By Tao Wenzhao
Princeton Professor Thomas Christensen was made the US deputy
assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in
July. Christensen is a China expert, and his best-known book about
the China-US conflicts between 1947-1958 was a standout from his
many other works. He has been frequently involved in academic
exchanges on Sino-US ties and recently, the United States' Taiwan
policy. He also offers counseling to the Bush administration. All
this combines to pave the way for him leading to the US State
Department.
It was widely believed that Robert Zoellick oversaw the
formulation of Bush government's China policy when he was deputy
secretary of state. With the term "stakeholder," Zoellick leaves
his personal mark on the United States' China policy. However, when
he left the office, not a single China expert could be found among
the State Department's top-ranking officials.
Now in office, Christensen becomes the only China expert from
the secretary of state on down to the officials of his rank. Before
his entry into the State Department, speculation circulated widely
that Christensen was likely to shoulder the responsibility of
charting the United States' policy towards China.
When Zoellick quit, people believed the Bush administration's
China policy would not shift with the changes in personnel. Now,
Christensen's remarks in front of the US-China Economic and
Security Review Commission on August 3 show that he will go along
the road mapped by Zoellick.
Although Zoellick came up with the term "stakeholder," he did
not say if China was already a "responsible stakeholder" as he
envisioned. Instead, Zoellick emphasized that the United States
should focus on urging China to become such a "responsible
stakeholder." Again, the central theme of "responsible stakeholder"
runs through Christensen's speech.
In spite of what has already been said about "stakeholder," this
author, would like to add something more on this important
issue.
First, this author agrees with the statement that China has
benefited substantially from the current international system.
China's reform and opening up is, in a sense, a process of becoming
integrated to the global system, which provides the country with
opportunities for development. Moreover, the accelerated economic
globalization facilitates China's luring foreign capital and
advancing its foreign trade.
While being a beneficiary of the international system, China, in
the opinion of this author, is a committed member of the global
system. Also, China seeks to help improve the existing global
system, which has many defects, so that the vast majority of
developing countries will benefit from the system.
In view of all this, China's vital interests are already closely
associated with the global system.
Second, all members of the international system should be
responsible for the system. No country should require others to be
responsible while setting no requirements on themselves to "be
responsible."
While being responsible for the international system, different
countries have different policies, which are dictated by different
interests. This is only natural.
Take the abortive Doha Round of trade talks. The United States
and the Europe Union point fingers of blame at each other. The
former charges that the latter refuses to cut tariffs on
agricultural products while the latter claims that the former is
reluctant to reduce its US$22-billion subsidies on farm produce
each year.
The episode shows that seeking balance between pursuing national
interests on the one hand and being responsible for the
international system on the other is by no means easy.
The key tone of Christensen's remarks sounds positive. He said:
"China's global emergence is a natural consequence of its economic
growth and development and need not be seen as a threat to the
United States." He also emphasized the importance of maximizing
areas of common interests and co-operation. These areas include
co-operation at various international organizations on issues of
nuclear bidding of North Korea and Iran. There are also the
subjects of Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Myanmar and Sudan and
serious matters of global health and energy security.
Christensen also touched upon the areas in which the United
States has disputes with China human rights, religious freedom,
trade imbalance, nuclear non-proliferation, the alleged lack of
transparency in China's military modernization and so on. He said:
"This is in fact the crux of US policy toward China, a policy that
combines active engagement to maximize areas of common interests
and co-operation along with a recognition that we need to maintain
strong US regional capabilities in case China does not move down a
path consistent with our interests."
This means "hedging stakes" in Zoellick's words. Or in our
words, "engaging as well as guarding against." Christensen's
remarks indicate the United States will seek a balance between
engaging and checking.
China-US relations have been growing over the past 28 years to
cover increasingly wider scopes and involve many regional and
global issues. The examples cited by Christensen in his speech also
bear this out. The China-United States relationship is becoming
more and more regional and global by nature.
China's responsibilities as one of the five permanent members of
the United Nations Security Council grow with the country's
strength. This determines that China will play a bigger role in
maintaining regional and world peace and helping promote the global
prosperity.
Therefore, the common interests of China and the United States
in maintaining regional and world peace and stability are getting
bigger instead of smaller.
Sino-US ties are complex bilateral ones. They are complex
because the two countries have common interests and disputes
simultaneously in virtually all fields. Overall, common interests
outweigh disagreements. This is true of the Taiwan question, trade
disputes and non-proliferation issues, for example.
The trade imbalance between China and the United States, which
Christensen mentioned in his speech, particularly stood out sharply
in the spring this year. But this does not necessarily mean that a
trade war will break out between the two countries.
As a matter of fact, trade and business ties constitute a very
important pillar propping up China-US relations and help bring
about a win-win situation for both. For example, Chinese products,
which are good and cheap, help the United States maintain a low
rate of inflation, enabling each American family to save US$600
each year.
The bilateral economic ties are part of the economic
globalization. As long as globalization moves on, the two countries
will become more and more interdependent economically. This is a
trend that cannot be rolled back.
Understandably, the United States hopes that everything China
does is in the interest of the US. The real situation is, however,
much more complicated than one expects. Two different nations, for
example, are bound to have different national interests. In case
disputes arise, it is better to keep the channels of communication
open and unblocked. The best attitude is: "agree to disagree."
Christensen sounded optimistic about the China-US relations, He
said in his speech: "We have already seen that the areas of mutual
interest have grown over the past 27 years. I would argue that they
will continue to grow." This author appreciates his optimism very
much. As long as the two sides make efforts to keep the current
momentum of improving ties, Sino-US relations will certainly have a
promising future.
The author is a researcher with the Institute of American
Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
(China Daily August 28, 2006)
