Cardow, «The Ottawa Citizen»
“Chimerica” foi termo criado por Niall Ferguson e Moritz Schularick para designar a relação de simbiose entre os EUA e a China. O mundo já se refere a esta “simbiose” como o “G-2”. Andreas Lorenz, na Der Spiegel, retorna ao tema e escreve que os dois países já são as duas maiores potências mundiais e se fossem aliados seriam imparáveis:
When China sneezes, the whole world gets a cold. Bill Clinton recognized this during his term as United States president, speaking of the “potential challenge that a strong China could present to the United States in the future.” At the same time, he warned of the risk presented by a “weak China,” which could destabilize large regions of Asia.
Now Clinton’s successor and fellow Democrat Barack Obama is looking for ways to work more closely with the giant nation, with its 1.3 billion people. Obama believes that cooperation with China is essential in the coming years. “The major challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic recovery, are challenges that touch both our nations, and challenges that neither of our nations can solve by acting alone,” the US president said during his recent visit to China. […]
Paresh Nath, «The Khaleej Times»
Mas a “Chimerica” tem os seus problemas; os mais recentes foram a crise com a Google, a venda de armas por parte dos EUA a Taiwan e o anuncio por parte da Casa Branca que o Presidente Barack Obama poderá se encontrar com o Dalai Lama. Nada nisto será novo e as reacções chinesas são as mesmas de sempre. Na Time, Jeffrey Wasserstrom escreve que nada disto é preocupante, nenhuma crise se aproxima. Wasserstrom afirma que a maior parte das reacções chinesas contra os EUA e vice-versa são apenas discursos para consumo interno
[…] Just as all politics is local (to a degree), all diplomacy is domestic (to a large extent). China’s dramatic growth may have increased its ability to be less deferential toward the U.S. But when officials loudly proclaim that foreign leaders should steer clear of the Dalai Lama, lash out against Clinton’s “information imperialism” or stoke popular indignation about Taiwan, their motivation is largely a desire to play the nationalism card as effectively as possible at home, and it is as much a sign of insecurity as it is one of bravado. They see a value in deflecting criticism of the government over issues like corruption, as well as distracting the population from worrying about whether the economic good times will last long enough for those who have so far been left behind to get a chance to enjoy them. Similarly, when American politicians change their rhetoric about or policies toward China, we should remember that this is often done with an eye on how this will play in Peoria.