Page 1 of
2 Clinton
brush off marks new Sino-US
rivalry By Brendan O'Reilly
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
trip to China highlighted the challenges inherent
in the world's most important bilateral
relationship. There are now serious areas of
contention between China and the United States. As
China continues her rapid progress towards
replacing the United States as the world's largest
economy, the entire dynamic of the global
political system is experiencing momentous
changes, often to the detriment of American
influence.
Both China and the United
States must be careful not to repeat the mistakes
of past global powers. The risks intrinsic to open
confrontation between two economically integrated,
technologically advanced nations are simply too
high. It is in the
interest of both
nations, as well as the entire human race, for
Sino-American rivalry to remain on friendly terms.
Fortunately, despite tough talk on both sides, the
fundamental economic and military realities point
to long-term balance and a competitive stability.
An example of China's increased
international assertiveness was on full display
during Secretary Clinton's visit. During their
joint news conference in Beijing, Chinese Foreign
Minister Yang Jiechi harshly rebutted Clinton's
previous assertion that China and Russia are "on
the wrong side of history" because of their
opposition to United Nations sanctions against the
Syrian government:
"I think history will
judge that China's position on the Syria question
is a promotion of the appropriate handling of the
situation … the interests of the people of Syria
and the region and the interests of peace,
stability and development in the region and
throughout the world." [1]
Yang
reiterating the Chinese disagreement with America
over the Syrian issue in the presence of Clinton
sends a very strong message. Clinton was quick to
respond, saying: "It is no secret that we have
been disappointed by Russia and China's actions
blocking tougher UN Security Council resolutions
and we hope to continue to unite behind a real
path forward to end the violence in Syria."
The Chinese government is no longer shy
about directly addressing criticisms and
disagreements with American policy - even while
hosting the American secretary of state. Of
course, the meeting also had the usual diplomatic
platitudes, with calls for increased "cooperation"
and "convergent interests".
For those
reading between the lines it is important to note
that a planned meeting between secretary Clinton
and China's leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping was
canceled at the last minute for "unexpected
scheduling reasons". Chinese appeals to refrain
from "unnecessary speculation" over the
cancelation only added to the intrigue. In a land
where symbolism is at the heart of politics, Xi's
snub of Clinton is extremely relevant.
In
order to understand China's defensive attitude
towards Secretary Clinton, one needs to understand
the context of her trip to Beijing, and the
broader currents of contemporary Sino-American
relations.
Secretary Clinton made two
significant stops on her way to Beijing. First,
Clinton visited the Cook Islands to attend the
Pacific Islands Forum. Her comments at this Forum
served to emphasize American political attitudes
towards a rising China. Answering questions on
whether Chinese money was negatively affecting the
domestic political systems of Pacific nations,
Clinton said: "Here in the Pacific, we want to see
China act in a fair and transparent way".
Clearly, there is growing American concern
of China overtaking the US as the world's main
practitioner of "dollar diplomacy". This dynamic
is on display throughout the world: from Africa to
South America, and of course, in the Pacific
itself.
According to the Lowy Institute,
Beijing has pledged over $600 million worth in
loans to Pacific nations since 2005. Meanwhile,
Secretary Clinton offered $32 million worth of new
development projects during her recent visit.
There is little the American government, with its
extensive economic and budgetary woes, can do to
counter China's increasing investment in foreign
countries - except, of course, to decry the
potential negative effects such investments will
have on the domestic political system in said
countries.
In a more conciliatory note,
Clinton stressed "We think it is important for the
Pacific island nations to have good relationships
with as many partners as possible and that
includes China and the United States," and
repeatedly said "The Pacific is big enough for all
of us." [2]
Indeed, the vast Pacific Ocean
is large enough to accommodate the ambitions and
interest of the world's two most powerful nations.
The Chinese, though, may take objection to exactly
how much of the Pacific each country is currently
occupying. A map of US military bases in the
region shows that China is effectively surrounded
right off her coast by the American navy. One can
imagine the protests by the US if China were to
set up a massive naval base in Fiji, much less the
apocalyptic rhetoric which would result from China
stationing tens of thousands of troops in Cuba. As
China's economic might is increasingly invested in
military capabilities, the Chinese may seek the
means to push the line of effective US naval
control in the Pacific away from Chinese shores.
Secretary Clinton's second stop on her way
to China further underlined the Chinese fears of
regional encirclement and containment. While
meeting with Indonesian leaders in Jakarta,
Clinton spoke of Indonesia's role as a guarantor
of a united ASEAN front regarding the South China
Sea dispute: "That show of unity is very important
for us …No party should take any steps that would
increase tension." She promised to address the
South China Sea issue with Chinese leadership,
saying: "I will be discussing this [the South
China Sea dispute] in Beijing and hopefully we
will make progress before the East Asia
Summit."[3] While these words by no means
appear belligerent on their surface, they are
widely interpreted in China as American
interference. Any moves by the American government
to get involved in the South China Sea territorial
row are strongly condemned by Beijing. The Chinese
leadership sees American backing of the militaries
of the Philippines and Vietnam's, as well as
support for Japan in the East China Sea, as part
of a concerted effort at strategically encircling
China.
The view from China An
editorial in the Community Party- controlled
Global Times, entitled "Hillary reinforces
US-China mistrust", offers a glimpse into the
Chinese worldview regarding America's pivot
towards Asia:
The biggest "contribution" that she
has brought to US diplomacy is the "pivot" to
Asia. But besides greatly raising the mutual
mistrust with China, the move hasn't yet brought
pragmatic benefits to the US. It seems that the
US is trying to realize two goals, namely
renewing domestic economic vigor and checking
China's rise, so as to maintain its world
hegemony, which is its ultimate strategic goal.
Checking China's rise is the wrong strategic
goal for the US. This leading power, despite all
its advantages, has limited strength but quite a
few thorny tasks in its diplomacy.
Superficially, Clinton's proposal to restrain
China with "smart power" diplomacy works on the
South China Sea issue. But it appears to be
merely a small trick from the perspective of the
strategy of a superpower.
[4] China
sees the US government as intent on an unrealistic
goal of perpetuating complete American global
dominance - including in China's backyard. U.S
diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea are
condemned as merely a "small trick" to contain a
rival.
Why does the Chinese government
bristle so at perceived US interference in
longstanding disputes over small, uninhabited
islands? The answer lies primarily in the
sensitive issue of sovereignty.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
