Coaxing and Coercion in international politics, Comment

The international community spent the 2005 New Year in condolences to the victims of the Sumatra tsunami that shook south and southeastern Asian countries. Over a dozen thousand people who have died, injured or are still missing weighed heavily in the hearts of all human beings, and roused their sympathy and kindness. All people, rich or poor, opened their wallets for support.

As relief efforts going on the world will gradually return to a normal condition, and world attention will be back to those old headaches as well as new focuses. American President George W. Bush will soon kick off his second term, which is also his last four years as US President. In Europe, West-favored presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko became the new Ukrainian President, but he shocked the West greatly as soon as winning the election by openly declaring to keep friendly and close relations with Russia.

However, with these political changes, people have found that the United States and its allies have made adjustments in dealing with important world issues, displaying "a sound teamwork" in both ideas and actions.

In the public opinion, a large batch of important western politicians, including NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing and former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, have begun publishing articles advocating the "neo-Atlanticism facing the globe" since the latter half of 2004. According to them, the threats caused by terrorism and WMD proliferation no longer bear any resemblance with those during the Cold War. The rising of China and India seems irreversible, and Russia seemingly would take the same road. The United States and Europe cannot afford to eject each other blindly, for "the United States is not Venue and Europe is not Mars." They commonly believe that the US and Europe share basic values, both pledging political democracy and practicing market economy. Since a new Atlanticism is born, and the world is in a time of global threats, a security policy limited to the Euro-America Continent is not enough. The United States and its allies need "new military power, new plans and more courage in a time of global challenges."

In terms of actions, the US and Europe have begun their "effective cooperation". First, on Iran's nuclear issue, the US has been following a hard line policy by refusing any negotiations with Iran in this regard and threatening to refer the issue to the UN Security Council while making military preparations. Meanwhile, US allies such as Britain, France and Germany played the role of negotiators, dishing out continuously "various kinds of political and economic incentives to Iran's giving up its nuclear program". Despite Iran's inconsistent words, these countries displayed "maximum patience in dialogue with Iran". American officials call this method as "One coaxes, the other coerces." That is, Washington holds up the stick, while Europe offers the carrot.

The US also resorted to a dual strategy on the issue of Taiwan. On the one hand, out of needs for global strategy and its immediate interests, the US has been reluctant to throw down the gauntlet with the mainland for the sake of Taiwan. On the other hand, it props Japan up to the foreground. Japan had been hidden itself behind the US by secretly supporting "Taiwan independence" but rarely challenging "One China" policy openly. But recently, in connivance with US, Japan has considerately walked to the foreground of "Taiwan independence" supporters by permitting Lee Teng-hui to visit Japan, in order to feel the bottom line of Chinese tolerance.

In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai won the general election and becomes the country's first president. In establishing a democratic Afghan regime, US-Europe coalition army and UN organizations conducted "pretty effective cooperation", with the former responsible for security and the latter for the organizing work. As renowned German newspaper Die Weltobserved, with the coalition army providing all-round guarantee, the Afghan election has been turned into a shining example, which certainly would have been a failure without such cooperation.

The same story of coaxing and coercion is also applied to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsular. As a starter for the issue, the United States has been waving its stick and listing the prerequisites, saying talks are impossible until the DPRK promises to give up its nuclear program and accepts full IAEA inspection. Simultaneously, countries such as Germany and Australia, who have embassies in DPRK, serve the carrot. At the start of the issue, it was an Australian parliament member who first visited the DPRK for mediation. In April 2003, a Chinese reporter visited the Foreign Ministry of Germany, during which an Asia-Pacific department chief, who was leaving for Washington that afternoon, had a two-hour interview focusing on the Korean nuclear question. He firmly sided with the US by saying that DPRK must abandon its nuclear efforts first.

It is not difficult to find out that a thread runs through all these events: after the Cold War, especially the "September 11 incident", the United States and other western countries, after a few years of running-in, have gathered under the banner of "neo-Atlanticism" and begun reaching a consensus: "Our two sides share common interests throughout the world, for which we have no choice but moving forward hand in hand."

This article by Shi He is carried on Guangming Daily and translated by People's Daily Online