What's new

Who wins the Dragon-elephant contention?

China takes on the world

The US-China spat has greater resonance because of the way Washington backed Japan in the row over the detained Chinese trawler and the flurry over China's decision to halt exports of rare-earth minerals to Japan.

Jonathan Fenby

After he launched China on to a market-led course in 1978, Deng Xiaoping counseled caution in international relations.
China should, he advised, keep a low profile while enriching itself and not alarm the countries whose markets for its exports would replace deficient domestic demand. Hu Jintao and his leadership colleagues must have decided that the time has come to shed such caution. China not only adopts a higher global profile, but is increasingly ready to take positions that earn the world's disapproval, be it on the valuation of its currency or its support for regimes in Sudan, Iran and Burma. And now that more muscular approach by Beijing confronts the Obama administration's drive to reassert Washington's interest in Asia.
This could provide a testing experience for both sides of the so-called G2, a concept that has never really taken off if only because of the rocky path of Sino-US relations since President Barack Obama's visit to the People's Republic a year ago. The flashpoints are evident. Hillary Clinton's assertion that freedom of navigation in the South China Sea runs straight up against China's claim to sovereignty over the waters to its south. Washington's growing closeness to India, including backing New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is not to Beijing's taste. The US-Japan relationship remains a constant source of concern for China. The same goes for US-South Korean links. US arms sales to Taiwan rile Chinese leaders who insist that the island is part of the People's Republic.
During three months just spent in Beijing, I was struck repeatedly by the sharp tone adopted towards the US not only by ideologues and media propagandists, but by senior economists who insist that failure of American economic policy is responsible for the world's ills. The fact that the US Federal Reserve's new bout of quantitative easing, or QE2, went down like a lead balloon at the G20 summit in Seoul showed that China is not short of allies.
A researcher with a think tank attached to the Commerce Ministry, Mei Xinyu, summed up the dismissive Chinese view of the US in China Daily this month: "The US' top financial officials need to shift their people's attention from the country's struggling economy to cover up their incompetence and blame China for everything that is going wrong in their country."
Moving into conspiracy theory, the op-ed article concluded that, by attacking China, finance officials in Washington foster speculative opportunities for Wall Street firms, which then offer them big jobs after they leave government office. Ahead of the G20 meeting, China rejected the US plan as harking back to the days of planned economies - nice irony coming from the last major state ruled by a Communist Party, one that just unveiled its latest Five-Year Plan. At a Beijing conference, the governor of China's Central Bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, spoke of being ready to deal with the wash of money unleashed by QE2 as if he were a doctor preparing for a troublesome affliction. Cooperation over global warming seems at a dead end. China still values investments by companies such as Intel, yet promotion of domestic companies in its stimulus package and an increasingly tough regulatory climate for foreign firms complicate a business relationship that has flourished since the 1980s. As the mainland moves up the technological and value chain under its next Five-Year Plan, trade tensions are set to rise.
China trade was once all about cheap exports. But if Chinese development goes to plan, import substitution for big-ticket items will become the order of the day. In a little noticed development this month, China unveiled a prototype of a 150-seat airliner due to go into service by 2016, complicating Boeing's sales to the world's second biggest market for commercial aircraft, not to mention the impact on Airbus.
On the other side of the Pacific, tougher rhetoric from the White House and Treasury as the US finds itself under political pressure at home and increasingly bereft of economic allies abroad does not point to a benign future with Washington and Beijing working together for the benefit of the world at large. Speaking at a European Central bank conference in Frankfurt on November 19, US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke hit back at Chinese criticism, noting that "currency undervaluation by surplus countries is inhibiting needed international adjustment and creating spillover effects that would not exist if exchange rates better reflected market fundamentals."
Hu's visit to Washington in January will be the touchstone. In an interview with The Australian newspaper, Secretary of State Clinton said that China's current policies in the region were designed to test other nations and insisted that Beijing should abide by international law. The problem is that the law is extremely vague on key points of conflict, notably the sovereignty of rocky islands that may sit on top of large ?energy reserves.
The US-China spat has greater resonance because of the way Washington backed Japan in the row over the detained Chinese trawler and the flurry over China's decision to halt exports of rare-earth minerals ?to Japan.
If the relationship continues its downward spiral, Hu's visit risks turning into a confrontation. If only for domestic political reasons, Obama may well feel he must show that he can stand up to China for instance, by slapping duties on selected imports, resisting Beijing's maritime claims goods or holding China to account on its environmental record. Hu, due to stand down as Chinese leader in late 2012, has no wish to leave office remembered as the man who caved in to the US.
Such a standoff is dangerous for both countries - and the world. It could lead to damaging protectionism. Depicting China as an enemy may be an attractive electoral gambit for an administration that feels need to display its muscles. Beijing will respond in kind. High-level and dispassionate statesmanship is required, with each party giving some ground and trying to scale down the currency rhetoric while engaging in serious discussion on common approaches to environmental measures. Whether either party has the wherewithal remains in question. On their performances so far, one can only remain pessimistic.


Jonathan Fenby is China director of the research service Trusted Sources
and author of the Penguin History of Modern China
 
China takes on the world

may be, may be not. comes an interesting story.

New Zealand wooed China to curb US influence: report

(AFP)

WELLINGTON — A former New Zealand government courted China and France in an attempt to curb American and Australian influence in the Pacific, according to a leaked diplomatic cable published here Saturday.

New Zealand is also said to have formulated its anti-nuclear legislation, which caused a deep rift with Washington, because of a desire to trim its defence budget as well as for publicly stated ideological reasons.

The claims are made in a 2004 cable released by the WikiLeaks website under the heading "What we could not say in the mission programme plan", the Dominion Post newspaper reported.

The cable said New Zealand's Labour Party government led by Helen Clark flirted with China and France in the early 2000s "to curtail US and Australian influence in the region," it said.

During a visit by the Chinese vice-minister for trade, "New Zealand Trade Minister (Jim) Sutton publicly claimed that China was New Zealand's most important and valued trading partner, a claim that left Australian officials here scratching their heads in wonder."

It was a previous Labour government -- led by David Lange -- that introduced the anti-nuclear legislation in the 1980s, a move that led to a decades-long rift in intelligence and military co-operation between Wellington and Washington.

The cable said US officials had been told by people who were senior New Zealand government officials at the time that Wellington knew the policy would lead to New Zealand being pushed out of the regional ANZUS alliance with the United States and Australia.

Exclusion from ANZUS would thereby lessen "the country's defence spending requirements at a time of fiscal and economic crisis," the cable said.

New Zealand's defence spending was criticised as being too inadequate to cover even "replacement costs for basic coastal defence hardware" and the defence force as having not enough troops for effective peacekeeping operations.

Another leaked cable, published last week, said United States and New Zealand ended their 25-year break in intelligence collaboration last year but decided to keep the the news secret.

AFP: New Zealand wooed China to curb US influence: report
 
Could you elaborate on that?

Originally Posted by Chinese-Dragon View Post
Both the USA and Pakistan stand to gain from a China-India rivalry.

Pakistan will gain a stronger ally against India, and the USA will divert attention away from itself.

i dont want to go too bitter btw but just a thought

so its not any more about brotherhood eh??, china gains, pakistan gains, and as long as they have mutual interests they are best friends??
 
may be, may be not. comes an interesting story.

New Zealand wooed China to curb US influence: report

(AFP)

WELLINGTON — A former New Zealand government courted China and France in an attempt to curb American and Australian influence in the Pacific, according to a leaked diplomatic cable published here Saturday.

New Zealand is also said to have formulated its anti-nuclear legislation, which caused a deep rift with Washington, because of a desire to trim its defence budget as well as for publicly stated ideological reasons.

The claims are made in a 2004 cable released by the WikiLeaks website under the heading "What we could not say in the mission programme plan", the Dominion Post newspaper reported.

The cable said New Zealand's Labour Party government led by Helen Clark flirted with China and France in the early 2000s "to curtail US and Australian influence in the region," it said.

During a visit by the Chinese vice-minister for trade, "New Zealand Trade Minister (Jim) Sutton publicly claimed that China was New Zealand's most important and valued trading partner, a claim that left Australian officials here scratching their heads in wonder."

It was a previous Labour government -- led by David Lange -- that introduced the anti-nuclear legislation in the 1980s, a move that led to a decades-long rift in intelligence and military co-operation between Wellington and Washington.

The cable said US officials had been told by people who were senior New Zealand government officials at the time that Wellington knew the policy would lead to New Zealand being pushed out of the regional ANZUS alliance with the United States and Australia.

Exclusion from ANZUS would thereby lessen "the country's defence spending requirements at a time of fiscal and economic crisis," the cable said.

New Zealand's defence spending was criticised as being too inadequate to cover even "replacement costs for basic coastal defence hardware" and the defence force as having not enough troops for effective peacekeeping operations.

Another leaked cable, published last week, said United States and New Zealand ended their 25-year break in intelligence collaboration last year but decided to keep the the news secret.

AFP: New Zealand wooed China to curb US influence: report

Thanks for the article, I'd be interested in hearing what our resident kiwis thinks of this.
 
i dont want to go too bitter btw but just a thought

so its not any more about brotherhood eh??, china gains, pakistan gains, and as long as they have mutual interests they are best friends??

I'm curious what is your thinking on the China-Pakistan brotherhood/friendship.
 
All weather friends that stretch back 50+ years.

u r repeating some lines i wanted ur opinion, whats my opinion is, pak china friend ship is selfless, they dont worry abt the gains and dont measure the gains perticularly.. china some time provides pak wih interest free loans(if im correct) and by the sound of it, china loses good profit..
 
u r repeating some lines i wanted ur opinion, whats my opinion is, pak china friend ship is selfless, they dont worry abt the gains and dont measure the gains perticularly.. china some time provides pak wih interest free loans(if im correct) and by the sound of it, china loses good profit..

Pakistan's gain is China's gain and vice-versa. and please be advised not to be carried away by some individual's comments that may appear silly.
 
The problem is, after you have moved ahead 15 years, China will also have moved ahead by 15 years.

As before, 10% of 5 trillion (China) is a LOT more than 10% of 1 trillion (India).

Even if your growth rate catches up, the "real growth" of China will still be bigger, due to the larger base size.

:yahoo::yahoo::yahoo::rofl:

buddy you need MBA lesson for sure....never expected a chinese talking so funny!!!!
 
Elephant will win.. becaue there is no Dragon(Imaginary/Hypotjetical/Mythological) in real world... :)

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:ha ha ha u made my day..jokes apart india and china need to cooperate i pray to god it doesnt end up the english and france rivalry!!!!!!that can only lead to the rise of another hitler in asia!!!if u believe in prophecies!!!!!!
 
Both the USA and Pakistan stand to gain from a China-India rivalry.

Pakistan will gain a stronger ally against India, and the USA will divert attention away from itself. :azn:

As a true friend, Pakistan will let China decide what is best for itself.

Clearly, a military alliance between China and India would not make Pakistan happy, but there is no reason why we would object to cordial relations between China and India.

Pakistan needs a strong China which is a formidable ally on the global stage. It is not in our interests to have a weak China which is bogged down in regional politics and has to constantly look over its shoulder for a confrontational India.
 
As a true friend, Pakistan will let China decide what is best for itself.

Clearly, a military alliance between China and India would not make Pakistan happy, but there is no reason why we would object to cordial relations between China and India.

Pakistan needs a strong China which is a formidable ally on the global stage. It is not in our interests to have a weak China which is bogged down in regional politics and has to constantly look over its shoulder for a confrontational India.

Thanks on China's behalf for bold part:rofl:
 

Back
Top Bottom