency.
"Our retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we should adopt a strategic package of counter-punches covering politics, military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms and root cause of this disease," said Luo Yuan, a researcher at the Academy of Military Sciences.
He added: "Just like two people rowing a boat, if the United States first throws the strokes into chaos, then so must we.”.
Elaborating Luo said Beijing could "attack by oblique means and stealthy feints" to make its point in Washington. For example, we could sanction them using economic means, such as dumping some U.S. government bonds."
These interviews appear to be Chinese way of telling the world that there is domestic pressure to deliver on its threats to punish the Obama administration over the arms sales to Taiwan.
China is likely to unveil its 2010 military budget in March when the Communist Party-controlled national parliament meets for its annual session. Last year, the military budget at 480.7 billion yuan ($70.4 billion), up by 14.9 percent, thus continuing a nearly unbroken trend of double-digit increases over more than two decades.
The Outlook interviews show PLA officers expect a big ticket defence budget. ‘Due to the threat in the Taiwan Sea, we are increasing military spending’, Luo told the weekly.
