How to Improve China-US Trust
By Shen Dingli
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx
Google Buzz
PlurkCompeting visions and expectations complicate China-US ties. They need to try and walk in each other’s shoes, argues Shen Dingli.
It has been ‘normal’ in recent decades for China-US relations to experience regular turbulence. Although the two countries have frequently collaborated on issues of common interest, they have also faced setbacks as they’ve tried to advance their own economic prosperity and national security.
The key reason for the ups and downs in this complex relationship has been a combination of contradictory expectations and a lack of real trust. On the one hand, the two countries still hope that the other will act responsibly when it comes to the big decisions. And yet despite such hopes, they still seem destined to constantly hedge against each other, in both domestic and foreign policy.
The fact that China and the United States have so often been forced to confront major crises in ties, despite efforts to create a relationship that isn’t constantly hijacked by individual events, has been damaging not only to bilateral relations but also to their own security and welfare.
So what’s behind the trust deficit, and is there any chance for improvement?
One fundamental reason for the periodic clashes is diverging values and interests, which means there are times when the two find it difficult to read each other’s intentions. Such differences have at times prevented them from developing common values and sharing core interests.
For example, China has stressed its core national interests as being institutional security, economic development and territorial integrity. Among these, institutional security has been the most important, with serving the people supposedly its primary tenet. Indeed, from anti-feudalism to anti-imperialism, from anti-warlordism to anti-colonialism and anti-hegemonism, China has experienced some genuine changes. But they are also changes on a path toward change, and it’s possible that the United States simply does not recognize this particular platform of democracy.
I hope that eventually, the American people will become more objective in judging the performance of the Chinese system (and that they’ll also better understand China’s criticisms of the United States’ own civil rights problems, such as racial discrimination, as an effort to encourage US advances in social reforms). As China develops and grows in confidence, its leaders should also find themselves better able to review foreign critiques, including from the United States.
There is a Chinese saying: ‘Modesty helps one go forward, whereas conceit makes one lag behind.’ Through criticism and self-criticism, China and the United States are learning to treat each other more equally, and to respect the other’s institutions. Despite a strained year in 2010, there have been some encouraging signs of progress recently, underscored by the state visit to Washington last month by President Hu Jintao.
But building on these improvements won’t be easy as the two countries explore the boundaries and compatibility of their ‘core interests.’ On the Chinese side, despite more international exchanges and greater cooperation being crucial to China’s continued growth, it also needs to consider how best to protect its nationals and overseas investments. With this in mind, it’s understandable why China feels inclined to build a more capable defensive capacity in order to protect its off-shore interests. But if China also wants to build trust with the United States, it would do well to explain its objectives and plans more clearly to avoid any misunderstandings and misjudgements.
Correspondingly, China must also try to understand legitimate US desires–especially its long-stressed notion of freedom of navigation on the open seas. The United States has long monopolized the oceans, including in Asia, a reality that has prompted concerns among Chinese policymakers that the United States has been policing international waters merely for its own benefit.
But with China growing rapidly economically, and with it being increasingly inclined to tap the ocean for its resources and access, freedom of navigation is becoming less of a US-led privilege, a shift that poses genuine challenges for the China-US relationship. The United States appears anxious, for example, about China’s intention over a number of its Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). The associated mutual suspicions, if uncontained, could deepen mistrust between the two.
If China and the United States are going to tackle such mutual suspicions they will need to improve cooperation, and demonstrate more understanding and respect for the other’s goals. The US, for example, should respect the legitimate rights of China and other countries to access the high seas. China, for its part, may be obliged to reinterpret its use of its EEZs in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If they can manage this, they will be able to guarantee genuinely open maritime access, something that is surely in everyone’s interests.
A sign of the difficulties ahead, though, came last July at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, when the two sides clashed over ‘core interests’ in the South China Sea. The US side seemed to assert that the South China Sea should be largely open to all, with no single country able to claim sovereignty over all of it—a clear reference to China’s historical claim.
When the two sides are at odds like this, it does neither any good to be discussing ‘core’ interests and the implied exclusivity. It would be better for China, the United States and relevant ASEAN members to try to reconcile their positions by creating a regime that facilitates free access to the South China Sea for all parties, while retaining China’s privileges in tapping the area for economic purposes. Encouragingly, the Joint Statement released last month after the Hu-Obama meeting appeared to narrow the differences between the two sides by emphasizing their ‘mutual respect and interests’ in lieu of the ‘core interests’ of any single state. This smart move, if it can be built upon, should help boost trust.
Sino-US relations are still constantly developing and it’s true that a single successful state visit won’t sweep away their various differences. Still, as long as China and the United States can work to genuinely place themselves in the other’s shoes, they have a good chance of minimizing the potential for conflict and of building lasting trust.
Shen Dingli is director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University.
Image credit: Flickr/futureatlas.com
Kha Nguyen
The Chinese leaders are untrustworthy. Do not believe in their words. Look at the way they do and you will understand their lies.
Dave
“The United States has long monopolized the oceans, including in Asia, a reality that has prompted concerns among Chinese policymakers that the United States has been policing international waters merely for its own benefit. But with China growing rapidly economically, and with it being increasingly inclined to tap the ocean for its resources and access, freedom of navigation is becoming less of a US-led privilege….
To monopolize: to assumes complete ownership or control of something
1) I don’t think the US has ever assumed it owns or controls the oceans of the world. The US idea is that NO country owns or controls oceans, they should be free for all nations to use, including China. But China prefers to claim sovereignty (control) over some parts of the ocean, to the exclusion of its neighbors.
2) Of course the US has its own interest involved while navigating or patrolling the world’s oceans, so does China. Is this supposed to be insight?
3) When, or how, has US navigation of the oceans ever been a US “privilege” that was not enjoyed by other nations?
John Tolman
While the recent visit of China’s president Hu Jinato to Washington is a sign that maybe US-China relations are taking a new turn, I believe too that they need to try and walk in each other’s shoes. China wants desperately a lion share of natural resources if they are to become number one economy and therefore they will be squeezing the US out of their control of the South China Sea. Any naval and military enhancements on the part of China will be for helping with gaining the control they crave, and to block other unwanted smaller nations that will also have competing interests.
China will continue to entrench themselves wherever they can and a degree of control of these waters will be helpful to adding to their resources portfolio. But until we have a UN with teeth, the relationship will continue to be strained and marked by mistrust because the mistrust goes back too long. The UN must play a key role here. And both these superpowers must learn from each other and make a genuine effort to better understand the traditions and institutions they each represent in an attempt to build understanding and mutual trust. They need to talk a lot more FREQUENTLY because time spent together will open bridges of understanding. Whereas for decades China has been a center of mistrust for many Westerners (just like Russia,) its very reasonable not to expect any surge of trust in Washington from China’s present leaders. The US has become the laughing stock of the world and has more egg on its face than the total noodle consumption of China! This once great nation of the world is not a leader any more and while it is often the first to help defend weaker pro-democracy nations, engage in rescue missions and other humanitarian causes, the US rarely engages without a present or future benefit to themselves that is all too often the over-riding priority whether visible or not. It’s time the spirit of sacrifice and hard work based on common sense and pure values returned to the leadership in Washington. Then they will be easier to trust and will offer an exemplary model for other nations with shared interests like China to feel comfortable engaging in the process of open negotiation as opposed to continuing guess work about what each opposing side is thinking.
Peter Kuo
Look the reality is China will protect her sovereign territory. This is very similar to America. The difference is evident, i.e. there is no Guantanimo Bay, there are no bases across the world (America – 900 +???), how about an estimated one trillion dollars spent on high tech war toys, or CIA, FBI, who also constantly spy using cyberspace? Israel apparently ‘listens in’. As for extremely large Carrier Groups, well that’s certainly America. So a country that says right we’ll develop a missile system that will deter battleships is clearly a defensive move. America has lost her way, she’s relying on military might rather than democratic values. This I feel will be her downfall, she’s listened to the hawks for too long. There’s a great saying :- an Iron Curtain can only do so much. A better idea would be to revamp the UN, and create a UN with teeth, which allows all countries to vote, and perhaps where a small, neutral, country has a larger say. Just imagine a country like Fiji given the veto against America, Russia, China or any other major nations…hmmm, okay enough daydreaming. The real debate is based on trust. As for Taiwan, it reminds me of the Cuba crisis, China cannot allow foreign intervention.
Grant
And what of areas where the U.S and China simply cannot agree on? Taiwan being the eternal example of a place where China wants to unite it with the mainland, the U.S with no desire to see a democratic state taken over by an authoritarian one and the Taiwanese people preferring status quo or independence to reunification? For the matter all three parties are keeping to status quo but that’s going to last only a few more decades at the absolute most.
Leonard R.
I would not call China’s cyber attacks against the US government a ‘setback’.
I would call them acts of war.
I would not characterize China’s designing a ‘carrier killer missile’ to be the result of ‘contradictory expectations’ between China and the US. I would characterize it as the PLA preparing to attack the US Navy.
I would not call China’s claiming the entire South China Sea as a ‘core national interest’ to be anything other than what it is, imperialism at the expense of the smaller nations in ASEAN.
Grant
On the cyber attacks lets be more cautious. To start we don’t actually have much proof that they are being done on the orders of Chinese leaders. The majority probably are, but probability isn’t considered casus belli in the 21st century. Second I really don’t think simple cyber espionage and taking down websites is enough to justify a kinetic response. Lastly, considering our current exhaustion from two counterinsurgencies and a recession a war with China would be unnecessarily bloody at this point.
Max
I think another point to realize in the realm of cyber attack, is that anybody can pretend to be anybody on the internet. I could sit at my desk in the U.S., and create false data that says I’m sending information from China. Maybe some attacks are sanctioned, and maybe some are just posers.
david
Has ur goverment told u that how many cyber attacks they have launched against chines? So u never did any research on that and just accept whatever they want u to hear. No wonder those conspiracy theories abound like 9/11 was orchestrated by cia to justfy the war against talibans and iraq. Chinese are not the aggressor like usa with bases all around globe and chugging astonishing 1trillion on pentagon war machine while some tea-party cons are floating an idea of debt default. I admit china need to show some more mature attitude towards its neighbours in resolving the crisis and vietnam or other relatively smalll nations feel genuinely threatened when china pushes the claim. But we dont need lectures from usa, a country that was founded on slavery, extermination of natives and western thuggery. China is not perfect with economic and poitical problems at home and all but china is no push over. So, if vietnam or other claimants is willing to engage genuinely constructive dialogue, i believe that ccp will be ready. Mark my words, when it comes to sourveignty, even the most fervent anti-ccp democracy activists will bang the table against any concession.
david
“Imperialism”, that is a big word, in which china and usa both have a lot practice for past 1000 and 100 years respectively. I am just curious why us always get to take moral high ground despite their dismal human rights record. To justify their war against third world dictators, their mission statement boasts of spreading “democracy” and in the proccess, millions have impoverished. But never mind, some yankees retort,that they would have been wiped out by their own despots anyway, how is that different from a us marine killing a bunch “by mistake”.
Seriously, dont u guys have sth more urgent to deal with. I read a joke, or a metaphore that day in which the author compares usa to a masculine but promiscuous husband who spends his time defending the honor of his numerous lovers ( i am sure that numerous is understatement if u count japan, south korea, philipine and scores of european or middle east nations as us’ bitches), over time, he neglects his wife, the only woman who loves him unconditionally ( us general public) and suffer a great deal in his absence as well as his only child ( us economy).
I dont mean to lecture u, but dont u agree that maybe its time to cut those whores loose, for the christ sake, they have no honors that require defending because they are whores,especially when u run out of money and cant afford to go to brothel.
SCdad07
Espionage among countries had been going on for millennium.
Didn’t stories about Israel’s spying on US keep surfacing in news?
Even companies spy on each others and certain auditing firm, after reviewing the most intimate operations of it’s clients, sell the information as research and opinion.
What is CIA doing? Ever read ‘A secret war in 120 countries’ by Nick Turse.
Curiously, it seems US cries foul on being ‘attacked or spied on’ while its warships and planes gather ‘intelligence’ as close as 15 miles of other country’s shore.
Double talk.
Reason
Author said – “China, for its part, may be obliged to reinterpret its use of its EEZs in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If they can manage this, they will be able to guarantee genuinely open maritime access, something that is surely in everyone’s interests.”
- TYPICALLY CONFUSING… what does this mean???? There already is genuine maritime access ??? Hasn’t a Chinese war ship sailed all the way to Libya? How many EEZ did it have to pass through to get there? If China’s interpretation of UNCLOS is accepted then it will set a precedent that any country, for reasons of “national security” can prevent any ship from doing anything it deems inproper… Then… truly, freedom of the seas will be dead…
Author said – “It would be better for China, the United States and relevant ASEAN members to try to reconcile their positions by creating a regime that facilitates free access to the South China Sea for all parties, while retaining China’s privileges in tapping the area for economic purposes.”
How is this a compromise on China’s behalf….??? It’s basically saying… yeah, we’ll let ships pass through the SCS, BUT CHINA OWNS IT AND ALL THE RESOURCES IN IT…. how is that fair for Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan etc.. who all have just legitimate claims to the SCS as does China.
What are “China’s privileges” to the SCS? This is stated as though it is fact, a base point to open negotiations. What are China’s claims to the SCS based on? What evidence, as it has not presented anything to UNCLOS, other than whimsical notions of historical precedent. China’s past ‘tributary system, which was hardly all encompassing but instead functioned more like nodes of influence can’t just be repackaged in the 21stC as Westphalian sovereignty to suit its convenience.
SCdad07
To Reason:
US has not ratified UNCLOS and withdrew from ‘compulsory jurisdiction” in 1986.
Sovereignty became the flashpoint issue in South China Sea from Philippines, Vietnam,..etc, only after news of ‘potential of huge oil and gas’ in region became headlines.
China’s sovereignty over Spratlys and Paracel islands had hardly been challenged until the 19th century when China, herself, was in chaos.
JD
Firstly which year of history are we talking about for the purpose of China’s historical claim.
Secondly what about the historical claim of other South China Sea litoral states.
Is it Might is Right?
SCdad07
Addressing JD’s South China Sea history and sovereignty claims by neighboring countries as well as ‘Might is Right’, here is only a small part, quoting from spratlys.org:
“On July 25 1933 the French Foreign Ministry announced the occupation of the nine islets of the Spratlys and asserted French sovereignty over them for the first time. The French action brought immediate protests from China. At that time, the Philippines was a colony of America. Some Filipino congressman said the nine islands should belong to the Philippines according to the Treaty of Paris. However his suggestion was ignored by Washington since the Spratly Islands obviously were not within the Philippine boundary as stated by the Treaty Limits.
Japan unconditionally surrendered in 1945 after their defeat in the World War II. Towards the end of 1946, the Chinese government sent a naval task force consisting of four warships to the Spratlys and Paracels to execute demonstrative possessor acts on the spot. The task force sailed from Guangdong (Canton) on December 9, 1946. The two war ships Taiping and Zhongye set course for the Spratlys and after 3 days’ sailing, they reached Itu Aba Island, the principal island of the Spratlys on the morning of December 12, 1946. They immediately sent telegraphs to Nanjing to report on their arrival and later stationed on the Itu Aba Island. The Itu Aba Island was surveyed. The task force also reached and surveyed other Spratly Islands including Nanyue Island, Thitu Island, North Danger Reef etc. The symbols of Japanese sovereignty were removed and a Sovereignty Stone Marker was placed on the Itu Aba Island. They also held a take-over ceremony.
In December 1947 Territorial Administration Section of Ministry of Internal Affairs published a list of South China Sea Islands Names and a Map of South China Sea Islands. The Itu Aba Island is renamed to Taiping Island, the Thitu Island is renamed to Zhongye Island, the commander’s name of the task force is also used as a name of a Sand Cay (Dunqian Shazhou).
In 1956 Tomas Cloma together with his brothers and 40 crew explored the Spratlys and claimed to have “discovered” and occupied 53 islands and reefs of the Spratlys. They proclaimed “formal ownership” over them and renamed these islands and reefs the Kalayaan (Freedomland) Island Group.
The Philippine act was immediately met with protests from PRC, Taiwan, Saigon as well as France. The PRC denounced Tomas Cloma’s alleged “discovery” as totally groundless. Manila responded to Taipei and Saigon that it had no claims on the Spratlys. Since then Taiwan sent troops to the Islands to patrol the Spratly Islands and stationed on Itu Aba Island to prevent further such allegations.
In early July 1971, the Philippine government alleged that the Taiwanese troops on the Itu Aba Island “fired on a boat carrying a Philippine congressman”. After this the Philippine government announced on July 10 1971 that “it had sent a diplomatic note to Taipei asking that the Chinese garrison be withdrawn from Itua Aba”. Manila stated that 53 islands and reefs once occupied by Tomas Cloma should belong to the Philippines, because the area was terra nullius at the time of its occupation and was “acquired according to the modes of acquisition recognized under international law, among which are occupation and effective administration”. Meanwhile the Philippines sent its navy to occupy Thitu Island and Nanshan Island.
In April 1972, the Philippines government incorporated the “Kalayaan” group into Palawan Province as a municipality.
source: spratlys.org
Philippines’ claim is based on Terra/Res Nullius (a thing which has no owner or has been abandoned by its owner is as much as if it had never belonged to any one.”