Will a New Secretary of State Make a Difference?

Published in Guangming
(China) on 16 February 2013
by Wang Yusheng (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jingman Xiao. Edited by Lydia Dallett.
Kerry differs in diplomatic demeanor from Hillary and might be more pragmatic in terms of policy behavior. People are expecting him to bring a “positive energy” in this time of change, and not without reason.

America’s ambition of setting up a grand strategy of world peace under U.S. rule is hard to change. It has not been done by Hillary and Kerry cannot be counted on.

Had Kerry’s speech been serious or had Obama been more acutely aware of America’s fundamental and long-term interests and conformed to the trend of this era, the Sino-U.S. relationship could have gone the other way and the next four years could have been America’s great period with great opportunities. Obama’s second term has started and fresh blood has been transfused into his team, with Kerry's appointment as the U.S. secretary of state being the most prominent change.

Hillary has finally left office. Some praise her for her unforgettable contributions as the secretary of state whereas some question her for the awful mess she has left behind. Undeniably, she lived up to her role of pursuing a perfect American global strategy and has been a “mighty” secretary of state. As for China, she has always been betting on two directions. She has made quite a lot of comments that are beneficial to the relationship between China and the U.S. but made even more negative comments and displayed more negative policy behavior, not failing to contain China and spread the so-called “China threat.” Now, Kerry has already assumed office. A deluge of comments has been made by scholars from both countries, most of which tend to see Kerry as more pragmatic and predict that at least some small changes might be adopted in American diplomacy. However, some think Obama merely changed the secretary of state without changing the fundamental elements, and thus one should not place hope in Kerry.

Kerry has been engaged in diplomatic affairs for a long time. From his attitudes on major international issues and some more sensitive ones such as the Sino-U.S. relationship, along with his voting record, not only is he different in diplomatic demeanor from Hillary, but he also tends to be more pragmatic in terms of policy behavior. Apart from that, he has an intimate interpersonal relationship with Obama and also has a similar diplomatic ideology to Obama’s. Thus, it is reasonable for people to have placed some expectations on him and hope that he would exercise “positive energy” during this transitional period. Suggesting that Obama is simply appointing a new secretary of state without making much of a difference does not do him justice. Some of his words, from both before and after his appointment, are worth giving a thought. He questions the necessity for the U.S. to keep increasing its military power in the Asia-Pacific region and thinks America must engage in some deliberation and prevent China from feeling as if the U.S. intends to block it. In the hearing in which he was nominated, he pointed out that the reason the U.S. promotes and attaches great importance to its Asian policy is partly because it wants to strengthen relations with the great economic power, China. His words and actions seem to be the evidence behind people’s expectations that he will exert “positive energy.”

In terms of dealing with international relations, generally speaking, we should take into consideration not only how the national policies and grand strategies of the opposition (especially great powers such as the U.S.) should be looked at but also at how the policies and strategies are likely to adjust and evolve, and how different they are from their normal form under special circumstances. Otherwise, misjudgment might occur, as well as the possibility of “mature diplomacy.”

Needless to say, both Hillary and Kerry are from the ruling party and are the representatives of relevant interest groups, executors of America’s global strategic appeal. In the short run, it is very difficult to change the grand strategy of establishing “world peace under U.S. rule” based on its ideology. Neither Hillary nor Kerry can achieve this. The Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently pointed out that America should learn to make contact with other nations based on the principles of equality, balance of interest and mutual respect. This decent comment also reflects the expectations of the international society. The question is: is America ready?

Chinese leaders have conveyed their friendliness to the U.S. and have proposed that both countries should conform to the trend and strive to build an “innovative great powers relation.” In fact, an increasing number of sensible people in the U.S. have more or less responded to this proposal in a positive manner. If what Kerry said above is genuine rather than a mere bluff and if Obama had been more sensible with his judgments and taken into account America’s fundamental and long-term interests and followed the trend, the Sino-U.S. relationship could have represented a new picture. The next four years (Obama’s second term) might be the period of great opportunities for America and the not-so-comfortable interdependent relationship between these two nations could gradually grow more sound.


克里不仅在外交风度上有别于希拉里,在政策行为方面,也可能比较务实。人们期盼他在时代变迁之际发挥“正能量”,不无道理。

  美国建立“美国统治下的世界和平”大战略的雄心,一时难以改变。希拉里不行,克里也难做到。

  如果克里的讲话是认真的,如果奥巴马头脑也能清醒一点,从美国根本和长远利益考虑,顺应时代潮流,那么,中美关系有可能相向而行,未来四年可能是美国的“大好机遇期”。


希拉里终于离任了。有人夸她是功不可没的好国务卿,有人质疑她留下一个烂摊子。但不可否认,她无愧于追求完美的美国全球战略,是个“强势”国务卿。对中国,她一直是“两面下注”。她说过不少有利于两国关系的好话,但她的负面政策行为和言论更多,念念不忘遏制中国和散布所谓“中国威胁”。现在,克里已走马上任。中美学者议论纷纷,主要倾向是认为他比较“务实”,美国外交可能要有所调整,至少是要“微调”。但也有人认为,奥巴马不过是“换卿不换药”,不要对克里寄予奢望。

  克里长期从事外交事务,从他在重大国际问题和中美关系敏感问题上的表态以及投票记录来看,他不仅在外交风度上有别于希拉里,在政策行为方面,也可能比较务实。不仅如此,他与奥巴马的个人关系比较密切,外交理念也比较接近。因此,人们对他寄予一定希望,期盼他在时代变迁之际发挥“正能量”,不无道理;说奥巴马只是“换卿不换药”,似乎有失偏颇。
 克里出任国务卿前后,有些言论也值得玩味。他对美国不断加强在亚太地区军事力量的必要性有所质疑,认为“美国必须深思熟虑”,避免让中国感到美国是想要“围堵”它。在提名听证会上,他还指出,美国之所以推进重视亚洲政策,原因之一是要加强与经济大国中国的关系。克里的这些表现,似乎可以作为对其寄予“正能量”期盼的佐证。

  在看待和处理国际关系方面,一般说来,既要看到对方(特别是美国这样的大国)的国策和大战略,又要看到在特定情况下,它的政策和策略可能的调整和演变,看到其前后的差异与不同。否则,就可能误判,更谈不上是什么“成熟的外交”。

  当然,希拉里和克里都是美国“执政党的人”,是有关利益集团的代表人物,也是美国全球战略诉求的执行者。美国要建立以美国价值观为基础的“美国统治下的世界和平”大战略,一时难以改变。希拉里不行,克里也难做到。俄罗斯外交部长拉夫罗夫最近指出:美国应学会在平等、利益平衡和相互尊重的基础上与其他国家打交道。这话说得很得体,也是国际社会普遍的期盼。问题是,美国准备好了吗?

  中国领导人两年前就已向美国释放善意,提出中美要顺应时代潮流,共同努力建立“新型大国关系”。事实上,现在美国国内也有越来越多的有识之士,在不同程度上对此有正面和积极的呼应。克里国务卿上述讲话,如果是认真的而不是虚晃一枪,如果奥巴马总统头脑也能清醒一点,从美国根本和长远利益来考虑,顺应时代潮流,那么,中美关系有可能相向而行,未来四年(奥巴马的第二任期)可能是美国的“大好机遇期”,中美目前不那么舒服的相互依存关系,可能逐步舒服起来。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Russia: Will Trump Investigate Harris? Political Analyst Responds*

Germany: Trump for the Charlemagne Prize!

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Australia: Trump’s Tariffs Were Already Ever-Changing. Now, Court Fights Add to the Uncertainty

Topics

Germany: Trump for the Charlemagne Prize!

Canada: It Turns Out Trump’s Tariffs Were Illegal After All

Australia: Trump’s Tariffs Were Already Ever-Changing. Now, Court Fights Add to the Uncertainty

Austria: Soon Putin Will Have Successfully Alienated Trump

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary