Well, just a month and a bit into 2010, and we have a media becoming somewhat frenzied about the “bad patch”, or “souring” or “rising tension”, or whatever you want to term it, in US-China relations.
It’s quite a string of issues we have to keep us all occupied. To recap, we have witnessed in the past couple of weeks:
- China’s anger at the US passing the sale of an arms package to Taiwan
- President Obama’s reminder to China of its free trade commitments
- The US government renewing pressure on the Yuan
- The Dalai Lama being due to meet President Obama
- The US government’s dissatisfaction at China’s unwillingness to take a firmer stance on Iran
- Cybersecurity attacks claimed against US companies, allegedly originating from China
Have I missed anything? Do we have a row about human rights in there somewhere, just to complete the list? No? Oh wait, thanks to The Guardian, we do (well, kind of).
I admit I got quite excited about the Google issue, especially after Hillary Clinton at once seemed to come out strongly citing “very serious concerns” and asking for “an explanation” from the Chinese government. The Chinese foreign ministry and information ministry initially responded in a straight-faced manner (of course) maintaining that it has an open Internet and that all companies operating in China need to adhere to Chinese laws. Clinton kept up the pressure in a speech she gave on Internet freedom and some business groups such as AmCham came out to support the Google position. It seemed for a while, to me at least, that the Chinese were – unusually – discomfited and perhaps back-footed on the whole brouhaha springing up as it did, especially when the Chinese foreign ministry stressed that this was a “matter of business” and that the matter should not affect political ties. Eventually, the Chinese information ministry denied any involvement in the attacks and focus has shifted to the benefits that Baidu would reap if Google pulled out of China.
Much of this is old hat now. Almost ancient history.
Perhaps a version of this spat will be revived in some form in the future but, since then, Google has apparently not (yet) made good on its threat to provide uncensored search results in China and US Ambassador to China John Huntsman did a good impression of a damp squib in an interview with AmCham when he said that Google would have to stand on its own in the matter and the US government would stay out of it.
The Google controversy, after such a promising beginning, has congealed into all the other US-China “relationship” issues.
So now to entertain us, returning to haunt us like ghosts from editorials past, we witness familiar topics being disputed over. Viz:
- Arms sales to Taiwan? Seems that somebody called George W. Bush actually had a run-in with the Chinese on the very same issue in 2008.
- Allegations against China on free trade ? Well, this time around its chickens and tyres – but there have been claims made in the past about the dumping of cheap Chinese shoes, t-shirts and bras, if I recall.
- Overvaluation of the Yuan? See free-trade allegations, above.
- As for the Dalai Lama, where do I start?
- And when it comes to Iran, China’s alliance with this country has rubbed the US the wrong way for many years and has been bubbling away for awhile now.
I am not saying that any of these “rehashed” issues are without legitimacy. What I will say is that they tend to be brought up with some regularity and never quite worked through. They are like sore points that long-married couples raise habitually when they feel the need to fight about something (bad analogy, perhaps?).
Which makes me rather cynical about the timing of their prominence.
I suspect, and I leave you free to connect the rest of my dots, that the Obama administration has never been all that sure what to do about China. I felt that twinge from the time that US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner felt it necessary to launch a shot across the bow regarding the Chinese Yuan almost as soon as he had warmed his seat in the job. Not much came of it in the end, but what did it foreshadow? Interestingly, his boss at the time had an approval rating of over 70%, so maybe it was just as well that it was largely glossed over.
Now Obama is facing an approval rating of 50% or thereabouts, maybe even less.
Which, perhaps, means it is time for political expedience over real policy, let alone matters of genuine relevance.
Such as? Such as freedom of speech over the Internet.
6 Comments
I suspect the Chinese government throws up a few diplomatic curveballs at the Americans everytime there is a new President. There would be two reasons for this – firstly, to put a new US President on the back foot and secondly, to test them out. IT wouldn’t have mattered if McCain had won the Presidency, the Chinese would still have thrown up the same issues.
I’m pretty sure that at the start of the Clinton and Bush (Jr) Presidencies, there was talk about the Americans clamping down on the Chinese on economic and political issues. The Chinese, by putting on the pressure early, have largely won these fights.
Geraldine, you’re going to love this new Warren I. Cohen book then | http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=1461 which I just read about it. I’d like to announce for the record that it’s now on pre-order.
When W decided to spend money the US didn’t have he placed the US in a rather weak position.
Aspects of life that were clear to Shakespeare – think Hamlet and Merchant of Venice – are no different now…
Neither a borrower, nor a lender be.
Only one thing seems inevitable – it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Daniel, y’know, in this case, I think it’s the US who are pitching and the Chinese who are catching. I feel that, in late 2008 and early 2009, the Chinese were just waiting to see what Obama would come up with. Then came Geithner with his hard-line and the Chinese became slightly more wary, but just slightly. The Chinese, in my opinion, haven’t thrown up any new issues – they have just been their old selves. It’s the American administrations who use these issues as political footballs to try and score points.
The Chinese, in comparison, don’t view changes in administration as anything to get overreactive about. They don’t put extra pressure on early, they are just constant. For all their so-called “inscrutability”, they are pretty much very predictable. Perhaps because of this very constancy and practice, they unnerve new governments in power.
ADM – you’re absolutely correct. I’m excited. Right up my alley…
UK visa, it is true that there is equal danger in being a lender and a borrower. I recall The Economist’s description of the US-China relationship on treasury and trade matters as being that of a dealer and junkie. The US gorged themselves, while the Chinese enabled the habit, and the Chinese all the while benefited from the extra cash (hot or cool).
Still, it wasn’t just W who spent it, it was Greenspan, the “evil” banks, the average consumer, and anyone who thought property prices would just go up and up.