Senator Paul Sarbanes described the bilateral trade relationship as the most one-sided in the world. The character of imports from China is shifting increasingly to sophisticated categories of products which compete directly with goods made in the US. In addition, US foreign investment is about to overtake US exports as the primary means by which US companies deliver goods to China. China's policies for attracting foreign investment and technology also have significant national security implications.
Senator Charles Hagel suggested that a transparent, efficient and realistic system of export controls will encourage the participation and compliance of the business community. He thought we must also work with our allies and friends in this effort. The concerns of the three senators seem remarkably like those of Taiwan.
Two days before this hearing, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly testified before the House International Relations Subcommittee. He laid out the US policy toward China as well as toward the cross-strait issue. They were hardly provocative. The difference was the straightforward presentation -- something Beijing or many of the US' China-watchers had become unaccustomed to hearing. "We do not view China as an enemy. We view China as a partner on some issues and a competitor for influence in the region." He referred to the US' large trade and investment relationship as being in US interests, and supported China's entry into the WTO: "The administration wants a productive relationship with Beijing. The ball is in the PRC's court."
On cross-strait matters, he referred to China's growing deployments aimed at Taiwan -- and at the US. He noted that, "Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁] has repeatedly expressed his commitment to cross-strait dialogue." He urged both sides to resume dialogue, and thought progress could be made "if the PRC has the political will ...." He referred to the growing economic interchange, and then to the need for the PRC to shift from intimidating to appealing to the people of Taiwan.
The most important point with respect to the cross-strait issue was his statement that, "The PRC cannot ignore the elected representatives of the people of Taiwan if cross-strait dialogue is to resume and be revitalized. Instead, it must offer a case that is attractive to a democratically elected leadership." That makes the US position clear on what is needed to restart the dialogue. Beijing has always been very clear: simply accept their preconditions, ie surrender. In Taiwan, on the other hand, there seem to be advocates for both paths to dialogue.
I believe the government in Washington, on the matter of China policy, has not done badly, as so many China experts like to believe. It has set the tone. Some may not like it. Some elements of it may change with time, though it is not likely to waver too far from the broad direction it has gone for many years (barring some crisis). But, in my judgment, it has begun to establish a more natural, realistic and better-understood relationship than we have had in the past.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
RSS