Thaw in US-China Relations Reflects a Mature US China Policy

2010 may be only three months old, but we've already gone through enough China-US bilateral relations melodrama to last us at least one year. Early on, as the Obama Administration decided to complete an arms sale to Taiwan as well as meet the Dalai Lama in the White House, Sino-American ties appeared to be at their lowest point in years, a problem for which the Google flap proved most unhelpful. The tension led observers in both countries to wonder whether President Obama had the chops to deal with what is arguably Washington’s most significant bilateral relationship.

Now as the Northern Hemisphere celebrates the arrival of spring, relations between the two powers have correspondingly begun to thaw. China has finally agreed to enter into negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program after months of indecision. President Hu Jintao has decided to attend a nuclear summit in Washington later this month. The US has responded by delaying a judgment on whether or not China manipulates its currency, a move surely intended as a gesture of goodwill to Beijing.

Do these warming ties suggest an ordinary ebb and flow between the two nations, or represent a significant shift in policy? It is simply too early to answer this question. Yet Obama’s recent moves do seem to reflect a greater understanding of how China sees itself in the world, an understanding that had thus far eluded his administration.

Over the past decade or so China has positioned itself as both a major international stakeholder and as a developing country wishing to be left alone. This latter position has until recently served as the best explanation for Beijing’s solidarity with Tehran. China was willing to buy Iran’s claim that its nuclear program was a matter of national sovereignty because that claim echoes China’s own approach to foreign criticism. This—and the not so tiny matter of China’s dependence on Iranian oil—explained the Chinese reluctance to support any kind of sanctions regime against Iran.

Why then have the Chinese suddenly changed course? My sense is that the US has appealed to the other half of China’s fractured self-identity—that China is a major country and has certain responsibilities on the global stage. Beijing now seems convinced that Iran’s nuclear ambitions threaten global security and can no longer be described as a purely domestic issue. The US in turn is now willing to look the other way on the currency issue in order to gain China’s support for the more pressing matter of Iran.

It remains to be seen how the Iranian nuclear issue will play out—my own sense is that sanctions are a terrible idea and will accomplish little but to unite the Iranian people behind their government—yet by decoupling Iran from other elements of the relationship between the U.S. and China, Washington was able to win over the normally intransigent Communist Party leadership.

Of course, the currency issue isn’t just going to go away. With the visit of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Beijing, all eyes are now on the value of the RMB. But on a more general level the Obama Administration appears to view China less as an adversary and rival and more as a fellow mega-state full of internal contradictions and nuances that can be exploited for the common good.




21 Comments

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  • Some HTML can be used to format your comment.
  • Add a picture to your comments with Gravatar.
  • Please be civil. Comments may be moderated.
  1. yangrouchuan

    (click to show com­ment)

  2. lolz

    -++2

    I have always thought Sino-US rela­tion­ship to be mature and real­ity based.

    Fine, you get the media and the politi­cians from both coun­tries who always want to use nation­al­ism to advance their posi­tions in local pol­i­tics. Yes you also get the media from both sides who have no trou­ble what­so­ever with let­ting their own bias in the way. How­ever, if you actu­ally look at the poli­cies between these nations I would say that either side allows emo­tions or inter­nal polit­i­cal pres­sure to get too much in the way of work­ing together to advance both nations’ inter­ests on issues which they can both ben­e­fit from.

    • hm

      -++1

      I actu­ally agree that they’ve been pretty mature. For the most part, they don’t seem mature because of the media espe­cially when it comes to elec­tions. Every­one can scream and shout all they want about how they are going to han­dle China but fact is, once it comes time to do work, they under­stand how impor­tant China is to America.

      There’s always been a mutual under­stand­ing that US needs China and China needs US. To me, the appre­ci­a­tion of the RMB is a way for the US to not have to rely so much on imports from China.

      I can only hope that as rela­tions get bet­ter that US Cit­i­zens’ impres­sion of China/Chinese peo­ple change as well. Actu­ally… I’m waitin’ for the day when all Amer­i­cans will come to see Asian Amer­i­cans as… Americans.

  3. -+-1

    I agree that the US has appealed to China’s “benev­o­lent” half, but this is not a recent evo­lu­tion. This began explic­itly with Deputy Sec­re­tary of State Robert Zoel­lick (now World Bank pres­i­dent) in 2005 giv­ing his now-noted speech on China as a “respon­si­ble stake­holder” -- a coun­try with such deep inter­ests in and ben­e­fits from the global sys­tem that they had a respon­si­bil­ity to aid in uphold­ing it.

    Con­se­quently, US offi­cials have been tak­ing this tact in rela­tions with Chi­nese coun­ter­parts for at least 4-5 years. It it the cause of the recent changes by China? Maybe. The casual tim­ing doesn’t seem to match up!

    But, on the other hand, by chang­ing this vari­able in US-China rela­tions in 2005 (from an oppo­si­tional approach pro­fessed by Bush neo-cons like Rums­feld), it became a pos­i­tive con­stant in the rela­tion­ship, which makes it eas­ier for the Chi­nese to change pol­icy in th future, like they’ve begun to do from time to time.

  4. Hank

    -+-3

    China has just car­ried out a clever tac­ti­cal move in its rela­tions with the US.

    China knows that Obama and the peo­ple around him are weak, naive, and gullible.

    The Obama admin­is­tra­tion is eas­ily bluffed and the world (Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Rus­sia, Brazil, India, Japan, and espe­cially China) knows it.

    China man­u­fac­tured the “melo­drama” around the Tai­wan arms sell and the Dalai Lama visit. The Amer­i­cans fell into the trap.

    China huf­frd and puffed and made a lot of noise and Obama and the US got frightened.

    The US imme­di­ately rushed off to China to kiss-kiss you know what.

    China is play­ing the US the way Yo-Yo Ma plays the cello - very well.

    I give credit to China’s lead­ers for pro­tect­ing the short and long-range inter­est of their country.

    Unfor­tu­nately, the US has no such leaders.

    • -+-1

      Hank:

      Sub­stan­ti­ate the fol­low­ing statements:

      “China man­u­fac­tured the ‘melo­drama’ around the Tai­wan arms sell and the Dalai Lama visit. The Amer­i­cans fell into the trap. China huf­frd and puffed and made a lot of noise and Obama and the US got frightened.”

      • -+-1

        I think it’s quite a time-honoured nego­ti­at­ing strat­egy in China to feign offence and hurt in extremis as a means of guilt­ing the other party into believ­ing they are indebted to some degree.

        Unfor­tu­nately, this tac­tic does seem to work very well for Bei­jing. It’s high time world lead­ers responded to such child­ish blovi­at­ing with a well-practised roll of the eyes. And noth­ing more.

        • whichone

          -+

          …as a means of guilt­ing the other party into believ­ing they are indebted to some degree

          That is an inter­est­ing per­spec­tive, for most Chi­nese cit­i­zens, the state’s huff­ing and puff­ing are but fee­ble protests which the U.S. ignores reg­u­larly. I think both sides tend to over­es­ti­mate the other’s action and mis­tak­enly pre­scribe grand strate­gies when there is none. Another exam­ple of this is the issue of China’s pur­chase of U.S. trea­sury bonds: Amer­i­cans are increas­ingly wor­ried about China’s hold­ing of their debt, as if there is a Man­darin behind the cur­tain for­mu­lat­ing plots to ruin the U.S. finan­cially, at the same time, most Chi­nese believe China is tricked into buy­ing Amer­i­can bonds which the Amer­i­cans could at any­time default and leave China hold­ing a bunch of worth­less papers. The truth is often much more com­pli­cated and less intriguing.

          It should be clear that China’s num­ber one goal has been the devel­op­ment, and revi­tal­iza­tion of China to become a regional power again. There is a dom­i­nat­ing nar­ra­tive of vic­tim hood dur­ing the last one hun­dred years by for­eign pow­ers that has made it extremely sen­si­tive to coercions/intervention (real or per­ceived) by for­eign pow­ers on China’s inter­nal issues, which is the over­rid­ing rea­son why peo­ple react so strongly to U.S. arms sale to Tai­wan. More­over, one of the chief chal­lenges of China’s devel­op­ment is energy secu­rity, it is vul­ner­a­ble to both price volatil­ity and secu­rity of deliv­ery. Together these fac­tors make Iran one of its nat­ural allies. In this case China is try­ing to have its cake and eat it too - on the one hand mak­ing con­sid­er­able oil deals with Iran, at the same time sup­port­ing sanc­tions that would thwart Iran’s nuclear ambi­tion which cer­tainly is not in the inter­est of any nuclear state.

          The rea­son for China’s change of posi­tion might also involve the con­sid­er­a­tion that once U.S. extracts itself from the Iraq quag­mire, it will take uni­lat­eral action against Iran when inter­na­tional efforts fail to make head­way. If Amer­i­cans are will­ing to invade Iraq over imag­i­nary weapons of mass destruc­tion, cer­tainly the real thing will invite such action as well. Years of sanc­tion utterly crip­pled Iraq’s econ­omy and paved the way for even­tual inva­sion, present sanc­tions could be sig­nal for sim­i­lar con­tin­gency in the future, maybe China thinks it’s bet­ter hedge its bets so in a worst case sce­nario, China will have some influ­ence to pro­tect the oil fields it already leased from Iran.

      • Hank

        -+-1

        @Kevin Slaten

        Sub­stan­ti­ate the fol­low­ing statements:

        “China man­u­fac­tured the ‘melo­drama’ around the Tai­wan arms sell and the Dalai Lama visit. The Amer­i­cans fell into the trap. China huf­frd and puffed and made a lot of noise and Obama and the US got frightened.”

        A Bei­jing taxi dri­ver told me.

        • -+-1

          I’ll take that response as equiv­a­lent to “I don’t really want to pro­vide evi­dence for my claims. Please take them at face value.”

          • yangrouchuan

            -+-3

            It could very well be a Bei­jing taxi dri­ver Mr. Young China Hand. Not all every­day Chi­nese think Tai­wan is such a big issue espe­cially when they are fac­ing their own eco­nomic hardships.

            But you are in Tai­wan, not China.

          • -+

            Even though they don’t con­stantly think about Tai­wan, do they often think about ad hominem?

          • Hank

            -+

            @whichon

            wichon said:
            “I’ll take that response as equiv­a­lent to ‘I don’t really want to pro­vide evi­dence for my claims. Please take them at face value.’”

            No. As I said, a Bei­jing taxi dri­ver told me.

            My sub­stan­ti­a­tion has as much valid­ity as your comment:

            wichon said:
            “most Chi­nese believe China is tricked into buy­ing Amer­i­can bonds which the Amer­i­cans could at any­time default and leave China hold­ing a bunch of worth­less papers.”

            A Bei­jing call-girl also told me about Amer­i­cans default­ing on the US bonds China bought.

            My sources are reliable.

          • -+

            Hank, not ‘whichone’ said the first com­ment. But no mat­ter, because accu­racy is too evi­dently unim­por­tant to you.

  5. Hank

    -+

    @whichon

    whichon said: “Amer­i­cans are increas­ingly wor­ried about China’s hold­ing of their debt, as if there is a Man­darin behind the cur­tain for­mu­lat­ing plots to ruin the U.S. finan­cially, at the same time …”

    Actu­ally, Amer­i­cans have less to worry about than Chi­nese. The big mis­con­cep­tion is that the Amer­i­cans came run­ning to China ask­ing for loans. In real­ity, the Chi­nese are run­ning every­day with their US dol­lars, they get from sell­ing good­ies around the world, to the US ask­ing the US to please keep their money for them.

    No one forces China to keep their earn­ings in dol­lars. They could “eas­ily” con­vert them to euros, yen, peso, or whatever.

    China can­not bring those dol­lars home or else the rmb would appre­ci­ate thus mak­ing Chi­nese exports more expen­sive and hav­ing a dam­ag­ing impact on China’s export sec­tor and increas­ing inflation.

    China has no other place to park their loot except in the US. In a way, the US is doing China a favor “hold­ing” their money.

    And, let’s say, for exam­ple, that China wanted to play the take-all-our-marbles-and-go-home card. If China tried to with­draw its funds in a way that would dam­age the US econ­omy, the US would sim­ply freeze China’s accounts. It has hap­pened before.

    whichon said: “The rea­son for China’s change of posi­tion might also involve the con­sid­er­a­tion that once U.S. extracts itself from the Iraq quag­mire, it will take uni­lat­eral action against Iran …”

    Yes, Iran is on the US radar but China knows that if/when the US wraps up its strat­egy in cen­tral Asia, the next main tar­get for the US is China.

    China is play­ing for the long-run.

    • King Tubby

      -+

      Iran on the US radar.

      JC, could US mil­i­tary pol­icy mak­ers be so *stu­pid*. It is one thing for the US to get rid of Iraq’s Baathist/Sunni govt, and look at the morass that caused, or even put the fright­en­ers on dirt poor Syria.

      Shi­ite Iran is a very dif­fer­ent propo­si­tion. Highly edu­cated with a long and illus­tri­ous his­tory, and held together with a the­ol­ogy, very dif­fer­ent from the Sunni golden caliphate dri­vel found in the rest of the Arab world.

      Iran seeks engage­ment and equal­ity with the West plus nucleur weaponary, and this per­spec­tive cuts across classes, gen­er­a­tions and inter­nal polit­i­cal divi­sions. And also in spite of Admadine­jad and the Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Guard.

      Equally, and to the point, if the US was not such a cap­tive of the Zion­ist lobby, it would come to recog­nise the fact that Shi­itism is the future of Islam, while Sun­nism belongs to the dis­cred­ited past, Bin Laden being but the worst example.

  6. Hank

    -+

    @King Tubby

    Iran has to go. Sim­ply from a geo-political point of view. Syria, Hezbol­lah (in Lebanon), and Hamas (in Gaza) make it dif­fi­cult for any “peace” set­tle­ment tak­ing place among the Israelis and Pales­tini­ans. Iran is the prin­ci­pal backer of the above three players.

    The US can­not afford to allow the Ira­ni­ans to have nuclear weapons while US con­ven­tional forces are in the area. This would wipe out any advan­tage the US mil­i­tary has against all the Mid­dle East­ern and Cen­tral Asian countries.

    Any kind of war that would desta­bi­lize Iran or bring about a regime change would be worth the price accord­ing to the US political/military planners.

    Finally, if Iran is taken off the board, China will be strate­gi­cally sur­rounded and her access to oil/gas will be com­pro­mised. Not good for China. Good for the US.

    • King Tubby

      -+

      I have already referred to the Shi­ite arc before.

      As for any peace set­tle­ment, you would be hard pressed to find any­body who actu­ally believes in such a pos­si­bil­ity any­more. Israels idea of set­tle­ment now con­sists of push­ing all Pales­tini­ans into Jordan.

      I should have said it straight out: attack­ing Iran (god, the Saudis would love it) would be lunacy of the first order. It would unify Iran­ian soci­ety and you can for­get about regime change (love this new mantra which just rolls off the tongue).