Hillary’s Influence on Sino-U.S. Relations?

Published in Ifeng
(China) on 4 December 2008
by Tao Duanfang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Alan Kwok. Edited by Christie Chu.
As Obama’s nominated secretary of state, what Hillary Clinton needs to do is to carry out the president’s diplomatic ideology and not her own intentions. Her attitude towards China, whether she is a hawk or a dove, will not mean much in the Obama administration’s diplomatic strategies.

Soon after Hillary Clinton was formally nominated as Obama's secretary of state, two extremes were formed among Chinese communities regarding her influence on Sino-U.S. relations.

One side’s point of view is that Hillary Clinton should understand the China policies of her husband, Bill Clinton, when he was the president, as well as his efforts to maintain a good bilateral relationship. Moreover, many of Obama’s staff used to work for the Clinton administration. Therefore, it is very likely that the layout will stay the same as former President Clinton’s and Hillary’s work as secretary of state will be right on the track.

The other side, however, suggests that Hillary used to speak aggressively about China in Congress and during the election. She, in addition, has been trying to establish an image as a hawk. Her position as secretary of state will turn Bush’s cooperative style of policy on China into a rather stiff style. It will end up impacting the future of the Sino-U.S. relationship.

Objectively speaking, both sides have made a mistake. Hillary’s nomination will not exert any decisive impact toward the development of Sino-U.S. relations.

America’s political system is special. There is no minister of diplomacy. The president handles diplomatic issues and the secretary of state is the chief assistant and second most powerful person in the field. As Obama’s secretary of state, there is in fact no room for Hillary Clinton to apply her own theories of diplomacy. Her job is to assist the president, in this case Obama, to make sure his diplomatic ideology is well implemented. Whether she is a hawk or dove, it will consequently not mean much in the Obama administration’s diplomatic strategies.

One should notice that when Hillary Clinton made those aggressive comments regarding China, she did not do so as a senator but the Democratic Party’s possible presidential candidate. Her purpose was to please voters in certain electoral zones. She was not doing so for America’s national interest.

Hillary Clinton, Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, all used to have tough attitudes toward China when they worked as state governors or senators. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, for example, once they moved in the White House developed more pragmatic policies toward China. Obama’s few public views on China since he won the election and before his inauguration have all been careful. You don't want to jump the gun when you are not yet in the position.

Those who think that Hillary Clinton as the secretary of state will be advantageous to Sino-U.S. relations are seeing her as “Mrs. Clinton.” Those who do not still see her as “Senator Clinton.” Neither of them, however, reveal the real principles of “Secretary of State Clinton” on China.

It is worthwhile to remember that the Sino-U.S. relationship was hardly brought to discussion during the late election. A lot of discussions and comments came out after Hillary Clinton was nominated as secretary of state. Hardly any of these comments, however, were on how she is going to influence Sino-U.S. relations. Instead, Chinese communities were rather enthusiastic about it. The American government runs in a highly pragmatic way. Whether it is close or not close to China does not depend on a single leader’s will but the need of the top national strategies. In other words, it depends on how many mutual benefits there are between the two countries and what these benefits mean substantially to the U.S.

This actually reminds us: when it comes to relationships between countries we do not need to care too much about our personal relationship with foreign politicians and leaders or their personal opinions. What we need to pay attention to are the stakes between this country and China and China’s international status accordingly. The latter in particular is how the country’s policies really matter for China.

(Mr. Tao Duanfang is a scholar and is currently living in Canada.)



作者:陶短房

作为奥巴马的国务卿,希拉里必须体现前者的外交思路,而无权自行其是,她个人对中国的态度,她是鹰派或鸽派,对整个外交战略的影响是有限的。

希拉里被正式提名出任下届美国国务卿,消息传出,华人圈对其一旦履新,对中美关系将构成怎样影响,作出了趋于两极的预测。

一派观点认为,克林顿在总统任期内重视美中关系,营造了良好的双边交往氛围,作为克林顿的妻子,希拉里不可能对此毫无认识,更何况奥巴马已透露的阁员和团队内,有不少重要成员系克林顿时代旧人,由希拉里出任国务卿,美中关系的改善可谓轻车熟路,顺理成章。

另一派观点则指出,希拉里在国会和竞选期间曾对华“放炮”,本人也一直刻意自我塑造成强硬的“鹰派”形象,她出任国务卿,将改变布什政府对华合作的主基调,转而展现强硬的一面,对美中关系的前景构成阴影。

客观地讲,这两派的观点都“押错了宝”,希拉里的提名,其实并不足以对美中关系走向构成决定性影响。

美国的政体较为特殊,阁员中并无“外长”一职,外交是总统直辖,而国务卿则是总统在外交事务上的第一助手,外交领域的二号人物。显然,作为奥巴马的国务卿,希拉里必须体现前者的外交思路,而无权自行其是,她个人对中国的态度,她是鹰派或鸽派,对整个外交战略的影响是有限的。

必须注意到,希拉里曾经对华“放炮”,不是以参议员、就是以民主党总统提名候选人资格作出的,其目的是取悦本选区的选民,出发点也并非站在美国国家利益层面上,事实上不论希拉里、奥巴马,还是曾任州长的布什、克林顿,在参议员、州长等位置上,都曾表现出对华强硬的态度,但克林顿和布什一旦入主白宫,就改取对华务实政策,而当选后的奥巴马虽未正式就职,其寥寥的对华政策阐述,也多了一份谨慎。不在其位,不谋其政,认为希拉里就职有利于美中关系的,是把她当作“克林顿夫人”看待;而持相反观点的,则仍停留在对“参议员希拉里”的印象上,然而这些都不能反映未来“国务卿希拉里”的对华关系原则。

值得一提的是,在整个美国大选期间,对华关系很少被各候选人提起、炒作;希拉里获国务卿提名消息传出,美国和其他国家媒体高度重视,纷纷评论,却极少有人提及此提名将对美中关系产生怎样影响,反倒是华人圈议论纷纷。道理很简单,美国政府是高度实用主义的典型,其对华关系的亲疏冷热,并不取决于某个领导人的个人取向,而取决于国家最高战略利益的需要,即两国间究竟有多少共同利益,这些共同利益对美国有何等价值。

这倒给我们提了一个醒:在国与国关系层面上,无需太在意和外国政治家、领导人的个人交情,以及他们的个人立场,而更应关注这个国家和中国的利害关系,关注中国自身国际地位的变化,因为后者才是足以左右外国对华政策的要害。

□陶短房(旅加学者)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Trump Is Playing with Fire. Does He Want the Whole House To Go up in Flames?

Switzerland: Trump’s Military Contingent in Los Angeles Is Disproportionate and Dangerous

   

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Germany: LA Protests: Why Are So Many Mexican Flags Flying in the US?

Spain: Trump-Musk: Affair, Breakup and Reconciliation?

Topics

India: What if Trump Has Just Started Another ‘Forever War’?

Russia: Will the US Intervene in an Iran-Israel Conflict? Political Analyst Weighs the Odds*

Cuba: Summit between Wars and Other Disruptions

Germany: Resistance to Trump’s Violence Is Justified

Germany: LA Protests: Why Are So Many Mexican Flags Flying in the US?

Spain: Trump-Musk: Affair, Breakup and Reconciliation?

Switzerland: Trump’s Military Contingent in Los Angeles Is Disproportionate and Dangerous

   

Germany: If You’re Not for Him, You Should Be Afraid*

Related Articles

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem