Hu Jintao in Washington: Partner or Competitor?

Should the Chinese president’s state visit to Washington be seen as a sign of better cooperation between China and the United States, or does it hide the opposite reality of an increasingly intense competition?

Rarely has a visit by a head of state to the U.S. so divided observers, and even within the Obama administration one hesitates to define China as a necessary partner or instead as a natural rival. And not since Deng Xiaoping’s historic visit to the U.S. in 1979 has the country prepared so much for the presence of a Chinese president in Washington, reflecting the importance that American officials now accord to Beijing.

The preparations were all the more justified since the balance of power now seems more unbalanced.

On the U.S. side, the midterm elections have significantly weakened Barack Obama, who begins the second half of his term with the need to regain credit with American voters. At this point, he has the opportunity to showcase proper management in foreign affairs and the discipline that he has shown since his arrival at the White House.

On the Chinese side, Hu Jintao is preparing to hand over power to a new generation of leaders in ideal conditions. The international economic crisis did not affect China as much as had been feared, and the Middle Kingdom, now the second largest economy ahead of its long-time rival, Japan, already has the United States in its crosshairs. All the analysts agree that China will be the world’s largest economy within two decades. This puts the Chinese president in a strong position in trade and economic rivalries, especially as the trade balance between the two countries is more to Beijing’s advantage than ever before.

Still, both countries are virtually economically interdependent (even if China increasingly diversifies its partnerships), and the meetings in Washington will be under the label of cooperation in trade. China needs the U.S., and the U.S. cannot do without China and its huge reserves in U.S. Treasury bonds.

Palpable Tensions

However, despite the importance of trade, we must recognize that it is about the only thing the leaders of the two largest world economies can agree on. The Chinese president’s recent statements on the international monetary system, where he called for reform and labeled it a “product of the past,” are indicative of China’s uninhibited offensive against the dollar and the tensions between the two countries. In the face of Beijing’s attacks, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner continues to call for a revaluation of the yuan, deeming the Chinese efforts insufficient.

In short, and as Hu Jintao has said so himself, the two countries can be partners, but that does not exclude their disagreements.

Political tensions are no less palpable. In a speech at the State Department in conjunction with the Chinese president’s visit, Hillary Clinton once again called on China to make policy reforms that she deemed essential for a 21st century power. And Barack Obama, who has already received the Dalai Lama, met with Chinese dissidents in the Oval Office.

Contributing to these fundamental differences are coordination problems on thorny issues, such as North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues or the fight against global warming. Obama expects more cooperation from his counterpart, but he would be naïve to believe in concessions from a country that is every day increasingly sure of its place on the international stage.

A New Cold War?

In terms of strategy, Robert Gates’ recent visit to China, also made under the banner of cooperation, hid with difficulty the extent of the rivalry. Despite his very optimistic speech in Beijing, the defense secretary, upon returning to Washington, reported concerns over the modernization of the Chinese armed forces, which many Pentagon experts see as a threat to U.S. military supremacy in the Asia-Pacific arena. If competition is already this strong, it will soon reach a critical point.

Some observers see in this rivalry the signs of a new Cold War. But any comparison with the confrontation between Washington and Moscow is excessive. For one thing, the Soviet Union lacked the economic power that China has today and did not threaten U.S. supremacy in that way. For another thing, Moscow’s power shifts were limited to ideological struggles, while the Chinese model seems to be exported each day a little further around the globe.

Finally, the fundamental difference is that Washington has realized that China will soon be a leading player, while Chinese leaders see in the U.S. a once-formidable power irrevocably on the path of decline.

In other words, China is a much tougher opponent, and behind the necessary dialogue with Washington, the competition is ruthless on all fronts.