ROUND
THE WORLD
New Delhi, 3 May 2006
Hu’s In, Who’s Out!
Bush-Hu Summit Sans Breakthrough
By Monika Chansoria
(School of International
Studies, JNU)
Chinese President Hu Jintao recently concluded his four-day
visit to the United States.
The summit between the leaders of the US and China, which has been widely seen
as one of the most crucial relationships of the 21st century, was
being described as vital on various fronts that included the ongoing nuclear
crisis in Iran and North Korea, China’s trade and finance policies that have
racked up a whopping $202 billion annual US trade deficit with China, along
with the perennial issue of Taiwan.
Added to these issues, the
competition for access to oil also
emerged high on the agenda with US
President George W. Bush categorically stating that Beijing’s ever-increasing demand for oil was
one of the reasons for rising oil prices.
The White House welcome ceremony started on a discomfiture
note with quite a few lapses, much to the embarrassment
of the hosts. A lady protestor blemished the ceremony by standing in the
photographers’ gallery and shouting slogans against the Chinese President right
in the middle of his speech. She was later identified as Wenyi Wang, belonging
to the religious sect Falun Gong that is banned in China. Further, adding to the
misgivings, the Chinese national anthem at the welcome ceremony was introduced
as the anthem of the ‘Republic of China’ (the official name of Taiwan) instead of that of the People’s Republic
of China.
Moreover, the Bush Administration had classed
the visit as an “official meeting” rather than a “state visit.” These incidents
caused much concern to the Chinese who are very conscious of protocol.
President Hu’s visit highlighted the crisis in the US trade policy in general and with China in
particular. Last year, the US
trade deficit was a staggering $725.8 billion, and with China alone
responsible for $202 billion, the biggest ever recorded with a single country.
It is speculated that this could surge to nearly $300 billion in a year’s time.
US officials are particularly worried about the six-to-one ratio of imports to
exports reflected in the trade deficit. The American Manufacturing Trade Action
Coalition (AMTAC) expects it to rise again for 2006.
Meanwhile, 2,885,000 US manufacturing jobs have
disappeared since 2001. According to AMTAC Executive Director, Auggie Tantillo:
“The trade deficit is unsustainable and must be staunched in short order. China
manipulates its currency, doles out billions in non-performing loans from state
banks, violates intellectual property rights, and hands out subsidy after
subsidy all with the intent of driving out of business
US companies forced to play by free-market rules, yet the US government seemingly
is powerless to act.” He called China ‘a
full-fledged superpower’ in the arena of international trade. This imbalance
has spurred calls in the US Congress
to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese products unless
China
halts trade practices that are said to be unfair. In fact, the Congress has drafted two punitive tariff bills directed at
China.
Washington blames this deficit with Beijing on an undervalued yuan, with many US lawmakers
reckoning the yuan as much as 40 per cent under-valued. China states
that the rate is less important than
the fact that they have put in place a system that provides for increasing
exchange rate flexibility, which is occurring. During his trip to Seattle, Hu signaled
generous purchases from Boeing and Microsoft to help the American economy,
thereby hitting the right concessional
buttons on the economic sphere, since in the recent months, the Bush
administration has attempted to cast the trade deficit as a global rather than
a bilateral issue.
Coupled with the economic discrepancy, an evidently
persistent difference of opinion on the political front also existed. President
Hu stated that China
was in favour of a peaceful negotiated solution to the nuke crisis in the
Korean peninsula, as well as the settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme.
It would be significant to mention that all this while China has been resisting imposition of sanctions
on Iran.
President Bush failed to get anything substantial and tangible on actions
against Iran, with whom China has a
close and budding economic and military relationship.
Washington believes that China’s appetite for oil and its heavy
investments in Iran also
affect its stance on Tehran’s
nuke issue. In 2004, China used about 6.5 million barrels of oil a
day and overtook Japan
as the world’s second largest user of petroleum products. The largest, the United States,
consumes about 20 million barrels a day. Sinopec,
China’s
state-owned oil giant, signed a $70 billion deal with the Iranians in November
2004 to develop the Yadavaran oil field.
The US Department of Energy believes the field could
‘eventually produce 300,000 barrels a day.’ The only available option seems to
be to managing energy sources and finding alternative energy sources. Heading
towards sustainable alternative fuels could be a good option for China as it has
a lot of biomass-crops, forests and
wood products—that could be converted into ethanol.
Moving on to the recurrent issue
of Taiwan,
President Bush and his Chinese counterpart did not seem to be on the same page
during their respective inaugural addresses.
President Bush stressed that a
solution on the Taiwan issue should be viewed in the backdrop of the 3
Communiqués signed between the United States
and China,
and the Taiwan Relations Act. In his statement,
Hu openly omitted mentioning the Taiwan Relations Act and
only spoke of the 3 Communiqués. Hu appreciated President Bush’s commitment to
a “One China” policy on various occasions, but in the same breath reiterated
that Taiwan “is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory and we will never
allow anyone to secede Taiwan from us by any means,” thereby rebuffing Bush’s
caution to avoid confrontation with Taiwan.
Earlier, China’s
Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi at a news briefing at Beijing
noted that the Taiwan
issue was the most important and
sensitive one in the China-US relations. Yang further stated that it was in the
interests of both China and
the US to oppose and contain
“Taiwan’s
independence” and to maintain peace and stability across
the Taiwan Straits.
The reason for Beijing being
averse to the Taiwan Relations Act is that it clearly states in its section 2,
“the United States will make
available to Taiwan such
defence articles and defence services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient
self-defence capability.” Moreover, the President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with
constitutional processes,
appropriate action by the United States
in response to any threat to the security or the social or economic system of
the people of Taiwan.
The issue of
human rights in China
remains contentious. President Bush criticized China’s
totalitarian system and called for greater human rights, freedom of assembly and worship much to the displeasure of Beijing. In its last two
annual reports on the issue, the
State Department asserted that
respect for human rights was worsening in China,
while China
now issues its own assessment
of US’ human rights infringements.
Few analysts expected Bush to win anything substantial from
the summit that failed to produce any sort of factsheet, agreement or even a
joint statement. Washington sought to convince
Beijing to be a
“responsible stakeholder” on security issues,
but could not gain anything substantial. Presiding over a booming economy that
is increasingly driving global growth, the leader of China
came to the US
with an unprecedented edge, signalling to the world a rapidly changing
geo-political environment. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|