Obama had gone further than any of his predecessors in establishing worthwhile bilateral relations but the actual visit to Beijing was less than a stellar success with the American leader prevented from saying his piece on human rights, something for which he was lambasted at home. Worse, his remarks were heavily censored in the Chinese media, something which was to prove an own-goal for Beijing as the new year unfolded.

The Chinese were supremely vague in their response on the key issues for Washington which include the de-nuclearisation of Iran and the upward revaluation of the yuan to relieve some of the economic pressure on America. The Chinese have their own very valid reasons for not pressuring Tehran but they did not offer Washington even a nod in their direction. Though the immediate fallout from the summit may have been negative, much like the response to Obama's Afghanistan surge plans, in reality the basis for a more realistic relationship appears to have been established.

But there was still a lot of room for miscalculation as indeed it quickly emerged when Obama thought he had a deal with the Chinese in place for the Copenhagen climate change summit. That was to have been the confirmation of the new strategic relationship but it foundered when it became clear that the two sides saw the putative deal in different ways. When it became apparent that Obama did not have the deal he anticipated he ended up gate crashing a meeting attended by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao who was also looking to achieve a major political victory through the summit. Having to gatecrash a meeting as the leader of the world's only superpower was humiliation enough but to have the Copenhagen construct collapse over the issue of verification was a major loss of face for Obama not only on the international scene but at home where he desperately needed to be seen as decisive after the dithering over the Afghan surge decision.

Wen was not in a position to accommodate Obama individually as a member of the collective leadership and the American leader's fabled charm and negotiating skills were not enough to rescue him this time. Not only did Obama not get anything out of the meeting on an issue where a Democrat president should have been seen to be leading the world but it left him with a bitter taste about dealing with the Chinese leadership.

As the new year began it brought no new breakthrough in Sino-American relations, in fact quite the opposite with Beijing underlining its image as the leader of a totalitarian state with the jailing for 11 years of literary critic Liu Xiaobo for seeking reform of the constitution and then the execution of a Pakistan-born British citizen, Akmal Shaikh, for drug trafficking, a man undoubtedly guilty of the crime but also with a history of mental illness which the authorities chose to ignore.

Then with the new year dawning the Google bombshell burst — the giant Internet company complaining that some of its accounts had been hacked by the Chinese government. There could hardly be a more emotive issue: a world class capitalist company revolutionising the world of information across the globe being targeted by a totalitarian government that believes in giving its people no freedoms at all, least of all on the Internet. Google said it would no longer abide by Chinese laws and would therefore exit the market. As always, it was not quite as simple as that with question marks over whether Google might have had ulterior economic motives for its stance. 

Whatever the truth of that, the American decision to highlight an issue that had been brewing for some time was clearly a calculated move designed to show Beijing that Washington was not prepared to be pushed around like some second-rate power and, as if to underline its anger, Washington chose to announce that it was pressing ahead with a long-planned series of arms sales to Taiwan. That was likely to put the relationship back in the deep freeze.
The Americans had been careful not to include in the $6.4 billion sales anything that could be construed as overtly offensive; so F16 fighter-bombers were ruled out and the transactions limited to defensive equipment such as Lockheed P3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft and Patriot defensive missiles. But the overall intention of Washington was clear: Beijing had been put on notice not to try and push America around.

The Chinese reaction was fury with the China Daily running a commentary accusing the U.S. of bad faith, undermining its professions of friendship towards China and equating the sale of weaponry to Taiwan with China selling arms to Alaska or Hawaii. 

'Is the U.S. move appropriate for a strategic partner? The U.S. recognizes that Taiwan is an integral part of China. Then why does it have to sell arms to Taiwan,' wrote Xiong Lei in the China Daily whose article went on to make a much broader assault on American policy picking up comments by  Defence Secretary Robert Gates in Korea when he inveighed against North Korea saying, 'The United States is committed to providing extended deterrence using the full range of American military might — from the nuclear umbrella to conventional strike and missile defence capabilities.'

'What a way of maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula,' wrote Xiong. 'People both in the north and the south of the 38th Parallel are Koreans, just as we across the Taiwan Straits are Chinese. And just like the Koreans we are one family.

'It is natural for family members to disagree or fight over certain issues. But it is not natural for a good neighbour or strategic partner to do what the U.S. has been doing. A good neighbour or partner would try to pacify the quarrelling family members and calm things down, instead of adding fuel to the fire as the  U.S. is doing by threatening to use the 'full range' of its might to take on one side on the Korean Peninsula.

'It shows America has no respect for relations, including the strategic partnership with China…China is only its partner in need, not indeed.'

But the Chinese responses revealed some nervousness about escalating the row to a degree that might have unforeseen consequences. Targeting its ire on the actual companies involved in the defence contracts, the Chinese have maintained their 'strategic partner' diplomatic diary dates, including a European security meeting as befits a nation of China's stature.

. top