Posted on 07/28/2004 7:06:41 PM PDT by snowsislander
The 2004 US presidential election is turning white-hot. Will the China question become a topic of debate in the forthcoming election? Will some people who cash in on the election stir up a new round of anti-China wave?
For people familiar with the US history of general elections in the past two decades, it's only natural that they raised these queries. Since the two countries established diplomatic ties in 1979, whenever the Democrats and Republicans fight tooth and nail for presidency, contester of the party out of office would invariably launch severe criticism of the current administration's policy toward China, with the only exceptions being in 1988 when George Bush succeeded Ronald W. Reagan, and in 1996 when Bill Clinton took his second term. Clinton once accused George Bush of trying to be in good terms with Beijing, and George W. Bush attacked Clinton on his appeasement with a "strategic rival". Other China-related cases such as "political-oriented money contribution" and "spying" appeared one after another. Under such circumstances, the China policy of the United States often become a mortgage or a sacrifice to election politics; while the China-US relations suffer gratuitous disturbances, so much so that people call this phenomenon a "China syndrome" in US presidential elections.
The two parties are matched so well in the campaign this year that no one dare say for sure which team will win. According to past experience, the China question will inevitably be brought out as a political counter. But this year people focus mostly on the situation in Iraq and US economic condition, as well as related topics like anti-terrorism, the Korea Peninsula nuke issue, Iran, tax-cut, employment, homosexual and so on. The latest events also show that Americans are more concerned with Iraq, counter-terrorism and US economic recovery. This will help divert attention from China.
After a normalization process of more than 30 years, particularly fruitful cooperation on anti-terrorism and the Korean nuclear issue, the China-US relations are in a relatively good historical period, or we may say in the "most mature period". China's political and economic advancement has made it hard for the United States to attack China with strongly tinged ideology. These favorable elements were not available in previous elections. However, this doesn't mean there is no major friction between the two nations, and still less does it mean Bush's China policy has been accepted by the Democratic Party. At least there is the possibility that the China issue would be brought up on the following three points.
First is unbalanced trade. According to the latest US statistics, the US trade deficit with China is as high as US$124 billion. The Democratic camp, which is always representing the public interests of the middle and lower strata, has long been dissatisfied with this situation. They attacked the Bush Administration for sacrificing domestic economic interests in exchange for "anti-terrorism cooperation" from China, and accused Bush of surrendering the market to the Chinese, and thus incurring a loss of 3 million jobs to the United States. Meanwhile, due to unfavorable economic and employment situations in the United States, issues such as the RMB revaluation, China's trade protection policy and treatment of Chinese labors will possibly be subject to attack.
Second is the Taiwan question. As the cross-Straits situation suddenly becomes tense and China shows firmer determination to defend national sovereignty by force, the United States has launched policy debates over whether the "One China" policy should be revalued and whether there should be armed involvement in the Taiwan Straits disputes. If the instability in the Taiwan Strait situation becomes worse in a period of time ahead, the different stands of the two parties on the Taiwan issue will become the focus of debate in the election.
Third is the military modernization of China. In recent years, the right wing whipped up opinion saying China would put money earned from the United States mainly into armaments. As main EU countries hope to lift arms embargo on China, whether the United States should reconsider its sanction against China also became a hot topic. Besides, questions like how the United States views China's rise and how to ensure a win-win result for China-US interests in the Asia-Pacific region are topics frequently discussed in recent years.
George W. Bush took office as a hardliner to China, regarding the country as "strategic rival", which constitutes the core of his outlook on China. Despite fruitful results of Sino-US cooperation on anti-terrorism and the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, the keynotes of Bush valuing allies, showing partiality for Taiwan and having doubts about China seem to have not been fundamentally changed. This is manifested especially prominent in the China views of Vice-President Richard B. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (upon whom Bush relied heavily), in their minds the notion of "China threat" is deeply rooted.
Comparatively speaking, Kerry is noted for being friendly with China. He was once firmly against linking the most-favored-nation status to China with human rights. Kerry's view on China can be summed up in the following points. First, to look squarely at China's position and influence in Asia and the world at large. Second, to oppose containment of China and stand for contacts with the country. He said: We need cooperation with China and cannot push Sino-US relationship back to the Cold War period. Third, to support the "one-China" principle and oppose "Taiwan independence". At a broadcasting debate held in January this year, he alarmingly expressed support for the solution of the Taiwan issue by the method of "one country, two systems" which triggered strong repercussion. Although this maybe a remark made at the spur of the moment, it reflected that his attitude toward the Taiwan issue is different from that of Bush. Fourth and last, there are no "neo-cons" in Kerry's campaign team, and most of his men can rationally approach the common interests and actual differences between the two countries.
Despite their different attitudes toward China, both Bush and Kerry do not want to make troubles for themselves in this regard and would rather concentrate their strength on the issues of Iraq and domestic economy. At the same time, to attract votes from ethnic minorities, Bush and Kerry took great pains to draw themselves close to Chinese- Americans.
There must be the following three prerequisites for the discussion of this question. First, after more than 30 years of development, the Sino-US ties have gone through various tests, and have witnessed the establishment of all sorts of mechanisms and have thus become relatively stable. Second, the United States has possessed a relatively complete and stable democratic political system, its fundamental policies will not have major changes due to the rotation of political parties. Even if such changes do exist, they will finally return to the right track for the sake of national interests. Third, a presidential runner's attitude toward China doesn't necessarily determine the trend of his China policy after taking office, while international patterns, domestic politics and interactions between the two countries are usually the more decisive factors of US policy toward China.
In this sense, although Kerry is friendly with China, his possible assumption of office is not necessarily beneficial to China. On the contrary, at least on two questions, it may cause twists and turns in the Sino-US relations.
First is China-US trade. Since the Democratic Party represents small and medium-sized enterprises and the public interests of middle and lower strata, and it is precisely they that constitute the mainstay of the US unemployed army and victims of the US economic depression, Kerry will definitely apply himself to solving the problems of unbalanced trade and expansion of US employment in the early period of his possible assumption of office. A result of misleading US opinion over the past year is the allegation that factors such as the sharp increase in US trade deficit, the shift of the American market toward China and the artificial control of the RMB (People's Currency) are one of the "chief culprits" that leads to the sluggishness of the US job market. Kerry himself holds no dissent to this view. So it's hard to guarantee that Kerry will not use the "broad axe" to first attack the problem concerning Sino-US trade after his possible assumption of office.
Second is the Taiwan question. Although Kerry's policy stand on Taiwan is favorable to China, if the Congress is still under the control of the Republican Party, there would appear the result that the Taiwan issue would become a "mortgage" in US domestic political struggles. After Clinton put forward his "three no's" policy (not supporting Taiwan independence and "two Chinas" or "one China or one Taiwan", nor supporting Taiwan's participation in the international organizations of sovereign states) toward Taiwan in 1998, the Republic Party-dominated Congress immediately counterattacked by citing the so-called "The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act", as a result, not only the "three no's" policy quickly came to a premature end, but the pro-Taiwan forces within the Congress also became more arrogant. The "weighty words" Bush used when he told Chen Shui-bian on the question of referendum in Taiwan had aroused the dissatisfaction of the pro-Taiwan forces within the Congress, but considering that the Bush administration comprises of associates of the Republican Party, they just left the matter at that. But if Kerry comes to power, the Republican-controlled Congress would likely make a fuss about the tense situation in the Taiwan Straits, forcing him to express his stance on the "one China", "assistance in defending Taiwan" and other questions. This will result in setting up greater obstacles to China's efforts for solving the Taiwan issue. In addition, although a prospective Kerry administration might keep "new-cons" outside the cabinet, it is hard for him to prevent these forces from continuing to make trouble and exerting influence on every corner of the American society.
On the contrary, although the Bush Administration's concept on China is relatively passive, the Republican Party-led government seems to lay more emphasis on immediate interest and major strategies, so it will put more energy in anti-terrorism and punishment of "defeated countries". Though not an ideal "strategic partner", China remains a necessary "strategic helper". More importantly, after four-years' adjustment during his first term of office, Bush has basically tuned his China policy on to the existing track of "contact plus precaution" of the six previous administrations. Therefore, from a short-term point of view, the Republican Party-led administration is more favorable to China than that of the Democratic Party; while from a long-term view, a Democratic administration, which stresses international cooperation, pursues "multilateralism" and stands for a policy of contacts, will be better for both world peace and Sino-US relations.
This article by Yuan Peng with the American Research Institute is carried on the 7th page of People's Daily, July 23, and translated by People's Daily Online
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.