I am becoming slightly obsessed, I think, with the views from the commentariat on the US-China relationship. So I am joining in on examining the ‘horse race’ slightly after arguing, I think correctly that you need to avoid the kind of analysis that focuses on – ‘who is ahead, who is behind’ in the US-China relationship – ‘who can dis the other’ – in the ongoing diplomatic discussions. It will yield little in understanding the state of US-China relations.But I will focus on one of these pieces because it underlines the inherent difficulty of analyzing the US-China relationship in trying to read that relationship from the latest diplomatic effort.
The latest article I found was again – surprise, surprise – by David Sanger at the NYT. In this instance David co-wrote with Michel Wines (see, “North Korea Is a Sign of Chilled US-China Relations“).
Their negative framing comes early:
But in Beijing, both Chinese and America officials and analysts have another explanation: the long silence epitomizes the speed with which relations between Washington and Beijing have plunged into a freeze. This year has witnessed the longest period of tension between the two capitals in a decade. And if anything, both sides appear to be hardening their positions.
Then for good measure they quote Bonnie Glaser a China scholar from CSIS Washington and elsewhere with: “I don’t think this is easily repairable, and I think we’re going to have a fairly cold relationship over the next two years, and potentially longer.”
But wait a minute. Just last spring we were all commenting on the positive turn in relations between the US and China with President Hu’s call to President Obama and then his attendance at the US nuclear security conference in Washington.
Ah but today’s ‘horse race’ is around the Korean Peninsula. There things have not gone well. China has been notably absent in condemning the North Koreans – the DPRK- for the attack on the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and a weak Chinese follow up. Not surprisingly, I think, the Chinese have been reluctant to condemn their ally. For China given the strong PLA (military) support for the DPRK – the short term policy remains to encourage diplomacy and eschew any demarche and public disapproval of DPRK actions. As the authors note: “…China’s strategy is to reassure the Koreans about their security, not lecture them about diplomatic obligations.” Indeed far down in the article the journalists are more pointed in acknowledging that Chinese leadership is having a difficult time – it always thus where leadership consensus is required – defining a policy direction. As they say, “… the Chinese leadership is still debating how to balance its interest in propping up North Korea with their interest in preventing more incidents or another nuclear test, …”
But Sanger and Wines are not content to draw out the differences between the two on Korea, and suggest that this tense diplomatic relationship over Korea only reflects a part of the growing chill between the two. As they argue: “But the lack of cooperation on North Korea only hints at the deterioration in the US-China relationship.” Well maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. For Wines and Sanger this unwillingness to condemn DPRK actions is more reflective of a decision – reached at the the time of the global financial crisis in 2008 – to oppose the US where “… Chinese officials have railed loudly and publicly against what they consider to be American efforts to smother their rightful emergence on the global stage.”
While the US has not fully been able to adjust itself to a world without a hegemon, I see nothing in immediate US policy toward China that smacks of ‘hegemonism’ as the Chinese would say. And while there is a ‘China can Just Say No” school of thought in Beijing there is no indication that this School of foreign policy thinking is now the accepted consensus in Zhongnanhai.
Their analysis of current US-China relations is – “Jumping to Conclusions”. I have not altered my view that this key leadership relationship is one of, ” yi di, yi you” ( 亦敌 亦友) – “Both Friend and Foe”. And in that complex relationship there will be rivalry and competition as well as partnership and collaboration. It can get nasty. But it can be friendly as well.