<p>Edited by Louis Standish</p>
What Do the Visits from High-Level U.S. Officials Mean?
Even if Sino-U.S. relations are not completely out of the pattern of “U.S. pushes, China responds,” formed after China reformed and opened itself up to the world, they are changing profoundly. Facing this kind of change, our first task is to make us stronger and keep improving the power difference between China and the U.S. We will make use of and push this kind of change forward and try to make it permanent, thus laying a foundation with more equality, stability and sustainability for Sino-U.S. relations.
Not since Richard Nixon’s visit to China in the spring of 1972 has China has received so many politicians from Washington D.C.: on May 24th, the U.S. Speaker of the House, the so-called “most powerful woman in Washington, D.C.,” Nancy Pelosi, is leading five members from the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on a five-day visit to China; on the same day, the U.S President’s Special Envoy to Sudan, Major General J. Scott Gration, is visiting China; on the 25th, Democratic chairman Rick Larsen and co-chairman Robert Kirk of the U.S.-China Working Group from the House is arriving in Hong Kong, then going on to visit Guangdong, Shanghai to inspect the Chinese economic situation; on the 30th, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner is visiting China as the president’s Special Envoy. What kind of change to Sino-U.S. relations do these successive visits reflect? How should we deal with it?
There is a common thread among the U.S. officials’ visits to China; that is to seek various cooperation and help from China that will lead to the establishment of a new agreement seven weeks after the consultation that cuts greenhouse gas emission, eases the situation in Darfur, Sudan, strengthens cooperation in dealing with the financial crisis and pushes the preparations of the first U.S.-Chinese strategic economic dialogue forward.
Various signs indicate that even if Sino-U.S. relations are not completely out of the pattern of “U.S. pushes, China responds,” formed after Chinese reformed and opened itself up to the world, they are changing profoundly. Facing this kind of change, our first task is to make us stronger and keep improving the power difference between China and the U.S. Madeleine Albright, the secretary of State
during the Clinton administration, said that “foreign support fortifies U.S. policies,” where power is the basis for international politics and economic communication. Beyond the fact that Nixon opened the door for Sino-China relations, it was a victory of the Chinese troops in North Korea and Vietnam against the U.S., modern Chinese industrial systems and a breakthrough in Chinese diplomacy formed under the blockade. This time, what forces U.S. politicians to be more humble is not a sudden impulse to show mercy; it is a growth of Chinese might, as well as a power shift during this international financial crisis. We must always remember this and integrate it in every aspect of our work.
Second, we will make use of and push forward this kind of change and try to make it permanent, thus laying a foundation with more equality, stability and sustainability in Sino-U.S. relations. Especially for those who are powerful, who were formerly anti-China and once anti-communist politicians. We should pay a great deal of attention to their transformation, because promotion of Sino-U.S. relations from any American politician is likely to be considered as “pulling for China” or “selling out America’s interests.” Genuine American approval will be helpful for them to resolve their past criticisms so they might make incredible contributions to the development of Sino-American relations. By looking at the fact that it was not other people who opened up the door for relations but Nixon, who was once caught up in the anti-communist movement to capture communist spies and who advocated using nuclear waste to block the Chinese and North Korean borders, it is not so hard to understand this point.
Third, we are willing to provide cooperation and help in accordance with our basic interest and within our ability, but the U.S. should come up with real demands and not expect to get China’s interest through sweet words that have no actual content at all. Only on this basis can we talk about compromises and concessions for a mutual agreement. The U.S. must recognize this point. More importantly, our country must accurately grasp the overall situation and have an equal footing with Uncle Sam in any situation.
Fourth, we must open our eyes to the overall situation of the entire world instead of limiting our vision to two-sided relations. Nowadays, China not only has become a powerful country with global interests, but also has performed the best during the global financial crisis. But the U.S. is the world’s only superpower; this means that Sino-U.S. relations must have strong trickle down effects. China and the U.S. also need to design and build a two-way relationship globally, whether this is to protect their interests or to fulfill the obligations of responsible countries. In fact, the bilateral dialogue mechanism is in actuality one that’s about 60, making it impossible to limit it to the two-way relationship in a narrow sense.
Fifth, with the U.S. lowering their expectations, we need to work hard
internally and improve domestic management, which is especially important on the issue of the U.S. controlling exports to China. When the U.S. blocked China in the old days, we independently designed and built Yunshi aircrafts. When the U.S. opened the exportation of civilian aircrafts to China, we destroyed Yunshi’s future due to a lack of a long-term vision, breaking the wings of the Chinese civil aviation industry. This history lesson is worth remembering. As American companies’ reliance on the Chinese market apparently gets heavier during the financial crisis, Larson and Kirk, who are still visiting Hong Kong, Guangdong and Shanghai, announced the “Export Promotion Act” and the “Energy Cooperation Act,” which will help American companies enter the Chinese market, the reason why they’re talking to American entrepreneurs in China. It’s estimated that policies regarding American exports to China might get a little more lax in the future. This might be good news for our country, but if we can’t make a reasonable arrangement, a laxity in American export control towards China might mean that our high-tech sectors are subject to a serious attack.
Not since Richard Nixon’s visit to China in the spring of 1972 has China has received so many politicians from Washington D.C.: on May 24th, the U.S. Speaker of the House, the so-called “most powerful woman in Washington, D.C.,” Nancy Pelosi, is leading five members from the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on a five-day visit to China; on the same day, the U.S President’s Special Envoy to Sudan, Major General J. Scott Gration, is visiting China; on the 25th, Democratic chairman Rick Larsen and co-chairman Robert Kirk of the U.S.-China Working Group from the House is arriving in Hong Kong, then going on to visit Guangdong, Shanghai to inspect the Chinese economic situation; on the 30th, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner is visiting China as the president’s Special Envoy. What kind of change to Sino-U.S. relations do these successive visits reflect? How should we deal with it?
There is a common thread among the U.S. officials’ visits to China; that is to seek various cooperation and help from China that will lead to the establishment of a new agreement seven weeks after the consultation that cuts greenhouse gas emission, eases the situation in Darfur, Sudan, strengthens cooperation in dealing with the financial crisis and pushes the preparations of the first U.S.-Chinese strategic economic dialogue forward.
Various signs indicate that even if Sino-U.S. relations are not completely out of the pattern of “U.S. pushes, China responds,” formed after Chinese reformed and opened itself up to the world, they are changing profoundly. Facing this kind of change, our first task is to make us stronger and keep improving the power difference between China and the U.S. Madeleine Albright, the secretary of State
during the Clinton administration, said that “foreign support fortifies U.S. policies,” where power is the basis for international politics and economic communication. Beyond the fact that Nixon opened the door for Sino-China relations, it was a victory of the Chinese troops in North Korea and Vietnam against the U.S., modern Chinese industrial systems and a breakthrough in Chinese diplomacy formed under the blockade. This time, what forces U.S. politicians to be more humble is not a sudden impulse to show mercy; it is a growth of Chinese might, as well as a power shift during this international financial crisis. We must always remember this and integrate it in every aspect of our work.
Second, we will make use of and push forward this kind of change and try to make it permanent, thus laying a foundation with more equality, stability and sustainability in Sino-U.S. relations. Especially for those who are powerful, who were formerly anti-China and once anti-communist politicians. We should pay a great deal of attention to their transformation, because promotion of Sino-U.S. relations from any American politician is likely to be considered as “pulling for China” or “selling out America’s interests.” Genuine American approval will be helpful for them to resolve their past criticisms so they might make incredible contributions to the development of Sino-American relations. By looking at the fact that it was not other people who opened up the door for relations but Nixon, who was once caught up in the anti-communist movement to capture communist spies and who advocated using nuclear waste to block the Chinese and North Korean borders, it is not so hard to understand this point.
Third, we are willing to provide cooperation and help in accordance with our basic interest and within our ability, but the U.S. should come up with real demands and not expect to get China’s interest through sweet words that have no actual content at all. Only on this basis can we talk about compromises and concessions for a mutual agreement. The U.S. must recognize this point. More importantly, our country must accurately grasp the overall situation and have an equal footing with Uncle Sam in any situation.
Fourth, we must open our eyes to the overall situation of the entire world instead of limiting our vision to two-sided relations. Nowadays, China not only has become a powerful country with global interests, but also has performed the best during the global financial crisis. But the U.S. is the world’s only superpower; this means that Sino-U.S. relations must have strong trickle down effects. China and the U.S. also need to design and build a two-way relationship globally, whether this is to protect their interests or to fulfill the obligations of responsible countries. In fact, the bilateral dialogue mechanism is in actuality one that’s about 60, making it impossible to limit it to the two-way relationship in a narrow sense.
Fifth, with the U.S. lowering their expectations, we need to work hard
internally and improve domestic management, which is especially important on the issue of the U.S. controlling exports to China. When the U.S. blocked China in the old days, we independently designed and built Yunshi aircrafts. When the U.S. opened the exportation of civilian aircrafts to China, we destroyed Yunshi’s future due to a lack of a long-term vision, breaking the wings of the Chinese civil aviation industry. This history lesson is worth remembering. As American companies’ reliance on the Chinese market apparently gets heavier during the financial crisis, Larson and Kirk, who are still visiting Hong Kong, Guangdong and Shanghai, announced the “Export Promotion Act” and the “Energy Cooperation Act,” which will help American companies enter the Chinese market, the reason why they’re talking to American entrepreneurs in China. It’s estimated that policies regarding American exports to China might get a little more lax in the future. This might be good news for our country, but if we can’t make a reasonable arrangement, a laxity in American export control towards China might mean that our high-tech sectors are subject to a serious attack.