In Reshaping Middle East, Sino-U.S. Cooperation Possible
Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 23 May 2011
by Zhao Kejin (link to original)
(China) on 23 May 2011
by Zhao Kejin (link to original)
Translated from
by Yipeng Xie.
Edited by Katerina Kobylka.
After being criticized by U.S. public media for his timidity on Middle East problems, Obama finally launched the “New Marshall Plan” to propel Middle East political transformation. This plan, based on traditional emphasis on regional safety, free trade and progression of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, added a new policy to support the so-called “democratic transition.” Obama’s words also expressed that his “export democracy” policy is not confined to Middle East countries, but also includes India, Indonesia, Brazil and areas covering Asia, Africa, Latin America and other developing countries.
However, in this talk, Obama did not mention China and did not allude to the possibility of exporting democracy to China, which surprised reporters from various countries. In actuality, this is not uncommon since the governing principle of the U.S.’ diplomatic policies is not only to gain benefits but also to achieve peak morale. “Exporting Democracy” is a ballot chip for Obama to “gild” his face, but it should not cause the loss of the potentially huge benefits in China.
First of all, enormous Sino-U.S. benefits restrain Obama’s commitment to democratic values in regard to Chinese issues. Currently, a rate of economic growth exceeding 3 percent and a decline in the unemployment rate are the keys to Obama’s re-election. To realize these goals, the U.S. should achieve a breakthrough on extension of exports, and only China and a few other countries can assist the U.S. in reaching the goals during the post-crisis period. It will not be worthwhile to incriminate and hurt the Sino-U.S. relationship if Obama, because of the exportation of democracy, undermines mutual strategic trust.
Secondly, in terms of transforming North Africa and the Middle East, China and the U.S. have the possibility to become partners. The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa is not only a crisis of political transformation, but also an upheaval involving economic development, social livelihood, areas of safety and global stability. Even though Obama sonorously claims that the U.S. Congress will spare no efforts in propelling the democratic transformation in the Middle East, Obama is not sure about the future of Middle East democratization. It is impossible to stabilize the situation with only U.S. power. Besides, China and the U.S. share common benefits on Middle East issues. They should not only keep the situation controllable, and stabilize the supply of gasoline on the global gasoline market, but they also need to, as necessary, exchange ideas to prevent all possible accidents. Considering the capricious and intricate situation, the U.S. needs to restrain its willingness to promote the export of democracy to China, Russia and other influential countries in order to preserve the possibility of cooperation.
In addition, the Obama government’s strategy is to concentrate on the Middle East and North Africa but not a larger range of areas. The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa involves more than 20 countries and some .5 billion people. Every national leader would have trembled with fear at such a large-scale political disturbance. Even the U.S., during its most prosperous period, couldn’t gamble all it had on this chaotic situation. After bin Laden’s death, the U.S. is obviously restoring its level of confidence, which has enabled the temporarily fragile Obama government to give an impassioned and encouraging speech.
However, considering the intricacy and uncertainty of this situation, Obama had to put his full attention on one issue to prevent the scattering of resources that would result by striking out in all directions. In fact, the U.S. not only discriminates on issues involving powerful countries, but also treats the Middle Eastern countries and North African countries differently. For instance, when dealing with situations in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria, the United States displayed discriminatory attitudes. The U.S. has long employed discriminatory diplomatic policies to solve issues from easy to difficult while avoiding any barbs at the beginning. The U.S.’ current policies on the issues of the Middle East and North Africa are no exception.
China, which differs from the U.S. model, but is also flourishing and energetic, is a severe challenge to the U.S.’ diminished strength. However, to balance interests and values, dreams and reality, goals and ability, Obama made a pragmatic, strategic choice. Ad summum, Obama can mention China in his speech, but he is not supposed to.
Zhao Kejin is the deputy director of the Center on Sino-U.S. Relations at Tsinghua University
However, in this talk, Obama did not mention China and did not allude to the possibility of exporting democracy to China, which surprised reporters from various countries. In actuality, this is not uncommon since the governing principle of the U.S.’ diplomatic policies is not only to gain benefits but also to achieve peak morale. “Exporting Democracy” is a ballot chip for Obama to “gild” his face, but it should not cause the loss of the potentially huge benefits in China.
First of all, enormous Sino-U.S. benefits restrain Obama’s commitment to democratic values in regard to Chinese issues. Currently, a rate of economic growth exceeding 3 percent and a decline in the unemployment rate are the keys to Obama’s re-election. To realize these goals, the U.S. should achieve a breakthrough on extension of exports, and only China and a few other countries can assist the U.S. in reaching the goals during the post-crisis period. It will not be worthwhile to incriminate and hurt the Sino-U.S. relationship if Obama, because of the exportation of democracy, undermines mutual strategic trust.
Secondly, in terms of transforming North Africa and the Middle East, China and the U.S. have the possibility to become partners. The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa is not only a crisis of political transformation, but also an upheaval involving economic development, social livelihood, areas of safety and global stability. Even though Obama sonorously claims that the U.S. Congress will spare no efforts in propelling the democratic transformation in the Middle East, Obama is not sure about the future of Middle East democratization. It is impossible to stabilize the situation with only U.S. power. Besides, China and the U.S. share common benefits on Middle East issues. They should not only keep the situation controllable, and stabilize the supply of gasoline on the global gasoline market, but they also need to, as necessary, exchange ideas to prevent all possible accidents. Considering the capricious and intricate situation, the U.S. needs to restrain its willingness to promote the export of democracy to China, Russia and other influential countries in order to preserve the possibility of cooperation.
In addition, the Obama government’s strategy is to concentrate on the Middle East and North Africa but not a larger range of areas. The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa involves more than 20 countries and some .5 billion people. Every national leader would have trembled with fear at such a large-scale political disturbance. Even the U.S., during its most prosperous period, couldn’t gamble all it had on this chaotic situation. After bin Laden’s death, the U.S. is obviously restoring its level of confidence, which has enabled the temporarily fragile Obama government to give an impassioned and encouraging speech.
However, considering the intricacy and uncertainty of this situation, Obama had to put his full attention on one issue to prevent the scattering of resources that would result by striking out in all directions. In fact, the U.S. not only discriminates on issues involving powerful countries, but also treats the Middle Eastern countries and North African countries differently. For instance, when dealing with situations in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria, the United States displayed discriminatory attitudes. The U.S. has long employed discriminatory diplomatic policies to solve issues from easy to difficult while avoiding any barbs at the beginning. The U.S.’ current policies on the issues of the Middle East and North Africa are no exception.
China, which differs from the U.S. model, but is also flourishing and energetic, is a severe challenge to the U.S.’ diminished strength. However, to balance interests and values, dreams and reality, goals and ability, Obama made a pragmatic, strategic choice. Ad summum, Obama can mention China in his speech, but he is not supposed to.
Zhao Kejin is the deputy director of the Center on Sino-U.S. Relations at Tsinghua University