论文部分内容阅读
The U.S. presidential election of 2012 culminated with Barack Obama’s triumph, ensuring that Obama’s centerleft line focused on supporting middle and low-income Americans will continue in the next four years. Obama’s policy will have important implications for the global efforts to address wealth distribution problems.
Obama’s second term will stick to the main tone of reviving the U.S. economy, reducing budget deficits by collecting more taxes from the rich, implementing healthcare reform, and reforming U.S. education and immigration policies. Washington’s global strategic adjustment, known as a “rebalance,” will be deepened. And its attitudes toward global hotspot issues are likely to be more aggressive. The United States may choose the path of realizing development through adjustment and maintaining advantages through reforms once again, which historically tended to happen when the country was faced with a crisis.
However, it is still doubtful whether Obama can guide the United States “forward”as he promised. The election highlighted many serious problems of the country: financial deficit and disorder, unemployment, sharp inter-party fighting, and faulty foreign policies. These are all deeply rooted systemic and structural problems that cannot be solved easily by a single U.S. president. In other words, Americans must admit and get used to the reality that the United States will have to face a long and fatiguing uphill climb.
Intertwining interests
Clamor surrounding China-related subjects was highly amplified during this year’s U.S. presidential election. China, a country whose values, social system and strategic interests are different from those of the United States, became the casual target of both Democratic and Republican candidates. However, the focus on criticizing China now has shifted from human rights and democracy to economic and strategic issues. China is changing from a diplomatic topic to a domestic policy issue in the United States.
Does this mean the Sino-U.S. economic relationship will strike a reef? China should now have its answer. China and the United States have been each other’s second biggest trade partner for many years. Their annual trade volume is more than $460 billion. According to U.S. official statistics, the country exported over $100 billion to China in 2011, while in 2008, the year Obama won his first presidential term, the number was less than $70 billion. It definitely won’t take long before China becomes the top buyer of U.S. goods. Besides, China is still the biggest creditor of the United States. It is reasonable to believe that the Sino-U.S. economic ties have grown big enough and have merged tightly enough with the U.S. economy and employment that Americans will not allow them to be significantly damaged. The United States will pay as much as China following any tough action on trade.
China should pay more attention to the deep-seated and long-term problems reflected in debates about China during the latest U.S. presidential election.
The first problem is of the economy. The financial crisis sweeping Europe and the United States was accompanied by the so-called “third industrial revolution” characterized by the digitalization of industry and wide adoption of new energy. Both China and the United States value export and try to occupy a commanding height in processing and emerging industries. Their bilateral economic ties have surpassed the complementary and mutually needed pattern that has maintained during the past decades, and are turning to a more complex mode of interdependence amid competition.
With changes ahead, China must be prepared to face increasing economic conflicts with the United States. How to properly handle the cooperation and competition of their economic relationship is a pressing issue for both sides. They need to define the terms of the two countries’ economic competition and work to shape better conditions for their future cooperation, so as to place their economic relationship on the right track of mutual benefit and win-win outcomes and meet their own demands for economic adjustment. Although frictions erupt from time to time, it should be acknowledged that changes in the Sino-U.S. economic relationship are consistent with China’s efforts to transform its economic growth model. Therefore, both sides have reasons to be confident about and interested in potential cooperation opportunities.
The other problem is strategic. Whether U.S. politicians sincerely like China or not, they must admit that how to deal with the relationship with China, an emerging country that is quite different from previous powers like the Soviet Union, Japan and Europe, now is a priority in Washington’s foreign policy. Can the two countries overcome their strategic conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region and establish a new type of strategic relationship? This is a common task for the two major countries, and it is a much more important issue than their trade problems.
Washington will boost its Asia-Pacific strategic adjustment, a fact that will not change in accordance with Beijing’s will. But China still hopes the Obama administration sticks to the right focus. Any policy leading to a face-to-face collision at sea between China and the United States is a policy guiding the United States to a strategic failure. Unfortunately, such a risk has grown during the past two years. Most importantly and imminently, the U.S. side should now carry out in-depth communication with China on maritime issues in East Asia and Southeast Asia, so as to avoid fomenting mutual dissatisfaction and suspicion. They also need to strengthen communication and coordination on developments in the Middle East and Iran to preserve cooperation and prevent conflicts of interests.
Staying calm
China needs to stay calm when facing the U.S. strategic adjustment of Asia-Pacific policies. It doesn’t need to care about U.S. leaders’worry and anxiety about China’s rapid catchup, because such a mentality is normal for a country that has been the only dominant power in the world for decades. Like it or not, the United States has marked China as its No. 1 competitor. So being a qualified competitor by doing all its business well is a realistic choice for China. U.S. influence is important, but only China’s own deeds can decide its future.
China can take comfort in the fact that there are forces resisting a vicious strategy against China in the United States. During the presidential campaign, many U.S. scholars, journalists, think tanks, business organizations and former senior officials publicly criticized candidates of the two major parties for their attempts to gain support by China-bashing. They condemned election campaign advisers who had only a superficial knowledge of Sino-U.S. relations, especially those working for Republican candidates. They worried that if those advisers get a big say in policymaking, American interests will be seriously hurt. This self-cleansing phenomenon is very rare in U.S. presidential elections, showing that there are many clear heads in the United States who oppose the idea of making China an enemy.
What China should worry about is the uncoordinated stance on China among U.S. policymakers, which could destabilize Washington’s China policy and convey confusing messages. This could lead to increasing difficulties in rationally handling conflicts between them and add more risks to Sino-U.S. relations.
Generally speaking, the Sino-U.S. relationship continued developing during Obama’s first term. However, the Obama administration did something hurting China’s interests, like approving huge weapon sales to Taiwan, meeting the Dalai Lama and intervening in China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors in the South China Sea.
Obama’s reelection will help push forward the active elements of their bilateral relationship, such as adjusting and deepening their strategic dialogues. The following four years will be a crucial period for both China and the United States: They will use this period to realize their respective economic and social development goals as well as to adapt to each other in changed circumstances. Both sides should feel the urge to forge a stable and predictable bilateral relationship instead of one that harbors suspicion.
The New York Times published an article on November 23, 2011, saying that the United States and China should get rid of the curse of Thucydides’ trap, in which the ancient Greek historian believes war is inevitable between an existing power and an emerging power. It called for the two sides to prevent a lose-lose result that would be caused by confrontation. But the United States is not Sparta and China is not ancient Athens. The pattern of 2,500 years ago cannot be simply duplicated in today’s world. The two countries’respective paths and the direction of their bilateral relationship are possibly going to determine the development of international situations in the coming four years. That’s also why they have the obligation to set up a new type of relationship.
Obama’s second term will stick to the main tone of reviving the U.S. economy, reducing budget deficits by collecting more taxes from the rich, implementing healthcare reform, and reforming U.S. education and immigration policies. Washington’s global strategic adjustment, known as a “rebalance,” will be deepened. And its attitudes toward global hotspot issues are likely to be more aggressive. The United States may choose the path of realizing development through adjustment and maintaining advantages through reforms once again, which historically tended to happen when the country was faced with a crisis.
However, it is still doubtful whether Obama can guide the United States “forward”as he promised. The election highlighted many serious problems of the country: financial deficit and disorder, unemployment, sharp inter-party fighting, and faulty foreign policies. These are all deeply rooted systemic and structural problems that cannot be solved easily by a single U.S. president. In other words, Americans must admit and get used to the reality that the United States will have to face a long and fatiguing uphill climb.
Intertwining interests
Clamor surrounding China-related subjects was highly amplified during this year’s U.S. presidential election. China, a country whose values, social system and strategic interests are different from those of the United States, became the casual target of both Democratic and Republican candidates. However, the focus on criticizing China now has shifted from human rights and democracy to economic and strategic issues. China is changing from a diplomatic topic to a domestic policy issue in the United States.
Does this mean the Sino-U.S. economic relationship will strike a reef? China should now have its answer. China and the United States have been each other’s second biggest trade partner for many years. Their annual trade volume is more than $460 billion. According to U.S. official statistics, the country exported over $100 billion to China in 2011, while in 2008, the year Obama won his first presidential term, the number was less than $70 billion. It definitely won’t take long before China becomes the top buyer of U.S. goods. Besides, China is still the biggest creditor of the United States. It is reasonable to believe that the Sino-U.S. economic ties have grown big enough and have merged tightly enough with the U.S. economy and employment that Americans will not allow them to be significantly damaged. The United States will pay as much as China following any tough action on trade.
China should pay more attention to the deep-seated and long-term problems reflected in debates about China during the latest U.S. presidential election.
The first problem is of the economy. The financial crisis sweeping Europe and the United States was accompanied by the so-called “third industrial revolution” characterized by the digitalization of industry and wide adoption of new energy. Both China and the United States value export and try to occupy a commanding height in processing and emerging industries. Their bilateral economic ties have surpassed the complementary and mutually needed pattern that has maintained during the past decades, and are turning to a more complex mode of interdependence amid competition.
With changes ahead, China must be prepared to face increasing economic conflicts with the United States. How to properly handle the cooperation and competition of their economic relationship is a pressing issue for both sides. They need to define the terms of the two countries’ economic competition and work to shape better conditions for their future cooperation, so as to place their economic relationship on the right track of mutual benefit and win-win outcomes and meet their own demands for economic adjustment. Although frictions erupt from time to time, it should be acknowledged that changes in the Sino-U.S. economic relationship are consistent with China’s efforts to transform its economic growth model. Therefore, both sides have reasons to be confident about and interested in potential cooperation opportunities.
The other problem is strategic. Whether U.S. politicians sincerely like China or not, they must admit that how to deal with the relationship with China, an emerging country that is quite different from previous powers like the Soviet Union, Japan and Europe, now is a priority in Washington’s foreign policy. Can the two countries overcome their strategic conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region and establish a new type of strategic relationship? This is a common task for the two major countries, and it is a much more important issue than their trade problems.
Washington will boost its Asia-Pacific strategic adjustment, a fact that will not change in accordance with Beijing’s will. But China still hopes the Obama administration sticks to the right focus. Any policy leading to a face-to-face collision at sea between China and the United States is a policy guiding the United States to a strategic failure. Unfortunately, such a risk has grown during the past two years. Most importantly and imminently, the U.S. side should now carry out in-depth communication with China on maritime issues in East Asia and Southeast Asia, so as to avoid fomenting mutual dissatisfaction and suspicion. They also need to strengthen communication and coordination on developments in the Middle East and Iran to preserve cooperation and prevent conflicts of interests.
Staying calm
China needs to stay calm when facing the U.S. strategic adjustment of Asia-Pacific policies. It doesn’t need to care about U.S. leaders’worry and anxiety about China’s rapid catchup, because such a mentality is normal for a country that has been the only dominant power in the world for decades. Like it or not, the United States has marked China as its No. 1 competitor. So being a qualified competitor by doing all its business well is a realistic choice for China. U.S. influence is important, but only China’s own deeds can decide its future.
China can take comfort in the fact that there are forces resisting a vicious strategy against China in the United States. During the presidential campaign, many U.S. scholars, journalists, think tanks, business organizations and former senior officials publicly criticized candidates of the two major parties for their attempts to gain support by China-bashing. They condemned election campaign advisers who had only a superficial knowledge of Sino-U.S. relations, especially those working for Republican candidates. They worried that if those advisers get a big say in policymaking, American interests will be seriously hurt. This self-cleansing phenomenon is very rare in U.S. presidential elections, showing that there are many clear heads in the United States who oppose the idea of making China an enemy.
What China should worry about is the uncoordinated stance on China among U.S. policymakers, which could destabilize Washington’s China policy and convey confusing messages. This could lead to increasing difficulties in rationally handling conflicts between them and add more risks to Sino-U.S. relations.
Generally speaking, the Sino-U.S. relationship continued developing during Obama’s first term. However, the Obama administration did something hurting China’s interests, like approving huge weapon sales to Taiwan, meeting the Dalai Lama and intervening in China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors in the South China Sea.
Obama’s reelection will help push forward the active elements of their bilateral relationship, such as adjusting and deepening their strategic dialogues. The following four years will be a crucial period for both China and the United States: They will use this period to realize their respective economic and social development goals as well as to adapt to each other in changed circumstances. Both sides should feel the urge to forge a stable and predictable bilateral relationship instead of one that harbors suspicion.
The New York Times published an article on November 23, 2011, saying that the United States and China should get rid of the curse of Thucydides’ trap, in which the ancient Greek historian believes war is inevitable between an existing power and an emerging power. It called for the two sides to prevent a lose-lose result that would be caused by confrontation. But the United States is not Sparta and China is not ancient Athens. The pattern of 2,500 years ago cannot be simply duplicated in today’s world. The two countries’respective paths and the direction of their bilateral relationship are possibly going to determine the development of international situations in the coming four years. That’s also why they have the obligation to set up a new type of relationship.