Chinese economic miracle became possible and will remain such in future if PRC decides to be a part of global economic and political system, if it will wish and be able to participate in the global discourse on the model of its further development and exchange of ideas. Therefore, fantasies about unipolar and even bipolar (the USA—China) world would hardly come true in the foreseeable future. China is, without a shadow of doubt, an important element of global economics, politics and international security. But the roles of the so-called emerging powers like Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and Turkey will also be increasing. That’s why we have to mark out the following statement of the U.S. State Secretary:
“History teaches that the rise of new powers often ushers in periods of conflict and uncertainty. Indeed, on both sides of the Pacific, we do see some trepidation about the rise of China and about the future of the U.S.-China relationship. Some in the region and some here at home see China’s growth as a threat that will lead either to Cold War-style conflict or American decline. And some in China worry that the United States is bent on containing China’s rise and constraining China’s growth, a view that is stoking a new streak of assertive Chinese nationalism. We reject those views.”
Growing economic and military potential China actually frightens many of its Asian-Pacific neighbors and pushes them right into the usual American embrace. Permanent Northern-Korean blivet threat that China cannot handle is also a contribution here. There’s a peculiar and rather interesting motif in Clinton’s address, which requires thorough analysis. As an alternative view at bilateral Sino-American relations — but in a broader prospect and set up for the new world order — Mrs. State Secretary refers the following sentence:
“I said when I first went to China as Secretary of State early in my tenure that there was an old Chinese saying that when you’re in the same boat you have to row in the same direction. We are in the same boat, and we will either row[1] in the same direction or we will, unfortunately, cause turmoil and whirlpools that will impact not just our two countries, but many people far beyond either of our borders.”
Clinton offers to replace the paradigm of stiff rivalry with the paradigm of partnership, giving an opportunity to profiteer from the mutual benefits, despite the natural and inevitable competition between the nations, states and organization. That is a completely different approach to the U.S. foreign policy, drastically different from the self-imposed blindfold of the previous neoconservative administration. It stipulates cooperation between the USA and the PRC in various areas like G20 and ASEAN, UN Security Council and the Six Party Talks at the Korean Peninsula. It includes sharing the scientific data (Sino-American Science and Technology Agreement), students’ exchange, investments, trade, global warming issue and numerous other directions. At the same time 
Obama’s administration immediately cut short all the speculations on the subject of bilateral bloc that would be defining the destinies of the world (Sino-American G2). Economic ties of two world giants are substantial, indeed, but the alike American ties with its Euro-Atlantic partners are every bit as substantial too.
Obama’s administration immediately cut short all the speculations on the subject of bilateral bloc that would be defining the destinies of the world (Sino-American G2). Economic ties of two world giants are substantial, indeed, but the alike American ties with its Euro-Atlantic partners are every bit as substantial too.We shouldn’t neglect the significant diversity of ideological and even the world outlook approaches. Incident with awarding of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo with the Nobel Peace Prize became the most recent apparent display of this ideological incompatibility. Chinese policy of constraining the civil freedoms — expressed in the state censure in general and the Internet censure in particular — is intolerable for the USA. Add here Chinese ban of the NGOs at its territory. Hillary Clinton touched these issues in her speech as well:
“America will continue to speak out and to press China when it censors bloggers and imprisons activists; when religious believers, particularly those in unregistered groups, are denied full freedom of worship; when lawyers and legal advocates are sent to prison simply for representing clients who challenge the government’s positions; and when some, like Chen Guangcheng[2], are persecuted even after they are released.”
Of course, moral right to exert such pressure is not that unquestionable as well, but Clinton entrusts China with peculiar responsibility for the observation of human rights as one of the UN architects and permanent UN Security Council member in the first place. U.S. State Secretary also has drawn the attention to the issue of Tibet, lots of incarcerated political prisoners and the situation in autonomous Chinese Xinjiang province. Concluding her speech, Hillary Clinton burst into a sound tirade protecting the democracy in an unusually passionate manner:
“We believe also that when China lives up to these obligations of respecting and protecting universal human rights, it will not only benefit more than one billion people. It will also benefit the long-term peace, stability, and prosperity of China. For example, an independent, impartial judicial system and respect for the rule of law would protect citizens’ property and guarantee that inventors can profit from their ideas. Freedom of expression for everyone, from political activists to academics and journalists and bloggers, would help foster the open exchange of ideas that is essential to innovation and a creative economy. A vibrant civil society would help address some of China’s most pressing issues, from food safety to pollution to education to health care. The longer China represses freedoms, the longer it will miss out on these opportunities and the longer that Nobel Prize winners, empty chairs in Oslo will remain a symbol of a great nation’s unrealized potential and unfulfilled promise.”
Hillary Clinton delivered her speech on a certain occasion, although it was dedicated to the completely different event — visit of the PRC leader Hu Jintao to the USA. State Secretary voiced up the things that she was unable to cast in the face of her high Chinese guest because of the diplomatic protocol. Today’s complicated position of the United States allows giving different estimates to that speech.
Some say that imposing American view at statecraft to the second largest world economy is insanity; others would claim that what Clinton did was bold denial to step over one’s democratic principles for the sake of economic necessity. In the long run it all depends on beholder’s point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment