LexisNexis(TM) Academic - Document
Copyright 2005 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)
July 18, 2005 Monday
London Edition 1
SECTION: LEADER; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 481 words
HEADLINE: US-China relations must resist the hawks Belligerence and populism threaten a vital partnership
BODY:
Major-General Zhu Chenghu is a senior Chinese military officer and dean at Beijing's National Defence University. He is also a notorious hawk on questions of nuclear doctrine. So when he declares that China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US in any future conflict over Taiwan, it is both alarming and predictable. He represents widespread thinking in the People's Liberation Army, but he is an extremist: a Chinese version of Curtis LeMay, the former US air force general who proposed massive nuclear pre-emptive strikes during the cold war.
The danger is that Gen Zhu's words, delivered at a briefing of foreign correspondents in Beijing last week, could scarcely have come at a worse time in terms of US-China relations. Anti-China hawks in Washington are eager to seize on any evidence of Chinese belligerence to justify draconian restrictions on trade and investment in the US Congress. The general has obliged, even though other Chinese officials have played down his views.
The Pentagon's annual report on the Chinese military is due for publication next week. It is expected to be more critical than usual, although the White House has toned down some of the language forecasting a dramatic increase in firepower by the 2020s.
On Capitol Hill, however, senators and congressmen are preparing to pass protectionist legislation such as the Schumer-Graham bill that would impose a 27.5 per cent tariff on Chinese exports. The recent Dollars 18.5bn (Pounds 10.6bn) bid by CNOOC, the Chinese energy group, for Unocal, has galvanised the anti-China lobby, which demands the sale be blocked on security grounds.
The White House knows such actions would be counter-productive and badly damage a vital strategic relationship. Not least, George W. Bush, US president, needs China's help to contain the far more immediate nuclear threat from North Korea. But the administration has been strangely half-hearted in its resistance to the anti-China brigade. It is putting its faith in a revaluation of the renminbi, which may not happen soon if Congress is seen to demand it.
The problem lies in the lack of a clear view from Mr Bush on how the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century should develop - and the lack of priority in developing one. US business, which has a huge stake in maintaining an open trading partnership with China, is cautious about speaking out against the prevailing mood. The result is that US policy towards China is in danger of being hijacked by populism and exaggerated fears over cheap Chinese imports, Chinese investment and nuclear capacity.
None of this excuses the unguarded words of Gen Zhu. He should be firmly rebuked in Beijing. The danger is that without a clear commitment to the strategic relationship on both sides, and a willingness to speak out in favour of close engagement, policy will be driven by the hawks on both sides.
LOAD-DATE: July 17, 2005
Financial Times (London, England)
July 18, 2005 Monday
London Edition 1
SECTION: LEADER; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 481 words
HEADLINE: US-China relations must resist the hawks Belligerence and populism threaten a vital partnership
BODY:
Major-General Zhu Chenghu is a senior Chinese military officer and dean at Beijing's National Defence University. He is also a notorious hawk on questions of nuclear doctrine. So when he declares that China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US in any future conflict over Taiwan, it is both alarming and predictable. He represents widespread thinking in the People's Liberation Army, but he is an extremist: a Chinese version of Curtis LeMay, the former US air force general who proposed massive nuclear pre-emptive strikes during the cold war.
The danger is that Gen Zhu's words, delivered at a briefing of foreign correspondents in Beijing last week, could scarcely have come at a worse time in terms of US-China relations. Anti-China hawks in Washington are eager to seize on any evidence of Chinese belligerence to justify draconian restrictions on trade and investment in the US Congress. The general has obliged, even though other Chinese officials have played down his views.
The Pentagon's annual report on the Chinese military is due for publication next week. It is expected to be more critical than usual, although the White House has toned down some of the language forecasting a dramatic increase in firepower by the 2020s.
On Capitol Hill, however, senators and congressmen are preparing to pass protectionist legislation such as the Schumer-Graham bill that would impose a 27.5 per cent tariff on Chinese exports. The recent Dollars 18.5bn (Pounds 10.6bn) bid by CNOOC, the Chinese energy group, for Unocal, has galvanised the anti-China lobby, which demands the sale be blocked on security grounds.
The White House knows such actions would be counter-productive and badly damage a vital strategic relationship. Not least, George W. Bush, US president, needs China's help to contain the far more immediate nuclear threat from North Korea. But the administration has been strangely half-hearted in its resistance to the anti-China brigade. It is putting its faith in a revaluation of the renminbi, which may not happen soon if Congress is seen to demand it.
The problem lies in the lack of a clear view from Mr Bush on how the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century should develop - and the lack of priority in developing one. US business, which has a huge stake in maintaining an open trading partnership with China, is cautious about speaking out against the prevailing mood. The result is that US policy towards China is in danger of being hijacked by populism and exaggerated fears over cheap Chinese imports, Chinese investment and nuclear capacity.
None of this excuses the unguarded words of Gen Zhu. He should be firmly rebuked in Beijing. The danger is that without a clear commitment to the strategic relationship on both sides, and a willingness to speak out in favour of close engagement, policy will be driven by the hawks on both sides.
LOAD-DATE: July 17, 2005
posted by Eastlaw at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home