On March 16, Dr. Bo Jiang, a citizen of China boarded a plane at Dulles International bound for Beijing. He was accosted and escorted off the plane by FBI agents, put in jail and charged with lying to the law enforcement officials and possible violations of Arms Export Control Act. 

About 7 weeks later, on May 3, the prosecution dropped all charges against Dr. Jiang. But before he was allowed to leave the US for Chengdu China he had to plead to a misdemeanor charge of “misuse of government equipment” in exchange for time already served in jail, so that the government did not have to admit that they made a mistake. 

In 1999, Dr. Lee, the then Los Alamos scientist, was accused of being a spy for China by the New York Times, fingered by then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, thrown into solitary confinement for ten months. Lee was then released with an apology from the presiding judge for prosecutorial misconduct. 

In the most recent case, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) was instrumental in the arrest of Jiang and he was quite proud of his role as the self-appointed spy catcher.  After Jiang’s arrest, the Congressman held a press conference on March 18 and issued a press release in praise of his own role in this affair.  

Wolf is a well-known, long time critic of Peoples’ Republic of China. On March 7, he held a press conference expressing alarm at security violations at NASA-Langley. According to him, anonymous whistleblowers had told him of a Chinese national with unauthorized access to NASA’s secrets. 

Wolf on March 7 already knew about Jiang but was setting the stage for the drama to come. He did say, “It is my understanding that this Chinese national is affiliated with an institution in China that has been designated as an ‘entity of concern’ by other U.S. government agencies.” 

At the March 18 conference, Wolf revealed that Jiang was “trying the leave the country on a one-way ticket.” At the airport, the federal agents had asked what electronic media he had with him. Jiang admitted that he had a cellphone, a memory stick, an external hard drive and a new computer. A search of his luggage found other media items not mentioned by Jiang and that discrepancy too became grounds for suspicion. 

At this point, Jiang could have explained that his work visa in the US was expiring and his contract was not being renewed. He bought a one-way ticket back to China because he wasn’t planning to come back. There was nothing sudden about his flight to Beijing. 

He could have pointed out that the work he did as a NASA contractor was unrelated to national security and he had no access to data and technology related to national security. 

But no one was interested in what the suspect had to say. Fortunately for Jiang, he then got a break. The court appointed Fernando Groene as his defense counsel.  An experienced former federal prosecutor, Gorene accepted the appointment because he was outraged by the injustice of Jiang’s case. 

“It’s all about a witch hunt,” he said to the media shortly after taking the case. The mills of justice ground on for a few more weeks before the prosecution confirmed that Jiang had been telling the truth, namely his computers contained no data or files that violated national security regulations. 

Groene was quick to praise the prosecution for being fair minded after seeing that they had no case. Of course, this did not mean that Jiang received an apology from Wolf, FBI or anyone representing the federal government. 

He experienced first hand the adage, “you can’t fight city hall.” Jiang had to accept a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge for the time served—a misdemeanor of misusing government equipment that most federal employees would also have been found guilty of. 

There were, of course, no offers of compensation for his 7 weeks of incarceration or damages to his reputation, dignity and personal privacy. 

After the case was over and Jiang had gone back to China, attorney Groene gave additional color surrounding this case. 

NASA could hardly ignore the agitation from the Congressman with the power of funding oversight.  In response, NASA had earlier conducted an internal investigation of the allegations against Jiang and found no substantiation. This was duly reported back to Wolf but he would hear none of it. 

A dissatisfied Wolf then wrote letters on March 13 to the US Attorney’s office and FBI insisting that they investigate further, leading to the ensuing fiasco. 

Jiang’s implied sinister connection with an “entity of concern” alluded by Wolf was apparently the school in Chengdu Jiang attended for undergraduate training. Groene pointed out that the Chengdu school had a sister college relationship with the College of William & Mary and the president of William & Mary is none other than Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense in Bush and Obama administrations. 

If anyone has violated federal regulations, Groene concluded, it was Congressman Wolf for disclosing confidential personal information on his website. 

Groene is a naturalized American citizen from Cuba. He is proud to be an American and grateful to be in the land of opportunities but he is concerned over the erosion of our civil liberties as exemplified by the arbitrary law enforcement action against Jiang. 

There are other conclusions to be drawn from this latest case of racial profiling against ethnic Chinese. 

Obviously the US does not have enough scientists that can meet the requirements for security clearances and are thus qualified to do work involving national security. To get around this problem, Government agencies such as NASA have been parceling out work that are unrelated to national security to contractors who can hire scientists that do not hold security clearances. This was the case with Jiang, a Chinese citizen without permanent resident status. 

Such a separation obviously does not satisfy Congressman Wolf and his ilk and thus Bo Jiang becomes a cautionary tale for any ethnic Chinese scientists working in the US. 

Whether it’s in Silicon Valley, universities, government laboratories or major corporations, if you are ethnic Chinese, not only your conduct has to be absolutely law abiding, you also have to stay as far away as possible from being tainted by any hint of wrongdoing. Others might routinely “misuse” government equipment but not you if you’re Chinese. 

During the Wen Ho Lee era, John Deutsch was the then head of CIA. He was reprimanded for routinely downloading confidential files to his laptop and regularly taking it home–a clear case of violating government regulations and gross misuse of government equipment. But he was not ethnic Chinese and therefore he did not have to cop a plea nor spend a day in jail. 

In his first visit to China after taking office, Kerry met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang and had talks with State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

What was achieved in the visit?

Tao Wenzhao

First, both sides reaffirmed their commitment to a co-operative partnership, and promised to continue working for the establishment of a new type of big power relationship that is based on equality, mutual trust, co-operation, and win-win solutions. This commitment created a favorable condition for a steady development of the bilateral relationship. The two sides said they would keep strategic dialogues on the top level and make full use of the current communication mechanism. Presently there are more than 90 communication platforms between the two countries.

Second, both sides agreed to continuously enrich bilateral relations and achieve new breakthroughs in the depth and quality of their cooperation, which will inject force into the effort to build a new type of great power relationship. Sino-US economic and trade relations are the most powerful proof of the win-win and interdependent nature of bilateral relations. The Chinese side emphasized the importance of the continued development of these relations for the two countries’ common interests. But there are also obstacles to this development. Some people in the US always want to politicize the trade relationship, and Washington has maintained restrictions on high-tech exports to China.

China has complained about the problems. The United States has promised change but has not gone into action. Now that President Barack Obama has begun his second term and vowed to expand exports, it is high time Washington eased its restrictions on high-tech exports to China.

The two sides also agreed to issue a joint statement on climate change and announced that the two countries will set up a climate change workforce under the framework of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue. As the two countries are the world’s top energy consumers and greenhouse gas emitters, this decision will have great significance for the creation of a new international mechanism to address climate change.

Third, both sides emphasized that they need to strengthen their interactions in the Asia-Pacific region, where their interests and differences converge. In its first term of office, the Obama administration adopted the strategy of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region. The strategy brought complexities to the region and caused widespread concern among relevant countries, including China. There has been a tendency toward integration in the region. As the integration process touched upon the interests of all countries in the region, it has been on the agenda of talks between Chinese and US leaders over the past few years.

There are two modes of integration going on in the region at the moment. One is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), or Ten-plus-Six as is commonly known, of which China is a member. But the US is not included. The other is the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) involving 12 countries. China is not in it but Japan has said it would like to join the group. Some foreign commentators have said the two groups represent competition between China and the US in the regional integration process. In fact, there are far more economic co-operative mechanisms than these two. They may overlap with one another in membership but should not be mutually exclusive. During Kerry’s visit, Chinese leaders told him that both countries should adopt an open and inclusive approach to the region’s economic integration. As this writer sees it, not one single country can dominate the regional integration. There can be different groups competing with each other on the basis of co-existence. The competition should be aimed at promoting regional and global economic development rather than excluding certain countries from the integration process.

Currently, the nuclear and missile issue on the Korean peninsular is causing great concern in the international community, especially among Northeast Asian countries. This was naturally a major topic in Kerry’s talks with the Chinese side. When visiting the Republic of Korea, Kerry made it clear that the US would not accept the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as a nuclear country, and would want the nuclear issue be settled in a peaceful way, including the Six-Party Talks and a bilateral talk between the US and the DPRK. Kerry said the DPRK must prove its sincerity in denuclearization. China reiterated its stand on the issue that consistent efforts should be made to maintain peace, stability and denuclearization on the Korean peninsular, and to settle the issue through dialogue. Major progress was achieved in the Six-Party Talks, including the Joint Declaration issued on 19 September, 2006 and the disablement of nuclear facilities in Yongbyon.

In recent years, however, there were twists to make the issue more complex. Pyongyang’s pitch of war rhetoric has been rising in a series of announcements，including an announcement of a state of war on the peninsula and an imminent trial shot of mid-range missiles. The US, on its part, intensified its joint military exercises with its allies and strengthened its military presence in the region by deploying F-22 stealth fighters, B2 stealth bombers and a B-52 strategic bomber. Both parties’ moves are detrimental to the region’s stability. After the Kerry visit, both the US and China should acquire a clearer understanding of each other’s positions and intentions, and work together to defuse tensions on the Korean peninsular. The Six-Party Talks should be resumed as soon as possible with concerted efforts from all relevant parties. To free this region from conflict and war, two procedures are essential: one is the process of denuclearization and the other is to make the DPRK integrate into the regional community.

Kerry’s latest visit and other visits by Obama administration’s high-ranking civilian and military officials prior to it indicated that the bilateral relationship between the US and China has safely passed the transition period and will gain greater momentum in its development.

Tao Wenzhao, Researcher, Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Whether then-Senator Kerry was enunciating a new position is unclear, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has emphasized that sequestration will not affect the rebalance. Kerry’s first visit to Asia could have provided much-needed clarification on this vital issue; instead, it likely only further muddies the waters.

Appended onto the end of his second visits to the Middle East and Europe, Secretary of State John Kerry will be spending only one day apiece in Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo—three of America’s most important trade partners, two of its most important allies, and the world’s second most important economy.

In light of the ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, with each day revealing a yet more strident Pyongyang engaging in an ever-escalating series of moves, it is likely that Secretary Kerry’s brief inaugural visit will be dominated by North Korea. But this glosses over the reality that Asia is far more than the nuclear-armed Hermit Kingdom, with a variety of issues that demand joint action with America’s allies, friends, and counterparts.

A Full Plate

There are, for example, several economic issues that are outstanding, beginning with the state of the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. This is an American-led effort at creating a region-wide free trade zone, which disturbs China. Beijing has been pushing a series of both bilateral and multilateral free trade discussions, including a trilateral with Japan and South Korea, as well as a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is seen as a direct counter to the TPP. The TPP requires substantial high-level support, both in time and in high-level attention, to become a reality.

Similarly, there are a number of security issues, aside from North Korea, that directly affect American interests. One of the most important is the ongoing territorial dispute between Beijing and Tokyo over the Senkaku islands. These uninhabited islands were, until the North Korean crisis, the most likely flashpoint for a conflict as Chinese and Japanese government vessels jockeyed and shadowed each other in support of their respective claims. The ongoing crisis has seen both sides deploy air assets.

In addition, there is growing concern about Chinese behavior in the South China Sea. Not only has China been increasing pressure on the Philippines and Vietnam over their respective claims, but the Chinese recently deployed a naval task force to waters just off Malaysia, underscoring their claims to James Shoal in a message to Kuala Lumpur as well. The deployment of Chinese naval combatants marks a significant escalation in Chinese pressure, as past shows of force have been by civilian law enforcement vessels.

The release of the Mandiant report on Chinese cyber-hacking highlights yet another major area of concern. The report for the first time directly attributed Chinese hacking activities to a specific unit of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

Equally worrisome, it indicated that Chinese cyber-espionage is targeted not only at traditional military and intelligence functions (i.e., spying) but also at commercial entities to benefit Chinese corporations.

The issue of Chinese computer network intrusions therefore is both a national security concern and an economic concern that requires a consistent messaging, conducted persistently, to signal to Beijing the seriousness with which it is viewed in Washington.

What Kerry Needs to Do

1. Provide a framework. As the saying goes, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” On this first visit to Asia, Secretary Kerry’s every word and action will be carefully assessed by America’s friends and enemies. It would be unfortunate, at best, not to take advantage of this opportunity to lay out the Obama Administration’s plans for Asia in the coming four years. Whether it is termed a pivot, a rebalancing, or simply a reassessment, this is the chance for Secretary Kerry and President Obama to make clear America’s continued economic, diplomatic, and military commitment to the region.

2. Send a consistent message. The U.S. has a range of interests in Asia that involve economic as well as security concerns, touching upon just about every nation in both Northeast and Southeast Asia. Secretary Kerry should make clear, in meetings and any public remarks, that the U.S. remains faithful to its commitment to regional security and regional free trade.

3. Get the rest of his team in place. The new head of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs within the State Department has yet to be named. This position was extremely influential during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and was at the heart of a very energetic and varied diplomatic strategy. Today, Secretary Kerry is operating without the full range of expertise and strategic advice necessary to support him in responding to the complex and developing situation. The Assistant Secretary and his or her deputies are the people who are also essential in crafting a government response, as they are part of the interagency process that coordinates and reconciles various departments’ approaches to these issues. Any kind of military or financial effort, for example, requires suitable people from the State Department to work with their counterparts from the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury. Just as important, given the recent changes in government in Seoul and Beijing (and even Tokyo), the trans-Pacific relationships that are essential for coordinating international efforts cannot be developed without the relevant personnel in place.

More Than Putting Out Fires

Given the importance of the region and the myriad of issues confronting the region and the United States, one would have expected the Secretary of State to have devoted more time to his first visit. Because of his tepid stance toward the pivot and because he has filled so few of the supporting positions at the State Department, there is no evidence of an overarching strategic goal or template guiding this visit or his Asia policy in general.

Nonetheless, on this first visit, it is important that Secretary Kerry do more than simply operate as a fireman, hoping to quench the fire on the Korean Peninsula. This effort should be part of a larger strategy of reassuring American friends and allies and deterring potential adversaries.

Dean Cheng is Research Fellow in Chinese Political and Security Affairs in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Interviewer: Shane Brown from China-US Focus

As tensions on the Korean Peninsula continue to heighten, Beijing has taken a harder stance against the actions of Pyongyang. Richard Weitz discusses common security interests between the United States and China in East Asia. Dr. Weitz also touches on President Xi Jinping’s first international trip to Moscow, as well as the outcomes of the BRICS Summit. He concludes the interview discussing China’s investments in Africa.

Lv Fengding

This visit coincided with a time when the American media was busy talking about alleged Chinese cyber-attacks against US websites. Additionally, some in the US were criticizing China for its policies or actions following the North Korea nuclear test, as well as on the tensions in the East and South China Seas. These questions relating to the bilateral relationship made our meetings and discussions candid, lively, and sometimes challenging, but above all they were relevant and constructive. 

From our discussions in the United States, I left with two resounding impressions: one is that mutual trust needs to be further developed between China and the United States. The other is that discussions surrounding a new-type of major power relationship aroused a great deal of interest among the American public, reiterating the need for grander efforts towards that goal. 

With these impressions in mind, I do believe that it is the time for our two countries to engage in real efforts towards reducing mistrust, strengthening mutual confidence and working to build a new type of major power relationship. To build a new type of major power relationship is not only imperative to the integrity of bilateral relations, but it is also in conformity with the general trend of the present international situation. In this modern technological era, the world has become more interdependent and a single country or a small group of countries in the world cannot survive or prosper unilaterally. 

As the world’s largest developing country, China has concentrated a vast amount of effort into its economic development over the last 30 years, without threatening the security or interests of its neighbors or the global community. On the contrary, China has frequently declared an adherence to peaceful international development. In trying to maintain and develop good relations and cooperation, China has shown the greatest sincerity and utmost goodwill. In the last 40 years, both China and the US have benefitted from our improved relationship and our increasing cooperation. However, the animosity of some individuals in the US threatens the trust-building initiatives between our two governments. Why do these individuals refuse to accept that a healthy relationship with China is wise? One reason could be that they refuse to accept that the world is not zero-sum. They refuse to accept that China and the United States can maintain a fruitful relationship. 

To manage this relationship well, we must always remain confident about its future. It was intriguing that during our trip to the United States; we met friends who were quite pessimistic about the future of the bilateral relationship. Their reasoning was often the same. They cited disagreements in the economic relationship, different views on the North Korean nuclear issue, China-Japan standoff on Diaoyu islands, and cyber security. Therefore, they often told us that they were not optimistic about a positive relationship in the years to come. I told them that I respected their reasoning, but don’t agree with their conclusion. As a senior diplomat, I feel optimistic about the future of China-U.S. relations despite the various difficulties and challenges ahead. My reasons are also clear: 

Firstly, the world today is in the era of globalization, with the trend of mutual interdependence prevailing in all aspects of the international life. No country can stay outside of the strong influence of the trend, neither the U.S. nor China. Cold war was something far in the past. “Cold peace” as well as all kinds of armed conflicts has become more and more widely disgusted. With the military technology so developed nowadays, the world can’t afford a military showdown among big powers. Therefore, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation are the only reasonable choice for all countries, especially the major powers, in their dealings with one another. 

Secondly, Sino American relations have developed into such a stage that the interests of the two are highly intertwined, over the last 40 years. With mutual understanding constantly increasing, the bilateral cooperation in all fields has been deepened and broadened tremendously. The two-way trade between the two countries reached $485.6 billion last year. Each has become the top trade partner of the other. China has become America’s No.1 creditor and the American investment in China has yielded extensive profit. So to maintain and develop a friendly relations and cooperation has become the only way out for the two countries in the present international environment. 

Thirdly, the importance of the sustainable development of the bilateral relations has been understood and acknowledged by the two sides. The decision of the leaders of the two countries to explore building a new type of major power relationship has been understood as an important and correct step for the constant improvement of the existing good relations. Facts have shown that good leadership and wise decision get popular support easily and they always prove to be key factors for the steady development of the relations between China and the US.

The general principle of seeking common ground, while reserving the right to disagree, should be applied by both sides on political issues. No country has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Both countries should consider operating under the guide of mutual respect. America should cease utilizing core Chinese interests like Taiwan, Tibet, and human rights to destabilize the bilateral relationship with China. America should also bear in mind that China’s political system is the choice of the Chinese people, therefore any attempt to change it will prove to be futile.

Mutual respect, mutual trust and win-win cooperation are the basic features for the new type of major country relationship we are now advocating between China and the United States. This is not an easy task to dispel the misunderstandings and suspicions between the two sides. But since China has done its utmost to show its sincerity, America should take practical steps as well. At the very least, the US should stop fabricating excuses, such as alleged cyber attacks to vilify China, mislead the American public opinion and sabotage a prosperous Sino-American relations. The United States should also try to clarify its intentions for implementing its rebalancing strategy in Asia-Pacific, as well as refrain from interfering in China’s internal affairs on matters of the Chinese core interests.  In this respect, American leaders, government officials, think-tanks, news media and people of all walks of life should share their wisdom, display a high sense of responsibility, and make real efforts in helping the two countries manage and develop a mutually beneficial bilateral relationship. 

Now that President Xi and President Obama have both taken office, the two leaders can focus on the challenges and opportunities for the relationship between China and the United States. We must seize the opportunity to ensure that relations start on solid footing. Xi, Obama and other top leaders of the two countries should meet as frequently as possible. It is necessary to keep many channels of dialogue open and ensure they are functioning well. We should continue to redouble our efforts to promote the cooperation and mutual benefit in economic, cultural, scientific and technological as well other fields. And what is more, we must continue to promote sub-national and people-to-people exchanges, and do a better job in carrying out public diplomacy, so as to increase understanding and friendship between our two peoples.     

It is my firm belief that through joint and sincere efforts by both sides, Sino-American relations will continue to overcome difficulties and move forward at an unprecedented pace, bringing benefit to the two countries and making contributions to the peace and development of the world. 

Ambassador Lv Fengding is a member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Group of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China.

At long last, Hillary Clinton has quit. While some have described her as a good Secretary of State, insisting she has rendered meritorious service, others are skeptical and argue that upon leaving she has left a mess. US media, at times teasingly, have described her as a “rock star diplomat” on a global tour. Yet, on the international scene, many fight shy of meeting her, as she tends to throw her weight around with overweening airs. Nevertheless, she has truly done everything possible to pursue a perfect US global strategy as the United States’ top diplomat. 

In regards to China, she has always toed a careful line. She has made quite a few remarks beneficial to the relationship between the two countries, and was the first in the US to concur with China’s idea of cooperating during difficult times, which she repeated on many occasions. In one instance, she stated that the Pacific is big enough to hold both China and the US, citing the broad and elastic relationship the two countries have established. Regrettably, however, she has been engaged in negative policy actions and remarks as well. Never forgetting to contain China and play up the so-called threat of China threat, she has made just as many statements not beneficial to China-US relationship.   

Now, former Democratic Senator from Massachusetts and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has taken over as US Secretary of State. Among Chinese and American scholars many comments have been made, with the major thrust boiling down to one point:  As Kerry is described as rather pragmatic, American diplomacy may possibly be readjusted, or at least fine-tuned. However, there are also those arguing against placing unrealistic hopes on Kerry since President Obama is merely selling the same old stuff with a new secretary of state.   

Examining his position on major international questions, sensitive issues relating to China-US relations, and his voting record in the Senate, Kerry, who has long been involved in foreign affairs, will not only be different from Clinton in diplomatic style, but may also be relatively pragmatic when making policy decisions. Additionally, he has a closer, more personal rapport with Obama, as they are more or less on the same wavelength on diplomatic conceptions. Therefore, it is not without reason that people have placed high hopes on Kerry, expecting him to release positive energies in this new and changing time of US foreign policy.

To say Obama is merely selling the same old stuff with a new secretary of state seems biased. Prior to and following his assumption of office as US Secretary of State, some of Kerry’s statements are worthy of careful study. While questioning the necessity of the US’ continuous endeavor to beef up its military strength in the Asia-Pacific, Kerry urged careful consideration of future actions, so as not to make China feel that the US is trying to encircle or contain it. Answering questions during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Kerry noted that enhancing the United States’ economic relationship with China is among the reasons why the US has advanced a policy focusing on Asia. 

John Kerry maintains that the US and China can seek all-out cooperation on the question of sanctions against Iran, and utilize more coordinated efforts when dealing with North Korea. Overwhelmed with jealousy, the Japanese right-wing media have characterized Kerry’s posture of attaching importance to China as glaringly conspicuous. Furthermore, Kerry is of the view that China has brought more opportunities than challenges to the United States. These statements by Kerry seem to justify the popular expectations for him to release positive energies for the US-China relationship. 

In reviewing and analyzing international relations, it is necessary to note not only the state policy and the major strategy of the other side (notably big powers such as the US), but also possible readjustments and evolutions of its policy and strategy under special circumstances to find out the disparity and difference before and after a given period. If this fails, misjudgments may occur, to say nothing of pursuing a matured diplomacy. It is for history to pass a judgment on Hillary Clinton’s merits and demerits as Secretary of State. But, given Kerry’s different diplomatic style and his policy action, there is room for expectations of positive energy. 

Naturally, neither Clinton nor Kerry is a mere individual. Both are US power figures, representatives of concerned interested groups and executives of US global strategic claimants. However, as single actors in a much larger administration, it is hard to change the major US strategy of establishing a world peace under US domination and based on US values. Hillary Clinton couldn’t do it; it is hard for John Kerry to do the same. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently noted that the United States should learn to deal with other countries on the basis of equality, a balanced interest and mutual respect. This is most appropriately said and represents popular expectations of the world. But the question remains:  Is America prepared? 

Two years ago, Chinese leaders, conveying a goodwill message to the United States, proposed that China and the US work together for the establishment of a “new-type major power relationship” in conformity with the trend of our times. Following the 18^th Congress of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping further stressed this point when he met former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. In fact, an increasing number of thought leaders in the US have, more or less, responded to it in a positive and active light. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statements, if made in earnest rather than a feint, and if President Obama is somewhat sober-minded considering the fundamental and long-term interests of the US to keep up with the trend of the times, then China and the US may meet each other halfway in their relationship. During Obama’s second term, the coming four years have the possibility to be America’s period of greatest opportunity, and the current not so comfortable China-US relationship of interdependence might steadily become comfortable.  

Wang Yusheng is China’s former APEC senior official, and the Executive director at the Strategy Study Center of the China Foundation for International Studies.

Joseph Nye

Many analysts also compare the rise of China to that of Germany at the beginning of the last century. The rise in the power of Germany and the fear it created in Britain was one of the causes of World War I in which the European system tore itself apart. This year China’s economy will grow by nearly 7 to 8 per cent and its defense spending will grow even more.  Chinese leaders have spoken of China’s “peaceful development, ” but analysts like John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago have flatly proclaimed that China cannot rise peacefully, and predicted that “the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war.”

Who is right? We will not know for some time, but the debaters should recall both halves of Thucydides’ trenchant analysis. War was caused not merely by the rise of one power, but by the fear it engendered in another. The belief in the inevitability of conflict can become one of its main causes. Each side, believing it will end up at war with the other, makes reasonable military preparations, which then are read by the other side as confirmation of its worst fears. In a perverse transnational alliance, hawks in each country cite the others’ statements as clear evidence. One way to make East Asia and the world safer is to avoid such exaggerated fears and self-fulfilling prophecies. 

Moreover, while China has impressive power resources, one should be skeptical about projections based solely on current growth rates, political rhetoric, military contingency plans, and flawed historical analogies. It is important to remember that by 1900, Germany had surpassed Britain in industrial power, and the Kaiser was pursuing an adventurous, globally oriented foreign policy that was bound to bring about a clash with other great powers. In contrast, China still lags far behind the United States, and has focused its policies primarily on its region and on its economic development.

China has a long way to go to equal the power resources of the United States, and still faces many obstacles to its development. At the beginning of the 21^st century, the American economy was about twice the size of China’s in purchasing power parity, and more than three times as large at official exchange rates. All such comparisons and projections are somewhat arbitrary.  Even if Chinese GDP passes that of the United States in the next decade, the two economies would be equivalent in size, but not equal in composition. China would still have a vast underdeveloped countryside, and it will begin to face demographic problems from the delayed effects of the one child per couple policy it enforced in the 20^th century. Moreover, as countries develop, there is a tendency for growth rates to slow. China would not equal the United States in per capita income until sometime in the second half of the century, if then.

Per capita income provides a measure of the sophistication of an economy. In other words, China’s impressive growth rate combined with the size of its population will surely lead it to pass the American economy in total size at some point. This has already provided China with impressive power resources, but that is not the same as equal power.  China is a long way from posing the kind of challenge to American preponderance that the Kaiser’s Germany posed when it passed Britain at the beginning of the last century. The facts do not at this point justify alarmist predictions of a coming war. There is time to manage a cooperative relationship. As an important Chinese leader recently told me,  “we need thirty years of peace to meet our development goals and come close to the US.” During that period we can focus on building a new type of great power relationship.

Some experts worry that Chinese leaders’ sense of vulnerability at home will lead them to appeal to populist nationalism to increase their legitimacy and that could cause China to behave rashly in a crisis. The fact that China is not likely to become a peer competitor to the United States on a global basis does not mean that it could not challenge the United States in Asia, and the dangers of conflict can never be completely ruled out. But basically, Bill Clinton was right when he told Jiang Zemin in 1995 that the United States has more to fear from a weak China than a strong China. Thus far, the United States has accepted the rise of Chinese power and invited Chinese participation as a responsible stakeholder in the international system. Power is not always a zero sum game. Given the global problems that both China and the United States will face, they have much more to gain from working together than in allowing overwrought fears to drive them apart, but it will take wise policy on both sides to assure this future.

Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard and author of The Future of Power.

Gu Guoliang

During his first term, President Obama focused on three major nuclear issues, including conclusion of a new START treaty with Russia in April 2010, successfully convening the 2010 NPT Review Conference and holding the 2010 Washington Nuclear Security Summit. In his second term, he will continue to put the above three issues on his agenda. Aside from successfully holding the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit and 2015 NPT Review Conference, pushing forward the nuclear disarmament process will be the major focus in his nuclear arms control policy.

President Obama won his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize because of his speech in Prague on April 5, 2009, calling for a world without nuclear weapons. President Obama certainly wishes to safeguard this diplomatic legacy in his second term and achieve further progress in nuclear disarmament. He has been advised to take the following concrete steps in nuclear disarmament in his second term. [1]

(1)  Negotiating a new START II treaty with Russia, with the goal of further reducing their nuclear weapons from 1550 to the level of 1000.

(2)  Starting the multilateral nuclear disarmament process, with a view to bringing China into the nuclear disarmament process

(3)  Enhancing the BMD program, including a cooperative NATO-Russian arrangement and increased deployment of BMD system in Asia-Pacific.

(4)  Pushing for the ratification of CTBT and the starting of FMCT negotiation

These steps will have major implications for China’s arms control policy and China-US relations.

Over the past years, China and the United States have had good cooperation over major differences in the field of nuclear arms control.

China had good cooperation with the United States at the last two Nuclear Security Summits, and China has been making joint efforts with the Obama administration in complying with the undertakings of the Summits, as it is a new bright spot for China to cooperate with the United States in the field of nuclear arms control.

China will continue to cooperate with the United States at the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit and the 2015 NPT Review Conference, as it always does.

China and the United States have maintained more or less a stable relationship over nuclear issues. Nuclear issues have not been a major issue in China-US relations and it has not been a major topic in the China-US strategic and economic dialogues.

As for nuclear disarmament, China shares President Obama’s goal to achieve a nuclear-free world. China declared its policy goal of complete elimination and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons as early as in 1964.

Nevertheless, there have been voices recently talking about China’s nuclear threat, including some ridiculous rumor of “China’s underground nuclear great wall,” as China is engaged in modernizing its national defense.

It is suggested that Obama’s nuclear arms control agenda would aim at bringing China into the nuclear disarmament process with a view to capping or putting a ceiling on China’s nuclear forces. If so, the Obama administration will exert greater pressure on China to be transparent about its nuclear arsenals, and the nuclear issue may become one of the important issues in China-US relations.

China’s nuclear policy is clear and consistent. China pursues a no-first-use policy and a policy of maintaining a credible deterrent nuclear capability, no more, no less. China has learned good lessons from the two nuclear superpowers, and will not be so unwise to spend so much money to build a huge nuclear arsenal and then spend so much money to dismantle them. China’s small number of nuclear weapons will not constitute a threat to any country, not to mention the United States which possesses the largest nuclear arsenals in the world.

China is greatly concerned about US enhanced development of the BMD program, especially its recent increased deployment of BMD system in Asia-Pacific. This certainly has implications on the credibility of China’s limited number of nuclear weapons. The United States should be transparent to China about its strategic intentions and its future deployment plans of BMD. If the United States continues its development of the BMD program, China will have to take measures to secure the credibility of its nuclear second-strike capability.

China would welcome further reductions of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia, and will be ready to join the nuclear disarmament process when the condition is right. It means the two nuclear superpowers have to reduce their nuclear arsenals to narrow the existing gap. Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty as to whether the nuclear industry complex in the United States will agree to have deeper reduction and whether Russia is willing to do so as the United States has enhanced its conventional superiority over Russia in recent years, especially with its Prompt Global Strike Program.

As for the ratification of CTBT, the Chinese People’s Congress will give positive consideration to the ratification after the United States ratifies. The only concern for China perhaps is what China should do if the US congress ratifies CTBT, but add some reservations as it did with CWC. China has no problem in pushing for the early starting of the FMCT negotiation in Geneva.

It is essential for the Obama administration to have close consultation with China and to take China’s security concerns into full consideration, especially at the time when strategic suspicion has grown because of US rebalancing strategy.

Gu Guoliang is the Director at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Studies at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Since the end of the Cold War, China’s understanding of the changes in the international situation, the international pattern and the relations between big powers has continued to evolve. At first, China sensed the phase-out of the bipolar structure and the phase-in of multi-polarization and globalization; then, it came to see the development of an international pattern dominated by one superpower and several big powers; now, as new powers continue to grow, it is clear that multi-polarization and globalization will be an irreversible trend in the development of the international system.

Immediately after the conclusion of the Cold War, China undertook a policy of reform and opening-up. With the arrival of the 21^st Century, China has eyed a peaceful rise. Moreover, it has broadened its policy of peaceful development into one of peace, development and cooperation; substantiating its stand for a harmonious world. Although Sino-US relations took a sharp turn in 1989, China has always maintained that sooner or later, these two major powers will see an improvement of their relations, an increase in mutual trust, seek cooperation, and avoid confrontation. In 1997, for the first time in history of their bilateral relations, China and the United States came to the joint goal to grow this major power relationship.

Recent developments over the past two years, however, have driven Sino-US relations to another crossroads. Seeing the continuous waning of its strength due to its anti-terrorist wars (especially military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), the global financial crisis and the constant rise of China (whose GDP has grown to be the world’s second largest and whose political and military influences have continued to grow), the United States has had to adjust its strategy and shift its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region; thus, triggering a noticeable buoyancy of strategic mistrust between China and the United States. To counter this mistrust, China has a clear-cut vision for the road ahead: it would like to join efforts with other major powers, especially the United States, while keeping to its path of peaceful development and fostering a new type of relationship between major powers based upon cooperation. Encouragingly, China’s proposal has won positive response from the US leadership this time.

The new type of relationship being explored by China and the United States will have the following characteristics:

No Hostility or Rivalry

This will be key to the long-term development of Sino-US relations and prevent these major powers from falling into serious military conflicts or even wars due to changes in their respective strength or pursuits of different interests. Accordingly, both sides will exclude containment and counter-containment from their foreign policy options. 

Mutual Respect and Healthy Competition

In the political arena, the two countries will treat each other on an equal footing and without discrimination; in the economic field, they will not engage in any competition that runs against WTO rules; on the military front, they will keep clear of any arms race; in cultural development, they will borrow and absorb whatever is useful and helpful; and in matters concerning value, soft strength, formulation of multi-lateral rules, and choice of development modes, they will compete against each other openly while learning from each other’s strengths to offset their own weaknesses. 

Cooperation, Coordination & Sharing of International Responsibilities

Apart from economic cooperation, China and the United States will join hands to meet global challenges, create a partnership for mutual benefit, and cooperate with each other in a wide range of fields including non-traditional security, global commons, global and regional multilateral mechanisms, and major international issues. Instead of a G-2 relationship, as termed by many, this partnership will be a C-3, incorporating cooperation, coordination and consultation, as proposed by Dai Bingguo during the Fourth S&ED.

Mutual Trust

To say the least, these major powers will respect each other’s core interests, know each other’s bottom line, and never try to challenge it. In areas frequently exposed to disputes and frictions, they will intensify confidence-building measures, maintain strategic contact with each other, strive to minimize misunderstanding, avoid strategic misjudgment, and bring into place a basic framework of strategic stability (or a strategic nuclear relationship).

Overall Stability

Dialogues will be continued between China and the U.S. in all fields and at all levels. There will be no interruption of these dialogues simply due to frictions over a specific issue at a specific time, or long-time suspension of contact and exchanges between the two sides.

The exploration by China and the United States into the development of a new type of relationship between major powers is an unprecedented effort. If successful, it will momentously advance human history, although the road to its achievement may be extremely arduous. After all, Rome was not built by one man. The development of this new type of major powers relationship calls for concerted efforts by the governments, academics, and general public of both China and the United States.

Zhang Tuosheng, Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the China Foundation for International Strategic Studies

In the first ten years of the century, China took advantage of a favorable international environment and achieved unprecedented economic growth through the country’s modernization efforts. From an economic perspective, China’s accession into the World Trade Organization (WTO) occurred during an increased globalization of the world economy, allowing China’s foreign trade to double every three years. In 2001, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) accounted for 12.8% of US GDP, equal to $1.15 trillion, and ranked sixth in the world. However, in 2011, China’s GDP reached $7.3 trillion, accounting for 48% of US GDP, and ranked second in the world. Given China’s territory, population and economic size, this development was unprecedented in the and quite naturally garnered worldwide attention, including that of the United States.

While a small minority of people in the United States continue to talk about the “coming collapse of China”, the overwhelming majority of Americans have reached a consensus that China’s economic size will catch up to or even surpass that of the United States. The United States has long been the world’s lone super-power, and American people do not know, as former President Richard Nixon once said, “how to be the second, or even first among equals.” American people would feel uncomfortable being the world’s second largest economy, behind China.

Over the past decade, the United States has faced numerous challenges that have constrained the country’s economic growth. The sub-prime debt crisis began in early 2007, and American economists generally expected it over within two years. Unfortunately, in September 2009, it turned into a financial crisis, which throughout the globe. Now, the country is plagued by high sovereign debt, a weak economic recovery, and high unemployment. Whether the United States is declining or not remains a point of debate. Yet, in spite of so many difficulties, the United States remains the strongest country in the world, and will be so for several decades to come.

However, one fact that is beyond controversy is that the gap between the two countries’ strength is narrowing. In fact, American’s sense of being “threatened” has become astute. A public opinion poll conducted by the Pew Research Center has tracked Americans’ changing attitude towards China. In March 2011, 53% Americans surveyed thought that it was more important to build a strong relationship with China compared to 40% that wanted to get tougher on China. Nevertheless, by October 2012, more Americans (49%) supported a tougher attitude towards China than a stronger relationship with China (42%). Thus explaining why in the US election this year both candidates were relying on tough China rhetoric. The controversy this year solely focused on economic and trade relations between the two countries. Political issues, security issues and Taiwan were not mentioned.

While the gap between China and the United States is narrowing, the gap between China and other new economies, such as BRIC nations is widening. India, Russia and Brazil’s GDP is less than 1/3 of China’s GDP respectively, and the financial crisis’ negative impact on their economic development is serious. Given the current environment, the bilateral relationship between China and the United States now more clearly resembles a typical relationship between a rising power and an established power. While there are various schools of thought in the US and China that interpret this relationship differently, most scholars, both in China and the United States, agree that competitiveness has become an important feature of the relationship. To use the word “juncture” is to emphasize the competitiveness and uncertainty of future bilateral relations.

To deal with this new situation in China-US relations, the Chinese side puts forward the notion of building a new type of great power relationship. While this needs innovation and combined efforts from both countries, these efforts should be made in the three following areas: to expand common ground, build mutual respect and implement a crisis management mechanism.

Although competitiveness between China and the US is palpable, cooperation is still at the basis of this bilateral relationship and common ground is still larger than their differences. Therefore, it is correct to assume that in the future the two countries will share more common interests while maintaining some differences on issues, whether bilateral, regional or global. By strengthening their ties through cooperation, both countries will achieve real results and real benefits while overcoming difficulties. Additionally, by expanding on common ground, the two countries can increase mutual respect of each other’s core interests and engage in sincere dialogue to consult, negotiate, compromise and accommodate.

Finally, by establishing a crisis management and damage control mechanism to prevent unexpected incidents from damaging the bilateral relationship, China and the US can limit the scope and duration of damage. In the past, unexpected international incidents did harm bilateral relations, but China and the US have learned from those incidents, which should help us cope with future challenges in a more rational and reasonable way.

Tao Wenzhao is a researcher with the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.