Edited by Jessica Boesl
Has Obama’s Attitude Toward China Changed?
Published in Liberation Daily (Jiefang Ribao)
(China) on 10 February 2010
by Yuan Ting (link to
original)
An editorial in First Financial Daily published on Feb 4, 2010, remarked: The China-U.S. relationship will soon experience strong jolts.
First, Washington has voiced many criticisms of how China manages the Internet. Additionally, the U.S. announced that it would sell weapons to Taiwan, a grave underlying offense [to China]. Furthermore, the U.S. stated that President Obama would meet with the Dalai Lama, again deliberately provoking China.
Why is Obama doing this? Has his attitude regarding his policies on China changed? It should be said: Only based on the emergence of these issues can one prematurely assert that Obama’s thinking on China has changed. However, Washington’s diplomatic strategies toward China are being constructed behind China’s back, undeniably obscuring some of its motives [from China].
First, the domestic pressure of holding office has forced Obama’s administration to manipulate international political issues, diverting his vision and focus. Obama’s slogan, loudly crying for “change” in his rise to political power, almost earned him a low grade on his report card during his first year in office. There are many reasons that have created a need for the Obama government to seek out a “target” in the foreign diplomacy sphere. Because of the enormous trade deficit between China and the U.S., the continually rising friction in trade, differences in awareness and consciousness between the two countries and China’s rapid rise to economic power, China has become the ideal “target.”
Second, in the economic and financial spheres, China has purchased a large amount of U.S. national debt, becoming one of the U.S.’s largest creditors. In the last few years — particularly since the explosion of the economic crisis — China has demanded the restructuring of international economic order, becoming a stronger voice in leading Western (especially American) reformation of international economic structures. Under the circumstances, the U.S. seeks to contain China’s “weapons.” In the economic realm, the U.S. must ride out the storm together with China, but in the political and other realms, the U.S. can manipulate key topics of discussion. This will serve to restrict China’s might. This line of thinking is determined by the U.S.’s own strategic interests.
Actually, as Obama’s government has encountered the pressure of domestic politics and has had to make choices, it need not go through any painstaking efforts to boycott China. However, the Obama administration ought to strengthen China-U.S. relations using bilateral win-wins in order to push U.S. economic development and thus resolve its domestic issues. The practice of diverting one's focus or focal points frequently is one that aims for small gains, only to suffer big losses, which can be counter-productive.
First, Washington has voiced many criticisms of how China manages the Internet. Additionally, the U.S. announced that it would sell weapons to Taiwan, a grave underlying offense [to China]. Furthermore, the U.S. stated that President Obama would meet with the Dalai Lama, again deliberately provoking China.
Why is Obama doing this? Has his attitude regarding his policies on China changed? It should be said: Only based on the emergence of these issues can one prematurely assert that Obama’s thinking on China has changed. However, Washington’s diplomatic strategies toward China are being constructed behind China’s back, undeniably obscuring some of its motives [from China].
First, the domestic pressure of holding office has forced Obama’s administration to manipulate international political issues, diverting his vision and focus. Obama’s slogan, loudly crying for “change” in his rise to political power, almost earned him a low grade on his report card during his first year in office. There are many reasons that have created a need for the Obama government to seek out a “target” in the foreign diplomacy sphere. Because of the enormous trade deficit between China and the U.S., the continually rising friction in trade, differences in awareness and consciousness between the two countries and China’s rapid rise to economic power, China has become the ideal “target.”
Second, in the economic and financial spheres, China has purchased a large amount of U.S. national debt, becoming one of the U.S.’s largest creditors. In the last few years — particularly since the explosion of the economic crisis — China has demanded the restructuring of international economic order, becoming a stronger voice in leading Western (especially American) reformation of international economic structures. Under the circumstances, the U.S. seeks to contain China’s “weapons.” In the economic realm, the U.S. must ride out the storm together with China, but in the political and other realms, the U.S. can manipulate key topics of discussion. This will serve to restrict China’s might. This line of thinking is determined by the U.S.’s own strategic interests.
Actually, as Obama’s government has encountered the pressure of domestic politics and has had to make choices, it need not go through any painstaking efforts to boycott China. However, the Obama administration ought to strengthen China-U.S. relations using bilateral win-wins in order to push U.S. economic development and thus resolve its domestic issues. The practice of diverting one's focus or focal points frequently is one that aims for small gains, only to suffer big losses, which can be counter-productive.