VZCZCXRO2978
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHVC
DE RUEHBJ #1165/01 1200821
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 300821Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BEIJING
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3734
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI

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