—

J.R. Siegel

Every time an American President meets with a Chinese leader, there is an expectation that, this time, the Chinese will listen to us and change their ways. Yet the pattern remains the same: Americans offer advice, the Chinese listen, nod their heads, and ignore absolutely everything that the Americans have to say.

The Chinese define their national interest narrowly—the Communist Party does what it thinks it needs to do in order to remain in power. If it means rolling tanks out on the streets, the Party will do that. If it means keeping the renminbi (RMB) pegged to the dollar, the Party will do that.

The problem with the current pegging of the RMB to the dollar is that it’s bad for everyone. This “beggar thy neighbor” policy is taking low-level jobs away from other developing countries in the region and thereby making them more likely to tilt towards the U.S. than China. At some point, China will need to transition its economy towards more service-based industry and stimulate domestic demand—neither of which will happen if wages remain artificially low. In the short run, mercantilism seems like a good thing; in the long run, it will wreck the Chinese economy.

The irony is that, for once, the U.S. President is trying to help China. In order for the Party to remain in power, it will have to stimulate real economic growth—not investment in fixed assets—by letting the RMB rise and the market play a more prominent role. It is also true that, if Beijing wants to be perceived as a “peaceful and harmonious” global actor, it needs to start sharing some of the costs of global leadership. China cannot simultaneously distort the global economy, peacefully rise, and be perceived as a key international stakeholder.

Ignoring the advice of the U.S. was a strategy that served Beijing well for 40 years. If the Party continues to ignore this advice, it risks throwing away everything it has so carefully built.

George Ding

Obama’s main goal in China was the same as the trips abroad during his campaign: don’t do anything stupid. But this was not a simple fact-finding mission. Long before he arrived in the stately halls of Beijing, the American media was opining on his ability to thread the needle on issues like human rights, the two T’s, and climate change.

In a country where strong opinions are discouraged, the president did a laudable job of gently urging without haughtiness or condescension. The amazing thing was how much Obama said without actually saying it. In Shanghai he brought up issues like natural rights and freedom of information, framing them as a brief history lesson on America. It was suggestion disguised as exposition.

Obama’s trip also accomplished something else. By attending state dinners and visiting the quintessential places of Chinese culture, Obama gave Chinese leaders massive face. The only thing the Chinese government loves more than symbolism and pageantry is face, and Obama’s trip was a mixture of all three. Throughout his trip, Obama embodied a respectful America that earnestly wants to understand and work with China. This is political capital in the new era.

Only time will tell if Obama has ushered in a new chapter in U.S.-China relations or if the two countries will return to bickering as usual. The critics who say he has returned to America with no concrete accomplishments are right. But what he has returned with could be much more valuable: respect from the second most powerful nation in the world.

Fenwick Smith

If a President of the United States speaks in a closed, government-vetted forum, does he make a sound?

Obama in Shanghai displayed once again his abilities as a consummate public speaker. He certainly seemed to believe he was addressing China as a nation, but as any observer would note, the faces behind him, albeit youthful, had the fixed, stiff-necked half-smiles that denote Chinese Communist Party officials. There were few flickers of actual engagement with the content of the President’s address. The democracy agenda was pushed gently, but with a didactic tone far removed from the bullheaded rhetoric of the previous administration. His refreshing humility, more akin in tone if not in content to, dare I say, a Chinese politician than an American one, no doubt warmed his audience to him.

But did he make an impact?

The transcript of Obama’s Q&A has been sought out by Chinese netizens but those are not the people he needs to reach.  The Chinese government within minutes diluted and edited Obama’s speech using their own templates and enabled strict Internet and television controls to limit viewership. Enough encouragements of Sino-U.S. friendship were made to allow his remarks to penetrate into the public arena, but in a format “suitable” for the old hundred names. Essentially, by filling the studio with previously-vetted Shanghai students who were mostly Party members, the Chinese government has kept Obama’s “public” appearance isolated. The Shanghai Museum of Science and Technology was sealed off from the rest of the city, ostensibly “closed for maintenance,” keeping the general public in the dark about Obama’s presence until the last possible moment. Content was not screened live anywhere in China; the text of his speech containing remarks concerning an uncensored Internet were removed from Xinhua websites as quickly as they were posted. I doubt government officials were forcing these deletions—they were more likely an example of the Chinese media’s innate capability for self-censorship. A number of questions, particularly the “randomly selected Internet questions” were blatantly skewed in favor of the Chinese administration.

The President engaged well on a personal level with his questioners, and replied smoothly and candidly, but he was speaking to the Party, not the people, and thus the entire appearance felt—and indeed was—staged. Like a high-level Chinese tourist, or any of his predecessors, Obama was ferried from one photo-op to another, remaining a long way from the political and social realities of the nation he was visiting. And, in the corridors of power where the Internet is uncensored and knowledge unrestricted, the Chinese leadership will nod, smile and dismiss the visit as a publicity stunt well executed. Obama will go home with the feeling that the U.S. will have to continue to negotiate with China on China’s terms. Simply put, China is powerful enough not to listen, and the U.S. is no longer powerful enough to make China listen.

Yulin Zhuang

The key thing to take away from this procession is the lack of any sort of behavior that could be construed as inflammatory or provocative, even by hypernationalist Chinese netizens, whose paranoid frenzies are legendary for their lack of scruples. From declining to meet the Dalai Lama in October to promising that the United States does not seek to contain China’s rise, President Obama has shown a more nuanced understanding of diplomacy as practiced by the Chinese—in public, bland, uninformative, and undistinguished; in private—who knows.

But we can be certain Obama understands that saying or doing anything likely to set the Chinese off would merely be counterproductive to a meaningful dialog. China would be forced to spend its time elaborately posturing to “save face” and Obama would lose the chance to engage China’s cooperation on a wider range of issues. In the view of your average Chinese citizen, China will no longer be dictated to by arrogant foreigners. The orgiastic display of jingoistic pride that was the National Day celebration on October 1st merely served to reinforce this view among Chinese. Sino-U.S. relations may be headed the way of U.S.-French relations—two proud countries eager to put each other down.

Yes, We Can Do It!

Obama’s town hall in Shanghai pleased me greatly. His silver tongue was on full display in appeasing the Chinese with conciliatory praise and refined humility. Humility, a word I would rarely associate with American politicians, is an extremely important trait in Asian cultures. He was not forceful, he was not arrogant, and he was the first to point out America’s hypocrisies. I think that this was something the Chinese wanted and needed to hear from an American leader.

Past U.S. presidents have taken a hard line with China: criticizing them for human rights violations, scrutinizing their currency manipulation, decrying domestic territorial disputes. Though I, and I think most Americans, would agree with the criticisms, the message that ends up coming across is infuriating to the Chinese: arrogant white Americans yelling at China for sins they themselves committed in the past. They did not take the time to hear China’s side of the story; they did not respect the country. “What gives America the right to tell China how to act? Mind your own damn business!”

What Obama is doing is befriending the Chinese. And friendship is the first step towards progress. Instead of telling China they need to treat their women better, he points out that the U.S. also has some antiquated views on women’s rights. Instead of telling China to reduce greenhouse gases, he challenges both our countries to improve. This is diplomacy 101.

Obama, in wax form.

An antagonistic attitude breeds resentment and halts discourse. A conciliatory approach shows respect, patience, and diligence. This time around the Chinese are thinking: “Obama is humble. As he should be. He recognizes that America does not have all the answers. The U.S. does have a larger carbon footprint per capita than China, but maybe we can work together to solve our problems.”

It remains to be seen whether such an approach will prove fruitful. It is true that Obama risks appearing weak, even losing face, by kowtowing to China. The forum was censored throughout the country, reached a small percentage of the population, and was largely staged. But I think that by bringing up issues, not through attacks on Chinese policy but by grouping the U.S. and China as allies, Obama has a much greater chance of influencing China’s leaders.

Wang Zhuchen, a student in international relations at Fudan University, said he was surprised — and also impressed — to hear the U.S. president talk of his family and children. A Chinese leader, he said, would never discuss anything personal in public.

Wang, a Party member, quickly added that this did not reflect badly on Chinese leaders but merely their “different traditions and culture.”

- Washington Post

SHANGHAI – Chinese students in Shanghai were shocked, appalled, incredulous, and generally uncomfortable at President Obama’s town hall meeting yesterday afternoon.

The audience, made up of carefully-screened students from several Shanghai universities, was stunned that a head of state could have a personality and speak to them as if they were real people. “We expected to be addressed en masse like subjects,” said Jiaotong University student Wang Jiabo. “I didn’t think he would look at or acknowledge us. It was incredibly alienating.”

21-year-old electrical engineering student and Communist Party member Liu Huajian was “absolutely mortified” that a head of state would deign to talk about his personal feelings. “I thought he was going to ignore us, plaster on a smile, and remain motionless for the duration of the hour but instead he harangued us endlessly about his feelings. Has he no shame?”

Students exiting the Shanghai Science and Technology Museum where the event was held noted that the American president looked “oddly human” when he took the stage and that Obama appeared comical standing on a low stage holding a microphone while taking questions from the audience. One student wondered, “I don’t understand. He’s the president. Why wasn’t he pontificating from the top of a tall gate erected in his honor or before an over-sized portrait of himself?”

Many were confused as to why a political figure would voluntarily interact with citizens not as part of a PR campaign after a natural disaster or a photo opportunity with children with balloons.

Zhang Yun, a third-year Fudan University student, expressed dismay at how ill-prepared Obama was. “He didn’t even have a sheaf of paper from which he could read from slowly and laboriously in a monotone. It’s like he wasn’t even trying.”

Students were not the only ones disappointed. Xiao Yang, a political commentator on state radio, described the event as “maudlin and unprofessional,” noting the distinct lack of interminable lists and empty platitudes.

In the end, it seemed that Obama was unable to please anyone. Shanghai residents took umbrage that streets around the museum were shut down. Said one local, “Some American decides to have a little show and tell and our streets get shut down. And for what? I couldn’t find coverage of it anywhere.”

The past does not guarantee the future. Although the United States will still be the preeminent power in the world in 2012 regardless of who is elected as the next President, there is significant danger that the 2008 election could mark the beginning of the end of the American Century.

The reason is that this election is about the nature of America, the soul of the nation. It is true that America is a self-interested country that does terrible things in the international arena. In this respect, it is no different than any other great power. What is different about America is the mythos that surrounds it, a mythos that is rooted in the American Dream and the centrality of the individual. The idea that “all men are created equal” lies at the very core of what it means to be Americans. Indeed, what makes America different is that, eventually, we live up to this creed—slavery was abolished, women gained the right to vote and the New Deal and civil rights movement made equality the cornerstone of the American experience. Yet, like alliance politics, these past triumphs do not ipso facto guarantee future successes.

Nor is America’s hold on international imagination guaranteed to last. The vision of America as a purveyor of freedom is being muddied. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are slowly replacing the Statue of Liberty as the symbols of America. We cannot allow this transition to be completed, for it would extinguish the thing that keeps human rights activists and political dissidents working and dying for their causes: hope. America is the idea that hope will win out in the end, that equality will trump inequity, that the poor and rich will all be held equally accountable in when their ballots are counted and when they appear in court. This election is about whether or not this creed will be sustained in the years to come. By looking at the two candidates, we can see that the two conflicting halves of the American self have been pitted against one another.

On the one side, we have the brash, patriotic war hero. By all accounts, he is surrounded by sycophants and driven by notions of courage, patriotism and honor. He will not brook defeat, nor will his desire for victory be shackled by international institutions—the national interest will be his guiding principle. He believes that the withdrawal from Vietnam humiliated the nation and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and he will not let this happen again. Ostensibly, this “can do” attitude is an admirable trait for a commander-in-chief. The problem, however, lies in the details—victory in this war is impossible. History is replete with occupying forces that have brought about their own demise and failed to impose their will on the occupied. What we do not have an example of is an occupying force that was able to successfully end and win an internal civil war.

To think that we can create a constitutionally liberal democracy in Iraq out of the current constituent parts is quixotic. Not only do we not know how to “create” rule of law, a state that enforces contracts and works for the public good, we know very little about Arab culture and the Arabic language. This is not to imply that the Iraqis will not be able to create a tenable constitutional structure for themselves, but to simply note that we, as outsiders, will not be able to force such an agreement to come to pass.

The stubborn patriotic desire to win in Iraq is also at play in the candidate’s refusal to negotiate with Iran. Iran is an enemy, so we can’t give them the legitimacy that will be afforded to them if we negotiate. Well, yes, Iran is an adversary, but the ostrich head-in-the-sand approach is not going to work. In fact, the Iranians were very helpful in Afghanistan and Iraq until the Bush Administration labeled them as part of the “Axis of Evil.” Not negotiating will only serve to strengthen Iran’s current course of action, which consists of meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.

And as for his Vice Presidential selection, suffice it to say that she represents the ugly id of the American psyche.

On the other hand, we have a candidate who embodies the American ideals of compromise, equality, cooperation and the prudent use of overwhelming force as a last resort. His initial objection to voice concern over the invasion of Iraq should, with the help of hindsight, elicit applause. But approbation for this prescience should serve as the beginning, not the end, of any discussion of his understanding of international affairs. He understands that America is strongest when it binds itself to the international institutions it created during the Truman Administration. To be sure, he has asserted that his administration will work outside of this framework if need be, but only as last resort, not as a standard operating procedure. Moreover, a look at his foreign policy team reveals that he surrounds himself with professionals who will give him honest advice. As no one is omniscient, this ability to seek out and accept advice from top-tier assistants is a prerequisite for being an effective President.

Engaging with allies and forging a tenable solution for exiting Iraq will be top priorities. By extricating ourselves from an un-winnable war and re-energizing the fledgling Atlantic Alliance, he will demonstrate that America is no longer Prometheus unbound. Rather, we will return to our traditional role as the leader of the free world. By working with others, he will restore the moral credibility that has been decimated by the Bush years. Engagement with Iran, while not necessarily accomplishing anything, will show that the U.S. will not eschew all states that do not conform to American norms. More important than Iraq or Iran, however, are the issues looming over the horizon. What will America do about environmental degradation, resource depletion, water scarcity, global warming, and the rise of China?

To adequately address these issues, the next Administration is going to have to engage with China. The Bush Administration should be applauded for helping to bring China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization. This has tethered the Chinese economy—and with it the fate of the Communist Party—to continued economic growth and the U.S.-led western bloc. But unlike some had expected, China has not become a constitutional democracy overnight. Rather, Hu Jintao has used Chinese economic growth—much of which relies upon the international system the U.S. created, leads, and during the past few weeks has almost managed to destroy—to tighten the reins on the press and political dissension. Thus China is an attractive model for other authoritarian governments that want to enjoy the benefits of the U.S.-led economic order without relinquishing power. These governments want to let their populations become rich, but they don’t want them to become free.

China offers bread for the poor and guns, riches, and power to those already in power. Before discounting the appeal of the Chinese model, it is important to realize that humans want dignity. Dignity entails freedom, but the foundation of dignity is the ability to provide oneself and family with food, shelter and education. China appeals precisely because its model provides basic dignity for the poor and power for the rich.

Instead of shirking from a real debate by unequivocally asserting that humans want freedom, we must reckon with the fact that, more than freedom, people want dignity. Before pointing a self-righteous finger at those who would gladly trade freedom for bread and a job, those of us in the West need to realize that subsistence farming is the most brutal and terrible of all jobs. And that a hungry person will take any job that will end the hunger. A vote cannot buy a person bread—but a job can.

America offers an alternative to China, and this is what excites the masses, the human rights activists and those who care for their fellow man. This is what scares those in power.

This election matters because we cannot afford to lose hope. The foundation of hope is the steadfast belief in the equality of man. This election is about the nature of America—the very fabric of the country. Will we continue to soldier on Iraq and waste American lives and treasure for four more years until we realize that as outsiders we cannot win a civil war? Will we refuse to work with the Europeans, or engage with Iran and thereby lower our international standing to its nadir? Or will we realize that it is time to turn the page of this disastrous chapter of our nation’s foreign policy that the Bush Administration has wrought. Will we finally realize we don’t know how to export democracy and that incremental and cautious change is the best we can hope for?

This brings me back to the issue of decadence. If the electorate does not take a chance on a candidate who is intellectually, descriptively, and philosophically the embodiment of the most salient features of the American experience and what it should mean to be American, then we as a people deserve our fate. But whatever numbers are posted on November 4th, I am proud to say that I have already voted for Senator Barack Obama and currently enjoy the privilege of volunteering for his campaign in Cleveland, Ohio.

Conventional wisdom—a term coined in 1958 by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith—holds that the winner of an argument is almost always the person who sets the parameters, or “rules of the game.” This can be seen in the Presidential campaigns; is Barack Obama is transcendent figure who will bring an end to partisan politicking, or is anyone who believes that, “living in a fairytale” and “rolling the dice” by supporting him, as Bill Clinton has said? The way in which the media and public decide this question will have far reaching implications for the Democratic Primaries to come.

The underlying point is that framing matters. Moreover, by setting the “rules of the game” one is able to dictate what is going to be discussed. For example, the Bush Administration has done a masterful job of framing the Iraq War. Not only is it a part of the “War on Terror,” (terrorism is a tactic, not a group; furthermore, staying in Iraq is not in the interest of those trying to win this so-called war, although that’s another topic for another posting) but it is being fought against one foe: the “insurgents.” This term has a monolithic implication—if we can just somehow defeat the insurgents, then we’ll be fine. Yet the groups currently engaging in guerilla warfare are fighting both the U.S. and each other—the ex-Baathists, followers of Moqtada al Sadr, Al Qaeda, and local clan leaders are not all from the same stock. By reducing all of them to “insurgents,” we are obfuscating and simplifying the complexities that currently confront the U.S. and the Iraqis.

Moreover, the “surge” has shifted the focus of the American public from the key benchmarks for Iraq and towards one statistic: a drop in violence. Yet even a decrease in the number of American and Iraqi security force casualties is not going to fix the problems in Iraq. It may delay them, but it will not fix them. The addition of ground troops in Iraq is not going to lead to reconciliation and compromise, an agreement over how to share oil wealth, or an end to the civil war. If anything, arming and training the security forces in Iraq is laying the groundwork for the future subjugation and/or extermination of the Suuni population.

The focus on insurgents and the surge has caused people to miss the forest for the trees—the immediate implications of the war and occupation are obscuring more general trends like the growing alienation of the Arab street from the U.S., which serves as a great recruitment tool for al Qaeda and reaffirms long-held notions that the U.S. is just an imperial power interested in oil and the subjugation of Arab peoples. Should the U.S. attack Iran, look for leaders in the Middle East to turn away from the U.S. as a protector and toward a country with an extremely bloody last that is running a sunshine campaign about how loving and peaceful its rise on the world stage will be: China.

Not only have “insurgent” and “surge” come to dominate discussion of Iraq and thereby clouded the thinking of most of the American public, they have also crept into our discussion of the Presidential election. Obama is the “insurgent” candidate doing battle with the establishment (i.e. Hillary Clinton). Moreover, Huckabee saw a “surge” at the polls when he won in Iowa, as did Hillary when women “surged” to the polls in New Hampshire, which is helping her “surge” ahead in the rest of the country. The point is that, by using these terms over and over again, we forget what they mean, why they have entered the general lexicon and the way in which they serve the agenda of those who started using them. When listening to candidates and politicians and reading things in the papers, it is important to remember that the all catch phrases originated somewhere, and in most cases the reason for their creation was not to illuminate, but to obfuscate.