China and US Should Show Their Hands

A common theory about Vice President Xi Jinping's visit to America is that it will most likely “shape U.S.-China relations for the next decade.” America's extensive and meticulous preparations for Xi Jinping's visit — as well as Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs Cui Tiankai's recent public response to [former] Chongqing Vice Mayor Wang Lijun's 24-hour “hold up” last week at the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu claiming that “this was an isolated incident” and “would not affect Xi Jinping's trip to America next week” — demonstrate that this is a visit on which the two nations place great importance.

Within the history of U.S.-China relations, the two have been colored “Cold War adversaries,” “cooperative partners,” “competitors,” “strategic partners,” etc. Unfortunately, however, the most fitting description may have been that of being “adversaries” during the Cold War. The icy term aptly reflects the two nations' style of conduct and interaction during that period. At the time, regardless of the two nations' leadership, this fact was hard to mistake, unlike other points in U.S.-China relations, in which mutual criticism was difficult to avoid due to misunderstandings. Accordingly, if China and the U.S. are really to set the tone of their relationship, there is a problem that they must solve: finding a means by which China and the U.S. can get along on this planet.

Present-day U.S.-China relations could easily slip into a downward cycle. For example, European diplomats expressed a lack of understanding about China's attitude towards Iran and Syria: Why did China vote in the Security Council to oppose sanctions on Syria? Why didn't China join and support the West's oil embargo on an Iran that is currently developing nuclear weapons?

As to this question, China's position has always been clear: that is, non-interference in internal affairs. On the problem of Iraq, China actually loosened up a little on its policy. However, looking at the current state of affairs in Iraq, there must be those in all Western nations who harbor regrets, as they had pinned their hopes on a war to establish a perfect democracy.

Actually, even if one uses logic derived from the history of international relations in the West, it isn't difficult to provide an explanation for this — China has reasonable energy and business interests in the region which it cannot abandon. The Libyan situation proved that the West clearly did not safeguard and, objectively speaking, even harmed China's present and future interests there. After completely disregarding the livelihood of others, how can the U.S. still ask others for help? Taking Iran and Syria as examples, even ordinary people in China are suspicious of the West's motives. Is the West hoping first to topple Syria's ruler, then completely isolate Iran, afterward making Iran into a second Syria or Libya?

Even discounting Libya, is the current reality in Iraq enough to convince China to allow the West to make another victim of Iran? At a time when energy resources are so vital to China, if America truly wishes to gain China's cooperation, the proper way to go about it should be to safeguard China's reasonable interests in the region, as well as to not cause severe upheaval and suffering there, but rather ensure that they do not create another Iraq. Holding serious discussions and seeking solutions with China only under these two premises is how one should ordinarily treat a partner. Do America's methods make ordinary Chinese feel that the U.S. really sees China as a partner? I'm afraid that currently, seeing the U.S. as a partner is quite difficult.

In the Pacific region, America is actively getting involved in disputes between China and several other nations over territorial waters. It has deployed more forces to the Western Pacific, and there are still American congressmen who maintain an aggressive attitude, all of which worry China. Despite the fact that the U.S. has apparently said much but done little because of the economic slump, it is America's bearing and intent which makes one suspicious. No nation can ignore “threats” from the world's most powerful nation, even if they are threats which will most likely not amount to anything.

At present, the greatest threat to the world comes from economic uncertainty. The U.S. and China are now the world's largest and second-largest economies. At the same time, there also exists no small amount of economic trouble for these two nations. The U.S. economy has been in a slump for years, and as President Barack Obama said, it will be difficult to recover in the short term. Although China is an exception in the midst of widespread economic depression, it has many problems of its own. In world affairs, America cannot remove itself from ties with China; China also needs the cooperation of America to maintain a smooth rise in power. This situation dictates that China and the U.S. must find a way to get along.

As Fred Bergsten, the director of America's Peterson Institute for International Economics, first pointed out in 2008, and as demonstrated by Obama's proposal of the “G2” concept to Chinese leadership on a state visit, China may still have its misgivings.

However, the inability to take that step does not imply that the U.S. and China cannot first choose certain areas or regions of mutual interest, even if discussed one by one, and carry out tentative, experimental cooperative action. In accordance with America's new ideology of freedom and its emphasis on cooperation and institutions in international relations, without stable cooperation there can never be a stable system.

To bring about stable cooperation, the U.S. and China must share their thoughts and intentions. Consequently, whether or not the U.S. and China's mode of coexistence can be determined is the greatest point of interest for Vice President Xi's trip to the U.S. Even if only a preliminary consensus is reached, it will be reassuring. The U.S. and China have truly reached the point where they should show their hands.