Australia-China Chamber of Commerce and Industry
of New South Wales

 

 


 

 


POSITION PAPER ON SISTER STATE AND SISTER CITY RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND CHINA

14 November 2001

CONTENTS:

Executive Summary

The Sister City Program

Sister Cities in Australia

Sister Cities in China

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”

 


Executive Summary


Main points:


The Sister City Program began in 1956 with little or no explicit reference to international trade and economic co-operation.  This began to change in the 1960s and 1970s, at least partly as a result of increased participation in the Program by Japanese cities.

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


Nature of Sister City relations:


The initiative for the Sister City Program is attributed to the Dwight Eisenhower, who was the US President from 1953 to 1961.  His statement is quoted as follows:

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.

 


Sister Cities in Australia


Australia’s participation:


In Australia 190 municipalities have over 322 affiliations overseas, and their overall programs are diversified.  For example, the City of Sydney has the following Sister Cities http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/catz_sister_city_program.asp

San Francisco, USA – 1968
Nagoya, Japan – 1980
Wellington, New Zealand – 1982
Portsmouth, England – 1984
Guangzhou, China – 1985
Florence, Italy -- 1986

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:


Partial list of Australia-US Sister Cities:


Adelaide (South Australia) and

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


Austin (Texas)

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)


Nature of these relations:


Some city partnerships were formed from the identity of name.  Brisbane, Orange and Stroud are examples.  Others have similarity in location, such as both Port Stevens and Bellingham located on a bay, but Darwin and Anchorage would appear to represent opposites.

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.

 


Sister Cities in China


Renewed interest from the Chinese:


China has 668 cities, a large proportion of which are not active in the Sister City Program.  This occurred mainly from the policy of the central government to “open” China’s cities on a gradual basis, starting with Special Economic Zones and extending it to 14 “open cities” in the coastal provinces.  Cities in the interior provinces were subsequently added.

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.


Chinese characteristics:


The Sister City program of Chinese cities has special characteristics that are relevant to municipal authorities in Australia. 

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.


More modern approach:


Chinese practices are of course changing, largely as a result of the need to acquire global trading practices.  Since it requires several generations to build up a substantial guangxi network, it does not lend itself to modern business practices.  Similarly, the value of inter-generational obligations is not easily explained to auditors or to shareholders.

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.

 


Working Toward Co-operative Arrangements


Initial discussions:


The Chamber initiated discussions with:

·         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.

 


ANNEX A

Sister Relations in Washington State (USA)

Aberdeen

Hakui, Japan
Kanazawa, Japan

Longview

Mandane City, Philippines

Anacortes

Lomonosov, Russia
Kisakata, Japan

Lynden

Langley, B.C., Canada

Auburn

Kasuga, Japan

Lynnwood

Choluteca, Honduras

Bellevue

Hualien, Taiwan
Yao, Japan
Kladno, Czech Republic
Liepaja, Latvia

Moses Lake

Yonezawa, Japan

Bellingham

Nakhodka, Russia
Port Stevens, Australia
Tateyama, Japan
Punta Arenas, Chile
Bingen, Germany

Mount Vernon

Chilliwack, B.C., Canada
Kure, Japan

Bremerton

Kure, Japan
Olongapo, Philippines

Okanogan

Keremeos, B.C., Canada

Brewster

Takahagi, Japan

Olympia

Olympia, Greece
Samarkand, Uzbekistan
Yashiro, Japan

Camas

Hosoe, Japan
Taki, Japan

Omak

Summerland, B.C., Canada

Chehalis

Inasa, Japan

Port Townsend

Jalapa, Nicaragua
Ichikawa, Japan (pending)

Chelan

Tojo, Japan

Pullman

Kasai City, Japan

Edmonds

Hekinan, Japan

Puyallup

Kuima, Japan

Everett

Iwakuni, Japan
Sovetskaya Gavan, Russia
Kligo, Ireland

Renton

Nishiwaki, Japan

Federal Way

Hachinohe, Japan

Richland

Hsinchu, Taiwan

Ferndale

Miyoshi, Japan

Sequim

Yamasaki, Japan

Friday Harbor

Terschelling, Netherlands

Seattle

Beersheba, Israel
Bergen, Norway
Cebu, Philippines
Chongqing, China
Christchurch, New Zealand
Galway, Ireland
Gdynia, Poland
Haiphong, Vietnam
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Kobe, Japan
Limbe, Cameroon
Managua, Nicaragua
Mazatlan, Mexico
Mombasa, Kenya
Nantes, France
Pecs, Hungary
Perugia, Italy
Reykjavik, Iceland
Surabaya, Indonesia
Taejon, Korea
Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Gig Harbor

Sakhalin Island, Russia

Shelton

Sanyi, Taiwan
Talsi, Latvia

Issaquah

Sunndal, Norway

Spokane

Jilin City, China
Limerick, Ireland
Lubeck, Germany
Makhachkala,Georgia
Nishinomiya, Japan

Kelso

Kelso, Scotland
Sagara, Japan

Tacoma

Aalesund, Norway
Davao, Philippines
Fuzhou, China
George, South Africa
Kiryat Motzkin, Israel
Kitakyushu, Japan
Kunsan, Korea
Vladivostok, Russia
Taichung Taiwan

Kennewick

Ying Ko City, Taiwan
Taoyuan City, Taiwan

Tukwila

Ikawa, Japan

Kent

Castlereagh, Northern Ireland
Kaibara, Japan
Kherson, Ukraine
Yangzhou, China
Sunnfjord Area, Norway

Vancouver

Arequipa, Peru
Joyo, Japan

Kirkland

Emmerich, Germany

Walla Walla

Sasayama, Japan

Kittitas Co.

Sanda City, Japan (county-city)

Wenatchee

Kuroishi, Japan
Misawa, Japan

Tynda, Russia

LaConner

Olga, Russia
San Rafael del Sur, Nicaragua

Yakima

Itayanagi, Japan
Derbent, Russia
Keelung, Taiwan

Source: Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development. http://www.trade.wa.gov/sisters.htm

Return to the top of this page.

 


ANNEX B

Australian and New Zealand Sister Relations with China


Australian Partner

 

 


Australian State


Chinese
Partner


Chinese Province


Year


Provincial-Level Relations

 

Canberra

ACT

Beijing

 

 

Melbourne

Victoria

Tianjin

 

1980

New South Wales

 

Guangdong

 

1979

Queensland

 

Shanghai

 

1989

South Australia

 

Shandong

 

1986

Tasmania

 

Fujian

 

1981

Victoria

 

Jiangsu

 

1979

Western Australia

 

Zhejiang

 

1987

 

City-Level Relations

 

Anmatjere

Northern Territory

Dongsheng

Inner Mong.

 

Ararat

Victoria

Taishan

Guangdong

1994

Armidale

New South Wales

Yanji

Jilin

1995

Ballarat

Victoria

Kunshan

Jiangsu

 

Bathurst

New South Wales

Zhangjiekou

Hebei

1999

Baw Baw

Victoria

Jiujiang

Jiangxi

 

Bendigo

Victoria

Tianshui

Gansu

1993

Brisbane

Queensland

Shenzhen

Guangdong

1992

Brisbane

Queensland

Kaohsiung

“Chinese Taipei”

 

Bundaberg

Queensland

Nanning

Guangxi

1999

Cairns

Queensland

Beihai

Guangxi

 

Caloundra

Queensland

Hsing-Yin

“Chinese Taipei”

 

Cockburn

Western Australia

Yueyang

Hunan

 

Dalrymple Shire

Queensland

Daqing

Liaoning

 

Dandenong

Victoria

Xuzhou

Jiangsu

1996

Darwin

Northern Territory

Haikou

Hainan

1990

Dubbo

New South Wales

Wujiang

Jiangsu

1995

East Gippsland Shire

Victoria

Weifang

Shandong

 

Fairfield

New South Wales

Hsinchu

“Chinese Taipei”

 

Geelong

Queensland

Lianyungang

Jiangsu

1994

Gold Coast

Queensland

Beihai

Guangxi

1997

Gold Coast

Queensland

Taipei

“Chinese Taipei”

 

Gosford

New South Wales

Jinhua

Jiangsu

 

Healesville

Victoria

Pingdu

Shandong

1993

Hervey Bay

Queensland

Leshan

Sichuan

1999

La Trobe City

Victoria

Taizhou

Jiangsu

 

Launceston

Tasmania

Taiyuan

Shanxi

1995

Lithgow

New South Wales

Pingdingshan

Henan

 

Marrickville

New South Wales

Keelung

“Chinese Taipei”

 

Maroochy Shire

Queensland

Xiamen

Fujian

 

Maroochy Shire

Queensland

Chengdu

Sichuan

 

Moorland

Victoria

Xinyang

Henan

 

Mosman

New South Wales

Mudanjiang

Heilongjiang

 

Murray Bridge

Queensland

Sanmenxia

Henan

1994

Narrandera

New South Wales

Urumqi

Xinjiang

1996

Perth

Western Australia

Nanjing

Jiangsu

 

Portland

Victoria

Zhangjiagang

Jiangsu

1995

Port Adelaide

South Australia

Yantai

Shangdong

 

Port Pirie

South Australia

Suizhou

Hubei

 

Rockdale

New South Wales

Tanggu

Tianjin Municipality

 

Shoalhaven

New South Wales

Jiamusi

Heilongjiang

1987

South Gippsland

Victoria

Jinshan

?

 

Sydney

New South Wales

Guangzhou

Guangdong

1986

Toowoomba

Queensland

Jingmen

Guangdong

 

Townsville

Queensland

Changshu

Jiangsu

1995

Wagga Wagga

New South Wales

Kunming

Yunnan

1988

Warrigul

Victoria

Jiujiang

Jiangxi

1993

Whyalla

South Australia

Erzhou

Hubei

 

Young Shire

New South Wales

Lanzhou

Gansu

1997


New Zealand
Partner

 




Chinese
Partner


Chinese
Province


Year


Provincial-Level Relations

 

Christchurch

 

Gansu

 

1984


City-Level Relations

 

Auckland

 

Shenzhen

Guangdong

1992

Auckland

 

Kaohsiung

“Chinese Taipei”

1997

Hastings District

 

Guilin

Guangxi

1981

Napier

 

Lianyungang

Jiangsu

 

Sources:  Compiled by the Chamber from various sources, with particularly useful information supplied by Austrade (http://www.austrade.gov.au) and Australian Sister Cities Association (http://www.asca.asn.au)

Return to the top of this page.

 


ANNEX C

USA Sister Relations with China


Chinese
Partner

 


Chinese
Province


USA Partner

 


USA State


Provincial-Level Relations

 

Beijing

 

New York

New York

Beijing

 

Washington

DC

Chongqing

 

Seattle

Washington

Hainan Island

 

Honolulu County

Hawaii

Shanghai

 

San Francisco

California

Tianjin

 

Philadelphia

Pennsylvania

 

City-Level Relations

Anshan

Liaoning

Birmingham

Alabama

Baoding

Hebei

Charlotte

North Carolina

Beihai

Guangxi

Tulsa

Oklahoma

Benxi

Liaoning

Peoria

Illinois

Changchun

Jilin

Flint

Michigan

Changchun

Jilin

Little Rock

Arkansa

Changsha

Hunan

St Paul

Minnisota

Changshu

Jiangsu

Whittier

California

Changzhi

Shanxi

Reading

Pennsylvania

Changzhou

Jiangsu

Rockford

Illinois

Chengdu

Sichuan

Phoenix

Arizona

Dalian

Liaoning

Oakland

California

Dandong

Liaoning

Wilmington

North Carolina

Deyang

Sichuan

Muncie

Illinois

Dongying

Shandong

Dongying

Texas

Foshan

Guangdong

Stockton

California

Fushun

Liaoning

Foster

California

Fuzhou

Fujian

Tacoma

Wasington

Ganzhou

Jiangxi

Mcallan

Texas

Guangzhou

Guangdong

Los Angeles

California

Guilin

Guangxi

Orlando

Florida

Haikou City

Hainan

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma

Hanchuan

Hubei

Martinez

California

Handan

Hebei

Dubuque

Iowa

Hangzhou

Hubei

Boston

Massachusettes

Harbin

Heilongjiang

Minneapolis

Minnisota

Hefei

Anhui

Columbus

Ohio

Huaiyin

Anhui

Yorba Linda

California

Huludao

Liaoning

Las Vegas

Nevada

Jiangmen

Guangdong

Riverside

California

Jiaohe

Jilin

Folsom

California

Jilin City

Jilin

Spokane

Washington

Jinan

Shandong

Sacramento

California

Kaifeng

Henan

Wichita

Kansas

Kaiping

Hebei

Mesa

Arizona

Kunming

Yunnan

Denver

Colorado

Lanzhou

Gansu

Albuquerque

New Mexico

Lhasa

Tibet

Boulder

Colorado

Nanhai

Hebei

Reno

Nevada

Nanjing

Jiangsu

St Louis

Missouri

Nanping

Fujian

Stamford

Connecticut

Nantong

Jiangsu

Jersey City

New Jersey

Ningbo

Zhejiang

Wilmington

Delaware

Liaoyang

Liaoning

Joliet

Illiniois

Lijiang

Hunan

Roanoke

Virginia

Liuzhou

Guangxi

Cincinnati

Ohio

Luoyang

Henan

La Crosse

Wisconsin

Quanzhou

Fujian

Monterey Park

California

Quzhou

Hebei

Red Wing

Minnisota

Qingdao

Shandong

Long Beach

California

Qinhuangdao

Hebei

Toledo

Ohio

Qufu

Shandong

Davis

California

Sanming

Fujian

Lansing

Maine

Sanya

Hainan

Alahambra

California

Shenyang

Liaoning

Chicago

Illinois

Shenzhen

Guangdong

Houston

Texas

Shijiazhuang

Hebei

Des Moines

Iowa

Shijiazhuang

Hebei

Edison

New Jersey

Shiyan

Guangdong

Chillicothe

Ohio

Suzhou

Jiangsu

Portland

Oregon

Tangshan

Hebei

Cedar Rapids

Iowa

Tongxian

Zhejiang

Bellevue

Washington

Weifang

Shandong

Pueblo

California

Weihai

Shandong

Santa Barbara

California

Wendeng

Shandong

Missouri City

Texas

Wenzhou

Zhejiang

Union County

New Jersey

Wuhan

Hubei

Pittsburgh

Pennsylvania

Wuxi

Jiangsu

Chattanooga

Tennessee

Xiamen

Fujian

Baltimore

Maryland

X'ian

Shaanxi

Kansas City

Missouri

Xianyang

Shaanxi

Rochester

Maine

Xicheng District

Beijing

Pasadena

California

Xinyi

Guangdong

Trumball

Connecticut

Xishuangbanna

Yunnan

Austin

Texas

Xuzhou

Jiangsu

Newark

New Jersey

Yangzhou

Jiangsu

Kent

Washington

Yantai

Shandong

San Diego

California

Yingkou

Liaoning

Jacksonville

Florida

Yueyang

Hunan

Titusville

Florida

Yushu

uncertain

San Bernardino

California

Zhengzhou

Henan

Richmond

Virginia

Zhenjiang

Jiangsu

Tempe

Arizona

Zhongyuan District

Beijing

Compton

California

Zhoushan

Zhejiang

Richmond

California

Zhuhai

Guangdong

Redwood City

California

Zibo

Shandong

Erie

Pennsylvania

Zigong

Sichuan

Midland

Michigan

Source: http://www.embassiesinchina.com/sistercities/

Return to the top of this page.