Ｇｒｅａｔ　Ｅｘｐｅｃｔａｔｉｏｎｓ:Great!

　　While Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing describes President Hu Jintao’s U.S. visit as fruitful, opinions in the United States are mixed. One reason for this is the failure of the American media to provide an opportunity for the American public to know about the Chinese leader and China’s domestic and foreign policies, according to Cheng Li, William R. Kenan Professor of Government at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. In an interview with Beijing Review immediately following Hu’s visit, Li, who is also a nonresident senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies program at the Brookings Institution, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, shares his views on Hu’s visit and related issues with Beijing Review’s Wang Yanjuan in New York.
　　Beijing Review: There are different opinions in the United States regarding the results of the latest Hu-Bush summit. Hu was expected to take this opportunity to convince the American public that China’s development is not a threat to the United States. How do you evaluate Hu’s visit and do you think he achieved his objective?
　　Cheng Li: The significance of President Hu Jintao’s visit should not be judged in terms of whether or not the two countries have reached some specific agreements in trade, security, energy and education, but instead should be understood from a long-term strategic perspective. During this visit, Presidents Hu and Bush had a candid and mutually respectful discussion on a broad range of issues. He made extensive contacts with business leaders, members of the U.S. Congress, and prominent people in the academic community in order to explain “China’s peaceful development.” Through this visit, Hu also reminded the Chinese public back home that it is in the best interest of China to pursue a cooperative and constructive relationship with the United States.
　　In all these aspects, President Hu has accomplished his goal, in my opinion. President Bush used the term “stakeholder” to refer to China, expressing his administration’s sincere wish to see China as an important and constructive player on the international stage. Hu’s trip to Seattle and especially his meetings with business leaders of Boeing, Microsoft and Starbucks were remarkably symbolic and successful, sending a good message to the American business community about the bright opportunity of doing business with China.
　　The problem, however, was that the American media was still obsessed with negative stories about Communist China, and it did not really provide an opportunity for the American public to know about President Hu and especially China’s domestic and foreign policies. In my view, the American media’s single-minded and unbalanced coverage has hurt the interests of the American public more than that of the Chinese side.
　　What are your thoughts on President Hu’s speech on April 20 at a dinner hosted by organizations that included the U.S.-China Business Council, the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
　　His dinner speech in Washington D.C. was well received by the audience. The speech covered almost all the important issues in China’s future development and Sino-U.S. relations. His remarks that China should not only do business with major U.S. companies, but should also promote the business of small and medium-sized companies between the two countries are an interesting and important message to many people in both countries. His candid discussion about China’s political reform and democratic changes was a pleasant surprise to many people in the audience. His answers to the questions from the audience, especially regarding the connection between China’s effort to promote domestic demand and future reduction of the U.S.-China trade imbalance, were very effective. His quotation of Franklin Roosevelt reminded the audience that his populist socioeconomic policies were in some aspects similar to FDR’s “New Deal.”
　　There is a rising protectionist sentiment in the United States. In your opinion, where does it come from--the White House, Capitol Hill or somewhere else? It is said that such a sentiment may backfire and could contribute to a wave of protectionism in China. What are your comments on this?
　　In my judgment, the rising protectionist sentiment came from a coalition of conservative politicians, anti-globalization labor groups and some major media outlets. This is understandable because of the outsourcing of American jobs in recent years. Rightly or wrongly, in the view of some Americans, China should be blamed for things such as the skyrocketing price of gas, air pollution in Los Angeles and the $200 billion trade deficit with China.
　　But like China, the United States has greatly benefited from growing global economic integration. I don’t think that the American people as a whole have become inward-looking or protectionist. So-called “red states” and “blue states” may have some different views about U.S. policies toward China. But the agriculture and auto industries in some “red states” are enthusiastic about trade with China and people in education and service sectors in “blue states” are interested in further exchanges with China in these areas, but at the same time both the “red states” and “blue states” have some concerns about certain issues in China.
　　It is nothing new that the executive branch and Congress have different attitudes and contrasting policy preferences toward China. Congress is usually more critical of China than the White House. But the U.S. Congress is of course not a monolithic institution. Recently, some members of the U.S. Congress began to challenge the way in which the rise of China is conceptualized from a 19th century perspective or with a Cold War mentality. Some congressmen and congresswomen call for more comprehensive engagements with China.
　　It is difficult to assess whether the current anti-China sentiment in Washington D.C. will lead to backfire in the United States regarding policies toward China. This depends on many factors, such as the international geopolitical environment, global economic dynamics, and China’s domestic political development and her commitment to regional stability. It is worrisome that such a sentiment in the United States will reinforce the similar anti-American sentiment among some Chinese people.
　　President Hu was given a somewhat colder reception than the one he received four years ago, as vice president. What does this imply, in your opinion?
　　The lack of enthusiasm about Hu’s visit to the United States is understandable. Some Western politicians and strategic thinkers no longer see Hu Jintao as “China’s Gorbachev,” a term that generally implies failure rather than success. There were misconceptions and wrong expectations of Hu in the United States during his trip four years ago and there were misunderstandings of Hu in this recent visit as well. Nevertheless, it is also important to point out that the majority of Americans, including many political leaders, sincerely hope that China will make more consistent progress in the areas of human rights, religious freedom, intellectual property rights protection and the freedom of media. In my judgment, President Hu is interested in political reforms, but these political reforms will be incremental over time and manageable in scale.
　　No bilateral relationship in today’s world causes more confusion or anxiety--and will have more profound impact on global peace and prosperity--than the one between the United States and China. The Hu-Bush summit was a painstaking effort to pursue a mutually beneficial dialogue in search of common ground.