With China's rapid growth increasingly affecting a wide range of issues worldwide, it has become expedient for US presidential candidates to blame China for some domestic problems in the US. But in this year's US presidential election campaign, China-bashing has been virtually non-existent. There are good reasons for this welcome change.
China has found itself a frequent target of populist demagoguery. Its exchange-rate regime, which pegs the yuan to the US dollar, has been blamed for the mounting US trade deficit. Never mind that America's bilateral trade deficit with China, even including Hong Kong, accounts for less than one-fifth of the total US deficit. Growing imports from China and more direct investment by US companies have supposedly fueled US unemployment. The jobs issue has been further exploited by citing poor working conditions, low wages, child labor and other problems commonly found in developing countries.
Attacking a communist country has always seemed to offer US politicians a convenient way to appeal to the average voter. After all, most US voters can be trusted not to understand how other countries -- let alone countries in the Far East -- really work.
But this time, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry both know that it would be unwise to bash China too hard. US companies and the entire US economy have a huge stake in China now, so both candidates have no interest in rocking the boat. A candidate may promise more anti-dumping actions against Chinese goods, vow to press harder on China to change its exchange rate regime, or sharpen criticism of China's weak enforcement of intellectual property rights; but too much protectionism may make a candidate look irresponsible this year.
Indeed, protectionism can do nothing to reduce the US trade deficit and stanch domestic unemployment. No matter how much politicians blame other countries, growing US imports mean greater reliance on international markets, and some China factor in America's investment portfolio is needed to compete against European and Japanese firms.
There is no hiding these facts from US voters now. Bush failed to honor his anti-Chinese protectionist campaign promises of 2000, as did former US President Bill Clinton throughout his term. Any China-bashing and protectionist pleas this time around will most likely ring just as hollow.
Moreover, China's geopolitical importance to the US has grown immensely since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. At least for now, engaging China in the global fight against terrorism is in America's interest. China does have some common interests in fighting Islamic extremist terrorism, and it did not try to block America's path to the Iraqi war in the UN Security Council. China has also been cooperating constructively with the US and its allies in dealing with North Korea's nuclear capabilities.
Of course, the US still wants to contain China and prevent it from becoming a major regional and world power. But that remains a long-term strategic goal, not the stuff of presidential campaigns, especially when China seems too weak to pose any immediate threat to the US on any front in the foreseeable future.
China has never been a positive factor in US politics, so from its perspective, the less it is mentioned in this US election season, the better. The relative silence about China in the US these days may be due merely to the Iraq war and post-war situation still dominating the news. Yet it may also indicate that US political elites are in the process of facing up to new realities and adjusting their view of China accordingly.
Fan Gang is professor of economics at Beijing University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing