U.S.-China Relations in the Era of Globalization

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
May 20, 2008
China Earthquake Relief Efforts

Last week, after returning from a two-day visit to Beijing, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified on U.S.-China relations before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We thought DipNote’s readers might be interested in what Deputy Secretary Negroponte said:

"One of the Administration’s major foreign policy objectives is to engage with an increasingly influential China to affect choices that Chinese leaders make in ways that serve global stability and U.S. interests.

China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It possesses one of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies. It is a nuclear power, and it is the seat of a great civilization. U.S.-China cooperation is in our mutual interest.

Before addressing three important dimensions of U.S.-China cooperation, I want to express condolences on behalf of our government to the Chinese people for the tragic loss of life from Monday’s earthquake in Sichuan province. We have transferred $500,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross and are exploring ways to make additional assistance available to China through public-private partnerships and other means. Our interest in the immediate welfare of the Chinese people at such a moment is emblematic of our broader commitment to strategic dialogue and cooperation with China as a nation.

Today, I would like to focus on three vital dimensions of our relations with China: maintaining peace and stability in Asia; motivating China’s positive contributions to global stability; and encouraging China’s greater respect for human rights and freedom of expression..."

You may read the continuation of Deputy Secretary Negroponte’s testimony or view video of it.

Comments

Comments

Lewis
|
Japan
May 21, 2008

Lewis in Japan writes:

A seconding of those condolences, this has been a terrible month for disasters in both Burma and China- hopefully both nations are able to rebuild and recover swiftly and safely.

With China we witness a nation's rebirth as a major world power. The United States' interests during this process would best be served by accomodating and guiding that rise in order to determine the narrative and define success. This can be done through certain incentives: For example, the U.S. could press China to improve in certain aspects (economic or social) with the whispered promise of an invitation into the G8 dangling before them. The alternative is to passive-aggressively fight the inevitable, keeping China locked out of such groups and undoubtedly fostering the resentment of a future world power.

The gap between superpower and major power will shrink -- China may not be a major adversary en par with the Soviet Union, but nor will we be the sole voice of leadership and influence in the international community. Let us recognize the reality that is rapidly making itself clear -- with global focus on China, we should take the opportunity to give them incentive to improve rather than scold like a disapproving teacher.

I agree that the trend in U.S.-Sino relations leans towards positive, but much improvement could be made.

Zharkov
|
United States
May 21, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

The Chinese government has made as much astonishing progress in human rights as they have in economic growth, and there is an old American proverb, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

So the burden shifts to DoS to specify precisely what more China needs to do, and why, and at what point will there be no further need for our advice. What more should we require China do in order to complete our self-proclaimed mission to improve our China's human rights? If China adopted the U.S. Constitution as its own, would that be enough? When will enough be enough? Is there no limit?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
May 21, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I think one of the more positive aspects of globalization is that a global response to great humanitarian disasters is possible. Nations need not face them alone.

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
May 21, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

"We have transferred $500,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross and are exploring ways to make additional assistance available to China through public-private partnerships and other means."

WHY? They haven't even put our over 100 billion back in circulation...because they don't have to. It is part of why our dollar is so weak. They won't even buy up any more of our National Debut. That is a matter of record. They openly stated the U.S. is a poor investment.

Why do we keep trying to PAY people whose weapons are killing OUR TROOPS and are deliberately killing our Economy?

Is this not simply a form of Shame in saying we are helpless against them? They can help themselves quite well with all aspects of this problem and a half billion dollars could be put to better use for OUR CITIZENS who are in desperate need of help now. What has China done for our people who were left destitute from natural disasters? Oh, we can replace household goods cheaply at the expense of our middle class structure ...that was supported by Congressional Bills since 1978 and the Global Economic referendum. Why did anyone think the rest of the world would play by the same rules? Again, common street sense ...this ideology has helped the Investors and put more American families on the street since the Great Depression. America is not in a recession, it is in a depression. That is a reality of the Middle Class in America. If you want to give away half a billion, feed your own first. Why do we neglect the long term aspects of economy of our citizens here in America as not having a National Security Interest?

Negroponte may better use of old time Italian street ideology in dealing with people who are killing both our economy and providing weapons to the enemies of Democracy world wide. It sounds more like we are paying a Tribute of appeasement to a Conqueror on a consistent basis. Why treat them differently than South America?

By the way, they are teaching Chinese in South America for FREE on national TV. The Chinese Republic is paying for it 100% ...so, I presume this indoctrination and use of propaganda in the backyard of America has either gone unnoticed or this is our answer for their Economic invasion of South America. They need food, have made agreements for immigration of their population into Brazil and other South American countries as well. They have money and soon our cost of imported food products will rise due to Chinas demand, not just shipping cost. China is also fiscally trying to back the new Eight Member Bank of South America. South America has become so solvent they won't need the World Bank. Imagine if they start another World currency with China. This isn't science fiction.

Since when does the U.S.A. have to be HAT IN HAND to the enemies of Democracy? Why be nice to someone who has rained on our parade with intent?

It is sad this event happened and may God bless the souls of those poor people; but, they can well handle all aspects of their problem. Let us put Americans back in their homes first and foremost. I fear this neglect of priorities is a reflection of all Parties which has left the Average American and not them to suffer for poor choices...unless there was another purpose for his visit.

Ronald
|
New York, USA
May 21, 2008

Ronald in New York writes:

U.S.A.'s insatiable economic appetite for cheap Chinese goods will continue to back-fire as unregulated and unsafe products are manufactured and consumed by Americans.
Chinese people will experience accelerated health and safety threats, as they emulate and adopt the worst of American culture.

Chul-hong
|
South Korea
May 22, 2008

Chul-hong in South Korea writes:

To keep in mind is that China is not a strategic partner of U.S.A. but a strategic competitor of U.S.A..

John
|
Ohio, USA
May 22, 2008

John in Ohio writes:

@ Joe in Tennessee -- Joe in Tennessee asks "What has China done for our people who were left destitute from natural disasters?"

The Chinese government donated $5 million to Hurricane Katrina relief.

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
May 22, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

@ John in Ohio -- $5 million? ...So we are giving back 500 million? Get realistic.

We can not have fair trade with a country who pays its people for all aspects of production, unlimited labor who has no right to strike, owns the shipping lines down to the contrainers stored and shipped to American depots. We call that a monopoly here. It's illegal for an American company to do so and the Government can not profit from manfacturing. I do realize China has had Unions since the fifties. They can only negotiate safety, hours and health benifits. That the Government ignores obviously. I couldn't even find an American made door knob at Lowes. Mexico was as close as it got and that was thrity percent higher.

China goods should be taxed/tariffed for the benifit of the entire free world economy ...and we should have legislation that provides Americans a fair Competition agreement.

China is owed nothing in any respect by the world, for any reason at this juncture. That is not to demean the good Peoples of China, simply their Governmental Policies and leadership.

Susan
|
Florida, USA
May 22, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

I second Joe of Tennessee remarks. It could not have been stated better. I have lived through the assassinations of the 60's, the Vietnam war, the racial riots and conflicts of the 60's and 70's, the Nixon years, but always felt hopeful for our country. But the prevailing philosophy of "the government of the money, by the money, and for the money" will surely destroy us. It is very discouraging. How shortsighted can we be? When our motto is no longer "a nation of the people, by the people, for the people" but a motto of "let's go shopping!" we are doomed. Please wake up America!

Chul-hong
|
South Korea
June 9, 2008

Chul-hong in South Korea writes:

The era of 21st century can be defined as the multipolar era after the unipolar era.

[The concert of power] is the main diplomatic strategy of U.S.A..

U.S.A. has raised regional powers such as Japan, India in the hope of deterring China from emerging as the great power.

Originally, China has tied up with Russia since the Cold War era.

In addition, U.S.A. may lose the power of control in the Asia if China broadens its influence in that region.

So, China cannot be a strategic partner of U.S.A. but a
competitor.

By the way, China plays a major role in the global economy.

Nevertheless, in political view, China is based on one-party Communism which is far remote from Democracy.

As we know, there is the limit in the growth of economy under the authoritarian regime.

China, I think, will not forsake its political base because of worrying its collapse.

If China adheres to the one-party Communism, its economy will face a marginal circumstances sooner or later.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 9, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

The notion that a nation become a "responsible stakeholder" in global affairs is one that China is in process of evolving into.

They have become both partner and competitor depending on the context of the issue at hand.

But the intent of the competition is not to undermine each other as both nations are very much interdependant on one another for their growth and prosperity.

We have vastly improved relations now with China because of sound foreign policy conducted by both nations with the intent to put the relationship in a positive "win win" context.

The greater Mil. to Mil. contacts and trust generated allow for greater transparency and the communication helps prevents mistrust and misconceptions of intent from arising.

This has come from a real intent to create better relations in an era of globalization because of a basic realization I think MLK best expressed in 1967.

"Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. I feel that we've got to look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only geographically but it has to become one in terms of brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly."

These concepts are a "given" parameter in the era of globalization, as well in bilateral relations. Labels like "unipolar" and "multipolar" don't do justice to it.

Latest Stories

Pages