America and China Walking toward an Era of Full Competition

Published in China Times
(Taiwan) on 15 March 2011
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Alice Cwern. Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
The recent turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East has driven up global oil prices, and led big countries to rethink and re-deploy their energy strategies. Meanwhile, it has also provoked a new round of competition between China and America. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at a Senate confirmation hearing that if Congress cut the budget of overseas contingency operations, it would put the U.S. at a disadvantage to China in the competition.

In fact, in his State of the Union address back in January, President Obama had already stated multiple times that in order for the United States to win the future, it was necessary to maintain its long-term competitive strength. Also in his address, Obama commented that China had been raising its education level and its budgets on scientific research, and he believed that the U.S. must invest more resources into improving its education system, developing biomedical technology, clean energy technology and so forth. These similar pledges made by Obama and Clinton are no different than a declaration of the era of competition between the U.S. and China.

The effort to secure the stability of energy supply is originally the key to China and America's global competition. As both countries are major importers and consumers of oil, it is inevitable for the Middle East and Africa to become a fighting zone in foreign diplomacy between the two. As a matter of fact, since China National Offshore Oil Corporation attempted to purchase America's Unocal Corporation in 2006, the American politicians and scholars in general agreed that China's strategy on resources had become a threat to America's established interests in the Middle East. If a conflict arises in the future between China and America, it will be caused by a fight over resources.

China has already set up a new philosophy for its energy strategy. Beijing is investing in politics and trading with its energy exporters in order to secure the stability of it energy resources. To America, China's energy strategy has already affected America's basic position to maintain the stability of oil production in the Middle East, to prevent the spiking of oil prices and to secure the safety of energy delivery. At this stage, America's differences regarding energy strategy may not affect the will to coordinate between the two countries, but it is still going to be difficult to come up with a plan that is effective.

There is also competition in economic development models between China and America. It is undeniable that as China's economy keeps on growing, its influence is affecting more and more areas — from Vietnam to Syria, Burma to Venezuela and further expansion to the whole African continent. And as the influence is still multiplying, it has created the phenomenon of the "Beijing consensus" replacing the "Washington consensus." In recent years, it appears that China's active efforts in foreign trading have secured its global political influence. When Beijing promoted and held the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation, it drew a lot of attention from the Western media to investigate China's model. European media substantially covered China's "Marshall Plan" of developing manufacturing bases in Africa. American media also deciphered China's new tactic of "walking out" as an act of building a new image of China. Some Western scholars who followed the trend even publicly called on European countries and the U.S. to change their ways of aiding Africa.

Most of the liberal scholars of global relations agree that a body with less dependence tends to treat interdependence as a source of power in international relations, haggles over certain issues and hopes for a fluctuation to occur. In this interdependent relationship between China, the United States and the Middle East/Africa, the countries that produce energy are actually the ones in charge, while China and the U.S. are the dependents that rely on the energy, and it is easy for the two to fall into a bad cycle of competition.

The history of international economic development has proven that the prosperity of a regime depends on whether it possesses main energy resources. For example, the presence of coal drove the European Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, and the technology of nuclear energy gave the U.S. the ability to become the superpower of the 20th century. In other words, the one who can master the new source of energy in this century will have the economic advantage. By looking at Obama's address earlier this year, the United States is going to focus on pushing the research and promotion of low-carbon power generation in the future by developing new energy sources, such as biofuel, wind energy, solar energy, hydrogen energy, carbon capture and storage and others.

Meanwhile, China has been putting a lot of effort into the research and development of new energy, such as wind energy and solar energy; it built more wind turbines than the United States. China's development of green energy will be in a competing stage with America. Although Hu Jintao visited the U.S. in February in order to seek coordination with America on energy — based on the fact that competition remains a bigger part of the Sino-America relationship than coordination, and America still sees China as its strong competition — the result of their collaboration on new energy development is still under observation. However, energy development will no doubt remain the main topic of the competition and conflicts between China and America.

At this moment, as the race over global energy is still heating up, the competition and tug-of-war between China and America in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America will likely have a repelling effect on Taiwan's investments and returns in energy development. The competition and coordination between China and America often affects the cross-strait relations, and their effect on Taiwan's economic interest is inevitable. It is easy to see that this relationship of competition cannot be easily changed between China and America. Both countries need to work together to maintain a unique relationship of competition and coordination that is beneficial to the cross-strait and America. In further explanation, the coordination between China and America needs to be more expedient and more flexible. The real challenge to Washington will be how to urge China to collaborate on building a relationship and an international setting that will benefit everyone.


 近期北非與中東的動亂,造成了國際石油價格飛漲,促使大國思考部署新的能源戰略,同時也激發了中美兩強新一輪的外交競爭態勢。美國務卿希拉蕊本月初在參議院的聽證會就表示,國會若削減外交預算中的外援計畫,將導致美國與中國的競爭處於劣勢。

 其實,歐巴馬總統元月間發表的國情咨文,就曾多次強調美國為贏得未來,需要確保長期的競爭力。歐巴馬的演說刻意提到中國正在提升教育水準與增加科研經費,認為美國今後必須投入更多的資源,用於改進教育體制、發展生醫科技和乾淨能源技術等。歐巴馬與希拉蕊相近的宣示性言語,無異宣告美、中關係已走向全面性競爭的時代。

 確保能源供應的不虞匱乏,原本是中美在全球競爭的關鍵。雙方同為石油進口與消費大國,中東與非洲難免成為其外交競逐的地區。事實上,隨著 2006年中海油試圖收購美國石油公司優尼科開始,美國政界與學界即普遍感受到,大陸的能源戰略已威脅美國在中東的既得利益。未來中美如果發生衝突,能源爭奪會是起因。

 大陸能源布局已發展一套合縱連橫的新外交思維。北京作法是,藉著對能源出口國的政治與經貿投資,確保穩定的能源供應。對美國而言,大陸的能源戰略已衝擊到美方維持中東石油穩定生產、防範石油價格劇烈波動、保障能源運輸安全的基本立場。現階段中、美面對能源問題的分歧,可能無涉雙方的合作意願,困難的是無法促成有效的合作方式。

 經濟發展模式也是中美另一項競爭領域。毋庸置疑,大陸經濟發展經驗的影響範圍,已經從越南到敘利亞、緬甸到委內瑞拉、進而擴大至整個非洲大陸,且不斷被複製當中,產生了「北京共識」取代「華盛頓共識」的效應。近年來,大陸對外經貿合作的積極作為,對穩固其全球政治影響力,似已顯現成效。以北京推動召開的「中非合作論壇會議」為例,就不斷引起西方輿論探究中國模式的興趣。歐洲媒體曾大幅報導大陸在非洲建立製造業基地,推行中國版「馬歇爾計畫」;美國輿論亦把大陸企業「走出去」的戰略,解讀為樹立中國新的形象;西方學者基於這股中國熱,更公開呼籲歐美國家要改變對非洲的援助方式。

 國際關係的新自由主義派學者多認為,國際間依賴性小的行為體傾向把相互依賴視為權力資源,會就特定問題與對手討價還價,繼而期望它產生溢出效應。中、美、中東或非洲三方的相互依賴關係中,能源生產國才是居於主導地位,中美處於能源受益的被動地位,較易陷入相互競爭的惡性循環。

 國際政治發展的歷史印證,強權興衰多與是否擁有關鍵能源有關,例如煤帶動了18世紀的歐洲工業革命,核能技術讓美國成為20世紀的超級強權;換言之,誰能在本世紀掌握新的能源,就必然享有經濟領先的優勢。從歐巴馬年初的國情咨文來看,美國未來將會著重於加強低碳能源技術的研發與推廣,藉著開發包括生物燃料、風能、太陽能、氫能、碳捕集與封存等新能源,進一步強化美國的外部競爭力。

 同樣地,大陸近年來亦積極研發風電或太陽能等新能源技術,去年風電的總裝機數更超越了美國。大陸在綠能產業的發展,未來會和美國形成競爭態勢。胡錦濤今年2月訪美,尋求與美方的能源合作儘管是重點,但基於雙方競爭大於合作的基調不曾改變,美國仍把大陸視為強勁競爭敵手,中美有關新能源領域合作的成果,仍有待觀察。不過可以確信是,能源依然是中美競爭與衝突的主要議題。

 此時此刻,全球能源競奪方興未艾之際,中美在中東、非洲及拉美的競爭與抗衡,極可能對台灣投資能源開發與取得產生排擠效應。中美間的競與合,往往會牽動兩岸關係,更難免波及到台灣的經濟利益。在可見的未來,中美這種全面性競爭態勢恐不易改變。雙方需要維持某種獨特的既競爭又合作關系,共同塑造讓兩岸三邊都受益的思維體系。進一步詮釋,中美的互動必須較以往更權宜也更靈活。華府需面對的真正挑戰是,如何敦促大陸合作構建一個各方受益的雙邊關係與國際格局。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Sri Lanka: Qatar under Attack: Is US Still a Reliable Ally?

Austria: Donald Is Disappointed in Vladimir

Topics

Spain: Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death

Germany: Trump Declares War on Cities

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Related Articles

Taiwan: Trump’s Japan Negotiation Strategy: Implications for Taiwan

China: Trump’s Tariff Policy Bullies the Weak, Fears the Strong and Applies Double Standards

Taiwan: Trump Stacks the Deck: EU-Canada Trade Talks Forced To Fold

Taiwan: 2 Terms Won’t Satisfy Trump

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice