China’s more assertive foreign policy has challenged the Obama administration’s worldview. Expect a new US grand strategy.
In its first year, the Obama administration envisaged a two-pronged foreign policy. The first prong—cooperative strategic engagement—sought to build and sustain cooperative partnerships with states and non-state actors who operated within (or hoped to join) the international order. The second, which was aimed at actors like the Taliban and North Korea who seek to undermine or destroy the international order, consisted of a quite different approach—war, containment, or coercive diplomacy.
US policy toward China was supposed to be the centerpiece of the first approach, based on the underlying assumption that the world’s major powers ultimately share the same threats and interests— tackling terrorism and pandemics, ensuring economic instability, and preventing nuclear proliferation. The Obama administration hoped to build on these shared interests to bring emerging powers, like China and Brazil, fully into the US led international order.
Essentially what the administration aspired to create was a concert of powers—geopolitical competition was supposed to be consigned to history. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it in July 2009, the multi-polar world would be a multi-partner world, with the United States set to use its unique role in the world to help major powers overcome barriers to cooperation so they could collectively pursue their common interests.
And China was supposed to feature strongly in these plans, with the administration working hard to deepen strategic and economic dialogue and offering China more influence in the international order. Senior officials talked up China’s importance and leverage over the United States and avoided any actions that could antagonize Beijing. For example, in 2009, the president didn’t meet the Dalai Lama and accepted a tightly choreographed visit to China, while his administration initially avoided selling defensive arms to Taiwan and explored adjustments to its relations with India.
But what followed was nothing short of a revelation for much of the administration’s foreign policy team.
Instead of accepting the offer of a full partnership, China became far more antagonistic and assertive on the world stage. It expanded its claims in the South China Sea, engaged in a major spat with Google over Internet freedom, played an obstructionist role at the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, regularly and openly criticized US leadership, and, sought to water down sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programme at the UN Security Council.
Senior administration officials said influential voices in Beijing saw the United States as a power in decline and perceived an opportunity for China to take advantage. The United States’ regional allies and partners, meanwhile, expressed their concerns over this turn of events and called upon the United States to restore its traditional leadership role in the region.
The mounting evidence that China simply isn’t interested in becoming a full stakeholder in the US-led liberal international order has forced the administration to respond with a new policy in Asia. In addition to ongoing engagement with China, this new tack seeks to deepen US ties with other powers in the region, and unlike the earlier approach doesn’t shy away from advancing US interests and values—even if it upsets Beijing.
Photo Credit: White House (Pete Souza)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Lee
Singh,
“String of Pearls” policy of encirclement is coined by Indians.
Are you just repeating what your Defence Minister said. Can you substantiate it with solid proof. Periodic stop over at friendly ports call does not constitute using that ports as a Naval Base and China do not have any bases or station any troops in these countries. As a matter of fact China do not station any troops outside her border.
Most of China maritime trade have to pass thru the Indian Ocean and naturally you will expect to see more Chinese Naval vessels patrolling and escorting their own merchant vessels in future.
nirvana
“China does not station troops outside its border”.
This depends on how China define its border. Also, it remains to see whether China is satisfied with its current border. Don’t ever believe in powerful states to be contended with their borders. Even when most Chinese are peaceful, a powerful military China state will act as any powerful states: British, French, German, Japan, Soviet, US,… This is History and it can repeat itself.
Kuang Guozhen
Time the pre-eminent world power validate itself by leading by example than telling everyone what to do. Failure to correct it’s own behaviour will only widen it’s credibility gap.
Cal
U.S. and China should combine their efforts for a better world.
nirvana
US and China (and most of the West) combined their efforts … to support Pol Pot! For 10 years, the Khmer Rouge kept their seats at the United Nations (1979-1989). Don’t ever believe in states (especially militarily powerful ones) to build a better world. Believe instead in their people (Chinese are great people too).
Van Must
This is typical talking head nonsense. The US never offered to make China a “full partner” in anything, and it never will. The Obama strategy was basically the Clinton strategy redo, namely try to improve relations primarily by working through economic and trade issues.
And as for the hyperbolic “the greatest foreign policy mistake in recent memory…” I think it would be pretty hard to top Bush Iraq war on that score…
Don Bacon
It should be no surprise that China has rebuffed the US’s “offering China more influence in the international order’ when China already has it.
So China had every right to become “far more antagonistic and assertive” when it came to matters within their own sphere of influence, like the South China and Yellow Seas. Why should these faraway places be part of any US interest?
And why shouldn’t “influential voices in Beijing [see] the United States as a power in decline”? It’s true, and as a part of that, China is the US’s principal foreign banker and its principal goods supplier.
So “China simply isn’t interested in becoming a full stakeholder in the US-led liberal international order.” No surprise. What kind of “multilateralism” is that?
“Americans are used to countries being friends or enemies?” No, the US is used to countries being vassals or enemies. Now, “the US will be faced with a more competitive world than it has over the past 20 years (although unlike the Cold War, it will be a competition within limits, between interdependent powers, and with plenty of potential for cooperation).” That’s true, and it needn’t be a problem. It can even be an asset, allowing space for other countries to get involved in protecting sea lanes from pirates, for one example.
So yes, this is “a catalyst for a more competitive—and geopolitically savvy—US multilateralism” and needn’t be a cause of despair.
The US had better catch on, because China is forming strong links with Taiwan, Japan and India, and even (particularly commercially) with New Zealand and Australia while the US has petty scraps with Japan (over Okinawa) and China (South China and Yellow Seas).
The_Observer
It didn’t take moves by China for the USA to react as the author and some people are claiming here. The USA would have wanted to try and check China’s rise no matter what anyway. It’s just that the ambition of both countries is now out in full view. It will be interesting to see how things will turn out in the next decade on the economic, political and military fronts.
SE Asian
Wow wow… The Chicom propagandists are out in full force…
America is the declining power? Yeah… Yeah!.. Whatever! They said the same thing when the Japanese were buying up real estates from New York to LA in the 1980s.
American may be suffering from empire altitude sickness -what goes up must come down- but for those who hope for the days America is ridden like the Soviet Union, good luck! China may be making progresses in recent years, but a decade of doctored up GDP doesn’t make a superpower. Until every Chinese citizen can make 24000 USD/year, that’s the level of poverty in the USA, then we can start worrying. For now, better to feed your own 600 million dirt poor people plus a few hundred million unemployed, or worse yet 100 million men who will never be able to find a wife.
There is such a term as inferiority complex. The poor always talk about what they were going to do once they won the lottery.
hector
May I remind u that U.S. is a debtor nation and depending on borrowings.The Chinese are not Japanese.So it is no comparison and dont invent a comforter for yourself. U.S. is now borrowing to stave off its poverty leaving aside the ppp comparison and the massive financial manipulation under Bretton Woods before.U.S.dollar is the world sick currency being propped up by financial blood transfusion from China,Korea ,Japan, and others.The “financial magic” is over and made previously at the world expense.Everything and everywhere is “doctored” except in U.S. u seem to believe as usual imperial hubris.Wake up please?????????.
SE Asian
Tell me one thing: If China’s economy is so strong and financially secured, then why hasn’t the world accepted its currency as one of the commonly traded currencies? Without relying on the US dollar and the Euro and the Yen, it seems China would have a hard time trading with the rest of the world it seems. Imperial hubris? No. But judging from recent events -especially its rash reaction to Hilary’s comment in Hanoi- China is the one harboring imperial dream here…
victor
China currency is strong and getting stronger.Whether it wants to be the world reserve currency alone or together with BRIC currencies combined will be decided by China and BRIC at it’s own pace and for that matter whether it will allow the yuan to appreciate.No amount of threat from U.S.to apprciate the yuan will make it so as u can see already.The U.S. currency manipulator of yesterday years is declining because its economical and even military strength is ebbing away slowly.Therefore enforcement of its imperial whether economic or military edict has become difficult.BRIC countries will decide when to replace the world reserve currency and it is coming soon.Pronouncement by Clinton imperial edict is one thing enforcement is another.Please remember U.S. is hypocritical and the breaker of all international laws when it suits U.S.An example is the unilateral blockade of Cuba im 1963 in international waters defined by winners of WW 2.If it still thinks it is 1963 be prepared for more surprises in the 21st century.
ronnie
If China is not financially strong and secure can China lend money to U.S?Whether China wants to be reserve currency alone or with BRIC countries as common currency it is up to them to decide.Might as well let U.S. carry the burden /benefit after manipulating the financial system for a free ride for forty years.The benefit of manipulation must come with all burdens.Reap what u sow.Hilary comment in Hanoi is the outburst and last struggle of a declining power.In relation to the S.China sea I would like to ask why the U.S. imposed unilaterally a cordon around Cuba in 1963 when it did not suit U.S.esp when the international law was drafted by the winners of W.W 2.Double standard at its best.Unfortunately economic and military power is slipping away from the hegemon now.Get use to it.No more imperial dreams,please.Please remember there is Latin Ameirica,Africa and Middle East for China to trade with as well.U.S. is not the world?
The_Observer
The Chinese are working on their currency. Currently they are starting with building up their financial industry in terms of equity, commodity and currency markets. They are also doing currency swaps with neighbouring countries and ones as far away as Argentina and Belarus. The Chinese don’t do things in big leaps and they usually dip their toe in the waters first. That way if mistakes are made, the effect can be contained. When the Chinese privatize enough state companies and develop their bond markets is when I expect the yuan to be allowed to float.