Rollercoaster ride in US-China relations

We appear to be in for a rollercoaster ride in US-China relations this year. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's comments that China was 'manipulating' the value of its currency was a bad start, though this now appears to have been more of a hangover from the Obama campaign than a statement of intent by the new administration.

Then came US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's positive early visit to China, apparently reducing concerns in Beijing that Obama's 'change' agenda would rock the relationship. But tensions following the early March naval confrontation in the South China Sea brought back memories of Bush's spring 2001 spy plane drama. What factors are behind these ups and downs?

The background is important - increasing complexity in global economics and politics, not just between nation-states, but involving major corporations and growing links across and between societies.

This complexity means that a US-China 'G2' is unlikely to be sufficient to solve the economic or other challenges the world faces. What happens elsewhere places real limits on the influence of the leadership in both countries - their presidents cannot just wish 'better relations' into reality.

Nonetheless, it is of course good that better relations are their aim. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi spoke in Washington of "broadening cooperation", reflecting the increasing number of global and bilateral issues of concern to both sides. And Clinton took an equally wide cooperation agenda to Beijing.

However, Clinton does not have a monopoly of Washington's China policy. It is not yet clear where the balance of power on China policy in the new administration will lie, or how vocal Congress is going to be.

This could still be unsettling for Beijing after the latter years of the Bush presidency when economic issues were paramount and it seemed that former US treasure secretary Hank Paulson was running the China policy.

One should not assume clear consensus on the Chinese side either. Its leaders face tricky domestic and international challenges. They too are constrained, including by public opinion, which appears to have been a contributory factor to the recent decision to turn down Coca-Cola's bid for Chinese juice maker Huiyuan, a decision which might make bilateral US-China economic relations more tricky.

Behind all this lie both strategic and tactical issues. The recent naval confrontation was not just a misunderstanding, but revealed different views on both sides about US dominance on the sea.

The latest Pentagon report on China's military capability and Beijing's angry response are further indicators of this tension. This reflects long-term geopolitical shifts as China's global clout increases.

And whether or not Obama's new foreign policy style is only a less confrontational way of trying to maintain US hegemony through soft rather than hard power, Washington has certainly lost some of the loud Bush administration voices that China is developing into the primary security threat to the US.

The current financial crisis has hastened geopolitical shifts in relative global power, of which China is likely to be the major beneficiary.

In the short term it has created coincidence of interest among the major economies in stimulating economic growth, which explains much of the positive atmosphere during Clinton and Yang's visits.

The US is reliant on China in an unprecedented way to continue buying US Treasuries (though China has little real choice) and to act as some sort of engine for growth, while China's integration into the global economy means it needs spending and investment from the US, EU and Japan to avoid rapid decline in its vital export industries.

At the same time, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the various Middle East challenges and the economy are the major international priorities for the US, and part of the incentive for Washington to build good ties with Beijing is to try and bring China along with its approach to problems such as North Korea or Iran.

For China, the relationship with the US remains an important indicator of its global status, as Foreign Minister Yang hinted in his speech. But the centrality to Beijing of relations with the US has diminished somewhat, as Chinese interactions with the rest of the developing world have helped diversify its international policy since the 1990s.

Familiar political irritants between Beijing and Washington remain, and might prompt Congress to make life difficult for the Obama administration. It seems that Clinton deliberately downplayed human rights in Beijing, presumably for short-term reasons.

Taiwan's revival earlier this month of a request for advanced fighter aircraft presents Washington with a tricky balancing act. And concerns over Beijing's Tibet policy have hit the headlines again.

Add to these the likelihood of bickering over respective contributions to a new global deal on climate change in Copenhagen late this year, and we can see there are plenty of potential flashpoints in the rest of Obama's first year. The rollercoaster ride may have some way to go.

- OpinionAsia

Tim Summers, a former British diplomat, is a researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.