How will the election of George W. Bush affect U.S.-China relations? The conventional wisdom was that a Gore administration would have been more favorable to China -- a questionable assumption based in part on the belief that Al Gore would be more inclined to continue President Bill Clinton's policies of engagement and support for "one China," the real litmus tests for Washington as far as Beijing is concerned. However, these policies have been consistently followed for years by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and there is no reason to believe that any future U.S. administration is going to change them, absent some dramatic destabilizing action by Beijing.
Meanwhile, on human-rights and labor issues, Gore would likely have been tougher on China than Bush. Bush also appears less amenable to humanitarian intervention than Clinton has been and Gore could reasonably have been expected to be; recall Bush's admonitions about the need for "leadership without arrogance" and for more judicious use of U.S. forces abroad.
In truth, China was not an issue in the election. Both candidates sent strong signals that they would continue to engage China, while also confirming that the U.S.-Japan relationship would still enjoy pride of place in Asia. True, Bush made it clear that the current Sino-U.S. "constructive strategic partnership" buzzword will be superseded. But even the most enthusiastic cheerleaders recognize that this lofty goal is unattainable today (or in the next four years), given the two nations' differing world views. Regardless of the Bush administration's chosen catchphrase, some form of "cooperative engagement and managed competition" is likely to guide relations between Beijing and Washington during the next four years.