World Worries Over China’s New Tone: News Report in the Wash Post
China’s strident tone raises concerns among Western governments, analysts
By John Pomfret
Washington Post, January 31, 2010
China’s indignant reaction to the announcement of U.S. plans to sell weapons to Taiwan appears to be in keeping with a new triumphalist attitude from Beijing that is worrying governments and analysts across the globe.
From the Copenhagen climate change conference to Internet freedom to China’s border with India, China observers have noticed a tough tone emanating from its government, its representatives and influential analysts from its state-funded think tanks.
Calling in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman on Saturday, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said the United States would be responsible for “serious repercussions” if it did not reverse the decision to sell Taiwan $6.4 billion worth of helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, minesweepers and communications gear. The reaction came even though China has known for months about the planned deal, U.S. officials said.
“There has been a change in China’s attitude,” said Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a former senior National Security Council official who is currently at the Brookings Institution. “The Chinese find with startling speed that people have come to view them as a major global player. And that has fed a sense of confidence.”
Lieberthal said another factor in China’s new tone is a sense that after two centuries of exploitation by the West, China is resuming its role as one of the great nations of the world.
This new posture has befuddled Western officials and analysts: Is it just China’s tone that is changing or are its policies changing as well?
In a case in point, one senior U.S. official termed as unusual China’s behavior at the December climate conference, during which China publicly reprimanded White House envoy Todd Stern, dispatched a Foreign Ministry functionary to an event for state leaders and fought strenuously against fixed targets for emission cuts in the developed world.
Another issue is Internet freedom and cybersecurity, highlighted by Google’s recent threat to leave China unless the country stops its Web censorship. At China’s request, that topic was left off the table at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank and co-chairman of the event, told Bloomberg News. The forum ends Sunday.
China dismisses concerns
Analysts say a combination of hubris and insecurity appears to be driving China’s mood. On one hand, Beijing thinks that the relative ease with which it skated over the global financial crisis underscores the superiority of its system and that China is not only rising but has arrived on the global stage — much faster than anyone could have predicted. On the other, recent uprisings in the western regions of Tibet and Xinjiang have fed Chinese leaders’ insecurity about their one-party state. As such, any perceived threat to their power is met with a backlash.
A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington said China’s tone had not changed.
“China’s positions on issues like arms sales to Taiwan and Tibet have been consistent and clear,” Wang Baodong said, “as these issues bear on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which are closely related to Chinese core national interests.”
The unease over China’s new tone is shared by Europeans as well. “How Should Europe Respond to China’s Strident Rise?” is the title of a new paper from the Center for European Reform. Just two years earlier, its author, institute director Charles Grant, had predicted that China and the European Union would shape the new world order.
“There is a real rethink going on about China in Europe,” Grant said in an interview from Davos. “I don’t think governments know what to do, but they know that their policies aren’t working.”
U.S. officials first began noticing the new Chinese attitude last year. Anecdotes range from the political to the personal.
At the World Economic Forum last year, Premier Wen Jiabao lambasted the United States for its economic mismanagement. A few weeks later, China’s central bank questioned whether the dollar could continue to play its role as the international reserve currency.
And in another vignette, confirmed by several sources, a senior U.S. official involved in the economy hosted his Chinese counterpart, who then made a series of disparaging remarks about the bureau that the American ran. Later that night, the two were to dine at the American’s house. The Chinese representatives called ahead, asking what was for dinner. They were informed that it was fish. “The director doesn’t eat fish,” one of them told his American interlocutor. “He wants steak. He says fish makes you weak.” The menu was changed.
“There is a real rethink going on about China in Europe,” Grant said in an interview from Davos. “I don’t think governments know what to do, but they know that their policies aren’t working.”
U.S. officials first began noticing the new Chinese attitude last year. Anecdotes range from the political to the personal.
At the World Economic Forum last year, Premier Wen Jiabao lambasted the United States for its economic mismanagement. A few weeks later, China’s central bank questioned whether the dollar could continue to play its role as the international reserve currency.
And in another vignette, confirmed by several sources, a senior U.S. official involved in the economy hosted his Chinese counterpart, who then made a series of disparaging remarks about the bureau that the American ran. Later that night, the two were to dine at the American’s house. The Chinese representatives called ahead, asking what was for dinner. They were informed that it was fish. “The director doesn’t eat fish,” one of them told his American interlocutor. “He wants steak. He says fish makes you weak.” The menu was changed.
Tone with Europe, India
With Europe and India, China’s strident tone has been even more apparent. In autumn 2008, China canceled a summit with the European Union after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama. Before that, it had denounced German Chancellor Angela Merkel over her contacts with the Tibetan spiritual leader. And in recent weeks, it has engaged in a heated exchange with British officials over its moves to block a broader agreement at the climate conference.
At the Chinese Embassy, Wang differed on the climate issue. “China is strongly behind the idea of meeting the issue of climate change,” he said, “but at the same time we think that there are some people who want to confuse the situation, and we feel the need to try to let the rest of the world know our position clearly.”
China also suspended ties with Denmark after its prime minister met the Dalai Lama and resumed them only after the Danish government issued a statement in December saying it would oppose Tibetan independence and consider Beijing’s reaction before inviting him again.
“The Europeans have competed to be China’s favored friend,” Grant said, “but then they get put in the doghouse one by one.”
China’s newfound toughness also played out in a renewed dispute with India over Beijing’s claims to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders Tibet. Last summer, China blocked the Asian Development Bank from making a $60 million loan for infrastructure improvements in the state. India then moved to fund the projects itself, prompting China to send more troops to the border.
David Finkelstein, a former U.S. Army officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency who now runs the China program at the Center for Naval Analyses, said the new tone underscores a shift in China. “On the external front,” he said, “we will likely see a China that is more willing than in the past to proactively shape the external environment and international order rather than passively react to it.”
An example would be events that unfolded in December when 22 Chinese Muslims showed up in Cambodia and requested political asylum. China wanted to hold seven of them on suspicion of participating in anti-Chinese riots in the Xinjiang region in July.
Under intense pressure from Beijing, Cambodia sent the group home, despite protests from the United States. Two days after the group was repatriated, China signed 14 deals with Cambodia worth about $1 billion.
What the future holds
Whether this new bluster from Beijing presages tougher policies and actions in areas of direct concern to the United States is a key question, Lieberthal said. What China does after the United States sells Taiwan the weapons may provide some clues.
Even before the United States announced its plans Friday, at least six senior Chinese officials, including officers from the People’s Liberation Army, had warned Washington against the sale.
Once the deal was announced, China’s Defense Ministry said it was suspending a portion of the recently resumed military relations with the United States. China also announced that it would sanction the U.S. companies involved in the sale.
What happens next will be crucial. China quietly sanctioned several U.S. companies for participating in such weapons sales in the past. However, it would mark a major change if China makes the list public and includes, for example, Boeing, which sells billions of dollars worth of airplanes to China each year.
He, the vice foreign minister, warned that the sales would also affect China’s cooperation with the United States on regional issues. Does that mean China will continue to block Western efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran? Bonnie S. Glaser, a China security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the answer will probably come soon.
France takes over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council on Monday and is expected to push for a rapid move in that direction.



January 31st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
This is typical Washington-based BS, the corruption of pseudo-journalism and politics.
January 31st, 2010 at 7:58 pm
BS? Pseudo?
Dan, I think a critique requires more than just flinging mud onto the page.
January 31st, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I’m sure not everyone is worrying although I suppose it’s best to pretend. It’s somewhat like a movie following the script with the later acts already written but the audience can emote in amazed ‘ignorance’ as the thing progresses.
Anyone knows if you see the transfer of your advanced technology to a particular nation . . and then your wealth . . give them open access to your markets with their lower priced goods . . and open access to your borders
and become dependent on them to support your ever growing debt by lending you what was your former wealth etc . . etc . . as I say . .
anyone knows, without having read the later chapters of the script, that the intention is that they inherit eventually, the power as well, that once was your own.
Undoubtedly, not everyone is worrying !( Ho ! ho !; but it ain’t funny)
January 31st, 2010 at 9:21 pm
I don’t think history works that way, David R. The dynamics of a rising power and an established power working out their relationship in the world, how cooperation and competition get dealt with, sorting out the matter of dominance, can go in various directions. But the stakes are huge. World War I can be seen as the consequence of Great Britain and Germany failing to work out the rebalancing peacefully. And World War I then led to… well, the rest of that nightmare in the years thereafter.
It appears that, in addition to the general matters of China’s power rising with its economy and the U.S. power waning with the blunders of this decade, the Chinese may have decided that Obama’s conciliatory approach to them this past year meant he could be pushed around. THis sale to Taiwan is evidently a signal that the U.S. will push back. That makes this moment rather fraught.
I’m not suggesting that were on the verge of war– not at all. But depending on how this passage is navigated, there IS the possibility that in retrospect a time of tensions could be beginning, the perterbations might spiral, and conceivably even a new cold war between two great powers might develop.
I do not expect Obama to escalate impulsively, as, say, the Kaiser did in the rising tensions of 1914. That’s not his nature. But there is something in the way the Chinese have in several instances, not all included in this article, undertaken DELIBERATE snubs– beyond what has to do with policy– that makes me uneasy. On the other hand, the Chinese have almost always proceeded with cool and calculated decisions in the international arena, and so I think that NEITHER side will be ruled by impulse or emotionality. Rather, they will keep their eye on their actual interests, and I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interests to let cooperation be swamped by belligerence.
Yet, till this is worked through, we should keep an eye on the drama– knowing that THE LATER ACTS ARE NOT –NOT– WRITTEN, and that much depends upon how the actors conduct themselves.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Yet, till this is worked through, we should keep an eye on the drama– knowing that THE LATER ACTS ARE NOT –NOT– WRITTEN, and that much depends upon how the actors conduct themselves. – ABS
No doubt all minds and ambitions are not at the same place on the same page at all times and so there can surely be bumps in the road.
But the overall scheme -if reading the trend is any indicator at all-is more than clear.
Not knowing, I would assume there are those in the U S with some power who are not all that happy with all this so will do what they can to maintain U S power such as they can. My notion is that supporting Taiwan is intended to inhibit any serious monetary move on the part of the pro China factions that would further disrupt the American economy. On the other hand it could be intended as provocative (in the script) to cover (or justify) some move further weakening the United States.
I would realize that the chapters could not be written in detail but the broad scenatio seems fairly obvious.
Sad . . sad . . so sad.
In Him we live and move and have our being”
As a man sows so shall he also reap
And there is no escape.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:15 am
# Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
January 31st, 2010 at 7:58 pm
BS? Pseudo?
Dan, I think a critique requires more than just flinging mud onto the page.
Sorry, Andy, but the article appeared transparently polemic, provocative, vilifying China for doing little more than defending its interests, just as the U.S. and Israel do all the time. I note Soviet missiles were not allowed in Cuba, e.g. To me it is yellow journalism promoted by Official Washington, and I place no stock in it.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:35 am
Don’t know what you mean by this, David R. In the realm of monetary things, the only issue I’m aware of is that the U.S. would like for the Chinese to let the value of their currency, the yuan, rise relative to the dollar, rather than keeping it pegged to the dollar on artificially low terms (by maybe 30 percent), with the result that we have a chronic trade imbalance of huge proportions.
It is the Chinese who have the ability to make such a move, and have been unwilling to make any but the most marginal of adjustments.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
David R said,
With 20-20 hindsight the outcome does seem as though it ought to have been predictable, David R, I agree. But an intentional transfer of power? I doubt it.
Larry
February 1st, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Well Larry, somehow it has been obvious to me for years. Since I am just one individual and mostly otherwise occpupied I don’t see how thinking people could miss it along the way. And it is not hindsight as I have said it openly on public Round Table years ago.
I imagine the American mind is somewhat addled by ‘education’ and T V and maybe some of these other things sometimes mentioned on NSB.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I think it’s common for people to try to ignore how much potential control their lenders have over them. But then, as has been said, if the debt is huge enough then the debtor has some control over the lender. But it has also been said that China can’t be bullied, and I think that has been essentially true for awhile now. I purposely avoided reading news other than professional publications from about 1973 to about 1999. But from having had professional contacts with some multinational businesses I have the impression that they were just out to get the best deals for producing their merchandise. I do not believe that those who were responsible for transferring technology and work to China consciously expected China even to reach the point where it can’t be bullied. My impression is that stage just came along quietly as a result of the process. But if there’s any evidence to the contrary from the words of people involved I would be interested.
Larry