MysteriousFaith

Living in Interesting Times

The always-fascinating world of US-China relations experienced a particularly significant set of events over the last forty-five days of 2006. Between celebrating China’s five-year anniversary of its WTO membership, the official US Trade Representative’s report (USTR) on China’s WTO compliance, Treasury Secretary Paulson’s trip to Beijing, and the US-China Congressional Committee releasing its report (USCC) on the developing sources of US-China friction, the events of the last month and a half suggest that it would be wise to stop at beginning of a new year and reflect on where one of the most important geo-political relationships of the next fifty years is headed.

Any time two international entities engage one another, inevitably their internal agendas, politics and developmental needs drive them forward with what can in the best of cases be called “enlightened self-interest.” In many cases, the tension that results is constructive since the need to create an equitable compromise between the two can lead towards an integration of what both countries have to contribute in terms of ideas and practice. But when this tension becomes unhealthy, when political posturing trumps pragmatism, issues which previously would have gone unaddressed become primary, and every small indiscretion creates ripples which threaten to upset both countries. If the events of the last forty-five days are any indication of what 2007 may bring, it may be wise to buckle down for an increasingly brittle exchange between Beijing and Washington.

The two most recent US reports on US-China relations – the USTR from the Bush Administration and the USCC from the Republican-led Congress – each indicate that China is becoming an increasingly convenient target for American ills. The USTR wants to appear magnanimous with its administrative-tone, but after roughly page four, a balanced representation of what China has done relative to WTO compliance, and should be given credit for, is poorly balanced against what China has not yet done, and must address in the near future. The USCC report is much starker, particularly with its ominous comments about US-China military comparisons. The overall tenor of the USTR and USCC reports are that China can no longer afford to be seen only as a resource to America, that now it must be acknowledged that China is beginning to become a threat to American hegemony.

Among the troubling questions this suggests is whether a Democratic-led US Congress will shift towards an even more strident populist position and consequently seek to elevate China as the cause of middle-America’s increasing frustration and economic stagnation. The election cycle which mercifully wound down in early November makes blaming the other party a convenient and certainly politically useful strategy, but when a party which has run largely on who they are not comes into power, they can no longer employ this same strategy and, if bereft of their own ideas, must seek out another entity to blame. Unfortunately, China fits this bill all too-well.

Of all the reasons to be wary about 2007, this is perhaps one of the more troubling. When Republicans and Democrats, granted each for their own reasons, respectively view this type of demagoguery as helpful to their cause, it is time to take note. Granted, the motives for each are different: Republicans view China primarily through the lens of national-security, and believe questions over China’s growing military strength are paramount. Democrats look at China as a threat to particular constituencies such as the trade unions and the automotive and steel industries (to only name two) which they represent. Politicians in Washington rarely agree on anything and that fact that both parties seem to agree that China is a threat to the US is not healthy.

Some might argue that the USTR and USCC reports, coupled with Paulson’s recent comments while in Beijing, all follow roughly the same trajectory as the recent past. While it is certainly inevitable that a certain amount of conflict is unavoidable as a growing power begins to encroach on realms held previously on an exclusive basis by more developed economies, when this process takes on the characteristics of a political blame-game, the possibility that it can become something more destructive has to be entertained.
Like almost any complex issue, the question of US-China relations is rapidly becoming an ink blot test used to gauge more than one’s position on the question at hand. Now, being an advocate for a moderate tone and an appreciation for China’s unique developmental needs immediately slaps the label “panda hugger” on someone; equally, suggesting that China be aware that the increasing weight of its influence means it must think more carefully about its international partners can force the description of “dragon slayer” on someone equally fast. Lost in this is that the world should resist falling backwards into a host of assumptions which hold at their base the idea that one country’s problems can be laid at the feet of another. While certainly politically expedient, such distractions rarely serve anyone well: the people it is intended to protect are harmed from changes they need to embrace and adapt to, and the people who are blamed become hostile, and withdraw from the world’s accountability forums.

While everyone would like to think that Washington will pull back from this type of blame-game, it is unlikely. Consequently, the next stage of US-China relations will need the calmest of hands and clearest of heads from China’s leadership. Beijing should not stand idly by and allow the political climate in Washington to shift into increasingly strident anti-China machinations. Rather, China needs to emphasize the changes it has already made, those it is in the midst of, and its plans for the future. China’s leadership has much to be proud of, and it should not assume its positive changes will be acknowledged or known by the average American or its leadership. America, an uneven advocate of diplomacy in recent years, may be badly in need of precisely that from China’s leadership if China is to avoid being blamed for American struggles. Even a moderate interpretation of how Japan became the convenient receptacle of pent-up American economic hostility in the 80’s would suggest elevating China’s advocacy in Washington now is a prudent idea.

In hindsight, 2006 may represent a year when the relationship between China and the US began to subtly shift away from mutuality towards confrontation. This need not happen, but may very well unless politicians within Washington acknowledge that blaming China for America’s ills will only get them so far, and may in fact do nothing but delay and enlarge reckoning with American problems which cry out for American attention. In parallel, a strategy on the part of China’s leadership to emphasize its constructive efforts to continue embracing international systems of accountability would go far in defusing this tension. History occasionally requires that politicians also be statesmen, able to see beyond their parochial concerns. Both China and the US will need just this type of perspective if both countries are to avoid what too many now see as inevitable confrontation.

previous post: Shanghai Daily Op-Ed
next post: Marketing to North American Corporate Buyers & Retail Executives

• Posted in China, Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• January 13, 2007

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website