Obama Is Right to Be Hard-Nosed on China

Minxin Pei Op-Ed August 30, 2010 Financial Times

Summary

The Obama administration’s strategy for dealing with China reflects the complex dynamics of economic cooperation and geopolitical competition that underlie Washington’s ties with Beijing.

Related Topics

When Barack Obama was elected president, Beijing thought that he would be tough on human rights and trade, but not on national security. A year and a half later, Mr Obama’s policy could hardly be more different.

Instead of pressing China hard on its poor rights record, Mr Obama has put the issue to the back burner. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed as much on the eve of her visit to China in February 2009. To avoid antagonising Chinese leaders before his own visit to Beijing in November last year, Mr Obama even postponed a private meeting with the Dalai Lama. On the whole, his administration has done precious little on the issue.

The story on trade is much the same. Despite mounting congressional pressure on China’s de facto dollar-peg, Mr Obama has refused to label China a “currency manipulator.” Indeed, except for imposing a few modest anti-dumping penalties, his trade policy is indistinguishable from that of President George W. Bush.

However, on national security, the Obama administration has shown a surprisingly hard edge, particularly in the past few months. Against Beijing’s protestations, Washington dispatched a large naval force to conduct joint military exercises with the South Korean navy in the Sea of Japan, as deterrence against Pyongyang. To counter China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia, the US has also resumed its aid to the Indonesian military, and recently sent a carrier battle group in an unprecedented joint naval exercise with Vietnam.

Washington also announced a controversial plan to sell civilian nuclear technology to Hanoi. In its recent annual report on the strength of the Chinese military, the Pentagon levelled harsh criticisms at China’s military modernisation programme and its impact on Asia’s balance of power.

Perhaps the biggest bombshell was dropped by Mrs Clinton in Hanoi in July. Speaking to the Asean regional forum, she all but declared that the US would not allow China to coerce its smaller neighbours. For the first time, Washington designated the South China Sea as an area where it had a national interest in “freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons and respect for international law”. This might look neutral, but Beijing (which recently signalled that it regards the South China Sea as among its “core interests”) must have felt stunned and stung.

Why has Mr Obama’s China policy taken such a turn? Beijing’s own missteps share part of the blame. Chinese leaders rebuffed early efforts to woo Beijing into a closer relationship. Mr Obama’s China visit last November was viewed as a debacle because Beijing limited his access to the Chinese public. China’s over-the-top reaction to America’s long-scheduled arms sales to Taiwan, and Mr Obama’s (belated) meeting with the Dalai Lama earlier this year, did not help. China also obstructed US attempts to impose sanctions on Iran and condemn North Korea’s sinking of a South Korean warship.

More important, Mr Obama has reverted to long-standing American principles in dealing with a rising great power. For while the US can confidently manage China’s mounting economic prowess, and count on economic progress to liberalise the Chinese political system, the world’s sole superpower can ill-afford to allow its new rival to become Asia’s hegemon.

In many ways, Mr Obama’s evolving China policy is more grounded in reality. By abandoning the touchy-feely rhetoric of “strategic partnership”, Washington’s balanced but hard-nosed new China strategy more accurately reflects the complex dynamics of economic co-operation and geopolitical competition that underlie its ties with Beijing. It is also a policy that should reassure China’s nervous neighbours that America is committed to maintaining Asia’s strategic balance.

In the years ahead, as Washington pursues this policy further, we should expect more frequent eruptions over security issues, even as the two countries keep close economic ties. In its essence, Mr Obama’s revamped China strategy is a continuation of Mr. Bush’s “strategic hedging” – a strategy certain to endure as long as China remains a one-party state, and continues a realpolitik foreign policy that challenges the America-led liberal world order.

Source: http://carnegieendowment.org/2010/08/30/obama-is-right-to-be-hard-nosed-on-china/2d1e

More from The Global Think Tank

Back in the Game—The United States Surges Again in Asia

Summary The Obama administrations sustained diplomatic outreach to Asia helps counter China’s increasing influence in the region at a time of economic weakness for the United States while keeping it engaged with Beijing. More >

China Leadership Monitor

Perceptions of an Assertive China

Summary The widely-held belief among both Chinese and Western observers that China is growing increasingly assertive has the potential to create significant challenges for Sino-U.S. relations. More >

Why Go Strategic?: The Value of a Truly Strategic Dialogue Between the United States and China

Summary While the United States and China—the world’s two largest economies—are becoming increasingly interdependent, there is a growing risk of misunderstanding or even clashes. The two powers need a dialogue to provide strategic vision to their relationship. More >

May 5, 2010 Washington, D.C.

C. H. Tung on U.S.-China Relations

Summary In recent months, the United States and China have gone through a rough patch in bilateral relations. Yet such setbacks represent a very short period in a much longer timeframe of U.S.-China cooperation. More >

May 14, 2010 Beijing

Capstone and Tsinghua Debate – China’s Foreign Policy, Rise and Public Opinion

Summary China’s evolving foreign policy continue to dominate discussions of Sino-U.S. relations. Yet there has been little in-depth analysis of Chinese public opinion and its impact on China’s foreign policy. More >

November 5, 2009 Washington, D.C.

Mr. Obama Goes to Asia: Defining a Regional Policy

Summary Much has been made about President Obama's upcoming trip to Asia as recent events on the continent—continuing uncertainty in North Korea, the violence in Urumqi, and the ongoing fallout in the wake of global recession—indicate that this could be one of the most important trips of his first year in office. More >

Twitter

@CarnegieEndow

In Fact

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

million people killed

in Cold War conflicts.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

new airports

are set to be built in China by 2015.

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

million Russian citizens

are considered “ethnic Muslims.”

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840 Contact By Email

Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站，进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Regions

Countries