On the contrary, in terms of specific agreements, Obama's trip did not bring too many surprises to the outside world. Especially, in the speeches and joint statements of the leaders of the two countries, the original commitments were reiterated or omitted on several major issues of greatest concern to the western media: RMB exchange rate, Iranian sanctions, specific commitments of both sides to address climate change and reduce carbon emissions, and improvement of human rights in China.
To a great extent, mutual trust is based on mutual benefit and agreement to put aside differences. Compared with the predecessors such as George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama's visit to China also showed a soft figure and low-key posture that his predecessors did not have.
China media gave positive comments on Obama's visit to China.
For such interview results, the reports and comments of Chinese and western media present completely different faces. The distinction between affirmation and disappointment just corresponds to the boundary between Chinese and western public opinion.
In China, no matter the official media, market-oriented media or portals, the media generally gave positive comments on Obama's visit. Even the Global Times, known as the "nationalist base camp", yesterday changed its questioning attitude towards big countries such as the United States and Japan, and affirmed in a rare positive tone that China and the United States attach importance to "cooperation" instead of discussing some specific differences between the two countries. The Global Times wrote in its cover article: "As long as you look at modern history, you will know what cooperation between great powers like China and the United States means to world peace and prosperity."
Tencent.com, who cares about young people, produced Today's Topic around Obama's speech in Shanghai on June 5th (June 38th, 2007). Some of the headlines are: "Dialogue, Obama is gentler than his predecessor", "No gunpowder smell from Clinton" and "No preaching from Bush". As for Obama's declaration of universal values and criticism of China's network control in his speech, it is described as "gentle spur" and "sincere hope" for China.
Western public opinion is mixed.
At the same time, yesterday's The New York Times, LA Times and Financial Times were completely different. Visits that only have mutual trust and commitment, but cannot produce substantive agreements as results, have been criticized as "empty-handed", "futile" and "excessive tolerance".
American public opinion has pointed out that Obama is the first American president who needs to face China who can say "no". China's holding of US$ 800 billion in US Treasury bonds has led to a directional reversal of the power balance between China and the United States, and China's influence in the military field and regional political structure has steadily increased. Gone are the days when the China administration released dissidents on the eve of the US President's visit to China and adjusted the exchange rate or economic rules to create a good atmosphere for bilateral talks. According to western public opinion, Obama's humility only brought China's stiff attitude and silence, while China hardly gave in and won as a winner.
Western media's mixed views show that it takes time to adapt to the changes in the international structure. On the other hand, both China and the West can find the significance of the changes in Sino-US relations and the moderate attitude of the United States from a longer-term perspective.
In recent years, there has been an upward trend of nationalism in China, which actually stems from a distrust and panic of the outside world in the process of the rise of China society itself. People who grew up in the historical education of national humiliation are still highly sensitive to the "containment" of the West, and the so-called concept of "the West will not die or die" is still rooted in some people's subconscious. The "cooperative" and "non-containment" strategic reassurance made by western powers will help to alleviate the potential panic in China society and reverse the growing trend of nationalism, which is another achievement of Obama's humble visit to China. Its value in guiding the rise of China may be no less than the agreement reached by the leaders of the two countries during the talks.
Nowadays, it remains to be seen whether this highly respected strategic mutual trust can be transformed into concrete cooperation plans and cooperation between the two sides. The so-called "* * * win" should not mean that one party condescends and arrogantly demands the other party to obey; Of course, it's not that one party is gentle and tactful, and the other party remains the same. It must be pointed out that the United States is still in an advantage in relative strength, and under the economic downturn, the pressure of public opinion facing Obama is also increasing.
According to the Financial Times, it may take months or even years to judge whether the Obama policy of friendly strategic engagement with China can work: China will provide more substantial support to help the United States deal with what American officials call "major global issues" (such as climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation and economic imbalance).
The future direction of Sino-US interaction will show the understanding and sincerity of both sides for "winning". For example, the United States continues to ban the export of high-tech products to China, or China continues to maintain a low exchange rate policy that is inconsistent with its own economic fundamentals. Obviously not a sign of seeking a win-win situation.
The future U.S. China policy is mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, strengthen all-round strategic cooperation, with the aim of using China to help it solve its problems on the one hand, and preventing China from forming a strategic alliance with other potential "second children" on the other hand, and preventing those potential "second children" from prematurely challenging the position of the boss. Second, increase the intensity and depth of military exchanges, especially high-level exchanges, so as to accurately grasp the development trend of China's strategy. Third, deepen economic cooperation, especially in the fields of finance and services. While seeking greater benefits, we also hope to delay the speed and intensity of China's rise through the cooperation of finance and tertiary industry. Fourth, strengthen the infiltration of China society and grassroots in all directions, mainly through non-governmental organizations and non-military means, with the aim of grasping the overall direction of China's future development in all directions.
Based on these new judgments, America's China strategy will present several new features. First, the United States will shift from evaluating China's ability to evaluating China's influence. The next step is to pay more attention to whether China is willing to exert its influence, how to exert its influence, and whether it is good or bad for the United States. Second, the ideological struggle is more manifested in the contest of development models. The contest of development model is milder than ideological struggle, but it will be deeper and more comprehensive. Thirdly, the attention paid to the geography of China has gradually shifted from the past to the southeast of China, especially the west and southwest of China. Fourth, diplomatic means to China may change from official to both official and civilian, and more and more diplomatic means will appear in the form of non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, interest groups and even domestic agents, which will gradually weaken and transform you in the process of all-round communication. In other words, in the future, the United States may not be plotting against China, but more "open planning", not military means, and more non-military means. In the process of deep strategic cooperation with you, it will gradually erode your will and weaken your ability, and finally control your rise within a certain limit and always keep a so-called safe distance from the United States. Although you are the second child, there is still a considerable gap with me.