Posted on 01/27/2006 8:13:49 AM PST by Flavius
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top US officials, recognizing China's growing influence, say they are trying to persuade Beijing to act as a "responsible actor" on the world stage amid disagreements and rivalry between the two powers. ADVERTISEMENT
With China's rising star dominating the World Economic Forum in Davos, US representatives sounded a note of apprehension about Beijing's diplomacy.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was up to Washington and other powers to encourage China to act as a "stakeholder" in the international arena and not merely pursue its own economic interests.
"Now, the rise of China is something we don't only take note of, but we believe that there is an obligation by all of the powers, but perhaps particularly the United States, to engage in policies that will encourage ... the responsible stakeholder China, the China that sees it has an obligation in the international system to promote and, in fact, to defend peace and security," Rice said Thursday in a video conference at the Davos event.
"China is, after all, one of the permanent five members of the Security Council," Rice said.
Washington has been lobbying China to set aside its economic appetite for oil and back calls for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.
A crucial meeting on the issue is set for February 2 when the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convenes in Vienna.
But as the world's second biggest consumer of oil, China has remained reluctant given Iran's vast oil and gas reserves.
Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who has been meeting Chinese officials this week, said that Beijing was not "taking the exact same route as the US" on the Iranian nuclear issue.
According to Rice, Beijing has played an important role in six-party talks with North Korea. This indicated that China "understands that it has a crucial role to play in not just commenting on security but actually promoting a more secure environment," she said.
As one of the biggest importers of raw materials from Latin America, China has made its mark in a region previously dominated by Washington.
China has signed a free trade agreement with Chile and brokered deals with Venezuela focused mainly on oil.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a vehement critic of the United States, sought to align his government with China when he said he rejected Taiwan's independence.
Bolivia's new leftist president, Evo Morales, travelled to China soon after his election victory, seeking to forge economic ties for his impoverished country with major natural gas reserves.
During his visit, Morales said that China was a "political and ideological ally of the Bolivian people."
In Africa, China's economic influence has raised concerns in Washington.
US Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs Jendayi Frazer recently expressed regret that China's investments in Africa have focused exclusively on raw materials.
"Certainly when you look at where China has invested its resources in Africa, it's primarily in oil-producing countries and the other place is in South Africa," Frazer said.
"So one would hope that China's investment would be broader and that it would contribute not only to China's development and growth, which is at such a high pace ... but it would also contribute to Africa's growth and development."
We have to stop this "oh please please please be nice" diplomacy and start grabbing China by the balls. To wit, if you block us in the UN regarding Iran, you can count on Taiwan acquiring the fanciest nuclear weapons you have every laid your eyes on. You want to arm or enable our enemies, fine and dandy. Two can play at that game.
Another portion of the Clinton "legacy".
With help from the Republican Congress.
"Another portion of the Clinton "legacy"."
That's a reach. With our current lobby system, and hunger for cheap goods from China, do you honestly think that China would be in a much different positon even if Clinton had stonewalled them?
China's growing devide between rich and poor unencumbered by dictatorial retraints is what (wealthy) china fears.
These people crack me up. It is their trade policies (or lack thereof) that has allowed this to happen. And now they cry about it. Worthless bunch of morons.
Don't forget the missile defense system to go along with it.
Let's see. US has 8. who knows TRILLION dollars of debt and China has a surplus of cash. Yeah I'd say it's looking a little iffy.
Depends on who is holding the debt. I wonder how much USD reserves and USD notes China is holding? Who says we have to honor either?
bump
"US watches China's rising star with anxiety"
Like this is a suprise? Hell, we built them up by allowing tech transfer and trade.
Our "Elites" have been feeding the dragon that is going to eat them.
Bingo! Back in the 90s when there was talk of admitting China into the WTO, I lived in Texas and wrote all the Washington reps not to do it. I told them that we would be at war with China in 10 years and this was equivalent to selling scrap iron to the Japs in the 30s.
Never heard back from Hutchinson; Graham patted me on the head and implied that trade with China (like greed) was "good". Dick Armey wrote me a reasoned two-page rebuttal and signed it. He also thought China in the WTO was good. Now, of a sudden, Washington is shocked, shocked I tell you, that China might be a threat.
Ten years have come and gone and luckily we are not at war -- yet. But neither have they been softened by trade, which was one of the pro-China mantras then.
And Chinese money makes D.C. go round.
Well, what I remember, was that less than a year after Beelzeflubba took orifice, was flood of Communist Chinese products into nearly every store.
Republicrats in Congress..
Modern liberalism does not offer ordinary men compelling motives for personal suffering, sacrifice, and death. There is no tragic dimension in its picture of the good life. Men become willing to endure, sacrifice, and die for God, for family, king, honor, country, from a sense of absolute duty or an exalted vision of the meaning of history… . And it is precisely these ideas and institutions that liberalism has criticized, attacked, and in part overthrown as superstitious, archaic, reactionary, and irrational. In their place liberalism proposes a set of pale and bloodless abstractions—pale and bloodless for the very reason that they have no roots in the past, in deep feeling and in suffering. Except for mercenaries, saints, and neurotics, no one is willing to sacrifice and die for progressive education, medicare, humanity in the abstract, the United Nations, and a ten percent rise in Social Security payments.-- James Burnham
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.