In recent weeks the U.S.-China relationship has been rocked by a number of geopolitical crises, some unforeseen and others a result of archaic policies that should no longer exist in our current political climate. During this critical time, President Obama should focus on building a constructive relationship with China, and not divert his attention from the end goal of building mutual understanding and trust. On the heels of the arms sales to Taiwan and at a time when we rely heavily on China's geopolitical clout in Iran and North Korea, if President Obama now invites the Dalai Lama to visit the White House, he will be instigating a potentially destructive downward spiral in relations.
There is no question that the United States-China relationship is the most vital bilateral relationship in the twenty first century. As economist C. Fred Bergsten noted in his letter to Foreign Affairs, "the United States and China are the world's two most important economies. The United States leads the high-income economies, and China leads the emerging-market economies. Each of these groups now accounts for half of global output. The United States and China are the two largest trading countries and the two largest polluters." So the real priorities for the U.S. should be to focus and engage China on trade balance, climate change, and our national debt.
Much of our news media is focused on China's newly assertive approach to its relationship with the United States; with most reporters asserting that the Chinese have become more difficult in their approach to bilateral relations. Furthermore, this increased boldness from China is largely attributed to their growing confidence following the global economic crisis, from which they were the one country that emerged stronger than before.
This perception is in many ways style over substance. From Beijing's perspective, its fundamental stance on important and sensitive policies have not changed. Taiwan and Tibet are consistently matters of national integrity and sovereignty. China's policy of non-intervention in domestic matters of foreign countries has always guided its stances on all nations, including Iran and North Korea. And China's necessity for economic growth has been the driving forces in China's policies for decades. Similarly, the importance of developing a positive and comprehensive China-US relationship remains unchanged.
As the United States attempts to navigate through this rocky terrain, it should also attempt to view its current agenda from Beijing's perspective. On Taiwan, the United States made a blunder by proceeding with an archaic and unacceptable weapons sale. For Chinese leaders, this is the worst offense, as they consider Taiwan part of China. In fact, the Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China.
On Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a tactical misstep by insisting that the Chinese sign on to economic sanctions. This shows a clear lack of understanding on China's policy on Iran -- China always prefers to use diplomatic means.
And now, when these precarious issues are in need of delicate diplomacy and high sensitivity, the announcement that President Obama will meet with the Dalai Lama will do little to curtail Beijing's ire and will likely further erode U.S.-China relations.
Acknowledging the sensitivities, President Obama has tried to downplay the significance of the visit, noting that the Dalai Lama will be welcomed solely as a "religious and cultural leader", not as a political one. Yet in China, the Dalai Lama's political ambitions are inseparable from his religious role. In addition to the Chinese government, the Chinese people are weary of the Dalai Lama because of this connection, as they are aware of what happened in Iran following the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Like the Dalai Lama, Khomeini spent many years in exile and then returned to play a destructive political role in Iran. The Dalai Lama has previously claimed he is not seeking independence for Tibet,, then why would he also claim "Tibet is historically a separate country"?
Tibet has been part of China long before Hawaii was a state of the United States. The U.S. Congress passed the Public Law 103-150, otherwise known as the Apology Resolution, which apologized for the U.S. Government's role in supporting the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. However, Hawaii is still a solid part of the U.S. sovereignty. How would the U.S. government react if the government of China supported a leader of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement?
For its part, China is committed to resolving the Tibet matter internally, and this week convened with representatives of the Dalai Lama to discuss Tibet's status as an autonomous region from both sides' perspectives in an attempt to narrow down their differences. While progress is admittedly slow, it is a good sign that both parties are engaging, and that each side have left the door open for future dialogue. Additionally, China must increase its efforts to tell its story and make its argument to the world. It is vital that China engages the next generation of Americans to guard against continued misunderstanding and conflict.
For the time being, it is unwise to fete an exile leader and further offend the most important foreign partner of the United Sates. President Obama should spend more time engaging President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, to deal with important bilateral issues at hand. It is unwise to sidetrack U.S. foreign policy. We need more constructive U.S.-China relations, for the people of the U.S. and for the people of China.
Fred S. Teng is Chief Executive Officer of NewsChina magazine and President of the Chinese Community Relations Council.
Follow Fred Teng on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@FredTeng
John Feffer: Pentagon in Asia: Use It or Lose It
Now is not the time to draw attention to the Dalai Lama when US-China relations are weak. “Fete†– we are honouring him; we are celebrating him, but all under the very public eye of the media. Obama should be wiser, as our nation's representative and leader, understanding the Chinese’ views on the Dalai.
Also, I think many missed Mr. Teng analytical criticizism of China’s actions, as well. Towards the end of the article, Teng argues that China should defend its belief. There is no personal opinion on Mr. Teng's behalf, but rather his belief of China's diplomatic actions
US-China relations is critical. If trading lessens or stops, we as a nation lose a major resource, and we also affect the global market in terms of production. You all have passionate personal beliefs, respectfully. However, I believe Mr. Teng isn’t against Tibet NOR is he for China; I believe his interests lie in our nations well being.
Mr. Teng's suggests that CURRENTLY Obama should spend more time solving this very urgent issue, not negating any relations that we have. When our relations are better, we can reach out to Tibet and other nations of interest.
But FOR NOW, we should keep our best interests in mind as we build our nation back in to the thriving country it once was.
But the people of Taiwan, like all people, have the right to defend themselves from the hundreds of missiles trained on their homeland, and the people of Tibet, like all people, have the right to live and worship according to their own beliefs.
The underlying realpolitik is that the self-determination of Taiwan and Tibet are embarrassing to the authoritarian regime in Beijing, and that's why China is willing to recognize their autonomy for most practical purposes yet remains extremely sensitive to symbolism and formality.
Taiwan and Tibet can exist as if they were independent for the most part as long as they do not officially declare their independence or receive official recognition of independence from other nations. That would undermine the narrative of Chinese nationalism.
America and China are, in many ways, mirror images. The mythology of America is about liberty and democracy, yet we impose our will on the world by political power. The mythology of China is about harmony and authority, yet they restrict their foreign policy to instruments of economic power.
Mythology -- not policy -- is the real source of political power. Policy is the vehicle through which politicians tell us a story of who we are and what we represent. So all nations have two sets of policy: the official policy that relates to the mythology and the unofficial policy that relates to reality.
I do not think Mr. Teng is trying to deceive us in any way. He uses straightforward words -- no magical, fancy words here. Just plain analysis (If you find any fanciful prose, please, riddle me).
As I pointed out, I believe we are missing the greater point that NOW is not the time to weaken US-China relations. I understand that you have a personal mistrust of the Chinese government; I think its hard for us to fully trust a nation with such a different culture and recently new history. However, we are in the position in which we should humour China. As a nation, China is, economically, very powerful, and what I believe Mr. Teng is saying is that currently we have to prudently build stronger relations with China in order to benefit our own nation.
Should we give in to every Chinese whim? No. But we should watch out for OUR best interests and take wiser and more intelligent actions with China.
In addition, you point out that China is controlled by 7people. Although I do not see how this is relevant to the topic, I will still point out that I think you forget that our country is also governed by more than one leader. In fact, if we had only one ruler that would be classified as a dictatorship.
-Tigerdog
they ARE doing it to 'make money' right?
THAT is their purpose right?
so what kind of MONSTERS make money by PURPOSELY and Knowingly poisoning children?
Taiwan has never been part of any ethnic Chinese emperor's domain. For a couple of hundred years the lowlands were ruled as a colony of the Qing, an ethnic Manchu empire. The highlands were not brought under outside control until the 1930s, when Taiwan was part of Japan.
For all of Chinese history Taiwan was considered outside China and was ignored. It was not until the mid 1930s that Chinese expansionists began to consider that they might be able to get their hands on Taiwan. This was the ultimate realization of post-Qing China's desire to inflate itself out to the Qing borders, which extended far beyond the Ming. Arguing that Taiwan belongs to "China" because the Qing owned it is like arguing that Turkey owns Egypt because the Ottoman Empire was HQed in what is now Turkey.
Of course, Teng ignores the declaration of independence in 1895 and the establishment of the Formosan Republic.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan blog
The policy of the US is that the status of Taiwan is undetermined. Has been for the last 60 years. That is also the policy of Japan -- whose Taiwan envoy was kicked out last year after reminding the local government of Taiwan's undetermined status -- along with most of the other major powers.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan blog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
When Tibet became parts of china? In Tibetan language, there was no words of Zhongguo until recently, and Tibetans had never considered themselves as Zhonghua minzu. It was created by the China's founding fathers such as Sun Yat-Sen.; and until recently, the chinese had never accepted the Manchu dynasty was a Chinese dynasty and it had nothing to do with the republic of china and the people's republic of China.
Gosh, Fred, you sound like a hired PR flack. Great job of it, tho, getting those talking points in.
Hey, how's that internet censorship and communist official corruption working out for you?