Bumpy road ahead for sustainable Sino-US ties

Former US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellicke recently wrote in the Financial Times that China and the United States should sign a new "Shanghai Communiqu" to map out Sino-US relations in the new century. He made a similar suggestion for the development of a long-term, wide-ranging strategy during a public speech in Shanghai early this year. All such ideas of his have been developed on the basis of his "stake holder" theory.

Incidentally, during a recent speech at the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, former US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger said the future of the United States and China "depends on our capability to create an international system never seen before". To this end, Kissinger said, "the US and China should dedicate themselves to building an international system of cooperation".

His thinking practically echoes Zoellicke's. This school of thought can be called the "Sino-US cooperation theory".

However, despite its positive tone, their school of thought is but one among the voices clamouring for influence over the United States' China policy. It may not enjoy broad public or socio-political support.

As frictions between the two countries increase, the voice of the "stake holder" theory seems to be increasingly drowned out by those calling for "keeping China in contact".

Such voices have recently come from a series of lengthy reports on China policy published by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, the EuroAsian Group and Princeton University. All of these reports support continued contact with China, while proposing such strategies as "soft containment" and "push and pull".

This does not mean they want the two countries to cooperate in building a new international system. Rather, they call for integrating and reshaping China through contact while restraining and containing China by forming a so-called "concert of democracy".

Yet another voice is heard from noted American columnist James Mann, who is currently a guest researcher at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. Mann has expressed doubt about the "keep contact theory".

In his new book, The China Fantasy, Mann maintains that changing China through contact is a delusional fantasy that will not work. He believes the United States has to give up the fantasy of westernizing China or find a way beyond "contact". However, Mann has not offered an alternative to the "contact policy". So, he could be seen as one of those international specialists who are at a loss for strategy when it comes to Sino-US relations.

There is a fourth voice in the United States. Though lacking a distinguishable lead singer, it has been constantly swaying the United State's China policy to the tune of doing everything imaginable to slow China's rise.

This is because the United States cannot afford to watch China's economy grow and its military "step out of bounds".

This voice usually comes from the Congress, Pentagon and various conservative think tanks, and seems to be growing louder at the moment.

Overall, the first voice is the most positive but lacks broad support; the second one is the most popular and enjoys the largest public backing, although it still falls short of satisfying the needs of US-China policy in the new

century; the third reflects the sentiment of some American elites at a loss for ideas and, therefore, cannot be counted on; the fourth voice is the most

dangerous, because, if left unchecked, it could destroy the stable framework of Sino-US ties built over the past 30 years.

The Bush administration is apparently thinking about its China policy during the remainder of its term. Also, as the presidential election draws nearer, the

strategists of both parties have started a full review of US foreign policies, including the country's China policy. At this sensitive moment of time, some policy behavior could give strength to a particular voice during policy debates and sway them towards one direction or another.

A series of recent actions by the Bush administration in the area of bilateral trade have apparently caused tremendously negative impacts.

For example, while refusing to treat China as a market economy, the United States decided to subject China's glossy paper exports to punitive tariffs applicable only to market economies in a typical show of "double taxation". This seriously violates the rules of bilateral trade ties and sets a very bad precedent. It is definitely not a constructive move, to say the least.

Also, by complaining to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China's intellectual property rights (IPR) protection problem, the United States undoubtedly sent a signal that basically says the existing framework of dialogue doesn't work.

By hurrying to push an unilateral complaint against China to the international tribunal while simultaneously pushing for the second stage of Sino-US strategic economic dialogue, the Bush administration has set yet another bad precedent.

Although considered relatively mild in its approach towards China, the administration has put the healthy development of bilateral relations as a whole at risk, as far as its recent handling of this trade dispute is concerned. More importantly, this move could influence the debate over the United States' China policy, which is a mess nowadays, to veer in the wrong direction.

All of this shows that Sino-US relations still have a long way to go before reaching the goal of sustaining long-term stability, as called for by people such as Zoellicke and Kissinger. The foundation upon which the current bilateral ties are built now faces some serious tests.

Trade ties have long been considered the lubricant and ballast weight of the Sino-US relationship. But historical experience has repeatedly shown that having strong trade ties does not necessarily translate into stable political strategic relations.

This is not to mention that bilateral ties are also undergoing historical transformations to become a negative factor in their own right, constraining and even undermining bilateral ties as a whole. This is an entirely new phenomenon

in the history of Sino-US relations.

The two nations might also be faced with malicious rivalry in the area of finance (banking) in the near future. This is a prospect demanding in-depth study and careful handling, because it serves the interests of neither country.

Another key factor in keeping Sino-US relations stable is maintaining dialogue at all levels in all areas. However, experience has taught us that strategic dialogue alone is insufficient to automatically stabilize bilateral ties.

After all, the key to successful dialogue lies in approaching talks with the right spirit and whether or not discussions produce the desired results. If one party always assumes a high-and-mighty posture and focuses its dialogue on changing the other side, the consequences could be worse than not having dialogue at all.

China and the United States could find themselves less and less motivated to cooperate over Northeast Asian security, as the Korean nuclear crisis gradually dies down. At the same time, the frequency of trade rows between the two countries is steadily rising.

The "stake holder" theory established by Zoellicke could very well be challenged as the debate over the direction of US-China policy continues in the United States. Faced with these issues, the two governments and strategists will have to find a way to maintain the stability of bilateral ties.

First, the two countries should grasp every opportunity offered by strategic dialogue or strategic economic discussion and approach these talks with an attitude of cooperation. They should discuss the issues calmly in order to resolve them in good faith and seek to make such dialogue regular and earnest.

Therefore, the strategic economic dialogues set in May and the strategic dialogues in June are both extremely important.

Second, the countries must be reasonable when dealing with normal trade disagreements. China depends on exports to the United States as much as the United States financially depends on China. Neither country can afford the cost of exacerbating trade rows.

Therefore, citizens in the United States should persuade Senator Schumer and his fellow wayward lawmakers to give up their attempt to again push a bill through Congress pressuring China to appreciate its currency. As Zoellicke famously put it, both sides should behave as "responsible stake holders".

Finally, both countries should seize the opportunities created by the warming relationship between their militaries. They should hasten the establishment of a hotline linking the Pentagon and China's defense ministry. Also, they should enhance mutual confidence between the two armed forces and reduce the possibility of accidental discharges of weaponry.

The author is director of Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations

Source: China Daily/Agencies