The recent visit to China by US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and US Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner was overshadowed by the furore caused by the escape of the blind Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng (陳光誠) to the US embassy in Beijing.
Chen has been a thorn in the government’s side, having embarrassed China by exposing cases of forced abortions and sterilization in China’s rural areas as part of the country’s one-child policy. After serving a four-year prison term on charges of “sedition,” he was put under house arrest from which he escaped recently. Not surprisingly, this caused a crisis of sorts in US-China relations, with Clinton and Geithner stuck right in the middle during their visit. All this only goes to show the fragility of US-China relations, with Beijing accusing the US of interfering in its internal affairs.
According to some recent reports, this conundrum might be resolved with the Chinese government agreeing to allow Chen, with his wife and two children, to study in the US.
This resolution might bring a convenient end to a difficult diplomatic crisis, but it will still be highly embarrassing for China as it effectively means Beijing is admitting that Chen’s earlier imprisonment on “sedition” was politically motivated.
Even though Beijing is averse to admitting it has a human rights problem, it does at times say that human rights are improving. This, by implication, means that there is a problem. The US obviously pushes this button to promote democracy in China.
However, with its economic success, China has increasingly taken a more assertive position, even promoting its path as an alternative model for the world. As the US and China increasingly take opposite positions on a whole raft of issues, their disagreements are likely to heighten with less scope to peacefully manage their relations.
If diplomacy is the art of managing relations between nations, the US and China will need to work harder. With both keen to assert their primacy in the Asia-Pacific region, the opportunity to manage rising ambitions is likely to get tougher.
China lays lays claim to most of the South China Sea, where it is contesting ownership rights over a series of islands with several countries while it also contests maritime boundaries with Japan over the East China Sea. There have been several naval skirmishes between Chinese forces and those of competing states.
Currently, relations between China and the Philippines are tense amid a dispute over the Scarborough Shoal, a chain of uninhabited islands in the South China Sea known as Huangyan Island (黃岩島) in Taiwan. Public opinion in the Philippines is quite animated over China’s blanket sovereignty claim to the archipelago, which is rich in oil, gas and fishery resources.
A report in the French newspaper Le Monde quoted a Chinese study which says that the area may contain the equivalent of 213 billion barrels of oil: equivalent to 80 percent of Saudi Arabia’s established reserves. No wonder there are a number of claimants to such potential wealth.
China is flexing its political and military muscles to try and browbeat the Philippines over ownership rights, but the Philippines is standing its ground. The Philippines is of course a US ally.
Although the US is ostensibly not taking sides, it has further strengthened its strategic ties with the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries in the region. Now that the US is disengaging from Afghanistan, it has signalled its intention to become more focused on the Asia-Pacific region — not something that has gone down well with China.
Apart from problematic relations neighboring states, China is also having more than its usual share of internal tensions; the most recent being the Chen Guangcheng affair.
China’s sensitivity over its domestic affairs was graphically illustrated during the Arab Spring when authorities blocked access to Internet information regarding the popular upsurge in north Africa, fearing the contagion may spread to China itself.
More recently, the sudden dismissal of Chongqing Chinese Communist Party boss Bo Xilai (薄熙來), who was removed from power at the same time his wife was arrested in connection with the murder of a British man, has shown that authorities are jittery.
It is such sensitivity and the resistance to any political reform which would compromise the party’s monopoly on power that give the US a certain moral and political advantage over China, but this only makes authorities within the country more resolute on maintaining and asserting party control. China’s leadership fears that the US is using democracy and human rights to foment internal trouble which could destabilize the nation. This remains as yet another problematic issue in the China-US relationship.
It is, however, the contest for primacy in the Asia-Pacific region, which remain the core issue.
Up until now, the US has been the dominant force in the hemisphere and militarily, the US is still the most powerful country on the planet. In the Asia-Pacific region, though, China is seeking to displace the US through a mix of economic, political and military muscle.
Indeed, China believes it is none of the US’ business to be poking around in its neighborhood where, in Beijing’s view, China’s historical and strategic primacy, is well established. Indeed, from this viewpoint, China’s loss of regional primacy over the past 150 years was a temporary glitch.
Therefore, a renewed and stronger China feels justified in laying claim its old domain: the Middle Kingdom, which helps explain its many sovereignty claims over both the South China and East China seas.
However, in a world full of competing nation states, historical claims of dominance by old or new empires are more an obstacle than a solution. This brings China into conflict with some of its regional neighbors and with the US as well, given that it is the dominant power in the region — in addition to being an ally of many of China’s Asian neighbors.
One way out of this complex situation may be to work out a power-sharing mechanism that bypasses countries in the region, but this also poses problems because none would want to be a pawn in US-China relations.
Whatever happens, neither China nor the US are likely to engage in any serious power-sharing deal. At some point either China or the US will have to make way for the other.
As the rising power China is unlikely to give ground on any of its “core” strategic interests while the US, on the other hand, wants China to be a responsible stakeholder, meaning that Beijing shouldn’t rock the boat.
These are irreconcilable positions and, ultimately, spell trouble for the region.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS