Clinton Gets Tough on China


Pages: 1 2

President Barack Obama caused a stir on Nov. 9 when, in response to a question asked at a joint press conference with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, he said, “We think China being prosperous and secure is a positive.  And we’re not interested in containing that process. We want China to continue to achieve its development goals.” After a summer of diplomatic confrontations along the Pacific Rim, for the U.S. president to wish to see China grow stronger seemed more than odd. Yet, Obama was just falling back on what has been a boilerplate talking-point since the Clinton administration. If it sounds increasingly hollow and misguided, it is because the rise of Chinese ambitions has been drawing the smaller nations of Asia back towards the United States, which has, in turn, been strengthening its alliances with nations like Japan and India.

Though the White House line has been that Obama’s tour of Asia is focused on export promotion, it is clear that the president’s only stops — India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan — signal a geopolitical agenda that is aimed at containing China, though other terms are being used. When asked the same question posed to Obama, Yudhoyono responded:

We also have the responsibility to ensure stability and security in our region. I am not using any theory or the theory of one power to counterbalance the other powers.  But I do have the view that there must be some form of dynamic equilibrium in Asia Pacific, in East and Southeast Asia.

Prior to this statement, Obama and Yudhoyono had discussed “the issue of the South China Sea and how various maritime issues, conflicts, can get resolved in a peaceful fashion.”  Beijing’s assertion of control over the South and East China seas was at the center of the summer’s turmoil. It was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who took the lead last July in pledging U.S. support against the Chinese at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum in Vietnam. A group of U.S. aircraft carriers though the South China Sea and a port visit to Danang by a guided missile destroyer backed up her words.

At a Nov. 9 Washington event to launch his important new book Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power, Robert D. Kaplan noted that by assigning major duties in the Middle East to special envoys, Secretary Clinton has been freed up to concentrate on Asia. This is an interest she showed from the onset of her tenure when she managed to wrest a co-chair slot with China for the State Department in the twice yearly Strategic and Economic Dialogue summits. These meetings had been initiated and run by the more collaborationist Treasury Department.

Beijing understands this very well. A Nov. 10 editorial in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times warned: “a couple of smart power tricks are shaking the vulnerable stability in the western Pacific.” The essay mentions only Clinton, not Obama. “Clinton has a complicated interpretation of the ‘smart power’ theory. She uses a handful of tools such as diplomacy, economics, military, and politics, as well as legal, and cultural tools,” said the paper, adding:

The fact that a few words by Clinton could have such an impact in this region indicates that many countries in Asia are more or less under the influence of the US. It doesn’t matter if these countries felt they were acting on their best interests or not, they often made their moves as if they were robots programmed by the US.

Indonesia is about to assume the chair of ASEAN. The week before Obama’s trip to Asia commenced, Clinton represented the U.S. at the East Asia Summit in Vietnam.  The secretary has spent a great deal of time cultivating amicability with the nations of Southeast Asia, but the president does not seem to care. He spent a minimum amount of time in Jakarta, then rewarded David Carden, a political fundraiser with no diplomatic experience, with an appointment as ambassador to ASEAN — as if it were a mere patronage post.

No wonder China’s leaders hope they can appeal to President Obama to restrain Secretary Clinton. In September, the president seemed to be trying to ease tensions by meeting personally with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. There, he stressed economic cooperation, always the counter to national security concerns about great power rivalry.

Pages: 1 2

  • Cuinn

    And yet the Clintons were the ones who sold the USA out to the Chinese in the first place.

    • USMCSniper

      It is well known that Bill Clinton and his administration have facilitated sensitive technology transfers to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign donations and other favors. Not only were there technology transfers that amounted to treason, but multiple counts of espionage were covered up as apparent "payback" for donations received. Thanks to Bill Clinton and other accomplices, the U.S. government's response to the nuclear theft at Los Alamos was marked by delays, inaction and skepticism—even though some senior intelligence officials believed the theft was among the most damaging cases of espionage in recent history.

      • hijinx60

        Sniper: Wasn't a US currency printing press part of Clintons' package to China? I seem to remember it being so.

  • jacob

    Want to stop COMMNIST CHINA power ??

    ENACT IMPORT TARIFFS TO THEIR GOODS PRICES ON UNFAIR COMPETITION AND BRING BACK THE MADE IN USA TAG… ! ! !

    ISN'T THIS THE JOBS, JOBS, JOBS WHAT OBAMA HAS BEEN YELLING ABOUT ??

    BUT THIS SOLUTION NEVER OCCURED SO FAR TO HIM OR ANY AMERICAN POLITICIAN, RIGHT ???

    WHAT'S THE MATTER ??

    IS IT TOO EASY OF RATHER "POLITICALLY INCORRECT" ?????

  • WilliamJamesWard

    To think that China would sweat Clinton is a farce, she carries
    chop sticks in her shorts and Bill is their shill. Obama's trip
    was a boondoggle and an exercise in spending our tax
    dollars for his self satisfaction and shall I say he was just
    showing off and telling America to stick it. Two loons and
    they hold the Offices of President and Secretary of State,
    take that to bed and try to sleep……………………William

  • http://freetradedoesntwork.com Ian Fletcher

    The real problem with our economy is free trade, which is killing jobs and running down our industrial base. *Real* economics doesn't suport free trade.

    See my book "Free Trade Doesn't Work" for details; the website is at http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com.