A hot topic recently is Obama’s foreign policy ‘realism’. Now those who visit this site regularly already know that I’ve called Obama on his realism DAYS AGO! There are those who applaud this approach, arguing that the best foreign policy doctrine is not to have one. Then there are those who fear this outcome, asserting that one of America’s greatest assets is its promotion and defense of democracy and human rights.

This brings up two issues before we can argue for either side; 1. Has Obama truly shown himself a realist by his policies? 2. And is he really departing so completely from President Bush’s so-called ‘freedom agenda’? First off, I believe that all US presidents have been at least partially liberal in their world view, even those early presidents who lead a weak, fragile state at the time. That being said, it is not like these guys only had international liberalism in their bones, blood, and sinew, as they all followed the rules of power politics in most cases, from the Jay Treaty to the Bush’s partnership with Pervez Musharraf. Bush full heartedly tried to bring democracy to two despotic states, called the Darfur conflict a genocide, criticized the Burmese military dictatorship, gave prime time to political dissidents from China and elsewhere, and made many key speeches preaching the power of liberty and human rights. YET, he cozied up with dictators in Pakistan, Egypt, China, and Kazakhstan, used military force in pursuit of US interests, and disregarded many multilateral treaties. Bush was followed both a realist and liberal foreign policy.

Barack’s election rhetoric and policies so far have definitely trended more realist (and in many ways logically follow many of Bush’s policies). He has has openly stated he will negotiate with many dictator-run states (Iran, Syria, North Korea), put NATO expansion on hold, let Russia know that deals involving security trade offs could be made, treated Britain like it was just a ‘state’, rarely discusses the liberal threesome of liberty, democracy, and human rights in speeches, and his Sec of State Hilary Clinton stated that human rights would not get in the way of US-China relations. This being considered, Obama has also leaned liberal on many occasions. His emphasis on ‘talking’ and diplomacy are not just realist measures, but seem to him to be modern ways that conflicts are solved. He has also reached out to the Muslim world in a widely heard interview and plans on making a speech in a Muslim-majority country this year. Obama also showed his trust of international institutions and treaties by raising the US ambassador to the United Nations to a Cabinet Position and in his early discussions with Russia about arms reductions and Europe regarding climate change. But overall, I do agree with the aforementioned articles that Obama is mainly following a realist foreign policy so far. (of course so did Bush before 9/11)

I googled 'Realism vs. Liberalism' and this was the first picture that came up.

So should we be concerned or pleased about Obama’s realist leanings? I think, like when given the choice between chocolate and strawberry ice cream, a little of both. The realist attributes of cautiousness and pragmatism are indeed valuable and Obama seems keen on following them in many of his policies so far. International relations are indeed fraught with dangers of missteps and a realist viewpoint can prevent the US from unforeseen calamities and overzealousness. However, if the US becomes more and more just like another state, it not only denies what it has been for its entire history, a beacon of liberty and hope, but it may also undermine the growth of a stable world, which has made a steady climb in democratization. It is not an overstatement to say the current strength of democratic governance in the international system is held up by American leadership. Specifically, states in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, and Poland, in many ways have their sovereignty and free political system dependent on US/NATO engagement and protection. These states will not welcome the canceling of the missile defense system treaty or talk of NATO expansion quietly fading away. In terms of Afghanistan and Iraq’s governing future, Obama has already laid framework for a less than democratic outcome. I also hear loudly how much Obama has NOT spoken about the power of liberty, democracy, and human rights and I think this is a shame as the world is listening.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen poignantly quoted an Obama intro to one of theologian/realist theorist Reinhold Niebuhr’s books: “there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. We should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with President Obama and spoke before a joint session of Congress yesterday. Here are some of his words from his eloquent, and uplifting speech:

Madam Speaker, Mr Vice-President, I come in friendship to renew, for new times, our special relationship founded upon our shared history, our shared values and, I believe, our shared futures.

I grew up in the 1960s as America, led by President Kennedy, looked to the heavens and saw not the endless void of the unknown, but a new frontier to dare to discover and explore. People said it couldn’t be done – but America did it.

And 20 years later, in the 1980′s, America led by President Reagan refused to accept the fate of millions trapped behind an Iron Curtain, and insisted instead that the people of Eastern Europe be allowed to join the ranks of nations which live safe, strong and free. People said it would never happen in our lifetime but it did, and the Berlin Wall was torn down brick by brick.

So early in my life I came to understand that America is not just the indispensible nation, it is the irrepressible nation.

At time when it seems that most have nothing nice to say about the US, especially Americans, I was more than pleased with Brown’s words and tone. Unfortunately, Brown was not welcomed to this country like his and his predecessor’s former visits as President Obama did not meet him at Andrew’s airbase for a ‘before the flag’ photo op, nor did he introduce him before a joint press conference, and US Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referred to a ‘special partnership’ not ‘relationship.’ These moves may seem trivial, especially if one adds Obama’s return of the Winston Churchill bust given to America by Tony Blair after 9/11, but to Britain, these slights cause much concern that the ‘special relationship’ may be thawing under this new American administration.

It can definitely be argued that Bush put a too emotional spin and emphasis on foreign relations (Putin, Koizumi, Blair, Howard), but I don’t see this as folly when it is with truly special partners, like the British. This is the nation that has sent its troops to fight along side ours in two difficult and controversial campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike so many others, they have proven their worth and their commitment and this should be honored by our Head of State. It seems that Obama desires to be above old fashioned politics, but certain traditions should be honored. Though during their joint press conference Obama stated, “The special relationship between the United States and Great Britain is one that is not just important to me, it’s important to the American people,” it still did not convince me that he really sees the partnership as very much different then say the US’s relationship with France, etc. Obama tends to lean ‘realist’ in foreign issues and ‘realists’ do not think there are such things as ‘special relationships’ or alliances last very long. In many ways this is constructive and leads to prudent policy, but I think the linkages of history, culture, democracy, capitalism, and the fight for liberty attach Britain-United States in a special way. In Brown’s speech before Congress you can hear the earnestness of Britain’s appreciation for America and its view of the two nation’s relationship.

So let it be said of the friendship between our two countries; that it is in times of trial – true, in the face of fear – faithful and amidst the storms of change – constant.

And let it be said of our friendship – formed and forged over two tumultuous centuries, a friendship tested in war and strengthened in peace – that it has not just endured but is renewed in each generation to better serve our shared values and fulfil the hopes and dreams of the day. Not an alliance of convenience, but a partnership of purpose.

Alliances can wither or be destroyed, but partnerships of purpose are indestructible. Friendships can be shaken, but our friendship is unshakeable. Treaties can be broken but our partnership is unbreakable. And I know there is no power on earth than can drive us apart.

I think that says it all.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

‘Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.’

President Barack Obama laid out his definitive plan for the statement above. Obama’s plan is to have ‘combat forces’ leave Iraq by August 2010 and for the remaining ‘residual force’ to leave by the end of 2011. I watched the entire speech and was mainly satisfied with his planned withdrawal as he emphasized the need to engage with the country as a strong ally and praised the surge, though not in name of course, and our soldiers for their hard fought gains. Obama, who is looking more and more like the most realist president the US has had since Nixon, stayed away from the ‘democracy’ word, but did voice his support and hope for a ‘just, representative, and accountable’ Iraqi government.

He stuck to his campaign rhetoric and policy pronouncements that Iraq’s government needed to take responsibility for the country’s future and described how this cannot be done with a US troops on the ground. This is the theory that Iraq’s government will be forever stagnant if US troops allow it to be by letting them maintain the status quo without making real political progress. But this is where things can get tricky, as the surge proved almost the opposite of this. Now we all hope that the newfound stability and strength of the Iraqi government is ready to handle itself, by itself, but major questions remain.

I believe the surge worked not just because we had more troops to patrol the land, but because it was a tangible sign that the US was in for the long haul and you better base your political moves accordingly. In consequence, the Sunni’s of Anbar made a political deal with the US, attacked Al Qaeda, and just recently participated in the provincial elections. There has to be some concern that this timetable will cause the sectarian groups to begin to dig their trenches again, getting ready for the ‘real fight.’ I hope, upon hope that this is not the case, but I don’t think anyone can know for sure. A great piece from Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack illustrates the importance of a slow, cautious withdrawal.

This being said, I feel that I can trust Obama and Gates to do this disengagement in a safe manner while showcasing that the US is still strongly engaged in not only Iraq’s future, but also the whole regions’. Obama stated:

‘Every nation and every group must know – whether you wish America good or ill – that the end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East. And that era has just begun.’

Besides the needless anti-bush rhetoric, I found this a positive sign asserting that the US will remain influential and will not retreat from the troubled, yet crucial region. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Giving the Iraqi people a chance at a future is worth something. Letting all citizens and autocrats around Middle East possibly see a stable, democratic country in their backyard is worth something. Though I have some concerns, I feel that Obama knows the worth of these things as well. What do you think?

*I just found this and thought it quite funny.

During our GPP Power Ranking debate, Hubbel made this comment:

“Russia’s power comes from others’ perception of them and their totalitarian nature of conducting international affairs. I think the West is stuck in the Cold War and continually gives Russia too much deference. This translates into significant influence in their region. For instance, NATO induction of Eastern European countries should be a sovereign decision that is made with an eye towards protection against aggressive neighbors, i.e., Russia. The fact that we see people supporting Russia’s right to forcefully oppose countries like Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO appears to be an implied acceptance of Russia’s ability to use military force against those countries in the future.”

Perceptions of Moscow are an important topic, but I want to discuss his emphasize on state sovereignty. Hubbel argues that the US should not heed the ‘sovereignty’ of Eastern European states such as Georgia and Ukraine to Russia’s main influence, because A. this is against US interests B. it undermines the sovereignty of those states.  The Bush administration cautiously carried pretty much the same viewpoint.  As Germany lead most European states to take on a realist view of Russia’s eastern sphere of influence, the Bush administration continued to push back, pushing for Georgia/Ukraine NATO membership during their last breathes in office.  Germany and most other Western European countries spoke out about state sovereignty, but their actions really told Russia that they were in control of their ‘near abroad.’  I saw this not with much criticism either, as for German interests (being so close in proximity to Russian power and gas manipulation) the move looks pragmatic.

Well, how will Obama’s administration tackle the sovereignty of states which is challenged by nearby great powers?  While at least in terms of Eastern Europe, it looks like it will be similar to Bush in making it well-known that the US views these states as having sovereign control over their territory and foreign policy views.  This view was reiterated by VP Joseph Biden at the Munich security conference.  In discussing NATO expansion the MDS in Czech and Poland, Biden stated: ”It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”

This looks like a diplomatic line in the sand that will be tested time and again during the next few years as it has in the past.  The Eastern European states do not want to resume a US-Russian standoff, but they very much desire some political cover to make moves that go against Russian interests and views.  A strong American presence and voice of support will help them do so.  That being said, the Georgia war showcased that geography is destiny.  For all the US power, when it came down to it, Georgia’s future and present was largely in Russia’s hands to mold.  

So I see it as important that Obama showcase to the world that state’s have a right to their own foreign policy and that America will be there to support them.  However, the idea and reality of sovereignty can become sticky rather quickly and the US, just like Germany, will need to be flexible along the way, as I’ve said before, at times ‘geography is destiny.’

As North Korea prepares to launch yet another ballistic missile test into the earth’s atmosphere, with the officially professed purpose of sending a satellite into orbit, but what most analysts fear will be a saber rattling test of the Taepodong-2, the NK’s most advanced missile with an estimated range of 4,200 miles and capable of reaching Alaska, I guess it’s a good time to discuss a US missile defense system (MDS) again.  

But to tell you the truth, I’m still just so wrapped up on GPP’s Great Power Rankings to go into too much analysis, so here are some interesting resources debating the issue for you to check out.  While the Obama administration seems to be ready to put the Bush accelerated US MDS plan on hold, as it has been critical of its ability to function and its cost and has let Moscow now that the MDS in Czech and Poland are on the table, there are those pushing back strongly against this policy.  The conservative Heritage Foundation has released a short propaganda film about the dangers of neglecting a MDS in the US and Avi Davis of the American Freedom Alliance held an interesting, informative, yet one-sided debate favoring missile defense on Blogtalk Radio.  Both the video and radio broadcast leave much to be desired in terms of debating the negatives and positives of the issue, but they nevertheless bring forth valid arguments.  Though it is now a bit dated, Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution provides a more centrist, and Democratic party-centered view, also in favor of the system.  

Despite these advocates’ views, MDS is obviously a criticized and controversial issue.  How do these scholars and proponents of MDS answer these six specific criticisms of the MDS?

1. Technology  2. Is there really a threat?  3. Is it worth the costs?  4. Does it aggravate friends and foes alike?  5. Does it undermine international law?  6. Can’t the system be easily countered by a massive attack/suitcase nuke?

President Obama fulfilled one of his main campaign promises on Tuesday, a major increase of US soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.  The US plans to send 8,000 this spring, followed by groups of 4,000 and 5,000 during the summer, for a total of about 17,000 troops, or about 50% of the 36,000 Americans already stationed in the volatile country.

The attention, or more accurate, the lack there of, this has gotten in the media is appalling.  On the day of the announcement, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had it as the fourth storyline of the day, behind the Stimulus passage (ok) and the Aroid scandal (not ok).  And today, the second news morning after the announcement, not one story from any major newspaper (realclearpolitics).  Heck, I write a blog called ‘Afghanistan’ and I didn’t even write about it! (My Foreign Policy Association ‘Afghanistan and Central Asia’ blog has been split in two).  The Iraq ‘surge’ was just a little over 20,000 troops and I recall it being a ‘big deal’.  Not only should the media do its job of examining the how’s, why’s, and the ‘what’s’ of this Afghan troop surge, but it also owes it to the men and women who are about to do tremendously difficult work in a dangerous and unstable region.  

Anyway, what really concerns me is that there does not seem to be a comprehensive strategy to go along with these troops.  In a written statement, (no time for a press conference or speech), Obama really only justifies the troop surge as ‘necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation.’  Obama and his JCS have already leaked that they are likely to have a more ‘realistic’ approach to the conflict, trying to bring stability and security first, democracy and Afghan good governance second, but I want to hear some explanation how these troops will lead to that.  The Iraqi surge did come with a General Petraeus counterinsurgency plan attached to it and had his rock solid leadership.  

I have long advocated for a more sophisticated and comprehensive view of the challenges US/NATO/Afghan/Pakistani government face in this conflict, and despite the recent lackluster of coverage, I believe it has started to happen.  After all, I support sending more troops to Afghanistan, and have for awhile, I just know that it will take much more than just fresh soldiers on the ground to bring peace and stability to the region.  

Here’s a rundown on the problems these new soldiers and the US military faces in Afghanistan:

a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.

US marines in Afghanistan's Nuristan Province (New York Times)

We need a strategy.  We cannot just double-down on the Petraeus Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy, though some of its ‘secure and hold’ methods will be useful, many others won’t in the Afghan conflict.  The Bush team held a top secret comprehensive review of the Afghan situation and I know that Obama has it on his table right now, but we in the public have still been kept in the dark.  

What will be the overriding use of these troops? Will they protect Kabul and its surrounding area, like the first group of soldiers sent in January, or will they be sent to volatile south?  Will the US back Karzai in the upcoming election or try someone with less baggage (remember all those calls for Maliki’s head in Iraq?)?  Will raids into Pakistan continue, increase?  Are we okay with Pakistan government’s recent deal with in the Swat region, allowing Sharia and Taliban law? (Holbrooke says ‘no’)  What will be the counter narcotics strategy?  How will aid more effectively reach the Afghan citizens and improve their economy?What will be expected from the other NATO members?  And HOW LONG will US troops be stationed in Afghan?  Are we there until Afghan is stable?  Al Qaeda is defeated?  The Taliban are defeated?  Afghanistan is a democracy?  We run out of money and men?  The San Francisco Giants win the World Series?  (Don’t worry, that’s next year!)

Too many questions left unanswered.  The Afghanistan conflict will indeed be a stiff test for Obama, America, NATO, and of course those in the region seeking peace and freedom.

I listened (and kinda watched) Robert Baer’s presentation in front of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, found below. Baer, a former CIA agent and author of ‘The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower‘, is an astute and seasoned veteran of US-Iran relations. He is a strong believer that the US must look past President Ahmadinejad’s erratic behavior and focus on the real center of Iran’s power, Ayatollah Khamenei, who he sees as a rational political being. Baer extends his argument by asserting that the Shia of the Middle East are overall more predictable and rational than their Sunni brethren. In any case, the main point from Baer is that the US can and should negotiate the Iranian state.

The debate over whether the Islamic Republic of Iran is a rational state like all others in the international system is an important one with obvious implications. I have covered the issue at least twice in my academic career, writing a paper that argued Iran should be considered a normal state (Iran: Welcome to the Nuclear Family), and one that argues the opposite (Iran’s Continuous Revolution). In the first paper, I argued that a nuclear armed Iran would act rationally like other states armed with such a destructive weapon, cautiously. The second paper argued that ever since the 1979 Islamic-controlled revolution the state has been led by leaders who have in many ways gone against international norms and followed irrational foreign policies.

I think Bush looked at the Iranian regime the way my second paper did, as a state that would not follow the rules and couldn’t be dealt with directly. Judging by Obama’s early rhetoric and call for direct negotiations, one has to think he believes the country’s leaders are rational and in turn can be diplomatic partners. Though contrary to most accounts, the Bush administration did at times ‘talk’ with Iranian counterparts, but usually only on low levels. The past administration also joined the Europeans in making the Iranian state several decent offers to stop enriching uranium, but without success or really even any signs of progress. Obama has led one to believe he will take a more forward approach to the Iranian regime, but exactly how still remains to be seen. I doubt Obama himself will head to Tehran any time soon, but one can see him sending Sec of State Clinton to meet with Iran’s equally prominent Foreign Minister at a neutral site in Europe some where.

The Obama administration’s progress in terms of US-Iran negotiations (besides the nuclear issue, Iran is an important player in Afghanistan and Iraq’s present and future) will largely depend on reciprocal diplomatic advancements from the Ayatollah, and that is where the previous argument comes back into play. What drives Ayatollah Khamenei and his partners? Do they seek to spread their version of Shia Islam across the Middle East, destroy Israel, and battle the ‘Great Satan’ United States as long it exists? Or is the state just following pragmatic policies that strengthen it at home and abroad?

We often hear people complain that America‘s reputation has taken a hit in the last few years, with most of the blame going to former President Bush and his administration. Putting aside the challenging task of measuring what that actually means when translated into real world consequences, it is worthwhile to look at trends that follow such talk. When the US has a “negative” reputation abroad, we typically see the populations of our Western European friends (France, Germany, Britain) staging protests against us. Additionally, unfriendly dictators (like those in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea) see the opportunity to ramp up their rhetoric, blaming the US for many of their failed domestic and foreign policies.

Rarely does the attention fall on the other interested parties though. The governments of our allies are usually split in their support for our actions (perhaps with Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan supporting us while France, Germany and Spain oppose us). And the US typically receives silent support from the populations of those dictators who consistently condemn us. For example, the Iranian people generally have a very positive view of the US when we appear to be standing up to their government. The same can be said of many other repressed regimes whose populations are rarely heard from.

This discussion is particularly relevant now because our “flailing international reputation” is frequently referenced as a reason for needing change in Washington. At least rhetorically, we seem to be witnessing a major shift from the idealist approach of the early Bush Administration that gave us the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. (Many in the IR field would agree, the last two years of the Bush Administration took a very realpolitik approach in their interactions with North Korea and Iran).

Yesterday, President Obama conducted his first interview with a Middle East television station, Al Arabiya, indicating his intent to return to the days of realist policy in the Middle East. While the mood of the American people appear ready to embrace such a strategy, it’s worth discussing at what price this change will come and who will most benefit. Clearly, the American people view it as saving us money now desperately needed at home. It will also save lives of American military men and women. But what about those people living under a despotic regime in the Middle East? Will they be better off now that the US is no longer offering to help take on evil dictators and spread democracy? Now that the US is going to sit down with their repressive governments and smooth things over so business deals flow and dictators’ “sovereignty” is protected?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami discusses this transition and poignantly captures the irony of the change in policy and its political voices:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” President Barack Obama said in his inaugural. But in truth, the new way forward is a return to realpolitik and business as usual in America‘s encounter with that Greater Middle East. As the president told Al-Arabiya television Monday, he wants a return to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago….

The irony now is obvious: George W. Bush as a force for emancipation in Muslim lands, and Barack Hussein Obama as a messenger of the old, settled ways. Thus the “parochial” man takes abroad a message that Muslims and Arabs did not have tyranny in their DNA, and the man with Muslim and Kenyan and Indonesian fragments in his very life and identity is signaling an acceptance of the established order.”

Perhaps another reason this is so ironic is that 30 years ago it was the idealist/”human rights” campaign that pressed Jimmy Carter to drop US support for dictators like the Shah of Iran. Of course, this prompted the Shah’s quick departure and the Iranian Revolution lead by Ayatollah Khomeini. Based on these results, it’s not surprising that the idealist approach was discredited.

This time around however, it appears the idealist theory (backed by force) has been much more effective. In his piece, Ajami explains why this might be the case:

“Say what you will about the style — and practice — of the Bush years, the autocracies were on notice for the first five or six years of George. W. Bush’s presidency. America had toppled Taliban rule and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein; it had frightened the Libyan ruler that a similar fate lay in store for him. It was not sweet persuasion that drove Syria out of Lebanon in 2005. That dominion of plunder and terror was given up under duress…

The argument that liberty springs from within and can’t be given to distant peoples is more flawed than meets the eye. In the sweep of modern history, the fortunes of liberty have been dependent on the will of the dominant power — or powers — in the order of states. The late Samuel P. Huntington made this point with telling detail. In 15 of the 29 democratic countries in 1970, democratic regimes were midwifed by foreign rule or had come into being right after independence from foreign occupation.

In the ebb and flow of liberty, power always mattered, and liberty needed the protection of great powers. The appeal of the pamphlets of Mill and Locke and Paine relied on the guns of Pax Britannica, and on the might of America when British power gave way. In this vein, the assertive diplomacy of George W. Bush had given heart to Muslims long in the grip of tyrannies.

Take that image of Saddam Hussein, flushed out of his spider hole some five years ago: Americans may have edited it out of their memory, but it shall endure for a long time in Arab consciousness. Rulers can be toppled and brought to account. No wonder the neighboring dictatorships bristled at the sight of that capture, and at his execution three years later.”

For the repressed peoples of the Middle East, we can only hope the protests of Parisians are a better signal of failed policy than they appear to be.

The Economist lays down the situation rather well:

In a written response to questions from senators debating his confirmation, {Treasurer-nominee} Mr Geithner accused China of “manipulating” its currency and promised that the Obama team would push “aggressively” for Beijing to change its policies. The sharp tone and use of the legally-loaded term “currency manipulation” ricocheted through financial markets as investors shuddered at the prospect of a Sino-American spat in the midst of a global slump.

The article goes on to describe the legal ramifications of officially accusing a WTO member of currency manipulation and warns against the Obama administration following such a policy. This statement by Geithner, which had to be Obama’s view and policy as well, forebodes a possible conflict between DC and Beijing. Geithner’s statement needs to be seen with Obama’s campaign rhetoric against free trade and the promotion of saving American jobs. The Chinese were listening then and they are surely listening now. The dire economic climate had led to protectionist calls by American citizens, elected officials, Democrat and Republican alike, and Obama could use his inaugural popular bounce to promote and further policies such as this if he chooses.

"Watch Out Geithner! The Chinese are Right Behind You! Just say 'Massaging'"

The Bush administration, just like Clinton’s before him, disapproved of China’s undervalued Yuan and used unofficial methods to get them to bring it up relative to the dollar with little success. However, the Bush and Clinton administrations were able to institute this policy push rather smoothly while keeping overall relations on a positive level. With the global economy still hemorrhaging, the last thing we need is a DC-Beijing economic dispute that would further rattle world markets and possibly constrain trade between the world’s two biggest trading partners.

I want the Chinese to higher the value of their Yuan as much as the next American, but the Chinese government has not responded well to this type of pressure in the past and I doubt they’ll start now, especially as they have their own domestic order to worry about. Sec of State Clinton had a productive opening talk with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, on Friday and both pledged to work together in a cooperative manner. Let’s hope so.

We must not take the last decade or so of peaceful and productive Chinese-US relations for granted. The relationship between the world’s two greatest economic powers is a vital one, but one also filled with possible conflict, conflict that could have dangerous repercussions around the globe. I support a strong, measured US stance in its relations with China, but I would suggest to tread lightly, Mr. Obama.