Candidates Dilute Issue of China

Ma Hui, director of the China Association for International Understanding (CAFIU), following his attendance and observation of the 2008 U.S. Democratic and Republican National Conventions, remarked on September 4th that “China is not the focus of this year’s U.S. presidential election.”

On the night of September 4th, McCain made the “grand finale show” by delivering a speech, accepting the Republican presidential nomination. However, in his 4,000-word speech, not a single word was uttered about China, nor anything on the trade deficit, nor the RMB exchange rate.

In late August at the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party’s key figures, including Obama himself, rarely mentioned China-focused topics in their speeches.

In Denver and St. Paul, both the Democrats and the Republicans displayed special caution when requested to comment on issues that involve China. Even their respective foreign policy advisers, when asked by a reporter (the writer herself) of their China policy, only offered a few words of comment.

The U.S. presidential election has been known as “domestic issue-focused.” However, between the years 1992 and 2000, China became a major issue of controversy between presidential candidates of the two parties. The U.S.-China relationship, after these two elections, also experienced a longer period of adjustment.

During this year’s election, that the China topic was “diluted” has bearing on the sluggish U.S economy and its burning domestic issues. In a recent public opinion survey, 60 percent of Americans think the economy has been the focus of attention. In the framework of the economy, the American general public is more concerned about tax-cut policies as they directly affect their quality of life; which explains why other issues such as reducing the trade deficit or forcing the appreciation of the RMB draw little attention.

On the other hand, both parties coincidentally “water down” the China topic, which can be interpreted as the two presidential candidates’ sharing more of a “consensus” on policy toward China. Both sides have stressed the importance of cooperation between the United States and China, and welcomed the growing prosperity of China which is expected to play an important role in the international community.

During the conventions, the foreign policy advisers of the two parties also expressed “good will” to China. Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Wendy Sherman, told a reporter (the writer herself) that if Obama is elected, he will be visiting China in his first term of office, as he has been putting great emphasis on the importance of U.S.-China relations; while McCain’s foreign policy assistant responded that McCain welcomes rapid economic development in China, believing that China’s rise can be achieved in a peaceful manner, and that this will help eliminate the “concerns” from other countries.

Since the normalization of Sino-U.S. relations in 1979, the present period has been regarded as the longest one of stability. Two countries become more closely interdependent in economic and strategic issues, as characterized by more and more strongly interconnected common interests. It is precisely because of the tremendous benefits of U.S.-China cooperation, that neither Obama nor John McCain, unlike Clinton and Bush, will be playing the “China card” as a means of attacking each other.

With regard to the direction of Sino-U.S. relations after the election, Ma Hui holds the view that during this year, regardless who wins the election, he will no doubt safeguard America’s interests. But “where lies the interests of the United States? — they are reflected in cooperation with China.”