Hollow Threats

Mitt Romney's aggressive harangues about China don't scare us. And does he really want to pick a fight with a nation of 1.3 billion people?

BY HU XIJIN | MARCH 21, 2012

BEIJING — Mitt Romney has said a lot of tough things about China. But his words haven't troubled the Chinese people.

This is because, over the last 20 years, the China policies of U.S. presidents have always been milder than the threats the same men made on the campaign trail. In other words, no one seriously thinks that a candidate will actually implement these tough policies. The Chinese people have already mentally prepared for the possibility of Sino-U.S. relations growing tenser, but this is the result of Sino-U.S. competition rapidly growing fiercer, not the possibility of Romney becoming president.

Romney's tough words toward China sound very empty, as if he's just communicating to the electorate his determination to be faithful to America's national interests. Attacking China on human rights and its political system and describing China as an "opponent" in military and economic areas makes the loyalty he has pledged to the United States seem more real. Barack Obama, as president, cannot directly attack China; Romney, as a candidate, will attack us every chance he gets -- if merely to make the point that Obama is constrained and weak.

Romney's most striking attack line toward China is his stated desire to call China a currency-manipulating country on his first day in the White House. Will he really do this? I don't know. But what's certain is that if he does end up in the White House, he wouldn't dare provoke an all-out trade war between China and the United States. Even if he does call China a currency manipulator, the label will be meaningless because of the hugeness of Sino-U.S. trade.

Sino-U.S. relations and those between the Soviet Union and the United States are completely different. The societies of the United States and the Soviet Union never came in contact with each other; their two countries' top officials decided everything about the relationship. But Sino-U.S. relations revolve around the two countries' robust societal and economic contacts. Their scale and prospects are big enough to trump the values and security interests that usually frame these two countries' relations.

The leaders of the United States and China admittedly can personally affect Sino-U.S. relations, but only in a limited way. They can influence the atmosphere of the relationship and other surface matters, but the two countries' core interests guide Sino-U.S. relations.

These relations could grow tenser in the future because the two countries' respective interests in the relationship have quietly changed since China's rise. If Romney gets elected, even if he doesn't continue to encourage anti-Chinese sentiment, there will be more friction between the two countries than there is today. The next U.S. president must work to limit the mistrust between the two countries and prevent them from exploding with suspicion.

The possibility that the United States will be able to contain China is very small because China's rise is a natural process with many forces behind it. Containing China would be difficult. At best, the United States can dedicate itself to lessening the damage China's rise will have on America's interests and enjoying the opportunities created by China's development.

I can understand America's vigilant attitude toward China. But I believe Americans will not be reckless in trying to contain China. In other words, as long as China doesn't provoke the United States, containing China won't become U.S. policy.

As for the U.S.-China row over things like rare earths, the exchange rate, and even human rights, all these conflicts have been very specific, and they haven't capsized the whole relationship. We believe the person whom the Americans elect to enter the White House will, at the very least, have rational thoughts. Romney won't make the mistake of turning a specific conflict into a showdown with 1.3 billion Chinese people.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Hu Xijin is editor in chief of the Global Times, a Chinese newspaper.

Isaac Stone Fish, an associate editor at Foreign Policy, translated this article from the Chinese.

ANON45

6:59 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Whats there to say, the article is a non-starter, empty talk.

This article is empty talk, its words won't have to be put to the test, because Obama is a shooin, Republican primaries are simply to pick who will lose to Obama.

Admittedly alot can happen in 8 months, but I just don't see Obama losing, even with Oil spikes that are due to an Iran war.

If the oil spikes were not due to an Iran war, that would be another story...

 

MICHAELGERALDPDEALINO

8:33 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Translate this to Chinese!

Chinese Communist imperialists, I am from a fellow Asian country and we say this: STOP TRYING TO BULLY OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES! RESPECT OUR SOVEREIGNTY! The entire South China Sea does not belong to you! Freedom for Tibet!

 

DELTA22

11:43 PM ET

March 21, 2012

-

You don't have to worry, Republicans hate Obama far more than they do China.

 

MOE DELAUN

7:43 AM ET

March 22, 2012

A Clear-Headed Voice

"At best, the United States can dedicate itself to lessening the damage China's rise will have on America's interests and enjoying the opportunities created by China's development.

"I can understand America's vigilant attitude toward China. But I believe Americans will not be reckless in trying to contain China. In other words, as long as China doesn't provoke the United States, containing China won't become U.S. policy."

An excellent and concise summation of what the two nations' strategic goals ought to be regarding each other.

 

KTS10110

1:39 PM ET

March 22, 2012

Maybe China should look around

We have allies on all sides of China and several of it's neighbors want an increased US presence. The Soviet Union was far more powerful than China and they were successfully contained. All this talk masks the fact that China still isn't even close to the US in terms of military and economic power. Their geographical position and overpopulation is going to create huge problems for them that the US won't have. Countries are getting tired of their mercantilist policies. American anger is growing and the Chinese would be wise to put aside their arrogant nationalist drivel before it's too late.

 

DMCASTRILLON

12:28 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Thoughts

I am not sure that the Chinese would disagree with what you said. They admit that they are far from being as militarily powerful as the US, and they have announced again and again that they are not seeking to challenge American global military preeminence anytime soon. Similarly, they are aware of the limitations in their economy, which is why they would do anything to avoid a bitter economic or trade war with the US. Instead, all they are saying is that the US needs to stop being a bully, and that it must stop infringing on what they perceive as their core interests: Tibet, Taiwan, the South China Sea, etc. So long as the US doesn't try to intervene in these, relations between the two will be stable. I don't think I have heard Romney say much about any of China's core interests. Has anyone? Any mention of them would trigger a real response from the Chinese.

 

SPOOD

4:02 PM ET

March 22, 2012

Some things to point out

1. Even Mitt Rommey doesn't take what he says on a campaign seriously

2. Its not like Chinese nationals are voting in the Republican Primary

3. The Chinese American vote is mostly Democrat and mostly against the government of the PRC.

4. China will implode with or without our efforts. [Think of the Japanese economic bubble of the 80's/90's times ten]

5. China can't extend its military power far beyond its borders. If it could, Taiwan would be theirs by now. All of their neighbors except for Tibet have kicked their keisters in the past.

6. China's economic power is limited as well. We could easily shift manufacturing jobs to India with much less headaches for foreign policy and probably will in the immediate future.

 

BLUE13326

8:09 AM ET

March 23, 2012

It's hilarious how Chinese

It's hilarious how Chinese and China's boosters break out that 1.3 billion people figure to try and not-so-subtly intimidate people.

Sorry, you don't scare us.

 

SHADOWHAWK43

8:48 AM ET

March 23, 2012

Agreed

Their 1.3 billion population can be a burden as much as it can be a blessing. Even after decades of modernization and strong government control they still can't feed hundreds of millions of people. The CCP, including Hu Xijin, knows this and fear their population more than anyone else. That's why they spend more to oppress their own citizens than they do for foreign defense i.e. their military. 1.3 billion doesn't intimidate us, it sounds more like it intimidates them.

 

SPOOD

3:35 PM ET

March 23, 2012

The Taiwanese have the best response to that figure

"Learn how to swim and we might worry about you"

 

XEROCADA1

8:34 PM ET

March 27, 2012

blue13326

The US isn't afraid of any country...look how we took on Grenada and Panama!

 

PRASAD MOTHADAKA

7:42 AM ET

March 24, 2012

HOLLOW THREATS

First: Agreed presidents do change but not the policies (AFP).
Second: In reality China is not at all threat to US
Third: If thre is a flaw in ping pong diplomacy it is about not visualising properly the growth rate of China in context of collapse of Soviet Union and its competing ability in the world market. But then the same can be seen as advantage as capitalistic economy thrives on comptetion. Hence, USA needs continuous growth rate of China and its ability sustain the same.
Romney has right to speak, after all it is campaign time.

 

KENT BOYLEN

4:19 AM ET

April 17, 2012

U.S.-China Cooperation

According to some article, President Obama (Feb. 14): "As I indicated during my recent visit to APEC and the East Asia Summit, the United States is a Pacific nation. And we are very interested and very focused on continuing to strengthen our relationships, to enhance our trade and our commerce, and make sure that we are a strong and effective partner with the Asia Pacific region. And obviously, in order to do that, it is absolutely vital that we have a strong relationship with China. Over the last three years I’ve had a great opportunity to develop a strong working relationship with President Hu. And we have continually tried to move forward on the basis of recognizing that a cooperative relationship based on mutual interest and mutual respect is not only in the interests of the United States and China, but is also in the interest of the region and in the interest of the United States.