Sep 23 2005
A New Offensive?
Just read this article on Washingtonpost.com.
Quotes:
‘Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick bluntly warned China … to address … “a cauldron of anxiety” in the United States … ‘
‘The United States has worked hard to bring China into the international system over the past three decades.’
“Uncertainties about how China will use its power will lead the United States — and others as well — to hedge relations with China.”
‘China should not attempt to “maneuver toward a predominance of power” in Asia by building separate alliances in Southeast Asia and other areas.’
We must be living in La La Land.
China has willingly traded its only viable resource, the laborers, for a ticket to the game of global economy. It has docilely followed the rules, and more (e.g. making concessions on textile quota, etc.) Now US is telling it to subject to full body search.
US government is the last one that can claim the credits for where China is toay. MFN and WTO were always tied to politics. 40 days ago, there was this CNOOC/Unocal debacle. The policy of peaceful engagement was never a vote-getter. Amidst the cacophony, the only question that was loud and clear was, “Is China a Strategic Competitor”?
In terms of regional alliance, US is the pioneering manipulator, and the most daring saoteur of world order in the name of national interests. Zoellick himself proposed for using AFTAs to undermine WTO, and John Bolton is a colleague of his! Do they ever kiss-and-tell what they do at work??
[...] Related: My blog [...]
Here is Zoellick’s original speech: http://www.state.gov/s/d/rem/53682.htm quoted from this prof.’s blog.
The tone and intensity from the speech are much milder than what’s been characterized in the Post. It is a blunt but articulate speech that is still consistent with existing US policy. However, if one reads the Post article alone, the speech sounded adruptly confrontational.
Couple of things to watch:
1. Is the Bush admin ready to resume its focus back on China? Given the status of War on Terror, a couple of isolated speeches may not be effective. The fact the speech was delievered by Zoellick not Rice may reflect this reality as well.
2. US is absolutely correct in pressing China for more transparency on both domestic and foreign policies. But ONLY IF the Chinese themselves know what they are. I believe the leadership in China are not bold or capable enough to grow out of Deng Xiaoping Doctrine: focus on economic development like a laser beam and, hopefully, when you regain peripheral vision, all other matters will sort out by themselves.
3. However, US still lacks credit to warn China of its “Mercantilism” while itself is undermining international institutions in the name of “national interests”. Japan, Europe and Canada all had to resort to retaliatory methods to force US back to negotiation table after several WTO rulings were ignored in succession.
4. One has to view China’s “wrongdoings” in perspective. Japan and Korea are far more restrictive in openning their domestic markets to the Americans. That was a hot topic during the late last-Bush and 1st half of the Clinton era. Now they both fell from grace so they are OK to keep their markets closed. The Chinese are doing better (although still 1/3 of Japan in GDP), so it becomes target #1? Without a proper context to address this issue, few would lend their apathy or support to US.
[...] —I can really appreciate what the administration (or US econ-political policy makers) are trying to accomplish here. a. I think it is part of the concerted move to force China open up more at a national infrastructure level (see my other blog and comments). b. This is much healthier than bickering and second-guessing on the “end games” (the other’s grand strategy of global dominance) c. The policies are visions the Chinese themselves should have had. If the leadership is a little timid to carry them out, a little external push might just help. d. The discussions of such visions may provide an environment for other national institutions than politcial apparatus to engage in meaningful dialogues. e. Hence hedges against political turnovers and forster internal Chinese forces to push reform further. [...]