Part 1: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/not_for_all_the_news_in_china.php
Part 2:http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/not_for_all_the_news_2.php

You get the Americans who are upset because they saw the picture of Obama bowing down to the emperor of Japan. I think a lot of people got the Japanese Emperor mixed up with the Chinese Hu Jin Tao. Then you get the Americans who are upset because Obama did not focus on Human rights. Finally you get a lot of folks who are unhappy because Obama did not grant an audience to the Dalai Lama. Of course, all of this is fueled by the US media, which has been rather nice to Obama in the past.

The guy on the NPR actually made a lot of sense. Basically he said that Obama was only doing what he could, and from Obama’s record it’s pretty obvious that he is not the type who say things simply to offend. Also, he inferred that the US media is biased and has its own agendas. Lastly, he said that he does not understand why the US media hypes China so much.

Personally I think the US media is just missing the drama from the Cold War days. It’s a lot easier to sell confrontation than to sell peace and unity.

All substance is in that over 6000-wording joint-statement and its follow-on implementation. The leaders of two largest nations won’t put out such lengthy statement without any significant substance in it. Given the complicated history of US-China relation and their past tricky positions, you do need several domain experts to help understand it …

The implementation is already underway … there will be some concrete deal emerging from upcoming Copenhagen meeting … China already dispatched high-level officials to North Korea, Iran, Japan, Philipines etc

what I have seen in summaries of the meeting is that there was no substential new development. The comment from Richard Baum is only one of few exceptions. So some newspapers are reading between the lines, like in the Taiwan News with similar emphasiz on the missing quotation of the TRA in the final communique.
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1115125&lang=eng_news&cate_img=46.jpg&cate_rss=news_Editorial
Dewang, that’s coming from the same corner…
The expectations were so big that some newspapers actually turn away from Obama (“empty words”), especially as his visit was used in Israel (absence) and his lack of actions in Afghanistan.

Raj, I guess China could be satisfied in medium term with technology transfers, economic cooperation, opening and easing of student and scholar exchanges, lowering of travel and trade limitations and some alignment on political topics (like not inviting “un-persons”). And on long term China might have been changed too and everything is different.

TonyP4, a successful coup d’ etat could potentially open a Pandora’s box and create a more dangerous and horrible “northern Ireland” situation here in Asia,- China’s leaders are aware of that and I think they know that they have to win the hearts first.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-11/20/content_9007715.htm

Americans must have some mixed emotion about the cartoon below. This is true according to my own local friends.

“Even through a veil of censorship and propaganda, the Chinese people managed a clearer view of Obama’s visit than the US media did.

Let’s be frank. The strongest impression that most Chinese people have of Barack Obama is that he is black. The second-strongest is that he is young. And the third-strongest — based on his decision a few months ago to impose a punitive tariff on Chinese tire exports — is that he is perhaps just as willing to screw over China as all his old, white predecessors were.

This is not to downplay the significance of the president’s visit here. It’s just to refrain from overplaying it. Having started with the notion that Obama just might come to China and make some history, the American media is now collectively bummed that he didn’t. This is silly.”

http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/103219/Obama_in_China_What_the_media_missed

A recent media summit held in China and attend by media bosses of some outlets did not settle with a peace. Western media personnel are still banned to visit Tibet and Xinjiang region, even though western tourists are allowed.

There is a down shift by parts of media quarters. Read this report by Peter Foster of Telegraph.

“Barack Obama visit signals new era of US-China relations”

“Standing on the parapet of the Great Wall of China, Barack Obama thrust his hands deep into the pockets of his coat and took a moment to inhale the frigid winter air blowing in from the Mongolian steppe.”

“Reading from pre-prepared 1,200-word statements, the two men spoke as if from their parallel policy universes, unable even to feign agreement on most key issues. On trade, currency, Iran, climate change and human rights Mr Obama failed to win so much as an inch of ground from his hosts.

And yet two hours later the two governments released a “Joint Statement” which is now being hailed as the most significant step forward in US-China relations since Richard Nixon reopened relations 30 years ago.

The statement – mentioned by neither leader at the press conference – left even the most seasoned China watchers perplexed.

“It was paradoxical,” said Richard Baum, professor of Chinese politics at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The press conference confirmed every low expectation we had for the meeting, but when I saw the statement, I said, ‘Wait a minute, are we talking about the same event?’ It is the most extensive document in 20 years, maybe ever.”

Running to more than 4,000 words, it promised a breadth and depth of co-operation that was unthinkable even two or three years ago. On more than 40 key areas, including military and security ties, global financial governance, climate change and the economy China and America agreed to put their much publicised differences to one side and work together.

From the general (including China’s significant first ever “welcome” to the US as an Asia-Pacific nation contributing stability to the region) to the particular (a pledge to put “millions” of electric cars on the roads of both countries) the document was described as “incredible”.

Later that night, without irony, a Chinese army band struck up We Are the World and I Just Called to Say I Love You, as they serenaded the two presidents at a state banquet in the Golden Room of the Great Hall of the People.

The substance of the Joint Statement has already caused some to reassess the merits of Mr Obama’s strategy in Beijing. Perhaps, by giving China so much “face”, Mr Obama may in time be judged to have saved his own.”

“However the Joint Statement is a most extraordinary document, a blueprint for global partnership that opens a new chapter in the China-US relationship.” It was, he said, “a major accomplishment”.

In essence, said veteran Chinese commentator, Shi Yinhong, professor of International Relations at Renmin University in Beijing, both sides have “agreed to disagree” over their core positions, which is itself an important step forward in the context of US-China relations.

“The joint statement clearly places co-operation as the primary aspect of the US-China relationship, relegating their rivalry and competition to a secondary position. This is a position that would have been impossible perhaps even two years ago,” he said.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6621926/Barack-Obama-visit-signals-new-era-of-US-China-relations.html

Eventually they’ll reunite.

Why? If China wants to wage a war of aggression, it can try to force the issue. But if we’re talking about Taiwanese people making a choice to unify with China, why would they do that? There is nothing that China can offer that couldn’t be obtained whilst being independent as they are now.

Also what would “unification” for Taiwan actually mean? I doubt China would be satisfied with the Taiwanese President signing a bit of paper saying “yeah, ok, Taiwan is part of China”. It would have to be something more but what could China reasonably expect Taiwan to give up?

Taiwan is too small compared to China. Eventually they’ll reunite. Hope it is not in my lifetime, as I hate Chinese killing Chinese if it is not peacefully reunited.

As in many other countries such as the Puerto Rico, folks want to be kings and queens, not considering what the citizens really want. The link in Taiwanese investment in China is huge. China does not really need a carrier to invade Taiwan, but just a reason. US has a treaty to protect Taiwan as shown by the fleet they sent when there was tension. This treaty is getting weaker and weaker as the mutual benefits are getting larger and larger.

Just for a fun scenario (not to be debated).
China cuts down the communications of Taiwan with the outside world (by shooting down the satellites and cutting underwater cables…) and sends thousands of parachute soldiers into Taipei. The government buildings are captured within 2 hours before US knows what’s happening…

Interesting thought. I think the U.S. and China are going to maximize the benefits of their cooperation. Every country on this planet relies on bilateral relationships to better each of the involved parties.

But then you also have regional partnerships like EU, NATO, APEC, SCO, etc to create benefits for bigger parties.

And then you have world bodies like WHO, WTO, U.N., etc to benefit an even bigger body.

All these are various fronts individual nations conduct foreign policy.

Taiwan and the mainland have its bilateral relationship too.

Bob Yang sounds like a separatist and that’s his agenda.

Probably I amplified to early the over-reaction of the (Taiwanese) DPP (comment 4), but in today’s Taipei Times, they reported already some reactions from Taiwanese lobbyist in the U.S. (I quote from this link http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/11/20/2003458981):
—
The introduction of the bill was timely “because Taiwan supporters are disturbed by President Obama’s statements in China,” said Bob Yang (楊英育), president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a group based in Washington.
“He failed to mention the Taiwan Relations Act [TRA] while saying that the US respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity through the three joint communiques. That’s likely to embolden China to press even harder her spurious claim over Taiwan,” Yang said.
—

Now, Raj answered my comment and actually I also think we have to wait and see, if Obama really has shifted American policy. If there was some kind of this deal, it will not be announced with trumpets as success.

If US were a company, it may have bankrupted already – no country has bankrupted in our history but there will be one soon.

The interest and the principle returned will worth less than original as the US dollar depreciates (while the yuen is kept artificially low). We do not see inflation today but it will be down the road (your dollar used to buy 2 apples but only 1 for simple illustration).

My solution (just for fun and no room for debate here):
Sell Alaska with Sarah to Russia.
Sell San Francisco to China (no big deal as Miami is owned by Cubans).
Sell an old carrier to China so they can use it on Taiwan. All the environmentalists will agree wholeheartedly.
Send some NBA players to China for making some yuen.

So why does China continue this policy? Because the #1 concern is jobs, and the policy is to create jobs by creating manufacturing capacity. Manufacturing capacity is beyond what the Chinese market can consume, so export business is needed to absorb the excess. With the current recession, much of the export market has dried up but a lot of the investment in China recently has been used to build even more capacity in hopes of a world economic recovery. To utilize that capacity, a weak yuan needs to continue.

But if the US doesn’t respond with increased imports from China, then that excess manufacturing capacity can cause a recession in China. That’s what the government is trying to avoid. Infrastructure improvements will suck up some of it, but probably not enough. Gloating and blaming really isn’t beneficial here since both countries are tied at the hip and both would suffer if this problem isn’t worked out somehow.

In the ’80s, Japan also used exports to become the 2nd largest economy in the world, but couldn’t make the adjustment from exports to domestic spending and when the bubble burst, their economy went stagnant. I’ve read that in China there are projects going on today where bridges that are only a few years old are being torn up and rebuilt. If that is actually true, it is reminiscent of the Japanese approach in the early ’90s with “bridges to nowhere”, etc. I certainly hope it isn’t true.

Neither country can disconnect from the other. If China tried to pull its money out of the US quickly, the US would simply institute capital controls. But if the US stopped importing from China, most of those jobs wouldn’t come back to the US but would be moved to other countries with the end result that Americans would pay more. Chinese manufacturing is low cost and they have kept their margins very tight. It’s best that they both work out their differences. China needs to strengthen its currency; the US needs to save more, spend less and balance its budget. The US also needs to improve its infrastructure to increase efficiencies.

The important thing is that there is no financial “shock” to the world financial system. Trade wars, tariffs, capital controls, sudden changes in monetary value… these are all tricky to pull off. One of China’s problems is that it has waited too long to strengthen its currency and by doing so, has encouraged many speculators to sink money into China on the expectation that the currency will rise, when they will then withdraw their money to take the profit. That sudden outflow of capital would also wreck havoc on China’s financial system. But by waiting, they are allowing a stock and real estate bubble to form.

Economic systems are too complicated to lend themselves to simple analysis and general pronouncements.

China should not finance the US living standard over theirs for ever.

Can you explain how China funds America’s lifestyle at the price of neglecting its own? Because as far as I can see China only acts in its best interests – buying American debt so that Americans can buy Chinese goods. That keeps Chinese workers employed AND China gets the interest from the US having to service its debt (as well as keeping the capital invested to buy the debt in the first place).

In some ways you could say that your statement is backwards, in that America finances China’s growth by sacrificing its own fiscal prudence.