No More Speculation about a “U.S. Conspiracy”

The Chinese president, Hu Jintao, will visit the U.S. right before the Chinese New Year. This is a very important visit. 2010 probably saw the most problems ever in the Sino-U.S. relationship, which if left unresolved, may badly affect the development of Sino-U.S. relations and possibly even the whole world. Today China is rising while the U.S. is declining. The meeting of the heads of state of the two countries is very significant, because the bilateral relationship is suffering from an imbalance and is becoming increasingly difficult to manage. For China, it faces the tough task of economy restructuring, which is probably hard to complete without help from the U.S. and other Western countries. Furthermore, in the coming two years, the U.S., China, Korea and Japan will change their heads of state, so it’s of paramount importance that the Sino-U.S. relationship return to normality before the changes.

However, the Sino-U.S. relationship is dampened by undercurrents of tension, which are strengthened by the increasingly severe domestic fighting in the two countries and political competition on the international stage. In the U.S., the undercurrent of tension is the perceived “China threat.” This undercurrent is championed by the new conservatives, some liberal scholars, military and intelligence personnel, delegates of the arms industry and ordinary Americans currently facing economic hardship. They trumpet the ideas of a “China rising” and a “U.S. in decline,” and argue that the so-called Leninist “Beijing Consensus” has replaced the democratic, free and market economy-based “Washington Consensus,” fussing that the rising China and the declining U.S. will be destined to fight a war just like the rising Germany and the declining British before World War I. To add salt to the Democrats’ wound, the Republicans in Congress are taking advantage of this situation to place the blame on Barack Obama and the Democrats’ humble attitude to the Chinese government, urging them to dramatically adjust the U.S. policy toward China to make Beijing alter its own behavior so that the U.S. regains its past glory.

In China, the undercurrent of tension is the so-called “American conspiracy.” This undercurrent is championed by extreme nationalists and groups of vested interests. Behind the mask of patriotism they highlight the 100 years of humiliation suffered by the nation and fuss that the U.S.-led Western camp is a die-hard enemy of China that is strangling China through the American objection to the Chinese exchange rate, its loans to foreign countries, China’s trade surplus, the problem of global warming, American anti-terrorist activity in the Middle East and the wariness of neighboring countries toward China. They advocate that “China can say NO,” “China is unhappy,” and China’s model of development can be applied globally. The distorted Chinese media give a significant part of the spotlight to this undercurrent. The Chinese policy of maintaining stability and the timing of the change in personnel of the top Chinese leadership makes the Chinese attitude toward the U.S. easily susceptible to this kind of mindset.

Although the two countries’ undercurrents of tension are subverting the constructive and cooperative relationship, the Chinese leadership has been able to remain quite sober in policymaking. They are telling the world and the Chinese people that China is and will always be a country aiming for peaceful development, that it is not interested in hegemonic power and is incapable of catching up with the U.S. This is not only up to the heads of China, but also requires greater participation from the ordinary people of China to express this message to the world.

At the same time, to remove the mindset of an “American conspiracy,” American observers of China should explain as follows to the Chinese people: First, in the U.S. the media enjoy freedom of the press; the views of the media are not necessarily that of the government. Second, the U.S. is a democratic country in which sometimes politicians may attack China to win elections. Third, though Congress can influence the U.S.’ laws and policies, its impact is slow. Fourth, if the U.S. means to contain China, it would not have established such a close economic and financial partnership with China, nor would it admit Chinese scholars and students. Fifth, there’s still a wide gap between the U.S. and China, and it is ignorant and arrogant to claim that the U.S. is declining.

For all the differences in history, culture and institutions between the two countries, it’s impossible to reach a consensus on everything. The two sides may deviate or even come into conflict over national interests and security issues. We must be vigilant, as there are many people and groups seeking to sabotage the relationship between China and the U.S. because of ideology and vested interests, and they can become even more active because of domestic political needs and volatile international relations. In these complicated circumstances, with courage and vision, the leaders of the two countries must work together to establish a framework for a long-lasting relationship, just like what their predecessors did. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who made a lasting contribution to the establishment of Sino-U.S. relations, pointed out that the two countries need a fourth joint communiqué, which will not only ensure that they treat each other fairly and justly, but also ensure that they can play more historically important roles on the international stage even in the context of the differences in their histories, identities and cultures.