China seems very pleased with the outcome of the US President George W. Bush -- President Jiang Zemin (
This was not because a great deal was accomplished, but because of Jiang's extremely modest definition of what constituted a "successful" meeting. All Beijing apparently sought was a photo opportunity and a slogan. Success was achieved on both accounts, with the Chinese press touting the willingness of both sides to seek a new "constructive relationship of cooperation."
This is not insignificant. Both Washington and Beijing were eager to show that relations were on a positive trajectory after the rocky start brought about by the April 1 collision between a Chinese fighter and a US reconnaissance plane and a variety of other contentious issues, including continuing US arms sales to Taiwan. The mere fact that Bush took time out from commanding his war on terrorism to travel to China was seen as an important signal, even if accumulating international support for his anti-terrorism campaign remained a key agenda item during the abbreviated visit.
Moreover, slogans are important to China. The operative slogan prior to the APEC visit was candidate Bush's "strategic competitor" label; a phrase generally avoided by administration spokesmen after Jan. 20, but still featured prominently in the press when describing Sino-US relations. As long as Bush was willing to state in Shanghai that he sought a "constructive, and cooperative" relationship with China -- which he did (although he added the word "candid") -- Beijing was prepared to declare the visit a major success.
What Jiang was apparently not prepared to do during his first face-to-face visit with Bush was to attempt to move Sino-US relations to a higher level, as his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, clearly has done. While the Bush-Jiang meeting was described as "cordial" and "friendly," the personal chemistry exhibited from the onset between Bush and Putin was nowhere to be found.
In Shanghai, Bush and Putin took advantage of their third face-to-face meeting to move US-Russian relations even closer -- one Russian diplomat described the meeting as creating favorable conditions for "forming a new framework for strategic relations" between Washington and Moscow.
Putin sent strong signals that Russia is ready to modify or "stretch" the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to address US security concerns. His flexibility was quickly rewarded by Washington's announcement on Oct. 25 that it was delaying testing of those elements of its missile defense system that could violate the treaty. Meanwhile, both sides also seemed closer to an agreement over deeper cuts in their respective nuclear arsenals; an arms control breakthrough likely to be formally announced during Putin's visit to Bush's Texas ranch later this month. China, by contrast, remains generally inflexible on the issue of missile defense and clearly disappointed Washington by its unwillingness to break the standoff over implementation of a non-proliferation agreement signed with the Clinton administration last year.
This is not to say that Washington was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Jiang summit. The Bush team also had relatively low expectations. But they did appear genuinely disappointed. While Bush did receive a Chinese endorsement of his war against terrorism and a commitment from Beijing to cooperate on stemming financial flows to terrorists, Jiang avoided endorsing the on-going Afghanistan campaign and felt compelled repeatedly to stress his caveats about avoiding innocent casualties -- a US objective, but one that is impossible to achieve with 100 percent success -- and ensuring a continued UN Security Council endorsement.
Jiang also expressed support for the establishment of a medium- and long-term mechanism for anti-terrorism cooperation between China and the US. Little in the way of useful, operationally-oriented intelligence information sharing has yet to materialize, however, and China seems most intent on ensuring that any international war on terrorism includes condemnation of Islamic Uighur separatists in Xinjiang Province.
Washington seems somewhat more sympathetic toward China's terrorist concerns (and Russian concerns over Islamic separatist activity in Chechnya), although here Bush had a caveat of his own: "The war on terror-ism," Bush asserted in Shanghai, "must never be an excuse to persecute minorities" (This is a message Bush has also delivered at home).
Secretary of State Colin Powell (nicely echoing a sentiment expressed previously in this column) noted in Shanghai that, as far as US-Russian relations were concerned, "not only is the Cold War over, the post-Cold War period is also over." Meanwhile, Sino-US relations still seem largely mired in what the Chinese have described in another context as a "Cold War mentality," with both sides apparently willing to settle for considerably less. As Bush and Putin start working toward the establishment of a post post-Cold War new world order, Beijing increasingly runs the risk of being left behind.
Ralph Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers