Skip Navigation
Damien Ma

Damien Ma - Damien Ma is a China analyst at Eurasia Group.  He writes on Chinese energy policies and climate change, politics, innovation, U.S.-China relations, social policies, and Internet policies, among other topics. He has written for Slate, The New Republic, and Forbes.
More

Damien Ma is an analyst in the Asia practice at Eurasia Group. He studies and analyzes the intersection between Chinese politics and markets, with a particular focus on energy policies, climate change, commodities, elite politics, industrial policy, US-China trade, and social/Internet policies. Damien also covers Mongolian politics and mining. He provides up-to-date analysis on the impact of political issues on business operations and their implications for investors. Damien serves a range of clients from institutional investors and multinational corporations to the US government.

In addition to his analytical work, Damien has written for Slate, The New Republic, BusinessWeek, Forbes, Foreign Policy's blog "The Call," and the China Business Review. He has also been a commentator in US and Chinese print media such as Time, the Wall Street Journal, Caijing, and The Atlantic (with James Fallows), and on broadcast media such as Bloomberg TV, CNBC Asia, BBC America, and Al Jazeera International.

Prior to joining Eurasia Group, Damien was a manager of publications at the US-China Business Council in Washington, DC. He also worked in a public relations firm in Beijing, where he served clients ranging from Ford to Microsoft. He holds an MA in China studies, with a focus on Chinese politics, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a BA in international relations and a BS in journalism from Boston University. He earned an advanced international student certificate from People's University in Beijing in 2006. Damien has lived, worked, and studied in Beijing and Shanghai, China, as well as in Oxford, England. Damien speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese.

How the Hu-Obama Summit Looked in China

By Damien Ma
Jan 24 2011, 1:05 PM ET Comment

Hu Jintao came, saw, conquered his sniffles, gave $45 billion, tapped his foot to Herbie Hancock, showed that China is still open for business, and got rock star treatment in Chicago. As with almost all state summits, the balance between symbolism and substance tipped in favor of the former. That is not a bad thing in and of itself, as Gady Epstein at Forbes perceptibly notes. As I wrote previously, the "substance" component was roughly what one would realistically expect, a slew of clean energy deals, many of which were building on agreements from 2009. But Hu's accommodating attitude on the "indigenous innovation" issue may turn out to be above and beyond expectations (more on this thorny issue later).

The Chinese president didn't come to town just to secure a "win" for China in the eyes of Americans of course. He wanted a "win" for himself in the eyes of the Chinese, to put a notable foreign policy feather in his cap as someone who righted a bilateral relationship that looked like it was venturing down the wrong hutong last year. The official Chinese media are working overtime to shape the image of Hu as a senior statesman, as evidenced by this Xinhua page-o'-hagiography (in Chinese) dedicated entirely to his trip. And the China Daily is obsessively pointing out specific diction in the joint statement as indicative of a "new era" in the relationship: 

Reiterating their commitment to developing a positive, cooperative and comprehensive China-US relationship as they agreed in 2009, Chinese and US leaders also vowed to build "a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit", during Hu's visit to Washington...

...In a nutshell, every word matters in the new expression.

As "mutual respect" urges both China and the United States to respect each other's core interests and path of development, "mutual benefit" means that both countries are expected to achieve a win-win situation rather than a win-lose one, and bring about common prosperity.

"Partnership," meanwhile, shows that the two powers, instead of being rivals, are closely linked with each other in actions to cope with regional and international issues.

Those accustomed to the "Chinese way" should be familiar with the incessant emphasis on turns of phrase and discrete verbiage that might seem insignificant or anodyne to others. Agreeing at the outset on the "principles" of the relationship -- in this case "mutual respect" -- can be as important to the Chinese as the actual substance. Score 1 for Hu Jintao then (maybe?) since I'm sure the verbiage in the statement was strenuously negotiated. As the state media is pumping up the historic nature of the visit, it's unclear how much political capital Hu garnered as a result, or even how his performance sat with the irreverent and wily Chinese netizens.

I've already gotten some emails from Chinese friends in the U.S. who held low opinions of Hu's performance, purely based on optics. They were somewhat embarrassed by how catatonic and passive Hu looked in contrast to Obama, especially side-by-side. It seems rather silly, but it was Obama's "cool" factor that scared the bejesus out of Chinese officials during Obama's 2009 visit, which was one reason that it was so stage-managed. To be fair, they had a reason to be nervous. Netizens made an enormous deal out of the fact that Obama exited Air Force One on a rainy night with no entourage and no one holding an umbrella over him. This led to mockery that had it been even a mid-level Chinese official, he would've had a dozen people hold umbrellas for him [which implies "look at how unpretentious and equal America is...even their president travels solo in the rain!]. And when Obama decided to sprint up the steps of the Great Wall, that episode triggered yet another round of commentary about how young and healthy Obama appeared compared to aging Chinese officials who are always falling asleep during national meetings--photos of which are favorites among Chinese bloggers. If these two very "normal" episodes undertaken by an American president without an afterthought prompted a wave of admiration, how can Hu Jintao compete?! Soft power works in funny, unexpected ways.

I know I've already added to the glut of post-summit commentary, so I'll just conclude with a final thought. Those who suggest that the summit accomplished nothing or failed to solve monumental structural problems are missing the point. These presidential tete-a-tetes are necessary and should take place with regularity, even if they are logistical and expectations nightmares. Given the perennial mistrust between the #1 and #2 in the world, it is imperative that, at the very least, the presidents talk personally and frankly. The incentive is to rush to label the summit either a "failure" or "success", but the true consequences can only be known with the benefit of hindsight. The fact that it happened at all, and happened with relative success and wide, focused attention on both sides of the Pacific already speak volumes about the resilience of the relationship. That will have to be enough for now.



Presented by

More at The Atlantic

10 Years After Its Premiere, 'The Wire' Feels Dated, and That's a Good Thing A Decade Later, 'The Wire' Feels Dated, and That's a Good Thing
The Pathbreaking Flight of SpaceX's Dragon Capsule, by the Numbers SpaceX Dragon's Pathbreaking Flight, by the Numbers
Under Obama, Men Killed by Drones Are Presumed to Be Terrorists Why Are So Few Civilians Killed by Drones?
'Black Lagoon': The First, Great Pretty-Girl-Attacked-By-Aquatic-Beast Film? The First Great Pretty-Girl-Attacked-By-Aquatic-Beast Film
Hey Voters: The Kill List Is What Matters Hey Voters: President Obama's Kill List Is What Matters

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

The Unreal World

May 31, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)