By Shannon Tiezzi
U.S.-China relations face an uphill climb as structural and ideological differences come to the forefront.
Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted U.S. President Barack Obama for a state visit on Wednesday, in what was Obama’s second visit to China since assuming office (and his first since 2009). Amidst widespread reports of increased U.S.-China tensions, the two leaders tried to emphasize the cooperative side of the bilateral relationship, but ideological tensions are increasingly becoming a major factor in the relationship – a worrisome sign for what is widely acknowledged as the most important bilateral relationship in the world.
First, the good: the U.S. and China had several deliverables to showcase at the Xi-Obama summit. First a new visa deal will allow for 10-year, multiple entry visas for businesspeople and five year visas for students. The streamlined visa process is a step forward in promoting people-to-people exchanges, which both governments routinely hold up as a key to improving mutual trust between the U.S. and China.
The two sides also inked a climate change deal including commitments from both sides to reduce emissions. As my colleague Zach argues, China’s targets aren’t exactly new – the promise to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 had been aired earlier this year — but the fact that China is formally committing to a carbon dioxide cap is a breakthrough that bodes well for the 2015 climate change conference to be held in Paris.
The bad: the two sides continue to have divergent visions for the future of the Asia-Pacific region, and despite nods to cooperation, there’s little indication that Beijing and Washington have found concrete ways to cooperate. China used its opportunity as the APEC host to lay out a vision of Asia-Pacific unity – economic and ideally political – that would lessen U.S. influence in the region. Meanwhile, Washington, alarmed at this vision, has chosen to stonewall these initiatives rather than trying to influence them from the inside. As a result, we’re seeing battle lines drawn instead of cooperative projects. Countries can choose the Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific against U.S. opposition or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which excludes China. Countries invited to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank have to choose between Chinese cajoling and U.S. pressure. The trend toward fragmentation rather than cooperation in the Asia-Pacific suggests the strategic competition between the U.S. and China is getting worse – and historians since Thucydides himself have long known what lies at the end of that path.
And finally, the ugly: there are several problems with comparing the U.S.-China relationship to the U.S.-USSR relationship during the Cold War, mostly notably the fact that America and China have closely intertwined relationships and exchanges in every field, from business and trade to student exchanges. However, a Cold War-style ideological battle is growing increasingly prominent in the U.S.-China relationship. This, more than anything else, poses a major threat to the “new type major power relationship” that Xi Jinping has advocated for.
Read the full story at The Diplomat