BEIJING, Oct. 12 -- November 15 will be US President Barack Obama's first visit to China after he took office on January 20. Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, David Shambaugh, director of China Policy Program at the Elliott School of International Affairs, and Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Relations at Peking University were invited by the Global Times (GT) to talk about present Sino-US ties and its future. (Editor's Notes)
GT: In September, James Steinberg, US Deputy Secretary of State, raised the concept of "strategic reassurance" in his speech in which he outlined several areas where China needs to clarify its intentions. What kind of signal do you think the US is sending to China?
Wang: The US has been very concerned about the security issue between China and the US and is not satisfied with the bilateral military exchange and progress in aspects such as nuclear disarmament, offshore security, outer space and the legal status of special economic zones. The discrepancies between the two countries in understanding these topics will give rise to big problems if no crisis management mechanism is set up. This is the background of the concept.
Personally speaking, it reflects what the US expects for bilateral ties. China needs to know about the US' worries are behind this concept but does not necessarily give a positive or negative response to it. Every concept raised by the US can be interpreted from different perspectives. Sometimes these can be overly analyzed by the Chinese side leading to misintepretations. However, tackling bilateral ties is not about interpretations, but a down-to-earth attitude and a long-term positioning. Knowing the big picture of this message and focusing on the work are enough.
Nye: I think what James Steinberg was trying to do was to indicate to the government in Beijing that we seek a cooperative relationship which we can both profit, both gain, and we can have a win-win relationship. There are some people in Washington and some people in Beijing who say the contradiction between the US and China is inevitable, and therefore this is a zero sum game -- one side wins, the other side loses it. I think what Steinberg was saying is that the American government doesn't say it in this way, but since it's a relationship both of us manage well, we can both be the winners.
Shambaugh: The new words "strategic reassurance" gained a lot of attention and doubts. Some believe it has something to do with the two parties' interaction in politics and economy. For me, it is the military areas they reassure each other. Although the overall relations are in good shape, the military tie is in the cycle of on and off. It should be on the same level with the overall situation. Therefore, they wish to gain reassurance from each other in the military area.
GT: Speaking of the present China-US ties, can Obama's "Change we can believe in" be used in the bilateral relations?
Shambaugh: Only Obama knows. He's now in an era when China-US ties are at their best compared to the past 20 years and the relations have gone global. Thirty years ago, China didn't have international influence and interests. But now it is a global player, though not a global power.
In my opinion, five elements constitute a global power: soft power, hard power, multilateral communication ability, diplomatic ability and business ability. The US possesses all five elements while China probably has three.
How could Obama make China an international partner? It relies on two "I's" ¡ª internationalization and institutionalization. While the US has a strong desire to make it a global relation, China may not want it. China has a saying, "One must hide one's capabilities and bide one's time to achieve something." China is hiding its talents but hasn't reached out to work on bilateral ties. The US is expecting an overall cooperation, but just some cooperation.
GT: During President Obama's visit to China, which issues will the two sides most likely make breakthroughs on?
Nye: I think the economic crisis has to have priority, because with China and the US being such large parts of the international economy, they have to have cooperation if they were going to stave off any type of crises, so they have to reach a very cooperative solution. I think close behind that will be discussions on climate change as both of us will be going to Copenhagen in December, and again they are the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. To getting some sort of approach to agree between China and the US will be very important in the climate change area as well.
And as for the security aspect, I don't see any major security problems right now between the US and China. But I imagine there will be some discussions on how they will keep things that way.
GT: Is it possible that President Obama makes a statement on the Taiwan issue that is different from his predecessors for the exchange of China's bigger support on North Korea?
Nye: I would doubt that. For one thing I don't think there is a tradeoff between Taiwan and North Korea. I think China has the deal with North Korea because it's in China' interests. After all, China doesn't want a nuclear Korean arsenal. It's not for the US to buy China's support for that. It's China realization that a nuclear Korean arsenal is not in China's interests.
Wang: Obama will need to cooperate with China on a wide range of issues, such as economic recovery, climate change, new energy, North Korea and Iran's nuclear issues, and the stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If these issues are not handled well, they could be important factors that affect Obama's second term of presidency. To put it another way, China-US ties are beginning to interweave with US domestic politics. Any country's diplomatic policies serve for its domestic affairs. The US is no exception.
GT: Some experts predict that China's GDP will surpass the US in 2020 or 2030. What do you think about it?
Shambaugh: I am not sure. China has many domestic affairs to deal with. What it has to do right now is to be a responsible global power rather than surpass the US.
If China wants to play a global role, it must afford to take risks. China does not need to learn from the US. And the US is not the best teacher.
Wang: You will get a wrong answer if you try to project what will happen in the future in 10 or 20 years with today's index. It is just a groundless hypothesis. Observers should be prudent. What really matters is to do things right, not to surpass the US.
(Source: Globaltimes.com.cn)
