Basketball Diplomacy
Published in Der Standard
(Austria) on 11 May 2011
by Christoph Prantner (link to original)
(Austria) on 11 May 2011
by Christoph Prantner (link to original)
Translated from
by Chris Mansfield.
Edited by Derek Ha.
In spite of common interests, the U.S. and China are playing tougher physically.
In the 1970s, the unexpected rapprochement between the U.S. and China was called “ping-pong diplomacy,” because the table tennis teams of both nations opened a path for political ties between the Nixon administration and Mao’s China. In the summer of 2009, President Obama invited two Chinese emissaries to the Oval Office for the first strategic dialogue between Washington and Beijing and gave them a basketball signed personally by himself.
In between lie almost 40 years of mutual relations. The symbolism of changing the ball provides a neat framework for interpreting the present state of cooperation: instead of an elegant game played with a separating net, today’s game involves more use of physical, political play. Whoever wants to score points must do so in a coarser manner. This showed itself to be true during the third strategic dialogue between Beijing and Washington.
Without a doubt, there were positive things to report on an economic level. The Chinese agreed, as was promised by President Hu Jianto during his state visit to Washington in January, to actually open their markets to U.S. financial companies and grant access to foreign companies through bids in China. Even the value of the yuan, an issue of eternal dispute between the two nations, has increased by a good 5 percent in recent years. This is too little for U.S. companies to be able to compete with their Chinese counterparts, but it is a small success nevertheless.
On the other hand, clear differences exist on the questions of politics and the military. The issue of human rights, which was addressed by the Americans, is a problem area. Another one is the rapid armament of Beijing and the efforts of the soon-to-be superpower to expand in areas like the South China Sea, where contested territorial claims and above all, gas resources, are at stake.
The question after the summit was how efficient Hillary Clinton’s political power play actually was. Whoever wants to achieve something in disputes with Beijing normally goes about it quietly and behind closed doors. As it was, the scolding by the U.S. Secretary of State might have been a success in front of her own public, but this will do little to help incarcerated regime critics like the artist Ai Weiwei.
Over the course of these years, the Chinese leadership has developed a great mastery for nonchalantly brushing off accusations from other countries. This is the case this time, albeit with the limitation of not allowing a big debate to be aired by the state media for the time being.
This might have to do with the insight that Henry Kissinger, one of the great masters of ping-pong diplomacy, recently imparted: “So many issues depend on the way in which America and China form their relationships. I have the impression that both sides have no desire for confrontation but instead want to rely on cooperation.”*
Translated into a basketball metaphor, this means that for the two biggest players on the court, it’s more advantageous, even during disagreements, to pass balls to one another than to let smaller players come into the game.
* This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
In the 1970s, the unexpected rapprochement between the U.S. and China was called “ping-pong diplomacy,” because the table tennis teams of both nations opened a path for political ties between the Nixon administration and Mao’s China. In the summer of 2009, President Obama invited two Chinese emissaries to the Oval Office for the first strategic dialogue between Washington and Beijing and gave them a basketball signed personally by himself.
In between lie almost 40 years of mutual relations. The symbolism of changing the ball provides a neat framework for interpreting the present state of cooperation: instead of an elegant game played with a separating net, today’s game involves more use of physical, political play. Whoever wants to score points must do so in a coarser manner. This showed itself to be true during the third strategic dialogue between Beijing and Washington.
Without a doubt, there were positive things to report on an economic level. The Chinese agreed, as was promised by President Hu Jianto during his state visit to Washington in January, to actually open their markets to U.S. financial companies and grant access to foreign companies through bids in China. Even the value of the yuan, an issue of eternal dispute between the two nations, has increased by a good 5 percent in recent years. This is too little for U.S. companies to be able to compete with their Chinese counterparts, but it is a small success nevertheless.
On the other hand, clear differences exist on the questions of politics and the military. The issue of human rights, which was addressed by the Americans, is a problem area. Another one is the rapid armament of Beijing and the efforts of the soon-to-be superpower to expand in areas like the South China Sea, where contested territorial claims and above all, gas resources, are at stake.
The question after the summit was how efficient Hillary Clinton’s political power play actually was. Whoever wants to achieve something in disputes with Beijing normally goes about it quietly and behind closed doors. As it was, the scolding by the U.S. Secretary of State might have been a success in front of her own public, but this will do little to help incarcerated regime critics like the artist Ai Weiwei.
Over the course of these years, the Chinese leadership has developed a great mastery for nonchalantly brushing off accusations from other countries. This is the case this time, albeit with the limitation of not allowing a big debate to be aired by the state media for the time being.
This might have to do with the insight that Henry Kissinger, one of the great masters of ping-pong diplomacy, recently imparted: “So many issues depend on the way in which America and China form their relationships. I have the impression that both sides have no desire for confrontation but instead want to rely on cooperation.”*
Translated into a basketball metaphor, this means that for the two biggest players on the court, it’s more advantageous, even during disagreements, to pass balls to one another than to let smaller players come into the game.
* This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.