Talk:China–United States relations

Energy

The 'World Energy Outlook for 2004' is published by the OECD's International Energy Agency.

It looks from the report that Sino-American good relations should include energy. While nowhere near America's demand for energy, China's consumption is exploding. One concern is the need for security of trade in the sea-lanes of the world. Perhaps more importantly though, both China and America should be worried about trade in energy with Russia. The Russian Federation is a major supplier of energy: the Energy Charter Treaty has been plugging away in vain for years to get the Federation to agree a safe transit discipline - largely for the assurance of investors. However recent developments there concerning the treatment of oil and gas as assets that should be sold strategically, and with Yukos, put further question marks on investing there. No doubt these problems will be solved soon.

war on terror

How has it created a common enemy? As far as I know Taliban had a presence in the Xinjiang seccessionist movement, but it's a nuisance to say the most and definitely not a threat. I think whoever wrote that played too much C&C Generals... :) -Hmib 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not created a common threat per se, but caught in its own anti-terrorism language, Washington had to essentially turn a blind eye when China stepped up its crackdown on the Xinjiang "terrorists". The two powers are both concerned about the radicalization of Islam in Central Asia, although their cooperation on this has been made rockier by the perceived U.S.-supported revolution in Kyrgyzstan. —thames 13:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PRC Propaganda?

This entry really seems to be written by someone more interested in running cover for the People's Republic than in telling a balanced story.

For example, there is no mention at all of the inconvenient Korean War, started with PRC complicity and waged cruely and unnecessarily for two years after lines became stabilized. Scott Adler 06:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I find that the POV is going the other way, but, be that as it may, POV is POV. This needs some serious reworking. -Yossarian 10:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that there's POV issues here, regardless of one way or another. To my eye there's the typical Wikipedacaricaturization of the Ugly American. But where's the mention of the Cultural Revolution? China-towns in the US? American-born Chinese attitudes toward the PRC? Huge H1B populations in many major US metropolitan areas? --M a s 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PRC did not start the Korean War, the US entered the Korean War and it generals threaten to bomb PRC, that is what triggered PRC entrance to the war. it was stupid and unnecessarily war but PRC didn't cause it, it was drag into the war much like the US. 218.186.8.234 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The US generals threatened to bomb PRC after their entry in the Korean War and the strides they were making against the UN forces. But other than that, everything else about your comment seems fine. Sauuce (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It seem to me you feel like everything that is not "PRC bashing" is "PRC Propaganda", is it not possible to have some positive attitudes toward the issue that you require every article to describe PRC as a horrible entity? You must think I work for the communist government or something, don't forget your tinfoil hat. Yongke 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And in any case, the Korean War is covered elsewhere, where China and Japan's roles are hashed over quite thoroughly to both of their detriment. WiccaWeb 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

US Propaganda?

(Yes, this is a play on the section above.) I don't think there is anything too outwardly biased about the article, but it does seem to be written almost entirely from an American perspective in that it discusses only or mainly the American side of issues. For example, in the discussion on trade, it talks about the trade "deficit" (which is only a deficit on the American side), and does not examine the issue from the Chinese perspective, i.e. the reasons for the trade surplus, and answering questions like why should they, or don't they, invest more into US trade? 24.6.99.30 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are free to put your own opinions on the article, so quit the "American-centricism" whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.215.27 (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. He should not put his opinions in the article. But he should provide the Chinese perspective as backed up by facts and reliable sources. Readin (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Without digging in to politics, not sure how to incorporate the fact that the US prints all that money, in a way devaluing Chinese assets? (more US dollars = each USD 1.00 buys less goods). That way, Chinese "manipulation" is more a counter-balance. Probably worth mentioning somewhere although cannot find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macculu500 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Flipped Map

Why is it that on the design of the map in this article, the flags are above their opposite countries, and the labels on the bottom are directly underneath these flags, but not underneath their corresponding countries on the map? Why isn't the American flag on the left side, with the Yellow "United States" label on the left as well, and the Chinese flag and label on the right side? Is it because of the Sino-American name? If so, I think that it would be better to have the flags and labels on their correct sides, despite the the order they come in the name. It would be easier to understand. BirdValiant 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same. If someone can provide the source for that template so it can be changed. YCCHAN 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I unflipped the map, so it's better now. The template is Template:Infobox Bilateral relations, but I couldn't figure out how to get it to work with the "map= " parameter like it says in the template, so I just redid the map that it points to by renaming it and reversing the colors. All done! Hires an editor (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be broken again. I attempted to fix it but the template is protected and only an administrator can edit it. --Laternerdz (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is Hawaii? Hcobb (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I made a number of changes to the article for the following reasons:

1. Grammar, syntax, or spelling mistakes and/or better flow to the wording.
2. More accurate internal links.
3. Provide a little more historical background in the context of Cold War relations, particularly after the Nixon period.
4. Reword some passages to make it sound a little more neutral.

Please let me know if you have any comments. BlizzardGhost 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Theories about future war

This article is generally upbeat about Sino-American relations, but there have been many speculations over the possibiliy of future conflicts fuelled by America's and China's competing demand for oil, and China's friendship with Iran. See this article, for example: [1], and all these books. I am not competent to write anything about this, but it seems someone with some expertise should write something. The Singing Badger 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

POV? I think the title of this article is either POV or at least inaccurately vague, as there are two "Chinas," and this one arbitrarily chooses the People's Republic of China. The relations with the Republic of China (or lack thereof, or unofficial via the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) have just as much a right to be under the name "Sino-American relations." Thoughts? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article can have a section dedicated to US-ROC relations. AFAIK, that is not covered elsewhere. Material on this topic might be sparse though. I only know that the US considers the ROC an "ally," albeit one with an ambiguous status that is not formally recognized. Ngchen 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that there are two Chinas is a common misconception. In fact, the PRC is sovereign and the ROC is not. This is because there are no international legal documents which show that the territorial sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" has ever been transferred to the ROC. In the truth of the matter, the ROC is a government in exile. See http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rocexile.htm and there is no legal basis to consider native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens, see http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rcitizen6.htm Hmortar 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are describing a POV yourself :-) I'll leave it to the readers to learn the various de jure theories and the situation as it currently exists de facto. Ngchen 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues in Sino-American relations today

Why do all the issues in these relations listed here only concern China itself? China obviously has many issues concerning the US as well. Also, should we rank the issues in order of importance? e.g. Taiwan is the #1 issue/concern today. Jsw663 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can provide two reasons, one is that this page, like many pages in wikipedia, suffers from US centric view. Second, let's face it, while the USA can afford to lash out on other countries, China cannot, especially against the USA. So I think this is fine as it is. 24.89.245.62 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right, en.Wikipedia.com is in general American-centric, it's a product of and for (the most part) American editors and viewers. But there are other versions... WiccaWeb 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese translation in title

Is the Chinese translation of "Sino-American translations" in the lead really necessary? I'm an avowed proponent of multilingualism and the use of original-language sources, but at the same time the case can be made the original-language terms should only be used in an article title for proper nouns/place/personal names. --Dpr 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) stop posting meaning less words!

proper move

Apparently, somebody decided to move the Sino-American relations here, found out that they're actually different things, and simply decided to delete half the article. Well, here's the problem. The original article was about Sino-American relations, meaning the relations between China and America as a whole, i.e. any government which was in power in China. That creates a little problem, of course: the PRC was formed at 1949, so does that mean everything else before 1949 is to be deleted? If it was deleted, how would the reader comprehend the article? Or, if it was not deleted, then how much would be included, and how much would be left to other articles like Sino-American relations before 1949 and ROC-American relations? These are pretty hard questions to solve, and I could not quite understand how a person could be so absurdly short sighted as to make the move.

But those issues are only trivial compared to what the article is facing now. I'll put it frank - this article makes no sense. Read from 2.1 to 2.4 - For two and a half sub-sections it talked about matters with no relevancy to the article at all, then all of a sudden this Communist Party led by Mao came out and created the People's Republic of China, which just happened to be the topic of this article. So very sad. And then there's this lovely little sub-section, title "People's Republic of China," cleverly summing up 30 years of relations between the PRC and the US in two sentences:

"For 30 years after its founding, the United States did not formally recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC). Instead, it maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China government on Taiwan, and recognized the ROC as the sole legitimate government of all China."

So it would only be logical, if logic has any value in this article, that the next sub-section would be titled "United States" and how for 30 years nobody in PRC cared about her. Right? Wrong. It's "Korean War." And the next two? "Relations frozen" and, all of a sudden, "Reapproachment." Damn, I know something's missing. Aran|heru|nar 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sino-American relations" is correct. Obviously, someone has an ax to grind. I don't think it's a big deal, it can be reverted when they change it, and if they are persistent, an admin can be brought in to make some decision. WiccaWeb 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercy-merging "Potential military conflict between the United States and China"

I have recommended that the tediously titled article Potential military conflict between the United States and China be merged here. It’s a very weak article that barely survived RfD, and has basically been ignored in the intervening year by those who insisted it was a hot topic. It mostly talks about the Vietnam War, and until four months after I mentioned it, totally ignored the Korean War (which actually saw the highest prospect for a real "hot war"); furthermore, other than citing Jeffrey Record (and listing references he mentions), it offers tremendously little info on modern "prospects". It also has no mention of past actual American conflicts with China that might provide some useful historical context. I believe the editors here could make something useful out of this haphazard work which doesn’t seem able to stand on its own at this time. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Unitedchinarelief.jpg

Image:Unitedchinarelief.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Regarding the edit by Pauly04... I'm not a wiki editor, but that really doesn't look right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.72.5 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The United States Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 is missing from this article

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law passed on May 6, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that lasted well over 60 years. BillyTFried (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first page of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Chinese immigrant workers building the Transcontinental Railroad.

The first page of a twenty one page interrogation transcript of Yee Bing Quai.

Certificate of identity issued to Yee Wee Thing certifying that he is the son of a US citizen.

The Boxer Rebellion of 1899 and Western domination of China is missing from this article

As well as the unequal treaty, the Boxer Protocol China was forced to sign in 1901. This event had a lasting effect on Chinese relations with the members of the Eight-Nation Alliance, including the United States. Seems like a pretty big detail to have skipped over to me. BillyTFried (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Navy China Relief Expedition Medal

U.S.troops in China during the Boxer Rebellion.

Western and Japanese troops during the Boxer Rebellion.

United States Army China Campaign Medal Medal

Largest city in China

Is Chongqing not the largest city in China? I was told this was the case on my recent visit there, and the page here seems to imply that, but I'm wondering if there's a reason for it not to be considered the largest or something (too big of a metro, that sort of thing). Baseballbaker23 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Chongqing isn't a city per se. It's a provincial-level administrative region with the same name as its central city. Strictly as a city, Shanghai is more populous Xsterx (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was} move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
People's Republic of China – United States relations → Sino-American relations — Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations — Liangent (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - If we make the move, then we'll have Chinese imperialists trying to confuse matters by putting Taiwan - United States relations into the article. Readin (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - In keeping with both common usage and naming guidelines. The article also covers events that took place long before the creation of the PRC. - SimonP (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Move would certainly be in conformance to common usage, but would result in a POV-ish title. I'd rather opt for the current one. Húsönd 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Question. Which part is POV, Sino, American, or relations? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The part that is POV that will be pushed, is attempting to include the current ROC (Taiwan)'s relations with America into an article that is about Chinese-American relations, not Taiwanese-American relations. Despite the fact that, as both you and Husond have noted, it clearly falls within guidelines to refer to the PRC as simply "China" (or to use "Sino" as appropriate) and to similarly refer to the ROC as simply "Taiwan", the disputes it generates cause us to instead use "People's Republic of China" when describing the politics and other state activities of China and "Republic of China" when describing the politics and other state activities of Taiwan. You'll see this repeated throughout many major articles. Readin (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If it becomes an issue, you can just add a header "This article is about relations between the People's Republic of China and the United States, for relations between the Republic of China and the United States, see ...". If the article is moved I don't see it coming up at all, because I don't recall relations between the ROC and the U.S. ever being called Sino-American. How about Sino-Soviet? Anyone ever confuse those with the ROC? We have 16 of those articles. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Noting that the article's scope is actually greater than the PRC government, the proposed name is both in accordance with guideline and more accurately represents the subject. I see there is objection that this title will extend the topic to Taiwan; frankly, I don't understand necessarily why that is a problem. The article's body of text can distinguish as necessary, and it also seems somewhat remiss not to discuss Taiwan, since it is one of the major points of discussion. In fact I would recommend merging Republic of China – United States relations (a short article) and this article under the proposed title. You can't discuss PRC-US relations without discussing Taiwan, and you can't discuss Taiwan-US relations without discussing the PRC. To me it makes sense to put them in one place, so it is a non-issue. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We also cannot discuss US-China relations without mentioning US-Japan relations. Should we combine US-Japan and US-China relations in one article? Should we combine US-Israel and US-Egypt relations into a single article for similar reasons? The US, when making deals with ROC, deals with the government of ROC completely independently of the government of PRC. Similarly, when making deals with PRC, the US government deals with the government of PRC completely independently of the ROC. While the topic of the other government will often come up, the relations are kept separate, and they should have separate articles. Combining them would push a POV. Readin (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Sino-American should be an overview article covering all periods of US-China relations, not just that between USA and PROC. Further PRC, ROC and USA all subscribe to the One-China policy, meaning that "Sino-American" as a term in the current era refers to both PROC and ROC, so this title is inaccurate if it treats only US-PRC side. And there are also US-HK relations... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Sino-American" refers to U.S.-ROC relations only if you agree with the opinion that the ROC is still part of China. That the current KMT government agrees with that opinion is interesting but not determinant. An POV that was placed in a constitution by a one-party state represents the POV of that party, but it does not necessarily reflect reality nor does it reflect NPOV. If we are going to move this article, we need to find a way to do it that doesn't violate NPOV by pushing the particular POV that Taiwan is part of China. Readin (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It's the view of several international organizations, of the USofA (part of this particular article), of the PRC and of the ROC (concerned with this article), of the way that embassies are handed out around the globe (they recognized Taipei or Beijing, not both, so if one has embassies, the other doesn't). So does that mean international practice is POV pushing? If so, then *EVERYTHING* is POV pushing. I would say that Somaliland, having declared independence that no one recognizes, has about the same amount of independence as Taiwan, which hasn't declared independence but is functionally independent. International convention does not recognize Somaliland. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This article actually includes pre-PRC periods of relations between China and the U.S., so yes, "Sino-American relations" would not only be the more common name, it would also be the correct name. However, if the article were ever to be re-worked so that it excludes pre-PRC periods, then yes, the current name would be better. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support with disambig line at the top, as "Sino" in this sense refers to China both before and after 1949. --Joowwww (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnicity list in China

Is there a logic behind the ordering of the ethnicities in the Chinese column? "Tibetan" isn't a significant minority in China in terms of population. I will make a modification to list the most few populous minorities in China. Please alert me if this isn't the proper protocol. I am new to this Xsterx (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro Chinese claims

This article has pro Chinese claims throughout. Some have been flagged since 2008. For instance the article says that human rights issues are improved in China. Yet in the Beijing Olympics, student from my university traveled abroad to see the Olympics as a part of a 4 credit course. They said that brand new walls were built throughout the city which hid the endless shanty towns and slums that would otherwise dominate the televised street race events. So China believes that human rights progress is made by being ashamed of it's citizens and hiding them? How about when they didn't let one girl sing their national anthem because she wasn't attractive enough. I would love to see that claim cited by any reputable source that China has made great improvements to human rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.133.111 (talk • contribs) 2009-08-09T21:55:18

What about all the pro American claims? For example, under the military spending section. It only talk about how China is a "threat" as seem by the US; yet doesn't talk about how America is a direct threat that is trying to contain China? America have military hardware right up on China's borders, that's pretty threatening, no? Then it goes on to show that increasing military spending by China is a cause for concern, yet America's military spending go up every year, how come the article doesn't discuss that? There are many examples like this, I say this article have many many Pro America claims. 76.11.69.150 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Two wrong don't make one right... it's pointless to flame on each other like this. Um, actually, when preparing for an important upcoming event, gov'ts(state or local) routinely do things like re-painting the outer walls of old houses to make them look better, or build new walls to hide them...

We people are kinda upset indeed about the gov't doing all this decorative works instead of some real improvements to our living standard, but what I don't quite understand is, what does it have to do with human rights? For the girl & the anthem, citation please. Blodance (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Add a section on "Military Surveillance"

Basically the US Navy routinely perform flights or patrols in the South China Sea region. This has caused the fatal Hainan Incident and other cases of near-contact-incidents (ie USNS Impeccable).

On one side, the US claims that it is operating within international waters/airspace and in accordance with international laws, and described the Chinese actions as "harassment" and "aggressive". On the other side, PRC views that the US, deploying its warships half way across the world to conduct surveillance of its shorelines as "illegal" and have been perceived negatively by PRC citizen.

I think the surveillance issue has caused quite a bit of heat in the recent China-US relations and is worthy to be mentioned.

If you do then add some refs that show that American intelligence gathering efforts against the PRC are much less than they used against the USSR, but the Chinese simply don't have the experience at playing the game so their responses are clumsier.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20000526b1.html "Chinese spy ship traverses Tsugaru Strait" Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MacArthur

Someone recently inserted an assertion that China entered the Korean War after MacAuthur threated to nuke China. I believe I've heard that MacAuthur wanted to use nukes during the war, and that he wanted to cross the river into China, but I don't know about the timing nor was a source provided, nor was I able to find a source. Does anyone know the details of this and where a source might be found? If this was one of the reasons for China entering the war it deserves mention. Readin (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only heard of this from official Chinese sources. I don't know how reliable it is. Mao started a huge ruckus about McArthur and branded him a villain to 'rally his troops'. Truman was not happy with McArthur's aggression towards China, and that was apparently one of the reasons he got pulled. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

China's Civil-Military Gap

“Is There a Civil-Military Gap in China’s Peaceful Rise?” by Andrew Scobell http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/09summer/contents.htm

I'm looking at the best place to add this in.

Perhaps by renaming the "Chinese military spending" section? Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

wtf??

Someone got the map colours and the legend wrong?? That's pretty epic 67.204.53.11 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Colipon+(Talk) 01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

China's flag too small

Why is china's flag smaller than the us'flag ?? --Zhonghuo (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I had to look carefully to see what you were referring to. It's not really that noticeable, and I very much doubt it's intentional. It could even be correct -- do countries specify the aspect ratio of their flags? 140.177.205.91 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought the PRC flag is just like this size.... Oh well, but when placed together, they do look a bit strange. :P Blodance (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just the way both flags are proportioned. the Chinese flag is 2:3, and the US flag is 10:19. That means the US flag is, in real life, longer than the Chinese flag when given the same width. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

HongQiGong is correct. 218.186.8.234 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And now some Chinese ultra nationalist decides to enlarge the Chinese flag >.> can someone fix that? and also replace the flags on the right areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.165.52 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Information needs adding

User:SilkTork has decreed that the following information should be considered for inclusion, not necessarily all of it, but at least some of it.

U.S. President Barack Obama's first visit to the People's Republic of China began on November 15, 2009 as part of a 4-day trip from November 15 to 18. It is part of a 9-day tour to Asian countries which includes Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea. Chinese president Hu Jintao and US President Obama is scheduled to discuss bilateral ties and major international and regional issues of common concern. Prior to the trip, Obama billed himself as America's first "Pacific president".

Day one

President Obama arrived in Shanghai late in the evening coming from Singapore after the 2009 APEC conference.

Day two

On November 16, President Obama's arrival in Shanghai and Beijing faced questions that has vexed US presidents since Richard Nixon's 1972 visit. He began his day arriving at Shanghai to meet mayor Han Zheng. He held an open town hall meeting with 400 students from 8 universities at the Shanghai Science and Technology Museum. In the meeting Obama called himself a "a big supporter of non-censorship." His talk with students was not broadcasted to the national CCTV. The session was live and shown locally on Shanghai Phoenix TV. The sina.com site ran a story under the headline: "Obama: The Internet is a tool for becoming stronger and citizens can participate." The link then became unreachable with the message, "Cannot find the page." NetEase's web frontpage also carried Obama's answers for 27 minutes before being deleted by censors. The students who posed questions were pre-selected, and most appeared to be members of the Chinese Communist Party Youth League. The Obama administration also supports the One China policy on the Cross-strait relations. Barack Obama's brother Mark Ndesandjo flew to Beijing from his residence place Shenzhen for a 5 minute meeting. In Beijing, Barack Obama then attended a state dinner with President Hu Jintao.

Day three

Obama is expected to raise the issue of the Renminbi in his talks with Hu Jintao. Due to the levels of US debt to China, it is however arguable that Barack Obama has limited negotiating power, where the economic recovery of the United States is reliant on Chinese holding of US debt; each year the United States pays US$56 billion in interest to China on its US$860 billion debt. China spoke against US protectionism, while US denies it.

Obama stated that the U.S. Government recognizes Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China, but hopes that dialogue will resume between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama soon. Wu Bangguo, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress also met Obama at the Great Hall of the People. The Forbidden City was closed for Obama, Chang'an Avenue was half-closed.

Day four

In the morning Obama accepted an interview with the more liberal Southern Weekly at the Beijing St Regis hotel (国际俱乐部饭店). A Southern Weekly editorial staff member said the questions were sent to the Foreign Ministry top censorship department for screening before the interview. After the meeting Obama met with Premier Wen Jiabao and toured the Great Wall of China before flying to South Korea, the last leg of his Asia trip.

The state visit was closely followed by journalists and political commentators. The Boston Globe criticised Obama's decision to postpone a meeting with the Dalai Lama until after the visit to China. In an editorial, the newspaper suggested that the United States should be able to maintain good relations both with Beijing and the Dalai Lama, and that the president "should be using his persuasive powers to convince China's leaders that their interest would be best served if they granted cultural autonomy and religious freedom to Tibetans." Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, wrote that the Obama administration was "taking a strategic view that developing strong relationships with [China] will yield long-term benefits." At the same time he expressed a concern that the administration was failing in nurturing similar ties with India. He described India as "a natural ally of the United States", particularly in the context of the war in Afghanistan.

For the Chinese, the official visit from the United States' first black president presented an opportunity to confront the issue of racial prejudice in their own country. The number of Africans living in China is growing rapidly, creating a more racially diverse society, but the immigrants are often faced with racism and prejudice.

Direct telecast of Obama's arrival in Shanghai showing the President walking down from Air Force One had sparked many curious comments from Chinese netizens, one of the comment had even became the 2009 internet catch phrase:A black man, wearing a black coat, in a dark night, holding a black umbrella, walks into a black country.

Xiang Xi, a top editor of the Southern weekly newspaper, who interviewed Obama was demoted by the Communist Party in December 2009.

Chinese people were quick to cash in on the hot topic of the Obama visit, and one of the items being offered in Beijing roadside stalls is a T-shirt named "Obamao", featuring Obama's wearing Chinese PLA's green uniform. The word "Obamao" is a portmanteau of Obama and Mao Zedong.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

where is the article about obama's trip to china ??? Polylepsis (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

wow ok, it was deleted ! Polylepsis (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me the entire section of Obama's China visit should be deleted because this isn't the first visit by a US perident and it won't be the last and it has little or no historical importence in US China relations there are many more visits back and fort to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Map makes a political statement

but the alternative would make an even bigger controversy!

The map in the infobox shows China in green. However, the territory controlled by the Republic of China on Taiwan is not in green. There was once a postage stamp with the same thing. The designer of the PRC stamp lost his job for the mistake!

However, if the island of Formosa is green, that is also making a political statement. Maybe make it blue? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

you can't even see taiwan ! Polylepsis (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

needs re-writing

Some major changes in the Sino-USA relations under President Obama has been trade protectionism, such as the tariff on tires. Nothing on trade is mentioned.

Here's what is mentioned that should be kept. Some more esoteric details have been removed.

Obama administration

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan, center, holds the autographed basketball given to him by President Barack Obama following their Oval Office meeting Tuesday, July 28, 2009, to discuss the outcomes of the first U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.Looking on at left is Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo.

The 2008 U.S. presidential election centered on issues of war and economic decline, but candidates Barack Obama and John McCain also spoke extensively regarding U.S. policy toward China. Both favored cooperation with China on major issues, but they differed with regard to trade policy. Obama expressed concern that the value of China's currency was being deliberately set low to benefit China's exporters. McCain argued that free trade was crucial and was having a transformative effect in China. McCain, though, noted that while China might have shared interests with the U.S., it did not share American values.

Both U.S. and Chinese governments have addressed the economic downturn with massive stimulus initiatives. The Chinese have expressed concern that "Buy American" components of the U.S. plan are discriminate against foreign, including Chinese, producers.

The Strategic Economic Dialogue initiated by then U.S. President Bush and Chinese President Hu and led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi in 2006 has been broadened by the Obama administration. Now called the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and led by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner for the United States and Vice Premier Wang Qishan and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo for the Chinese side, the focus of the first set of meetings in July 2009 was in responding to the economic crisis, finding ways to cooperate to stem global warming, and addressing issues such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons and humanitarian crises.

US President Barack Obama visited China on November 15-18, 2009, to discuss of economic worries, concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation, and the need to act to stem climate change. >>>Insert that the trip was part of a wider trip to Singapore for the multinational summit.

>>>Insert trade tensions paragraph, example tires.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

US arms sale to Taiwan

Do we need to talk about this issue ? Polylepsis (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Country comparaison table

	People's Republic of China	United States of America
Area	9,596,961–9,640,011 km² (3,676,486-3,717,813 sq mi)	9,522,055-9,629,091 km² (3,705,407–3,721,904 sq mi)
Population	1,345,751,000	308,169,000
Population Density	140/km² (363/sq mi)	31/km² (80/sq mi)
Capital	Beijing	Washington, D.C.
Largest City	Shanghai (19,210,000)	New York City (19,069,796)
Government	Unitary socialist republic (one country, two systems)	Federal presidential constitutional republic
Official languages	Chinese	English (de facto)
GDP (nominal)	$4.985 trillion	$14.256 trillion
GDP (PPP)	$7.916 trillion	$14.441 trillion
GDP (nominal) per capita	$3,259	$47,440
GDP (PPP) per capita	$6,567	$46,381
Human Development Index	0.772	0.956
Foreign exchange reserves	2,450,000 (millions of USD)	83,375 (millions of USD)
Military expenditures	$70 billion	$663.7 billion (FY 2010)

I think that this table is very useful so i've reverted the edits made by PNA record. Iamverublue (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this table is useful. Look at Russia-United States relations. When I put up a similar comparison table, it was removed. This table should be removed from here. PNA record (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the land areas listed. If you look at the square km, China is larger than the US, but if you look at the square miles, the US is larger than China. I don't know which is right, but they can't both be. Someone more expert than I could maybe fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.51.184 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Movie

Considering the stink put up about Red Dawn that I read about, do you think that this should be added on this page? 74.75.248.107 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sino-American relations → China-United States relations — Per naming conventions for relations pages. America refers to the content, and the terms Sino/Indo/Euro/Anglo/Afro/etc are not used in title names. Lihaas (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Sino-American relations" is not ambiguous in any real sense, as it is quite clear that the relations between the PRC and the USA are meant (at least at this point in time). The current title is orders of magnitude more common in sources (Google Books, Google Scholar) and I think we should prefer the natural adjectival form currently used over the more awkward noun combination proposed. Ucucha 15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no such naming convention, see WP:WPFR#Guidelines. This was discussed in an RfC and no consensus was reached as to a naming convention although plenty of editors seem to ignore the result of this RfC and suggest there is a convention. In the absence of such a convention this article should stay at it's stable name. Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is, I created an article entitle "indo-XXX" and it was promptly moved citing the name convention, i forget where. At any rate, IR article are condensed to such official terms not lexical differences. Furthermore, the term American would then need a globalize tag because it is NOT the same as the United States, see the disambiguation page on the link above.

The cited guideline then also says "Country names are to be placed in alphabetical order." And the "consensus" page also did not have very many replies to set it as precedence to refer to.Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I say many editors think there is a naming convention - largely because some editors boldly moved a lot of articles a year or so back and also boldly change the convention page. Some editors (myself included) disagreed and so I started an RfC. Yes I know there wasn't much discussion but it's the best we've got - the RfC run for an appropriate length of time so there wasn't much else we could do. Many editors at that project also agree with the naming convention you mention but when wider input was sought with the RfC it was clear there was no consensus in the wider community. Although I assume good faith I do wonder if some of those editors deliberately ignore the result of the RfC. If you point me at the article that was moved I will quite happily revert it (or ask for it to be reverted if need be) as part of WP:BRD. Dpmuk (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point about America has some merit and I'd agree is worth discussing - however I'd point to WP:COMMONNAME and so personally I'd leave things as they are. Dpmuk (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the common name for the subject. - SimonP (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair on Sino, (although in the itnerest of consistency the other articels say "Peoples Republic of China") though it is not the common name. The disambiguation page as well as other US foreign relations pages mention "United States" (see the template on the page"Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Landmark Trade Agreement

There should be a section on here about the landmark trade agreement between the United States and the People's Replubic of China. This document that was signed by both countries in the year 2000 may be one of the causes the Unites States are in a recession as of right now. It's revalnce is very important because it explains the relationship with China as a country and from an economic standpoint.SMITH BRENT (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Added PNTR to See Also. Work it in to the text if you like. Hcobb (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

worldwide view of the subject

What the fnord? This article should represent the bilateral view of the subject. What it needs are more notes from China, but they'd need to have freedom of speech first. Perhaps Wikileaks shall suffice? Hcobb (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in the section above, the reason this tag was added was the use of the adjective "American" for the United States. Make of that what you will. Ucucha 15:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we need an article on The difference between America and the Americas? Hcobb (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The US owes money

China is one of the US biggest creditors. China hold something like 900 billion dollars of US treasury bonds and 1.6 trillion dollars of US assets overall. Inlight of the international financial crisis this issue is now more importend than ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion...

This is overall a very balanced article, however, there is one omission I find glaring, which is the U.S. external debt to China. While the issue does not need to be covered in more than a paragraph, but its absence detracts from the quality of the article. I believe this should be added to the section on economic relations. What do my fellow editors think? Mythbuster2010 (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It is rarely spoken of in the U.S., but the financing for all of the U.S. bailouts and welfare programs is nearly totally dependent on China's backing $2 trillion worth of U.S. treasury bonds.--  Novus  Orator  05:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Although a case can be made that debt to China is quite frequently spoken of in the U.S., and it is an issue that weighs on the public consciousness. All the more that it deserves some mention in the article. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most importent aspect of the US China relations that's not only is importent to the US and China but to the whole world. I think this issue deserves a promenent place in this article as well as the fact that anyone who is interested or involved in US China diplomacy and all the analyst are constantly talking about this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unocal part 1 take 2

China's Hauwei drops it plans to buy 3leaf systems because of US concerns about security.

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/chinas-huawei-drops-us-tech-firm-deal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

resource?

Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade; Study Sees Americans Bearing High Economic Cost of Imports as Labor Market Struggles to Adapt September 27, 2011 by Justin Lahart in WSJ. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Obama hu-jintao file.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Obama hu-jintao file.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Obama's China Syndrome by Michael T. Klare November 22, 2011. This article appeared in the December 12, 2011 edition of The Nation, excerpt ...

In a move that could prove as momentous—and dangerous—as President Truman’s 1947 decision to initiate a cold war with the Soviet Union, President Obama has chosen to commence a military buildup in the Asia Pacific region aimed at reasserting US primacy and constraining China. Announced in Canberra, Australia, on November 17, the buildup will include deploying 2,500 U.S. marines at Darwin on Australia’s north coast, and an expanded naval presence in the South China Sea. Along with this shift is a fresh U.S. drive to bolster alliances with countries on China’s periphery, including Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand. None of this is explicitly aimed at China—indeed, Obama insists he still seeks good relations with Beijing—but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the White House has decided to counter China’s spectacular economic growth with a military riposte.

99.56.122.24 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)