April 21, 2006

Balance of Power

New York Times today:

During his 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush described Beijing as a "strategic competitor" whose ambitions for global influence must be contained. Now he prefers to say America's relationship with the Chinese is "complicated," reflecting a conversion that he took a step further on Thursday to declare that "China and the United States share extensive common strategic interests."
Perhaps that should have been no surprise. Like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton before him, Mr. Bush came to office convinced that if he set tougher rules about engaging China, the Chinese would change their behavior. They quickly came to abandon that view.
"A number of presidents since Nixon have come to office with negative views of the Chinese," said Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President Bush's father. "They always end up supporting the thrust of the policy established by President Nixon," one of engagement.

Why is this such a shock to everyone? As I've said before, I'm not a realist, but you can't dismiss "power politics" as a key characteristic of the international system made up of sovereign states. China has interests different from ours. China is also one of our largest and most important trading partners (just behind Canada and Mexico). Plus, they are capitalist, communist, repressive, rich, nuclear, and rebuilding their armed forces. Hey, guess what, that's going to create a complicated set of relationships!

I'm a very firm believer that China is a much greater policy issue than Iraq or Iran (of course, I also believe that Pakistan is bigger than those two states as well). Yet I can't also help feeling that our China policy is adrift, with no real strategic focus with respect to the interrelation of security, economic, diplomatic, energy, and human rights/democracy issues. Where's the debate?

Posted by baltar at April 21, 2006 10:50 AM | TrackBack | Posted to


Comments

Care name the foreign policy topics on which our policy is NOT adrift? That might be easier. :)

Though of course when we do gain focus (say, India), well you and I might not like the results any better.

Posted by: Armand at April 21, 2006 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

debate!? where's the debate on any policy topic -- or haven't you heard, debate = treason.

Posted by: moon at April 21, 2006 01:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I had forgotten about India. That didn't turn out so well, did it.

Posted by: baltar at April 21, 2006 01:35 PM | PERMALINK

I tend to think that India is a big part of the China policy (and a nontrivial part of the Iran policy, too).

Not that that's, y'know, optimal or anything.

Posted by: jacflash at April 21, 2006 04:02 PM | PERMALINK

I hope you are right - India SHOULD be a consideration in terms of both China policy and Iran policy. And I'm a big supporter of improving ties with it, in general. I just happen to think that the specifics of the Indian nuke deal the Bush administration is pushing are a terrible mess - definitely not "optimal".

Posted by: Armand at April 21, 2006 04:59 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?