|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
14
November 2001 CONTENTS: Working
Toward Co-operative Arrangements Annex
A: Sister Relations in Washington State (USA) Annex
B: Australian and New Zealand Sister Relations with China Annex
C: USA Sister Relations with China RELATED
DOCUMENTS Chamber letter to Sister
City News Forum on “Making Sister
City Relations Work for the Economic Benefit of Both Parties”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Cities in China are now taking
an active role in the Sister City Program, due largely to the expectation of
China’s formal entry into the World Trade Organisation in December 2001. China’s Sister City Program has
special characteristics that are relevant to Australia-China relations: ·
Their main objective is economic co-operation,
which, in the Chinese context, implies a commitment to enhance economic and
commercial interests in the two cities on a mutually beneficial basis. ·
They view the Sister City Program as a centre or
starting point for a wider network of co-operative arrangements (or memoranda
of understanding). Although business practices are
gradually changing in China, in a way that is bringing them closer to Western
practices, the tradition of guangxi, or personal networks, remains an
important element in they way Sister City arrangements are structured. Adjusting to these differences
has created strain for a number of local councils in Australia, and this is
exacerbated by the substantial difference in the size of local councils,
compared to municipal jurisdictions in China. It is the Chamber’s
view that a convergence in these practices is necessary for successful
business relations between Australia and China. We believe, further,
that the Sister City framework is an important element in this process of
convergence. It conveys the
fundamental reason for the Sister City Program. In the Australian context, this
will require increased co-operation among the various participants in all
forms trading and investment activities between Australia and China. For this purpose, the Chamber is
proposing that a forum be convened with a view to Making
Sister City Relations Work for the Economic Benefit of Both Parties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Sister City Program is an important
resource to the negotiations of governments in letting people themselves give
expression to their common desire for friendship, goodwill and co-operation
for a better world for all. The initial objectives of the
program focused on the development of durable networks of communications
between cities of the world for the principal purpose of reducing the
likelihood of misunderstandings and conflict among nations. In this sense, the program could be viewed
as foreign relations at the local level. The backdrop of circumstances in
the early 1950s is relevant to this focus.
Aid from the US to Western Europe, through the Marshall Plan, ended in
1952. While it is often credited with
a significant contribution of US$13 billion in the post-war recovery of
Europe, it was nevertheless controversial.
The nature of the aid was rejected by the Soviet Union and this
contributed to “cold war” tensions. More specifically, over US$9
billion, or about 70 per cent of the funds, was spent on US manufactured
goods and therefore comprised a form of tied aid. In addition, the newly formed Organisation for
European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), which later became the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), was to be the administrator of
the funds, working with the US Economic Co-operation Administration. Aid recipients were required to give a
full accounting of how the funds were used.
As a consequence of this arrangement, there
were suspicions that US industrialists would be major beneficiaries of the
aid and that political “strings” would be attached to the funding. The Soviet Union formed a separate plan
for the economic recovery of Eastern Europe and this was associated with the
policy of isolation for which Winston Churchill coined the well-known
expression: “ the iron curtain”. Thus, when Eisenhower became the
US President in 1953, “trade and aid” was not a popular phrase. The Sister City Program, which began in
1956, was not designed as a substitute for the Marshall Plan, but it was
nevertheless hoped that such a network would recover some of the loss in
goodwill that was associated with the tied aid. The initial objectives remain as
the foundation for many, if not most, Sister City agreements today. These agreements are formalised when two
communities from different nations join together to develop a “friendly and
meaningful” relationship. The central
element is the exchange of people, ideas, culture, education and technology. In recent years, “trade” has
become effectively de-linked with “aid”, and most Sister City agreements
contain explicit provisions for trade and economic co-operation. For example, the City of Boston (USA) states
the following as the objectives of its Sister City Program (http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/mayor/spevents/sistercity.asp): 1.
Strengthening Boston's
international relations in the areas of: ·
Friendship ·
Trade ·
Understanding ·
Co-operation 2.
Enhancing Boston's
global reputation. 3.
Expanding economic
interests. 4.
Enriching Boston's
cultural and educational climate. 5.
Creating a diplomatic atmosphere. We cannot pinpoint the precise
time at which trading interests became an explicit, as opposed to implicit,
part of Sister City agreements. It is
nevertheless clear that Japanese cities became an active participant in
Sister City arrangements in the 1960s and 1970s and with that participation
trade became a more visible outcome for the arrangements. While it may be incorrect to say
that Sister City relations were “orchestrated” by the Japanese Government, it
is nevertheless clear that government participation existed. The pattern in the formation of these
relations by Japanese cities was too coherent to be established through
independent and random choices. Perhaps more importantly, Sister
City relations were associated with an increased amount of personnel
exchanges involving young adults.
This was beneficial in giving overseas exposure and training to
Japan’s soon-to-be corporate managers and administrators. Part of the cost of these arrangements
came from the Japanese Government. Japan’s participation in the
Sister City Program is more clearly seen with the US Pacific Coast
states. The State of Washington, for
example, has 107 sister relations, most of which are Sister City pairings,
but some county-city and sub-city relations are included. Among these arrangements, 37 are with
Japanese cities (shown in blue in Annex A). It is of course not surprising
the State of Washington has a strong interest in Northeast Asia, but the
number of sister relations with Japanese cities far exceeds those with Taiwan
(7 shown in green in Annex A) and those with mainland
China (4 shown in red in Annex A) and South Korea (2
shown in brown in Annex A). It is also instructive to note
that this list of cities was compiled and published by the Washington State
Office of Trade and Economic Development, reflecting the importance of trade
in the name of the relevant state government office, but also in the relevance
of trade in Sister City relations by associating them with the Office of
Trade and Economic Development.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
San Francisco, USA – 1968 While
this demonstrates a willingness to participate, the number of these
arrangements is much less than those associated with Seattle, which lists 21
Sister City arrangements (see Annex A). The
overall population is not relevant to the difference since Greater Seattle
(which includes 4 counties in addition to the City of Seattle) has 3.1
million people compared to 4.0 million for the metropolitan area of
Sydney. The
substantially larger number of local councils in the Sydney metropolitan area
undoubtedly has an impact. The City
of Seattle has a population of 540,000 compared to 24,907 for the City of
Sydney, which means that the number of people within the jurisdiction of the
City of Seattle is nearly 22 times greater.
Since it has only 3.5 times more Sister Cities than the City of Sydney,
the latter compares favourably. Nevertheless,
the number of independent local-council jurisdictions creates difficulties in
the lack of co-ordination in Sister City arrangements in Australia and in the
extent to which these arrangements contribute to mutual benefit arising from
trade and economic co-operation. We
have not been able to obtain a complete list of Sister Cities for Australia
or for individual Australian States.
Sister Cities International, which accepts membership only from
communities in the US, lists on its Internet site (http://www.sister-cities.org/) the partner cities, by country or region,
of its members. For Australia, this
yielded the following: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Albury (New South Wales) and Berwick (Victoria) and Blue Mountains (New
South Wales) and Brisbane (Queensland) and Cairns (Queensland) and Colac (Victoria) and Cooktown (Queensland) and Cootamundra (New South Wales) and Darwin (Northern Territory) and Delatite Shire
(Victoria) and Gold Coast (Queensland) and Goulburn (New South Wales) and Greater Bendigo
(Victoria) and Hawkesbury Shire (New
South Wales) and Lismore (New South Wales) and Mackay (Queensland) and Melbourne (Victoria) and Mildura (Victoria) and Millicent (South Australia) and Mona Vale (New South Wales) and Newcastle (New South Wales) and Orange (New South Wales) and Perth (Western Australia) and Playford (Northern Territory) and Port Stevens (New South Wales) and Stroud (New South Wales) and Sutherland Shire (New
South Wales) and Sydney (New South Wales) and Tamworth (New South Wales) and Wauchope (New South Wales) and |
Merced
(California) Springfield (Ohio) Flagstaff
(Arizona) Brisbane
(California) Scottsdale (Arizona)
Walker (Michigan) Kauai County
(Hawaii) Hemet
(California) Anchorage
(Alaska) Vail
(Colorado) Fort Lauderdale
(Florida) El Cajon
(California) Los Altos
(California) Temple City
(California) Eau Claire
(Wisconsin) Hawaii County
(Hawaii) Boston (Massachusetts)
Upland
(California) Seguin (Texas) Wilmette (Illinois)
Arcadia
(California) Orange (California)
Houston (Texas)
Fremont
(California) Bellingham
(Washington) Stroud (Oklahoma)
Lakewood
(Colorado) San Francisco (California)
De Kalb
(Illinois) Canisteo (New York) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The
connection between most of these city pairs is rather elusive. For example, Hawksbury Shire Council would
appear to have little in common with Temple City, California, which is in Los
Angeles County and not far from Pasadena.
Lakewood, in Colorado, is a suburb of Denver, which would not seem to
have much in common with either Sydney or Sutherland Shire Council. This
is not meant to imply that the city partnerships that appear to have little
in common cannot be mutually rewarding.
Rather, it is meant to indicate that cities having similar
expectations and a basis for similar commercial interests are likely to be
more successful in sustaining the partnership. Assessing
these similarities is rarely easy, and the typically small size of
local-council jurisdictions in Australia precludes devoting substantial
resources to locating a suitable Sister City. We nevertheless believe that more can be done than has been
done, especially in the case of China.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
It is therefore not surprising that a large portion of
Sister City arrangements contain Chinese partners from the coastal provinces
(refer to Annex B and Annex C). See also Key Cities for the
Chamber’s description of China’s provinces. The approaching entry into the World Trade Organisation
widened further the scope of central government approval for municipal
authorities to enter into contractual arrangements with foreign communities
and enterprises. Thus, interest in
these arrangements has intensified within the past two years. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
First, the main objective of the
Sister City arrangement is economic co-operation, which, in the Chinese
context, implies a commitment to enhance economic and commercial interests in
the two cities on a mutually beneficial basis. Exchanging import/export information, as well as information
about projects for which foreign investors are invited to participate, is a
major consideration. Second, Sister City arrangements
are viewed by the Chinese as a centre or starting point for a wider network
of co-operative arrangements (or memoranda of understanding). This creates concern since it appears to
commit mayors in Australia to obligations that are outside their respective
spheres of influence, but this is not as much of a burden as it might appear. The Chinese view is based
largely on their ancient practice of guangxi, or network of personal
relationships. Although an analogy
between Sister Cities and matrimonial relations, as used, for example, by
Sister Cities International has obvious limitations, it may nevertheless help
to clarify the difference in approach. In giving advice to communities
searching for a Sister City, the Internet site of SCI http://www.sister-cities.org/ states: We often compare the
sister city search process to the intricate dance of matrimony, beginning
with the awkward days of courtship to well beyond a golden anniversary. With this analogy in mind, it is crucial
to be sensitive to the needs of your prospective community, and at all times,
be aware that this relationship is intended to last a lifetime. Guangxi in China often are more durable than marriages since they can be
passed from one generation to the next.
The critical difference is that the loyalties and commitments
encompassed by guangxi are acquired through personal interactions, not
by a formal vow that is taken when the partnership is initiated. Thus, local councils in
Australia are likely to ponder at length on the nature of the agreements they
sign with the view to avoiding a commitment to something which they may have
difficulty in fulfilling sometime in the future. Chinese, on the other hand, are less concerned about the
wording since future commitments are based upon what they have received (not
promised) in the past, as well of course, upon what they receive in the
present. If nothing has been received,
then there are no obligations; but if an Australian mayor is the initiating
factor in an outcome that is of considerable benefit to the Chinese city,
then the Chinese obligation to that mayor, and to the local council he
represents, is both considerable and durable. Unlike a marital relationship,
the Chinese do not expect a partner city to display exclusivity, and do not
convey a willingness to be exclusive.
They generally will, however, give to the partner city the first
opportunity to respond, or, as is sometimes stated in Western terms, “the
first right of refusal”. While they may enter Sister City
arrangements with the view that it may last a lifetime, they are realistic in
recognising that most such arrangements do not result in guangxi
obligations. The arrangements
represent formal recognition of opportunities rather than of commitments. This might help to explain the
tendency for Australians to feel inundated with requests from Chinese, and
the obligation to respond. For the
Chinese, however, there is no obligation attached to the recipient of the
request. The obligation occurs only
if the request results in substantial gain to the one who requested it, and
the obligation is then incurred by the one who made the request. It also explains the Australian
frustration in making requests to an MOU partner that are apparently
ignored. Generally they are not
ignored, but are not commented upon or explained if the requests cannot be
fulfilled. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The more traditional view
nevertheless remains as a framework for the Chinese and this should be
recognised by all who enter into the agreements with them. Similarly, the Chinese should recognise
that the “Australian framework” differs, and with this mutual recognition a
convergence is possible. Difficulties arising from the
relatively small size of local councils in Australia can be partly remedied
by establishing “guangxi with Australian characteristics”. We of course lack this tradition, and have
traditions of self-reliance that tend to interfere with guangxi. Obligations, like “shouts” at the pub, are
tallied on a contemporaneous basis.
This seems to make life easier, and generally also more intoxicating. Greater co-operation among
Australian participants does not necessarily comprise a threat to
self-reliance; it involves a willingness to communicate and to share in
specific activities on a contemporaneous basis. For example: ·
If the mayor of a local council is informed
indirectly that the city with which he signed a Sister City agreement is
conducting a trade fair and sends a letter expressing regrets in not being
able to attend, and sends with it a congratulatory message, then the
opportunities conveyed by the trade fair are recognised. The Chamber is more than willing to pass
along announcements of such activities, but we cannot do so unless we know
that a Sister City agreement exists. ·
Chamber members may visit a city that has a Sister
City agreement with an Australian local government authority. If that member presents a letter of
greeting (not necessarily a letter of introduction) from the mayor, then both
the visitor and the local council acquire enhanced status. As before, this cannot be done if we do
not know about the agreement. ·
A request for a joint venture partner by the
Chinese may involve a type of enterprise that does not exist in the community
to which the request was sent, but passing it along may result in a
favourable response for which credit will be apportioned by the Chinese to
the various part of the “information chain”.
This of course requires that such a chain exists. The key element is the need for
mutual benefit through mutual adjustment within the Sister City Program, as
well as among similarly situated organisations in both Australia and
China. The gains from such
adjustments are likely to be substantial, though they may not always be
tangible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
·
Local Government and Shires Associations (http://www.lgsa.org.au) ·
Australian Sister Cities Association Incorporated (http://www.asca.asn.au) and ·
Austrade (http://www.austrade.gov.au) for the purpose of organising a
jointly sponsored forum on “Making Sister City Relations Work for the
Economic Benefit of Both Parties”. Further information is available
from: Business mentor furthers relations,
letter from Michael C. H. Jones, President of Australia-China Chamber of
Commerce and Industry of New South Wales to Sister
City News, January 2000. Proposal and tentative agenda for
Sister Cities Forum. Subsequent announcements and
documents will be available on this Internet site. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sister Relations in Washington State (USA)
Source: Washington State Office
of Trade and Economic Development. http://www.trade.wa.gov/sisters.htm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Australian and New Zealand Sister Relations with China
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
