KISSINGER ON ROSE: CONSTRUCTING STRATEGIC TIES TO CHINA

Henry Kissinger, in a recent appearance on Charlie Rose, gave a masterclass on US-China relations at the occasion of President Hu's recent January 2011 visit to Washington.

Hu Jintao's time in Washington was not long enough to begin constructing a real relationship with Obama, but it did begin the process of redefining the Beijing-DC relationship while conveying the seriousness of the leaders' intentions. But the crucial part still lies ahead - meaningful follow-up is essential. And therein lies Barack Obama's challenge: to maintain consistent consultation with China not just on day-to-day matters, but on defining the overall direction of the partnership.

Some highlights of the interview:

"Facts of Life"
- The Chinese are not world dominators, but rather strategic thinkers requiring to be treated with due respect.
- China is rightful to exploit its strengths to increase its relative global power, economic position, and political weight. Its military development is natural and to be expected.
- In 25 years, China will be more powerful, but not the most powerful nation in world. Why? Its unheard of growth will be mitigated by its inherent development contradiction (highly-developed coasts vs. grossly undeveloped interior).

US Needs Attitude Adjustment
- As the US's relative dominance declines, "our duty as statesmen" is to understand that the world is full of countries capable of asserting their leadership. And certainly not to panic .
- The US should not give image of working to impede China's power. Instead, all US relationships should follow a pattern compatible with natural geopolitical growth and evolutions.

China and America's Shared Philosophical Challenges
- Need for larger strategic vision framework to guide their development and transforming roles in 21st Century
- Elites in both nations prefer more clashes than cooperation... (US fears Chinese world domination, no trust for China, believes they are taking advantage of US on technology transfer / China believes their turn to lead is now following centuries of humiliation, must seize on unprecedented moment of US vulnerability)
- ...but political leaders have come to realization of need for mutual cooperation
- Both seek appropriate balance between strength, domination, and cooperation vis-à-vis the other - neither wants to be too weak to be ineffective in negotiations, neither wants to dominate so thoroughly as to pose existential threat to other.

India
- A closer relationship with India is necessary for the very fact of India's existence, but it is important not to build this tie on the premise of curbing China's rise.

Iran
- Need for serious bilateral talks about where the world is headed over the next 3 years to make the Iranian nuke issue about broader strategic development rather than to allow the impression that the US is simply looking to dominate the region's energy to later use as a tool for blackmail.
- Importance of more Track 2 diplomatic work.

Global Economy/Currency
- The Chinese really believed that they stood to learn from the US on economic matters - Onset of crisis led to disillusionment and humiliation on the part of the US's staunchest Chinese advocates
- The crisis reduced US credibility on its currency demands in the eyes of the Chinese.
- To accomplish changes in the value of the yuan (which will increase China's unemployment and affect its exports), we need to create a mutual framework in which Beijing's contribution is changes to currency value and Washington's contribution is "x". The key is to avoid the appearance of China having capitulated.

To watch the full interview: Kissinger on Charlie Rose

- Amy Greene

THE WEEK IN US FOREIGN POLICY (9-15 NOVEMBER)

AFGHANISTAN
Obama has yet to issue a decision on an Afghan strategy. There are 4 options on the table - McChrystal's “all-in” of 40,000 troops; Gates/Clinton's preferred "middle road" of 30,000 troops; a more "user friendly" option of 20,000 troops; and a fourth with no numbers attached. The "user friendly" option would surely better suit the public mood – currently 54% of the American public disapproves of escalation. The fourth option is seen as a gesture to Joe Biden, the administration's leading voice against sending more troops.

Obama has demonstrated a tendency to err on the side of meticulous decision-making rather than on speed. But as David Broder noted, sometimes any decision is better than none. Having already promised (and sent) more troops this summer, Obama demands that any further US action must be accompanied by "offramps," effective means to hand the job over to sufficiently trained Afghans.

A series of cables sent to Obama by Ambassador and General Karl Eikenberry were leaked this week, refreshing a stale debate in Washington while giving the president some additional political cover. By arguing against troop escalation (that would diminish Afghan ability to meet the challenges of a post-American Afghanistan) and by questioning both Karzai and his government’s corruption, Eikenberry returned the focus to questions surrounding the still-undefined strategy: Is the goal to capture Al-Qaeda? To root out the Taliban? Is it to bring security to the Afghan people? To battle corruption? What role for Pakistan? No consensus seems to exist around where the central focus lies.

ASIA
Obama traveled to Asia this week in a multi-stop tour of the region scheduled around the APEC summit and subsequent ASEAN leaders meeting. He also held a bilateral with Russian President Medvedev. The APEC meeting produced underwhelming results on climate change, as leaders failed to formalize a binding accord in advance of December's Copenhagen Summit.

The trip marks a milestone in US-Burma relations in which Obama and Burmese leaders sat at the same table. Though not a bilateral, Obama used the occasion to introduce direct talks to the current sanctions-heavy policy and to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. While looking for new avenues to cooperate with China, Obama and President Hu Jintao are expected to discuss the value of the Chinese currency, increasing Chinese consumption of US goods, bilateral economic relations, and human rights.

Obama also has an obligation to use this trip to reassure smaller regional allies who view America’s realpolitik approach vis-à-vis big powers with skepticism. Obama must reassure them that America will help mitigate the rise of China and uphold its security guarantees in the face of China’s rise, Russian ambitions, and North Korean proliferation. Obama must make the effort to show these smaller allies that America will not relax its commitments and thus make acquiescence to Beijing an undesired - yet necessary - political choice for these nations.

MIDDLE EAST
On Monday, November 9, Obama sat down one-on-one with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Major topics purportedly included Mahmoud Abbas' threat to quit and the consequences of a possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority on the flagging peace process. Since Secretary Clinton called Israel's nine-month suspension of new settlements "unprecedented," the White House has fought to repair the fallout from Clinton's gaffe. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called publicly for a full freeze. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns then said Israel's efforts "fall short" of their "obligations" under the roadmap. A good faith message to reassure Abbas, Burns' language is notable because Palestinians consider a settlement freeze an Israeli obligation rather than a mere “precondition.”

TERRORISM
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Gitmo detainees in civilian federal court in New York. Should problems arise in the prosecution, Obama risks backlash from politicians who do not want terrorists brought to court in their districts. The political price could be retaliation against other parts of the Obama agenda. Nonetheless, Obama's move demonstrates the administration's eagerness to bring the perpetrators to justice (Mohammed has repeatedly confessed not only to planning 9/11 but also to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl). Many critics regret this move, denouncing the possible effects of redefining the events of 9/11 as a civil crime rather than an act of war.

-Amy Greene