The United States is a melting pot of immigrants; she welcomes migrants and brands them Americans within one or two generations of time by an unique but hard-to-describe Americanization Process. Inevitably children get Americanized when they grow up in the United States regardless whether their parents are citizens or permanent residents or just fresh immigrants. This Americanization process works with all immigrants from all over the world, turning their children to American grown-ups. If any difference in this Americanization process were observable, it would be most likely attributable to 'discrimination' inherently existed in different races or national origins in the US society. Discrimination is bigotry with a history in the U.S. Many American immigration and anti-discrimination laws were legislated, for example,  the removal (1943) of the infamous Chinese Exclusion Act which was signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882 and later the abandonment of the immigration quota based on national origin (1965). The positive laws do help reduce discrimination and make the United States an exceptional country regarding immigrants. 

This Americanization Process (AP) works because the U.S. is a resource rich country providing bountiful opportunities for immigrants to pursue a good life. The seemingly abstract Americanization process perhaps can be related to the concept – ‘American Exceptionalism’. American Exceptionalism is not just patriotism or about number of Olympic medals won or Hollywood stars who are Americans. AP binds Americans together and makes them feel exceptional, righteous and patriotic (not nationalistic) when they believe in the U.S. political system and their country being exceptional. On the other hand, Americans become alienated when they are confused or lied to by their government (often through mass media) or when they are discriminated in a bigotry way making them no longer feel exceptional. This nation building process is unique and hard-to-describe because it is difficult to pin down a clear causality principle (more circular) between American Exceptionalism and Americanization Process. One may say that Americanization is a process fueled by American Exceptionalism and in turn making Americans feeling Exceptional, contributing to American Exceptionalism. It doesn’t matter which is chicken or egg, so long as no bigotry to destroy them both.

The above paragraphs pave the way for discussing how Americans feel about the US foreign policies; in particular, the important US-China relation as China is rising as the largest economy. For Chinese Americans, they have a stronger cultural and heritage bond with the history and current state of China; they naturally pay more attention to what the media report and what the government is doing regarding the U.S.-China relation. Because of their understanding of ‘Chinese’, they are more sensitive and more critical to the U.S. foreign policy towards China, more than Americans with no such background. The Chinese Americans are growing in number in the American population (1.2% by 2010 census, approximately 3.8 million, 4 million by Pew study), but the mass media seem to pay little attention to their feelings, sensitivities and criticisms on the issue of the current U.S.-China policy. Few opinions of Chinese Americans get published in the mass media is a clear indicator. Post 1965 (removing some restrictions on Chinese migrants to the U.S.), Chinese immigrants are predominantly educated and skilled, coming from the pool of foreign students in the U.S. higher education and the source of employer-sponsored H1 visa holders. These educated and skilled Chinese immigrants have far more to contribute beyond American economy, particularly in shaping the US-China relation.

In the U.S. mass media, there are two prevailing themes driving the U.S.-China relation, neither seems to be well grounded with facts or sound assumptions.  Especially unfair is that the mass media pays little attention to the Chinese Americans’ (different) views, feelings and beliefs. The first theme is the "China Threat" which basically targets China as the enemy of the United States. Coming with this theme is a strategy of aligning China's neighbors, as military allies to contain China's rise as a developing country. The second theme is the "Dooms Day" which paints a degenerate and malfunctioning Chinese government doing everything wrong from pollution, housing-infrastructure bubble, and economic policies to her foreign relations. Predicted by the second theme is a phenomenon spelling a dooms day for China in a decade or sooner. These two themes are fundamentally contradictory to each other. If China's government were doing so badly to its country and people how could she pose any threat to the U.S. a few thousand miles away? If China were to collapse in a decade or so why should the U.S. go through an elaborate effort to align half of the world to fight against China? These contradicting themes not only puzzle the Chinese Americans (who remember very well a little more than one hundred years ago, eight foreign countries including the U.S. and Japan were ganging together to divide up China), but also bother any right-minded US citizens or any of its migrant groups – what is the US-China policy really leading up to? A serious consequential issue every American (citizens and leaders) should ponder is: Would the US-China policy festered under the two contradicting themes destroy the American Exceptionalism which bonds all American immigrants (including Chinese Americans) to keep the U.S. being exceptional.

China had a treacherous path fighting Western powers trying to establish a republic nation. New to foreign political ideology, China was divided but vowed to unite while experimenting with capitalism, communism and any –ism suitable for China. China’s founding father, Sun Yat Sen, (respected by all Chinese) had written a guide book (The Three Principles of the People) for constructing a modern China through a gradual experimental process to achieve a successful Republic. At the end of WW II, KMT retreated to Taiwan and CCP took over the mainland, but each wanted a united China. The Mainland China, facing a no-win choice of having Soviet troops coming through China and stationing on her border to control another puppet state (the communist North Korea) or the US army establishing a satellite nation and a US military base on her front door, was coerced into the Korean War. Mao took a crazy bet and caused a Chinese casualty of over 150,000 dead and over 250000 wounded. Mainland China’s experiment with communism had multiple failures far from any glorious success, her pulling out of Vietnam War and departure from the Soviet communism was the clear testimony. By playing a China card, the U.S. ended the Vietnam War with Mainland China’s influence. The U.S. policy switch of accepting only one China, abandoning KMT’s claim of independence and the whole China, opening up to Mainland China and letting her into the world economic system was the winning strategy not only quickened the ending of the Vietnam War but in the long run isolated and collapsed the Soviet Union and won the Cold War – A success story of leveraging China against the Soviet Union. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, China has risen from a poor third world country to a rapidly developing nation. What on earth is the logic for targeting China as the enemy now (in view of the post Cold War Russia behavior), just because her economy has become the largest? Ironically, Qing Dynasty had the world’s largest economy but no military strength, Qing was carved to pieces by the Western powers and diminished. Owing to Japan’s extreme greed of wanting all of China for Japan herself, her six month war/victory plan became eight years of Sino-Japan War and eventually China would defeat Japan, with or without the American atomic bomb. No matter which party (CCP, KMT, DPP or others) is experimenting with what kind of ideology and government system, the Chinese people has one dream – a peaceful reunification and a stable government to provide a prosperous future. People with that kind of dream should not be targeted as the enemy of the United States! When the Chinese leader, Xi Jin-Ping, who is dedicated to fulfill the Chinese dream, visits the U.S., let us hope the mainstream media keep an open mind to observe and report and let the American Exceptionalism shine!       

The U.S. has been the world's promoter of democracy, freedom and capitalism since the end of WW II. For the past 70 years, the U.S. has conducted her foreign policies under such a banner (DFC) with varying degree of rigor ranging from modest soft power influence to militant 'regime change' strategy. The end of Cold War, the collapse of Soviet Union, could be considered a major victory, but the DFC banner seems to be tarnished by various events such as ‘color movements’ taking place along the way. First of all, democracy has not been an assurance to a stable prosperous nation. Many examples of South American countries, EU and the Asian nations including even the U.S., have shown that limitations of making progress for a 'democratic society' and its inability in reducing wealth gap in the society. As for capitalism, many nations in the world, communist countries included, have adopted capitalism but with serious reservations and necessary dosages of socialistic modifications, practiced by the U.S. herself. As for freedom, the principal element is really the freedom of speech and mobility; all human rights, religious rights etc are visible and measurable via freedom of mobility and communication. The migration to cities from rural areas and immigration issues involving people moving to countries with better economic conditions  indicate that mobility is more a social problem rather than a political freedom issue. With the advent of Internet, the freedom of communication has soared tremendously in the world, in China, particularly, with voices of hundreds of millions expressed daily, barring those concerning sensitive national security or anti-government opinions. On the other hand, the U.S. has found necessary to monitor citizens’ communication (in violation of privacy rights) for security concerns caused by international terrorism.

The U.S. is still the most liberal country in media freedom; she has more publications than any other country in the world especially in the domain of national security and foreign policies, although many not be as independent as they claimed. Information overload has become a serious burden to citizens; however having more is still better than having less provided people are willing to digest the different views to avoid being brain washed. Foreign Affairs, a prestigious magazine, recently published a special issue, entitled Obama's World - Judging His Foreign Policy Record. In this September/October 2015 issue, it contains an essay, Obama and Asia - Confronting the China Challenge, authored by Thomas J. Christensen, a Princeton professor and the author of The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power (Norton, 2015). Prof. Christensen had served as the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, a valuable experience for him to write a review on Obama's China Policy record. As American citizens are going to elect a new President in 2016, it is timely for us to discuss the important U.S. China policy topic with reference to Christensen's review article.

Let's first summarizes Prof. Christensen's main points with check marks in mind, right, wrong or debatable, then we will offer additional analyses and comments if appropriate.  

Christensen rightly pointed out that China poses challenges to the U.S.; and China is powerful enough to be influential in the stability of East Asia and important enough to be relevant in solving global problems. Christensen acknowledged that President Bush ended his term heading the China policy to a right direction and President Obama made some progress with a mixed record. Obama was effective in placing US presence in Asia and managed tension but made mistake in rhetoric and in diplomacy with flip-flop languages from 'pivot' to 'rebalance', from agreeing to respect each other's 'core interest' (China's stability and territorial integrity and U.S. Anti-terror and world security concern) to selling arms to Taiwan and meeting Dalai Lama and from reassuring security to criticizing China's Internet and blaming each other on hacking. In Christensen's view, the tensions are up in the East and South China Sea but not manufactured by the U.S. even though she held military exercises in those regions. On global governance, Obama's record is also mixed: On the nuclear issue with North Korea and Iran, China is getting warmer to South Korea which may indicate China's inability to control North Korea. China's increasing investment in North Korea certainly weakens the US sanction (Note: perhaps the U.S. needs to understand China's strategy better in the Korean Peninsula). In conclusion, Christensen remarked that anytime the U.S. engaged in a regime change, China stopped supporting the U.S. in international affairs (e.g. nuclear, Qaddafi, Kim, ...) which should be noted. A bright spot in U.S.-China relation is on climate change with quantitative expectation as a result of mutual internal pressure (Note: Common interests between the U.S. and China, particularly on issues the people of two nations care about do exist. Leaders and politicians should stay away from rhetoric but listen to what people say!)

After reading the Foreign Affair's issue and Christensen's review on China Policy, I could not help raising some fundamental questions. First, is it correct for the U.S. to assume that the China challenge is a national security issue as we did on Russia? Is China really the destabilizing element in Asia or as the U.S. making her to be? For decades, there were no serious confrontations in the East and South China seas. It was in 2010 Japan first arrested a Chinese fishing boat that evolved into a series of drama including Japan's comic move of purchasing those non-inhabitable rocks historically belonged to China. The U.S. is fully aware of this yet cowardly or shrewdly declares taking no position on this sovereignty issue, essentially encouraging Japan to take more provocative actions, and further condoning Japan by applying the article 5 of the US-Japan Defense treaty to those rocks. On this issue, leaders should listen to the people than follow the legacy think tank touting a fictitious enemy to drum up arms race and military alliances leading to tension rather than solving world problems. If one asks why is China making a big effort to conduct a parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the ending of WW II? The answer is simple, China is feeling insecure - the only nation was invaded and victimized by so many countries, from the West and the East, for so many years causing the world's biggest economy to become the poorest population on earth for decades. Now China is rising, what do the Chinese people see, they now have a dream but they see their country being targeted as the enemy by the U.S., worse by Japan even threatened by North Korea. Chinese people are no more belligerent and warmongering than the American people, why should they be targeted as the enemy? More than sarcastic is China being targeted as enemy by Abe Shinzo, a bloodline descendent of a Japanese war criminal.

Another fundamental question is that why is China accused of being reluctant to pay economic and political cost to deal with world problems and to contribute to the global prosperity? This is puzzling to the Chinese and American people alike. The Chinese believe more in the United Nations than the U.S. does. China's grand strategy of constructing a 'One Belt and One Route' connecting Asia to Europe has every element for stimulating economic development of half the world. China's foreign policy has been leaning far more towards economic development than military alliances. Why should the U.S. urge Japan to assume a larger role in global affairs in the direction of escalating her military strength? To add more pressure on an insecure China or to depend on Japanese troops to defend the U.S., a ludicrous logic in view of the historic facts how US-Japan fought during WW II and how Japanese textbooks describes Pearl Harbor, Nanking Massacre and the atomic bomb.

Finally, one questions why is the U.S. as the greatest power in the world not willing or unable to manage the U.S.-China security issue bilaterally without involving other nations? The U.S. has always been assertive in conducting her foreign affairs. China has become more assertive in a reactionary manner to provocation. In fact, China openly regards the U.S. as the greatest nation and wishes to have a friendly relation to avoid to be targeted as the enemy. Is it that difficult for the U.S. leader to deal with the Chinese leader in a frank and direct manner? It can't be the language, since the Japanese language and culture are probably more mystic than Chinese to Americans. This Fall, when Chinese leader, Xi Jingping, who had studied in the U.S. with fond memory and gratitude towards his American host family, visits President Obama, we hope they will open a new page of China policy to guide the U.S.-China relation onto a positive course.

As 2016 is approaching, the U.S. presidential campaign is warming up. The China Policy should rank high on the candidates' minds. It is so important for the candidates to leaf through the legacy pages of China policy and cultivate a new constructive dialogue rather than blindly iterating China bashing. The future of the U.S., China and the world depends critically on the outcome of the 2016 election as I have discussed in this column previously.

Summary

The recent fluctuations in China's currency typify the best and worst of a globalized world, where developments in one place can instantly change the political and financial calculations of governments in others. For most of human history, the communities, cultures and economies of the world existed independently of one another, separated as they were by vast distances and difficult terrain. It would, for instance, take months or even years for news of China to reach Europe across the great Silk Road trading route during the height of its use some 1,000 years ago. Even then, the communities along that route could hardly be considered entirely coherent.

But that is clearly no longer the case. And now, as China continues to adjust the yuan, markets throughout the world will react accordingly, even as they react differently. 

Analysis

There were several reasons behind China's decision, but it nevertheless came as a surprise to many. In search of stability, China has tied its currency to the U.S. dollar since 1994, usually at a low value relative to the dollar. During the 2000s, the connection helped China keep its exports competitive, with the developed world consuming its output. The West's economic collapse in 2008 meant that this model could no longer function, and China began trying to grow consumption levels so that the domestic consumer might come to fill the hole left by the faded international market.

Changing China

Transforming from an export-led economic model to a consumption-led one could be described as changing from being like Germany to being like the United States, and China has tried to reproduce some of the advantages that the United States has created for itself in the same role. One of those advantages is the dominant position of the U.S. dollar in world trade, which means U.S. consumers can go deeply into debt and global demand for dollars will delay the moment at which this comes to a head by those debts being catastrophically called in. Thus China sought to grow international usage of the yuan, making strides in its attempts to do so. The next step would be for the yuan to be accepted into the International Monetary Fund's "currency," the Special Drawing Right. However, the IMF has said that China would need to liberalize its currency before such a step could take place. The IMF makes the decision every five years, with one originally set for November this year, though the institution recently announced that any changes will not be implemented until October 2016.

Meanwhile, the peg to the dollar aided China's strategy as the strengthening dollar over the past two years enabled the yuan to rise alongside it relative to the world's other floating currencies, empowering Chinese consumers and helping the changeover from an export- to consumption-based economy. But low global demand has not created a good climate for such change, and growth has been unsteady during this period, slipping to 7 percent this year. The baton pass from an export-driven to consumption-driven economy is risky, and exports need to hold up long enough for the Chinese consumer — and building blocks such as the reserve currency — to develop. When export numbers for July showed an 8.3 percent fall year-on-year, all signs seemed to point toward aloosening of controls, which would both please the IMF and, if the Chinese currency continued to weaken as many in the market expected it to, help boost exports. 

The Repercussions

In the globalized world, where every economy is interconnected with every other economy, the effects of a shift like China's can be felt everywhere. The world's largest economies have tended to move in concert throughout modern financial history, with central banks choosing to tighten or loosen interest rates, often in quick succession. But actions over the past two years have diverged from the rule. While one group is now considering raising interest rates for the first time since 2008, another group is still pursuing quantitative easing programs, which are partly designed to devalue currencies and stimulate growth. China's dislocation from the dollar, particularly if the yuan devalues further against the dollar, moves the country from the first group toward the second, with clear consequences: 

The U.S. and U.K.

Following the 2008 crisis, the United States and the United Kingdom were arguably the first to adopt forthright monetary policies to stimulate their economies. Quantitative easing was pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, and, possibly as a result, these two economies have led the recovery in the past few years. Consequently, for the last 12 months the financial world has focused on a key question:When will the U.S. Federal Reserve raise interest rates for the first time since 2008? The Bank of England is wrestling with a similar dilemma. The interest rate rise will be seen as the first step toward "normality" following the extended period of ultra-low rates, and capital has flowed from emerging markets to the United States in anticipation.

Only sporadic growth and low productivity levels, along with stubbornly low inflation figures in both countries, have caused their central banks to delay the rate rise, but recent strong job creation figures led many in the market to expect the United States to make the change in September 2015 (and the United Kingdom in early-to-mid 2016). The U.S. economy does not particularly rely on exports, insulating it from some of the drawbacks of currency strength, which usually hurts exports. But China's latest move creates another currency against which the dollar can appreciate. Now, a rate hike would likely strengthen the dollar even more, to the extent that it might become an issue for the U.S. economy. China's reshuffle, then, may have changed the answer to the biggest financial question of the year; market expectations for the rate rise have slipped back to December and may even move to 2016.

Emerging Markets

Emerging markets have suffered a torrid few years. Commodity exporters in Asia, Africa and Latin America enjoyed a boom period between 2000 and 2008, when China was consuming their raw materials as part of its production machine and Chinese investment sustained prices for a few years after. But global commodity prices have fallen since 2011, with the economies of Brazil, Nigeria,Russia and several parts of Asia suffering the most, as evidenced by their steadily falling currencies. The yuan's depreciation reduces China's spending power, and unsurprisingly emerging market currencies have continued to decline. Every time the yuan weakens, it creates more problems for these countries, as many welcomed Western capital during the good times and now have sizable dollar-denominated loans on private balance sheets that are becoming harder to pay back.

Japan and the Eurozone

Meanwhile, the depreciating yuan has made Japan and the eurozone's currencies float upward. The development is problematic because both have undertaken quantitative easing policies, in part to devalue their currencies. 

Since coming to power in December 2012, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been pursuing a three-pronged strategy designed to shock Japan out of its economic funk of the past two decades. The first of these "arrows" has involved monetary easing, partly to drop the yen's value and stimulate export-led growth and inflation. The plan has not been working. Inflation has remained stubbornly far below its 2 percent target, exports in July were down from the year before, and growth has been highly unreliable, with second-quarter GDP shrinking at an annualized rate of 1.6 percent. Even before China's currency reorganization, talk had begun that the pace of quantitative easing, already redoubled in 2014, would need to be boosted further. Falling Asian currencies relative to Japan will only increase these calls, but there are complications to redoubling quantitative easing.

So-called Abenomics has been losing public support. Even within the administration, Abe and Bank of Japan head Haruhiko Kuroda have been divided on the best way to proceed. The former has pushed for more easing. The latter, perhaps more aware of the complications from the Bank of Japan already owning a sizable portion of the available market in Japanese sovereign bonds, has pushed for fiscal consolidation. This difference of opinion over Abe's decisions, such as to delay a planned consumption tax hike, and other policies regarding Japan's military, have garnered the administration its lowest popularity rating since coming to power (in July it was 38 percent, down from 46 percent in June). Abe's grand experiment is on the ropes, constraining the prime minister's ability to double down both politically and economically. The time may be approaching for Abenomics to be called off. Under such circumstances, it is hard to imagine Abe remaining in his post.

In Europe, the European Central Bank's quantitative easing program has also weakened the currency, improving eurozone economies. Talk about the ECB extending quantitative easing past its scheduled end in September 2016 has already begun. The decision would not technically be as problematic as in Japan, since Europe's quantitative easing has not gone on as long and the ECB could overcome any lack of available bonds by extending its own self-imposed limits to purchase more sovereign bonds. Still, if Europe considers extending its program, there could be difficulties convincing Germany of quantitative easing's merits, potentially creating undue political issues at a time when the Continent is already deeply fragmented.