The Hostility in the Hearts of Those American Legislators

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 7 December 2017
by Ding Gang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Fiona McAllister. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
Apple boss Tim Cook made a high-profile appearance at the recent World Internet Conference, which drew criticism from U.S. senators. One was concerned that Cook had failed to fulfill his “obligation to promote free expression and other basic human rights.”* Some U.S. legislators cannot bear to see anyone be close to China, especially Donald Trump. After Trump signed several big deals on his recent visit to China, some members of Congress concluded that it signaled America’s defeat, and America’s defeat to its “primary enemy” at that.

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi even said, “You can almost hear the leadership of the Chinese government laughing from China to America. Maybe you can feel it coming through the ground, because if you dig a hole here, you will reach China. But the reverberation is so appalling." This will easily remind the Chinese people of the famous comment by Chairman Mao that we should support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support. But Mao said this at the start of the second Sino-Japanese War to call for unity against Japanese aggressors. Is there currently a state of war between the U.S. and China? Of course not. Why does Pelosi want to make China out to be the enemy? Well, this is American politics.

Pelosi’s mocking of President Trump presupposes one thing ⎯ that China is America’s “enemy” ⎯ that what is bound to make China happy is whatever makes the U.S. unhappy. China definitely has not yet really become America’s enemy, but assuming that China is the “enemy” is very easy in the current U.S. political climate. With comments like this, it is not difficult to see the failure of U.S. politics today. It is normal for those who have just come into office to oppose those who have just left, and those who have just left office to rebut this.

The U.S.−Sino relationship is important; it is often at the center of disputes both between and within U.S. political parties, and has become the weapon of choice with which to attack opponents. China is thus often unnecessarily attacked without provocation. This is the real pity of U.S. politics.

Since President Trump’s visit to China, although Washington has not revealed a complete China strategy (perhaps this is a definite strategy), Trump has contacted and talked with China’s highest leaders many times, and has even made it clear that he believes both sides wish to avoid a trade war or similar conflict, find common ground and resolve a few difficult issues. This kind of pragmatic approach creates a stable developing foundation for bilateral relations.

What makes people uneasy is that this approach is being hindered by intense political infighting in Washington. A few media outlets have already started using the phrase “Chinagate” around Trump in addition to “Russiagate.” Fundamentally, this infighting has meant President Trump has less energy to devote to formulate important foreign policy. Diplomacy is a continuation of a country’s internal affairs. Ever since Trump took office, America’s internal affairs have seen continuous and dramatic change; the intense opposition between the two parties as well as opposition between factions within the Republican Party has already seriously impacted the formation of a series of U.S. foreign policies.

Although members of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party may promote constructive ideas in America’s interest, in the current hostile environment there is very little room for harmony. The boundaries within Washington’s politics are becoming very distinct: What you oppose I will support, and what you support I will oppose. Against this political background, China is continually displaying leadership power on the world stage. This is quickly becoming an important topic both within each party and between the two parties. U.S. policy toward China has become an issue both parties use to attack each other. The U.S. mainstream media outlets that dislike Trump will continue to use the topic of China to attack Trump’s foreign policy. Public opinion in China and the U.S. will continue to put pressure on U.S. domestic politics.

The author is a leading reporter for The People’s Daily newspaper.

*Editor’s note: This phrase, while accurately translated, could not be traced back to a specific source or independently verified.





那些美国议员内心深处的“敌意”

苹果CEO库克最近在世界互联网大会上的高调亮相,引发美国参议员批评。一名议员担忧,这家科技巨头未能履行其“推动言论自由和其他基本人权的义务”。美国一些参议员似乎见不得谁跟中国走近,尤其是特朗普。特朗普访华签署大单后,一些美国国会议员认为,那是美国的失败,而且是败给了自己的“主要敌人”。

  美国众议院少数党领袖佩洛西甚至说,“你几乎可以在美国听到中国领导人的笑声。或者从地面感觉到,毕竟你从美国挖个洞,对面就是中国。这回响是想不听也不行了。”

  这些都很容易让中国人联想到毛泽东主席的名言,凡是敌人反对的,我们就要拥护,凡是敌人拥护的,我们就要反对。但这句话是在中国抗日战争开始之时所说,表达的是要团结一致共同抗击日本侵略者的意思。

  美中之间现在是战争状态吗?显然不是。那么佩洛西们为什么要把中国当做敌人呢?这大概是美国政治使然吧。

  佩洛西讽刺特朗普总统已经预设了前提,中国是美国的“敌人”,让中国高兴的事必定是让美国不高兴的事。但中国并非真的就已经成了美国的敌人,而是因为把中国假设为“敌人”,在美国现在的政治环境中,很容易被接受。

  这样说来,今天的美国政治倒也不难理解。它的一个基本标准就是台上的要反对台下的,台下的一定要和台上的拧着来,不能拧的也要拧。

  中美如此重要的一对大国关系,被置于美国两党和党内博弈的“角斗场”中心,成为攻击对方要利用的一种“武器”。中国因此经常会“躺着中枪”。这真是美国政治的悲哀。

  从特朗普总统的中国行看,虽然华盛顿的对华战略还没有一个完整展示(也许这就是一个已经确定的战略),但他的言行,以及他与中方最高领导人的多次接触和会谈,均表明双方可以并且愿意找到避免发生贸易战或别的什么冲突的方式,找到共同点,解决一些难题。这种务实态度,使得两国关系有了进一步稳定发展的基础。

  令人不安的是,这种态度正在因华盛顿激烈的政治内斗而受到牵制。美国一些媒体已经在“通俄”的大帽子上,给特朗普头上再加一顶“通华”的大帽子。至少,这样的内部斗争使得特朗普总统很难将更多的精力转移到制定重要的对外关系政策上来。

  外交是内政的延续。特朗普总统上台以来美国内政不断出现的戏剧性变化,两党的尖锐对立,以及共和党内部建制派与非建制派之间的斗争高潮迭起,已经严重影响到一系列美国对外政策的整体安排。

  民主党或共和党建制派人士虽然也有从美国利益出发提出的建设性意见,但是在现在这样的敌对气氛中,协调空间非常狭小,这些意见也成了“攻击”对方的一部分。华盛顿的政治界限正变得泾渭分明:你反对的,我就拥护;你拥护的,我就反对。

  在这样的政治背景下,中国在国际舞台上不断展现出的领导力,就会很快地转换成为两党和党内博弈借用的重点话题,对华政策成为一方攻击另一方的发力点。那些不喜欢特朗普的美国主流媒体也会继续借中国问题来攻击特朗普的对外政策。中美两国的舆论氛围将持续承受美国国内政治的压力。(作者是人民日报高级记者)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Pakistan: After Me, the Deluge

Mexico: The Military, Migrants and More

Germany: Resistance to Trump’s Violence Is Justified

Germany: Can Donald Trump Be Convinced To Remain Engaged in Europe?

Sri Lanka: Pakistan’s Nobel Prize Nominee and War in Middle East

Topics

Canada: Trump Did What Had To Be Done

Japan: Reckless Government Usage of Military To Suppress Protests

Mexico: The Military, Migrants and More

Australia: NATO Aims To Flatter, but Trump Remains Unpredictable

Germany: Can Donald Trump Be Convinced To Remain Engaged in Europe?

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Iran and Israel: a Fragile Cease-fire

India: US, Israel and the Age of Moral Paralysis

Related Articles

Canada: Trump Did What Had To Be Done

Australia: NATO Aims To Flatter, but Trump Remains Unpredictable

Germany: Can Donald Trump Be Convinced To Remain Engaged in Europe?

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Iran and Israel: a Fragile Cease-fire