It seems like not a week goes by where US-China relations are not under scrutiny in some manner . Journalist must have been working overtime the last couple of weeks to churn out the latest in the seemingly ever-morphing US-China relationship. Editors probably cracked their heads to come out with a fresh and unique perspective to stand out from the crowd of news outlets.
The uproar began surprisingly. On January 12, 2010, Google publically announced that some of its client’s accounts had been hacked by hackers from China and was no more in favour of compromising on censorship with the Chinese government, the accounts that were those of human rights activist. It then announced that it was contemplating pulling out of China altogether.
On January 30, 2010, the Obama administration announced that it was proposing an Arms Deal worth US$6.4 Billion to Taiwan. It rubbed China the wrong way since the Chinese claim Taiwan as a breakaway province. The Chinese responded with threats of economic sanction with the United Stated if such a deal were to go through.
Before the heat of the former event had subsided, the Obama administration further angered China when it declared that it would meet with the Dalai Lama later in the month of February. The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader (living in exile in India) of the Tibetans who demand independence from China. And he is labelled as “dangerous separatist”. The Chinese officially responded with diplomatic protests, and strongly worded statements that threatened such an act would threaten the relations of both countries.
Less than three weeks later, despite seemingly rising Sino-American tensions, the Chinese announced that the USS Nimitz would be allowed to berth at Hong Kong.
Relations however were choppy even before the recent hullabaloo. In 2009, America had made an issue with China over the latter’s perceived undervalued currency. It had also pressured the Chinese into taking action over the Iranian nuclear build-up.
The mix of signals seems to indicate a confused and instable relationship between the two countries.
I beg to differ on that perspective.
The totality of information provides a clearer picture.
1. Obama is facing mounting domestic pressure over his failing reform bills and his unfulfilled campaign promises. His approval ratings have plummeted.
a. He started his term with a 77% approval rating. This has fallen to 48%.
b. Unemployment at the start of his term was 7.7%, it is now 10%.
c. His healthcare bill only narrowly passed the Senate vote, after rounds of negotiations. It now goes to the Congress where the chance of success is even lower.
d. On the second day of his presidency, Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay. It is still open.
e. His education and energy independence plans have not gained any traction.
2. The weakness of the Obama administration domestically is rubbing off globally. It was especially noticeable at Copenhagen 2009 when the leaders of the growing economies were locked in clandestine negotiations and Obama had to force his way into a secret meeting just merely to try and bring some compromised. He failed.
3. The Democrats, going into this year’s mid-year elections, are trailing the Republicans by substantial margins. Just recently, traditionally blue Massachusetts gave Ted Kennedy’s senate seat to Republican Scott Brown.
a. The Democrats have lost their “super-majority” in the senate.
b. Republicans have seen a resurgence in popularity since it distanced itself from Bush and Cheney. In their place have emerged new faces like Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, Scott Brown and Marco Rubio.
c. Just recently, Senator Evan Bayh announced that he was stepping down and not contesting the mid-term elections, becoming the 6th Democrat-leaning senator to do so.
4. The recent run-ins with China, though badly timed, are not new issues.
a. The Taiwan arms deal was negotiated with the Bush administration and Obama has actually cut down some of the promises.
b. It is a diplomatic necessity for American Presidents to periodically meet with the Dalai Lama to emphasise American solidarity with ‘oppressed’ peoples. Even administration has had this run in with China. The difference between those occasions and this is the weakened status of the Americans and the increased influence of the Chinese.
c. The currency undervaluation is not a recent issue, but one that has a long history. The global recession in 2009 merely turned a larger spotlight on the issue.
d. Even in the Bush-era, the Americans had already vocalised their desire for China to take the same stand as the Britain, France and themselves with regards to the Iranian nuclear issue.
5. America owes China money in the billions. The foreign aid it gives to countries like Pakistan is in a sense, borrowed from China. The Chinese own almost 25% of all US Treasury Securities in foreign hands. The Chinese also own more and more American businesses. Even the somewhat protectionist Obama administration cannot afford to sideline China.
6. Countries do not allow naval fleets to berth, especially carrier fleets, unless certain comfort levels exist.
a. China previously deplored the stationing of a Pacific carrier fleet, yet now it allows a fleet even closer to home.
It seems obvious to my untrained mind that this tough, loud global voice is a way for Obama to strengthen his weakening domestic and global standing. And the Chinese, know it and are playing along.
Only a confident government can afford to channel its voice so strongly in the international sphere. Confidence comes from political security, which Obama cannot boast of. Canada’s Stephen Harper, has been Prime Minister of Canada for some three years already. Yet for the past three years he was comparatively quiet on the local scene. Only over the past year, has only become more vocal, and made more trips overseas. This has to do with the fact that he now has more secure political position back home in Canada. In comparison, Obama cannot gain support domestically because the Democrats are not strong enough. He is increasingly been seen as being possibly a one term President.
Being a politician in a democratic society, his first responsibility is to ensure votes. A weakening economy inherited from his predecessor, a global financial crisis comparable to the Great Depression of 1939 together with his political mistakes has cost him dearly in the local arena. The coming 2010 mid-term elections is therefore a gauge of how much support Obama has lost.
The administration’s courting of Europe and the Indian sub-continent, as well as the competing attentions of two mistaken wars in Iraq and Afghanistan caused South America, Africa and Asia to be neglected. When the administration realised its mistake, it courted the wrong countries. It approached a Japan under Yukio Hatoyama who did not have the same aversion to China as the Liberal Democrat Party government. It left the South East Asian bloc relatively untouched until the APEC meeting. While the victims gained the prayers of the world, his late arrival at the APEC meeting in Singapore 2009, because of the Nidal Malik Hassan incident, won him no favours internationally.
He followed the loss of charisma with a loss of appeal from the Americans to the Chinese. Where the Americans neglected, the Chinese set up Confucius Academies. Where the Americans attached strings to aid, the Chinese freely gave support.
The only way, he can win points is by giving the appearance of strength. Since he would be foolish to try it at home, the bad cop role falls increasingly to Hilary Clinton and the Ambassadors. Look at the strong words by Hilary Clinton (versus Condoleezza Rice) to many nations. Closer to home, recall David Adelman’s (the new American nominee for Ambassador to Singapore) almost undiplomatic promise of pushing for American political freedom in Singapore.
This helps him domestically, since it,
a. Diverts attention from local problems.
b. Serves as a clarion call for Americans to rally around the President.
c. Engenders a “them-versus-us” mentality within the US.
d. By getting the people back behind him, he can hopefully strengthen his hand and push his reform and bills.
It seems the Chinese know the game the Americans are playing. And they are going along with it, protesting in the expected fashions with the predicted lines . Although the wording is strong, this is the same kind of protest as the when George Bush or Bill Clinton met the Dalai Lama. The greatest indicator, yet that all this is merely a show, is the approval for USS Nimitz to berth at Hong Kong. For all the words a man makes, it is his actions that determine his true intent. The same goes for nations.
These years are crucial to the development of the rising power. Hence the clearer determinant of the Sino-American temperature is the actions, especially of the former on economic issues. The Chinese had re-valued their currency in 2005 (while Bush was still in office). It has also displayed signals that it might revalue its currency again; certainly the plea from America would have played a part. Another issue to watch is how the Chinese, through ‘relationship-diplomacy’ would negotiate a resolution between the perceived battle of global security and economic gain .
This is not to say that the Americans and Chinese governments have acted aforethought, in fact the Chinese could simply be doing the Obama administration a favour. The financial debt that America owes to China is already staggering; the political debt now seems to be accumulating.
The America of today is seeing a receding of its power; its hegemony will soon be diluted by the rising of not just the Chinese but the Indians and other big nations. Indeed, the world has observed this trend for years. Predictably, America is uncomfortable with this and the Obama administration, unwittingly, resembles the final glow of unilateral dominion desperately trying to prevent the inevitable.
While America’s star will fade, it will not fade into sunset, unlike the previous major powers. It has on its side the ethnic, religious and cultural diversity that other great superpowers did not have. And as long as it does not forget or confuse its key ideals of freedom, equality and meritocracy it will continue to attract the people of the world to its dream.
Then again, what do I know? I’m an inconsequential individual typing this far away from whatever is going on.
