'Asia flyover' in US presidential
campaign By Bruce Klingner
WASHINGTON - Foreign policy will play a more
pivotal role in the current US presidential campaign
than in previous elections, with the global "war on
terrorism" and the operation in Iraq dominating the
discourse, as evidenced in the first presidential
debate, which focused on national security and foreign
policy. There has been relatively little attention in
the party platforms and candidates' speeches devoted to
Asia, however, and what discussion there is has been
primarily devoted to North Korea's nuclear programs, as
demonstrated by the September 30 debate in Miami. The
lack of discussion of Asian issues will affirm Asians'
views that the region has been largely ignored by
Washington.
Although this mindset predates the
administration of President George W Bush - the region
notably perceived his predecessor Bill Clinton's
"flyover" of Japan and South Korea after his China trip
as an insult or at least benign neglect - it has grown
more prevalent during the past four years. President
Bush's policies and perceived single-minded focus on
terrorism are cited in Asia as major factors for the
rise in anti-Americanism in the region.
What
have the candidates said? President Bush is
viewed as a unilateralist whose foreign-policy vision
crystallized around the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Senior administration officials have repeatedly
emphasized the need to prevent a "nuclear Pearl Harbor"
- "forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries
[and] ... if necessary, act preemptively". [1] The
Republican Party platform discusses the importance of
international organizations, but stresses that such
organizations "can serve the cause of peace, [but] can
never serve as a substitute for, or exercise a veto
over, principled American leadership".
Senator John Kerry is perceived as a
multilateralist, more willing to incorporate other
nations' concerns into the US decision-making process
prior to initiating military action, and then only as a
last resort. The Kerry campaign has castigated Bush for
"walking away from more than a hundred years of American
leadership in the world to embrace a new - and
dangerously ineffective - disregard for the world by
rushing to force before exhausting diplomacy [and]
bullying rather than persuade." [2]
Telephone
calls to both campaigns seeking comment on the
importance of China and Asia were not returned.
Kerry highlighted the differences in a speech in
May titled "Security and Strength for a New World" in
which he accused Bush of violating president Teddy
Roosevelt's famous adage of "speak softly but carry a
big stick". Kerry warned, in Roosevelt's words, "If a
man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big
stick will not save him from trouble." Kerry argued that
Washington must utilize "not only the might of
[America's] weapons but also the trust and respect of
nations around the globe". To counter criticisms of
subordinating US national interests to those of other
nations, Kerry promised that while the US would "never
wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at
stake, [we] must enlist those whose support we need for
ultimate victory".
Asia The two
parties' platforms share a number of common positions on
Asia, eg continued US adherence to the "one China"
policy, calling upon Beijing to fulfill its World Trade
Organization (WTO) obligations, and maintaining strong
relations with key allies Japan and South Korea. Richard
Bush, director of the Brookings Institution's Center for
Northeast Asian Policy Studies, told Asia Times Online
that the two candidates' policies toward China are
"quite similar, with the only difference on economic
issues; even there, though, the differences are not
radical or even significant".
China-US
relations Bush's Republican Party platform
characterizes the bilateral relationship with China as
"an important part of our strategy to promote a stable,
peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region, welcomes
the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous
China, and acknowledges a constructive relationship on
areas of shared interest, such as the war on terror,
stability on the Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan, and
health and environmental threats".
At the same
time, the Bush campaign emphasizes that "China's leaders
have not yet made the next series of fundamental choices
about the character of their state". The Republicans
call upon the Chinese leadership to become "more open
with information, promote the development of civil
society, enhance individual human rights, end
suppression of the media ... [and] allow the Chinese
people to think, speak, assemble, and worship freely".
The Republican platform also notes with concern
Beijing's continued pursuit of "advanced military
capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the
Asia-Pacific region".
The Democratic platform
recommends that the US "better engage with China to
secure Chinese adherence to international trade,
non-proliferation and human-rights standards". Though
both candidates support a peaceful resolution of the
Taiwan issue, the Republican platform is more forceful
in its commentary by explicitly affirming America's
commitment to the defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan
Relations Act. The Democratic platform limits itself to
maintaining America's commitment to providing defensive
weapons to Taiwan, whereas the Republican platform
specifically declares that if China were to attack
Taiwan, the US would "help Taiwan defend itself".
China and WTO Both parties highlight
the importance of China to America's economic well-being
but offer differing perspectives on US actions to ensure
Chinese compliance with its WTO obligations. The Bush
campaign highlights that China's entry into the WTO has
created "export opportunities and jobs for American
farmers, workers, and companies", yet it notes the
administration's imposing a safeguard action against
Chinese textile and apparel imports and filing a WTO
case against China, as well as resolving seven other
potential trade disputes through negotiations. The
platform also calls upon "China to desist in its policy
of manipulating its currency to give Chinese
manufacturers an artificial advantage in global
markets".
Kerry underscores the need to develop
"enforceable, internationally recognized labor and
environmental standards in trade agreements and
investigating China's workers' rights abuses and
currency manipulation". Kerry accuses Bush of having
"stood on the sidelines" as the US trade deficit with
China ballooned, and of having failed to combat "China's
predatory currency manipulation, its violation of
intellectual property rights and other unfair trade
practices that violate its international obligations".
[3]
The dog (or Dragon) that didn't
bark In some ways, the most significant aspect of
the US presidential-campaign rhetoric on Asia is what
has not been said. In stark contrast with the
strong remarks of previous presidential elections, both
current candidates' comments on China have been mild. In
the 1992 campaign, Clinton promised to be tougher on
China for human-rights abuses than president George H W
Bush, whom he accused of "coddling dictators". In 2000,
candidate George W Bush accused Clinton of being soft on
China, which he labeled a "strategic competitor".
After an initial period of quiescence after the
September 11 attacks, the Chinese leadership decided to
align itself with the US-led global "war on terror" as a
way of improving relations with Washington and gaining
the economic wherewithal and reduced international
tensions required to focus on steadily expanding its
economy. The September 11 attacks have catapulted China
from its position as the most dangerous threat to the US
(after the fall of the Soviet Union, China had been seen
by many as the next big threat on the US horizon, and
incumbents were criticized for "coddling dictators",
"hugging pandas", and so on) to that of Washington's
valuable partner. Beijing is now touted by Washington as
an important partner in the global "war on terror" as
well as a partner in pressing North Korea to abandon its
nuclear programs.
With US attention focused
elsewhere, China has been able to garner increasing
influence in Asia. China's steadily maturing foreign
policy and more subtle approach in its interactions with
Asian neighbors have enabled Beijing to counter, to some
degree, regional misgivings over its intentions.
China's choice A survey of Chinese
media shows that Chinese foreign-affairs experts
generally see the two US parties as being equally
desirable, based on China's predominant desire for
stability of bilateral relations. In an analysis carried
on the official Xinhua news agency's website, Ruan
Zongren, vice president of the China Institute of
International Studies (CIIS), a Beijing-based think-tank
under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that
previous US elections have been a destabilizing factor
in US-China relations. Ruan commented that challengers
have traditionally sought to differentiate themselves by
attacking the incumbent's policy on China. Ruan
suggested that relations between the two countries are a
"sacrificial lamb" and "victim" of US politics. He and
other experts expressed relief that the current campaign
is dominated by the Iraq war and the state of the US
economy, and that China has not become a hot-button
issue.
Richard Bush of Brookings noted to Asia
Times Online that, at the fundamental level, "China
doesn't perceive much difference between the two
candidates" and in general would "prefer the devil they
know to the devil they don't", noting that Democrats
have typically been tougher on trade and human rights.
The assessment of Chinese observers is that a
second Bush administration is likely to be more
pro-Taiwan than a Kerry administration. Zhang Yanyu, a
US specialist at the China Institute for Contemporary
International Relations, points out that though both
parties indicate military support for Taiwan, only the
Republican platform explicitly mentions America's
commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act, which the
mainland sees as violating the principle of the three
communiques defining US-China relations. The Republican
platform also supports Taiwan's request to join the
World Health Organization, which Zhang takes as a sign
that Republicans, particularly in Congress, "will push
to enlarge Taiwan's international space".
Nonetheless, Jin Yanrong, vice president of the
international relations department of Renmin University
in Beijing, commented that the wording of the current
Republican platform, which welcomes the "emergence of a
strong, peaceful, prosperous China", is dramatically
different in tone from the "strategic competitor" talk
of 2000. This is seen as reflecting the close
cooperation between the Bush administration and China's
leaders in the "war on terrorism", the North Korea
nuclear issue, and non-proliferation.
Chinese
experts see the US election as in essence a toss-up for
China. This in part is a recognition that, as Zhang
articulates, the actions of a US president once he
assumes office are often quite different from the views
he expresses as a candidate. This is due, in large part,
to the fact that in the grand scheme of US-China
relations, the differences between the candidates, even
on the Taiwan issue, are small. "No matter who becomes
president," writes CIIS's Ruan, "the fundamental
situation, in which China and the US cooperate but also
have conflicts and differences, will not change."
As one expert at a Chinese government-supported
think-tank characterized the situation in an interview
with Asia Times Online, it all adds up to a private
choice among China leaders for the status quo of another
Bush administration: "They don't necessarily like Bush
or his policies, but they've learned to work with him.
What they want is stability in the relationship."
North Korea The Kerry campaign has
focused most of its Asian discussion on critiquing the
Bush administration's policy toward Pyongyang. Kerry
asserts that Bush's fixation on Iraq and "erratic
handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis" allowed
Pyongyang to increase its nuclear threat from an
estimated one to two weapons to enough material
potentially to produce four to seven devices. Kerry
proposes that the US "maintain the six-party talks, but
must also be prepared to talk directly with North Korea
to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses
the full range of issues for ourselves and our allies.
But we should have no illusions about [North Korean
leader] Kim Jong-il. Any agreement must have rigorous
verification and lead to complete and irreversible
elimination of North Korea's nuclear-weapons program."
Kerry criticized the Bush administration's focus
on multilateral negotiations, stating that the North
Korean nuclear problem "is too urgent to allow China, or
others at the table, to speak for us". Rand Beers,
Kerry's top national-security adviser, explained during
an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that
bilateral talks between the US and North Korea would not
be a "separate channel" but would take place within the
context of the six-party talks, "because the dialogue
would have to include considerations or activities that
others than the United States might have to take
responsibility for".
Kerry, in a Washington Post
op-ed article, commented that "freezing North Korea's
reprocessing activities is our most urgent need" but the
ultimate goal is to "force North Korea to dismantle its
nuclear-weapons program through an internationally
verifiable process". Kerry has advocated offering North
Korea "some commitment from the United States that North
Korea's security will not be jeopardized [with] a US
commitment not to increase its offensive capabilities on
the Korean Peninsula ... [as] one obvious [and] viable -
way to move forward". [5]
Kerry also advocates a
"comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range
of issues of concern to the United States and its allies
- North Korea's nuclear, chemical and missile programs,
conventional-force deployment, drug-running and human
rights - as well as North Korea's concerns about
security and economic development". Positive North
Korean actions would be met with incremental relaxation
of sanctions and provision of technical assistance.
How different under a Kerry
presidency? The Bush administration has been
strongly criticized by the Kerry campaign and pundits
for its reluctance to engage directly with Pyongyang,
though some analysts suggest that direct dialogue is
unlikely to resolve the dispute. In their quest to avoid
being tarred with the epithet of "naive", they hasten to
add that they do not trust Kim Jong-il and fully expect
he would cheat on any future agreement.
As
voiced in the Miami debate, a Kerry administration would
engage in direct bilateral talks with North Korea
(within the context of the six-party talks). This might
occur prior to Pyongyang coming into full compliance
with its existing nuclear obligations under the Agreed
Framework and international agreements. Moreover, Kerry
might agree to senior-level discussions and select an
overall coordinator for North Korean policy as existed
under Clinton, perhaps appointing a respected senior
official, as Clinton chose former secretary of defense
William Perry. Kerry would also be more likely to offer
incentives to Pyongyang earlier in a negotiated
settlement than would a second Bush presidency.
However, it is unclear to what degree such
potential changes would have altered the current crisis
had they been implemented after the revelation of North
Korea's uranium program in October 2002 or what effect
they would have on North Korean behavior in the future.
Kerry's calls for a verifiable agreement appear to
mirror those of Bush's controversial "complete,
verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement" (CVID)
proposal.
Korea-watchers fiercely debate the
extent to which the two candidates' North Korea policies
actually differ on substance. Kerry's proposals have
been alternately described as strategic policy shifts or
tactical stylistic changes. However, the final arbiter
of success will be, to a great degree, Pyongyang. Kim
Jong-il has shown a great reluctance to make concessions
or a desire to achieve real progress on diplomatic
agreements with the US or his neighbors.
Despite
repeated entreaties from the Kim Dae-jung and Roh
Moo-hyun administrations in Seoul and the Clinton
administration in Washington, Pyongyang has repeatedly
dashed the hopes of those advocating engagement.
Euphoria over the inter-Korean summit, the joint Korean
entry into Olympic Games, inter-Korean economic or
military discussions, among others, has been followed by
North Korean threats, cancellations, and demands for
further rewards to return to the status quo ante.
That said, there would be a perception of a
major shift in US policy if Kerry were elected and an
expectation on Asians' part that Kerry would do things
differently. However, Kerry would face many of the same
inherent domestic and international constraints that
Bush has faced, although the broadsides of criticism
would be coming from a different flank. Either candidate
would be limited in the degree to which US policy could
alter the existing paradigms in Asia.
Looking
to the future Both candidates need to address
better the issues and concerns of Asia. A lack of US
focus on the region will provide an environment ripe for
China to continue expanding its sphere of influence and
may also embolden forces inimical to US interests and
eventually force Washington to address the situation.
Such a reactionary policy would be far less successful
and will risk further alienating Asian nations than if
Washington were to adopt a more proactive approach than
either presidential candidate's comments would seem to
portend. The challenges and opportunities throughout
Asia are far too complex and tenuous to be relegated to
second-tier status, and the next US president will do so
only at his own peril.
4. Democratic Platform; Senator
Kerry's June 1 speech New Strategies to Meet New Threats;
and August 6, 2003, Senator Kerry op-ed "Next step on
Korea", Washington Post.
Bruce Klingner is director of analysis
for Intellibridge Corp in Washington, DC. His areas of
expertise are strategic national security, political and
military affairs in China, Northeast Asia, Korea and
Japan. He can be reached atbklingner@intellibridge.com.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
