The old joke about marriage goes something like this: At a social gathering, the long-married wife waxes on about her 30 years of matrimony, and her dutiful husband pipes up, “Yes, the 30 years seem like just 30 minutes!”
He then turns to his chum and whispers: “30 minutes under water!”
The normalization of Sino-U.S. diplomatic ties just passed the three-decade anniversary, and public reflections abound. Relations have become so routine that an item on the Xinhua news agency noting that President Bush and President Hu Jintao talked by telephone last Sunday hardly merited attention.
Such calls are common. If the leaders of the two countries don’t chat each month, Cabinet members are exchanging visits. I joke that it’s probably easier to see a U.S. Cabinet member in Beijing than in Washington.
Later today, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte will view a ping-pong tournament here in Beijing to commemorate the “ping-pong diplomacy” three decades ago between then-President Richard Nixon and Paramount leader Mao Zedong (photo above) that led to normalization of U.S.-China diplomatic relations.
The ordinariness of such visits led one prominent U.S. scholar this week to compare Sino-U.S. relations with a fundamentally strong and long-lasting marriage. David Shambaugh of George Washington University printed his views in the International Herald Tribune. Here is the key graph:
“After three, often rocky, decades of interaction, the United States and China seem to have settled into a ‘mature marriage,’ where mutual respect, mutual interests, and an awareness of the negative consequences of an adversarial relationship bind the two together. In this marriage divorce is not an option. Having achieved this level of interdependence, hopefully the next 30 years will bear real fruit of bilateral, regional, and global cooperation.”
This got me to thinking. I’ve often felt that ordinary Chinese and Americans share much that can bind them together, including a natural gregariousness, optimism in the future, and a bent for business. But one senses little personal warmth in the relationship between President Hu and President Bush. I might describe relations as “correct” and “complex” but not warm.
That might even describe China’s relations with most of its neighbors. After all, who are Beijing’s real allies? I often ask that of ordinary Chinese, and they have difficulty answering. Maybe they don’t need true allies when they account for one-sixth of humanity. Americans, for our part, can arguably say the Brits, the Aussies, the Kiwis and the Irish are true allies. I even recall former Secretary of State Colin Powell speaking at the U.N. earlier this decade, at the height of the “Freedom Fries” uproar and U.S. anger at France for its lack of support on Iraq, over the common values and shared history that bind France and the United States together. It was a timely reminder during an emotional period.
So the Sino-U.S. relationship still has a long way to go. Comedian Stephen Colbert suggested a couple of years ago that China is neither friend nor enemy. It’s a “frenemy.”
Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary who will play a key role in President-elect Barack Obama’s administration, said a couple of years ago that China and the United States were joined as Siamese twins across the Pacific Ocean, and any effort to harm the other would just backfire.
Harkening back to a term to describe mutual nuclear annihilation during the U.S.-USSR Cold War, Summers described Sino-U.S. economic interdependence as “mutually assured economic destruction.” Both China and the U.S. could inflict devastating economic destruction on each other, but they don’t do so. They are deterred. China needs U.S. consumers to spend freely because the output of Chinese factories largely goes to U.S. shores. Americans, for their part, save billions of dollars from cheap Chinese products.
That leaves what Summers called a Balance of Financial Terror. China buys U.S. bonds and finances the U.S. current account deficit because to do otherwise would slash U.S. imports of Chinese goods that keep Chinese factories humming. The two nations are joined at the hip, complementary but co-dependent.
It’s not an ideal marriage, but a functional one. Even if at times it feels like we are under water and gasping for air.
What the name of USA reveals to us:
The United States of America.
美 利 坚 合 众 国
美 利 坚 和 中 国
America And China
Posted by: jeff | January 06, 2009 at 11:37 PM
In my opinion it is not really a marriage which involves mutually-held love and admiration, it is really a practical partnership: I don't really give a damn about you but we have to work together for our own sake. International relations-wise I think it is as good as you can get between two countries on an equal footing. Of course the relationship between the US and the UK (and some other "allies") is way better, but I'd argue that in those cases the UK or other "allies" are basically acting as America's bitch. None of those "allies" that Tim mentioned could seriously challenge the US foreign policy-wise. I would add Japan to the list too, but even the Japanese are gradually drifting away from Pax-Americana and have started looking elsewhere.
By the way Tim, notice that those allies of the US that you named are all Judeo-Christian, English-speaking, caucasian-majority nations. I think this common cultural and racial bond way outweighs the so-called "common values" such as democracy etc. Not every democracy is a friend of the US.
I think China had many third-world allies in the old days when China truly believed in "helping out our third-world brothers and sisters". Now the business and money-driven China does not have many allies, true. I'd say today China's only ally is Pakistan, but it is a deteriorating one too.
Posted by: Pffefer | January 07, 2009 at 03:56 PM
Pfeffer,
Do you think they were helping out their third-world brothers out of the goodness of their heart? They had an agenda. They still have an agenda, but a different one.
Posted by: johnny justice | January 08, 2009 at 01:02 AM
Does the US have an ally? No. Britain is not an ally, it's an underling, a lackey. In the imperial past when China was a superpower, China didn't have an ally either, but protectorates. Once China is more developed and has a sort of more easily justifiable political system and value system, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam etc. can be China's natural allies. But the point is when you're a large/powerful country, you don't need an ally. You need it when you're a medium-power country. But none of these is bottom line. The bottom line is if 1.4 billion of Chinese can be friends with each other, that's more than what any ally can bring.
Posted by: OtOh | January 08, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Johnny,
Depending how you look at it: You might think the Chinese want to spread communism and gain political clout and that's their agenda, but the Chinese might say they were genuinely trying to help their third-world brothers and sisters to build a better future. Who doesn't have an agenda actually? Everyone is selfish. I can stand a selfish person but I can't stand a hypocrite who brags about and preaches certain values and things when the only thing that matters is its own interests.
Posted by: Pffefer | January 08, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Otoh,your comment appears to focus on the singular Bush-Blair relationship rather than the vast realm of social and cultural ties. Just look at the shows playing on Broadway and the West End to get a sense of all the two countries share. Or just take a look at the history in 1982 of the British action on the Falklands/Malvinas Islands in the South Atlantic, and Washington's response.
Posted by: Tim J | January 08, 2009 at 08:33 PM
Tim,
This is a balanced piece and even an 'Angry Young Man' like myself find it appealing. but May I say a little something else?
I posted some angry comments just a month ago upon reading one of your pieces and to this day, I still feel my anger was justified, for I sensed come deep-rooted bigotry,bias, and the total lack of respect for the Chinese government, who have done many good things(which I personally applaud) as well as many bad things including the cultural rev and 89 tragedy(which I hate but am pretty sure later administrations will make an objective assessment and apologize for). the point is sometimes, westerners show no understanding towards those less fortunate countries. why? let is imagine this,
i)your country was carved up in little pieces and ruled de facto by foreign powers
ii) those foreign powers who practiced various forms of capitalisms started two world wars among themselves and spread the fire globally, causing horrendous damages. and They were, and sometimes still are, racist.
iii) those foreign powers tried every way possible to instigate and encourage the ethnic minorities to break away from the central government of your country. even to this day, the media outlets in these foreign countries still treat these minority-dominated areas as independent countries in their reporting, saying things like'China and Tibet''Chinese and Mongolians'
iiii)In the history books in these foreign powers, there is a concept of 'China Proper', including only the Majority-Han-Dominated part.
v)There emerged a new school of thinking about political system,which sounded very appealing and attractive-- 'Common property ownership and prosperity for all',' emancipation of the explointed underclass'. and the system was practiced in a neighboring country and it seemed to work very well at that time.
now, a question for you, wouldn't it be natural that the people of your country want to go this 'new way'and have nothing to do with the political systems of those foreign powers?
So, as I see it, communism WAS indeed the choice made by the majority of the Chinese population.
And then, as it turned out, communism screwed up many things, and Chinese communists started to reform, taking timid little steps because no one could offer ready-made formulas and the Big Brother Soviet disintegrated into little pieces of countries which are now often very very hostile towards one another. wouldn't it be natural that China wants to avoid that in its own reformation programme by doing little things, setting up pilot zones and trying things out at the bottom levels first?
would it be too much to for China to ask for some sympathetic interpretation of such things as slow progress in human rights(which are improving), election, and internet freedom(you know how biased you guys can be sometimes)?
You westerners can make a huge contribution to the ultimate democratization and freedom of China by means of constructive and FAIR criticism, which will be appreciated by a fifth of humanity who are a people with a great sense of gratitude, toleration, an acceptance of new things and ideas(if offered graciously and not condescendingly) ,which I am sure you have come to know in your stay here.
I will applaud you for your criticism if it is justifiable. I will respectfullay argue if you say something ridiculous but do so out of professional honesty and speak from your heart. I will not hesitate to fire at you( metaphorically ) if I constantly read nothing but stupid bias.
I don't give a (bleep) if you give a (bleep) to what I said above or not. But somehow, I do like this Blog very much.
Posted by: Bluesman | January 10, 2009 at 01:35 PM