US-China Relations - 136. page

On February 3, 2012, Huanqiu (the Chinese edition of Global Times) published a commentary written by Han Xudong, a professor from China’s National Defense University, titled, “The U.S. Forces that Move Rapidly around the Globe Are a Major Threat to China.”  Han believes that the U.S. mobile military presence poses a long-term threat to China’s national security and suggested taking feasible measures to counter against the threat.

“Compared to the regular garrison during the Cold War, the U.S. mobile forces present a greater threat to our security. Now, it is not easy for us to judge what type of troops the U.S. will send out. The U.S. army may use any type of new weapon or equipment in China’s surrounding areas. The probability of friction or crises between the U.S. and the Chinese armies may increase. It is more and more likely that the U.S. military forces will take provocative action against us and it will be more and more difficult for our military forces to counter against the threat from the U.S. mobile forces. China is in the passive position of maintaining security while the United States has the option to take the initiative in terms of security.”

Source: Huanqiu, February 3, 2012
http://opinion.huanqiu.com/roll/2012-02/2403446.html

Global Times, which is under the Chinese state’s daily news, People’s Daily, recently reported on the U.S. Senate’s “Global Threat Hearing.” The report was based mainly on an NBC report published on February 1. Multiple high ranking U.S. intelligence officials called China, Russia, and Iran “the top threats.” In the report, the belief was expressed that both China and Russia are countries “fond of” mounting Internet attacks against important U.S. industrial and government targets. The head of the FBI, Robert S. Mueller, III, suggested that Internet spying, computer based crimes, and network attacks against major infrastructures are replacing terrorism to become the top threats that the U.S. faces. According to the Washington Post, Iran was added to the “top threats” list this year, in addition to China and Russia.

Source: Global Times, February 2, 2012
http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2012-02/2398918.html

China Review News (CRN) published a commentary after U.S. President Obama delivered his third State of the Union Address. The commentary briefly described the general content of Obama’s speech as well as Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romny’s reaction. The author then focused on the fact that Obama mentioned China five times in his speech. The commentary summarized that Obama repeatedly blamed China for “breaking the rules” and “acting unfairly in trade.” Obama also planned to establish a new federal agency to investigate “such trade behavior.” However, the author believed Obama’s accusations largely served his reelection campaign purposes and his attitude actually reflected his frustrations during this election year. The commentary therefore concluded that China should pay attention to President Obama’s comments but not take them too seriously.

Source: China Review News, January 29, 2012
http://gb.chinareviewnews.com/doc/1019/9/2/3/101992389.html?coluid=1&kindid=0&docid=101992389&mdate=0129001107

On January 20, 2012, Financial Times Chinese published an article written by a Chinese professor discussing the weaknesses and the strengths of the United States and the complicated U.S.-China relationship. The scholar pointed out “without the Western countries’ investment in China and the transfer of technology to China, China could not have achieved its rapid rise, though China’s policy of opening and the Chinese people’s hard work made an essential contribution to China’s rise.”

According to the article, the U.S. faces four problems: 1) Job loss and an unequal distribution of wealth due to domestic manufacturing industries outsourcing their production; 2) A rise in the budget deficit and national debt; 3) Having difficulty reaching consensus on the fiscal balance because of friction between the two Parties; 4) Overseas expansion has led to a depletion of its national power. However, the U.S. also has four strengths such as its political system, values, technological innovation and world-class quality education, as well as its top military capabilities.
    
Source: Financial Times Chinese, January 20, 2012
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001042828

People’s Daily recently reported that on January 18, 2012, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched a new combined investigation of anti-dumping and countervailing against Chinese wind power products. Over ten Chinese wind power companies gathered in Beijing to coordinate their reactions. China Machinery and Electronic Products Import and Export Chamber of Commerce issued an announcement on January 20, suggesting that the reason China sold a large number of products in the U.S. was due to the strong competitiveness of Chinese products instead of any government subsidy. U.S. wind power operating companies have welcomed the Chinese products for their better quality and more reasonable pricing. An official from the Chamber of Commerce expressed the belief that the political background of the U.S. presidential election was the true motive behind the investigation. The U.S. Department of Commerce started a similar investigation against Chinese solar power products last November.

Source: People’s Daily, January 21, 2012
http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrbhwb/html/2012-01/21/content_997494.htm

An article published on the People’s Daily’s website comments on Standard & Poor’s motivation for the recent downgrade of European countries’ credit ratings. The article suggested that the downgrade increased the complexity of resolving Europe’s debt crisis and that it is now more than a simple financial move. The article said, “Britain’s debt crisis is rarely discussed in media reports, but Britain is a country heavily dependent on finances. Its debt crisis is no less severe than in any other country. However, Britain is the closest ally of the United States. [Therefore,] it is almost impossible to downgrade Britain’s credit rating.

“Austria was downgraded unexpectedly, but looking at it from a political angle, Austria has been Germany’s most intimate friend. Therefore, America’s Standard & Poor’s downgrade of Austria’s credit rating can have the effect of giving Germany a warning.

“Downgrading France appears to be reasonable, but it is actually still politically motivated. It has very little effect on the French government’s borrowing costs, but it can have a dire consequence for Sarkozy’s reelection efforts.

“Standard & Poor’s downgrade of European countries’ credit ratings is actually to pave the way for America’s QE3. The voice from the U.S. Federal Reserve for starting QE3 has never stopped; it is, in fact, showing recent signs of heating up. There is not much time left for Obama (to start QE3 before the election in November). Therefore, he needs to hurry up to take action.”

Source: People’s Daily, January 19, 2012
http://world.people.com.cn/GB/16921056.html

Qiushi published an article commenting on the strategic intention of the U.S. in returning to Asia and the impact of that return on the global economic structure. The article stated, “(First), the U.S.’s strategic goal in returning to Asia is to further fortify its dominant position in currency. Imposing political and economic pressure on China will force the Chinese Reminbi to appreciate.

“The second goal of the U.S. return to Asia is to create an Asian Pacific free trade area that the U.S. controls. Due to the direct intervention of the U.S., the Asian Pacific region will be divided. For example, Japan may choose to leave the East Asian Community and, instead, join the TPP, in which China does not participate. If the U.S. will succeed in controlling a free trade region that is the size of 35.5 percent of the global economy, it will have no other trade competitor in the world. “Currently, the competition between the China-Asean Free Trade Area model and the TPP model that the U.S. promotes has become the inevitable focus. Apparently, in the trade arena, the U.S. return to Asia directly targets China. It will isolate China in trade, impact the trade structure of Asian countries, and even have a huge impact on the global trade structure in exports.

“[Lastly], the U.S. return to Asia is advantageous to its long-term plan in the area of high-end industries. By returning to Asia, the U.S. completely suppresses China as well as Asian countries’ new energy enterprises. The U.S.’s intention is to attack China’s economic capability of competitiveness and grab China’s market and resources.”

Source: Qiushi, January 13, 2012
http://www.qstheory.cn/jj/hqsy/201201/t20120113_134730.htm

Xinhua reported that the purpose of U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner’s visit to China on January 10, 2012, was to convince China to reduce its oil imports from Iran. However, in the new military strategy announced last week, inhibiting China is one of the U.S. military’s strategic goals. Jin Chanrong, Associate Dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, expressed that China does not need to cooperate with the U.S. in sanctioning Iran in order to please the U.S. After all, China is not a country that has to choose a side (between the U.S. and Iran).

Jin commented that such action is typical of U.S. behavior. The U.S. thinks it’s the “boss,” believing it can suppress and criticize China; while, at the same time, China should serve the U.S. The U.S. attitude is always self-centered; it never considers other’s interests. China does not need to pay too much attention to the U.S. When specific interests are involved, China much insist on what China has to insist on. If the U.S. punishes Chinese enterprises that conduct oil trades with Iran, China can carry out a counter-punishment against American enterprises.

Source: Xinhua, January, 11, 2012
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-01/11/c_122569094.htm