Can the U.S. establish a "great power relationship" with China?

RallyPoint Team — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:19:51 -0400

In a meeting on Tuesday, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice raised concerns on the Chinese fighter intercepts, stressing these intercepts could prove to be extremely dangerous and must be taken care of immediately.

Overall, the meeting in Beijing was focused on laying the groundwork for President Obama’s upcoming trip to China in November. Obama is set to visit the leaders’ summit of Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and also meet the President of China, Xi Jinping.

Rice took the opportunity to address concerns about a probable collision between U.S. surveillance jets and Chinese fighters. Over the past two weeks, the U.S. had already asked China to take this issue into account before an accident causes a problem in their political relationship.

Hainan Island is the base for Chinese submarines and naval airfields. Washington reported on August 19, a U.S. plane and a Chinese fighter jet passed by closely over the island, detailing how the Chinese pilot exhibited reckless behavior. The Chinese government refuses to accept any recklessness on their pilot’s part. China believes the surveillance over their coast can be a possible threat to their security. Therefore, they will consistently respond to the U.S. flights to ensure their security.

Rice pointed out to the top general of China that the two countries already face challenges where their relationship is concerned and, therefore, must avoid further complications. So the two countries decided to try to resolve the issue confidentially. U.S. officials say the Chinese appear to be taking our concerns very seriously, but we have no other details on China's part.

The U.S. concerns are justified. A collision occurred between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. surveillance plane in 2001 near Hainan. Consequently, the Chinese pilot died while the U.S. jet landed on Hainan where the crew faced interrogation. Needless to say, this has negatively affected the relationship between China and America.

Rice covered a wide range of topics in her discussion, including economic ties between the two nations and the democracy in Hong Kong. Xi pointed out the gravity of the challenges faced by the two nations and emphasized we must work together to overcome these challenges. He wants the two sides to speed up negotiating a bilateral investment treaty, securing military ties, building communication and coordination on climate change, and fighting against terrorism.

We have maintained a relatively friendly relationship with China, despite rising tensions. For the first time this year, the Chinese naval force participated in the annual multinational drills that the U.S. hosted in Hawaii.

Maintaining productive ties with the world's second largest economy and second most powerful military is very important for the U.S. to convince skeptical Americans that Washington hasn't stopped pushing for America's interests. How do we ensure we are moving forward with China? Can the U.S. and China come together with the same goals in mind?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 1:31 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:31:49 -0400

The U.S. and China may not always have the same goals in mind, but I think it is very important to stay engaged with China - as much as possible. I applaud the Obama administration for doing just that by having our National Security Advisor raise these concerns with the Chinese.

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Sep 18 at 2014 12:47 PM

SFC Jeff L. — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:47:53 -0400

I, for one, would like to know how China and the U.S. can possibly come together with the same goals in mind. The goals of a communist government simply aren't in line with our system of government, our history, or our Constitution. Another thing - why would China want to move forward with the U.S. regarding climate change? They do not impose or adhere to any policies that would restrict their economic growth and prosperity the way we have. Whether you believe in man-caused global warming or not, the Chinese have a vested interest in pushing us forward into more and more climate-oriented regulations and restriction. Why conquor the U.S. with military might when they can get us to do it ourselves by smothering our own economic engine with regulatory restrictions and opressive debt (which the Chinese own)?

It's unrealistic to think the Chinese are taking us seriously. They hold so much of our debt, their military capability is quickly expanding, they have repeatedly gone against our interests in the ME, and they have repeatedly indicated they want to abandon the dollar for international commerce. Those are not the actions of a friendly government.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 23 at 2014 6:30 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:30:57 -0400

This is complicated to say the least. If we were hell-bent on halting the rise of China we missed that opportunity in the 50s, and compounded upon it with Nixon's overture to them in the 70s. At this point China's rise and ever growing influence in the world can't be checked, nor should it. We are more than capable of a world in which China is a peer nation. What we need if far-seeing politicians to ensure that we absorb their growth to our mutual benefit. Chinese leaders tend to think in decades (being a communist nation affords that flexibility), whereas we tend to think in 4 to 8 year intervals. A rising China that is party to the global world order would be an incredibly good thing. They can help take on some of the role that for over 6 decadeshas been left only to us. Safe commerce over international waters, intervention in humanitarian crisis, bailouts of poor nations, technology-sharing, military relationships with other nations etc. If we have leaders who are able to see the bigger picture rather than just their electoral survival this can happen. This shouldn't be a black and white issue where China is either a friend or an enemy. We can be competitive economically and yes, inevitably, militarily but it does not and should not have to lead to a perennially adversarial relationship.