China

By Michael Green

Surprises?

The biggest (most pleasant) surprise on Asia has been the Obama administration's willingness to use pressure on North Korea. After campaigning on a promise to meet with the leaders of nations like North Korea without conditions, the Obama White House has turned out to be quite hard line vis-à-vis Pyongyang.

Of course, it would be difficult to miss the obvious failure of Ambassador Chris Hill's conciliatory negotiating style at the end of the Bush administration -- let alone the fact that North Korea responded to President Obama's initial promises of engagement by detonating a second nuclear device. Still, in the case of North Korea the administration seems to have embraced the premise that there must be consequences for proliferators.

The administration has moved forward smartly with implementation of sanctions under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874 (unlike the Bush administration's decision not to implement UNSCR 1718 after the first nuclear test) and thus far the Special Envoy for North Korea has refused to sit down with the North Koreans until they first agree to return to the Six Party Talks. Even the visit of former President Clinton to Pyongyang was done with most of the administration holding its nose and limiting the mission to the humanitarian goal of bringing home two American journalists taken by the North. We will see how long this holds, but for now the administration looks pretty tough.

Praiseworthy?

The Obama administration deserves praise for its selection of an Asia team. There were more than 60 "advisors" on Asia to the Obama campaign (close to the total number of advisors for the entire world working with McCain). Most of these advisors were calling for wholesale changes in Asia policy, echoing the usual canards about the Bush administration's "unilateralism" and "militarism." But in the end, the top jobs in NSC, State and Defense were filled by non-partisan centrists and pragmatists who recognized the successes of the Bush administration's Asia strategy and wanted to tweak rather than redefine the U.S. approach to the region. Better yet, the top officials at State, NSC and DOD are associated with the successes of the Clinton administration's Asia policy, including the revitalization of the U.S.-Japan alliance and the successful negotiations to bring China into the WTO. The team is professional, knowledgeable and very reassuring to the region.

Constructive Criticism?

The administration deserves criticism on two fronts. The complete lack of a trade strategy leaves the United States without any tools to counter the growth of exclusive regional economic arrangements within Asia. This will become obvious when Obama travels to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in two weeks and calls for an open and inclusive architecture like his predecessors -- only his predecessors actually were bringing something to the table in terms of trade liberalizing agreements with Korea and other countries in the region. The second area of criticism would be the administration's willingness to pull punches on human rights and democracy. The president's decision not to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington in August (the first rebuff to the Tibetan Spiritual Leader by a U.S. President in recent memory) was particularly problematic.

Predictions?

The Obama administration will grow tired of China. Obama expanded the Bush administration's Strategic Economic Dialogue into a Strategic and Economic Dialogue and raised expectations of progress with Beijing on everything from climate change to Iran and North Korea. But in the wake of the financial crisis Beijing sees itself as externally stronger and internally more vulnerable. That is not a recipe for more cooperation with Washington. Chinese support for North Korea's economy is increasing in the wake of Pyongyang's nuclear test and China will be relying on coal for 80 percent of its energy no matter how well discussions of climate change cooperation go (and they are not going that well). Then there is the unyielding PLA position on the South China Sea, cyber-security and a host of other security problems that will vex the Obama administration's China policy over the coming years. Usually, new administrations come into power in Washington having talked themselves into a tense relationship with Beijing during the election campaign and then they adjust to a more centrist and stable relationship with China (true of Regan, Carter, Clinton and G.W. Bush). The Obama administration came in without having engaged in a contentious debate over China policy with McCain, but may now find itself under increasing pressure to be tough with Beijing.

Photo by Korean Central Television/Yonhap via Getty Images

By Dan Blumenthal

Overall, Obama's Asia policy has been largely driven by events and domestic priorities rather than by an overarching strategic vision. The Obama team had to closely coordinate with China on financial matters in response to the financial crisis. Passing a cap and trade bill at home means that we need China to sign up to a global climate change pact; Americans will chafe at a costly bill if the world's largest carbon emitters do not agree to carbon reductions.

The Obama team attempted a new policy on Burma. The idea is to find a way to engage the military junta which would strengthen relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, of which Burma is a member. But the policy change has been overtaken by events.

Aung San Suu Kyi was unfairly punished when an American swam across a lake to her residence. And the junta began a new round of repression, as its leaders jail and harass political opponents in the run up to their 2010 "elections." Obama could not radically shift Burma policy. Rather, adjustments to our relations with ASEAN and Burma have been only marginal. There has been some more contact with the junta. And as part of the broader attempt to build stronger relations with Southeast Asia, the administration signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). These and visits to Southeast Asia by Secretary Clinton and her deputy, Jim Steinberg, demonstrate a desire to deepen American engagement with that region. It is unlikely that engaging Burma or signing the TAC will increase America's regional influence.

Surprise?

There are several Obama Asia policies that have been surprising. On a positive note, the Obama team has given much greater attention to the Japan alliance than I had expected. Secretary Clinton's first stop in Asia was in Tokyo, which eased Japanese concerns that they were in for another round of "Japan passing." Since the Democratic Party of Japan took over last September, Obama officials have visited Japan frequently to get a sense of how to deal with a party that has never before governed. The Obama team should be commended for trying to find its way with this inexperienced and eclectic ruling coalition.

Constructive Criticism?

Other policies should give us pause. For example, Obama is sticking to his campaign promises on trade, which means we have no trade policy. The Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has been collecting dust in the Congress. The rest of the region, however, is not standing still. China seems to sign a trade agreement a minute and South Korea is moving forward on an FTA with the EU. If this continues, not only will our economy be disadvantaged, but our regional leadership will also suffer. While the Obama administration has done a fine job showing up to Asian multilateral meetings, without new trade proposals it has shown up empty handed.

A second troubling policy is the absence of any agenda on Taiwan. The Obama team was effusive in its praise of President Ma when he was elected in March 2008 and they applaud his attempts to ease tensions with the Mainland. The Taiwan president is doing what he thinks Washington wants - easing cross Strait tensions. But there was an implicit bargain with Taiwan that we are not upholding. We were supposed to strengthen Ma's hand by strengthening our ties to Taiwan. The Obama team is not helping Ma.  We have not sold any arms to Taiwan even as China has continued its arms buildup across the Strait. And Obama has no plans of yet to deepen economic ties as Taiwan goes forward with a China FTA.

Third, the bluntness with which the team has downplayed China's miserable human rights record is an unfortunate break with past administrations' practices. Secretary Clinton announced that she would deemphasize human rights concerns on her first trip to China. This was followed by the president's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan spiritual leader was in Washington last month. The administration has also been silent on Uighur repression and will not meet with Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer. It does not help either country for us to pretend that we are indifferent about Chinese respect for human rights, when in reality we have a huge stake in China's political liberalization.

Overall, despite a regular barrage of criticism by Candidate Obama directed at President Bush for his supposed neglect of Asia (never a fair criticism), the Obama team has not wowed the region with new ideas or lavished it with attention. During Bush's first year, his administration had offered the largest arms package ever to Taiwan, was well on its way to substantially upgrading ties with Japan, and was negotiating a diplomatic breakthrough with India of historical significance. Then-U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick was negotiating free trade agreements with Singapore, Australia, and Korea.

The criticism of the Bush administration was that it was "distracted" by the war on terror. The Obama team is learning that fighting a war saps a nation's energy and attention. Now in office, the Obama team can see that the threat from Islamic extremism is very real. The Obama team may have really believed that they could "fix" Afghanistan, disengage from Iraq, and then move on to "re-engaging" the rest of the world.

As Obama is learning, it is not so easy to "move on" when you are at war. No president can disconnect a major foreign policy issue such as war from other foreign policy issues. Asians have a stake in America's Afghanistan policy. A loss in Afghanistan would have stark consequences, as friend and foe alike would question our resolve, and Islamic extremism would rear its head again in Southeast Asia.

Prediction?

Obama's Asia team must be finding that during wartime, presidential attention is the scarcest of commodities. Obama has no choice but to focus on "the wars we are in," often at the expense of the Obama team's hopes for a grand "re-engagement" with Asia.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

By Phil Levy

Surprises?

I have been most surprised by President Obama's policy toward China. Trade with China was a major concern of labor groups in the election and then-Senator Obama signed pledges about the aggressive approach he would take. This included a commitment to find that China was a currency manipulator -- a stance reiterated by Treasury Secretary Geithner in his confirmation testimony. If anything, the facts shifted in favor of a currency finding against China: the exchange rate has not moved in over a year and the United States is borrowing less from abroad (suggesting less dependence).

Praiseworthy?

However, in April and October, the Obama Treasury repeated the finding of the Bush Treasury, that there were no currency manipulators worth mentioning. If you combine this with the docile stance on human rights that my Shadow Government colleagues have already mentioned, it might be explained as a surprising but consistent attempt to engage China as an important economic player. Yet the administration also chose to confront the Chinese with a weak decision on low-cost tires.

Constructive Criticism?

For constructive criticism, I would turn to the administration's broader trade policy. President Obama has attempted to warm international relations while chilling commercial relations. In China, Colombia, S. Korea, Brazil, India, and the European Union, there is growing aggravation at the administration's lack of a trade policy. It is high time that the president deliver his long-promised speech and resolve the conflicts within his party on trade. That could clear the way for reengagement with the rest of the world.

Prediction?

Finally, as a prediction for one year hence, I forecast serious international rancor over the environment. President Obama is in a bind. If there is no U.S. action on climate change, there will be sharp condemnation and disillusionment from abroad. If there is action, it seems likely to entail border measures (tariffs) that could threaten the global trading system. It is hard to see how this ends well.

PHILIPPE WOJAZER/AFP/Getty Images

By Will Inboden

Surprise?

If one year ago on Election Day someone would have told me that the same President Obama whose campaign promised to repair America's global image would spend his first year in office visibly rejecting human rights and democracy promotion, I would not have believed it. Though I and many others have commented on this previously, it still ranks as the biggest surprise (and biggest disappointment) of his foreign policy thus far. Especially since America's historic commitment to human rights and democracy promotion has been one of its greatest soft power assets and sources of global goodwill.

Praiseworthy?

One thing worthy of praise is the administration's emerging Africa policy. President Obama's speech in Ghana was an admirable call for improved governance, reduced corruption, growth through enterprise, and African responsibility for Africa's future -- and it could not have been delivered by a more effective messenger.

Constructive Criticism?

One growing worry is the Obama administration's shaky relations with the Great Powers which -- whether from poor personal chemistry or divergent interests -- could significantly hinder U.S. leverage going forward on several fronts. U.S.-Japan relations are near their worst in a generation (though the Obama administration was dealt a tough hand with the DPJ's election victory). The chill between Sarkozy and Obama is also hurting U.S. relations with France. Russia has thus far offered no significant reciprocal gestures for the U.S. capitulation on missile defense. Obama enjoys little chemistry with Gordon Brown (though to be fair, few leaders do) and has signaled indifference towards the U.S.-UK Special Relationship. U.S.-Germany ties are strong but will soon be tested by Germany's economic relationship with Iran. The Obama administration's China policy is too focused on financing U.S. debt while not pressing China to play a more constructive role on North Korea and Iran's nuclear weapons programs. And while the administration is atoning for its early neglect of India by hosting Prime Minister Singh soon for a state visit, the U.S.-India relationship will need consistent and high level attention in order to reach its potential -- attention that it is not clear the White House will maintain, especially if doing so incurs China's displeasure.  

MICHEL EULER/AFP/Getty Images

After my previous posts in this series grappled with the likely plight of the falling dollar and some of the economic implications of its privileged status in the global economy, this concluding post will consider the question:

What do the dollar's role and value mean for U.S. foreign policy?

There is a macho tinge to the U.S. Treasury mantra that a strong dollar is in the U.S. interest. After all, isn't it always better to be strong than weak? There is a suggestion that at $1 to the euro, we are virile and able to bend other nations to our will, while at $2 to the euro, we will be feeble and submissive.

It is not obvious why that should be so. There are a couple upsides to a weaker dollar. Fred Bergsten, in a new Foreign Affairs analysis, argues that "the United States itself would benefit from a reduction in the international role of the dollar." In Bergsten's view, the easy credit that has accompanied dollar primacy has tempted the country into misguided policies. He writes: "Unless the United States quickly achieves and maintains a sustainable economic position, its ability to pursue autonomous economic and foreign policies will become increasingly compromised." A falling dollar is thus a mechanism whereby excessive U.S. borrowing from abroad can be rolled back. To the extent a weakened dollar would bring about such global rebalancing, it would help to meet a stated goal of world leaders in recent G-20 meetings.

Beyond this indirect gain, the most direct effect of a weakened dollar would be to hike the cost of goods imported into the United States and make American goods appear cheaper to the rest of the world. This, over time, would likely ease the pressures for trade protectionism that have increasingly strained U.S. relations with countries like China, Canada, Mexico, and the members of the European Union.

Each of those benefits to a diminished dollar shares a similar quality. Under a strong dollar, the argument goes, we cannot resist the temptation to sin. We know that excessive borrowing is a bad idea, but we just can't help ourselves. We know that trade protection is ill-advised, but who can resist the political pressure?

As soon as we move away from introspection, we see some of the foreign policy downsides to a weaker dollar. The first and most direct are the economic impacts. With a weaker dollar, all U.S. ventures abroad become more expensive. During the period of the dollar's decline, the United States becomes less attractive as an investment destination, since foreign investors would expect to recoup fewer yen, yuan, or euros when they cash out. Future financial crises - and they are sure to come -- will be much more painful if global investors do not rush to the dollar as a safe haven.

An even greater difficulty, from a foreign policy standpoint, could be a sense among allies that the United States is an unreliable partner. As the provider of the world's reserve currency, America has had both special rights and special obligations. The rights have included the ability to print money to pay for whatever we liked (technical term: seigniorage). The obligation has been to keep the value of the dollar relatively stable. From the reactions to the dollar's recent slide, we can anticipate the sort of discord that might accompany a more significant move. From Thursday's Washington Post:

The weak dollar is becoming a source of international tension, particularly in U.S.-European relations. Officials in the 16 countries that use the euro warn a continued slide of the dollar may pose long-term structural problems for Europe, forcing down wages and hurting employment in the months and years ahead. This week, a top aide to French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the value of the dollar "a disaster" for Europe, warning of dire consequences to the global economy if it remains at its current levels.

China reacted to U.S. borrowing plans at the beginning of this year with a call for guarantees of the value of its dollar lending. They were clearly worried about a depreciation of the dollar, which would undercut the value of China's massive reserves.  While G-20 nations were calling for global rebalancing at their Pittsburgh summit (by which they really meant that China should appreciate its currency and import more goods), Chinese President Hu Jintao said:

"Major reserve-currency issuing countries should take into account and balance the implications of their monetary policies for both their own economies and the world economy with a view to upholding stability of international financial markets."

This nicely captures the dilemma facing the Obama Administration. How do you catch a falling dollar? A classic approach would be for the U.S. government to stand ready to raise interest rates and adopt plans for future fiscal austerity. It would be responsible, but it would not be much fun, particularly at a time when U.S. unemployment is approaching 10 percent.

Suppose, instead, the dollar continues to slide and loses its premier status among world currencies. There could be domestic political benefits, but it would leave key countries economically bruised and seething. It is very difficult to tell such a story in which the United States' standing, prestige, and ability to project power do not decline along with its currency. U.S. foreign policy prowess would not be immune should the dollar fall from grace.

John Moore/Getty Images

By Dan Twining

Today's Wall Street Journal has a thought-provoking piece by Marcus Walker asking whether, on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, China's model of authoritarian capitalism presents a new ideological challenge to the West, one comparable to that of communist totalitarianism during the Cold War.

Some Western thinkers now argue that democracy is in a new competition with unexpectedly robust authoritarian regimes over which form of government can better deliver prosperity, security and national strength. ...

Today, history is back, according to writers such as Israeli military historian Azar Gat. In his new book, "Victorious and Vulnerable," he says that although democracy is the most benign system in history, it will have to demonstrate its advantages all over again in the face of its latest rival: authoritarian capitalism, as practiced by self-confident powers such as China and Russia. ...

Neither China nor Russia is actively promoting its system of government the way the U.S. does. But China's recent growth in particular is feeding a conviction in parts of the world that democracy isn't necessary, or even helpful, for prosperity, say some analysts.

"There are hundreds of millions of people, especially in Asia, who believe that democracy usually means more bickering, more indecision and less economic efficiency, and that it requires a trade-off with prosperity that they're not prepared to pay," says Jonathan Eyal, director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute, a nonpartisan foreign-affairs think tank in London.

Mr. Eyal argues that the backlash against Western-style democracy began while 1989's democratic revolutions were still under way -- thanks above all to the way Beijing reacted to that year's convulsions."

This is certainly true of China, where constraints on freedom of political expression were far looser in the 1980s than today, demonstrating how the country's inexorable economic march has been accompanied by tighter limits on political speech and action. But most of Asia has been marching in the opposite direction. More Asians live under democratic rule than in any other region. Democracy has an Asian face; it's no longer considered a Western privilege or export but something Asians earned themselves -- from dictators often supported by the United States during the Cold War.

Chinese authoritarianism actually has a reverse "demonstration effect" in many countries. Just look at the numbers: despite its miraculous growth, China enjoys less "soft power" in Asia than either the United States or Japan. China's neighbors want to be part of its economic miracle, but they don't want to organize their societies along Chinese lines. Asians want to buy Chinese goods, but they don't want to be part of any new "Middle Kingdom." This debate played out at a summit of Asian leaders last weekend, where key countries resisted efforts to put China in the driver's seat of closed regional institutions that exclude America and other friendly powers like India.

Rather than a political model for its region, China is in some respects an outlier: its closed political system puts it in the company of Burma, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. This is a minority camp in Asia, and is in many ways a defensive grouping compared to the confidence pluralism inspires in giant democracies like India and Indonesia, and rich ones like South Korea and Taiwan. While the region certainly suffers from weak institutions, Asia is arguably the world's democratic trendsetter, rejecting the embrace and export of authoritarianism of the kind that characterizes, say, Russia. 

Check out Minxin Pei's China's Trapped Transition and Susan Shirk's China: Fragile Superpower to plumb the depths of Chinese leaders' greatest source of insecurity: their own people. It will be hard to run the world with that handicap.

AFP/AFP/Getty Images

By Daniel Blumenthal

John Pomfret's front page article in the Washington Post on the Obama administration's arm twisting of the Dalai Lama is quite astounding.

It is further reason to doubt that Obama's "strategic reassurance" policy is anything but a policy of appeasing the PRC. How far will this lead? Successive U.S. administrations have balanced the desire to integrate China into the international political order with concerns over China's intentions as it continues to gain in power. This is the historic challenge that all established powers face in dealing with rising powers. No matter what Obama thinks, America cannot just avoid basic dilemmas in international politics with which all great powers have had to grapple.

The other challenge, since China is a dictatorship and the United States is a highly ideological country (in the most basic sense that we are a people tied together by a set of ideas we believe to be universal), has always been how to engage China without abandoning core democratic principles. Obama, like his Secretary of State before him, has made great strides in undoing that balance. Why? What exactly will he get from abandoning a long-term U.S. policy of publicly supporting the Dali Lama?

"Sources" claim that they hoped to gain cooperation from the Chinese on North Korean disarmament and the attempt to halt Iran's nuclear weapons drive. Another "source" claimed Obama is not "interested in symbolism" or "photo ops" that have not worked in the past.

These administration sources have now laid out the criteria against which Obama should be judged. Let's look for "deliverables" out of Obama's November China trip. We certainly have tried many times before to get the Chinese to be more proactive in disarming North Korea and in helping to resist Iran's destabilizing behavior. So let's see if the Obama administration's capitulation on the Dalai Lama now secures real Chinese moves against these countries which China so heavily subsidizes. It would be nice to get some concessions first before making concessions ourselves. Have the Chinese secretly agreed to squeeze the North Koreans or Iranians? Have we told Beijing we are going ahead with the sale of F-16s to Taiwan? I doubt it.

Then let's watch closely to see if the move away from "symbolism" (ironic as that is, given Obama's belief that his very existence as president is in and of itself changing the world) with respect to Tibet actually secures Tibetans' basic rights of religious freedom and cultural autonomy.

Count me as skeptical. Without many other levers of statecraft to affect Chinese behavior in Tibet, our "symbolic" high level meetings with the Dalai Lama are important morale boosters for Tibetans and human rights activists throughout China. And, these meetings provide some restraint over a China willing to go to extreme levels of brutality in repressing Tibetan rights.

By Phil Levy

We know President Obama is proud of his proposal to reform the nation's health care system; he spoke of it before a joint session of Congress last Wednesday evening. Judging by the timing, he was distinctly less proud of his decision to slap three years of hefty tariffs on low-cost tires imported from China. That announcement came at 9:45 pm on Friday. The decision was due this week, but the move smells of rank protectionism, and there was no better opportunity to bury the story than last Friday night.

It made for an awkward sendoff for Wu Bangguo, Chairman of China's legislature, who had just been visiting Washington. It did not escape notice back in Beijing, either. The Chinese had been sending warnings about how seriously they took this case for months. A Chinese Ministry of Commerce official was quoted on Saturday as saying that China "strongly opposes the serious act of trade protectionism," and that the tariffs mark a breach of U.S. pledges made at the April G20 summit in London to avoid raising trade barriers. Fortunately, there is no indication that the spokesman actually uttered the phrase, "You lie!"

Nor has any Chinese official been heard to say: "Don't worry. We understand. It's just economics." Obama has long seemed to draw a distinction between a warm, multilateral approach to international diplomacy, and a cautious or even hostile approach to international economic relations. For many countries, however, international economic relations are so important to their well-being that they are inseparable from those countries' foreign policy concerns.

Increasing tensions with China have also featured some classic international relations misunderstandings, such as misattribution of intent. The Chinese were already upset about a U.S. countervailing duty decision last week that imposed new barriers against Chinese steel pipe. The pipe and tire decisions seemed to constitute a trend of protectionist U.S. actions. In fact, the two decisions are very different. Obama had full discretion over the tire tariffs and none over the pipe decision.

But the Chinese were not the only ones to be confused. In the wake of the tires decision, United Steel Workers President Leo Gerard exalted, "The President sent the message that we expect others to live by the rules, just as we do." U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk certainly encouraged this interpretation, by linking the decision to the Obama administration's campaign for enhanced enforcement of trade laws. In fact, the tires decision had nothing to do with malfeasance on China's part.

To clarify, there are a number of ways the United States might slap tariffs on a country. Congress could pass a tariff bill, in the tradition of the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, but that's very rare. It's much more common to use mechanisms that are permitted under world trade law. Two of these, the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) mechanisms, address transgressions by trading partners. The steel pipe decision was an interim step in a CVD (anti-subsidy) case. Congress allows the president no role in these cases. Even if Obama had thought the steel pipe decision was ludicrous, there was nothing he could have done about it. 

In contrast, Friday night's tire decision was the culmination of a "safeguard" case. Safeguards allow the president to respond when a U.S. industry has been injured by a surge in imports. The ITC can recommend a remedy, but the president is free to accept, modify, or reject that recommendation. In the tires case, Obama imposed lower tariffs than the ITC called for. The China-specific safeguard he relied upon was agreed as part of China's entry into the WTO in 2001.

President George W. Bush had four opportunities to impose such tariffs on Chinese goods and turned down all four. Critics decried these decisions as selling out U.S. workers, appeasing China, and demonstrating a slavish adherence to free-trade ideology. I played a very small role in two of those four decisions and remember the reasoning somewhat differently. The only beneficiaries of tariffs in those cases would have been Vietnamese, Brazilians, or Indians.

Here's the problem. The China safeguard is a bilateral policy in a multilateral world. The Chinese are often the lowest-cost suppliers of a good, but they're not the only suppliers. In the Bush cases, importers testified credibly that if Chinese imports were blocked, other countries would undersell U.S. manufacturers in these particular products.

The tire situation appears to be similar. U.S. tire producers did not even support the case; they said they were more interested in producing high-end tires. The petition was filed by the United Steel Workers. If U.S. tire producers are uninterested, then there is little prospect of gains for American workers. The tires will just be sourced from other countries at somewhat higher cost.

So where does this all leave us? New American jobs appear unlikely. Prices should rise a bit for U.S. consumers. Some lucky third country will gain new American orders, redirected away from China. And there is real concern that other countries will follow the U.S. lead. China is exploring ways to block U.S. cars and poultry. Later this month, Pittsburgh G20 discussions of how to pursue open markets together should be particularly awkward. But at least Obama retains the support of organized labor.