SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 2011

A13

Fraying Sino-US relations dont just bedevil efforts to resolve problems, they could spiral into conflict, writes Lanxin Xiang

Michael Chugani
mickchug@gmail.com

Era of mistrust

Still up in the air

resident Hu Jintao is about to meet US President Barack Obama for the eighth time in two years. It is unprecedented for leaders of the two nations to meet so frequently. Does it mean that the Sino-American relationship has entered a honeymoon period? Far from it. It is the sheer number of problems that drags them together. Old problems remain unsolved. Arms sales to Taiwan will continue, and the renminbi-dollar exchange rate is unlikely to dance to Washingtons tune. New problems are mounting, too. Washingtons re-entry into the AsiaPacific region is viewed warily by Beijing as a new containment scheme against China. What is frustrating for both sides is the lack of personal chemistry between the two leaders and, so far, there is hardly any meeting of minds with regard to major issues. The Obama administration seems to have made a miscalculation about its own capability from the very beginning. It

It appears that the Obama administration has been overconfident about its China policy from the outset

...............................................................
assumed that the United States could pursue two contradictory priorities at the same speed: repairing the much damaged American leadership with multilateral diplomacy for tackling global issues, which is a clean break from the Bush doctrine; and restoring American economic status through traditional manipulation of the US dollars key currency position. As it happens, both priorities require serious support from China. And also high on Obamas foreign policy agenda are nuclear non-proliferation and climate change, for which he was awarded a much ridiculed Nobel Peace Prize. In both cases, Chinas collaboration is considered crucial. More significantly, for the first time in history, Americas domestic policy hinges upon China as well. A loose monetary policy, the so-called quantitative easing, cannot sustain itself without foreign borrowing, and China happens to be Americas largest creditor. The public promise of doubling American exports

cannot be possible if the China market is not pried open, which means Chinese competitiveness must be weakened by a strong currency. More than 100 years ago, it was the American government that initiated the open door policy aimed at preventing foreign powers from dividing China into colonies. Today, we are witnessing an entirely different open door issue, as the US frets over Chinese exchange rates. Based on these considerations, therefore, the US government adopted a friendly posture towards Beijing and focused on pragmatic issues rather than ideological disputes such as human rights. It assumed Beijing would be grateful and collaborative if the US elevated China to a crucial partnership position in a G2 scheme. But the Chinese rejected such an idea right away. It appears that the Obama administration has been overconfident about its China policy from the outset. Its fundamental misjudgment about China derives from the belief that the structure of the Sino-US relationship will stay the same as before the financial crisis. But, the fact is, China experienced no major economic crisis and emerged much stronger compared with the United States. The US government wrongly assumes that the relative decline of a superpower will not result in any structural adjustment in its key relationships, such as the need for a new framework concerning the Taiwan question. In fact, the alienation between the two countries started immediately after Obama left China in November 2009. The source of dispute was not so much the new problems as the old ones. The US response to Beijings new assertiveness is also misguided. Instead of seeking mutually beneficial adjustments, Washington adopts a policy of pushing back. It is a popular belief among US policymakers that Chinas newfound arrogance banks on American weakness, and that it must be countered by efforts to create a sense of insecurity in Beijing. Even though the Chinese leadership is preoccupied with domestic stability rather than enhancing its influence abroad, it is considered useful for the US to form an entente with other nations against China, and strengthen existing military alliances around Chinese territory. The result of the pushing back policy is a downward spiral of further alienation between the two countries. Indeed, we are entering an era of mistrust between the two most important nations on earth. As the

sharpest observer of this relationship, Henry Kissinger warned last September that the real danger is not that issues remain unresolved, but that the Sino-US relationship might follow in the footsteps of the Anglo-German alienation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which contributed greatly to the making of the first world war. The main problem then was that there was no meeting of minds. Both sides offered things the other did not want, and each asked for things it did not really need. For example, as a friendly gesture, Germany offered help to protect the territories of the British empire, which was interpreted in London as an excuse for colonial expansion. Similarly, when the US wants China to restrain North Korea, it does so by making military threats. One may argue that, nearly 40 years

after Kissingers secret visit to Beijing , the level of mutual misunderstanding has never been as high as it is today. The problem is not real conflict of interest but the lack of trust. Neither side seems to have a long-term strategic vision and things could spin out of control in this condition. After all, Germany and Britain shared much common global interest at the time, but they eventually ended up on opposing sides in a major war. This is a precarious moment for the Sino-US relationship and we should cross our fingers and hope that history does not repeat itself.

...............................................................
Lanxin Xiang is professor of international history and politics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and currently a visiting professor at University of St Joseph in Macau

o back and read what former chief executive Tung Cheehwa said in October 1999. I did. Its easily available. Just search on the internet for his 1999 policy speech to the Legislative Council. Itll either astonish or infuriate you. It did both to me. Tung wasnt a particularly inspiring leader. But, if all the promises he made 11 years ago in that speech had been realised, we wouldnt be looking across the harbour today and seeing smog instead of our famous skyline. Ill just quote some of the things he said about our filthy air. Pollution has not only tarnished Hong Kongs image as an international city, but also greatly affected our health. It is high time we faced up to the problem. Theres more. He said our filthy air was 50 per cent worse than New Yorks, getting worse, and already making people sick. He listed targets such as getting rid of polluting vehicles that would make Hong Kongs air comparable to that of New York and London by 2005. Tung made that policy speech more than 11 years ago. Is the air we breathe as clean as that found in New York and London? We all know the answer to that. The question is why. Why has a promise made in 1999, to be delivered in 2005, still not been kept in 2011? Why have government objectives laid down 11 years ago to phase out polluting vehicles, ban idling engines and switch to an electrical trolley bus system still not been realised? We cant blame it all on Tung, because he is no longer the chief executive. His unpopularity forced him to resign in 2005, coincidentally the year we were promised clean air. But we can blame some of it on him. He had more than five years to keep that promise, but didnt. Who else should we point fingers at? Its been six years since Tung quit, but air pollution has steadily worsened, not improved. Our air is now far worse than it was when Tung made his promise 11 years ago to clean it up. If that isnt a failure of government, past and present, then I dont know what is. Were still stuck with air quality objectives that date back to 1987 even though the government has spent millions of your tax dollars in public consultations on new targets. There are still thousands of polluting vehicles, including buses, on our roads. And our power companies are still allowed to burn coal for the bulk of our energy needs. Theres this phony argument that much of our filthy air comes from the thousands of mainland factories in the Pearl River Delta. The government likes to cover up its inaction by hiding behind that argument. Every time the air pollution issue is raised, officials point the finger at the mainland. Sure, mainland factories are responsible for ...................................... some of our air pollution. But polluting vehicles are the main cause of the filthy roadside air you breathe every day. Dealing with that is totally within our control. Tungs old speech both astonished and angered me. Our government recognised the threat over a decade ago. Yet it wasted that decade. Tung at least told the truth about our filthy air it is seriously affecting the publics health. Neither Tungs successor, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, nor the environment secretary, Edward Yau Tang-wah, has linked air pollution with public health. They treat the two as separate issues. We have traffic lights to protect drivers and pedestrians. We ban guns so people dont kill each other. We even ban fire-crackers for safety reasons. So why does the government allow the air we breathe to kill elderly people, give children asthma, and make the rest of us sick? There is no great mystery about how to clean up the air. Other developed societies have done it. Why havent we? Why? The people dont care enough. They would rather breathe filthy air than pay a bit more for cleaner buses and energy. The bus and power companies dont care. They would rather have higher profits than pay for cleaner buses and energy themselves to protect public health. The legislators dont care. They would rather buy votes by serving the narrow interests of their constituents than the overall health of society. And if the people dont care, the government doesnt care. It is safer to do nothing than gather the guts to show strong leadership. So happy breathing, everyone.

Why have objectives laid down 11 years ago to phase out polluting vehicles not been realised?

.................................................................................................
Michael Chugani is a columnist and broadcaster

Voices: Hong Kong

Voices: China

Voices: Food

Land privatisation is a matter of public concern

......................................................
Gladys Li According to a recent report, the administration has informed the Central and Western District Council that it does not need to consult Hongkongers about its lease of 2,100 square metres of land on a site in Borrett Road, Mid-Levels, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is because the lease is a private treaty grant and according to precedence, no consultation is needed. Assuming the civil servant who wrote this letter means precedents and not precedence, what are these that dictate no consultation is needed? Is it because the lease is to an arm of the central government? Some commentators have criticised those who have called for consultation on the use of the site. which is zoned government, institution, community. They point out that, under Article 7 of the Basic Law, all land and natural resources within Hong Kong is state property under the management of the special administrative region government, the implication being that Hongkongers shouldnt question this very modest request to reserve some land to build a residence for the commissioner for foreign affairs in Hong Kong. Modest it may be now but, on this logic, every bit of Hong Kong is up for grabs by different arms of the state. So, if there is to be no public consultation and an unquestioning attitude on the part of the administration, where will it end? Under Hong Kong law (and common sense), no land owner can grant a lease of the land which he owns to himself and his agent cant grant it to him either. Thus, if the administration is resorting to Article 7, it should not be granting any lease of land to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but merely acknowledging, as the manager of state property to the owner of all such land, that, henceforth, this piece of land will not be available for grant to anyone else. On this point as to whether a treaty grant is necessary, the precedent will no doubt already have been set in the arrangements there would have been no consultation. Even if the proposal goes ahead, the method by which the development of the site is to be controlled and the terms of the grant are of intense public interest. It is absurd to suggest the contrary. Land for building housing and community facilities is in short supply. Land for public use and enjoyment is in short supply. Even pavement space is in short supply. The very idea that the public should have no say in land use just because the land is to be the subject of private treaty grant is a recipe for fanning the widespread belief in collusion between property developers and the government. It is true that the public only has an extremely limited say as a matter of law through the town planning process. But no government which claims to serve the people can ignore the need to consult them on issues of land supply and use. The lease of the site will run until June 30, 2047, when the transition phase of Hong Kongs change of sovereignty ends. Let us hope that the author of the letter to the district council is not a harbinger of a return to imperialism when the emperor spoke through his eunuchs and none dared question.

An open market will herald wider freedoms

......................................................
Paul Letters Despite continuing negative press in recent human rights reports, including the Freedom House survey, China is on a path likely to lead to democracy eventually. Although it does not inevitably follow that reaching a certain level of economic development will precipitate democratisation as Singapores experience signifies the legacy of Chinas economic liberalisation will be a cultural shift entailing a growing demand for political reform. The democratic sequencing argument asserts that not only does economic modernisation aid the development of democracy, but it is a vital prerequisite for such political liberalisation. In modernising its economy while under authoritarian leadership, Beijing has followed the early stages of the so-called East Asian model the route taken by Taiwan, South Korea and even Japan and hence can be seen as on the road towards the democratic status these nations later attained. Although authoritarian governments can take difficult economic decisions with alacrity, higher income levels have historically proved unreachable for communist states. Yet while the determination of a single party to maintain power and therefore oppression has also been a hallmark of such states, Chinas size and economic performance place it in a unique position. Stanford University professor Henry Rowen contends that, by 2020, according to the definitions of the US-based Freedom House, China will be partly free, and free a decade or so later. His argument is that, with the exception of oil states, nations with an average gross domestic product per person of over US$7,500 (at 1998 purchasing power parity) are all at least partly free and most are free. As Chinese salaries rise to surpass that level, so political and civil liberties will burgeon. However, Chinas status in the annual Freedom House survey has remained emphatically not free for the past decade, with no inkling of positive movement. The World Bank Groups Worldwide Governance Indicators for China, meanwhile, including those regarding accountability and rule of law, have not sustained a positive trend since the 1990s. Both Rowens timescale and the A leads inevitably to B argument need broadening. The long-term effects, however, of free market reforms on traditional Chinese culture are yet to be fully realised. As the concept of communitarianism further diminishes in favour of individual self-interest, some of the traditional Confucian values which dovetailed so smoothly with communist rule, particularly unquestioned respect for authority, will continue to weaken. Already, growing numbers of citizens are taking a stand against the government. When large numbers of increasingly welleducated and independently minded people in such a vast and disparate society assert their newfound individualism, greater freedoms in the realm of civil and political rights will be demanded with a force that may not be ignored.

Riots only a taste of global crisis to come

......................................................
Gwynne Dyer If all the food in the world were shared out evenly, there would be enough to go around. That has been true for centuries now. However, it wont be true much longer. Food riots began in Algeria recently, and they are going to spread. During the last global food shortage, in 2008, there was serious rioting in Mexico, Indonesia and Egypt. We may expect to see that again this time, only bigger and more widespread. Most people in these countries live in a cash economy; they buy their food, they dont grow it. That makes them very vulnerable. The poor, urban multitudes in these countries (including China and India) spend up to half of their entire income on food, compared to only about 10 per cent in the rich countries. When food prices soar, these people quickly find that they simply lack the money to go on feeding themselves and their children properly and food prices now are at an all-time high. We are entering a danger territory, said Abdolreza Abbassian, chief economist at the Food and Agriculture Organisation, this month, warning that prices could rise further. After the loss of at least a third of the Russian and Ukrainian grain crop in last summers heat wave and the devastating floods in Australia and Pakistan, theres no margin for error left. It was Russia and India banning grain exports in order to keep domestic prices down that set the food prices on the international market soaring. Most countries cannot insulate themselves from this global price rise, because they depend on imports for a lot of domestic consumption. But that means a lot of their population cannot buy enough food for their families, so they go hungry. Then they get angry, and the riots start. Is this food emergency a result of global warming? Maybe, but all these droughts, heat waves and floods could also just be a run of really bad luck. What is nearly certain is that the warming will continue, and that in the future there will be many more weather disasters. Food production is going to take a big hit. Global food prices are already spiking whenever there are a few local crop failures, because the supply barely meets demand even now. As the big emerging economies grow, Chinese, Indian and Indonesian citizens eat more meat, which places a great strain on grain supplies. Moreover, world population is now passing through 7 billion, on its way to 9 billion by 2050. We will need a lot more food than we used to. Climate change is going to make the situation immeasurably worse. The rule of thumb is that we lose about 10 per cent of world food production for every rise of 1 degree Celsius in average global temperature. So the shortages will grow and the price of food will rise. The riots will return again and again. In some places, rioting will turn into revolution. In others, the rioters will become refugees and push up against the borders of countries that dont want them. Or maybe we can get the warming under control. Hold your breath, squeeze your eyes tight shut, and wish for a miracle.

No government claiming to serve the people can ignore the need to consult them on issues of land use

......................................................
whereby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs occupies land on Kennedy Road /Macdonell Road for the commission building and on Borrett Road for the residential facilities for staff and visitors. But the most dangerous precedent is the one about to be set unless we protest against it. That is, the notion that the public need not be consulted when the government intends to privatise publicly owned land by treaty grant. The public consultation period has just ended on the proposal to demolish the west wing of the Central Government Offices and to privatise it by selling it to developers for a commercial building and shopping mall. If the precedent were already in existence,

......................................................
Gladys Li, SC, is a former Bar Association chairwoman Contact us Agree or disagree with the opinions on this page? Write to us at letters@scmp.com If you have an idea for an opinion article, e-mail it to oped@scmp.com

......................................................
Paul Letters is a writer studying for his masters degree in international affairs at the University of Hong Kong

......................................................
Gwynne Dyers latest book, Climate Wars, is distributed in most of the world by Oneworld