Barack Obama’s trip to China may encourage a warming of relations

Interesting! If you want to let others know that you are not a threat to them, no matter how malicious or unfriendly attitudes you've presented in private or in public, maybe the better premises we should have pay more attention to is that you should not see them as a threat first.
What does that mean by saying that China is "manipulating its currency" while the USA is so-called innocently "being accused of protectionism". Maybe some facts we should not weaken it just because certain existing bias.
But undeniably, it is absolutely gentil for Mr. Obama to visit China within such a short time since he took office.
I know some people couldn't change some stubborn conceptions, partly because they are not so tolerent, partly because they could not see the truth.
I hope most of us will see such a visit as a plain thing. Be more objective.

I dare say that Obama would find more like-minded people in the Chinese government when it comes to fighting Global warming than in Washington.
China in fact needs to convince Obama to convince the U.S. to join the fight against global warming!

Despite Ft. Hood delay, Mr. Obama’s Asia trip got off a good start by paying a courtesy call to Japan and rushed to Singapore in time for the APEC Summit, all in a day’s work. His 4 days/3 nights visit to China also started without a hitch as he landed in Shanghai on November 15th near midnight.

The Economist article also started off well by saying that his visit “will enable the two countries to work more closely on global problems, from climate change to the economy. His hosts appear to agree, but misgivings are still abundant.”

But instead of reading some serious analysis of issues on “misgivings are still abundant” in the article, I am disappointed to find this Economist article’s choice to dabbling into rather one sided thinking and nit picking, trying to make something out of them in less than glowing light.

On that note and the Economist saying that “Mr Obama's central message is that China should not view America as a threat, no matter what its grievances over American policy toward Taiwan, Tibet or human rights.”

Ah, such saying could just as easily be construed as:

[Mr. Hu’s central message is that the US should not view China as a threat, no matter what its grievances over Chinese policy toward trades, Africa, or defensive arms development.]

Another example, regarding Shanghai Expo, while China should respect the US position that the American government—as is its custom for such events—will not pay for a pavilion (meaning to be funded by US civil leaders), the US should also respect China’s position to regard Shanghai World Expo as something akin to staging the Olympic Games as a national effort.

After all, a nation’s pavilion at Expo does represent the nation and that’s why I think the half-built American Pavilion is the largest among the 204 countries and regions committed to participate, with over 6,000 sq m floor space. It makes one wonder why to build such a grand structure if its participation was deemed of no big deal.

The staging of President Obama’s “Town Hall” style meeting in Shanghai does show politeness and mutual respect from both the host and the guest.

Yet the Economist went on reporting “In his answers to politely put questions from an audience carefully selected by Chinese officials, Mr Obama avoided direct criticism of China’s government” but neglected to report that questions from students were themselves polite and non confrontational.

Many pointed and tough questions by netizens that surfaced on Chinese web sites prior to Mr. Obama’s arrival were never surfaced in the “Town Hall meeting”, apparently out of deference to the American President on the part of Chinese people.

The audience of students from three top Shanghai universities (Fudan, Tongji and Qiaotong) each with over 100 years of history may be “carefully selected by Chinese officials”, but how can they not be for security reason alone. They’d do the same in the US.

It’s absolutely alright if the “Town Hall meeting” was not nationally televised in real time or if the Facebook was blocked from an ordinary Chinese point of view. The article says “China apparently had few qualms about limiting Mr Obama’s audience for this event.” But would CNN or BBC televise a Chinese top official’s side visit event in full length?

In fact Mr. Obama’s arrival in Shanghai did not make the top news on Chinese TV and that’s not out of ordinary. Another story that did not make the top news happened about the same time of the “Town Hall meeting” thousands Km away in Xian, where the Third Euro-Asia Economic Forum was inaugurated.

The top billing will come when President Hu is to formally receive President Obama on Tuesday, November 17 in Beijing and most Chinese TV will carry it live, including a joint news briefing following the talk.

Let’s hope that the visit “will enable the two countries to work more closely on global problems, from climate change to the economy.” They almost have to.

Environmental issues definitely can bring both Chinese and American government together for a closer and more comprehensive cooperation. I watched part of President Obama's speech at Shanghai about freedom of speech and freedom of worship thing from Japan's HNK news. I, as a Chinese who is living in the modern days, and is about to make a living in the future, really think that these fundamental values of democracy are worth pursuing. Moreover, I believe one day it will come, that Chinese government has to be more open and flexible to freedom and democracy to maintain its legitimacy, as Chinese government cannot always suppress people's demands coercively like the case in Tiananmen Square 1989. Next 20 years will be an special and critical era for China and CCP to change thier policies and open the door for more open debates and ideas about democracy. However, these procedures must be taken gradually, because I, personally, do not want to see China collapse like the former USSR. China needs to learn the lessons from Gorbachev's Glasnost.

I find it interesting that so many posters here believe that Chinese people have no rights because Facebook is blocked.

In case you don't know, Facebook is not widely used in China anyway. There are literally thousands of facebook copies in China such as QQspace and different forums. Why aren't they blocked? They're even in Chinese, written by Chinese, ran by Chinese, have millions of users and free; logically they should be blocked too, but obv. they're not.

The whole thing about "the goverment fears citizens! why doesn't it broadcast!" is even more silly. The Euro-Asia meeting wasn't broadcast. What could Obama say that would possibly make everyone in China think "F* the communist party, I want the Americans back like the good old days of 1945-1949!" Seriously？Are Americans that naive now? "Just let them see the light! If they don't see the light of democracy maybe the light of laser guided bombs will help!"

There's ALOT of tough questions I'd like to ask Obama myself, but they won't get to him, whether in US or China. This event was completely scripted by both the US and Chinese governments, don't read too much into it. The questions asked were nice and polite, the answers recieved were nice and polite. All it shows is that Chinese and American leadership are more mature than North Korea.

Haha, the Chinese young man in this photo looks like a future leader while Obama appears even a bit flattering:)

What is the end goal and what are the next steps for China - I wonder.

If I were to believe the media, it looks like China is going to

1. Kill all economic competition by any means.
2. World domination by taking short term measures.
3. Maintain absolute control over the state.

And if I were to believe the history, then it looks like

1. Maintain absolute control over the state as long as possible by any means.
2. Implode violently in near future (like 10 to 20 years)

Or, if I were to believe my dream, it will be

1. Transfer power slowly to a democratic government
2. Force deadly regimes like Burma/Sudan/North Korea etc. to path to democracy.
3. Free Tibet and allow it to fill the spiritual need
4. Compete on quality and innovation – not just producing cheap goods with stolen technology.

Well ... there are 1.3B people in there - whatever the leadership planning, they better do something soon since any percentage of angry 1B people is a *lot* of angry people and it will not be a good thing for Chinese leadership or the whole region.

What you are saying is completely unreasonable.

Foreign policy is never decided by the public, and there is a fundamental difference between sending food and fuel to keep North Korea from starving, and sending guns and bombs to South Vietnam to oppress and kill more Vietnamese. U.S. Army units attacked South Vietnamese peasants and cut off their ears to get a higher "kill count" against "communism". Does the PLA attack North Korean peasants so they get rewarded for "eliminating capitalist traitors"? In 1958, on one order from Mao, every last Chinese soldier left North Korea within 1 year and transferred all power back to the North Korean government. Up to this day, South Korea does not have command over the South Korean Army. It is instead commanded by the United States. Who is REALLY to be trusted?

There are thousands of photos on Chinese forums of North Korea; in fact, many people in China think exactly like the West on the issue of North Korea, and the photos taken of North Korea by tourists and businessmen are merely evidence against the demonization of North Korea by the West.

here are some facts: Kim Il Sung was a rebel against the Japanese occupation of Korea while Li Cheng Wan (don't know his Korean name) was a traitor that ran to the United States. Park Chung Hee was a Japanese collaborator. All of them allowed the U.S. occupation of Korea and the continuing stranglehold on the South Korean army by the U.S. military. Lu Wu Xuan (the last S. Korean president, forgot his Korean name) commit "suicide" right after his term ended; he was a pro-unification leader. Why did his security squad have "no contact" with him for 10 minutes? Then think about how the United States is the absolute and sole command authority of all South Korean military forces. Think about it.

There are only three news agencies with an office in Pyongyang - People's Daily, Xinhua and Russia's ITAR-TASS. Think about that before blindly trusting Western news on NK.

junglee - you are actually adhering exactly to the stereotypes of koreans i hear about in both china and the united states. number 1, the arrogance. it is not hyundai driving the u.s. car companies out of business. far from it. hyundai is small fry compared to toyota, honda and mitsubishi. number 2, the twisting of facts. it was bad enough that koreans claimed confucius was actually a korean. that's a national joke. on a smaller scale, you twisted my statements. you don't even know the meaning of what i am saying. you think i'm just making china look better, but you are completely missing the point. nowhere have i ever claimed china's system is the best; i do not even MENTION china in some comments.

by the way, i'm in the united states and everything i get is straight off wikipedia.

north korea had the stronger economy up till the 1980's. it made a bad planning choice in deciding to go for metal ore mining in the 70's and took out international loans at a time when metal prices were just going down. they had a choice between defaulting on their loans, or cutting social services; they chose to default on their loans and the value of their currency crashed.

south korea had a string of dictatorships until 1990.

south korea also has a conscript army. conscription is an inhumane practice usually done by military dictatorships or puppet governments; it also results in an army with low morale. look at how South Korea performed in the Korean war.

South Korea is better off because the U.S. supplied capital goods, rather than food aid, and it had a smaller military expenditure than the North as a portion of GDP because it has the U.S. occupation and North Korea does not have a Chinese/Russian occupation.

Also, it is undeniable truth that the U.S. has command over the South Korean army and that the South Korean government does not at this present time. That is going to change in a few years, but as of now the South Korean army does not respond to the President of South Korea.

The North being poor or a human rights abuser is not important in international relations. The United States backed Bin Laden against the Soviets, Saddam against Iran and Dalai against China because they are useful individuals to U.S. policy. China can make whatever the hell allies it wants because the U.S. set precedence.

freezing.point, I think you are misunderstanding my point and the points of others. I am not saying that the Chinese have "no rights." And yes, I know that there are many sites that are like Facebook that are not completely blocked (although they are censored and postings are removed.) And yes, I recognize that the Chinese people enjoy much more freedom, generally, than 50 years ago.

But the point is: what is the reason why Facebook is blocked? Why block anything at all? Why will there be no uncensored, translated version of Obama's talk even on Tudou (a version of Youtube in China)? Why will there be no Mandarin translation of Obama's talk widely available on the Internet in China? Why did CCTV not cover the visit of the US president barely at all? Why does the Chinese government routinely remove postings and videos even on Chinese sites that have to do with sensitive political issues?

More generally, why does the government not tolerate speech that is critical of the government? Yes, it does tolerate some speech about local corruption or purely economic issues. But China often acts to limit speech that challenges the political power of the Communist party.

History shows that very destructive things can happen when very great powers control how their people think. That is why countries outside of Chian worry about China when China restricts speech and silences people with a different point of view.

Let's look at it from a another perspective. Chinese people are as smart and mature as people in Korea, Japan or the US, so why should they not also be trusted to freely read what they want and say what they want, as long as what they say is peaceful and well-intentioned? If people in Korea, Japan and the US can do these things, why should a Chinese person be prevented from doing so?

@ yikeshu, please rewrite your post so that it is comprehensible, no offense, it just makes no sense in parts.

American media and Chinese media alike perpetuate the issue of a mutual distrust between the two nations. Until both countries have more competent news sources, it will be difficult to fully trust each other. Though, I think what will be most important in Sino-American relationship in the next decade or so is what happens when China, Taiwan, and the US (potentially) all see a change in leadership around 2012. I think the current Chinese leadership has been quite good about maintaining a fairly amiable relationship with both Taiwan and the US, however, depending on the education and experiences of the next wave of leaders, things could become much worse or much better - I don't think it will remain the same.

I am glad that Obama had an opportunity to hold a town hall meeting with students in Shanghai. It is true that the United States and China have much to learn from one another, and that they gain more by cooperating then by fighting.

As some people have recognized in this forum, however, this town hall meeting shows the differences between the freedom of speech in China and the U.S. Candymancan said that China treated the US the way the US would treat China: China wouldn't show Obama's dialogue with the students on CCTV or Facebook, and he says the US would not show the full speech of a senior Chinese official. With all due respect, this is completely wrong.

The difference is that China is forbidding TV stations from broadcasting the event. In the US, unless the meeting is secret for national security reasons, the government would not forbid TV companies from broadcasting the event across the US. (The TV companies, however, may choose not to cover an event because it wouldn't make enough money or get enough viewers, etc.) If Hu Jingtao went to Harvard and gave a speech, I am very, very SURE that any reporter and any TV station that wanted to would and could show the speech across the country.

China is forbidding a wide broadcast of the speech because it doesn't want the people to know what is said. It fears that it might cause people to question the government, and they want everyone to love and obey the government.

Anyone who watches FOX News in the US or watched the political campaign in the US is very well aware that there is A LOT of news in the US that is critical of the current US government and the president. The US press can sometimes be stupid, biased and crazy. But it is also very free, and all sorts of opinions (both bad and good) are expressed publicly.

Everyone in the world hopes that China will continue to become strong and do well. Everyone in the world realizes that China may become the top power in the world. But the lack of free speech in China disturbs many countries and people in the world, because they wonder if the government can manipulate them into believing and thinking anything that they wish. And as history has shown, that can be very dangerous. The more powerful the country is, the more dangerous it can be.

I think it is fine if the Chinese people do no want democracy now as it is in the US and Europe. Many Asian countries, like South Korea, had an economic boom without democracy and slowly became democracies. And the US and European democratic system has many problems too. But I believe that the Chinese people would be better off, and their country would be more respected, if every Chinese person would have the freedom to visit Facebook when they wish, visit Twitter whenever they wish, have the freedom to say what they want and express their ideas without fear. It is unfortunate that the Obama discussion with the students in Shanghai was not broadcast more widely.

I watched Obama's Shanghai town hall meeting with a select audience of China's best and brightest youth. Any parent would be extremely proud to have such children. The Q & A was pretty tame and didn't raise any passions. Then I realised this. Lecturing to these students on the virtues of democracy and the freedom of Internet access is speaking to the wrong audience. They already enjoy all that Obama thinks they lack.

On democracy these youth will be their generation of shakers and movers. They are already destined for the highest leadership roles in the country. They in time get to make the rules not blindly follow them. What they will come up with will be a freer and better China. It will not be the same model as American democracy or a European version. The American version we can already see will definitely be unsuited for China.

On freer Internet access they already enjoy it. They are smarter than anyone else and can get around any firewall or restriction. Obama's message has no impact.

Since every leader of America focuses on Chinese civil rights, Obama is not an exception. However, whether we Chinese have full rights can't be judged simply by an outsider. We know it ourself.
Anyway, his first tour to China is of significance. The important issues on climate change , Sino-US trade and the disputable civil rights play an vital role in the stability of Sino-US relationship and will be promoted through his visit.

As to the access to information,i totally agree with Obama.And i think that Facebook shouldn't be blocked in China...Anyhow,Obama's visit to China makes Sino-US relations more close..Hope US government and Chines government could reach a agreement on issues such as globle warming and information access...

[machani wrote: The moral of the story:
Hand picking elite groups destroys both creativity and morale. President Obama would not be where he is today had this mentality existed in American management.

A large part of China's growth is not from creativity, but mainly from being able to produce goods designed in America more cheaply, or from copying technology. The fake iPhones you see in eBay are a case in point.]

Point taken. I see it with a different perspective. Good government and technological inventiveness are two separate issues. Good government is essential before anything else can thrive.

With as large an ancient yet modernizing civilization as China's there had never been a lack of creative talents. The problem was the cultural environment that did not need labor saving mechanical devices nor faster processes as there was always plentiful cheap labor. Yet as Joseph Needham found the wealth of technology innovations in China {Science and Civilization in China} is astonishing. Chinese technology was way ahead and in advance of any other world civilization of their times.

200 years ago saw the natural decline of a Dynasty already spent just as the Industrial Revolution in the West was happening. Enough said that China could not rise until she got her governing house in order. Do read this series by Prof. Henry Liu in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KK17Cb01.html
{Mao's legacy lives on
Deng Xiaoping's reform policies, which led to China's present vital role in the world economy, would not have succeeded without the revolutionary policies launched by Mao Zedong, whose Thought remains the light source of the historic revival of the four-millennia-old Chinese civilization. (Nov 16, '09)
This is the fourth article in a multi-part series.
Part 1: In the beginning was Tiananmen
Part 2: Revolutionary lessons
Part 3: Lessons of the Soviet experience}

Creativity and innovation in China will bloom. The administrative institutions are in place to create the wealth, stability and security in which such pursuits can thrive. Do that and millions of innovators will do their magic. China is extremely fortunate that the intellectual elite still finds public service as a high honor to serve. A provincial governor ranks in public esteem far above any billionaire CEO.

Pres. Obama's Shanghai town hall meeting was a sop to his home constituency. The next time round he should use the opportunity to really connect with the future leaders of China. Invite them to take up one or two year internships in the US in your public institutions where they can see first hand how American democracy works. Provide the places and China can bear the expenses. Send your best students to China to do the same. China will bear the costs too. $2 trillion in the bank has to be spent somehow. That way young intellectuals from our countries who are not yet borne down by the cares of a career get to know each other and build ties that can only grow stronger and promote mutual understanding. The world needs smart people who thrive in public service. That is what makes societies and a country strong and moral.

The primary objective of media control in China is not mind control. Mind control is an impossible task in a population of 1.3 billion where everyone has independent and multi-sources of getting information. Talk to any man or woman on the street. They will be far more knowledgeable of Chinese and world affairs than a peer in any Western individual although they may not quite grasp the nuances of western culture and politics yet. But then its the practical minutae of ordinary Chinese life that matters not musings about Athenian democracy that China would benefit by adopting.

Media control in China serves a more practical purpose. Consider the recent riots in Xinjiang. A inflammatory internet post about the fictitious rape of a Han factory girl in eastern China set of a rampage by Han factory workers into a dormitory housing Uighur workers killing two. That in a matter of hours generated a swarm of internet reports which in turn set off lethal riots in Urumqi, Xinjiang. No authority could have prevented the initial spark. But by promptly shutting off internet connections and long distance phone calls in and out of Xinjiang, the authorities effectively isolated the race riot infection to Xinjiang. There was little that could have been done to stop the real news from coming out through private sources. But media control was effective in preventing inflammatory media reports in real time. The delay allowed tempers and emotions to take a pause, cool down and find out the real news. It allowed public order forces to deploy in an orderly manner. It prevented mobs from forming quickly or forming at all. Others should study the Chinese measures on public order management carefully. You will have much to learn from them.

Do read this Asia Times article.

[Welcome, comrade Maobama http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KK17Ad02.html
United States President Barack Obama visits Beijing as China is organizing a new world order based on economic independence and respecting cultural and political differences - a hierarchical change all nations can believe in. Beijing welcomes being classed as the US's "essential partner"] and "competitor"; being competitive is second nature when you have been a major economic power for 18 of the past 20 centuries. - Pepe Escobar (Nov 16, '09).....read full article.]

[junglee09 wrote: My main point here is not that Chinese policy toward North Korea is wrong (I believe it is, but that is not my main point.) My main point is: why doesn't the Chinese government allow people to discuss this freely? Why are there no interviews with defectors? Why is the movie banned? If you want to formulate a true understanding of the situation in North Korea, isn't it important to at least see these different points of view, EVEN if you disagree with them?]

China had fought wars against ancient Korea and lost. China had fought wars on behalf of Korea (vs Japan) and lost. The last Korean war China lost over a million casualties and resulted in the armed truce you have now. Why on earth would China want to start a war for you when there is no call for one? It is enough that China is preventing a US-South Korea invasion or the economic strangulation of DPRK.

There are just over 2 million ethnic Koreans settled in China next to DPRK (WIKI.) The last thing China needs is to encourage more Korean refugees into China. Any caught were sent right back. A few manage to hide in Chinese Korean farms and dare not expose themselves least they be sent back too. The last thing the refugee needs is publicity as you propose. China keeps one eye shut if these refugees do not make too much trouble or if they are smuggled out of China.

The China Koreans have kept their Korean culture and language distinct from the Han majority. This is a peaceful coexistence everyone should be wary of disturbing. The Han have no interest in becoming Korean or get any closer culturally. Why would the ordinary Han care to take an interest in your troubles or learn about your problems? Should the DPRK and ROK find political accommodation with each other and unify it will have the blessings of China. But otherwise settle your own problems and don't blame China for your anxieties.

[machani wrote: However, the company would not let this happen because the individual was not part of the "elite group", that was hand-picked to run the company in the future. ]

Do google interviews with none other than Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I distinctly remember he did one on why Singapore picks the best and the brightest and puts them through the machine for turning out Singapore's administrative service elites. Yes. Even very smart people do stumble or cannot meet the demands of leadership. But by recruiting the smartest you have an intrinsic pool of top brains that can adapt to any task that may arise. The odds of them doing so are much better than average. To trust a run of the mill level brain does indeed turn out surprises in talent and ability. But the manpower wastage along the way is not something Mr. Lee tolerates. He goes for quality as a surer bet. Singapore's success defies quantifying. But having a first class civil service administrators explains a lot. China saw this and followed the Singapore model. That was easy as it is just the modern version of China's Imperial Confucian based civil service.

Though certainly it is not America's right to impose its system on to others, the viability of Taiwanese democracy will be critical in determining the plausibility of democracy to be adopted in the mainland. It is only communist party's self interest to sabbotage the virtue of the Taiwanese people and their aspiration in finding an alternative way for the Chinese people to move foreward.
CCP is biting the old bait of centralism which in long term will only cause systematic and social sclerosis, then China's fate will be predetermined like any other once-great-dynasties in China.