Posts Tagged ‘ Asia ’

Is 100% American Content the Best Route for High-Speed Rail?

Monday, June 14th, 2010
Mark Reutter



PPI Fellow Mark Reutter is the former editor of Railroad History and author of Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might (2005, rev. ed.).

by Mark Reutter

The Obama administration’s determination to enforce 100 percent American content for high-speed train systems is roiling the rail supply industry, with some executives saying the rule would be “impossible” to achieve and others wondering how much it will slow down high-speed rail (HSR) development and add to the sticker price.

“We’re living in a global rail industry,” said an official at a large U.S. transportation manufacturer that depends on foreign parts. “Insisting on all-American content could mean losing 10 years in building our HSR supply chain.”

Karen Rae, deputy director of the Federal Railroad Administration, surprised rail advocates when she announced last month that the White House has decided to enforce the “domestic buying preference” provision of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), which authorized $8 billion in HSR grants to state governments earlier this year.

Rae said at a conference sponsored by America 2050 that the administration had determined there was “enough excess manufacturing capacity in the country” to permit HSR equipment to be made of U.S. content. As a result, the administration did not anticipate issuing exemptions from the domestic buying rule, as permitted under Section 504(2) of PRIIA.

While Rae lauded the decision as a tool “to help reenergize manufacturing in the U.S.,” executives canvassed in the railway supply business say the provision could have the opposite effect.

“We could wind up getting 100 percent of nothing,” said one executive who exchanged candor for anonymity.

Things We Don’t Make Anymore

He and others say the biggest obstacle to American content is simply that this country does not produce some critical components. Take computer chips. They are not made in the U.S. There are American-owned suppliers, such as Intel, but the product itself is manufactured in Asia.

Computer chips are everywhere in modern rail cars, controlling the electric doors, regulating the heat and air conditioning, monitoring the mechanical and electrical systems, managing the P.A. systems and customer-information signs, to say nothing of Wi-Fi and other electronics that would be required in any HSR car order.

Outside of components, the sad fact is that there has not been a builder of passenger cars since Pullman-Standard Co. completed an order for Superliner cars for Amtrak in the 1980s and then went out of business.

In place of Pullman-Standard and other former U.S. manufacturing powerhouses, such as the Budd Co., a number of foreign-based companies have developed facilities to assemble rail cars.

The German giant, Siemens, builds light-rail vehicles (streetcars) from imported parts at a factory in Sacramento. Japan’s Kawasaki assembles commuter railcars in Lincoln, Neb., and New York City subway cars in Yonkers, NY.

French-based Alstom built Surfliner shells for the state of California in Brazil, shipped them to Baltimore and trucked them to a former railroad shop in Hornell, NY, for final assembly.

Bombardier built the shells for Amtrak’s Acela trains in Quebec and then shipped them across the border to a plant in Vermont for finishing. Talgo builds in Spain, but can do final assembly in the U.S.

Morrison Knudsen tried to break into the car-building business 20 years ago, but failed when projects like the proposed “Texas Triangle” HSR line collapsed.

In short, while there are many abandoned manufacturing plants in the U.S., it would take time to convert these plants into usable spaces for HSR equipment. Even more time and treasure would be required to develop a workforce capable of building technology that has more in common with modern aviation than lumbering freight trains.

What’s Consistent with the Public Interest?

China has offered to supply the equipment and engineers to help build California’s proposed HSR line between San Diego and Sacramento. If California accepted China’s offer, would the state have to repay the $2.25 billion it was awarded in PRIIA funding?

The language of the federal law is broadly written. In carrying out a rail project “funded in whole or in part with a grant under this title,” PRIIA calls for recipients to purchase “only unmanufactured articles, material, and supplies mined or produced in the U.S.” or “articles, material, and supplies manufactured in the U.S. substantially from articles, material, and supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the U.S.”

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) can waive this rule under three conditions: if the article is unreasonably expensive, if it is not produced in sufficient quantities, or if the requirement is “inconsistent with the public interest.”

It was assumed by the supply industry that the administration would use the law’s exemption liberally in order to expedite development of HSR lines. But Rae said that DOT’s No. 2 official, John Porcari, has been working with the White House to develop plans for 100 percent content and did not plan to issue any waivers.

Unintended Consequences

According to several suppliers, the literal interpretation of PRIIA could actually discourage American companies from entering the HSR field.

“Who wants to go through all these hoops only to find out you’re disqualified because some component is not considered American by a bureaucrat,” asked an executive.

One of the clearest-cut beneficiaries of the rule would appear to be domestic steelmakers supplying new track and structural steel. But who or what is a domestic steelmaker these days? Is it a company that owns plants in the U.S., a company owned by U.S. stockholders, or a company domiciled in the U.S.?

At present, foreign-owned-and-headquartered corporations control more than 35 percent of steel produced in the U.S. What’s more, half of the steel made here originates from raw materials mined outside of the country.

Similarly, GE Transportation, based in Erie, Pa., does a brisk business selling heavy-haul freight locomotives to China, Mexico, Brazil and Australia. Creating barriers for foreign suppliers may mean that overseas railroads won’t buy American in retaliation.

Getting Back on Track

The Obama administration would be wise to break free from the protectionist impulses of PRIIA and let all domestic and global rail suppliers compete for HSR contracts. Out of such competition, the best equipment and lowest prices should emerge.

A robust government policy toward high-speed rail would do wonders to revitalize entrepreneurship and encourage the private sector to enter the field.

This is the true challenge facing the Obama administration — establishing a long-term strategy for HSR, including how to finance the system. Parsing what is and isn’t “100% American” isn’t sound policy, it’s crowd-pleasing politics that will only delay the implementation of the administration’s own program.

Photo credit: Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Photostream

Google vs. China

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

If you need a pet story to follow over the next year, Google and China is it. The issues at hand — freedom, human rights, censorship, and the almighty dollar — define, in a microcosm, China’s internal struggle to shape a coherent, enduring image on the world stage. Can China have its cake and eat it too — censorship and repression on one hand, and Western companies that help foster economic growth on the other? The long-term fallout from this story could set precedent for decades to come.

Here’s a quick recap: Google, whose slogan is “Don’t Be Evil”,  January revealed that it — along with 22 other companies– was the victim of a cyberattack sponsored by Beijing. As part of China’s intrusion, the Google email accounts of prominent human rights activists were hacked. Here was the company’s conclusion at the time, from Google’s blog:

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

After some additional research, the hammer just dropped yesterday:

We also made clear that these attacks and the surveillance they uncovered — combined with attempts over the last year to further limit free speech on the web in China including the persistent blocking of websites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Docs and Blogger — had led us to conclude that we could no longer continue censoring our results on Google.cn.

So earlier today we stopped censoring our search services — Google Search, Google News, and Google Images — on Google.cn. Users visiting Google.cn are now being redirected to Google.com.hk, where we are offering uncensored search in simplified Chinese, specifically designed for users in mainland China and delivered via our servers in Hong Kong. Users in Hong Kong will continue to receive their existing uncensored, traditional Chinese service, also from Google.com.hk.

It is highly likely that Beijing will attempt to censor Google.com.hk, and their efforts will likely test the limits of what has become known as the Great Firewall of China. Unfortunately, I’m not enough of a tech-geek to know how feasible this is, but we’ll soon find out.

But the precedents that Google’s move sets will be far-reaching, and define American internet companies’ role in China for years. Will American corporations join Google, or attempt to replace it? Secretary of State Clinton spoke passionately that American businesses’ refusal “to support politically motivated censorship will become a trademark characteristic of American technology companies. It should be part of our national brand.” But is it too tempting for Yahoo.cn (which exists) and Bing.cn (which doesn’t… yet) to vacuum up the market share Google’s departure leaves hanging out there? And what about slightly more ambiguous cases, like Amazon.cn, which aren’t in the search engine business, but do exist and do provide Chinese with access to information?

And what would be necessary for Beijing to give way? Is there a conceivable scenario under which China might eventually permit unfettered searches of its internet content? And does this spat extend to companies beyond the information sector? Should it? Will the Obama adminstration bring pressure to bear on U.S. companies to, in turn, help pressure Beijing? Will non-information sector American companies abandon China in a mass protest against censorship? It is difficult to imagine any scenario where a major non-censored U.S. corporation forsakes its access to a market of 1.3 billion people, right? But Google’s decision is astounding and could create waves.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shekharsahu/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Did North Korea Execute a Government Official?

Friday, March 19th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Reports of just how warped the North Korean regime is occasionally filter out to the broader world from time to time. This dispatch in the New York Times has got to be one of the more grotesque stories we’ve heard in a while:

North Korea has arrested and possibly executed its top financial official as it struggles to contain chaos set off by its botched attempt to halt inflation through a radical currency revaluation, according to news reports Thursday in South Korea.

[…]

Mr. Pak “was executed at a firing range in Pyongyang on the trumped-up charges of being an antirevolutionary element as public sentiments worsened over the failure of the currency reform,” reported the South Korean news agency Yonhap, quoting unnamed sources in North Korea.

Here’s where Mr. Pak screwed up:

In late November, North Korea suddenly told its people that it would introduce new banknotes, ordering them to turn in their old bills for new ones at a rate of 100 to 1. It also put a cap on how much old money they could swap for the new currency.

The shock measure was meant to arrest runaway inflation and crack down on illegal markets in the socialist state. But it only aggravated the food crisis, creating shortages and soaring prices, and reportedly led to isolated but highly unusual outbursts of protest in the totalitarian state.

I should note that Mr. Pak’s execution hasn’t been confirmed. But if it is, this is really serious stuff that the U.S. can’t ignore. When it comes to the internal machinations of a completely isolated society like North Korea, the West often writes off these kinds of stories. “They’re nuts,” you can almost hear a few desk officers in Foggy Bottom exclaim as they throw their hands in the air, “What are we supposed to do with this?”

But sooner or later during the Obama administration, the West will sit down with North Korea. The temptation is often to focus only on the nuclear issue, because it is obviously the most pressing concern for American national security. However, it’s critical that Western negotiators engage Pyongyang on human rights as well — if nothing else (and here’ s the cynic in me), asking hard questions about Mr. Pak’s disappearance creates diplomatic openings on other fronts, and will create incentives for the North Koreans to give ground elsewhere. And if we’re lucky, raising the issue might just protect Mr. Pak’s successor, too.

The Dragon’s Dilemma: A Closer Look at China’s Defense Budget and Priorities

Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Michael Chase



Michael S. Chase is an associate professor in the Strategy and Policy Department at the U.S. Naval War College and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project. The views expressed here are his own.

by Michael Chase

Download the report.

This is the first installment in a three-part series investigating the state of China’s military. The other articles in this series will look at China’s missile capabilities and naval modernization.

This week, China’s National People’s Congress will convene its annual meeting in Beijing. Among the developments that are expected from the gathering is one we should all pay close attention to: the announcement of China’s 2010 defense budget. Beijing has given the military double-digit budget increases for well over a decade, and some Chinese security analysts are calling for a larger-than-usual boost this year in a bid to signal China’s anger over the latest U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Whatever the exact amount of China’s official defense budget, the announcement will once again highlight China’s growing military power — and the potential challenge it poses to the U.S.

Widely dismissed as a “junkyard army” for many years, the Chinese military is now raising quite a few eyebrows with its growing capability. In recent years, China has deployed increasingly potent anti-access capabilities, including modern surface ships, advanced submarines, fourth-generation fighter aircraft, and conventional cruise and ballistic missiles. China is also enhancing its C4ISR*, space and cyber warfare capabilities; developing an anti-ship ballistic missile designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers; and modernizing its nuclear forces.

The People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) growing capabilities in these areas, along with other recent notable events — including Beijing’s controversial anti-satellite missile test in January 2007; its January 2009 missile defense intercept test; and the Chinese Navy’s unprecedented and continuing participation in counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia since December 2008 — are raising questions about whether an increasingly powerful China represents a looming military threat to the U.S. and its allies. In an article published last month, the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney argued, “China is responding to what it perceives to be our declining power by becoming ever more well-armed, assertive and contemptuous — a formula for serious, and possibly ‘major,’ conflict ahead.”1

Fueling China’s accelerating modernization — and the concerns of many observers who see it as an emerging military competitor — is the rapid growth of the country’s defense budget since the late 1990s. In recent years, China’s civilian leadership has been increasing the PLA’s resources in an attempt to develop more credible options for engaging Taiwan and countering U.S. military intervention.

With the warming of the China-Taiwan relationship over the past 18 months, the PLA’s rationale for further hikes in defense spending is now increasingly tied to China’s growing political, economic and security interests on the global stage. These expanding interests, however, may eventually have to be balanced with the need to address pressing domestic problems, especially if China is unable to maintain current economic growth rates. How China juggles these competing priorities will shape its global role and could have major implications for U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. It could, as critics fear, lead to a confrontation down the road. Or it could do just the opposite, by creating opportunities for Chinese global engagement and a new security partnership with the U.S.

China’s Defense by the Numbers

At the outset of the economic reform era in the 1970s, China’s leaders stated that military modernization would take a backseat to domestic economic development. Leader Deng Xiaoping argued that it would be necessary to delay major increases in defense expenditure until China achieved a higher level of economic development. By the end of the 20th century, Deng predicted that China would be much more powerful economically and would then be able to spend more on military modernization without shortchanging other national priorities.

In line with this guidance, the PLA’s share of the budget declined throughout the ’80s. While it saw nominal increases in the late ’80s and early ’90s, much of that gain was devoured by inflation. It was not until the late ’90s — when rapid economic growth began and Beijing became determined to develop more credible military options against Taiwan and the U.S. in a cross-Strait conflict — that the PLA finally started to enjoy major increases in the defense budget.

This trend has continued even as the cross-Strait relationship has improved dramatically following Taiwan’s 2008 election of President Ma Ying-jeou, who favors a closer and more constructive relationship with China. But while Beijing clearly welcomes warming ties with Taiwan, China still increased its defense budget by 14.9 percent in 2009, bringing the official budget to approximately 481 billion RMB, or about $70 billion. This increase was a bit lower than in recent years — the PLA received a 17.6 percent increase in 2008 and a 17.8 percent increase the previous year — but it reflected a determination to continue modernizing the military even as cross-Strait relations have become more cooperative. Chinese officials assert that the increases are mainly for raising salaries and improving benefits for servicemen, purchasing modern equipment and building new facilities.

China’s official figures put defense spending at about 1.4 percent of the country’s rapidly growing GDP in 2008. The official numbers tell only part of the story, however. The true level of China’s current defense budget is difficult to calculate, largely because some items are not reflected in the announced defense budget. Among these are expenditures on foreign weapons procurement, paramilitary expenses, state subsidies for the defense-industrial complex and some defense-related R&D programs. Moreover, the number of funding sources and the involvement of multiple levels of government further complicate attempts to estimate China’s defense spending. Consequently, outside estimates range from about one-and-a-half to three times the official budget figure. The 2009 edition of the U.S. Department of Defense’s annual report on Chinese military power places total Chinese defense spending in 2008 somewhere between about 1.75 and 2.5 times the PRC’s official number. Some other outside estimates, however, are lower. For example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which maintains the highly regarded SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, estimates that China’s defense budget in 2008 was about 1.4 times the figure that was officially released by China.

Attempting to project future trends in Beijing’s military spending is even more complex. Forecasts of Chinese military spending over the next 10 to 20 years vary widely, depending on the methods employed and the underlying assumptions about China’s future economic performance. For example, in 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense predicted a possible threefold or greater increase in China’s defense spending over the next 20 years, which would place its military budget at $210 billion to $315 billion (in constant 2005 U.S. dollars) or more in 2025.2 In contrast, a RAND Corporation report released at about the same time projected that in 2025 Chinese defense spending would reach about $185 billion (in constant 2005 U.S. dollars). That’s still an impressive sum, but considerably lower than the Pentagon forecast.3 These divergent estimates reflect uncertainty not only about future economic performance, but also about how China’s leaders will choose to allocate budgetary resources when faced with a variety of new security challenges on the one hand and competing domestic priorities on the other.

New Missions for the PLA

As China’s political, economic and security interests become more global and complex, the PLA’s roles and missions are evolving to contend with an increasingly diverse set of security challenges. In December 2004, President Hu Jintao assigned the “New Historic Missions” to the PLA, which encompass four key roles:

  1. help the Communist Party maintain and consolidate its ruling position
  2. provide a strong security guarantee for national development
  3. safeguard national interests
  4. safeguard world peace and promote common development

To fulfill these expanded missions, Chinese leadership has tasked the PLA with enhancing its capabilities to successfully conduct combat operations and participate in military operations other than war. Specifically, President Hu’s concept of “multiple military tasks” provides a conceptual framework for the PLA to properly balance the development of the capabilities required to fulfill its evolving combat duties along and with other military missions.

As Chinese Central Military Commission Vice Chairman General Xu Caihou has indicated, military operations other than war are emerging as “routine and constant missions for the military,” adding:

We believe that in the current era when the tides for peace, development and cooperation are ever more keenly felt, to conduct military operations other than war is becoming an increasingly important form of applying military forces.4

Chinese strategists indicate that Beijing’s conception of such operations covers a wide variety of activities, including counterterrorism operations, participation in UN Peacekeeping Operations, noncombatant evacuation operations, emergency disaster relief operations, international humanitarian assistance and counterpiracy patrols.

But while the military’s participation in such activities, like its counterpiracy patrols off of Somalia, is clearly seen as important, the PLA’s core mission remains clear. As General Xu declared, “To deter and win wars remains the top priority of the armed forces.”5 As part of the concept of “multiple military tasks,” Chinese strategists envision several potential types of combat operations, including, but not limited to, large-scale island attack, air defense and border-area defense operations.

The PLA faces the challenge of balancing the relationship between enhancing combat operations and ramping up military operations other than war. Chinese analysts argue that such activities can help improve the PLA’s ability to win wars by giving it experience in critical areas such as command and decision-making, projection of military strength, logistics and support operations, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities. Growing involvement in such missions can enhance China’s image and offer valuable operational experience that will help improve its ability to conduct combat operations and support the core goal of deterring and winning wars.

Potential Constraints

Even as the PLA’s involvement in nontraditional security missions grows, it seems likely that demand for greater defense spending may increasingly come into conflict with the rising costs of China’s domestic priorities. Indeed, calls for increased defense spending are likely to be matched by growing demands for government outlays to cope with a range of social problems. Such problems, which emerged as consequences of Beijing’s economic reforms during the Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin eras, include a growing income gap, the glaring inadequacies of the Chinese health care system, worsening environmental degradation and rising social unrest. Tensions that have risen from these challenges could worsen if the pace of China’s economic growth slows.

Under the leadership of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, China has been shifting from an economic strategy that emphasized rapid GDP growth above all else to an approach that devotes more attention to reducing income inequality and promoting sustainable economic development. As part of this new approach, Chinese leaders stress that the country’s economic policies must promote the development of a “harmonious society” based on balanced growth and sustainable economic development.6 Hu and Wen are likely to have their hands full, as top officials historically have been evaluated using metrics associated with the rapid growth strategy. The shift in orientation may also begin to impose serious constraints on further dramatic increases in military spending in the future.

Outlook and Implications

Rapid economic growth has allowed Beijing to dramatically increase defense spending since the late 1990s. It has been able to do so without having to make tradeoffs between military modernization and other policy priorities. In the not too distant future, however, the government is likely to face growing pressure to devote a larger share of government spending to cope with serious domestic problems. As these problems become more pressing, Beijing may have to make tough choices it has previously managed to avoid, especially if economic growth slows.

China remains determined to continue modernizing its military for at least two major reasons. First, China still sees military power as an important aspect of its Taiwan policy even in a time of warming relations. Second, Beijing appears convinced that China’s growing global interests require a much more capable military. Indeed, the concepts of “new historic missions” and “multiple military tasks” provide a more expansive rationale for Chinese military modernization beyond Taiwan.

How should the U.S. and the world view these changes? To the extent that new roles and missions ultimately require a greater global presence for the PLA, we could see growing concerns about China’s expanding military capability in some countries, rising tensions within China over some of its traditional foreign policy principles and potentially new challenges for the U.S.-China security relationship. That said, a greater Chinese military presence on the global stage might also create opportunities for an increased U.S.-China partnership. Indeed, both sides have highlighted issues such as antipiracy and international humanitarian assistance as possible areas for greater U.S.-China cooperation.


* Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

1 Frank Gaffney, “Obama vs. the All-Volunteer Military,” Center for Security Policy, February 1, 2010.

2 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2005, pp. 21-22.

3 Keith Crane, Roger Cliff, Evan Medeiros, James Mulvenon and William Overholt, Modernizing China’s Military: Opportunities and Constraints, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2005.

4 General Xu Caihou, “The Chinese Military: A Force for Multiple Military Tasks,” Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 26, 2009.

5 Xu, “The Chinese Military: A Force for Multiple Military Tasks.”

6 For a detailed explanation of this approach, see “Communiqué of the Sixth Plenum of the 16th CPC Central Committee,” People’s Daily, October 12, 2006.

Download the report.

Does America Have a China Policy?

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

President Obama’s visit to China has underscored the dramatically unbalanced nature of the Sino-American relationship. No, not the oft-lamented imbalance in trade between the two countries, but a strategic imbalance. Put simply, China has a U.S. strategy, but it’s not clear that the U.S. has a China strategy.

The Chinese know what they want, and for the most part, they are getting it. Foreign policy mavens take note: this is what 21st-century realpolitik looks like.

China wants the United States to keep its markets open. “I stressed to President Obama that under the current circumstances, our two countries need to oppose all kinds of trade protectionism even more strongly,” Chinese President Hu Jintao said yesterday in a joint news conference in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People. Though he was too polite to say so, he had in mind U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and tires.

While President Obama swore fealty to free trade, he also called for “balanced growth,” which is diplo-speak for U.S. efforts to get China to spur domestic consumption and rely less on exports. The president also declared that the world cannot count on overleveraged U.S. consumers to be a perpetual engine of global growth.

Change in Trade Relationship Unlikely

That’s right in concept. But the U.S. trade deficit with China — even in the midst of recession and financial crisis — is expected to be $200 billion this year, about the same as last year. And U.S. injunctions to pump up domestic demand are no more likely to work with China than they did two decades ago with another export juggernaut, Japan. Beijing not surprisingly seems intent on sticking with the economic strategy that has produced annual growth rates of 10 percent – even as the U.S. wallows in 10 percent unemployment.

Worried about the value of the huge hoard of dollar assets they are sitting on, the Chinese admonished U.S. officials to keep the dollar’s value from sliding further. President Obama, determined to accentuate the positive, praised China’s previous pledges to “move toward a more market-oriented exchange rate over time.” But pegging the renminbi to the dollar is integral to China’s quasi-mercantile strategy. We should expect no more than cosmetic adjustments that will have scant effect on exchange rates and, therefore, will not give a major boost to U.S. exports to China.

So all and all the president’s visit was satisfactory from China’s point of view. Beijing got assurances that the administration would not shut out Chinese imports, or let the dollar get much weaker. It had to endure only mild U.S. nudges on boosting domestic consumption and letting its currency appreciate.

The Limits of Cooperation

For his part, President Obama stressed the need for Beijing to work with the U.S. to get North Korea and Iran to forswear nuclear weapons, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China pays lip service to nuclear non-proliferation, but it has steadfastly declined to use its economic leverage to bring serious pressure to bear on North Korea. It also has blocked stiffer U.N. sanctions against Iran, even while upping its trade with Tehran. And China is adamant that it won’t sign a global warming pact with binding targets next month in Copenhagen.

The president seems not to have said much about democracy, which begs the question of whether the White House believes the absence of accountable governance in China in any way inhibits a close partnership with the U.S. Obama, however, did win Beijing’s acquiescence in a human rights dialogue set to start next year.

In sum, Beijing displayed a hard-boiled realism about hewing to an economic nationalism that has catapulted China from the Third World to the first tier of nations in just 30 years, but at a growing cost to global growth and financial stability. It also gained recognition as a key stakeholder in the world’s steering committee of great powers, without having to sacrifice anything of importance to the common cause of stemming the spread of nuclear weapons or slowing climate change.

What the U.S. got was the atmospherics of a cordial and cooperative Sino-American relationship, and little else.

President Obama is right, of course, that a U.S.-China collision is neither inevitable nor desirable. He may also be right that that none of the world’s toughest challenges can be met without Sino-American cooperation.

It is time, however, for frank acknowledgement of the limits of cooperation. We need to be clear about where U.S. and Chinese interests diverge, and about what, above all else, American really wants from China. Once the administration can answer that question, it will be able to pursue U.S. strategic interests with as much focus and determination as Beijing brings to the bargaining table.

Obama to China

Monday, November 16th, 2009
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

President Obama’s three-day swing through Shanghai and Beijing presents an interesting opportunity to make real headway on three critical trans-Pacific issues.

First is economics. Whether the issue is China’s near recession-proof economy, currency devaluation, or seemingly inexhaustible appetite for American debt, Obama has been walking a tightrope to frame financial competition as a healthy companion to cooperation. While it’s perhaps somewhat natural for Americans to “fear” Chinese economic hegemony, keep this in mind: China has to keep growing at a rate of close to 8 percent annually, or it won’t be able to integrate its approximately 20 million brand new job seekers each year. The potential instability could wreak havoc, so on some level (American debt notwithstanding) Chinese growth should be managed rather than ignored or fought.

Second is world leadership, specifically on climate change. I was listening to a BBC podcast this morning that highlighted China’s fascinating and divisive internal debate on its place in the world, with various cadres within the governing Communist party arguing for relative isolation over front-running. This is where Obama’s message can strike home: The world needs China as a global leader as other countries look to Washington and Beijing before making their move. The Indias, Brazils, and Russias of the world see little reason to agree to any wide-ranging worldwide carbon restrictions if China doesn’t play ball first.

Finally, many will paint the president’s visit as too soft on his Chinese hosts — Obama refused a visit in DC with the Dalai Lama and has been rather publicly muted (though not silent) on the issue of human rights (though he did address the issue at a town hall meeting with students). For the record, human rights must be a part of the conversation, both as a moral issue and bargaining chip (as base as that may sound). Obama has been rather careful to present them as one of many agenda items, one that doesn’t needlessly anger Beijing and derail important conversations on issues in which America needs a Chinese partner now.