Week 4 Response: China-US Relations and Chinese International Relations

Powerpoint Presentation: China-US Relations and Chinese International Relations

This week the GISP discussed the China-US relationship and China’s international relations within the scope of environmental issues and impact. One of the primary challenges I faced putting this presentation together was connecting information on China’s international relations to environmental impact. The link, although important, is not direct. The goal of this class was to understand international perspectives on China and China’s position in the international arena, and how this influences China’s environmental policy and practices.

Much of the class was spent discussing points of contention between the US and China. Chishio helped explain to the class the issue of the trade deficit between the US and China. We discussed the common US fear that the trade deficit is causing an outsourcing of jobs to China and is harming the US economy. I posed the question, what is the role of perspectives in shaping international relations? Based on our discussion of the history of US-China relations, which could easily be characterized as mercurial, we wondered if the perspectives of common citizens play a role in international relations. How much do policymakers account for the views of their constituents (or the general public)? This raises interesting questions of whether a grassroots campaign in China could have a significant impact on policy, something I hope we will discuss in our later class on NGO’s in China. Are public perspectives, like Memorandums of Understanding and other non-binding policy agreements, simply reflections of political awareness, status, and general cooperation? Can they actually have any effect on binding policy decisions? While recent agreements between the US and China foster greater dialogues between their respective environmental agencies (Obama’s updated SED’s, the Ten-Year Plan), none of these agreements have produced binding or stringent environmental policy. We discussed the benefits and disadvantages of such cyclical agreements – they represent positive relations, but shift responsibility around until it is almost impossible to recover.

One significant difference between the US and China which we discussed were their differing takes on nationalism and colonialism, topics that we thought could be easily extrapolated to environmental impact. China strongly opposes the expansion of US hegemony, and maintains a non-intervention, hands-off approach to the countries it invests in, which Devon discussed in the latter half of our presentation. Harmony raised questions of China’s “soft power”. Is China’s energy investment in unstable countries an indication of admiral nonpartisanship, or is it a purely exploitative move? Interestingly, since several class members are also involved in Strait Talk at Brown, a group which discusses China-Taiwan issues, Taiwan came up several times. Throughout China’s investment in African countries, Taiwan seems to act as a bargaining chip in maintaining positive relations. African nations which previously recognized Taiwan switched their recognition to the PRC following Chinese investment in their country. How much leverage can or should a single issue have in determining the course of international relations? Will Taiwan ever become a "bargaining chip" between the US and China?

While discussing energy security in China, we paused to consider a current event involving a dispute between China and Japan over a boundary in the East China Sea. This boundary happens to lie over an area with natural gas and oil reserves. The resultant outcome in favor of China’s definition of the boundary also raised questions about Sino-Japanese relations, which are far more historied and inflammatory than US-China relations. Japan, Chishio pointed out, suffers from the spread of Chinese air and water pollution. Does Japan have the power to challenge China on energy security and pollution issues? How does the two countries’ history influence their negotiations? I personally hope to learn more about Sino-Japanese relations throughout this class.

Lastly, one of the main themes of this class was China’s platform of a “Harmonious World” and a “Peaceful Rise” throughout its modern economic development. We discussed the implications of China’s adherence to a rise without the use of military power or the winning of any major wars, which is unprecedented. Does China’s “peaceful rise” make it more likely to practice appeasement in international negotiations? What would it take for China to depart from its peaceful rise? Has China’s rise really been peaceful? Interestingly, Wumeng pointed out the ironic use of the word for “harmonious” in contemporary Chinese dialogue, due to its overuse in politics. For example, when controversial content is censored and removed from the internet by the Chinese government, Chinese people may say that the content has been “harmonized away”, using the same word as in the phrase “Harmonious World”. How real is China's intention of maintaining a "Harmonious World"?