Although the results — or more accurately, the lack of results — from Obama’s China visit suggest the opposite, the $800 billion the U.S. owes to Beijing “had no impact on [Obama’s agenda in China] whatsoever,” claimed Deputy National Security Adviser Mike Froman.
“The $800 billion never came up in conversation, and the President dealt with every issue on his agenda in a very direct way and pulled no punches,” Froman said at a news conference yesterday in Beijing.
On Nov. 15, the New York Times described Obama as a “profligate spender coming to pay his respects to his banker” and predicted before the trip’s beginning that “Mr. Obama will be spending less time exhorting Beijing and more time reassuring it.” It was a prediction that Froman’s statement contradicts.
And a savvy prediction, indeed, as it turned out. Obama offered vague statements on human rights—admittedly, an improvement on previous silence. Both sides reaffirmed their cooperation on environmental issues, nuclear nonproliferation and security – agreements likely less solid in reality than in rhetoric. Both promised increasing student exchanges. But all these stated commonalities are mild. If anything, the U.S. lost ground, minimizing India as a first-rate Asian power and making concessions on Taiwan, as Foreign Policy’s Daniel Blumenthal noted.
So the question is one of correlation or causation: whether Obama’s conciliatory approach can be blamed on the debt alone, or whether it is instead indicative of a larger China-policy outlook.
True, as Froman said, there was no documented mention of the $800-billion debt on the White House website. (But, given its status as a quite rotund elephant, perhaps it was a topic that should have been broached at least once.)
But if Obama intends to shift U.S.-China policy altogether, expect bigger foreign policy problems soon, a dilemma articulately described by Robert Kagan and Dan Blumenthal, who wrote for the Washington Post before Obama’s visit.
Previously, the American strategy has been to simultaneously engage and balance China, Kagan and Blumenthal write. But this time, throughout the visit, Obama repeated that “we do not seek to contain China’s rise,” words that must be musical to a country historically accustomed to regional dominance and hegemony.
Blumenthal and Kagan suggest a tension between reality and a policy of strategic reassurance: The U.S. doesn’t want to diminish its Asia presence or power, but China demands parity at bare minimum. “So it will quickly become obvious,” they write, “that no one on either side feels reassured. Unfortunately, the only result will be to make American allies nervous.” As if Obama’s recent treaty forfeitures in the Czech Republic and Poland were not enough.
Either way, the tone of the visit belied a less confident America—but whether that’s by dollar or decision, we have yet to see.
I WANT A “DON’T BLOCK THE SHOT” BUMPER STICKER, 2 PLEASE! READ YOUR BOOKS, WATCH EVERY NIGHT…THE REPUBLICANS FREED THE SLAVES, THE DEMOCRATS MADE SLAVES BUT YET THE BLACK PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF? WHEN SEN. HILARY CLINTON FIRST BEGAN HER CAMPAIGN, SHE MADE REFERENCE, AT A BLACK WOMEN’S CONFERENCE, THAT SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE AUDIENCE BUT THAT SHE WHEN SHE GOT TO THE WHITEHOUSE, SHE WOULD PICK UP THE RUG TO CLEAN ALL OF THE GARBAGE THAT WAS UNDER IT AND SHE STATED “THAT SHE WAS TIRED OF CLEANING UP AFTER EVEYONE”; TO ME IT WAS OFFENSIVE RELATING THAT THE AUDIENCE OF BLACK WOMEN WERE EITHER MAIDS OR JANITORS!! WHY DIDN’T ANY OF THE MEDIA PICK UP ON THAT STATEMENT? I’M A NATIVE CHEROKEE PALE FACE BORN AND RAISED IN TEXAS AND A REPUBLICAN. I’VE ALWAYS WORKED HARD AND CARED ABOUT THE PEOPLE I HELP…THE WRITTEN WORD IS ON A FIFTH GRADE LEVEL, THEY SAY, SO WHAT LEVEL DOES RADIO AND TV FALL? AS IF OUR COUNTRY ISN’T LISTENING OR CAN’T READ! WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC CHANGE….THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SELF-INDULDGED AND WOULDN’T KNOW WHAT CHANGE MEANS. G. DALRYMPLE
I WANT A “DON’T BLOCK THE SHOT” BUMPER STICKER, 2 PLEASE! READ YOUR BOOKS, WATCH EVERY NIGHT…THE REPUBLICANS FREED THE SLAVES, THE DEMOCRATS MADE SLAVES BUT YET THE BLACK PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF? WHEN SEN. HILARY CLINTON FIRST BEGAN HER CAMPAIGN, SHE MADE REFERENCE, AT A BLACK WOMEN’S CONFERENCE, THAT SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE AUDIENCE BUT THAT SHE WHEN SHE GOT TO THE WHITEHOUSE, SHE WOULD PICK UP THE RUG TO CLEAN ALL OF THE GARBAGE THAT WAS UNDER IT AND SHE STATED “THAT SHE WAS TIRED OF CLEANING UP AFTER EVEYONE”; TO ME IT WAS OFFENSIVE RELATING THAT THE AUDIENCE OF BLACK WOMEN WERE EITHER MAIDS OR JANITORS!! WHY DIDN’T ANY OF THE MEDIA PICK UP ON THAT STATEMENT? I’M A NATIVE CHEROKEE PALE FACE BORN AND RAISED IN TEXAS AND A REPUBLICAN. I’VE ALWAYS WORKED HARD AND CARED ABOUT THE PEOPLE I HELP…THE WRITTEN WORD IS ON A FIFTH GRADE LEVEL, THEY SAY, SO WHAT LEVEL DOES RADIO AND TV FALL? AS IF OUR COUNTRY ISN’T LISTENING OR CAN’T READ! WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC CHANGE….THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SELF-INDULDGED AND WOULDN’T KNOW WHAT CHANGE MEANS. G. DALRYMPLE, MONTGOMERY, TX
I can’t agree that political progress was a subpoint in Clinton’s statement and she dismissed any chance for progress on the ground.
Re security, Clinton (1) quoted Iraqi public opinion polls showing Iraqis thought the surge had not improved security. Iraq public opinion is a political factor, not a tactical factor.
(2) She pressed Petraeus to state definitively what he would recommend if the situation on the ground had not improved in a year. Petraeus stood by his hypothetical answer to Joe Biden’s hypothetical year-out projections.
She also quotes stats that security at the time was not as good as Petraeus testified. But the main thrust of her statement, and of her position today is this: security tactics aside, what are we doing in Iraq? Why are our troops there? That question remains, regardless of the tactical success of our troops.