By Tao Wenzhao
In its Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of
China 2006, which was issued on May 23, the US Defence Department
again exaggerates China's defence expenditure and military
strength, passes a wanton judgment on China's strategic intentions
and continues to trumpet the "China threat."
The report, together with various other US documents coming out
in recent years, combine to point to one thing: profound misgivings
and worries about China's growth. Without clearing away these
fears, a bumpy road lies ahead for Sino-US relations.
US journalists Richard Bernstein and Ross Munro are the most
articulate in their book "The Coming Conflict with China," which
was published in the mid-1990s. They argue that China's goal is to
eventually replace the United States as the most influential player
in Asia and that China is Uncle Sam's rival in many respects
because its interests are diametrically opposed to those of the
United States.
This school of thought has the ear of some US decision-makers
and is subscribed to by researchers from influential US
think-tanks, despite the fact that some far-sighted Americans
expressed different opinions in the debate on the United States'
China policy in the mid-1990s.
The first US response to whatever China does regionally and
globally is: Is this an act to repel the United States? Will this
harm US interests?
This author's personal experience may shed some light on this
American bigotry. When China and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) launched their bid in 2001 to set up a free-trade
zone in the region within 10 years, some US scholars asked their
Chinese counterparts why there was all this fuss about 10-plus-1
free-trade zone (China and 10 ASEAN countries), as there was
already Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC).
And when it came to the East Asian Summit, which was first
conceived by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, US
officials kept asking who was supposed to preside over this
undertaking, suspecting that China was pushing for East Asian
integration and trying to undercut the United States.
Here is another example. Member states of the Shanghai
Co-operation Organization (SCO) suggested at last summer's SCO
summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, that US military bases in Uzbekistan
and Kyrgyzstan be closed now that the war in Afghanistan had ended.
Again, the United States suspected that China was behind this. US
researchers at an international seminar demanded an explanation
from their Chinese counterparts about this.
This author believes that the US mentality towards China ought
to be retuned.
To begin with, the United States should be prepared to accept a
more powerful China which will play a bigger role in international
affairs.
Live and let live. This is the right attitude.
China has time and again made it clear that peaceful development
is its strategic choice, not simply a matter of expediency.
China is not the former Soviet Union and will not rival the
United States. But China needs to develop and is doing so at a
rapid pace. The country's development, thanks to its huge
population, vast territory and the enormous economic size, is bound
to impact on neighboring areas and world affairs.
However, the US mentality is that it is the top dog. Moreover,
Uncle Sam has no truck with anyone who may tie with it for the top
spot.
China has no desire to compete for this first place. So the
United States, in turn, ought to let China develop. Development is
the inherent right of every nation. The United States makes a great
fuss about whatever significant undertakings China embarks on,
fancying that the US position is challenged or threatened. This is
an abnormal mentality.
US military expenditure accounts for nearly half of the global
total. Some American military experts estimate that the United
States leads China in sophisticated weapons by 15 to 30 years. But
now that China is increasing its defence spending a little and
improving its weaponry somewhat, Washington sounds the alarm that
China's military power is tipping the Asia-Pacific military
balance.
How could China's defence strength tilt the Asia-Pacific
military balance, with the existence of US-Japanese, US-Republic of
Korea (ROK), US-Australian and US-New Zealand alliances in the
region? Furthermore, Guam is stationed with US forces.
Second, the United States needs to get used to the fact that
every nation has its own interests and, therefore, policies and
practices vary from one country to another.
Different countries have different national interests, now
matter how closely they are allied. Japan, one of the closest
allies of the United States, for instance, invested heavily in Iran
for the sake of its own energy interests, turning a deaf ear to the
strong US advice that there should be no investment in Iran.
The ROK, another US ally, has from the very beginning ruled out
the possibility of using non-peaceful means to resolve the North
Korea nuclear issue.
France and Germany, another two close allies of the United
States, were vocal opponents of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
It could not be more natural that China has its own interests in
some international issues and, therefore, formulates its own policy
accordingly. With creating a favorable climate for building a
well-off society as the point of departure, China maps out its
foreign policy based on domestic needs. As a matter of fact, every
country does so. No one can dispute this.
China develops relations with some South American and African
nations based on mutual economic benefits. Some of these countries,
however, happen to have bad relations with the United States and
some Americans, therefore, believe that China intentionally
improves ties with these countries in order to challenge
Washington.
As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council,
China is responsible for international affairs, besides having its
own national interests. As a matter of fact, China seriously
carries out its international obligations.
Third, the United States should change its condescending and
arrogant attitude and be ready to deal with a more pluralistic
world.
The United States became increasingly commandeering in
international affairs after it was left as the only superpower
following the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. True, the
United States is much more powerful than any other single country
on the globe. But it should be ever borne in mind that mutual
respect is still a basic principle in handling country-to-country
relations. The United States is without doubt No 1. But whoever
occupies this top spot should also respect others. Moreover, the
occupant of the top spot alone cannot do much.
The United States has its own mode of development, as well as
unique traditions, culture and values. Others have theirs, too. It
should be taken for granted that each nation has the right to take
its own road that suits its unique conditions. China must blaze a
new trail for its own development, taking into account its huge
population, vast territory, poor economic foundations and limited
resources.
Furthermore, reunification of the motherland remains an
unresolved issue. All this determines that China simply cannot copy
other countries' modes of development. Misunderstanding could be
avoided if the Americans stepped into the shoes of the Chinese.
It has been by no means easy to raise Sino-US relations to the
level they are at today. Now the two countries are pushing for an
overall constructive and co-operative relationship. China earnestly
hopes to improve its relations with the United States. The ball is
now in Washington's court. Apart from practical issues, having the
right attitude is also vitally important.
The author is a researcher from the Institute of American
Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
(China Daily June 1, 2006)
