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.
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS