NOV 19 — “A China more willing to say 'no' to the United States.” “No choice but to recognise China's rise as a great power.” “Two giants moving closer to being equals.”
To read the American press coverage of President Barack Obama's China trip this week was to peer into the anxieties of a troubled superpower looking over its shoulders at a resurgent competitor.
Whether the charismatic US leader was holding a town hall- style meeting in Shanghai or huddled in closed-door talks with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao in Beijing, the unmistakable sub-text in the reporting was one of disappointment at Obama's inability to extract concessions or take a tough stance on issues such as human rights.
“This is no longer the United States-China relationship of old but an encounter between a weakened giant and a comer with a bit of its own swagger,” the New York Times said in an article on how Obama was skirting around Chinese political sensitivities.
The Wall Street Journal meanwhile pointed out that he was given “none of the opportunities to reach the Chinese people given to his two predecessors” Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
And just about every major US news outlet lamented about how the Chinese authorities censored and limited Obama's comments in Shanghai.
While there has indeed been a shift in the balance of power between these two countries, some analysts said this bout of media angst was excessive and got in the way of a clearer understanding of the attitudes and intentions of both governments.
For one thing, Beijing was not out to put Obama in his place in order to prove a point about its rising clout. Rather, the Chinese were simply being business-like, said Professor Jiang Wenran of the University of Alberta in Canada.
He said: “The American media has high expectations of Obama's China trip. They seem to measure it against his visits to Europe and Africa where he was treated as a celebrity.
“But the Chinese leaders simply do not view him in such a way. They basically want to get down to business and look at what he is going to do on China- US relations, protectionism, the US deficit and its fiscal policy.”
Before he arrived in China, Obama himself had made plain the main intentions of his trip.
“In Beijing and beyond, we will work to deepen our strategic and economic dialogue, and improve communication between our militaries,” he said in his maiden Asia policy speech in Tokyo last week.
“Of course, we will not agree on every issue but we can move these discussions forward in a spirit of partnership rather than rancour.”
And to that end, his talks with Hu, the top Chinese leader, ended with the issuance of a “joint statement” — a blueprint would be more apt — for bilateral collaboration that surprised several analysts with its sheer scope and ambition.
The document said both countries would endeavour to cooperate more fully on the global economy, science, space research, climate change, high-speed railway, nuclear concerns over North Korea and Iran, and most notably, on environmental initiatives such as the setting up of a clean energy research centre.
Critics said the blueprint lacked details and skipped over more crucial issues like currency policy. But observers said the details would have to be handled by the bureaucrats instead of the top leaders, and that the politically sensitive issue of the Chinese currency should not get in the way of collaboration on other pressing matters.
Bonnie Glaser of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said: “The two countries have set a very big agenda, and we will have to wait for the coming months and years to see what kind of progress we can really make.
“What really struck me was how incredibly comprehensive the joint statement was. The number of issues both countries are seeking to work on together is truly astounding.”
Another development lost amid the headlines in America: the shift of the centre of gravity for US policy on China from the Treasury Department back to the White House.
In the later years of the Bush administration, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was the undisputed point-man on China. But his successor, Timothy Geithner, was conspicuous by his absence during Obama's trip to China this week.
Accompanying Obama instead were his two closest political advisers, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, as well as top diplomat Hillary Clinton, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Analysts said they were doubtful if any one particular official would emerge as the “China czar” in the current US administration given the range of issues Obama wanted to work on, and the number of heavy-hitters involved.
“If there is (a China czar), it would be the President,” said Professor Yang Dali of the University of Chicago. — The Straits Times
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
USA is doing fine, except for the fact that it (or at least the Hawks and NWO types) want to keep repeating Vietnam. USA and UK in Iraq has p*ssed off an entire cultural region. The Muslim world. So they are retaliating with terrorists. If US manages to irritate especially Iran enough, less so Russia, Latin America, Africa, Central Asia and East Asia enough, 2012 and Nibiru will indeed be a reality.
As said before, USA is doing fine, but if it wants to engage in, black ops, costly wars and anger entire cultural regions, no nation in it's right mind will show any pity because it 'has no cash'. That is what happens if you spend money you don't have on things you don't need. Nobody needs a war, nobody likes a Hawk. If USA behaved like a normal responsible nation among equals instead of an aggressive superpower, burning cash in wars they cannot win, they wouldn't be in this mess today. Even lapdogs will run when Master is starving, they could get eaten, friends could get cannibalized !