Text: Deputy Assistant Secretary Shirk Remarks to CSIS Conference
(Political reform is precondition for China modernization)If the United States and China are to develop a relationship that is durable and resilient, the two sides must make progress on resolving differences primarily rooted in different political systems and values, according to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Susan Shirk.
In remarks to a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conference on U.S.-China relations in Washington September 14, Shirk said: "The Administration has been deeply concerned about continuing detentions and arrests of members of religious, social and political organizations that Communist party leaders view as threats to the regime's stability. Chinese leaders have been especially anxious about possible internal threats this year when China faces a number of important anniversaries and low economic growth. They have responded by crackdowns, which have harmed their interests and reputation."
"In the Information Age," Shirk continued, "the wealth of any nation lies in its people; if China is to reach its full potential for growth and greatness, it must unleash the full power of its people to speak, publish, associate and worship without fear. In short, resumption of political reform in China is, in my view, a necessary precondition for successful modernization."
The meeting between President Clinton and President Jiang at the APEC leaders meeting in New Zealand, Shirk said, showed that both sides were determined to get back on track and make progress. "We have reengaged on WTO. We have set the stage to move forward on other vital areas, such as arms control and nonproliferation," she said. "The Taiwan issue remains very sensitive, but the steadfastness of our policy ... has been a stabilizing influence in what is otherwise a tense situation."
The future of the U.S.-China relationship, Shirk said, will be marked by periods of greater cooperation, punctuated by times colored by disagreements and misunderstanding. "Through those ups and downs," she said, "the interests of our two countries will continue to converge. Even as our interests converge, we will continue to have competition. Our companies will compete for markets and investments with Chinese companies. At times, our countries will take different positions at the United Nations and in other international forums. All of this is normal and natural and something far different from confrontation. It is, in fact, the kind of engagement that is the mark of a normal constructive bilateral relationship."
Following is the text of Shirk's remarks:
(begin text)
"Sino-U.S. Relations on the Eve of the 21st Century"
Susan Shirk
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
For East Asian and Pacific AffairsCenter for Strategic and International Studies
Washington D.C.
September 14, 1999Thank you Garret for that very kind welcome. This group feels very comfortable to a career academic, only pausing for a moment in the challenges of government. With all of the wisdom and experience you have brought together, I am not sure whether you want Amb. Li and myself to speak or to listen and take notes. Let me offer a few brief thoughts, then I look forward to hearing your concerns and insights.
As I was preparing for today's discussion, I went back to a speech Stan Roth gave in February of this year, when he was asked to speak on the 20th anniversary of U.S.-China relations, another occasion which offered the opportunity to consider the long view. At that time, the immediate prospects for bilateral relations appeared relatively bright. Presidents Clinton and Jiang had exchanged state visits within the previous year. Koo Chen-fu, Taiwan's unofficial representative in discussions with the PRC, had traveled to Shanghai and Beijing the previous October, and Taiwan had invited his PRC counterpart Wang Daohan to visit Taiwan. Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji had accepted an invitation to visit the United States and there was hope that we might finally complete bilateral agreement as part of China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Since then, the atmosphere in U.S.-China relations has grown considerably more somber. Despite high hopes and Herculean efforts on both sides, we did not conclude a WTO agreement for President Clinton and Premier Zhu to announce in Washington. Accusations of Chinese espionage were highlighted by the publication of the Cox Committee report. In May, the tragic accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade led to demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy and consulates in China. The deaths in Belgrade and the damage to both U.S. and Chinese facilities became front-page news in both countries. Disagreements over the call by Lee Teng-hui for "special state-to-state relations" raised tensions across the Taiwan Strait and appear to have frozen efforts to continue the cross-Strait dialogue.
With the meeting of Presidents Clinton and Jiang this weekend at the APEC summit in New Zealand, we believe we have established a foundation for renewed progress in our bilateral relationship. I know this is an issue of great interest to all of you, and I would like to discuss it in a little more detail.
Before I do so, however, I would like to set these developments in that longer-term perspective which I mentioned a moment ago. The cycle of ups and downs in our bilateral relationship, which we have seen since the beginning of this year, can be replicated in almost any period of U.S.-China relations since 1972. Euphoria and frustration are both familiar to students and practitioners of this relationship. Deng Xiaoping's visit to the United States and Tiananmen are only the most dramatic highs and lows. There have been, and there will undoubtedly be, others in the future.
The challenge we face, as we move the U.S.-China relationship forward into the 21st century, will be to build a structure of relations which is durable yet flexible, which can sustain relations during periods of tension, strengthen common interests, and address common problems, while still enabling us to face differences which divide us.
We have already begun building such a structure. There has been a qualitative change in the nature of our dialogue with the Chinese. We are moving past the rigid recitation of talking points, and wrestling over contentious bilateral issues. Instead, U.S. and Chinese officials engage in a genuine and candid discourse on some of the most pressing geopolitical issues presently confronting our two nations. Our shorthand for these informal frank discussions of foreign policy issues of common concern is "strategic dialogue."
That these substantive consultations serve both US and Chinese interests has been borne out by our solid cooperation on North Korea. Over the course of the past years, the PRC and the U.S. worked cooperatively in promoting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. China worked closely with the United States to bring North Korea to the negotiating table last fall and now sits with us at the four party talks in the common pursuit of a permanent peace.
China and the U.S. have worked similarly well together on South Asia, with both nations seeking to respond to continuing tensions on the Indian subcontinent. The foundations for this cooperation were laid in prior discussions we held on South Asia. These led in turn to major diplomatic initiatives to improve relations with India and move back to a more balanced posture on the subcontinent.
When India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons last May, China quickly chaired a meeting of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (P-5) and condemned both parties for recklessly conducting the tests. China joined the U.S. in urging India and Pakistan to refrain from further testing, sign the CTBT and avoid deploying or testing missiles. Since then, we have actively encouraged both parties to step back from armed confrontation, tone down their rhetoric and work to resolve their differences including over Kashmir - through dialogue.
The caliber of our strategic cooperation has thus improved substantially. Last month, as many of you know, Mort Halperin, the Director of the State Department Policy Planning Staff with his PRC counterpart, Assistant Foreign Minister Wang Yi. These talks did not review our bilateral agenda; instead they focused on long-term, big-picture issues of mutual concern and interest to both countries: major power relations; our roles and strategies in the world; modes of solving problems; bilateral and multilateral use of force. During his trip, Mort also met with a number of academics and members of think-tanks in Beijing and Shanghai to continue these discussions. David Welch, our Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, met with his Chinese counterparts to discuss issues confronting the Security Council and how to make the Security Council a more effective arena for solving problems.
As China has developed, we have seen an evolution in the quality of our dialogue. No longer are we simply trying to balance separate U.S. and Chinese agendas. Instead we are often discussing how best to realize our overlapping agendas. It is one thing for the United States and China to work independently towards the same goals; it is quite another for the two powers to make joint efforts in favor of a particular end. While discussion of areas for strategic cooperation between the United States and China has focused over the last year on the Korean Peninsula and South Asia, in reality our shared interests far transcend these two flash points.
Two examples easily demonstrate this point. China is now the third largest oil consumer in the world and will by all accounts become increasingly dependent on oil imports in the next century. China's increasing stake in the free flow of oil is the basis for a convergence of U.S. and Chinese interests in the Persian Gulf. China is becoming increasingly aware that privileged relationships with individual Gulf States might not be enough to guarantee China's future energy security, and that the overall peacefulness of the Persian Gulf is therefore vital.
Oil has long been at the center of strategic calculations, so perhaps it is not surprising that we have been discussing it intensively with China. Environment is a relatively new and growing subject of common concern. Growing recognition within China of the tremendous social and economic costs of environmental degradation has opened up new vistas of cooperation on environmental issues. While in the past calls for China to protect the environment were interpreted in Beijing as a conspiracy to keep China poor, today, Chinese leaders are painfully aware that environmental protection is a key component of sustainable development.
In Auckland, Presidents Clinton and Jiang announced that our two countries were renewing negotiations to conclude a bilateral WTO agreement that will be in the interests of both our countries. As the President has said a number of times, we want this to be a commercially meaningful agreement, one that will provide increased market access for U.S. companies. At the same time, WTO accession will make China's own goods and services more competitive internationally. A clear "win win" for both sides.
These talks, of course, take place against a political as well as economic backdrop. The U.S. trade deficit with China was increasing dramatically even when China was growing around 9% per year. The deterioration in China's growth prospects due to the slowing of domestic demand and contagion from the Asian financial crisis have served to exacerbate this problem, and the result is that the gap is widening and will continue to do so in the short term.
Clearly, this falls short of our goals. Consequently, establishing a more balanced trading relationship is a key issue in U.S.-China relations. The U.S. has the most open market in the world and in no way seeks to limit the import of Chinese goods. Let me reiterate: China needs to amend its restrictive trade practices and provide U.S. firms increased access to its market.
But, beyond the contention lies a more fundamental point. Both the United States and China recognize that we must cooperate in nurturing a global economic system, which offers greater prosperity to our people. To do so requires accepting obligations and responsibilities to other economic partners, including transparency, consistency and fairness. For China to become a real member of the global economic community, it must accept these obligations in order to attract new sources of investment and technology, and it must continue to export. It can do so best as a partner in the global trading system. The prosperity of the United States over the last decade has been built upon this system. We therefore share a common commitment and we must work together as we did in responding to the Asian financial crisis. So, yes, our bilateral WTO negotiations focus on the points of disagreement, but they are possible, indeed essential, because we agree on a common objective.
Let me turn for a moment to an issue that has attracted less attention. When Presidents Clinton and Jiang met in Washington almost two years ago, they committed to bilateral cooperation in advancing the rule of law. They did so because both sides recognize that the rule of law is fundamental to improving cooperation in areas in which we increasingly share common objectives trade and investment and the environment, among others. It also provides a cooperative mechanism for improving the human rights of Chinese citizens. It is for these reasons that we remain committed to pursuing Congressional funding for rule of law programs with China.
If we are to develop a relationship that is durable and resilient, it must be one that enables us to deal with issues of disagreement even as we work together on issues of increasing agreement and congruence. Even as the U.S. and China find new ways to move forward with such strategic cooperation, we must also make progress on resolving differences primarily rooted in our different political systems and values. The Administration has been deeply concerned about continuing detentions and arrests of members of religious, social and political organizations that Communist party leaders view as threats to the regime's stability. Chinese leaders have been especially anxious about possible internal threats this year when China faces a number of important anniversaries and low economic growth. They have responded by crackdowns, which have harmed their interests and reputation.
In the Information Age, the wealth of any nation lies in its people; if China is to reach its full potential for growth and greatness, it must unleash the full power of its people to speak, publish, associate and worship without fear. In short, resumption of political reform in China is, in my view, a necessary precondition for successful modernization.
With this longer term context in mind, let me summarize where we stand after the meeting of President Clinton and President Jiang at the APEC summit in New Zealand. Both sides were determined to get back on track and make progress. We have done that. We have reengaged on WTO. We have set the stage to move forward on other vital areas, such as arms control and nonproliferation. The Taiwan issue remains very sensitive, but the steadfastness of our policy, as Sandy Berger noted, has been a stabilizing influence in what is otherwise a tense situation.
If that is where we stand today, where are we headed? Many pundits seem fascinated by a debate over whether we are headed for cooperation or confrontation with China. I would suggest a far less dramatic picture. The future will continue to see a relationship marked by periods of greater cooperation, punctuated by times colored by disagreements and misunderstanding. Through those ups and downs, the interests of our two countries will continue to converge. Even as our interests converge, we will continue to have competition. Our companies will compete for markets and investments with Chinese companies. At times, our countries will take different positions at the United Nations and in other international forums. All of this is normal and natural and something far different from confrontation. It is, in fact, the kind of engagement that is the mark of a normal constructive bilateral relationship.
(end text)
Return to The United States and China.Return to IIP Home Page.