Next week Chinese President Hu Jintao will travel to the United States for his eighth meeting with President Obama, his first state visit with an U.S. president, and his valedictory call on the American people before he retires as part of the Chinese leadership transition in 2012. There will be no breakthroughs, transformations, or stirring visions for the future of U.S.-China relations, but the trip is badly needed in terms of relationship management. It will also serve as a good opportunity for a stock-taking of U.S.-China relations.

The Good News

1. Obama Gets It
The Obama administration came into office intending to continue the broad Bush policy of engaging China based on strong alliance relationships in Asia, particularly with Japan. The Obama team hoped to build on that basic approach by establishing a more enduring formula for mutual strategic reassurance with Beijing. To set the right tone early on, the White House delayed sensitive arms sales to Taiwan and a meeting with the Dalai Lama in advance of the president's first trip to China in November 2009 and then sought language in a joint statement in Beijing that would signal U.S. understanding of China's "core interests" with respect to Tibet, Taiwan, and other issues. Set against the backdrop of the financial crisis and increasing confidence in China, these gestures backfired and the administration soon found itself responding to a series of assertive Chinese moves at the Copenhagen climate summit, in the South China Sea, on the Korean peninsula, and in the Sino-Japanese territorial dispute over the Senkaku or Diaoyutai Islands. To its credit, the Obama administration adjusted and spent much of 2010 reminding Beijing of the depths of U.S. strategic power and influence in Asia, as countries from India to Vietnam and Japan sought closer security ties with Washington to re-establish a stable strategic equilibrium vis-à-vis Beijing. The top national security team -- Donilon, Gates, and Clinton -- have now replaced the administration's earlier dreamy visions of transformational U.S.-China cooperation on global issues with a much more hardheaded appreciation of the underlying power realities of dealing with Beijing.

Read on

The Obama administration had a relatively good year in Asia (relative, that is, to its disastrous first year), but it still must follow up and break bad habits, as my colleague and former State Department official Randy Schriver likes to say. They stood up to China's bullying in the South China Sea, declaring that freedom of navigation and the peaceful resolution of disputes are American "core interests." They finally signed the most significant free trade agreement since NAFTA, with South Korea. When President Obama went to India he removed barriers to high-technology exports and pressed for more business-to-business ties. In Indonesia, he signed a number of agreements that should help both trade and defense relations. The administration accepted an invitation to the East Asia Summit, which is very important to Southeast Asians and will make it easier to forge lasting bonds in the region.

Now for the critique. The administration seems ready to go wobbly on North Korea, and in the process China. It has shifted from supporting whatever tough measures President Lee Myung-bak wanted to take to nudging him back to the failed six-party talks and congratulating China for its diplomacy in getting North Korea to signal agreement to talk. This is the worst of the bad habits in Asia we must break. The North did not just test a missile this time; they twice killed South Koreans in cold blood last year. No president can allow his people to be killed without responding. We seem not to understand that. The first task for the U.S. and South Korea is to re-establish deterrence, which could well mean proportionate retaliation against the North.

Instead, we are falling back on the same old failed patterns. The North commits an act of aggression and eventually China urges their ally back to the table. Washington then falls over itself complimenting China for its diplomatic skill. This will not get the North to denuclearize or stop its aggression. And it is dangerous. North Korea can continue to commit acts of war with impunity while China simply looks the other way. It will only lead to more attacks on South Korea and is more likely to lead to conflict -- South Korea will eventually have to strike back. Instead, we should thank China very much for its efforts, cut Beijing out of any future talks we wish to have with North Korea, re-establish deterrence, and implement a number of coercive measures against the North to rebuild our negotiating leverage. Not only would direct talks backed up by coercion put us in a more powerful position with North Korea, if carefully orchestrated with our allies, but China might fear being excluded from future arrangements on the peninsula and pressure its friends in Pyongyang to abide by international rules.

Read on

According to the New York Times, the Obama administration is resisting Beijing's call to respond to the latest crisis on the Korean peninsula by launching another round of the six-party talks. The administration is wise to resist the temptation to put the short-term desire to respond to heightened tensions ahead of the long-term need to resolve the North Korean problem once and for all.

As Mike Green explained, this is a temptation to which previous Administrations, including the Bush administration, fell prey. When all of the options look bad, sitting down and talking with North Korea can seem, on the surface at least, to be a least-bad way of "doing something." But it has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work this time.

The theory behind the six-party talks was plausible, and many people (including myself) endorsed the approach as a way of breaking a regional impasse that derived from several structural conditions.

• Condition 1: North Korea favors regime preservation above all else and viewed nuclear weapons as its best guarantor of regime survival. Only if its possession of nuclear weapons could be seen as threatening its own survival is it plausible that the regime would agree to an adequate diplomatic solution.
• Condition 2: Given decades of economic sanctions, U.S. non-military leverage over North Korea is limited. Not zero, as we found out when we started deploying new financial sanctions, but substantially less than the leverage China wielded. Only if we can get China to wield that leverage would North Korea begin to feel sufficient pressure that might alter condition one.
• Condition 3: The United States and China have fundamentally different preference orderings regarding the various possible outcomes. While both might prefer a nuclear-free peninsula above all, China next prefers living with a North Korea with nuclear weapons to living next door to a collapsed North Korean regime. The United States, by contrast, clearly prefers North Korean regime collapse to living with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Nothing either side can say to the other will change this preference ranking. Only if other costs and benefits are applied can the strategic calculus change.
• Condition 4: Given that the status quo trajectory defaults in its favor (i.e., reinforces condition three), China is happy to free-ride off of U.S. diplomatic efforts, even fruitless efforts. Only if China has more of a stake in the success of the diplomacy will they be likely to shoulder any actual burden.

The six-party talks were a plausible way to change these conditions. The idea was to give China an equity stake in the success of the non-proliferation effort. As host and co-leader, failure of the six-party talks would become China's failure. North Korea's belligerence would, of necessity, be directed at all of the six-party members, including China. Few people thought the six-party talks would by themselves yield a diplomatic solution. More people, myself included, thought that the collapse of the six-party talks, if demonstrably North Korea's fault and demonstrably China's problem, might adjust the incentives sufficiently to elicit more responsible Chinese leadership on the security issue.

That theory was tested and found wanting. As expected, North Korea repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Yet the hoped-for response from China never materialized. Instead of ratcheting up pressure on North Korea, China has responded to North Korean belligerence with successive rounds of concessions and cover-ups. The situation rather resembles a weak parent seeking to excuse the public misbehavior of a spoiled child.

The Obama administration is wise not to rush in to rescue China from this latest embarrassment, and it is wise not to make other concessions that China is demanding -- for instance, restricting U.S. naval activity in the Yellow Sea. Instead, the United States should take visible steps to deepen cooperation with our regional treaty allies. And we should insist that China take similarly responsible steps to reign in North Korea.

The six-party talks only make sense if China is willing to shoulder its regional security responsibilities. Until that is demonstrated, there is not much to talk about.

Further to Will Tobey's excellent post below, the last thing that the Obama administration wanted to deal with during Thanksgiving week is another crisis with North Korea. The administration's policy thus far of "strategic patience" has rightly avoided the past traps of rewarding the DPRK's bad behavior and broken agreements with further concessions. But the Kim regime's latest round of belligerence -- including artillery attacks on civilian populations in South Korea and ominous advances in its uranium enrichment program -- show the limits of strategic patience alone in the face of an adversary willing to escalate its provocations to dangerous levels that cannot be ignored.

In the short term there are no good options on the table, only a difficult set of choices as the White House seeks to avert war on the Korean peninsula while dissuading the DPRK from further aggression and reassuring U.S. allies in the region, especially South Korea and Japan. The announcement of joint military exercises with the South Koreans is a good start, but more will need to be done. Just what that "more" entails is the hard part. As my former NSC colleague and Korea expert Victor Cha said in the Washington Post yesterday, "in many ways this is our worst nightmare… the administration has really got its work cut out for it."

Will Tobey is correct that beyond the tactical challenges of this current flare-up, the administration should develop a long-term North Korea strategy that includes seeking the end of the Kim dynasty dictatorship. Such a strategy will entail many components. One pillar it needs to include, especially for a peaceful change in North Korea, is human rights promotion. In the midst of the current policy stalemate, a pivot by the U.S. towards a renewed focus on the plight of the North Korean people and the illegitimacy of the Kim regime could provide a strategic game-changer.

The regime's greatest vulnerability is its appalling barbarity and decades-long torment of its own citizens. It also represents an area of potentially overwhelming international consensus. With the unfortunate exception of the cynical Chinese government, virtually no global power supports North Korea's mistreatment of its people.

What might be done? There are many possible steps; here are just a few:

• Escalate the "reputational sanctions" targeting the regime's illicit activities, such as international financial institutions that hold the ill-gotten gains of the regime's henchmen, including the Kim family. And follow through vigorously on implementation and enforcement. Few things got Kim Jong Il's attention like $25 million of his personal fortune being frozen in Banco Delta Asia's accounts in 2005. Condition the lifting of the sanctions on a dramatic improvement in human rights, such as the closure of the regime's prison camps and release of all prisoners of conscience.

• President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other senior U.S. officials should hold visible meetings with North Korean defectors, dissidents, and survivors of its prison camps. And encourage other world leaders to do the same.

• Substantially increase financial support for independent broadcasting into North Korea (via radio, TV, and Internet), step up countermeasures to override the regime's jamming, and even explore ways to get uncensored radios and televisions into the hands of more North Korean people.
• Press for a U.N. Security Council debate on applying the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine to North Korea for "crimes against humanity," and the application of Principle Three on intervention by the international community. With the possibility of further famines caused by state malevolence, on top of the regime's ongoing depredations, such a debate would at a minimum draw global attention to conditions in North Korea, and might even lead to multilateral action.
• Include Special Envoy for North Korea Human Rights Bob King at the table in any possible future resumption of negotiations involving North Korea (whether six-party talks or bilateral). This will make clear that America's priority concerns are not just the DPRK's nuclear weapons but also its treatment of its people.
• Direct the intelligence community to increase its collection efforts on human rights conditions within North Korea. Most of what the U.S. government knows in this area comes from the intrepid work of human rights NGOs and defectors. Much more could be learned if the intelligence community devoted resources to mapping the locations and activity patterns of prison camps, monitoring the DPRK's internal repression system, and identifying possible dissident activity.

Finally, don't expect help from China. Beijing ostensibly shares an interest with the U.S. in curtailing the nuclear adventurism of its most problematic client state, and has on occasion (though not consistently) been helpful in restraining Pyongyang. But when it comes to the regime itself, China's interests diverge from the United States', at least insofar as Beijing has made the short-sighted calculation to keep propping up the Kim dynasty as a buffer state on its border. The United States should leave the short-sightedness to the Chinese. A more visionary long-term strategy for the United States should include concrete steps to support the North Korean people in ending the tyranny that afflicts them.

China has ever so clumsily drawn attention again to the unpleasant topic of its human rights record. President Barack Obama is traveling to democracies around Asia and making it a point to emphasize that their economic prosperity is in part a result of their democratic systems. A week earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that China will need to reform politically if it is to continue to grow. And yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron prodded (ever so gently) China to respect its citizens' human rights.

These are not the Bush and Blair governments. None of these leaders is a crusader for democracy. Quite the contrary, Secretary Clinton began her China policy by downplaying China's human rights abuses. And President Obama came into office thinking that he had to apologize for Bush's attempts to promote democracy. Rather, what is clear to all of these leaders is that there is a strong connection between China's external behavior -- increasingly aggressive -- and its internal repression, in some ways worsening. In fact, this proposition is controversial now only among some political scientists. It is noteworthy that contrary to what so-called realists would predict, as the administration (and the world in general) grows more hard-headed about China, its human rights abuses are receiving more attention.

Indeed, China is making its human rights abuses more of an issue in international affairs. This is partly because China is a victim of its own success -- the media pays more attention to it as it grows in stature. In turn, China is no longer content with simply jailing activists such as Liu Xiaobo, a common practice in the PRC. It now internationalizes its human rights abuses: it has bullied the Britain, Japan, and South Korea, among others, not to attend Liu's Nobel peace prize ceremony and it has downgraded relations with Norway, the committee's host country.

The comments of British and U.S. leaders certainly provide succor to China's many reformers. And the West (by which I mean liberal democracies) must stand up for the rights it holds dear. But ultimately, political leaders will not convince the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to change based on "its own self interest." (This line of reasoning is not unique to Clinton or Cameron. Former President George W. Bush also used it to try and convince Hu Jintao that democracy was in his interest.) The CCP knows very well what its interests are, and democracy is not one of them. Indeed, democracy would threaten the vast array of perquisites enjoyed by CCP leaders and their families. Instead, democratic leaders should find ways to engage the many Chinese who embrace liberal values, so that when and if the CCP really does face a ruling crisis, there are Chinese democrats ready to take the helm -- and we know their cell phone numbers.

Within a week of suffering the biggest midterm drubbing in generations, President Barack Obama will depart on a trip to India, Indonesia, Japan and Korea. How the president handles this trip will speak volumes about how he sees his agenda for the next two years and how much of an international president he really is.

The first test will be whether he takes the trip at all. Democratic Party strategists and other influential pundits have already begun questioning why he would go abroad and let Republicans seize the narrative at the most crucial point in his presidency. On CNN, former advisor to President Bill Clinton, David Gergen, warned the White House against making the same mistake Clinton made when he went abroad in the wake of Republican midterm victories in November 1994. Will they cancel? The president has already put off previously scheduled trips to India and Indonesia because of domestic political developments. On the other hand, the White House likes to claim this is the first "Pacific president," because Obama grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii (though other presidents like William Howard Taft and John F. Kennedy had plenty of experience in the Pacific as well, of course), and that the United States is "back" in Asia (though commentators across the region are asking when the United States ever left). All of this spin -- the first "Pacific president" and the "we're back in Asia" mantra -- would go flying out the window if the president cancelled his trip. Clinton was right not to cancel his international travel in 1994 -- it would have made the presidency appear even weaker. That would have been disastrous politics and worse geostrategy. So odds are pretty good that the president will go on the trip (fingers crossed).

The next test will be how the president handles ten days of hounding from the press about electoral defeats while he is in Asia. And the press will hound -- no doubt about it. Maybe if North Korea fires artillery across the DMZ during the G-20 summit in Seoul or China attacks the Senkaku Islands while the president is in Japan, the press corps might be distracted from domestic U.S. politics to focus briefly on international events. Or maybe the president will dig deep into his oratorical tool box to help shift the media's focus to U.S. interests in Asia -- the continent projected to contribute 60 percent of global GDP in our lifetime. He will have real occasion to look presidential again if he avoids the trivia of fact sheets and joint statements and presents a vision for international U.S. leadership. The visit to Indonesia -- the world's largest Muslim nation and one that proves Islam and democracy coexist-- could be a moment for articulating a real message about the compatibility of democratic values and Muslim faith. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Yokohama would be the place to remind Americans that over 50 percent of our trade is with this dynamic region, and that the United States can and must compete. The stops in India, Japan and Korea would be the right settings for explaining why investing in our strategic partnerships and alliances will pay dividends in terms of tackling the challenges we face internationally. The president must not re-fight the midterm, appear defensive, or make the narrative about himself (the last of these being the default narrative of the White House on foreign trips thus far). He must ignore what John McCain would call the "ground noise" and talk about the United States and Asia. The press might just listen. The region certainly will.

The third test will be on trade. If there is one area where the White House should be able to work with a more Republican Congress, it is on trade. And if there is one policy area Asia is watching to see if Washington is committed, it's trade. The president has said that he wants the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) ready to present to Congress (again) by the end of the year, but the administration has done no heavy lifting to get to that point (all the action has been aimed at pressing the Koreans to make further compromises). Fair enough -- there were elections coming up, and it may have been unrealistic to expect a Democratic White House to take on its labor union base when turnout was so critical to their electoral strategy. This trip is the time to demonstrate not only the hope that KORUS will be introduced this year, but the intention to do so in partnership with Republicans willing to work for its passage. It would set a tone that Asia would welcome and that Americans desiring more bipartisanship in Washington would be thankful for.

The president's Asia trip should not be seen by the White House as an unfortunate distraction, but instead as a real test of presidential leadership -- one that will help the president and the country if he approaches it the right way.

How can we make sense of a People's Republic of China that is supposed to be, in the words of Deng Xiaoping, "biding its time and hiding its capabilities," but in fact is picking fights with most of its neighbors, including the United States? The Chinese were supposed to be using their deep reservoirs of "soft power" and practicing a highly skilled diplomacy aimed at assuring all that China is rising peacefully. But over the past year, Beijing has been rather more clumsy than the caricature of Chinese cleverness might suggest. China has in effect declared the entire South China Sea -- a body of water that is of critical importance for its abundance of natural resources and for its position as the maritime connection between the Indian and Pacific Oceans -- to be its territorial water.   

Needless to say, this has not gone over well with Vietnam and other Southeast Asian nations. And, just when it appeared that China would return to a lighter touch in the face of strong U.S. resistance to its South China Sea claims, Beijing bullied and coerced Japan into circumventing its legal processes after a Chinese fishing trawler rammed Japanese ships in the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu island chains. In sum, China's exercise of power has been more hard than soft. Beijing seems to be neither "biding its time" nor rising peacefully.

A recent book helps explain how PRC leaders think about the world and what may lead China to engage in the behavior we and our allies find offensive. In The Mind of Empire China's History and Foreign Relations, Christopher Ford makes a persuasive case for hardwired cultural conditioning as an explanation for China's imperious behavior. China possesses, well, the mind of an empire. According to Ford, Chinese history has no precedent for stable coexistence among sovereign equals. Moreover, struggle over primacy within China and later with other states is a fairly continuous characteristic of Chinese history. Here is Ford:

The Chinese tradition has as its primary model of interstate relations a system in which the focus of national policy is in effect a struggle for primacy and legitimate stable order is possible when one power reigns supreme-by direct bureaucratic control of the Sinic geographic core and by at least tributary relationships with all other participants in the world system.  

According to Ford, China has an enduring sense of global order. Beijing assumes that the "natural order" of the political world is hierarchical and the idea of truly separate and independent states is illegitimate.

But wait, some might argue, what about China's embrace -- if not sanctification -- of the Western construct of international relations: Non-interference in the affairs of other sovereign states? If China's natural place is atop a Sino-centric hierarchy, and other sovereign states are lesser entities that should pay deference to China, then why use the histrionic defense of Westphalian norms which codifies equal status among states?

Read on

Over the past decade, Washington's Taiwan policy has created unnecessary dilemmas for Taiwan's political leadership. On the one hand, if a president of Taiwan is considered too provocative toward China, Washington, rightfully irritated over undue tensions, will freeze relations with the democratic island. On the other hand, if a president of Taiwan reconciles with China, Washington's impulse is to neglect relations, confident that the cross Strait "problem" is resolving itself. It's a small wonder why many Taiwanese believe that Washington is unreliable.

President Chen Shui-bian faced the former from Washington. While no one in Taiwan doubted that he would protect Taiwan's de facto independent status and its hard won democracy, or fight for its international dignity, he lost the confidence of Washington and then his own people when relations with both China and the United States soured.

Read on

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill aimed at addressing China's currency practices. It is scheduled for a vote by the full House sometime this week. In hearings, Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) stated, "the status quo with currency imbalances is unacceptable and unsustainable." He argued that China's "mercantilist policies" distort trade and slow U.S. economic growth and job creation.

Levin had listed a number of potential policy responses. None of the remedies promise quick or significant relief to America's jobs deficit. A number of them risk serious side effects. The committee settled on one which may be more symbolic than potent. The bill seeks to increase the chances for American businesses to win tariff protection by treating China's currency policy as an illicit subsidy. The bill was watered down significantly so it would not run afoul of global trading rules.

The fundamental problem is a disconnect between U.S. policymakers' sense of what global rules of economic conduct ought to say and what they actually say. Two prominent examples of this disconnect can be found in the rules of the World Trade Organization: An agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures establishes the conditions under which a nation can retaliate against a trading partner's export-encouraging practices; Another specific provision -- Article XV -- says that exchange rate manipulation should not be used to frustrate the intent of the trade agreement.

These provisions form the basis of some of the most prominent U.S. plans for action against China. This week's House bill would let U.S. firms seek tariff protection from Chinese goods "subsidized" by an undervalued exchange rate. A WTO case on Article XV would take China to task for the trade distortions resulting from a misaligned exchange rate.

But the WTO does not allow retaliation against any and all subsidies. It sets some strict conditions on which ones are actionable. According to veteran international trade lawyers, there is serious doubt that a distorted currency would meet those conditions. Nor does Article XV offer much clarity about lines that cannot be crossed. In each case, there is an important gap between the rules as they stand and the rules as envisioned by China's U.S. critics.

With such a disconnect, there are three options. The United States government could pretend global rules read more favorably; it could ignore the rules and strike out, perhaps by imposing a broad unilateral tariff; or it could seek to modify the rules through negotiation. The first approach risks the appearance of flouting international agreements and sparking new trade conflicts. The second approach would leave no doubt about U.S. contempt for global accords and would risk destroying the rules-based multilateral trading system.

The remaining option, then, is to seek new agreement on proper international economic behavior. Fortunately, the groundwork for such an agreement is already in place. The Group of 20 leaders, meeting in Pittsburgh last year, endorsed a framework for "Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth." Earlier this month, John Lipsky of the International Monetary Fund said in a speech that, while there had been substantial "buy-in" to the idea of rebalancing, the plans that had been put forward to date fell short of what was needed.

While discussions of the principles undergirding the global economic system should be inclusive, the implementation problems are really the concern of a small number of large countries. This suggests a new solution. A G-20 Implementation Subgroup, consisting of the United States, Japan, China, and Germany, would be well-positioned to craft a more serious program than we have seen to date. Representatives of the European Central Bank and the IMF could also attend, given those institutions' relevant roles.

This should not be a meeting to talk down the dollar, nor to vent criticisms of China. Rather, the Subgroup would have a mandate to discuss the broad range of macroeconomic policies needed to achieve the kind of global rebalancing that meetings of the full G-20 have already endorsed. This would certainly include ways for China to address its unhealthy global surplus, but it would also include discussion of deficit reduction measures to reduce U.S. borrowing. If the subgroup meeting were held in January, it could take into account the recommendations of the U.S. bipartisan deficit reduction commission.

This approach has the virtue of engaging the key players in a multilateral discussion in a group sufficiently small that it might reach agreement on action. The multilateral approach is preferable to unilateral or bilateral pressure both in that the underlying problem is multilateral and in its avoidance of the kind of national rivalries that can emerge in bilateral discussions.

There are obvious potential pitfalls to such an approach. There could be a complete failure to reach agreement, for example. These are deep-seated problems that run up against serious domestic concerns. Or there could be ill-advised attempts at a quick fix, as some have characterized a previous effort at coordinated action, the 1985 Plaza Accord.

But the other options on the palette are unpalatable. There is a broad sense among U.S. policy folk (and some abroad) that bounds of proper international economic behavior have been crossed. The problem is that those bounds are not spelled out anywhere. This mix of ambiguity and discontent seems like a recipe for serious conflict. A meeting with a pre-set mandate to address imbalances would offer the best opportunity to defuse some of those festering tensions.

Over the weekend, the Taipei Times reported that the United States will soon begin operating high-altitude, long-endurance RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) out of Guam. When operational, these drones will monitor Chinese forces opposite the Taiwan Strait. Ultimately, they will replace the U-2 and RC-135 aircraft that conduct reconnaissance in the west Pacific.

The Obama administration deserves credit for such efforts to keep a close eye on Chinese military modernization. Although the term "transformation" has fallen out of favor in Washington, it has not in Beijing. China is deploying a range of capabilities aimed at blunting U.S. military power in Asia, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, a large family of precision-guided ballistic missiles, anti-satellite weapons, and cyber warfare capabilities. As Jacqueline Newmyer writes in a thought-provoking article in the latest issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies, Chinese strategists believe that the so-called "revolution in military affairs" offers Beijing a historic opportunity to alter the military balance with the United States. Having concealed its military buildup for years, the Chinese leadership has become increasingly open and bellicose in discussing its ability to inflict damage on U.S. forces.

The deployment of Global Hawks to Guam offers more than just an opportunity to monitor Chinese military deployments; it also holds with it the possibility of new methods to enhancing security and strengthening deterrence in Asia -- something that should appeal to an administration that has favored multilateral approaches.  The United States' Asian allies are all concerned about Chinese military modernization, and about U.S. staying power in the face of a rising China. They are also interested in purchasing or developing high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs like the Global Hawk. The door would thus appear to be open for bold action: What if the United States spearheaded a multinational effort to field a constellation of high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs and share the data produced by their sensors to establish a common picture of the west Pacific? With some vision and bold action, U.S. drones could become the core of an Asian allied airborne reconnaissance network. Such a network could increase transparency in the region. Having many eyes watching the region could also represent a powerful deterrent to Chinese aggression, whether across the Taiwan Strait or in the South China Sea.

The deployment of UAVs to Guam is a good move. With a bit of boldness and creativity, it could yield much more.

Subtle shifts in the balance of power are difficult to detect yet of foremost importance to peace and stability. And even if detected in a timely fashion, policymakers can be slow to react. But maintaining a balance of power favorable to one's interests is one of a president's key tasks. On that score, our leaders have been negligent for over a decade.

Occasionally, presidents detect shifts in the military balance when it is too late and then compound the problem by responding with questionable policy choices. For example, President Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation was, in part, a response to what seemed to be a loss of the U.S nuclear monopoly and Soviet conventional supremacy in continental Europe. (Eisenhower also wanted to maintain U.S superiority on the cheap -- by cutting Truman's conventional defense build-up).

A policy of responding with a nuclear attack to Soviet aggression anywhere did not seem very prudent to many at the time, but at least the president took the perceived shift in the balance of power seriously. Some of President Nixon and Carter's questionable arms control ideas were a response to a shift in the strategic balance in favor of the Soviets. Unfortunately, most of the time, policymakers do not react to an adversary's growing capabilities until met with disaster (e.g. Pearl Harbor, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 9/11).

Today the balance of power in Asia is shifting. Since the end of World War II, Washington has kept the peace in Asia through its forward presence of military forces and its uncontested ability to project force into the region. Take an example from just 14 years ago. Realizing how destabilizing were China's missile tests conducted in the waters around Taiwan, President Clinton sent carrier battle groups near the Taiwan Strait. The missile tests stopped, Taiwan held its elections, and conflict was avoided.

Today, any president would think twice about doing the same. Why? China has arguably gained conventional supremacy around its periphery. Without remediation this could become a hard fact. China's growing short-range missile arsenal (maybe up to 1,500) and fleet of modern aircraft could not only be used to destroy much of Taiwan, but could also be used to strike devastating blows against U.S. forces in Japan. Together with its fast-growing submarine fleet, the Chinese missile force will, within the next decade, be able to cause serious harm to U.S. carriers steaming into the region.

Beijing has been focused like a laser beam on how to coerce and intimidate Taiwan while deterring U.S. and Japanese intervention. Washington has not given the same attention to defense. Our shipbuilding program has atrophied, our ability to protect the bases from which our aircraft fly is non-existent, and there is nothing in the current navy or air force programs of record that demonstrate our attentiveness to this problem.

As a country, we have become so accustomed to projecting air and sea power with impunity anywhere in the world that the idea that our aircraft could be shot down or surface ships sunk seems like science fiction. But China has been studying how to undermine the way we do battle for decades, and its efforts are bearing fruit.

A president choosing to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan would now face a host of bad options, most of which are dangerously escalatory. If U.S. forces or those of an ally were attacked, Washington could eventually bring its superior power to bear from other theaters of conflict, but it would take time, and, as shown both in the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment's AirSea Battle and in RAND's A Question of Balance, would probably require hitting military targets in China itself. Considering China's growing conventional superiority, a president's response to a devastating blow by the Chinese against U.S., Japanese, and Taiwanese assets may, by necessity, be highly escalatory.

The good news is that it is not too late to restore some stability to the equation. The United States is a far richer and more stable nation than China. With marginal adjustments in how we spend our finite tax-payer dollars, we can restore a favorable conventional balance in the Pacific that would lessen Chinese temptations to use force and provide us with more strategically stable defensive options should Beijing succumb to those temptations. We seek a cooperative relationship with China, which makes it difficult to think about the unthinkable -- a conflict with China. But a conflict with the United States is just about all the PLA thinks about, and for the sake of peace we must take them seriously.

There are strange goings-on in Pyongyang these days. First, former President Jimmy Carter arrived in the North Korean capital to secure the release of Aijilon Gomez, an American human rights activist who had been sentenced to seven years hard labor after wandering across the border from China. Then, within 12 hours of Carter’s arrival, North Korea leader Kim Jong Il suddenly shows up in China for his second visit in several months. All these moves are leading to speculation that the United States is about to slide back to the pattern of engagement and concessions that has followed every other confrontation with Pyongyang over the past two decades.

I think the odds are probably against such a replay of history. But then again, the temptation of “parking” the intractable North Korea problem in slow motion talks has proven irresistible to two previous administrations nervous about sustained confrontation with the North. The Loyal Opposition would be doing the Obama team a favor by scrutinizing its next steps for similar wobbliness.

Read on

What happened to China's much vaunted "soft power" and "good neighborly" diplomacy about which we have heard so much in recent years? China's supposed "soft power," always overstated, has passed from the scene in short order.

Over the past few months, the Chinese have not-so-softly declined to invite Secretary of Defense Gates to visit Beijing; called the South China Sea a "core interest" (akin to claiming that the sea is China's territorial water); threatened to retaliate if the United States proceeds with the sale of additional F-16s to Taiwan; and refused to so much as condemn the North Koreans for killing 46 South Koreans sailors in cold blood.

Why are the Chinese coming out swinging now? Two reasons. One is the smell of American weakness, which Obama appears to be correcting. The second is that all is not well within China.

On reason one: As master practitioners of it, the Chinese Communist Party understands and respects power. It was no accident that Sino-American relations were stable, and at times even constructive, while President Bush was balancing China's power by upgrading relations with Japan, selling arms to Taiwan, and developing a strategic partnership with India.

President Obama approached China differently, eschewing balance of power politics and going out of his way to avoid ruffling Beijing's feathers. For example, the U.S. relationship with India was not considered an important part of Asia's balance of power, China's human rights abuses were ignored, and the administration put off selling needed arms to Taiwan or meeting with the Dalai Lama for as long as it could. While Obama saw these moves as strengthening a partnership with Beijing, China jumped at the chance to end what it views as America's irritating practice of meeting with the Tibetan spiritual leader and helping Taiwan defend itself.

On top of these misguided policies, Japan was going through its own political turmoil and, through no fault of President Obama's, thus unavailable to help maintain the balance of power.

Predictably, Beijing saw a U.S. government it could push around and wanted more. Now it is going for the jugular, demanding an end to arms sales to Taiwan and declaring the South China Sea a Chinese lake.

China's manifold domestic problems are another cause of China's belligerence. With an upcoming political succession in 2012, featuring party cadres without any ties to the communist revolution vying for leadership roles, the politburo has every reason to worry. Popular unrest is also becoming more political, sophisticated, and organized, as many migrant workers have worked in different places, and seen inequalities and injustices all over the country (see Minxin Pei's recent article in The Diplomat).

It is likely that the People's Liberation Army and China's anti-American nationalists see a ripe time to put pressure on the political system and to "get tough." What one hears from the Chinese is, "we are strong and not going to take it in anymore." The "it" includes arms sales to Taiwan and U.S. military activity in China's periphery.

The Obama administration appears to have gotten the message. They did sell a much needed package of arms to Taiwan. Secretary Gates did not mince words in talking about U.S. and allied interests in the South China Sea and the administration appears to be going forward with joint anti-submarine warfare exercises with the South Koreans despite howls of protests from China.

Washington still has a strong hand to play. China is growing stronger, but, for all of its chest thumping, it pales in strength compared with the United States and its allies in Asia. And none of our Asian allies want a dominant China. Indeed, one of the untold stories in Asia is the region's military modernization. Almost all of our allies are buying advanced tactical aircraft (mostly the F-35), maritime surveillance capabilities, and diesel submarines -- to deal with a rising China. The atmosphere is ripe for us to begin creating an informal network of alliances operating more closely together, particularly since much of what our allies are buying is American equipment. Washington should start to build the institutions today that will allow the allies to train together on their fifth-generation aircraft, patrol the South China Seas, and hunt for submarines. How about announcing the creation of a fifth generation aircraft "center for excellence" in Singapore, where all allies can train?

The point is that there is still a chance to present China with a choice: act like a responsible power or face a great wall of resistance. The good news is that there are many Chinese who want the former.

The signing by Taiwan and China of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement is a welcome development. The agreement cuts tariffs on 539 Taiwanese products bound for China and 267 Chinese products exported to Taiwan. The cuts on the Taiwan items are valued at $13.84 billion and those from China $2.86 billion.

Economically, Taiwan, the PRC, and the United States will all benefit. Politically, the agreement means a reduction in tension across the Strait, and it provides incentives for Chinese restraint (it is easy to forget that interdependence works both ways -- Taiwan may rely on China for final assembly and low-end manufacturing, but China is dependent upon Taiwan's investment and managerial know-how).

However, Washington should not be lulled into complacency -- the cross Strait problem has not disappeared. With over a thousand missiles pointed at it, Taiwan faces Chinese coercion every day: All of Taipei's negotiations, including those over the ECFA, are conducted with the equivalent of a gun pointed at its head. We should view the ECFA as only the first step in a series of measures that will strengthen Taiwan, stabilize the Strait, and liberalize trade in Asia.

Next up, we should sell Taiwan the additional F-16 aircraft it has requested, which it needs in order to counter China's daunting threat to the island's airspace. An F-16 sale would demonstrate America's abiding commitment to Taiwan's security and strengthen the hand of Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou as he continues to negotiate stability in the Strait. Would Beijing raise a stink? Of course. But it has no leg to stand on. Taiwan already has F-16s and simply needs more to replace the numerous aging aircraft in its fleet. Moreover, it is China that has decided to negotiate and threaten at the same time. In response, Taiwan needs to simultaneously negotiate and deter. Finally, the cost to Washington would be low: Beijing has already thrown its quarterly temper tantrum by cutting off bilateral military talks and prohibiting Secretary of Defense Robert Gates from visiting China.

Beyond arms sales, the United States can help Taiwan become the place to do business in Asia, a move that would benefit both Washington and Taipei. Taiwan has already liberalized its trading relationship with China, its high-end manufacturing and design capabilities are world class, and its businesses succeed in the China market where many others fail. Washington should negotiate a free trade agreement with Taiwan for three reasons. First, an FTA with Taiwan will provide  economic benefits to both sides. Second, now that Taiwan has liberalized trade with China, U.S. businesses can use Taiwan as a launching pad to succeed in the China market. Third, other Asian economies will only move forward with their own FTAs with Taiwan -- necessary for both Taiwan's security and its future prosperity -- if Washington provides political cover.

With some help from Washington, Taiwan could make itself into the region's business hub. If Taiwan becomes Asia's economic nerve center, its security will improve immeasurably.