Office of the Chief of Protocol Advances Partnerships With China

Posted by Sarah Nolan
August 30, 2010
Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Ambassador Capricia Marshall and Ambassador Zhang Yesui

About the Author: Sarah Nolan serves as Assistant Chief of Protocol for Diplomatic Partnerships.

While in Shanghai last year, President Obama described the United States' relationship with China, saying “today, we have a positive, constructive and comprehensive relationship that opens the door to partnership on the key global issues of our time.” Forging strong partnerships to confront global challenges has been a hallmark of President Obama's and Secretary Clinton's diplomacy. Their efforts not only further cooperation between governments, but also between the private and public sectors -- and, most importantly, they help build stronger people-to-people relationships.

On Wednesday, August 25, U.S. Chief of Protocol Ambassador Capricia Penavic Marshall hosted a U.S.-China business roundtable discussion with Jon Huntsman, Ambassador of the United States to the People's Republic of China, Zhang Yesui, Ambassador of the People's Republic of China to the United States, Chinese and American business leaders, and senior members of the Obama Administration. Focused on the economy, the vibrant and productive discussion helped develop a greater mutual understanding among both the government and private sector leaders in attendance. The roundtable also laid an important foundation towards future partnerships, and helped extend the U.S.-China relationship beyond the halls of government.

The U.S.-China business roundtable was organized by the Office of the Chief of Protocol's Diplomatic Partnerships division. Established in 2009, Diplomatic Partnerships seeks to foster international goodwill and cultivate the relationship between the Diplomatic Corps and the people and institutions of the United States through an exchange of ideas, cultures and traditions. Diplomatic Partnerships pursues this goal through a broad range of unique programs and events, such as a recent trip by the international Diplomatic Corps to Chicago, and an evening of food and discussion co-hosted at the Blair House with Mexican Ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhan, and his wife Mrs. Veronica Valencia-Sarukhan.

Comments

Comments

Timothy B.
|
Massachusetts, USA
August 30, 2010

Timothy B. in Massachusetts writes:

In light of last night's disturbing and revealing story on "60 Minutes" on CBS regarding Chinese spies stealing our critical technologies and defense plans in Asia in concert with alleged traitors, a complete top down re-evaluation and security assessment of our strategic partnership programs with China and throughout the region is in order for our entire government.

Our first line of defense truly is a vigilant State Department and our diplomats.

We cannot tolerate partnerships of political expediency based upon deceit and incitement and enticement of our government and its employees to treason.

palgye
|
South Korea
September 1, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

Although it is not the answer you want, and no echo answered, but this visit to China is a wonder anyone works.

OysterCracker
|
United States
September 1, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

Yeah, start with routing out corruption of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the judges who are in cahoots with them.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 1, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

“today, we have a positive, constructive and comprehensive relationship that opens the door to partnership on the key global issues of our time.”

@Sarah Nolan,

That was last year...

Do the Chinese have any clue what will happen to their relations with the American people if they continue to support the North Korean government and NK starts a shooting war like they have been threatening to do of late?

Their military won't talk to our's, seem to oppose having good relations with us, and I haven't even got to toxic products or "currancy manipulation" yet as an incentive for the American consumer to initiate an "eternal boycot" when we won't be caught dead bying anything "made in China"...period.

Now I would love to see better relations on all levels and I salute your efforts, but perhaps you could tell me what the protocol would be for sending a bill to China for what it has cost us over the last 50 years maintaining peace and security on the Korean peninsula, now that 'lil Kim - through Chinese long term support- has become a nuclear terrorist , threatening to use them?

I figure it may be the only way to get them to "act responsibly" on the international stage.

Until they do, their economic outlook is bleak with us, because if they anger the American public any further than they have, we don't need this government's approval to bankrupt them.

I hope you'll help folks @ State figure out a diplomatic way to open their eyes to reality.

Seems you're getting a piece of the public thinking here in the comment section, and I know all this is probably outside your job description, but I am curious as to what the protocol would be in sending a bill to a "sponsor of terror" nation for "war reparations" for a conflict still ongoing technicly. Now that 'lil Kim has ripped up the Armistace agreement.

Am I the only one who see's this relationship with China heading into the ditch at a moment's notice as soon as 'lil Kim starts a shooting war with the USA?

We arn't "buying the same horse twice." as Sec. Gates put it.

Seems China is stuck in "stupid mode", and I don't know what else to suggest that might wise them up to the possibilities they can look forward to, so long as they are.

Best,

EJ

OysterCracker
|
United States
September 1, 2010

O.C. in the U.S.A. writes:

There you go rattling your sabers again. No more wars. The American public is fed up with your wars. Hire mercenaries for you're next misadventure.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 2, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

OC wrote:

"There you go rattling your sabers again. No more wars. The American public is fed up with your wars. Hire mercenaries for you're next misadventure."

Who's war are you refering to OC?

The one bin laden started with us, the one Aminidijad wants to start with Israel, or the one 'lil Kim threatens to start up again in Asia?

I'm just wondering if we can bill folks for contributing materially to stupidity...why would you have a problem with me trying to resolve the national debt in this manner and create a safer world to live in in the proccess?

I fail to see any merit to your objection of my methodology to resolve crisis and establish lasting peace when that is in China's interests as well, so let's make it easy for them to do the right thing, eh?

For the sake of peace.

Things stay the way they are OC, and 'lil Kim is sure to make a fatal mistake with us, and folks are rightly questioning the wisdom of going back to the 6 party talks under the circumstances, check today's DoS briefing transcript.

Then there's an expert's opinion that clarifies why I think sending a bill now is totally appropriate if it will wake China up to wyhat "responsibility" is all about.

---

"China is backing this regime to the bitter end and then supporting the transition to Kim's successor to ensure China's interests," says Victor Cha, a former U.S. negotiator in the talks who is now a professor at Georgetown University.

...

"The biggest negative impact the China-North Korea relationship has on China is that the U.S, Japan and South Korea all request that China be responsible for North Korea's 'irrational behaviors,'" the newspaper wrote. "However, China has no ability to shoulder such responsibility." source; The state-run Xinhua news agency

Article excerpt source; Wall Street Journal

---

Well the American public has news for the Chinese state run media, in that we can and will hold China liable for what North Korea does next.

As should our government.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 3, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Very informative interview with Robert Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, about U.S. relations with China;

online.wsj.com/video/the-big-interview-with-robert-hormats/7A9DDC72-9EB1-4D16-916E-5D3CBB46AB7E.html

What was missing was an assesment about how security issues with NK might affect future investment and trade with China, and I think sometimes that job descriptions and compatmentalization make it hard to address because these are treated as two separate issues when the reality is that they are interdependant in multiple aspects of cause and effect, if one accepts as a "given" that investment is a coward in the face of uncertainty.

I don't think it's a matter of "turning inward" that we Americans should be worried about, as I don't think that's going to happen in Congress. What I worry about is that we won't convince China in time to take responsibility for the "Frankenstien" they've helped create in North Korea, and as long as they refuse to accept reality and deal with it effectively, reality will ultimately deal with them in the form of lost revenue and respect from the American people.

What Congress does this fall will be simply reflective of this.

See, one cannot claim to be seeking "stability" economicly or otherwise when one supports a source of vast instability as China has been doing for a long time with North Korea, to the tune of billions and 100's of billions of US taxpayer dollars, and probably into the trillions over the last 50 years, invested in keeping the peace on the Korean Peninsula. There's more than a trade imbalance going on here that needs addressing.

Rather than impose economic sanctions, I think simply sending China a bill (payable immediately) for expenses incurred over the last 50 years will do more to resolve these issues than anything else, in a way China cannot fail to understand.

I would therefore welcome any thoughts on this that the Dept of State might have on whether this idea would prove effective in getting them to be a responsible player on the world stage.

As yet they really don't have a cost comparison for irresponsaibility, and maybe that's the problem in their failure of understanding.

If leverage is to be applied, one must find the right fulcrum point to be efficiant about the heavy lifting involved diplomaticly, I believe. And diplomacy hasn't found that point yet apparently.

.

Latest Stories

June 5, 2009

Buchenwald

Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, DipNote Bloggers highlight the White House blog entry about President Obama's… more

Pages