Will a New Secretary of State Make a Difference?
Published in Guangming
(China) on 16 February 2013
by Wang Yusheng (link to original)
(China) on 16 February 2013
by Wang Yusheng (link 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.
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.