Posted on 10/27/2002 3:01:26 PM PST by Annakin
ANN ARBOR, Mich. - American relations with China have improved in a way that few could have imagined when the Bush administration entered office and declared China a "strategic competitor." Now signs of serious cooperation are everywhere. China has worked with the United States on the global counterterrorism effort, will not be the spoiler on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq, has recently adopted stringent regulations on dual-use missile technology exports and other proliferation issues, and is discussing cooperation with the United States on North Korea. Meanwhile, the White House did not oppose Beijing's bid for the 2008 Olympic games, supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization and even acceded to Beijing's concerns about Islamic terrorist activities in the country's northwest Xinjiang region, putting a key group there on the United States' terrorism list. President Bush's decision to host Jiang Zemin, the Chinese president, at the Crawford ranch today is another sign of good relations. Mr. Bush and Mr. Jiang will then attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Mexico, where Mr. Bush will see the leaders of our allies Japan and South Korea. The special treatment for Mr. Jiang highlights the remarkable development of United States-China relations, especially since Sept. 11. The key reasons for this improved relationship are clear. In the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Bush welcomed China's cooperation in bringing Pakistan into an anti-Taliban coalition and obtaining a strong United Nations resolution on terrorism. Mr. Bush has made counterterrorism the central focus of American foreign policy, and China has consistently and usefully remained on the right side of this issue. Equally important, China's leaders have been eager to stabilize the relationship. They want to avoid confronting the United States, especially when their domestic agenda is full with succession and other issues. They also count on American trade and investment to help keep their economy growing fast enough to maintain domestic stability. In general, China has adopted a more confident overall approach to foreign policy. Beijing seems now to feel accepted as a major, respected actor in the international arena. It is actively pursuing multilateral approaches to trade and security issues and is rapidly opening its economy to increased foreign investment. Its foreign policy is increasingly pragmatic, nuanced and consistent, eschewing the petulant stances that seemed in times past to reflect an underlying inferiority complex. In the last year, China has skillfully evaluated and acted on its opportunities for strategic cooperation with the United States. Yet we should not forget that this relationship has long been characterized by wide swings of emotion, from amity to anger. It may be too early to say that the relationship has stabilized for the long term. Here are three notes of caution. First, the counterterrorism effort that now provides the foundation for strategic cooperation could become a source of serious friction. China has no love for Saddam Hussein, terrorism or nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, but it worries about American tactics in dealing with these issues. If the United States attacks Iraq without United Nations approval, for example, Beijing will be deeply shaken. Beijing worries too about the aftermath of an invasion of Iraq. The effects of a war and occupation could undermine governments from those in the Middle East to Pakistan to Indonesia. Beijing also fears a spike in energy prices. It has no strategic oil reserve and is a substantial oil importer. High energy prices could produce an extremely unwelcome drag on China's economic growth. Indeed, on several fronts, China may find that it will need to distance itself from American policy. Beijing is also very much aware that in the name of counterterrorism the United States has vastly increased its military strategic posture all around China's periphery. It has established a military presence in Central Asia, developed military ties with Pakistan and India and strengthened its relations with Russia. Against this background, strategic cooperation could in time slide toward mutual suspicion. Second, there are vociferous critics of cooperation in both countries who have been silent but could raise their voices should circumstances change. In Washington, conservative Republicans have been loath to criticize a conservative Republican president, even over warming ties with China. And liberal Democrats have had trouble finding their footing on China's human rights record in the wake of new national security concerns. But they, along with those in the administration who hold dark views of China as a potential military adversary, would become vocal should relations with China begin to unravel. In China, debate continues over America's long-term goals and China's security. Should serious leadership rifts develop over domestic issues, policy toward the United States could well become part of the political battle. The Chinese military is already highly suspicious of America's recent enhancement of its military power in areas surrounding China, its increased military contacts with and arms sales to Taiwan, and its adoption of pre-emption as a core strategic doctrine. Third, the Taiwan issue is both hopeful and treacherous, as rapidly growing economic ties across the Taiwan Strait are being matched by an escalating arms race on both sides. The possibility of disaster cannot yet be discounted. American interests require that we support the maintenance of Taiwan's democratic freedom, prosperity and security. We also have long-standing commitments, affirmed by the Bush administration, not to support a Taiwanese bid for independence. President Bush declared early on that he will do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan. But the administration has not taken initiatives to increase the chances of a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues. These issues are intertwined and, although both sides value cooperation, they will remain central to America's relations with China long after the Crawford visit is over. Kenneth Lieberthal is a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Michigan. He served as senior director for Asia on the National Security Council from 1998 to 2000.
She will do so till the time she reaches a stature when she thinks she can effectively challenge the United States. That point is still down the road in the 21st century.
But knowing China as many experts in America do, that day will come.
Meantime, will the US be lulled back into a period of complacency?
That's the danger the lawmakers, the academics, the think tanks, the media and, of course, the administration need to guard against.
The author makes one incorrect statement - that China has developed military ties with India. This is nonsense. China has steadfastly armed both Pakistan and North Korea with nuclear technology, in a direct assault on the National Security of the United States, Russia, Japan, and India.
If you would like to write to the editor of the NY Times, click: letters@nytimes.com
Letters should not exceed 150 words.
I wonder if he got a "piece of the action."
The question here is not what's going to happen...the question is: Cancer or Heart attack? Choose your poison...fast or slow...the end result is the same...JMHO
FMCDH
(Heck, we didn't challenge them when they rammed down our plane and charged us rent for holding our airmen hostage and when they repeated that their missiles can reach the West Coast, so GWB's not exactly a mortal enemy of China's, either... if only he'd toe the line better where Taiwan is concerned, he be perfect for them, too!)
As long as we keep feeding the tiger with trade deals, the tiger will not try to eat us. Right now they have us by the trade hairs. Recently President Bush conceded that our economy was in ships waiting offshore from California. China will be willing to wait as we dissiptate our strength in wars of a thousand battles against weapons of mass destruction then human weapons of local destruction.
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.