Concerns and hopes of Obama's first China visit

• Source: Global Times
• [21:47 November 12 2009]
• Comments

Editor's Note:

On the eve of US President Barack Obama's first visit to China, Global Times reporters Wang Wen and Liu Chang (GT) talked with three experts on Sino-US relations, David Shambaugh (Shambaugh), Director of the China Policy Program in the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University, Wang Jisi(Wang), Dean of the School of International Stud-ies at Peking University, and Joseph Nye (Nye), Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, on the presidential visit's implication for Sino-US relations.

GT: More than a month ago, the US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg proposed a new term, "strategic reassurance," regarding Sino-US relations, which has attracted public attention. What's your take on this?

Shambaugh: In my opinion, it is only associated with Sino-US military relations. Bilateral relations have been improved; however, the military relationship has fluctuated, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but not at the same level as other fields.

Therefore, both countries hope to get security reassurance from each other.

Recently, China's senior military officials visited the US and made quite a few requests to the US. For China, the US military wants it to ensure it will withdraw missiles from Zhejiang, Fujian and other places.

They have many questions: First, why does Chinese military expenditure keep increasing by double-digits while China is in a peaceful environment and has no enemies?

Second, over the last year, cross- Straits relations have been at their best point for the past 60 years. Why hasn't the Chinese military withdrawn missiles? The Americans are concerned about these issues.

Wang: When I visited the US recently, I met a number of senior US officials, including Steinberg himself. I asked them to explain the meaning of "strategic reassurance." They all said that the US felt worried about the Sino-US security relationship.

The US is not satisfied with the progress in Sino-US military exchanges.

For example, both sides differ greatly over outer space, nuclear disarmament, nuclear safety, maritime confrontation, the legal status of the exclusive economic zone, and so on.

It will be a major problem if both sides lack mutual trust and crisis management mechanisms. This is the context in which the term "strategic reassurance" was introduced.

I think that the US State Department has expressed a desire and mood through the term "strategic reassurance." It is enough for China to know about this term and unnecessary to give an official response, whether positive or negative.

We often have many different understandings of the terms proposed by the US, even more than that of the Americans.

It is the same case when the US put forward the term "stakeholder" several years ago. In Sino-US relations, the specific problems need to be seriously dealt with and resolved, and the long-term positioning should also be considered.

Nye: I think what James Steinberg was trying to do was to indicate to the government in Beijing that we seek a cooperative relationship from which we can both profit, both gain, and where we can have a win-win relationship.

There are some people in Washington and some people in Beijing who see contradictions between the US and China as inevitable, and think that therefore this is a zero-sum game; if one side wins the other loses. I think what Steinberg was saying is that the US government doesn't say in this way, but instead believes if both of us manage it well, we can both be the winners.

GT: Is the G2 – Group of Two – idea already dead?

Shambaugh: The cooperation between China and the US is not that of a "G2." The US doesn't use this term, I have never encountered any scholar, official, or officer in China who agrees with this concept, and Europe, Japan, ASEAN and other US allies would not tolerate this. So I think G2 is a dead idea.

Wang: It is definite fact that China's strength is rapidly increasing. However, compared with Europe and Japan, the US strength has not declined.

Only when it is compared with some developing countries, such as China and India, has the balance of power changed.

Looking around the world, China is the only country that has increasing strength and could come close to that of the US.

China has surpassed Japan in political and military strength and influence around the world. It is difficult for the EU to agree unanimously.