Xi's India visit to strengthen ties

BEIJING, Sept. 9 -- Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to India and other South Asian countries will push forward bilateral relations, a senior diplomat said on Tuesday.
Invited by Maldives President Abdulla Yameen, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Indian President Pranab Mukherjee, Xi will pay state visits to the Maldives, Sri Lanka and India later this month.
Xi's visit to the three countries will have significant and profound effects, Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Jianchao said at a press conference.
During his India tour, Xi will meet with Mukherjee, hold talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and meet other Indian leaders. Xi will give a speech in New Delhi on China-India relations and China's South Asia policy and make extensive contacts with Indian people from all walks of life.
As the two biggest developing countries and emerging economies, both China and India are committed to economic development and improving the lives of their people. They stand for a new international order that is more just and equitable.
The development of China and India are each other's opportunity and peaceful, cooperative and inclusive development will not only benefit the two peoples but Asia and the world. The two countries have kept up boundary negotiations and ensured the peace and stability of the border area.
Xi's visit to the Maldives, Sri Lanka and India will push forward the construction of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, said Liu.
The president's South Asia tour will also set up a framework for China-South Asia cooperation in the future and promote common development and prosperity, he said.

Editor:Liang Jun、Bianji

The West should not criticize Sino-Russia energy cooperation

September 11, 2014: China and Russia have started to build a joint natural gas pipeline in accordance with the terms of a natural gas supply contract signed between the two countries in May. Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli and Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the opening ceremony.
The two countries signed a series of 30-year agreements on natural gas projects such as a USD 400 billion contract for Russia to supply 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China from 2018.
China will start to build the Chinese sector of the pipeline in the first half of 2015. China and Russia are working to promote bilateral cooperation.
However, both the Financial Times and The International New York Times have offered the view that China has emerged as a "winner" from the Ukraine crisis.
According to The International New York Times, Bobo Lo, a specialist in Chinese and Russian foreign policy, is claiming that while the United States and European Union have imposed economic sanctions on Russia over its interventions in eastern Ukraine, China has stood apart and sought to gain concrete advantages.
Such complaints from western countries are groundless.
Fundamentally, cooperation between China and Russia is not a matter of expediency but of mutual benefit. Russia is abundant with energy, especially in East Siberia and the Far East. Meanwhile, China is a big energy consumer. Natural gas imports are increasing year by year. China is increasingly reliant on foreign countries for energy. Therefore, China and Russia are complementary in respect of energy cooperation.
Cooperation between China and Russia is beneficial to the development of East Siberia and the Far East and can promote infrastructure in Russia including roads, substations and power stations. Furthermore, Russia can diversify its energy exports.
 Therefore, Russia will not sacrifice its economic interests for support in the Ukraine conflict.
This round of cooperation is based on a long period of negotiations. China and Russia have signed numerous agreements including bilateral cooperation, routes, and pricing of natural gas.
Western countries have no grounds to criticize China. China has long been opposed to solving disputes via sanctions. “It is imperative for all to cease fire, stay calm and promote political settlement of the Ukraine crisis by making use of current communication and coordination mechanisms,” says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang.
Western countries cannot interfere with China-Russia cooperation since this cooperation is comprehensive, strategic, stable and permanent.

The article is edited and translated from《中俄能源合作升级水到渠成（望海楼）》, source: People's Daily Overseas Edition, author: Su Xiaohui, Deputy Director of Department for International and Strategic Studies, China Institute of International Studies 
Editor:Yuan Can、Huang Jin

“Rich” China still needs foreign investment

September 11, 2014.
In the past 20 years, foreign owned companies have made a great contribution to China’s social progress and have become an integral part of China’s economy. Although China has enjoyed rapid development and a wealth of capital, it will never stop trying to attract foreign capital and it will never turn its back on foreign companies. China’s policy of investment and cooperation will not change, said Wang Yang, deputy Prime Minster of China’s State Council.
The basic policy of attracting foreign capital has not changed.
With China’s GDP ranking 2nd in the world, its companies are becoming more competitive. The pattern of attracting foreign investment inwards and encouraging domestic companies to go abroad is shifting, but China’s basic policy of attracting foreign capital has never changed. To date it has attracted 1.5 trillion dollars in foreign direct investment, topping the developing world for 22 years. In 2013 it attracted 124 billion dollars and ranked 2nd in the world. At the same time, foreign-owned companies have also gained great benefits in China - 85% of foreign-owned enterprises are making profits and 90% are willing to expand their investment in China.“Money” is not only the focus in terms of attracting foreign capital.
Foreign capital has two functions in reform and opening-up. Foreign capital helps China to become the world’s largest trader, manufacturer and exporter, and plays a role in helping China to integrate into the world.
 However, in the process of attracting the foreign capital China has not significantly improved its technology and scientific research level. Wang Yang noted that it is important to introduce advanced technology, sophisticated management techniqes, and intellectual resources. To set up an economic system consistent with international rules plays a key role in upgrading China’s economy.
Creating a fair investment environment is the key.
Creating a fair investment environment is an increasingly important means of attracting foreign capital. A fair competitive environment is more attractive to foreign companies than preferential policies. As a result, China will make its market more open to outside investors and supranational privilege will be eliminated in attracting foreign capital. Private, state-owned and foreign enterprises should be treated equally.
 
The article is edited and translated from《引进先进技术经验 借鉴成熟市场做法》, source: People's Daily Overseas Edition, author: Zhou Xiaoyuan

Editor:张媛、Huang Jin

Chinese, Russian presidents meet ahead of SCO summit

DUSHANBE, Sept. 11 -- Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, met here Thursday ahead of the 14th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
It is the fourth meeting between the two leaders so far this year. Xi held talks with Putin in February before the Sochi Winter Olympic Games, and then in May during the fourth summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia in Shanghai.
The two presidents met again in July in Brazil ahead of a summit of the emerging-market bloc of BRICS, which groups Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Xi has held talks or met with Putin for nine times since he assumed the office of Chinese presidency in March 2013, which testifies to the high level and distinctiveness of China-Russia relations.
Both Xi and Putin will attend the 14th summit of the SCO slated for Thursday and Friday in the Tajik capital.

 

Editor:Sun Zhao、Yao Chun

Source: People'sDaily

Japan, U.S. discussing offensive military capability for Tokyo

10th September, 2014, Tokyo - Japan and the United States are exploring the possibility of Tokyo acquiring offensive weapons that would allow Japan to project power far beyond its borders, Japanese officials said, a move that would likely infuriate China.

While Japan’s intensifying rivalry with China dominates the headlines, Tokyo’s focus would be the ability to take out North Korean missile bases, said three Japanese officials involved in the process.

They said Tokyo was holding the informal, previously undisclosed talks with Washington about capabilities that would mark an enhancement of military might for a country that has not fired a shot in anger since its defeat in World War Two.

The talks on what Japan regards as a “strike capability” are preliminary and do not cover specific hardware at this stage, the Japanese officials told Reuters.

Defense experts say an offensive capability would require a change in Japan’s purely defensive military doctrine, which could open the door to billions of dollars worth of offensive missile systems and other hardware. These could take various forms, such as submarine-fired cruise missiles similar to the U.S. Tomahawk.

U.S. officials said there were no formal discussions on the matter but did not rule out the possibility that informal contacts on the issue had taken place. One U.S. official said Japan had approached American officials informally last year about the matter.

Japan’s military is already robust but is constrained by a pacifist Constitution. The Self Defense Forces have dozens of naval surface ships, 16 submarines and three helicopter carriers, with more vessels under construction. Japan is also buying 42 advanced F-35 stealth fighter jets.

Reshaping the military into a more assertive force is a core policy of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He has reversed a decade of military spending cuts, ended a ban on Japanese troops fighting abroad and eased curbs on arms exports.

Tokyo had dropped a request to discuss offensive capabilities during high-profile talks on revising guidelines for the U.S.-Japan security alliance which are expected to be finished by year-end, the Japanese officials said. Instead, the sensitive issue was “being discussed on a separate track”, said one official with direct knowledge of the matter.

But any deal with Washington is years away and the obstacles are significant - from the costs to the heavily indebted Japanese government to concerns about ties with Asian neighbors such as China and sensitivities within the alliance itself.

The Japanese officials said their U.S. counterparts were cautious to the idea, partly because it could outrage China, which accuses Abe of reviving wartime militarism.

The officials declined to be identified because they were not authorised to discuss the closed-door deliberations. A Japanese Defense Ministry spokesman said he could not comment on negotiations with Washington.

Japan would need U.S. backing for any shift in military doctrine because it would change the framework of the alliance, often described as America supplying the “sword” of forward-based troops and nuclear deterrence while Japan holds the defensive “shield”.

Washington did not have a position on upgrading Japan’s offensive capabilities, “in part because the Japanese have not developed a specific concept or come to us with a specific request”, said another U.S. official.

“We’re not there yet - and they’re not there yet,” the official said. “We’re prepared to have that conversation when they’re ready.”

North Korea lies less than 600 km (370 miles) from Japan at the closest point.

Pyongyang, which regularly fires short-range rockets into the sea separating the Koreas from Japan, has improved its ballistic missile capabilities and conducted three nuclear weapons tests, its most recent in February 2013.

In April, North Korea said that in the event of war on the Korean Peninsula, Japan would be “consumed in nuclear flames”.

Part of Japan’s motivation for upgrading its capabilities is a nagging suspicion that the United States, with some 28,000 troops in South Korea as well as 38,000 in Japan, might hesitate to attack the North in a crisis, Japanese experts said.

U.S. forces might hold off in some situations, such as if South Korea wanted to prevent an escalation, said Narushige Michishita, a national security adviser to the Japanese government from 2004-2006.

“We might want to maintain some kind of limited strike capability in order to be able to initiate a strike, so that we can tell the Americans, ‘unless you do the job for us, we will have to do it on our own,’” said Michishita, a security expert at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.

Reflecting Japan’s concerns, Abe told parliament in May 2013 that it was vital “not to give the mistaken impression that the American sword would not be used” in an emergency.

“At this moment is it really acceptable for Japan to have to plead with the U.S. to attack a missile threatening to attack Japan?” Abe said.

Under current security guidelines, in the event of a ballistic missile attack, “U.S. forces will provide Japan with necessary intelligence and consider, as necessary, the use of forces providing additional strike power”.

The informal discussions on offensive capabilities cover all options, from Japan continuing to rely completely on Washington to getting the full panoply of weaponry itself.

Japan would like to reach a conclusion in about five years, and then start acquiring hardware, one Japanese official said.

Tokyo had wanted the discussions included in the review of the Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation Guidelines that are expected to cover areas such as logistical support and cybersecurity. Those talks, which formally kicked off last October, are the first in 17 years.

But the United States was keen to keep discussions on offensive capabilities separate to avoid riling China and South Korea, another Japanese official said. Beijing and Seoul each have territorial disputes with Tokyo and accuse Abe of failing to atone for Japan’s wartime aggression.

Reflecting the sensitivities of the issue even in Japan, any talk of an upgraded offensive capability is shrouded in euphemism.

Itsunori Onodera, who stepped down last week as defense minister in a broad cabinet reshuffle, a year ago described it as “the capability to attack enemies’ military bases and strategic bases for the sake of self-defense”.

Defense guidelines compiled by the government in December watered this down to a “potential form of response capability to address the means of ballistic-missile launches and related facilities”.

Written by: Nobuhiro Kubo

Source: Japan Today

More than half of Chinese see war with Japan: poll

11 September, 2014, Tokyo - More than half of Chinese people think their country could go to war with Japan in the future, a new poll revealed Wednesday, after two years of intense diplomatic squabbles.

A survey conducted in both nations found that 53.4% of Chinese envisage a future conflict, with more than a fifth of those saying it would happen “within a few years”, while 29% of Japanese view military confrontation as a possibility.

The findings come ahead of the second anniversary Thursday of Japan’s nationalisation of disputed islands in the East China Sea that have formed the focus of tensions between the Asian giants.

Underlining the lingering row over the Tokyo-controlled Senkaku Islands, four Chinese coast guard vessels sailed into their territorial waters on Wednesday morning.

China regards them as its territory and calls them the Diaoyu Islands.

The survey was conducted by Japanese non-governmental organisation the Genron NPO and the China Daily, a Chinese state-run newspaper, in July and August.

It questioned 1,000 Japanese aged 18 or older and 1,539 Chinese of the same age range in five cities: Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Shenyang and Xian.

In the annual opinion poll which started in 2005, 93% of Japanese respondents said their impression of China was “unfavorable,” worsening from 90.1% last year and the highest level since the survey began.

The percentage of Chinese who have an unfavorable impression of Japan stood at 86.8 percent, an improvement on 92.8% last year.

“The most common reason for the unfavorable impression of China among the Japanese public was ‘China’s actions are incompatible with international rules’ at 55.1%,” Genron NPO and the China Daily said in a joint statement.

That was closely followed by “China’s actions to secure resources, energy and food look selfish” at 52.8%.

The third most commonly-given reason was “criticism of Japan over historical issues” at 52.2%, while “continuous confrontation over the Senkaku islands” came fourth place at 50.4%, it said.

“On the other hand, ‘The Diaoyu/Senkaku islands’ (64%) and ‘historical understanding’ (59.6%) were the two prominent reasons for the unfavorable impression of Japan among the Chinese public,” it said.

Despite a huge trade relationship and their deeply interwoven economies, relations between Tokyo and Beijing have seen several periods of deterioration over recent decades.

But ties have been particularly bad since late 2012 when Japan nationalised the Senkakus, a move it says was just an administrative change, but which China says was a provocation.

Beijing regularly insists that Japan has not atoned enough for its imperialist past, and lambasts nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for an “incorrect” understanding of history and what it describes as his intention to remilitarise.

For its part, Tokyo accuses Beijing of dwelling on the past for domestic political reasons and says that in the seven decades since World War II it has apologised repeatedly and trodden a pacifist path.

In an editorial, the China Daily described the poll as “worrying”, commenting that “these findings should be concerning” for leaders in both countries.

“There is a need for a meeting between the leaders of both countries to reverse the deteriorating relations,” the paper said, but added: “the ball is in Japan’s court.”

“Abe needs to show Chinese leaders with his actual deeds that he is sincere about improving relations.”

Abe has repeatedly said his door is open for dialogue and called for a summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, but has so far been rebuffed.

Source: Japan Today

New internal affairs minister says she will visit Yasukuni Shrine

September 6, 2014, TOKYO —

Japan’s new internal affairs minister said on Friday she intends to visit Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine although she did not address concern that her new position is likely to exacerbate neighboring countries’ anger over what they see as a symbol of militarism.

The shrine honors Japan’s war dead, including 14 leaders convicted as war criminals by an Allied tribunal.

Neighboring countries which suffered under Japanese occupation during World War Two regard politicians’ visits to pay respects at the shrine as evidence of Japan’s failure to atone for its aggression.

“I’ve been visiting Yasukuni as one Japanese individual to offer my sincere appreciation to the spirits of war dead,” the new minister, Sanae Takaichi, told a group of reporters. “I intend to continue offering my sincere appreciation as one Japanese.”

Takaichi, who was appointed on Wednesday, belongs to a group of lawmakers advocating visits to the shrine which politicians typically visit on days such as Aug 15, the anniversary of Japan’s World War Two defeat.

Visits by cabinet ministers especially anger China and South Korea, where memories of Japan’s wartime aggression are raw.

The new defense minister, Akinori Eto, also a member of the lawmakers’ group that advocates visiting the shrine, told a news conference on Wednesday when asked about the shrine he did not want to cause trouble for the government, indicating a more cautious stance.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe paid his respects at the shrine in December, aggravating ties with China and South Korea, with which relations had already been strained over territorial disputes.

 Source: Japan Today

A New Type of Great Power Relationship

China's Keenness for A New Type of Great Power Relationship

Chinese leaders seems to have been quite keen to bring up this topic of "Great Power Relationship" in recent meetings with US leaders. The latest example was at Sunnylands. This seems to be indicate a deep-lying desire to cement the structure of a G2 with the US. It reveals not just a desire for greater recognition but more than that it is a demand for full acceptance of  China's Great Power status so that they can start wielding greater weight on the global stage.

A number of experts from both China and US have commented on these latest development which provide help to shed some light on this issue. Stapleton Roy a  a senior retired United States diplomat specializing in Chinese affairs has succinctly described the search for a Great Power Relationship as an effort to reverse the flow towards Strategic Rivalry. Let us cover below some speakers who have been speaking currently on this issue.

Robert Zoellick 

Robert Zoellick the ex-President of the World Bank and a Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush administration (and a Goldman Sachs managing director) has come out with what can be seen as the American response to these Chinese overtures. He has written a long article "US China and Thucydies" in The National Interest dated June 25, 2013, wherein he says he has explored the likely nature of this new type of great-power relationship between China and the United States. But more than that this is a clear articulation of American expectations from the Chinese side.

He begins by clarifying, for increasingly worried readers, that the US is not in decline and that China has not really achieved Developed nation status. He points out that since 1960 out of 101 middle class nations only 13 have reached developed country status. And China is not even really a middle class nation. This seems to be a valiant attempt to bolster US softpower and tackle the attractiveness of the Chinese growth story. Many in the West have begun pointing out to a world over-awed by China, that, despite China's astonishing rise in per capita income over the last three decades, the per capita income of China is still low vis-a-vis the West. However, such analysts quietly forget to mention that for international relations GDP is the more significant indicator - Comprehensive National Power (CNP) is a function of GDP and not per capita GDP. By all indications Chinese GDP should cross the US GDP (in PPP terms) somewhere in the 2017-2020 range when China will become the number one economy in the world. This awareness of a coming era of unequalled Chinese CNP is in itself creating a new climate of international relations. Witness how Australia despite the Asia Pivot has made a radical turn towards China in the Boao Forum this year culminating in a Strategic Partnership between China and Australia and a commitment for annual leaders meetings. (Please click HERE.) And this is a fact which cannot be brushed away by diverting to the relative poverty of a Chinese citizen (low income and a much lower wealth/ asset base of each citizen which will only build up after decades of high per capita income).

He has concentrated mainly on the economic and security issues. He uses arguments made by others to politely but skilfully build a tight argument against the Chinese side. Although diplomatically toned one can read a note of exasperation when he list the numerous things which need to be done to improve things. His quiet frustration becomes evident when one finds that most of the deliverables on these contentious issues are being awaited from the Chinese side. For example he raises the need of a new global service-sector agreement under the auspices of the WTO and greater respect for and adherence to intellectual rights. He also points out the anachronism of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in the modern world as it reports not to the State but to very high-levels within the Party. The PLA behaves like an autonomous power center which through its independent (sometimes arbitrary) actions has the potential to vitiate diplomacy with China. He adds that in the new monetary system there will perhaps be multiple reserve currencies but for that China will have to move to an open capital account. Like all westerners he tends to proselytize about the need for a greater private sector role to spur innovation and efficiency.

On the whole, through this laundry list of issues, he seems to be demanding a shift in the Chinese governance system from the Chinese towards the Western model. That the Chinese model should give up its distinctiveness and become more like the Western model. No doubt the Chinese model has always tried to "use" the Western model as a guide. But one must remember that this "use" of western institutions and processes and economic policies has simultaneously been accompanied with a fanatic determination to make people-centric or security-centric alterations and then call these as "Chinese characteristics" of the western model. These deliberate and crucial alterations are the essence of the Chinese model despite its clearly western roots. Zoellick perhaps wants to prod the challenger (China) into accepting the leader's (West) model in toto so that the softpower of the Western model stays unchallenged. And that a real End to History can be ensured. A judicious mix of carrots and stick seems to have been adroitly used. One can sense that perhaps the US is regaining confidence and returning back to the driver's seat. That it has not given up abjectly on the Asia Region as Obama had once almost done quite early on in his first term.

At one point he refers to the growing and unbecoming aggressiveness of the Chinese and challenges Chinese motivations quite bluntly: "Have Chinese critics of the current international system considered the costs of, and others’ reactions to, new Chinese aims?" He then lists a number of advantageous points of mutual interest between China and the US but says these can be  overwhelmed by the issues which have risen in the Asian-Pacific region. He is alluding here to the host of South China issues which have embroiled China  lately - with Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. At this stage he clearly goes into warning mode and says that China has few friends and most of them poor and America has lot of prosperous allies who look upto the US as a friend and ally and cautions that China's assertion should not look like a threat otherwise it will lead to counter-reactions. He says should China should make allies with the US allies if it wants to avoid its encirclement. He highlights Japan and these strong protective words by Zoellick should offer considerable reassurance to Japan. Japan like India had been apprehensive about the impact of G2 and specifically of the Sunnylands summit. There had been some talk that the Senkakus dispute had not been raised by the US. This portion of the article referring to the Asian-Pacific security issues must have been worked over and reworked over many times in policy circles. One needs to go over it carefully.

And then he goes on to speak of North Korea at length. He seems to be putting the onus of change in North Korea clearly on the Chinese and not just on the North Koreans. He seems to be saying that just getting the North Koreans to the negotiation table will not be considered enough.

And then he comes to the issue which was to have taken center-stage at Sunnylands but was sidetracked by the personal surveillance and tracking story which arose at the time of the summit. He lists the various aspects of cyber issues like espionage; economic espionage; sabotage; warfare, etc.

He also mentions the issues of human rights and freedom but briefly and only in passing. He avoids going into it, because he says that China is probably deliberating on these issues in its quest for better governance and rule of law. It appears he does not want to use this forum to raise negative issues which are received with hostility and suspicion by the Chinese side. It seems his aim is much bigger. He is looking at the bigger picture and the longer term. He wants to point out the big American concerns in the strongest possible manner without getting sidetracked into diversions and lesser issues.

Probably with an intention to provoke a clear response from the Chinese, he refers to an ongoing debate in the US about whether China’s understanding of International Relations will in the long run allow it to accept only a system where it is the “Middle Kingdom” and it has only accepts tributary relationships. He seems to be dismissively setting aside the current stated Chinese position of multilateralism and quizzing the Chinese quite bluntly about their longer term objectives  in the International Relations arena.

Finally he concludes by saying that the the reality is just the opposite of the perceptions. US though the existing power is not afraid of change. Changes is what it has handled very well since its founding. On the other hand the Chinese, though a rising power have been traditional. Perhaps he might have been itching to  add just good imitator-tinkerers. He says that US-China relations should not fall into the "Thucydides trap". He refers to this concept described  by Prof's Nye and Graham Allison. They have said that Thucydides pointed out to the fear which a rising Athens had created in Sparta. And how this animosity had trapped the two city-states into a downward conflictual spiral. Zoellick says that the challenge which the US and China face is to avoid such a trap which can vitiate the atmosphere and lead to conflict. The mutual destruction is pointed out as a possibility but maybe it is also brought up as a veiled threat.

On the whole one can say that this is a clear and even blunt article which states that the Great Power status needs to be earned and cannot be achieved by reckless, arrogant and destabilizing behaviour. However, at the same he also holds out the hope of a great shared future. He does not fall into the trap of looking at China and the world with rosy eyed spectacles.

Please click here to read the full article.

There are a few other interesting article on the same topic.

David Lampton

First is by a very well-know China expert. Prof David M. Lampton who has written "A New Type of Major-Power Relationship: Seeking a Durable Foundation for U.S.-China Ties" in the latest Asia Policy (July 2013).  Please click here to read.

Jeff Bader at Brookings 

One can find a couple of discussions of this issue at the Brookings website.

First, Jeffrey Bader has analysed the issue while delivering the 2013 Barnett-Oksenberg Lecture on Sino-American Relations on May 14, 2013. Please click here to read.

Bader point out through several examples that the co-existence of a dominant power and a rising contender has been the source of a number of conflicts in history. He says that the US-China relationship also carries the potential for conflict. He qualifies his remarks by saying that there is nothing dialectically inevitable about such conflicts. There is a significant role which is played by leaders and people. Therein lies the potential for developing trust and rising above conflict. However conflict avoidance and trust building is not a small and easy matter. Presently, there is a growing trend within the US-China relationship, towards mutually reinforced suspicions and degenerating perceptions. He says that, "there is a belief on the Chinese side that the U.S. side seeks to contain China ....a belief on the American side that China seeks to supplant the United States and corrode its global influence". Continuing with this theme he refers to a recent essay by leading scholars Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi, "Addressing U.S.-China Distrust", which ominously forecasts growing distrust unless significant course correction is made.

Finally, Bader goes to the core of what he believes should be the basis of a New Great Power Relationship between the US and China. He identifies four significant areas where they must focus their attention because he feels that is where there is a major potential for cooperation. Or conflict. These areas are:

• Bilateral economic relations - which can include trade imbalances and unbalanced China model. And competition in third country markets - say Africa or Latin America.
• Global problems where China and US are significantly involved - say in climate change, non-proliferation, disease control, counterterrorism, cyberintrusions.
• Competition in the Asia Pacific - with growing Chinese power including naval power (implies aggressiveness) and the American focus in the region
• Handling Third country instability/ Hot spots 

Basically this can be said to be a laundry list of the American side which focuses on American perceptions. The Chinese would of course come up with a similar list of what they expect from the American side as a means of restoring mutual trust and 'harmony'.

Madame Fu Ying

The topic of a new US-China Great Power relationship has also been discussed at the Brookings website in a talk given by Madame Fu Ying, who is currently the the spokesperson for China’s national legislature the National People's Congress and is also the chairperson of the NPC’s Foreign Affairs Committee. She is a career diplomat who has served in various capacities as Ambassador to Australia and United Kingdom and very recently as former vice minister of Foreign Affairs. One can see, she is eminently qualified to provide the Chinese perspective on the topic. Interestingly, she is an ethnic Mongol from and speaks in English. The transcript of her talk at Brookings on June 12, 2013, can be downloaded by clicking here. The mp3 audio link of this talk can be accessed here.

Her talk covers a number of issues including the Great Power relationship issue. It starts with the differences at the terminology level. US side uses the term "Great Powers" for US & China, while China prefers to use "Major Countries". China does not accept that it is a Great Power, though these days many Western people regard China to be a world power or a No. 2 power.

Next she clarifies why China asks for equal treatment. In US analysts ask "Why is China so ambitious to try to be equal to US?" Is it a demonstration of ambition? China believes in equality of countries irrespective of size or power.

She goes on to identify what is the greatest achievement of modern China. She says with certainty that it is the provision of food for 1.3 billion people. Till 1993, Chinese people were distributed food with coupons but now hunger and food shortages are eliminated.

She lists the current set of problems which China faces.

She goes on to describe the leadership's vision of the Future China. In this connection, she specifies two paramount goals which China has set forth for itself at the 18th NPC. First, China intends to double per capita income of 2010, by 2021 the centenary year for the Communist Party of China. China should be able to achieve this goal in the eight years, if it maintains a growth rate of 7%. Therefore, this is a crucial minimum benchmark of GDP growth which the Xi-Li leadership faces. Second, by centenary year of the Communist republic 2049 China plans to develop into a strong, prosperous, democratic and culturally advanced and harmonious socialist society. The leadership is firm on continuing reform and opening up to the outside world. Government functions will be readjusted to allow Market and Society to allow both of them to maximize performance with good regulations. Government will provide framework for competition and looking after the marginalized. The country will strive towards industrialization, informatization, agricultural modernization and urbanization. Urbanization in the near future will be the greatest in the world - 600 million.

A long problem consists of environment pollution, energy security, slowing down of economy. A new model of development is required. Underlying all this improved rule of law. NPC will have to increase its law making capacity - especially in people-centric area's. Law quality, compliance and enforcement needs to improve. US can join in as a partner in this endeavor. There are so many opportunities for all. China cannot achieve its goals unless there is a peaceful world environment. Many developing countries are now growing fast and their share in world economy is expanding and their gap with the developed world is narrowing. But China does not share the view that "World power is shifting to East". In reality power does not seem to be changing hands. World issues are more globalized and due to globalization and internet power is getting diffused and trans-national.

She says that America is at a great peak with the highest end technology, strongest brands

She says that the main trend of the world - shi - towards which all national leaders should lead the is in the direction of peace and development. Asia is on the road to development because of the long period of peace it is enjoying. Deng was able to foresee this and in view of this peace directed China towards development.

China hopes that principles agreed to with ASEAN countries on how to maintain tranquility in disputed areas are respected to maintain peace. The US has long had an influence over Asia which China has respected but questions are being raised in recent years. In the past US has invested in Europe in the Cold War and then in the Middle East against terrorism after 911, but it has now shifted attention to Asia which has been doing well. The countries in the region including China expect that US-China can work to maintain the ongoing trend of peace and development and that this trend is not disturbed. A new model of relationship between US and China is necessary and in process. On global issues like nuclear proliferation, cyber threats, ecological sustainability, etc. all countries are on the same page.

Wang Yi  

Another instance of the Chinese perspective on this issue has been obtained, during a recent talk (June 27, 2013) given by the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at Tsinghua University at the World Peace Forum. His talk was on a similar topic - Major Power Diplomacy. He covers the recent foreign visits of President Xin Jiping, talking first about his first foreign visit to Russia. Importantly, he pointed out the China-Russia relationship as a model "for major countries to deepen trust and cooperation in the new era". He then goes on to mention the meeting between President Xi Jinping and President  Obama at Sunnylands. While giving a positive spin, he says, that Obama and Xi Jinping,"agreed to build a new model of major-country relations between China and the United States. The core elements of this new model are mutual respect, win-win cooperation, no conflict, no confrontation. President Obama stated that the United States welcomes a strong, successful, prosperous and stable China and is willing to work with China as equal partners(!) in dealing with many of the global(!) challenges. President Xi hopes that China and the United States will work together and act as the anchor of stability and propeller of peace in the world." Note the involvement of China by the US at the "global" level! These crucial points need to be verified from the American side. Please click here to read the full speech.

Another article  is related to the topic. "Can U.S.-Chinese Relations Be Saved?" by Michael Auslin, also in The National Interest dated June 12, 2013. Please click here to read.

Another very fascinating secondary International Relations trend is visible to those who are watchful. The American Pivot to Asia despite all the denials of the US government is working in the direction of containing China Rise. But this Pivot to Asia has powerful implications in other regions. It has created huge domestic turmoil within power circles in the US and Israel. The powerful group of "supporters" of Israel in the US government; in the media and in public forums have erupted in anger at this growing America emphasis on Asia. They would like a continued focus on the Middle East to make sure that  the vast US foreign policy and military resources continue to be pumped into the Middle East in support of Israel. They have been unable to tolerate this downgrading of emphasis on the Middle East. This group is extremely powerful and capable and inventive and very good at marketing their own agenda as if it is the American agenda and have been able to divert American resources for decades in support of Israel.

One can make further intelligent deductions based on the above facts. The resolution with which American foreign policy has stuck to its Pivot to Asia in the face of powerful resistance from the dominant actors who support Israel, indicates that a group of patriotic American foreign policy experts have emerged who are very focussed on and alarmed by China Rise. They have realized that things cannot go on as usual. China Rise needs the complete attention of the US and diversions as in earlier days can no longer be tolerated. The very fact that the powerful Israel supporters have been over-ruled is a clear indication of the seriousness and determination with which the China challenge is being viewed in the US foreign policy circles.

The latest and most fascinating example of a US foreign policy experts standing up to the pro-Israel discourse and persisting eloquently with the China Pivot can be seen in a debate between Richard Haas, current President of the Council of Foreign Relations and former Deputy Secretary of State and Jane Harman a powerful former Congresswoman. Please 

Click here to read more....

Dr. Geeta Kochhar, Assistant Professor on "Social Devotion to Soul Erosion: China’s Degeneration in Academics"

Dr. Geeta Kochhar digs out Chinese educations system only to find out that  once known for its "Social Devotion”, Chinese education system now  not even respects basic social principles.  She argued that not all teaching, in China, is for dissemination of knowledge but for multiplying salary packages and all scholarly discussions are with relationships based on exchange of gifts and favours. She even wonders why female is given priority in admission over male students. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

China has a history of revolutions, but the Chinese Communist Party launched the greatest revolution in modern times. A revolution that emancipated mind and thoughts; a revolution that boosted the spirit of social sacrifice; and a revolution that inculcated the notion of equity. For a long period after the establishment of the PRC, this spirit of service and devotion was consolidated with labels like “model workers”, “model cadres”, “model teacher” etc. Hence, even after the reform and opening up, one could easily find volunteers in the universities and community work gained special recognition in climbing the social ladder. However, gradually with the honorariums attached to education, the ground realities of teaching and learning have changed.

            While the government is pushing for compulsory education and voices raised for equal rights for education, education is becoming exclusive commodity. Today many from rural backgrounds, who pass the entrance examination for top-class Universities in China, do not get admission due to their inability to pay the high-end fees. The issue gains significance as one, passing a university exam is a daunting task; two, most universities have “additional point system” (Jiafen Zhidu) or “recommendation system” (Baosong Zhidu) for students; and three, there are no reserved seats for people from poor or backward areas. Consequently, many from the backward areas or smaller towns are unable to break the city walls. The drive for moving to city universities is underlined by the fact that recognized quality education is available only in select city universities with Beijing occupying the majority share.

"In a country where egalitarian notions run high, it is surprising that most of the university campuses are devoid of students with physical disability."

            In a country where egalitarian notions run high, it is surprising that most of the university campuses are devoid of students with physical disability. It could perhaps be lack of special infrastructure facilities or a social stigma; top-class universities of China openly practice social division. Where the world is highlighting different abilities of physically handicapped people, China is secluding this group. This social exclusion not even merits importance in the revised policies on extra point system for university admission.  

            The other issue that is becoming popular among the youth is a disparity of admission criteria for male and female and the subsequent privileges. It is shocking to know that a female has a natural advantage of getting admission in a university. The linkages and ties a female can create with the Professors of the university only talks of the deteriorating morale of a society. A situation where even after admission, career growth is linked to fulfilling illegitimate demands of the Professors, demoralizes and defames the objective of education. The situation calls for greater attention as the universities have no student redressal mechanism and no institutional framework to deal with female exploitation. Female students exploitation in universities is a very complex and delicate subject matter that requires strong desire and strict actions against the culprits.  

            

"Education is a right and an opportunity to have better quality of education is a necessity. This being the aim and objective of every responsible state, it is also imperative for the state to create such environment."

Education is a right and an opportunity to have better quality of education is a necessity. This being the aim and objective of every responsible state, it is also imperative for the state to create such environment.  Since time in memorial, China has had a culture of respecting those who guide the masses. Even during Mao’s time, ‘education campaigns’ of different nature were launched oft-and-on to educate the masses. Today, most educated class of people is a composite of creamy layer in the society and occupies top political positions. This being the case, education cannot be and should not be linked to material benefits. However, the ground realities speak volumes about the monetary linkages. All Conferences and Seminars impose stupendous fees even to students’ participation, all Professors seek ties with western universities as scholarships and fellowships boost their promotional chances, not all teaching is for dissemination of knowledge but for multiplying salary packages, and all scholarly discussions are with relationships based on exchange of gifts and favours. One wonders, in this race for money, what kind of social education is imparted to future generations. Are the educators involved in any social devotion or there is a march towards soul erosion? 

Chinese philosophies advocated ‘Chinese as the base and learning from the west’. It seems that the learning from the west has overshadowed the base. As the state calls for expanding the horizons of education in China and as it enjoys the privilege of higher literacy rate among the developing countries, it will be inevitable for the state to look for the higher standards of quality education imparted with an inclusive approach. More importantly, it will be imperative for the state to establish diverse posts of high standard educational institutions in multiple cities. Commercialization of education will only lead to cultivating a degenerated society, while building a civilized society will remain as an objective.  

(Dr. Geeta Kochhar is  Assistant Professor, Centre for Chinese and South East Asian Studies, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, JNU, New Delhi)