Blogs and Stories
Obama's Reckless, Ridiculous China Policy
by John Bolton
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, D.C.
Teh Eng Koon / AFP / Getty Images
President Obama will meet with the Dalai Lama at the White House this month. The move is sure to anger China, which warned Obama against allowing such a visit earlier this week. John Bolton, Bush’s ambassador to the UN, says competing priorities drive Obama in the wrong direction with China.
President Obama’s disinterest and inexperience in foreign and national security affairs are nowhere more evident than in his China policy. Consider his administration’s record in just one year:
- We have lurched from Secretary of State Clinton dismissing any possibility of progress on human rights, just before her visit to China last year, to the president planning to meet with the Dalai Lama this month.
- We announce major new U.S. weapons shipments to Taiwan even as we eagerly look to China to fund major portions of President Obama’s massive U.S. government budget deficits.
- We avoid pressuring China for cyber attacks on American companies, its tolerance of intellectual property theft, and other rule-of-law violations, and instead lean on China to reduce its carbon emissions to combat global warming.
- We allow China to evade taking serious responsibility for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, while we simultaneously seek China’s support for additional Security Council sanctions against Iran’s program
Pursuing competing or inconsistent priorities is hardly new or unusual for the United States, given our global commitments and obligations, which make it nearly impossible to pursue any single priority to the exclusion of others. Indeed, one real metric of foreign-policy success is juggling these varying interests. Obama’s China policy is different—and potentially quite deleterious for the United States—because it unfolds in almost random fashion.
It is little wonder that Chinese leaders now question not only America’s grip on its own economy, but its grip on international politics as well.
The secret of what’s wrong with his foreign policy is what’s wrong with his domestic policies. Obama’s central focus is domestic, and neither his inclinations nor his experience afford him the judgment required for serious foreign-policy decisions. Accordingly, having proposed $8.5 trillion in deficits over the next decade, and lacking enough gall to propose the requisite taxes to fund such extraordinary spending, Obama has only the alternatives of printing money or issuing debt. Both are harmful, but the debt route is a less visible way to debase the currency. Implicitly, Obama expects China to purchase a major portion of this debt, adding to its existing enormous share of Treasury obligations. Unfortunately for the president, however, China appears unwilling to play. In particular, China worries about the potentially devastating effects these mountainous additions to the national debt will have on the U.S. economy, and thus our ability ultimately to repay all or even most of it.
• Tunku Varadarajan: Tibet's Star Activist Warns ObamaOf course, this is precisely what Washington should be worried about, not Beijing. It is little wonder that Chinese leaders now question not only America’s grip on its own economy, but its grip on international politics as well. This U.S. implosion is mirrored in Obama’s fascination with the multilateral regulatory regimes favored by the Kyoto/Copenhagen global-warming negotiating process. Assuming both the seriousness of global warming, and its anthropogenic causation, however, does not dictate self-evident solutions. In fact, many Copenhagen advocates would favor the same government-imposed “solutions” even if the problem were global cooling, or if there were no earth-temperature issue at all. Ironically, China is the world’s one large economy that could easily adopt the near-authoritarian, command-and-control economics favored by the Copenhagen crowd, and yet it refuses to do so. Beijing argues, not unreasonably, that drastic limitations on carbon emissions will thwart its plans for economic growth, which it simply has no intention of doing. China must also wonder why a purportedly free-market country like America is following this decidedly statist path.
Not only are Obama’s domestic priorities driving him in the wrong direction with China, perhaps even worse, he seeks the wrong answers from China even on strictly national-security issues. U.S. policy on Iran’s and North Korea’s dangerous nuclear-weapons programs highlights this anomaly most clearly. In both the Bush and the Obama administrations, we have allowed China to escape responsibility for stopping Pyongyang’s nuclear program, something it has the unique capacity to do, given the North’s reliance on China for energy, food and other critical resources. Although China says it opposes a nuclear North Korea, it is unwilling to take tough measures because it fears even more the collapse of the Pyongyang regime and the possible reunification of the Korean Peninsula. While eliminating North Korea would end Northeast Asia’s nuclear problem and lead to regional and international stability, China will not act for fear of enhancing the U.S. position in the region. Our response for eight years has been to allow China to pursue its interests aggressively, while forfeiting our own.
By contrast, on Iran, we face a regime determined to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons, and resolutely undeterred by three existing UN Security Council sanctions resolutions. Nonetheless, the Obama administration proclaims that a fourth set will somehow achieve what the first three have failed to do, despite China’s repeated and very public statements that it does not support such an approach. Of course, even if another resolution is adopted, the real question is whether it will have the slightest impact on Iran’s decision making. The near-certain answer is “no.” Instead of practically begging China for support, therefore, America should be making its own hard decisions to do what is necessary to prevent what now looks almost inevitable absent an Israeli military strike: Iran with nuclear weapons.
Many people blame China for pursuing its national interests in such a bold and unembarrassed fashion. They are mistaken. China is just doing what comes naturally. The real question is why the United States is not doing the same.
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, D.C.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
Obama's Global Failure
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, D.C.
FarLeftFist
Wasn't it just a couple of days ago the RW'ers here were saying Obama will do whatever China says, and called him a wimp.
Not that anyone really takes their posts seriously.
case1234
Interesting. Who here believes had Obama refused to see the Dalai Lama that Bolton would NOT be criticizing him right now??
Please, the GOP was ready to pounce on any capitulation to the Chinese. So now their position is he should have done what they want???
This GOP have entered an era a pure Nihilism. If Obama's for it they are against it no matter what that it is.
crypto
No that's not exactly right case1234. Actually I'm tired of arguing against Obama. The man just doesn't know how to be president. And it's not gonna change. But even at that I would stop saying anything against the man if you worshipers of the guy would stop making fu*ing excuses for every screw up he makes. And I'll go out on a limb and say that I believe everyone else would do the same.
RevPettibone
to case1234...
actually Mr Obama has already been criticized for that, because if you recall late last year and in deference to China, Mr Obama did put off seeing the Dali Lama before going to Asia.
guitaralin
You know its true, and I believe the news stations are to blame for not letting people think enough for themselves. I am FAR from an Obama supporter, but just like the GOP the Democrats do the same exact thing, so nobody is innocent in this.
RawhideRex
crypto.. no one really takes your arguments against Obama seriously anyway. Glad you are tired of it.
winterparkmom
Why is anyone taking this joker seriously anyway? The fact that the position he held in the Bush admin was demoted FROM a cabinet position by Bush should be nuff said. This guy is a warmongering loser.
Counterglow
You're dead right, but Bolton has his uses. Ask him what the US should do, then do the opposite. People will think Hillary Clinton's a foreign policy genius. I mean, seriously, did Bolton get even one thing right during his time in government?
herbie7
John Bolton is damaging to America and the world. He doesn't understand them.
FarLeftFist
The author suggests that pressuring a country more powerful than us, in essence bullying them, won't lead to a war which we would probably lose, but I'm sure he won't be standing on the frontlines then. Note to author: When your enemies are more powerful than your allies, maybe finding common ground is the right thing to do.
CarrieAnn
We can't even win a war against a less powerful country when we're the ones doing the bullying.
crypto
Yes we can CarrieAnn. The problem is politics. Every conflict we face should be handled with diplomacy if at all possible. If it is not possible then the joint chiefs of staff should be briefed by the commander and chief and told to get it over with as quickly as possible. Then ALL politicians should give the troops what they need to do the job and get the hell out of the way. There is no Maybe in war. You're in or you're out. If the commander is not willing to give the field commanders authority to do the job he should not send them to do it. This is not some board room argument. War is as real as it gets.
guitaralin
Why would you just automatically have so little faith in a country that has already fought china, korea, veitnam, japan, germany, and countless other countries, that you would just "ass" ume that we would lose, you know Right wingers have there problems, Left wingers have there problems, but to downgrade and think so lowly of not only our country but our brave soldiers who risk blood and guts to allow us to post comments like this and like yours is downright treason. I believe you should stop and think about whats real, not how much you hate Republicans, not how much Republicans hate democrats, but that we can unite and follow through. Politics makes me SICK, it causes people to do and say , and to form and judge and create ideas that are in no way based on the human condition. Lets get over OURSELVES and focus on the small picture, our own hearts..
jwschmidt
John Bolton continues to be wrong about almost everything. Take his first 4 points: (1)"We have lurched from Secretary of State Clinton dismissing any possibility of progress on human rights, just before her visit to China last year, to the president planning to meet with the Dalai Lama this month. "
Secretary Clinton didn't dismiss "any possibility" at all. She simply acknowledged the reality that in our engagement with China, there are trade-offs between pressuring them on economic issues or human rights, and that the global recession necessitated the prioritization of economics. There is no contradiction in this gesture towards human rights, since there was no agreement or understanding that human rights were off the table.
(2)"We announce major new U.S. weapons shipments to Taiwan even as we eagerly look to China to fund major portions of President Obama's massive U.S. government budget deficits. "
Is this really a contradiction? That we maintain our economic ties throughout long-existing security disagreements? Of course not. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
(3)"We avoid pressuring China for cyber attacks on American companies, its tolerance of intellectual property theft, and other rule-of-law violations, and instead lean on China to reduce its carbon emissions to combat global warming."
Apparently Bolton missed Secretary Clinton's recent speech on internet freedom and cyber-law, which was targeted at China. Furthermore, Bolton is again making a bone-headed attempt to connect cyber-security with emissions reduction. He may be the first author to mention those two issues in the same sentance, let alone try and argue that they together constitue some detrimental "contradiction" in our policy. And, I might add, which of those things is a bad thing to try and influence china on??
(4) "We allow China to evade taking serious responsibility for North Korea's nuclear weapons program, while we simultaneously seek China's support for additional Security Council sanctions against Iran's program"
John Bolton sticks his fingers in his ears when the subject of multinational diplomacy comes up, so I'm not surprised that he disregards Obama's efforts to restart the six-party talks, which include China. Quite the opposite of a contradiction, there is a great concurrence in the Obama administration's attempt to corral china into supporting non-proliferation efforts.
None of this fact-blindness and illogical reasoning is surprising from the man who was appointed UN ambassador, and spent his entire time there criticizing the UN. John Bolton's legacy is and will always be that of our-man-in-the-UN who made the US seem like an unreliable partner that was never short of an excuse as to why we refused to be world leaders.
Bravo!
SensiStar
Facts and Republicans are like oil and water.
They don't mix well.
winterparkmom
You are both correct.
AlwaysOptimistic
Nothing John Bolton says holds any interest or credibility for me.
crypto
Probably doesn't affect anyone else but I know I won't sleep a wink tonight.
Hawnzz
Obama could walk on water... and John Bolton would say "It's because he can't swim."
Bolton and his policies have never been a positive force in the world. In fact it is his very mentality that have driven some of the worst foreign policy decisions the U.S. has made in decades.
I've always believed in "Talk softly... and carry a big stick." Bolton is a loudmouth without one. Arrogant aggression has cost us much. I hope we do not make such foolish mistakes again.
crypto
"Obamasan could walk on water". Lotta people believe that he can. But it appears he's standing a little deeper for some reason. It's almost to his waist now. He seems to be slowly losing his faith, himself.
nipoleon
As Bolton says at the end, China's doing what comes naturally and the U.S. should do the same.
Well... the U.S. stands for religious freedom and the Dali Lama is a foremost religious leader in the world. The president should absolutely meet with him.
America and America's leaders need to start standing up more for the principles this country is supposed to be all about.
Sure, we need China, but China needs us too. If China doesn't like it they can kiss our butts.
jomama
The Dalai Lama is super authentic, but probably not the 'foremost' religious leader in the world, that would be the Pope. His lineage is older than Islam or Buddhism itself by a long shot, and Christian Westerners are basically have supremacy on this planet. God bless the Dalai Lama though, we need him.
algonquin j. calhoun
excuse me, scholar, but the Buddha was born 500 years before Jesus...so your comment about the pope's lineage being older than Buddhism is not only dead wrong but shows what an incredible idiot you are.
Carver
to algonquin...is it really necessary to call people names for being wrong? Honestly, the comments I have read of yours on this thread are a far greater indication of your lack of depth than jomama's.
jomama
Sorry, sorry, I indicated Buddhism was younger than Christianity, for some reason I was thinking Islam, my bad, my bad.
winterparkmom
No, only progressives and liberals believe in religious freedom. The rethugs and so called conservatives and don't forget the teabaggers all believe that you're a heathen if you're not Christian.
crypto
There's a better than even chance that the Dali Lama doesn't mean as much as Reverend Wright does. If that's the case well............you know.
aggressiveprogressive
UGH!
Bolton lecturing Obama on anything ESPECIALLY foreign policy is sickening.
I was a little hesitant in agreeing that Obama should meet with the Dalai Lama (at this point in time).
But if BOLTON thinks its a terrible idea, well...
Where do I send the "Welcome" fruit basket?
jomama
Obama has the 'gall' to propose 'spending without taxes' ?? OH I WONDER WHERE HE GOT THAT IDEA since 8 years ago there was a surplus and now a huge deficit... Bush - and the jerk-off author destroyed Americas credibility abroad, Obama's 'inexperience' somehow doesn't worry me as much. Bolton, Bolton, Bolton. Don't you guys have better things to do, like have lunch at the retirement home with Rumsfeld and Cheney? That era is OVER, we need to move on.
crypto
That's what so many of us keep saying on here, jomama. Bush, Cheney. Bolton, all that administration is GONE. All this crap belongs to Obama now, it's his fault, and he's really screwing it up bad. But those other guys have been outta here for over a year now!!!
ZevonLives
The Bushies might be out of here, but the problems they created aren't. If Obama wasn't like a naive and eager pledge candidate hoping to join their super-elite fraternity, he'd say this more often (and explain the lessons from the last 36 years of short-sighted and appeasing China policy that both parties saddled us, and our non-existent manufacturing base, with).
But that would endanger his bid from the Wall Street Frat Boys. And Obama would rather pal around with the rich kids like Paulson than have to be around his own supporters in the great Populist unwashed.
For one, Rahm has convinced him that he already has us. And if he really wanted to hang out with the common rabble who don't even know where Davos is, he'd have stayed a community-organizer (instead of being glamoured by Zbig Brezinski and the Bildberburg bunch).
I'm no fan of Bolton, but he's one of the few to take off their blinders when it comes to China and North Korea (when the mainstream media is still so reluctant to ever admit a past error that they continue to take China at its word).
The NY Times had an editorial a few months ago aping the Chinese line that they care, as much as we do, about preventing Little Kim from deploying Nukes.
Puh-Leaze! Anything that distracts and embarrasses the U.S. is of benefit to China (which still gets away with equating a tougher line on Pyongyang with somehow causing North Korea to erupt in revolution and eventual dissolution).
And the Korea card is another hand for the Chinese to continue playing, like Iran is.
In both cases, the Chinese want to keep the game going for as long as possible (knowing that either outcome regarding sanctions allows domestic criticism of Obama's choices).
If we lose patience, then China could say that we left negotiations early and its not their fault.
If we are too patient, and forever holding our tongue on the ever-growing Chinese list of untouchable so-called "sovereignty" issues-- like Tibet, Khadeer's restive Muslims and now even "currency manipulation"-- the Bushie critics at Fixed News can accuse B.O. of being held captive to such a degree that we are abdicating our responsibilities as leaders of the "free world."
Boy, must the Chinese "Communist Party" leadership be laughing at the disadvantages of a free-press, free-society and unobstructed internet.
And people thought that Japan was getting too-big-for-their-britches in the early 1940s (when, without the help of Chenault's "Flying Tigers" and other U.S. help, China would've been conquered by the Japanese).
If only Obama would make a nationally-televised speech about how we inadvertently rescued China from the Soviet Union''s fate (and how they took the wrong lesson from this).
Now they are touting their "Beijing Consensus" as 2010's version of the previously branded "Confucian" model (and the previous 2008 branding of the "Harmonious State").
Problem is, either way you slice it its called a protectionist, ultra-nationalist, repressive and near-Fascist Mercantalist economy (that uses its own people as rigidly-controlled "worker ants" to benefit the few "Communist Party"-linked cronies that are lucky enough to become billionaires due to being sons of corrupt party officials).
The Chinese are afraid of Obama speaking "truth-to-power" like this for two reasons.
1) Like the G.O.P., they are betting the farm and counting the days until the G.O.P. wins elections in 2010 and 2012 (and they won't have to deal with what little idealism even remains at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.).
2) The Chinese leadership knows that a direct condemnation like that could spark a revolution in their country (as many ordinary Chinese-- who aren't paid to parrot the leaders via ultra-nationalist critiques of B.O. online-- admire how a charismatic minority could become the US President).
Its the Han Chinese who run the country. And they are equally terrified that the millions of frustrated and ignored Tibetans and the growing impatience of the Muslims in Xinyang will begin to coordinate their activism (upon realizing that Beijing will never concede an inch or a single concern to them). Since Obama's presence has taken much of the wind out of the sails of the anti-U.S. hyperbole in the Muslim wrold, its only a matter of time that millions of Muslims start seeing Xianyang as the new Serbia (to rally the heart-strings and purse-strings around).
Since the Chinese are constantly trying to exploit our democratic weaknesses and will never move to giving their own people a Democratic say in things, we should hit them at their weakness as well (the very illegitimacy of their government).
Obama's soap-box is our greatest weapon, yet the Chinese-- again, like the G.O.P.-- have calculated that he is too mild-mannered, or resistant to taking chances, to capitalize on his incomparable platform to deliver a message (that even their censors couldn't block out from every news-site in the world).
Like the mislabeled "nuclear option" regarding the filibuster and the G.O.P.'s calculations that Obama isn't man enough to call their bluff and challenge their patriotism, the Chinese are basically daring Obama to react to their intransigence (knowing that he doesn't have the stones to follow-through).
When the C.C.P. last had their backs against the wall, it was May 18, 1989 (when Li Peng had a meeting with student protestors one day before Zhao Ziyang was sidelined and Martial Law was declared).
Obama should read the 12-page transcript of that meeting and follow Andrew Jackson's example by enlarging his circle of advisors to include regular citizens (who don't have Leverett-like specialty, and therefore no stake in protecting their reputations-- like Larry Summers via derivatives-- in defending old positions they stood behind in different times).
If B.O. did bring in some well-rounded non-elites who had the pulse of the public, he'd realize that the American people want a fighter who uses the advantages of Democracy and freedom and stands behind them (like John F. Kennedy understood and exemplified to great effect).
Otherwise, the Bolton/Kissinger school of forever compromising and appeasing away our values-- as though they are something to be hidden and overcome-- becomes the dominant frame of reference (and the last 36-years of mistaken China policies only continue).
jomama
I love his ending statement 'hey, China is being a jerk-off, so that means we should be a jerk-off too'. Hmmm. Maybe he should think a little bit about the supposed premise for the article - the Dalai Lama, and the obvious response of the Dalai to that statement. Bolton is a super dork. He clearly was beaten up a lot in high-school.
ockham
Bolton is a master satirist. How can one man be intentionally so completely wrong about every public statement he makes? Thankfully we no longer have to take this absurdist comedian seriously as he will never hold a job of any responsibility on the world stage ever again.
pacifistgunslinger
Bolton does a great disservice to men with moustaches.
pacifistgunslinger
Bolton as merely typical Bush-think: give the UN job to a clown who hates the UN.
sonofloud
John Bolton ??!!
Whatever hole you found him in, quick put him back!!!
algonquin j. calhoun
first off, borat obama will not be meeting with his holiness the dalai lama at the white house this month. it takes a george bush to have the kind of guts and integrity to meet with the dalai lama...not a gutless incompetent like King Borat.
jerichothedrifter
say what?
heartlessnunlover
To be fair, Obama's China policy is "Incoherent." His obvious disinterest and inexperience in foreign policy leads Obama to strike the pose of the last person who spoke to him. You can tell when that person was Hillary Clinton, and you can tell when that person was Timothy Geitner. Yes, their perspectives are at odds but a strong, experienced leader would reconcile. Obama apparently doesn't so we muddle along while China alternatively scratches its head and rattles its economic and military swords.
As bad as I hate the cliche, this Administration is in dire need of some wise men.
unclelew
My Lord man, Bush sat by idly while the Chinese pegged their currency, and sucked up to the Chinese at every turn so they wouldn't foreclose on the farm.
Give it a break, already. George Bush was ostensibly an "experienced leader," and one of the most imbecilic presidents ever foisted on the U.S. His foreign policy was a complete disaster, or have we already forgotten the Coalition of the Willing?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.