Bull in the China Shop

The Obama administration is welcoming China's presumptive next leader, Xi Jinping. But how can it make good policy when the strategy is a mess?

BY DANIEL BLUMENTHAL | FEBRUARY 10, 2012

Last month, as Barack Obama's administration began to prepare for Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping's visit to Washington, someone close to the U.S. vice president leaked that Joe Biden would "take over" China policy. The leaker made the case that Biden had a good rapport with Xi, thus priming the U.S. vice president to add the China mandate to his portfolio. According to a number of administration sources, however, this leak was nothing more than an instance of a Washington-style power play -- or score settling. But the episode does demonstrate how important the China relationship has become in the Washington power game, how the portfolio is troublingly up for grabs, and how wildly elbows swing (or pivot) to take control of it.

How important is the relationship between top U.S. and Chinese leaders? And shouldn't China policy be about more than a single relationship?

If one judges by the seriousness of purpose with which Chinese and U.S. officials are taking Xi's visit, the answer to the first question is that top-level engagement is very important. By all accounts, Xi is the putative next leader of China, and both sides want a successful visit for different reasons.

For Xi, the purpose of his visit is to consolidate his power over an ever more complex Chinese political system. This is no easy feat. Xi needs to demonstrate to rival party factions, to the People's Liberation Army, to the growing business class, and increasingly to the public that he is in command of the most important foreign-policy portfolio. His various constituencies will search for signs that he is 1) tough enough on the Americans; 2) committed to continuing economic reform; but 3) not overly committed -- lest he ignore what China calls "social tensions." Obviously, these tasks are somewhat contradictory, and in the end, form will be more important than substance. It's not as if it's all going to be settled by a day or two in Washington. Chinese leaders will be satisfied if there are no major missteps during the visit.

The Obama administration will look for some of the same things. But true to American political culture, U.S. officials will also always try to divine whether the new leader is "someone we can work with." This is particularly true now, as relations with China have been especially tense during the current term. There have been contretemps over the South China Sea, North Korea, Taiwan, and trade issues. Administration officials have all but given up on President Hu Jintao. They view him as too risk-averse and hope that Xi represents a new kind of leader, one who is more cosmopolitan and open-minded then his predecessors. They hope Xi will finally be the Chinese leader who accepts the U.S. view that China does best by embracing the made-in-America rules of the road.

Alas, U.S. officials are likely to be disappointed. The Chinese system simply will not allow Xi to govern in bold strokes. As the first leader without the blessing of China's revolutionary generation (it cannot bless from the grave), Xi will likely be as risk-averse as Hu and more beholden to consensus within the Politburo Standing Committee, more deferential to the People's Liberation Army, and less likely to undertake liberal reforms given current social conditions. Although he seems to have Hu's support, there are other ambitious politicians who would gladly take advantage if Xi slipped up.

Feng Li/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, SOUTHEAST ASIA
 

Daniel Blumenthal is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy's Shadow Government blog.

BIG BOY

9:43 PM ET

February 10, 2012

Prediction

I predict that by next week, another columnist will post the "White House has got China all figured right down to the last detail, plus 10 reasons why American Exceptionalism is here to stay"

 

BVFKLFIS9A

8:48 PM ET

February 11, 2012

very good web: ===

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:25 AM ET

February 11, 2012

China has U. S. tiger by the tail, thanks to Nixon-Kissinger

Daniel Blumenthal has to know just like Obama administration, that change in top Chinese leadership does NOT herald change in Chinese policies like it happens many times in democratic countries. A nation’s interests are much better synchronized in a dictatorship then in democracy.

Xi Jinping will follow the same well-trodden path that previous leadership has followed. Chinese leadership has and will always follow what is in China’s interest.

It was in China’s interest to grab Nixon’s olive branch in 1972, so Chinese leadership grabbed it never forgetting that Mao’s China always considered U. S. its enemy no. 1.

Deng knew that first China has to be economically and militarily as powerful as U. S. before it can successfully challenge U. S. China is getting there very fast, thanks to West’s open markets and technology transfers.

Now China has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Home Depot, Sears and Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US governmental securities from the sales of cheap Chinese products to US businesses.

China’s power is multiplying day by day and now there is NO power on earth capable to stop China, least of all U. S.

Little could Mao or Deng have imagined that by wearing a capitalist mask, their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ’capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. With West selling such proverbial ropes in the form of technology transfers, Chinese Communists have proven that Lenin saying quite prophetic.

 

BING520

1:59 PM ET

February 11, 2012

Marty Martel

Do you realize you have been writing the same things about US-China relationship over and over again, Marty? have you ever digested or acquired anything new from reading FP?

 

KEYBASHER

12:32 PM ET

February 13, 2012

The PRC/CCP nears its end

As I've mentioned elsewhere at FP, no one-party state survives the ten years after hosting an Olympics as the residents of Berlin, Moscow and Sarajevo will attest.

Let's hope Xi Jinping and his associates make it a smooth regime change - for once in China's history.

 

ALANCHRISTOPHER

6:58 PM ET

February 11, 2012

China and America

The main US problem with China is that China is not the US. US leaders want Chinese leaders to respond like the US wants them to respond, but the Chinese have different views. The US wants China to be a "responsible great power." China views non-intervention as responsible, but the US wants to bomb and invade, so the US can be responsible for as many war crimes as possible. China makes reforms at its own pace, but the US voted for Bush and Cheney twice, for Obama and Biden once, and for stalemate in 2010. China has decided not to adopt these US reforms.

The US wants China to improve its trade policies. China trades with 100% of the world while the US trades with 50% of the world. It is hard for the US to trade with countries that the US bombs and invades, and the US imposes sanctions on those countries that are bad. Americans are slave owners, Jim Crow enforcers, and genocidal mass murderers of native Americans, but China trades with the US anyway because they don't make judgements like the US.

The US worries about China's military technological modernization. After the 1991 Gulf War, China noted the US dependence on computer control, so China set up cyber commands to hack into military computers to make other military units into Chinese units awaiting China's orders. The US makes and uses drones, but it does not have a complete plan or tactical doctrine for their use. China has improved its computer skills to control land, sea, and air drones. It combines them with humans for coordinated, comprehensive human and robotic land, sea, and air operations, and China is 15 years ahead of the US in this area.

The key is to control communications bandwidths between all forces. This requires better and faster computers that progress beyond base two to allow three dimensional architecture and four dimensional programming. Recognition systems exist for computers to read more than zeroes and ones, so these must be used to attain speeds in exaflops and beyond. The US struggles to get beyond two petaflops (1,000 petaflops = 1 exaflop) , and the cooling needed for two dimensional architecture requires massive computers that are impossible to take into combat zones. The Chinese have a massive lead in machines that base two computers cannot hack while China's units can read their programs and hack into any base two computer in the US and in US allies. The main US problem is to train people to think in three dimensions of computer architecture to see all of the three dimensional processors and to think in four dimensions (front/back, right/left, up/down, time) for writing the programs to reach the correct processor at the correct time. The US has neither the machines nor the designers and programmers who can build and write software for them. This gives China an enormous lead over the US in this technoligical area, but it lacks the numbers of more conventional machines, such as ships and aircraft. The US wants China to behave like the US, but China will behave in China's manner.

 

ALEXBC

9:02 PM ET

February 11, 2012

No

"The US worries about China's military technological modernization. After the 1991 Gulf War, China noted the US dependence on computer control, so China set up cyber commands to hack into military computers to make other military units into Chinese units awaiting China's orders. The US makes and uses drones, but it does not have a complete plan or tactical doctrine for their use. China has improved its computer skills to control land, sea, and air drones. It combines them with humans for coordinated, comprehensive human and robotic land, sea, and air operations, and China is 15 years ahead of the US in this area."

This is laughably wrong.

In terms of cyber warfare capacity, China is extremely weak, especially compared to the U.S. or U.K.. I would recommend Adam Segal's article - "Is China A Cyber Paper Tiger?" - in the Diplomat, on this point.

Moreover, the U.S. has successfully used thousands upon thousands of drones in actual military operations, and to kill actual terrorists. The PLA hasn't fought a war in over 30 years (which it lost, to Vietnam), and hasn't defeated a foreign opponent on its own since the Sino-Indian War.

 

BING520

4:31 PM ET

February 12, 2012

Alex

I think Alex is right. I can't find any reporting suggesting China is catching up with electronic warfare capabilities of the US. China has built a lot of supercompuers with US-made chips. According to MIT Technology Review, China will have a complete line of chips made by a Chinese firm by 2012. China has already produced some of fastest supercomputers in the world. It seems to indicate its formidable computing technologies, but I don't know the military implications and applications behind China's advance computing technologies.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

3:55 AM ET

February 12, 2012

Leave it to NeoCons to argue for more military spending :)

The overall analysis on Xi's position is not bad, but the recommendation that the US should spend more on military to confront China is telling of who pays for the bills at NeoCon thinktanks like AEI.

Military confrontations have lead the US into a constant state of war since WWII. You figured that after the NeoCons' mis-forecasting of a "liberated" Iraq which would welcome Americans with "flowers", people would gradually understand that military strength doesn't hold the power it used to have.

 

JAN Z. VOLENS

2:33 AM ET

February 13, 2012

You fret too much about retail issues: U.S strangles China!

What "American business" oder "the Fed", or the "Agro-lobby" , or the "intellectual rights lawyers" say they want from China is retail stuff and transitory: The long-term aim of the "permanent government" of the U.S. is to strangle China by encircling by "safety in numbers". The Chinese know that and the "permanent government" of the U.S. knows, that the Chinese know. This is a multi-century endeavour. In the meantime, the U.S. will probably semi-collapse China's society with "americanization" - the suction of the young into the sewer of "American pop culture".

 

BETALOVER

2:49 PM ET

February 13, 2012

China is not the USA; don't expect it to be.

“There have been contretemps over the South China Sea, North Korea, Taiwan, and trade issues. Administration officials have all but given up on President Hu Jintao. They view him as too risk-averse and hope that Xi represents a new kind of leader, one who is more cosmopolitan and open-minded then his predecessors. They hope Xi will finally be the Chinese leader who accepts the U.S. view that China does best by embracing the made-in-America rules of the road. “

Hu JinTao has been an excellent leader for China. China has some weaknesses, but it does not need a more cosmopolitan and open-minded leader. I think the two major problems facing China are environmental and trade conflict. Why does China need a risk taking leader? What is wrong with China due to lack of courage? There are many thing wrong with China due to its low level of economic development over all, but not due to fear of risks.

“That's where strategy comes in. Strategic managers of the China relationship now have to contend with the Treasury's interest in continuing to sell bonds to China, the Agriculture Department's desire to sell more wheat to China, and the Navy's need for more ships to meet the demands of deterrence. On top of that, domestic constituencies -- from business owners to religious groups -- interested in China are growing, commensurate with America's increased interdependence with China. What will the United States do about China's intellectual property theft? Undervalued currency? Treatment of Tibetans?”

Well, if you want China to be more receptive to the issue of IP and the value of the RMB, stop illogical and fervent accusation on China’s minority policy. If the USA wants to sell more to China, bonds and goods, keep criticism of China well-focused. China is political backward because it is still economically backward, but China has a good minority policy. A progressive government seeks to reduce clan mentality within its border. The future of China’s minorities is assimilation, erosion of ethnic cultures. Assimilation is natural and universally applicable. Erosion of the ethnic cultural ID is part and parcel of social progress in any country, China and the USA.

Is it part of the American ethos to grieve for the end of any ethnic culture? I don’t think so. We have a white melting pot here. When we were virulently racist, we accepted segregation. As the USA becomes more progressive, we have coercive busing of children to dilute cultures, against the wishes of 85% of black parents who elected to send their kids to segregated black schools. (New Kent Country Virginia).

The progressive US Senate, citing the American “tradition of assimilation”, rejected the Akaka Bill of 2000 that could have granted cultural autonomy to the Hawaiians; I really see no reason to suggest that China designs to preserve the Tibetan culture. Best for all of China’s minorities is to become a part of the majority, Hans or whatever name.

MLK said “I want to be the white man’s brother, not his brother-in-law”. Did he ask Obama senior or OJ Simpson? Should MLK’s professed shunning of interracial marriages on behalf of his sister make American policy?

I think the Tibetans in China are treated well. There are many ethnic Tibetan celebrities in China, flaunting their ethnicity in a way that the Chinese public accepts. The accepted theme is united but different, ethnic attire and fanfare. This is no less and no more illogical than MLK’s professed shunning of interracial marriages as the objective.

It is not a county’s priority to allow dissension from minorities about the definition of a country or the issue of nativity, which group established first. I don't think so.

There were massive protests against busing from black and white parents, but coercive busing to integrate and dilute cultures must continue. The Hawaiians were allowed to protest against the US Senate for rejecting the Akaka Bill because the US has a long tradition of freedom of expression, but the Senate just summarily cited the American “tradition of assimilation”. Freedom for the Hawaiians to protest has been incidental as the progressive majority has an elitist (and progressive) overlook on assimilation.

In Arizona, high school textbooks that emphasize the truth about the border crossing the Hispanic were judged as too divisive.

No matter what MLK said or China’s professed minority policy is, the best sociological outcome is assimilation in China and the USA.

 

GODFREE

11:00 PM ET

February 13, 2012

Demonstrable nonsense

Ideologically driven assertions, like "China's entrepreneurs want a truly free market. The less privileged want protections from a rapacious state." may play well wth neocons and Tea Partiers, but have no basis in fact. Indeed, the readily available facts contractict them and make nonsense of this kind of generic China-bashing.

China's entrepreneurs, unlike out own, understand that at "truly free market" like our own will ultimately ruin them, as it has us.

The less privivleged, the 99% of Chinese, are ecstatically happy with their government, as they bloody well should be after 30+ years of 10% annual compund growth.

They give the CCP an 86% approval rating and a similar trust raating (Pew; Edelman)--the kind of support that our own corrupt government can only dream of--if they actually cared enough about our country to dream of such things.