U.S. Role in the World

The U.S. is selling billions of dollars worth of arms to Taiwan and China is not happy about it. Why is the U.S. endangering an important trade and diplomatic relationship with one of the emerging great powers of the 21st Century? The answers date back to the Chinese civil war and the passions of the Cold War. I know people who remain passionate about Taiwan and consider it a matter of U.S. national honor that we keep our commitment to the independence of Taiwan. After all, Taiwan has been a loyal ally and trade partner for many years. I also know others of my generation who see Taiwan as a poor sport, they lost their civil war, they need to get over it and get with the one-China program. Regardless of the passions (or lack thereof) on this issue, the real guiding factor here is an act of Congress which provided the legal basis of the U.S. relationship with Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 obligates the U.S. to provide weapons for the defense of Taiwan, it does not obligate the U.S. to actively defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. That distinction and the strategic ambiguity over the question of whether the U.S. really would sit out a China-Taiwan conflict keeps everyone guessing, and that provides enough of a deterrent to keep both sides in line…so far. Would you support the use of American military forces to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack? The president we elect in November may have to answer this question.

It’s Friday and I’ve developed a tradition of closing the week with a recommendation to a blog or other internet resource that will help my readers gain insight into world affairs. Today I’d like to recommend the blog of the Asia Policy Debate 2008. According to their about statement:

The purpose of this site is to promote NBR’s Asia Policy Debate 2008: The Next President’s Strategy for Engagement, to be held September 22 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, between top foreign policy advisors to the presidential candidates, and to encourage discussion of American foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific more generally. From this site you can get updated information about the debate including the webcast, request an invitation, suggest an Asia policy-related debate question, and post comments.

I like that list of post categories includes a link to posts specifically about U.S. Policy in Asia. Other posts deal with Asia in the News, Economic Issues, Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, and Security Issues. Two category areas are devoted to the upcoming election and feature posts on Where the Candidates Stand and Your Top 10 Debate Questions. If you are interested in the foreign policy of the next President in general and Asia policy in particular, I recommend this blog as a starting point.

I’m having a busy Monday, so I’m reaching deep into the archives for this article (Business Week - Who Will Rule The 21st Century?) about why the U.S. need not fear an ascendant China or India in the 21st Century. The report is from July ‘07, so it will be interesting to read your thoughts on this analysis of U.S. leadership in the post-Beijing Olympics era. Does Jack Welch’s argument still hold up one year later? 

As the Olympics begin today all eyes are on China. This is really China’s big coming out party, their “we have arrived” moment. China has already arrived though, in military and economic terms China has been a great power for some time now, pop culture is merely catching up to the reality. The rise of China has impacted many areas of U.S. foreign policy and in this essay (Balancing Asia’s Rivals), Prof. Joseph Nye analyzes the impact of growing Chinese power on the U.S. relationship with India and other Asian countries.

How should Americans act upon arriving in Beijing for the Olympic games? Should they be like members of the U.S. cycling team (Reuters - U.S. cyclists fly into China with face masks):

Some members of the U.S. cycling squad arrived for the Olympic Games on Tuesday wearing black respiratory masks, apparently concerned over reports of unhealthy levels of air pollution in Beijing. About half a dozen members of the team, male and female, were pictured wearing close-fitting face masks covering nose and mouth as they went through Beijing airport. One was identified as Mike Friedman, a track cyclist who competes indoors.

Yes, air pollution has been in the news and Beijing’s pollution problems are well known, but these athletes were wearings masks in the airport and as they loaded their luggage into their shuttles, not at an outdoor cycling venue. I think they did this more for show than for any legitimate health or sporting reasons. So, why go out of your way to be provocative and insulting to your hosts?

Should Americans in Beijing act like Eddie Romero who vandalized his hotel room in the name of protest and then left without paying ( AP - American protester paints Beijing hotel rooms):

An American pastor checked into upscale hotels in the Olympics host city this week, filmed himself painting two of his rooms with slogans like “Beijing 2008 Our world Our nightmare” and then disappeared. Without paying. […] the California-based pastor splashed the walls of his two hotel rooms with demands for the release of five Chinese activists. He slashed pillows and staged mock killings with stuffed people propped on the bed, red paint spattered like blood on the headboard.

I wonder if he would “protest” in the same way if he was back at home?

I’ve done a fair bit of traveling abroad and always with the attitude that you respect your host country, respect their laws, their traditions and their culture and you do this to be a good ambassador for the U.S. and not a stereotype of the “ugly American.” I hope the cycling team and Eddie Romero will prove to be the exceptions rather than the rule and that most Americans in Beijing will conduct themselves in a manner that would make us proud back home.

President Bush has departed for Asia on a trip that will allow him to visit American allies en route to the Olympics in China. Although I alway assumed that President Bush would attend the opening ceremonies, I was not surprised that there were early calls for Bush to boycott the event. The U.S. relationship with China seems to be top-heavy with the hot-button issues of human rights, conditions in Tibet, the war in Darfur, and their support for undemocratic regimes like Sudan. The U.S. - China relationship though is also stabilized by long term economic and strategic interests. The U.S. wants to maintain access to a growing Chinese market, and secure Chinese support on the world stage for important initiatives before the U.N. Security Council, most notably a further round of sanctions on Iran. In this Washington Post report (Bush Says It’s ‘Important to Engage’ China), President Bush makes the case for deeper engagement with China: 

During a half-hour interview in his private office aboard Air Force One, Bush emphasized that it is “important to engage the Chinese” — a striking comment for a president who came to office with aides depicting China as a “strategic competitor” and surrounded by hawks who looked suspiciously upon the Chinese government. Even critics of the president say he has emerged as an unexpected diplomat with China, conducting a personal campaign to woo the senior Chinese leadership.

[…]

Over the course of his administration, Bush has delivered for China in important and unexpected ways: A president who in his early days made a guarantee to defend Taiwan later warned the island against declaring independence and has established what China experts see as a de facto freeze on arms sales to Taiwan. After angering China by labeling North Korea part of an “axis of evil,” Bush led a diplomatic initiative aimed at cooling tensions on the Korean Peninsula. While critical of China on human rights, Bush has not hectored authorities in Beijing. authorities.

He and his advisers say his approach has paid off: The United States has secured Chinese help on North Korea and Iran while avoiding a blowup in the Taiwan Strait, despite the intense passions and military buildups on both sides.

I expect to see President Bush raise a variety of human rights issues in his public statements during his visit to China but I also expect that the majority of his meetings with Chinese officials and business leaders on both sides to reflect the growing importance of the strategic and economic ties between the two countries. In a reflection of these growing ties, Bush will attend the opening of the new U.S. embassy in Beijing, a huge new modern office tower that will be the largest U.S. embassy in the world after the new Baghdad embassy.

Given U.S. investment in China over many generations (economic, social, and religious) I support Bush’s attendance at the Olympic opening ceremonies and hope that he and the other U.S. representatives (including the U.S. Olympic team) contribute to an event which enhances China’s ties to the U.S., moving them beyond calculated benefits into the realm of genuine good will. And in the final analysis, isn’t that what the Olympics is all about?