Friends Without Benefits: The Bush/Obama China Policy

Note: One of us (Michael) just returned from China, his third trip in six months; the purpose of this trip was to launch his latest book, China 2020 - How Western Business Can - and Should - Influence Social and Political Change in the Coming Decade (Cornell University Press 2009). Our latest blog focuses on the political and business climate he found during his recent visits.

The sentiment here isn't being driven by the fact that his book launch at a Beijing bookstore was shut down by the police two days before anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Michael's personal brush with Chinese censorship is extremely minor compared with the fate suffered every day by Chinese citizens like jailed democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, or rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who was disbarred and has been missing since February 4 when he was taken away by the state police. Michael was considerably more fortunate; on the morning of June 4 -- the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre -- he was able to launch his book at an event cosponsored by Western business groups.

110 people, a large audience for this kind of forum, showed up at the book launch, and a frank discussion ensued on the themes of China 2020, i.e. the degree to which capitalism and Western business were contributing -- or not -- to the development of freedom and human rights in China. In the public discussion, as well as in private discussions with both Chinese and Western business people, Michael reached the sobering realization that it may perhaps be too late to expect Western business to have the hoped-for positive impact in China.

What was striking about these conversations in recent months was the air of complete resignation and capitulation about how Westerners can do business in China. In the words of one American corporate lawyer, "The foreign business community has gone completely native." The clash of civilizations between the free market and authoritarian China is turning out to be a rout -- and the free market isn't winning. As has been true throughout the centuries, Westerners seeking to change China are once again banging their heads against the Great Wall. Any change will be on China's terms, and in no way is it going to benefit the companies doing the compromising. A good example is Google, which bent over backwards to please the Chinese government; despite all its accommodations, it remains a minor player in the Chinese Internet search market.

As Google, Cisco, and Yahoo! learned when they were asked to comply with China's Internet censorship policy, and as Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Apple are about to discover as they review the party-state's demand to install censorship software on all computers sold in China, even high-tech companies offering sophisticated products need to be filtered through the screen of the party-state before they can be sold into the Chinese market. The sad truth is that quality and efficiency are not the surest means to prosper in the "new" China; rather, it's the "old" Communist-era formula of good personal relations with the party-state. As argued in China 2020, this excessive reliance on personalized relations instead of the rule of law is creating long-term instability for business property rights in China. But in interview after interview, Western and Chinese business executives said they had no other choice if they wanted to continue doing business in China. In fact, in almost a decade since China entered the WTO not one Western company has exercised its WTO legal rights to challenge any level of Chinese government. Unless this pattern changes and changes fast, Western nations are going to wake up soon and find they're sharing world power with a mostly poor, economically stagnant and increasingly hostile China that still fancies itself a world superpower.

Because the Western business community is so cowed by the party-state, positive change will require a nuanced foreign policy from Western governments. Thus far, however, the Obama Administration's approach to relations with China mirrors that of the Bush Administration, and offers little hope of questioning the dominance of the party-state on any front. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China earlier this year, she shockingly announced that human rights were no longer on the table between the U.S. and China because of the ascendancy of economic issues. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the other half of the Obama Administration's China team, came to Beijing on June 1 of this year, discussed long-term trends in the U.S. bond market, and skulked out of town just before the Tiananmen anniversary lest he find himself in the embarrassing situation of having to offer an opinion about the event. To her credit, Secretary Clinton did put out a press release calling for a full accounting of the events in Tiananmen Square; in an indication of Chinese disdain for the message, it was immediately and unceremoniously rebuffed by a lower-level Chinese official.

What will be the place of democracy and human rights when Secretaries Clinton and Geithner meet with high-ranking Chinese officials at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue scheduled in Washington this July? What will President Obama, who spoke so eloquently about democracy and human rights in Cairo, say on these subjects when he makes his first visit to China at a still to be determined date? We don't know those answers yet, but given what we've seen to date, we're worried.

What's clear is that we need a reset of the fundamental premises underlying our current relationship with China. The point is not that we should go back to an era of China-bashing and negativity -- economic engagement is still a good idea, and it has in fact led to many dramatically positive economic and social changes in China. However, the idea that the best way to interact with China in the 21st Century is to be an unquestioning "friend," and the belief that economic engagement will automatically lead to progress on democracy and human rights, are simply not valid. Nor is it true that China is holding all the cards because they buy our treasury securities. The economic relationship between the two countries is much more complex, with both sides highly mutually dependent. U.S. negotiators play right into China's hands by feebly assuming that we are dealing with "the China that can say no." In fact, because of China's dependence on trade with the U.S., both sides have great economic leverage.

The weak-kneed and vague "friends without benefits" policy has been promoted by a narrow band of short-sighted business interest groups and their enablers, like Kissinger Associates, who are worried about losing out on an illusory China gold rush. It should be obvious by now that simply adopting the Bush Administration's China policy without scrutiny isn't working any better for the Obama Administration than it did for its predecessor; the latest casualty was American climate change envoy Todd Stern, who came back empty-handed from a much-ballyhooed negotiation in Beijing. China has also been less helpful than we'd hoped in dealing with the Korean peninsula.

If America is to positively advance our long-term relationship with China, the Obama Administration needs to take back our China policy from the special interests. In the same way that President Obama courageously spoke about the concerns of the West with the Muslim world, this administration will need to find a voice to speak constructively with China on a broad range of issues -- from WTO compliance and intellectual property to Internet freedom, product safety, and labor rights. The point is not to make China into an enemy, but rather to be more thoughtful about how we can develop a realistic and sustainable friendship based on shared interests rather than blind and unquestioning acceptance.

When President Bill Clinton traveled to China in 1998, he gave a forceful speech at Beijing University (Beida) quoting Benjamin Franklin in a call for improvements in human rights conditions: "Our critics are our friends, for they show us our faults." It was a powerful moment, and was televised throughout China. We wonder whether President Obama, in his first trip to China, will rise to the occasion the way he did in Cairo, or whether the current administration policy on China will continue to drift in dangerous complacency. In preparation for his Cairo speech, it was evident that President Obama listened to all sides of the debate, and the result was a thoughtful speech that spoke eloquently about mutual respect and cultural autonomy but also about human rights and democracy. We hope that when he travels to China, President Obama gives equal respect to all points of view and is able to speak as eloquently about democracy and human rights in a nation where they very much hang in the balance.

Comments

[FairTalk]

The real problem of pushing back at a story like this, is the propensity many Americans have for believing the tripe sold by the Human rights crowd about China's "violations." I believe that mosy Americans have been denied basic facts, and therefore the truth about the development of "human rights" in China. here is a vid that compares and contrasts life in Tibet before the serfs and slaves were emancipated in 1959, and today. 50 years is a very short time, and I believe that China is making rapit progress. I say congratulations, way to go, China! Perhaps we should consider social justice instead of so called human rights?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOEz7Ak7AY

[KCFreedom]

Somehow there is a confusion about corporations supporting human rights.

By nature, corporations don't care about human rights. All they care about is profit.

Any impression that corporations are supposed to instill social change TOWARDS freedom in any nation is delusional, at best.

The political policy towards China of our last 3 presidents has yielded no net increase in human rights in China, nor has benefited the workers in our own country. Basically it has been only a success for corporate profits.

[StrayCatzX5]

Good article,good posts,good points. One question that I may have missed or hasn't been asked: Does anyone believe for a moment that U.S. Business concerns itself with democracy in China? Does anyone believe that human rights,or pollution matter to Mattel or DeWalt or 3M or GM? Sorry,that was two hopefully pertinent questions. Point is;when the next source of exploitable cheap labor can be found-Africa? America?!-the U.S. business community will be tripping all over each other to get there. And we,the American Consumer,will fill their coffers by our purchases.

[bighat]

Must we meddle in every country's politics. Can we just trade peacefully with another country. Just trade fairly. If they impose tariffs then we can do the same. Many consider the US one of the most dangerous countries to live in. Are we really in a position to tell others how to behave.

Obama will not harangue the Chinese over human rights or Tibet. If he does so at all he will probably show his speech to China's ruling elite and tell them simple that for him and his party he must address human rights but will not dote on it.

The chinese are not a superpower. but they have lots of money. NKoea is a problem and we need China's help. Japan is an ally of the US. They are certainly worried about NKorea. Someone smart might can make the deal because I doubt China wants any of NKorea's nuclear bombs after effects to hit China and I doubt if China wants Japan to build a nuclear arsenal. But if the US adopts the we are better than you and China must follow western ways or else we may find what else means.

[goodforme]

these neo-cons are relentless, aren't they?

[bighat]

Just how would you handle China goodforme. A big picture synopsis will be fine.

Remember all the remodeling the US is doing as well as supporting just about every other country on earth and 25% of the UN and doing so with loans from China

[Merlin7]

I spent some years in Asia and it always amuses me when foreign policy wonks write articles like this one. How dare those Chinese conduct themselves differently than the Western norm! Obviously what they need are some open elections and loud political arguments on television. (No need to mention that most elections in the U.S. are set-piece affairs, with voters having a choice between Establishment Candidate A and Establishment Candidate B.)

True, political oppression is deplorable, but again it depends on what you're used to. Most Chinese tend to be very authoritarian, both in politics and in their personal lives. (If you don't believe it, try advocating a libertine lifestyle in Taiwan or Singapore and see how far you get.) It is sheer arrogance to expect China to rush to embrace our democratic conventions when, as they see it, they have set the standards for civilization for thousands of years. They consider America to be a flash in the pan - and they might well be correct.

[goodforme]

it's worth noting that china has six thoushand years of non-aggression in its foreign relations.

on the other hand, japan has always been the aggressor, to Korea, china, and beyond.

history tells soemthing about their philosophy and culture.

[jefke]

Just like no one could control The US when it was ascendant, no one can control China as it assumes the number one spot. get used to it.

[bighat]

The chinese are smart and capable but their time for a superpower is aways off. Yes, the US civilization is decling. Our nation became great because we had many who would risk much and had the freedom to do so. Now we have so many laws and regulations it is hard to believe anyone can get a business off the ground without breaking some regulation.

Want the US to last awhile. Change the tax code so a high school graduate with a C average can understand it. As of now, no one and I mean no one, understands the IRS tax code. We just have a few people that intrepret the tax code much like trying to understand hieroglypics. You have an idea but you are not completely sure even after years of study

[xtiangodloki]

From the article: "Unless this pattern changes and changes fast, Western nations are going to wake up soon and find they're sharing world power with a mostly poor, economically stagnant and increasingly hostile China that still fancies itself a world superpower."

Hoho, just because the authors of this article hope this will be the future of China won't necessarily make it true.

On the other hand, the arrogance and pretentiousness of the western "human rights" writers on China are laughable. It pretty clear that the writers don't care about what the Chinese people think or want, but what THEY want China to be because the writers' own self sense of superiority.

China is US' business partner, no more and no less. The moment a cheaper resource for outsourcing can be located the US businesses will move elsewhere. There is no love between even the closest "allies" when it comes to international politics. Looking at the history of foreign policy decisions made by Western nations, "Freedom and Democracy" are Western nations' PR tools when it comes to warmongering.

[Hoelder]

Though I am not really singing the same tune as the authors, I must say the following. The proverbial world is getting smaller. Whatever the Chinese government does that has an effect on the outside world does allow anybody from the outside world voice their opinion. When Chinese greed poisons children here, I am concerned and the soot the crosses the pacific to end up in LA, I am really pissed off. Hello! The boxer uprising is long gone. You cannot paint the devil to the wall, claiming that the West wants to colonize China again. That is a stupid arrogant assumption. I do not care when corrupt officials get pay offs, I do care about some criminal gangs shipping girls to the states. I do not care about somebody getting off on the latest editions sneakers or mobile phones, but not following the law and customs of the guest country you are invited to. I do care about people that call for help like in Tibet and are slaughtered, because they ask for help. Besides there is not much historical artifacts to make the region into the holy motherland. I also think that bullying other weaker countries around like the Philippines over the Sprattney Islands is a glorious day of Chinese Respect to other people. Respect is something you earn.

[Merlin7]

OK . . . but what has all this stuff got to do with imposing Western political practices on China? Are you hoping that the big capitalists, once they've seized control of the markets in that country, will steer public policy there in the "correct" direction? That is, make their policies mirror ours? Imperialism and internal oppression are universal tools. You could ask Francisco Franco, if he weren't still dead.

[Pablo175]

He will be the same as Pelosi and Hilary. He will talk about Climate Change.

[WYHKTai-Tai]

I think that's a pretty good place to start. It is the behemoth looming on the horizon of the whole world. China says it has every right to pollute, as the western nations were the ones in the past century who initially createds this mess. But it is what it is: the mess is here and the planet is in trouble. I really can't see how China wouldn't want to fix this problem; You need a gas mask in Beijing just walk down the street. Literally, you cannot see across the street for the 'fog' of pollution. On Natl. holidays, when the factories are closed, it's clear and beautiful.

I really can't work up a good cry for the poor Western Multi-Nationals who want China to conduct business on their terms; and let's face it. It is not the Multi-Nationals or the way they conduct business that ensures or promotes human rights in the west. laughable! This is one area where I have to say, good for Beijing.

[bighat]

the chinese have a big advantage over western nations on politics and treaties. We all put our thoughts and ideas ot for everyone to see. Sure China would want clean air and water etc. But they may get the US to pay for it because we like getting our way and we are known for throwing lots of money around and getting little in return.

Many of the huffpost commenters say the US has lost its prestige around the world because of Bush. That is a debate for another article. Did we ever have the favor of other countries. We give tons of money to many nations but what do we get in return. Maybe we should stop the fow of money and use it in America or here's a novel idea. Start paying down the debt