StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx
Google Buzz
PlurkChina’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)
Cal
U.S. and China should combine their efforts for a better world.
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.
Concernized American
Am I aware of America’s China containment policy? Yes.
Do I have even the slightest remorse or doubt? No.
China is an emerging threat to U.S. hegemony. As an American, I benefit directly from this. Why would I want to live through the demise and fall of the American Empire? Collapse happens inevitably, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean America should go down without a fight.
And, let’s not forget, America is unique in many non-trivial ways.
Nathan
Looks like America is up to its old tricks again and seeking to start more wars and conflicts around the world to stimulate its economy! Have to keep the military industrial complex humming along!
David
The Chinese insult of Obama at the Climate Conference was the most stupid, diplomatic mistake they could have ever done.
However much he tries, Obama is not going to forget it and it will affect every decision he makes regarding China.
China will pay for that mistake at least for six more years.
ivan
Is it America the debtor that will be paying or China?.When u are a debtor u will not be able o pay for your military upkeep in the least.Look like U.S.is draining whatsoever good will left with its main creditor China.Ameirican military is posibly kept alive by China credit.Better for Ameircia to remember that your creditor is not going to forget your ungratefulness than the other way round.There is no mutual assured destruction as propounded by some economically as the creditor can easily if necessary afford a write off from the debtor.But the debtor????????????
Tony
“Chinese insult of Obama at the Climate Conference”….well I’m sure the Chinese and every other developing nation out there feels its also an insult to make them pay for the reckless polution and destruction of the planet from 300 years of western development.
reader2010
Beijing wants to be at least a regional power and that puts its interests on a direct collision path with America down the road. As GE’s CEO recently said he isn’t sure Beijing wants multinationals to be successful in China eventually. I believe in the end two nations will have to have a war, maybe first some proxy wars in resource rich Africa.
Jacob
If the writer thinks that every major power has to fit the international order created by US, then he might need to have a reality-check.After all, the US doesn’t really have an excellent record of taking into account other countries’ interests when creating international orders.
On the contrary,to be one of the “responsible stakeholders”, more than often, you will have to do it at the expenses of losing your own national interests regardless whether you are a friend or foe. S. Korea has been seeking for years its own right to process uranium for civil energy usage, and yet the US-made policy leaves them very little chance to do so if they still want to stay on its good list.
So why is it that America can process its uranium for both civil energy AND nuclear weapon, not mentioning the fact that it is the only nation has used Atomic weapon on another state, yet we can’t even use it for power generation only, Koreans wonder. Japanese have expressed their obvious anger and frustration at the base of Okinawa and you would think America, as the closest ally of Japan, would at least show that they acknowledge the the situation, but no, the only acknowledgment they expressed was the renewal of the contract. The British and Canadians are now wondering what the heck are they doing in the middle east after all these years of bloody war, after following US leadership into the region. And if US policy treats its allies like second class servants, then what do you think will happen to its competitors, and even worse, enemies?
An all out war in Iraq and Afghanistan, an huge encirclement for China, a state of art missile defense system choking the Russians at the neck. Assassination of Panama president right after its claim on the right of Panama canal. Privatization of water supply and fruit industry in Columbia, a well staged unrest by CIA in Venezuela, unlawful arrest of Che Guevera, isolation of Iran and North Korea, CIA trained and sponsored Tibetans to cause unrest in Tibet. The fervish support of Saddam Hussein and then execution happened shamelessly years later, after all these crap, you still think that a country like China will be a “responsible stakeholder” in a “US led international order”, I assure the Chinese will do so when hell freezes over.
harry
what a load of rubbish this is. yeah yeah america is this innocent little girl when obama came to power, Obama meet with dalai lama, he sold weapons worth $6.4 billion to taiwan, so why is this article saying otherwise?
And have you ever heard of “c” encirclement?? that is the grand strategy created by america, it starts from Japan, to south korea, to Okinawa and Guam, then to Taiwan, and then recently to vietnam and inida, the encirclemnt ends with Afganistan. Tell be if someone put a electric fence around your front door what would you do?? cooperate and keep the electric fence their?? DONT BE REDICULOUS.
Singh
Harry,
Yeah! What a load of rubbish!Have you heard of the “string of pearls” policy of encirclement of India by china. Chinese naval ports in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan!Providing Pakistan with nuclear and missile technology to be a thorn on India’s side!Making regular border incursions into India just to throw it’s weight around!Now you know that china is not the innocent little country either.Wake up to reality buddy, this is international politics!No one is the nice guy!Everyone is looking after their own interests. I would welcome a knowledgeable response from you.
Hector
Making an excuse for a declining power.This new policy springs from a bankrupt economy due to imperial overstretch and the rise of multiple powers not by the “grace” of U.S. which has no choice but to adapt to new realities.This is an intermediate stage to new realities for U.S.until 2030 when further adjustments will have to be made by U.S.U.S.tried to sell this idea of “responsible stakeholder” to halt its decline but no takers.So now a more assertive policy for a debtor power. Hope it works for a declining power??????