Recommendations for Sino-US Rapprochment

By Eleanor Albert

Read the news. Any news sources, whether liberal or conservative, writes about China within a critical framework. The New York Times alone had the following headlines in the past few days: “China Bars Noted Scholar From Planned Trip to U.S.,” “China Said to Execute Thousands in ‘09,” “Chinese Court Hands Down Stiff Sentences to Four Mining Company Employees,” “Chinese Activist Surfaces After a Year in Custody,” “Rescuers in China Struggle to Free 153 Trapped Miners.”

Search a little deeper through the China related articles in the NYT, weeding out the negative narrative Western media has developed for the East’s miracle economic nation, and you will find Charles A. Kupchan’s “Soothing US-China Tensions:” recommendations to pull both Beijing and Washington out of the rut and tensions that have recently plagued the “partnership” between two of the world’s major powers.

Toward the end of the Bush administration, China –in the eyes of the U.S. government—was to be a “responsible stakeholder” and “constructive cooperator.” Obama’s administration, upon entering office, recognized the relations between China and the United States as the most important partnership and sought to cultivate it. Progress has seemingly stagnated and Kupchan warns:

“With the anger on both sides intensifying, American and Chinese leaders urgently need to take steps to defuse the situation. Otherwise, China’s continuing rise may soon result in a classic rivalry between reigning hegemon and ascending challenger.”

By now, it is evident that the U.S. and China have an increasingly dependent relationship and must make compromises, but both governments are taking the wrong positions to alleviate tensions. Obama and the CCP leadership are facing tremendous political pressure domestically—but the administrations cannot neglect their commitment to the stability and security of the international community and prevent the exploitation of ideological differences that are widening the fissure in U.S.-China relations. The U.S. bullies China about the yuan and “urges” the CCP to revalue its currency when it should use multilateral dialogue platforms. Beijing continuously expresses the desire to play a larger role in the international community and should seize the opportunity to establish credibility as a major player by supporting stricter sanctions on Iran to stop nuclear proliferation.

International institutions and platforms for dialogue are key to resolving the current tensions between Beijing and Washington. The governments will continue to have differing opinions on Taiwan and human rights, but they can and need to compromise on economic issues (that have implications for the global economy) and international security issues.

(Photo courtesy of White House Photo Gallery)

A New Take on Nanjing 1937

By Eleanor Albert

Last week, a Foreign Policy article reflected on a new joint report from the Chinese and Japanese governments in regard to the Nanjing Massacre. In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army, after invading China from the north in Manchuria, finally reached the southeastern capital of Nanjing. The Massacre is also known as the Rape of Nanjing (or Nanking whether one is using pinyin or the Wade Gilles translation spelling) and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Soldiers of the Japanese army were also responsible for the rapes of an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women. This historical event is often described as China’s Holocaust – for obvious reasons.

The Nanjing Massacre carries tremendous controversy with it, particularly due to Japan’s lack of recognition and even denial of the event. Despite Japan’s defeat in 1945 at the close of WWII, discrepancy continued. As a result, the Nanjing Massacre has long been a wrench in Sino-Japanese relations, as well as an obstacle in establishing stability in Southeast Asia.

Last week’s report does not clarify the number of total lives lost, nor did the Chinese and Japanese governments come any closer to agreeing on an estimate – a disappointment in historical terms. However, the report was not a lost cause. For the first time, Japan took full culpability for the extent of its violence and the tragedy inflicted on China – a political victory.

All former empires have had difficulty making concessions and taking responsibility for aggression, yet the joint report between China and Japan promotes new optimism for Southeast Asia.

With the economies of China and Japan ranking in the top two and three in the world, second only to the United States and Japan’s and China’s growing importance in the international community, the two nations play key roles in security and stability in Southeast Asia. Although the report shows a mere concession by the Japanese, the acceptance of guilt will hopefully be symbolic enough for China, as well as Taiwan, Korea, and other former Southeast Asian colonies of Japan, to push aside decades of controversy and look forward to partnership in the future.

(Iris Chang, a Chinese-American historian and journalist, published The Rape of Nanking in 1997 that provides an account and explores lost details of the massacre. A film, of the same title, was also made in 2007, inspired by Chang’s book.)

The "Palestinian Question": Why We should Watch This Spot

By Fae MacArthur Clark

During my very short trip to Egypt and Lebanon this summer, the first topic of discussion with regard to US - Middle East politics wasn't Iraq, it wasn't Afghanistan, it was Israel.

In the shadow of conflicts in which we are actively involved, the US public has a tendency to view US policy towards Israel as a less than defining aspect of US relations with the "Muslim World"*. However, the Israel-Palestine conflict should probably garner a little more of our attention for three reasons.

First: People in the Middle East think it is important. The 2008 Arab Public Opinion Poll [warning: this links to a download] by the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland found that 86% of Arabs (surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) considered the “Palestinian question” as one of their top three issues and 42% responded that the possibility that “continuing trouble in Iraq will divert attention from other issues such as the Palestinian question” was one of their top two biggest concerns as to the consequences of the Iraq war.

Public opinion in the Middle East is important to the US on the most simplistic level because of its effect upon the availability of recruits to groups like Al Qaeda. But it is also important, in a far more complex and perhaps more consequential sense, because of its general effect upon the possibility of healing the rift between the West and the Middle East and the consequences that this entails such as the forging of increased diplomatic ties and the possibility for change considered “Western” such as more diplomatic political systems and more freedom for women.

Second: The Israel-Palestine situation is changing. We have a tendency to focus upon Israel only when violence breaks out, however, despite the lack of a major Israeli (or Palestinian) offensive currently, we might do well to keep an eye on the politics and the much softer exertion of power by Israel through settlements in the occupied territories (and the debate between Israel and the Obama Whitehouse on this topic). Yes, this has been going on for decades, but with a new US president pushing Israel for change and a growing appreciation both internationally and within Israel that the whole situation is heading towards a two-state solution, these power postures may have a greater effect than their earlier counterparts.

Third: The solution to Israel-Palestine issue has the potential to be a very unstable one in a region with no need for further political instability. US policy in the region over the next few years has the opportunity to have a great affect upon the forging of this solution and upon the eventual stability of the fledgling Palestine likely to emerge from it.

The events in Israel and Palestine over the next year as well as the part the Obama administration plays in them could very well turn out to be defining points in US - Middle East relations.



*The term "Muslim World" is a thoroughly inadequate descriptor which is highly misleading as to the nature of the nations involved, however, there is a distinct lack of a better term that encompasses the region in question.

Edited to add a title.