Font size: 
The tone of the meeting showed a strong sense of shared responsibility between these two world leaders in constructing a healthier and more prosperous and peaceful world. However, several factors might challenge a closer partnership between their two countries.
At the heart of the matter is the issue of trust. Even though Obama has signed an agreement to work in partnership with China, there is still opposition in the U.S. Congress that cannot be ignored. There are still voices who stress the ideological differences between the two countries – who consider China more communist than capitalist, more authoritarian than democratic, disrespectful of human rights and valuing the collective more than the individual.
In a word, Americans have a different attitude toward national identity, as well as different ideological assumptions and a different culture from the Chinese.
Partly because of this, Americans cannot easily abandon the idea that China is a threat to them. In terms of security, many Americans hold a negative attitude toward China’s military development, especially in space and on the ocean.
Some military experts and politicians still hold the view that China should be contained in the Taiwan Strait, and advocate continued weapon sales to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which was signed in 1979 several months after the United States and China established diplomatic relations. An imminent test of Obama will be if he agrees to sell such weapons to Taiwan.
Americans also see China as a threat in economic terms. They wonder if China’s rising economic power will swallow up the U.S. economy in the future. This fear is similar to one that arose in the 1980s when Japan began buying massive amounts of U.S. real estate. China is now the biggest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds; many Americans wonder if China will take advantage of this to coerce the United States to sacrifice its national interest.
In the real world, trade conflicts have emerged one after another. The United States has recently imposed special tariffs on China-made tires and steel pipes, for example, and restricted poultry imports. On the other hand, China has had long-term bans on U.S. beef and creative industry products including films, DVDs, music and books. Such trade skirmishes are likely to continue.
On the Chinese side, it is true that China is a state with a collective culture, whereby power is held and decisions mostly made by top leaders. Yet public attitudes can also affect Sino-U.S. relations. There are local interest groups, nongovernmental organizations, party dissidents, and most importantly nationalist groups that stress China’s own interests and hold an aggressive attitude toward other countries.
When conflicts do arise, the nationalistic fervor of such groups cannot be ignored. This has happened in the past, for example when the United States hesitated to back China’s resumption of membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and later in joining the World Trade Organization.
Then there was the 1999 U.S. bombing of China’s Embassy in Belgrade, and the 2001 collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter, resulting in the Chinese pilot’s death. There was also Beijing’s failed Olympic bid in 2000 which many Chinese blamed on the United States.
Even if China and the United States are willing to share responsibility and meet the challenges of the 21st century, one must ask if the comprehensive capability of the two states is powerful enough to handle all issues. There are some 200 states in the world, and history shows that conflicts can arise over many issues, including security, trade, economic interests, borders, religion and ethnicity.
Currently, security and economic interests are the biggest areas of contention. Some states still seek regional hegemony; some fear for their own survival to the point of breaking international norms, even to the point of developing nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea come to mind as potential threats to a peaceful world order.
Another area of potential conflict is the pursuit of development or modernization and the need to protect the environment, which is faced especially by developing countries. In an interconnected world, united efforts are needed to manage climate change. Yet some nations will feel they have to sacrifice their developmental interests to do this. This issue will require negotiation and a strategy that is fair to those who are developmentally behind.
To work together, China and the United States will not only have to respect one another as partners, they will also have to encourage other stakeholders to partner with them in order to manage global issues. They will have to set aside their mistrust and consider each other’s positions fairly.
Most importantly, if they wish to be seen as world leaders, they must build a global consensus that can define international priorities and work toward solving the problems that threaten humanity as a whole.
--
(Dr. Zhang Quanyi is associate professor at Zhejiang Wanli University in Ningbo, China, and a guest researcher at the Center for the Study of Non-traditional Security and Peaceful Development at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou. His research interest revolves around the creation of a world state. He can be contacted at qyzhangupi@gmail.com. ©Copyright Zhang Quanyi)
Related Stories|
● Rethinking U.S. global leadership By Zhang Quanyi (2009/11/5) |
