How to Deal with Beijing-Washington Tensions

How to Deal with Beijing-Washington Tensions
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 15, 2014

Summary: The United States has no intention of coming in second. But it cannot contain Mainland China. Beijing hopes to reduce U.S. influence in the Asian-Pacific region. But it has no intention of making an enemy of Washington. As Xi Jinping said, Beijing-Washington confrontation would lead to global catastrophe. Bilateral relations have intensified. Can Taipei seek peaceful coexistence in such a difficult situation? Can it ensure a win-win outcome?

Full Text Below:

The sixth strategic and economic talk between Beijing and Washington was held  in Beijing on the 9th and 10th of July. Senior officials from both sides called the talks beneficial and effective. In fact, the bilateral talks yielded little of substance. The strategic dialogue between the two sides addressed 116 issues. They included the South China Sea disputes and Internet security. The two sides found themselves farther apart than ever. The talks ended the very next day. U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Christine Fox immediately issued three recommendations, Fox called on all parties to cease and desist from engaging in certain actions. She accused Beijing of unilateral provocations, and cast doubt on its willingness to comply with international law. The situation does not look promising for Beijing-Washington relations.

Let us return to the root of the problem. Strategic dialogue between Beijing and Washington began in August 2005. The purpose was to increase bilateral cooperation and promote peace in the Asian-Pacific region and the rest of the world. The two sides met a total of six times. They focused on increasing dialogue and mutual trust. They hoped to increase agreement, expand cooperation, and strengthen coordination and consultation. Beijing-Washington Strategic Economic Dialogue began in December 2006. The two sides met a total of five times. They addressed specific economic and trade issues, including aviation, services, banks, securities, RMB exchange rates, energy, environmental protection, trade and investment, food safety, and international economic cooperation. The issues discussed now differed little from what was discussed then.

The Bush administration, which included Bush himself and neoconservative cabinet members, harbored strong animosity and mistrust toward Beijing. Washington even saw Beijing as a strategic competitor. As a result, strategic talks between the two regimes were changed to dialogue between senior officials. The Obama administration eventually merged the two talks. This represented a major shift in Washington's thinking. Both sides sent their respective Secretaries of State. Vice Premier level officials attended. The two presidents gave important talks or interviews. The many high-ranking participants covered a wide range of topics. Clearly both sides attach great importance to the talks.

As in the past, Beijing said that the two sides stand at a turning point in history, and face many new opportunities. Beijing is willing to view the relationship from a strategic, long-term perspective. It is willing to look at the big picture, and seize the opportunity. It is willing to join the United States in creating a new future, It is willing to cooperate in a comprehensive and constructive manner. This reflects Beijing's current position and direction. This shows that it is sincere and has good intentions. This also shows that it remains firm on cerrain issues. Washington realizes that Beiing-Washington relations will shape the 21st century. This relationship is as important as any bilateral relationship in the world. Reality necessitates a partnership between the two. The two must also share responsibility. Beijing should relax controls on yuan exchange rates. It should exercise restraint in the South China Sea and other regions. It should play a role commensurate with its responsibilities. Washington's stance was quite clear.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry criticized what he termed Beijing's unilateral actions in the South China Sea. He said Beijing's "new fait accompli" in the Asian-Pacific region was unacceptable. Following the meeting, Washington immediately recommended three guidelines for the South China Sea, Washington also asked Beijing to resume bilateral negotiations on Internet security. Beijing instructed State Councilor Yang Jechi to express the Mainland position at a series of press conferences. Beijing greeted the new U.S. proposal coldly. As we can see Beijing does not intend to make any concessions on the disputes over territorial waters and other matters.

Washington has agreed to engage in bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue with Beijing. It is willing to engage in high level, large scale, high profile, talks. This means that Beijing-Washington relations have undergone a qualitative change as well as a quantitative change. Mainland China's strength can no longer be ignored. Washington cannot ignore Mainland China's growth, It can no longer fight or contain Beijing. Washington is now attempting to adopt a more pragmatic approach. It is attempting to develop constructive and friendly relations with Beijing. It is attempting to make Beijing more reasonable and responsible. It is attempting to further its integration into the international mainstream, and to make it accept international norms of behavior.

But the two sides have many problems. The two regimes have different views on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. They have different political and economic systems. They are at different stages of development. They have structural differences. The competitive nature of the relationship remains unchanged. The relationship between them is neither enemy nor friend, and both enemy and friend. The two sides realize that cooperation benefits both. Cooperation means win/win. Confrontation means lose/lose. The bilateral relationship involves both cooperation and competition. There is cooperation within the friction. There is friction within the cooperation. Sometimes the struggle overshadows the cooperation. Sometimes the cooperation overshadows the struggle. But the two sides need each other. Good relations between the two may not result in harmony. But bad relations will not necessarily lead to a complete breakdown.

The United States has no intention of coming in second. But it cannot contain Mainland China. Beijing hopes to reduce U.S. influence in the Asian-Pacific region. But it has no intention of making an enemy of Washington. As Xi Jinping said, Beijing-Washington confrontation would lead to global catastrophe. Bilateral relations have intensified. Can Taipei seek peaceful coexistence in such a difficult situation? Can it ensure a win-win outcome? Taipei will need political wisdom and diplomacy. Taipei lacks the wherewithal to achieve this. But it must not undermine Beijing-Washington relations. It must not be blindly optimistic regarding Beijing-Washington relations. It must assess the situation carefully. It must not sacrifice Taiwan's interests. These are the Republic of China's unwavering principles.

社論－如何面對中美關係趨於緊張？
2014年07月15日 04:10
編輯部

第六屆中美戰略與經濟會談於7月9日到10日在北京召開，雖然雙方高級官員都稱會談是有益且有成效，但實際上，這次雙邊對話成效甚少，從這次中美116項戰略對話成果清單中可以看出，雙方在南海爭議、網路安全等關鍵性戰略問題上甚至愈行愈遠。對話結束次日，美國副助理國務卿福克斯立即提出南海三不建議，呼籲各方自願凍結特定行動，並指中國的片面挑釁行為讓人懷疑其遵守國際法的意願。中美關係不容過度樂觀。

尋本溯源，中美之間的戰略對話最早始於2005年8月，目的在保持、擴大雙方的合作，促進亞太和世界的和平，後來一共進行了6次，重點在於深化對話與互信、希望增加共識、擴大合作、加強協調與磋商。至於中美經濟戰略對話則始於2006年12月，一共進行了5次，其中涉及的具體經貿問題，包括航空、服務、銀行、證券、人民幣匯率、能源、環保、貿易投資、食品安全，及國際經濟合作等領域，與如今所討論的問題其實差異不大。

布希政府時期，由於其本人和新保守主義分子對中共懷有強烈的敵意和不信任感，美國當時甚至把其視為戰略競爭者，所以兩國之間的戰略會談一度被改為資深官員對話。之後歐巴馬政府將兩者合而為一，這代表美國思維的一大轉變。雙方都派出國務卿、國務院副總理等級人士出席，兩國元首也循例發表重要談話或予以接見，由參與人員之多、級別之高、議題之廣可以看出，中美雙方對此對話機制的重視。

與過去一樣，北京主張，中美雙方正站在歷史新起點，面臨新機遇，大陸願站在戰略高度與長遠角度，把握大局，抓住機遇，與美國共創未來，建構積極合作、全面的中美關係。這反映出中共當前立場與方向，展現了誠意與善意，但在具體問題上並未鬆口。美國也認知到中美關係將形塑21世紀，其重要性不亞於世界上任何雙邊關係，此一現實將支撐兩國的伙伴關係，也是兩國應該共同承擔的責任，而中共應放寬人民幣匯率管制，在南海等問題上自我節制，扮演與其責任相稱角色，華府立場也相當明確。

美國國務卿凱瑞反對大陸在南海的單方面行動，認為其在亞太地區製造所謂「新既定事實」是不可接受的，會後美國隨即提出南海三項行動準則的建議，而且美方還要求大陸恢復與美國在網路安全問題上的雙邊磋商。而北京則由國務委員楊潔篪先在聯合記者會上多次重申中國政府的立場，後來也對美方新的提議冷然以對，由此可以看出北京在海域爭端等問題上並無讓步的打算。

坦白的說，美方同意與中共進行雙邊戰略與經濟對話，以如此高規格、大陣仗的方式，高調加以處理，意味著中美關係已由量變往質變的方向發展，中國的實力已然不容忽視，美國不能漠視中國大陸成長的事實，或仍以對抗、圍堵的方式對待北京。美國正努力嘗試，要以實事求是的態度，持平的與中共發展建設性的友好關係，讓中國扮演其力所能及的合理、負責任的角色，將其進一步融入國際主流社會，接受國際行為規範。

但是雙方問題仍在，兩國在人權、民主、法治等價值觀，不同政經體制、發展階段方面仍有結構性的問題，雙方互相競爭的本質不變，彼此關係仍是非敵非友、亦敵亦友、可敵可友，只不過雙方當前都已體認，合則兩利、分則兩害、鬥則雙輸的事實。雙方關係在某種程度上仍是既合作又鬥爭，也就是合作中有競爭，競爭中有摩擦，摩擦中得妥協，有時合作高過鬥爭，有時摩擦超過合作，但彼此相互需要，兩國關係好，不致於水乳交融，壞，不致於關係破裂。

美國無意屈居老二，但也無法圍堵中國，大陸希望降低美國在亞太地區的影響力，但也無意與美國為敵。誠如習近平所說，中美對抗將會成為世界性的災難，但當前兩國關係確實變得更為緊張，台灣如何在困難的局面下找到一條和平共處、互利雙贏的發展，當然需要高超的政治智慧與外交手法。台灣不但無能力，也不應該破壞中美關係的發展，更不宜對中美關係的健康、良性發展抱持盲目樂觀的態度，審時度勢謹慎作為，一切作為的前提是不以台灣的利益為代價，這才是中華民國堅持不變的立場與原則。