MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS, OBAMA'S 100 DAYs

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BEIJING 001165

DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/CM, EAP/PA, EAP/PD, C
HQ PACOM FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR (J007)
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR CH PREL ECON

SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS, OBAMA'S 100 DAYs

--------------
Editorial Quotes
--------------


1. U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS

"The U.S. conducts hundreds of special investigations on China every
year"

The official Communist Party international news publication Global
Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(04/30): These reports focus on the national
security of the U.S. It is believed that the purpose of these
reports is to create negative public opinions of China and
intentionally destroy China's image. American experts argue that
the criticism of China in their reports is inevitable, but the main
aim is to criticize the U.S. Researcher Niu Xinchun from China
Institutes of Contemporary International Relations says that there
is a specific background and purpose for the critical reports issued
by the U.S. government. Some are written to influence a Chinese
economic or political policy or to put pressure on the Chinese
government; such is the case for the Human Rights Report.
Therefore, China needs to be clear about the real purpose behind the
document before it responds. These reports are written by various
think-tanks. Niu expressed that some of the reports about U.S.-China
relations, written by the major organizations, are relatively
objective. But some of the reports from small organizations tend to
attract the media's attention so as to secure more funds or to speak
for the group that they're supporting. On the one hand, it's not
necessary to fuss about this kind of report. On the other hand,
China should be aware that these reports may attract the attention
of the public and could destroy China's image.

The reports are written by both anti China and pro China groups. A
U.S. expert says that because the U.S. and China do not have
sufficient mutual trust, there are still some concerns about China's
influence on America's national security. But the purpose is just
to describe the existence of the issues, not to prove the anti or
pro China stances. China needs to learn to deal with different
voices. Professor Zhang Lili from the Foreign Affairs University
says that "because China wants to maintain the world's harmony,
China is very reserved. The country does not want to interrupt other
countries personal domestic affairs. And therefore it is unfair to
China." Zhang thinks that it will be tough work for China to respond
to these "voices" from various sources. It's impossible for the
Chinese government to react to each of the voices. Different levels
of Chinese organizations and civil groups should actively play their
roles.



2. OBAMA'S FIRST 100 DAYS

a. "[Focus] Obama's first 100 days: the luxurious diplomatic dance
is hard to change"

The Shanghai-based Shanghai Media Group (SMG) publication, China
Business News (Diyi Caijing) (04/30): Obama's foreign policy starts
to change direction and appears to be an obvious sign of "breaking
the deadlock" during his first 100 days. This attracted both
domestic and international praise. Ma Tengsi, from the Centre for
European Policy Studies, says that "When they laugh at Obama's
solutions, Republicans always forget that the current problems were
made during the Bush's Administration." Obama is very good at being
diplomatic at the proper time. Obama's winning the presidential
election has, to some extent, already restored the U.S.-Europe
relations. But it should be noted that Obama's personal diplomatic
charms do not equal U.S. foreign policies. There are still disputes
between the two Parties and limitations to the current American
global strategies. Observers say that Obama's all-star diplomatic
team is showing conflicting signals. During the past 100 days,
Secretary Hillary [Clinton] has been busy dealing with the issues in
the Middle East. A Chinese anti-terrorist expert says that Hillary
[Clinton] is still in the stage of a "fireman putting out a fire",
which reflects the fact that the Obama's administration hasn't yet
made a clear global strategy. Speaking from another perspective,
although the U.S. has made strategic deployments, the real
efficiency of their deployment has been reduced due to the decline
of the strength of the U.S. Taking Hillary's [Clinton's criticism
for the Pakistani government as an example, this former Senator, who
chose to use 'smart power' for this stunt, has shown her limitations
on understanding the regional issues at hand. But her words are in
line with the strategies of the Obama administration; to "worsen"
the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This can help
successfully move the public's attention from the worse Iraqi
domestic situations to Obama's "Afghanistan-Pakistan integrated
strategy".

b. "THE U.S. SHOULDN'T ALWAYS WANT TO LEAD THE WORLD"

The official Communist Party international news publication Global

BEIJING 00001165 002 OF 002


Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(04/30): No one really wants to challenge the
dominant position of the U.S. What people would like to see is the
U.S. accepting the diversified world. The most important thing is
for the U.S. to really sit down and discuss the future development,
with the diverse international community, instead of forcing change
onto other countries according to the American ideas and model.
There are some questions about the foreign policies of the U.S.
First, can the U.S. truly understand the resentment it feels from
other nations? The Obama administration still believes that the
global military presence of the U.S. is a positive thing. Can he
understand that this presence makes the locals feel uncomfortable
and humiliated? Second, can "soft diplomacy" solve the "hard
problems" of the future? If it fails, will Obama continue the cycle
where by each U.S. President begins a war? And third, will the U.S.
shift its burden onto other countries during this crisis? All these
questions need time to be answered. Under the current multi-lateral
world, we need a leader who is willing to respect others and bear
the most responsibility, not a hegemonic nation who believes his
leadership is a divine right.

c. "U.S. doesn't have the divine right to lead the world"

English-language daily published by the People's Daily Global Times
English (04/30): To some extent, Obama's multilateralism simply
means he is more pragmatic. Despite the fact that the U.S. still
plays a leading role in the global economic and political arenas,
its ability to deal with international issues has fallen short of
its wishes. Its military might remains unmatched, but the misuse and
abuse of its military power is becoming unbearable. Obama remains
firm that the U.S. must lead the world. However, the president has
come to realize that the legitimacy of such leadership stems from
the example it sets for the world. It is not a divine right. The
American people are now blessed with a super commander in chief -
one who intends to practice the American ideals using a pragmatic
approach. There will be a time when the U.S. doesn't have the
strength to lead the world. Being an example, the U.S. should have
the moral character to be tolerant. It should learn to respect
another country's right to occasionally be an "example."

PICCUTA