Who Should Be Responsible for the Turbulence in the Sino-U.S. Relationship?

In less than a month since the beginning of the second decade of the new century, there have been two major incidents that involved the three great civilizations of the contemporary world: the Islamic civilization, the Western Christian civilization and the Eastern Confucian civilization. First was the old friend of the West, Tunisia’s Ben Ali, being ousted by the Jasmine Revolution that appeared suddenly, triggering the tension and worry of the entire Arab world. This once again exposes the difficulties the Islamic society faces as it modernizes. Second was the first state visit to the U.S. in 13 years by a Chinese president under the great attention of the whole world. According to CNN’s report, it was “the meeting of (two) superpowers.” The commentary on the front page of France’s Le Monde said, “This is the first time in a long while that the U.S. has met a power (challenger) in the areas of economy, military, technology and culture.” This, however, is not the entire story. The real meaning behind it is the rise of China and the decline of America.

The wax and wane of the three great civilizations weren’t the center of the world’s attention. The world is more concerned with whether the Sino-U.S. relationship, as the most important bilateral relation in the world and the foundation of global stability and development, could avoid the turbulence and conflicts of 2010.

Indeed, the Sino-U.S. relationship is so important that they cannot oppose each other, and could not break the stalemate. If they did so, not only would China and America not be able to bear the consequences, the whole world would not be able to bear them either. The friction between China and America that lasted the whole of last year, however, has left us with a lingering fear. In the meeting between Hu Jintao and Barack Obama that ended recently — though the welcome ceremony was extremely formal, extravagant and unparalleled in scale, underneath the sheen — the exchange between the two contained hidden messages and agendas. Though President Obama was happy to see the peaceful rising of China, his condition was that it must be in accordance with international rules. Chairman Hu replied that they should respect each other’s choices of development paths and respect each other’s core interests. It was obvious that while Hu’s visit could ease the tense relationship between the two sides, it did not substantially resolve the divergence and opposition between them. A question posed by a reporter from Xinhua News during the press conference held jointly by Hu and Obama — The Sino-U.S. conflict stemmed from the lack of strategic mutual trust between them. How can that be changed? — seemed to have hit the nail on the head. People cannot help but ask: Who should be responsible for the turbulence in the Sino-U.S. relationship?

The topics of debate between China and the U.S. can be made into a very long list: trade deficit and the renminbi’s exchange rate, human rights, Dalai Lama and sales of arms to Taiwan, the South China Sea, North Korea and Iran.

There truly exists between China and the U.S. a huge trade deficit, and the renminbi’s exchange rate has the effect of fanning the flames for this deficit. Even as the statistical approaches for the deficit differ between China and the U.S., the renminbi’s appreciation is of no help to the U.S.’s trade deficit — other nations will quickly fill in the gap left by China. This, however, is still the real problem existing between the two sides, and it involves the real interests of both nations. The U.S.’s concern for this and its expressing of its opinions to China is something within reason. And although China is defending itself, it is also actually responding seriously and effectively. During his visit to the U.S., Hu signed deals that amounted to $45 billion to balance trade deficits of the two sides. The renminbi has also been appreciating. We should say that, on this agenda, America’s dissatisfaction is reasonable, and China’s measures have also been responsible. Both sides have reached a consensus.

Putting the question of whether the U.S. is qualified to talk about human rights issues with China (torturing of inmates, massacre of commoners, racial discrimination, not having approve core international human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) aside, the main question is: When has America, including the whole of the Western world, really cared about the human rights of other countries? Look at France. When Tunisia’s Ben Ali was not able to suppress the protesters’ demonstration, the French foreign minister openly suggested that he make use of the advanced experience France had in dealing with similar incidences in a national assembly, and work with them to train security forces to help in resolving the problem (resolving here means suppressing). When Nixon visited China, did China have human rights issues? Just when China’s human rights made great improvements, it has become the main point of conflict between the two sides. This is really ridiculous. If America really was dissatisfied with China because of human rights issues, why did it practice double standards with Middle Eastern alliance nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? We should know that these countries do not even practice gender equality and monogamy! Why didn’t America raise the issue of human rights with them? At the end of the day, the West is simply using human rights as a tool for contention and transaction with other nations. If China claims that torturing of prisoners, massacre of commoners, racial discrimination and not approving conventions with regards to human rights issues have seriously affected the development of relations between China and the U.S., will America believe this?

Issues that involved China’s interest like Tibet and armament sales to Taiwan, however, have nothing to do with America. According to the Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqué, America has promised to reduce sales of military arms to Taiwan. We should say that before the Cold War ended, America basically kept its promise. But after the Soviet Union disintegrated, be it in the scale of speed or advancement, America’s sale of arms to Taiwan was rapidly rising. The Joint Communiqué’s power to restrain no longer existed. This is not only an issue of America’s credibility, but even more so a challenge and damage to China’s national interest. However, the U.S. did not abide by the official communiqué, violating it wantonly. How can China and America then establish strategic mutual trust?

The Tibet problem is also China’s core interest. If America’s so-called obligation to Taiwan has certain historical rationale to it, America’s relationship with Tibet is totally a product of the Cold War. If America has real economic and strategic interests in Taiwan, there aren’t any in Tibet. Other than restraining China and becoming a card for bargaining with China, there is no other meaning to it. If Taiwan is the touchstone for the Sino-U.S. relationship, Tibet has greater purity. It can be said that if America did not make any substantial changes on the issues of selling arms to Taiwan and meeting the Dalai Lama, the improvement and deepening of the Sino-U.S. relationship would stop on the superficial level. Conflict and unrest between both sides may surface any time. (Can China sell arms to an autonomous Cuba?) How can two superpowers with no trust between them lead the world and work together to solve the problems that the whole world is facing?

The South China Sea is the latest point of contention between China and America. If Tibet and Taiwan were issues left over from history, America’s intervention in the South China Sea issue is a new challenge to China. The South China Sea incident involved China’s maritime authority and the wholeness of its territory, but all the same, it has nothing to do with America. America, however, actively built an anti-Chinese ring of encirclement and held military drills jointly with Vietnam, supporting other nations in their quest for authority over the South China Sea. Though America knows that China is dead set against the South China Sea issue being internationalized and would never accept any solutions employing multilateral mechanisms to resolve the South China Sea conflict, it went ahead and did so. How can China not suspect America’s intentions looking at its actions, and how can there not be waves in the Sino-U.S. relationship? If China intervened in the Caribbean and the Mexican Gulf, what would America think? How would it respond?

The most ridiculous issues between China and America are those of North Korea and Iran. This is not only because North Korea and Iran are autonomous countries, but more importantly, America also has the Israel and Cuba issues. America’s siding with Israel and sealing off of Cuba for over half a century have already caused anger in the whole world. Israel, especially, has been illegally invading and occupying Arabian territory and refusing to execute the relevant United Nations resolutions. It even launched armed attacks openly on a civil humanitarian aids ship in the open sea. In a show of support for Israel, America has even gone to the extent of boycotting the U.N.’s anti-racial discrimination meeting. Even so, China did not engage in a conflict with America on the Israel and Cuba issues. It also did not persuade Saudi Arabia to limit oil exports to China, like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did in order to pressure China to punish Iran. Looking at the U.S., however, not only did it not change its unjust foreign policies, it even used the North Korea and Iran issues to give China problems. How can China then believe America’s sincerity in wanting to work together?

Apparently, all these so-called Sino-U.S.-centric problems are bogus problems, with the exception of trade frictions. All these are measures the U.S. has taken to curb and provoke China. The turbulence and the twists and turns in the Sino-U.S. relationship were the handiwork of America alone. As for the reason, it was not that China would threaten world peace upon its rise. During World War II, America made a documentary, “Why We Fight.” When it talked about China, it had this conclusion: This country has never, in history, invaded any other countries. Of course America knew this. When China adopted a Confucian culture, it stopped being a country that encourages a military spirit. The significance of China is to defend the Great Wall. America is not afraid that China would become a second Japan or Germany after its rise. If so, why does America insist on provoking and curbing China again and again? The reason is very simple. China’s rise would provide a second choice for the development of countries all over the world. If America loses its soft power and meets with another global financial crisis, it would be the end of America (Can America do another round of quantitative easing? Will the world still be kidnapped by America’s economy? Will anyone continue to buy America’s bonds?). This is why Obama stated repeatedly that he cannot be the number two man.

In the contest between China and America, America’s objective is to maintain its hegemony, and for China, most of its issues involve its autonomy. Hegemony cannot be given away, and autonomy cannot be let go. The Sino-U.S. relationship will forge ahead in turbulence, until America becomes number two, or when China’s rise fails.