Sunnylands Summit: Historic Meeting between Obama and Xi

Sunnylands Summit: Historic Meeting between Obama and Xi
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 10, 2013

Summary: Barack Obama and Xi Jinping held a summit at the Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage, California. They spoke, face to face, for over eight hours. The first day's working dinner continued late into the evening, concluding at 10:45. Such close interaction between the two nations' officials is unprecedented. The Sunnylands estate summit will not be the last. As the summit concluded, Xi Jinping invited President Obama to visit Beijing. The two would hold a similar, informal summit. There were few substantive results this time. But the importance of the summit for Sino-US relations should be clear.

Full Text below:

Barack Obama and Xi Jinping held a summit at the Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage, California. They spoke, face to face, for over eight hours. The first day's working dinner continued late into the evening, concluding at 10:45. Such close interaction between the two nations' officials is unprecedented.

The White House announced this informal summit less than three weeks ago. Obama and Xi were originally expected to meet at APEC and the G20 summit three months from now. But Washington concluded that Xi Jinping had already consolidated his power. Therefore there was no need to "wait and see." Washington concluded that it was better to meet sooner than later. Otherwise, once Beijing's diplomatic strategy was set, it would be too late. Beijing also felt that Xi Jinping's top priority upon taking office should be to consolidate U.S. policy. No state banquet. No 21 gun salute. The important thing was a candid face to face discussion with Obama himself. Therefore following Xi's scheduled visit to the Caribbean, he went from Washington's backyard to its front yard.

Beijing and Washington have never before held such an informal summit. This was not because Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao has any particular attachment to diplomatic protocol. This was because in the past Beijing leaders' diplomatic speeches were subject to the approval of the Politburo. Its leaders did not have the self-confidence and authority to conduct direct talks with foreign heads of state. But Xi Jinping's status is different. He possesses the necessary eloquence to set aside the script and communicate face to face with foreign heads of state.

US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Beijing State Councilor Yang Jiechi issued a summary of the proceedings. Obama and Xi agreed on very few issues, and disagreed on many. The two sides reached a consensus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They agreed not to recognize North Korea as a nuclear power. But they differed on Internet hacker attacks, sovereignty in the South China Sea, RMB exchange rates, and arms sales to Taipei.

Having differences is normal. For the two sides to see things in exactly the same way would be abnormal. After all, Mainland China and the US have very different cultures. More importantly, one is the dominant power. The other is an emerging power. The two sides are well aware of their differences. The two leaders' clash symbolizes the significance of this summit.

Throughout history, large-scale wars have taken place when an emerging power challenges a dominant hegemonic power. Greek historian Thucydides noted how when Sparta attempted to prevent the rise of Athens, it precipitated 30 years of war. Harvard professor Graham Allison termed this the "Thucydides Trap." He felt this applied to Germany just before the war in Europe. He thinks it may apply to today's Chinese mainland as well.

The United States wants to remain the primary force in Asia. It wants to "maintain long-term stability in Asia." But Mainland China wants to reassert its historical status as the superpower in Asia. As Mainland China sees it, even if the United States does not leave Asia, it should at least stand to one side. Therefore it advocates the development of a "new relationship among the major powers." The two sides' thinking on regional leadership differ. Friction, therefore, is guaranteed. If the two governments want peaceful coexistence, the summit is a good starting point.

Some U.S. officials have concluded that this "New Power Relation" implies that Washington should not interfere with Mainland China's "core interests." These "core interests" are national interests about which Mainland China cannot compromise. They include Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. During the summit, Xi Jinping said he hoped Obama understands and respects Mainland China's "core interests." In other words, Beijing wants to define its "sphere of influence." The question is, will Washington acquiesce?

Obama spoke of "a new power relationship between the United States and China." This does not mean the United States accepts Mainland China's formulation. East Asia has become the global economic center. Therefore the U.S. is extremely reluctant to accept Mainland China's regional dominance. U.S. Navy and Air Force presence in the Asian Pacific region has increased 60%. This suggests that Washington's Asian rebalancing strategy remains in place, and that it is refusing to withdraw.

During the summit, Xi Jinping referred to the Taiwan issue. He reiterated Beijing's principles and stance on Taiwan. He stressed that this issue concerns the patriotic sentiments of 1.3 billion people. He urged the United States to abide by the three Sino-US joint communiques, to adhere to the "one China" policy, to take concrete action to support the peaceful development of cross-strait relations, and to cease its arms sales to Taipei.

This may sound like an old tune. But the fact that it was raised at all, means it warrants close attention. The Taiwan issue is not longer what it was during past Washington-Beijing tensions, If Washington and Beijing establish a new power relationship, Washington-Taipei relations are bound to be affected. Cross-strait relations are bound to be affected as well. Responsible ministries in our government must understand Obama's response, and formulate follow-up responses.

The Sunnylands estate summit will not be the last. As the summit concluded, Xi Jinping invited President Obama to visit Beijing. The two would hold a similar, informal summit. There were few substantive results this time. But the importance of the summit for Sino-US relations should be clear.

陽光莊園高峰會 歐習歷史性會晤
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.10

歐巴馬與習近平在加州陽光莊園的高峰會，兩人晤面時間超過八小時，首日工作晚餐後的討論更延續到深夜十點四十四分。這樣的密切互動，在兩國歷史上是空前的。

從白宮宣布這次不拘形式的高峰會到真正召開，時間不到三周。本來三個月後的ＡＰＥＣ會議及Ｇ２０高峰會，歐習兩人都將見面，但美方認為習近平權力已經鞏固，沒有必要觀望，晚見不如早見；否則，待北京外交戰略形成，就來不及了。而中方也認為，習近平上任之初，最重要的就是將對美政策確定下來，沒有國宴、沒有廿一響禮炮皆無所謂，重要的是與歐巴馬本人坦誠面談。因此，習在預定的加勒比海訪問後，從美國的「後院」來到美國的「前院」停留會晤。

如此隨興的峰會形式，中美之間未曾有過。倒不是因為過去江澤民與胡錦濤特別拘泥高峰外交禮儀，而是過去中國領導人的外交致詞都須經政治局批准，領導人沒有足夠的自信與授權直接與外國元首會談。而習近平的外交格局不同，他可以拋開講稿，與外國元首面對面溝通，侃侃而談。

綜合會後美國國安顧問唐尼倫及中共國務委員楊潔篪的簡報，歐習兩人在會中同意的事少，不同意的事多。就減少溫室氣體排放及不承認北韓為核武國家，雙方有共識；但在網路駭客攻擊、南海的主權糾紛、人民幣匯率操縱和對台軍售議題上，則有歧見。

有歧見是正常的，雙方看法完全一致，才不正常。畢竟，中美兩國文化背景大不相同，更重要的是，一個是目前稱霸的強權，另一個是崛起的新興強權，雙方的認知各自不同。兩國領導人象徵式的碰撞，才是此次高峰會的意義。

縱觀歷史，世界上的大規模戰爭總發生在一個新興國家挑戰既有霸權的時候。希臘歷史學家修昔底德觀察到，斯巴達為阻止雅典的崛起，釀成卅年的戰爭；哈佛大學教授格雷厄姆‧阿利森（Graham Allison）稱之為「修昔底德陷阱」（Thucydides’s trap），認為這適用於歐戰前的德國，也可能適用今天的中國大陸。

美國希望自己仍是主導亞洲秩序的最主要力量，以維持亞洲的長期穩定；但中國則希望恢復自己亞洲第一大國的歷史地位，美國即使不退出亞洲，至少也要站邊去，因而主張發展「新型大國關係」。雙方不同的區域領導思維，勢必發生摩擦；兩國想要在競爭中保持和平共處之姿，這次峰會至少是一個起點。

某些美國官員認為，「新型大國關係」實即暗指美國不應干預中國的「核心利益」。所謂「核心利益」，是指中國絕對不能讓步的國家利益，如西藏、新疆和台灣等問題。習近平在高峰會中希望歐巴馬理解並尊重中國的「核心利益」，換句話說，北京想要在其周邊地區劃出「勢力範圍」。問題是，美國會不會退讓？

歐巴馬雖在致詞中談到「推動建設美中新型大國關係」，但這未必意味美國接受此一提法。事實上，隨著東亞逐漸成為全球經濟中心，美國極不願意將區域主導權讓給中國。美國海空軍在亞太地區的比例，正持續往六成增加，意味著其亞洲再平衡策略仍堅不退讓。

值得注意的是，習近平在高峰會上提出了台灣問題，重申了中方對台灣的原則和立場，並強調此議題涉及十三億人民的民族感情，要求美方恪守中美三個聯合公報，堅持「一個中國」政策，以實際行動支持兩岸關係的和平發展，停止售台武器。

看似舊調重彈，但僅僅提出議題本身，即值得我方密切注意。尤其，目前台灣問題的性質已不同於過去美中緊張時期，若美中發展新型大國關係，勢必衝擊美台關係，也將影響兩岸關係的進展。我相關部門應盡快了解歐巴馬的回應，以擬定後續的因應政策。

這次陽光莊園高峰會，不會是最後一次。在會晤的尾聲，習近平邀請歐巴馬總統訪中，兩人再做一次類似不拘形式的高峰會。也許這次沒有太多實質成果，但它在中美關係史上的重要性已經確立。