It is not known whether the visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) to the US last month cleared the air between the two nations. The relations between them are difficult to manage and might even be entering a hostile phase.
The rise of China could upset the US-led post-World War II international order, as Beijing refuses to fit into it. It refuses to accept the US narrative that says China’s rise in the international arena is proof that the nation has benefited from the current world order, which continues to serve it well. And any attempt by Beijing to undermine or replace it is bound to disrupt and destabilize what has worked so far.
For China, though, the order is a self-serving US narrative to maintain its primacy and dominance, underpinned by established international rules and institutions.
China is obviously not keen on playing a subordinate role. Apart from the fact that it is now the world’s second-largest economy, and is likely to overtake the US soon, its historical memory propels it to be the focus of power in its own right.
This historical memory is played out on two levels.
On the first level is the humiliation heaped on China during the 19th century, when it was forced to open its markets to opium in the name of free trade. The nation was bankrupted and virtually parceled out for the sake of the free market.
And in the 1930s and 1940s, Japan simply marched into and declared war on China.
Until recently, China had followed the advice of former Chinese president Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) to “hide your strength and bide your time.” Beijing apparently feels that the time has come to flex its muscles to assert and project its power. Therefore, at one level, China seems determined to wash off its humiliation by asserting its newfound power.
At another level, having been a great power historically, and bearing the name that means “middle kingdom,” China’s more confident leaders want to restore the nation’s former glory. And there is a sense that the US-led international system is seeking to constrain China.
This is reflected in Beijing’s assertion of sovereignty in the South China Sea — which is contested by Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei — where it has been building military facilities on existing and reclaimed islands, which it regards as its own territory, along with the surrounding waters.
The action is meeting resistance from the US and its allies, who fear that China is virtually turning all of South China Sea into an internal lake to impede, or even deny, freedom of navigation and trade through international waters.
The US is prepared to challenge China’s control and assert freedom of navigation, raising the specter of a naval confrontation.
During a speech to the UN General Assembly, US President Barack Obama said: “We have an interest in upholding the basic principles of freedom of navigation [in the South China Sea] and the free flow of commerce, and in resolving disputes through international law, not the law of force.”
However, peaceful resolution might not be easy.
During Xi’s US visit, there did not seem to be any progress regarding freedom of navigation in South China Sea. Both sides reiterated their respective positions, with the US advocating a peaceful diplomatic solution and China asserting its sovereignty.
In other words, the question of sovereignty in the South China Sea — and between Japan and China in the East China Sea — remain serious issues affecting peace and stability in the region.
The question of cybersecurity has also clouded US-China relations. According to reports by Washington, Chinese hackers have stolen security data of more than 20 million federal employees and contractors, posing great security and commercial risks for the US. A branch of the Chinese army was also said to be involved in the hacking and the US has accused some over alleged illegal activities.
Beijing, of course, denied involvement and claimed that it, too, has been a target of cybercrime. Not surprisingly, the issue of cybersecurity featured in preparatory talks and the issue was also discussed during Xi’s visit.
There was talk of establishing a “hotline” for cyberattacks between the two countries. According to reports, Beijing agreed that “neither nation’s government will conduct or knowingly support cybertheft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors.”
The problem with such issues, whether in regard to state secrets or commercial information, is how to prove and prevent cybercrime.
Deals become further compounded when the relationship is marred by mutual distrust. In other words, no amount of understanding on the issue of cybercrime is likely to bridge the gap between Washington and Beijing.
However, it is still worth maintaining functional ties between the world’s two most powerful countries.
Another issue that has marred relations between Washington and Beijing is the question of human rights.
The generally accepted meaning of human rights is the freedom of expression and assembly without fear of repercussions. It also means citizens’ right to elect their own governments, which might involve rejecting the current regime.
By these standards, the Chinese Communist Party’s monopoly on power, in which people are denied the right to choose their own government, is a denial of a basic human right. Those demanding to exercise that right often end up behind bars.
According to reports, such arbitrary arrests have become a feature of the Xi administration, which is not apologetic about the monopoly it exerts. The argument on the Chinese side is that every nation has its own history and a system that shapes it.
Indeed, the US is regarded as self-serving in advocating its system, which, too, is said to have serious human rights problems and violations. And its advocacy of democracy and human rights is considered subversive as far as China is concerned.
This led Beijing to issue an internal memo not long ago that reportedly warned against seven “false ideological trends, positions and activities,” including “Western constitutional democracy,” “universal values,” “the West’s idea of journalism” and civil society. And there is no prize for guessing that China and the US strongly disagree on the idea and practice of democracy.
With such divergent views and interests on a whole gamut of issues, Xi’s US visit was not expected to bring about any significant meeting of minds.
However, both sides seem interested in keeping up the dialogue and not letting things fall apart. And as long as that is maintained, it is not too bad.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under