Obama's Foreign Policy: It Depends What You Mean by "Pragmatic"

A few weeks ago, together with my Times colleague Helene Cooper, I interviewed retired Marine Gen. James Jones, so it's nice to see him confidently tipped for National Security Advisor. He is an impressive person with a heroic resume. He spent most of his childhood and youth in France, beginning in 1947. He has a great deal of experience in Europe, where as a military professional he operated under a number of acronyms, my favorite being SACEUR. It looks like a French term for "grocery bagger" but stands for Supreme Allied Commander -- Europe, and is one of those things -- there are so many! -- that acquired its identity in the course of the Second World War and kept it, and kept it...

Jones has experience as well in Afghanistan, Africa (about which he is well informed) and the Middle East; on the last, he conveyed, somewhat to my surprise, a practical-minded optimism regarding a two-state solution. And if you can judge a person by his admirers, then Jones will excel as advisor. My one concern was that, as a 40-year military man, he tended to speak of the world as divided into Eucom, Africom, Socom, Centcom, etc. He seemed a hair too comfortable with the notion of generals administering the world. That culture tends to substitute can-do for should-do, which is often the opposite of what a national security advisor ought to be about.

I can't help thinking that an Obama administration promises many conflicts between the moral (or values-based) and the pragmatic. In a recent New Yorker piece, George Packer traced the tensions between the (beliefs-based) partisan Obama and the (pragmatic) post-partisan Obama. It looked like, on balance, Obama would run something like 60 percent pragmatic and 40 percent beliefs.

Overcome by solipsism, I thought of some of the rather truculent responses to my last post, all making about the same charge: that I am naïve about the good intentions of China. This is a misunderstanding. I don't think China has good intentions. It has ideas about itself and its place in the world, but they don't revolve around goodness.

In terms of an international political architecture -- and there is every reason to expect the Obama administration to tinker seriously with that architecture -- China is pragmatic and Europe is values-based. If you look at Obama's speeches to date, and at his appointments, it would appear that his pragmatism will dominate overseas while domestically his values will be of greater importance. The appointments of Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff and, especially, of Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services suggest an early commitment to health-care reform, which in our current context is very much a values question. Most of the foreign-policy names -- Jones, Jim Steinberg, Robert Gates, even Hillary Clinton in her way -- are distinctly pragmatist (and sometimes Republican). The same is true of Joe Biden and of others (like Anthony Blinken) at less exalted levels, as well as people (Dick Lugar, Richard Haass) who were widely talked about for senior positions. Obama himself, during the campaign, generally tacked to the right on foreign policy, notably after an embarrassing moment or two when he envisioned standing in front of the United Nations and declaring, "America is back!"

In any event, Yes We Can was never about an activist foreign policy; it was more like, "yes we can get out of Iraq and we can stop making enemies." Obaman idealism on foreign policy was essentially rather passive. (This isn't to say he lacked activist or interventionist advisors; but he has had many kinds of advisors.) Since the election, foreshadowings of boldness -- notably the prospect of an opening to Cuba -- have had to do with pragmatically rectifying past ideological/values excesses, not advancing a positive agenda based on strong beliefs.

My guess is that such pragmatism will continue to inform Obaman foreign policy, and that the most significant result of that pragmatism will be a closer relationship with China. As I mentioned last week, the Chinese and American economies are co-dependent to a degree that makes cooperation inevitable. On the negative side, China has shown that it can and will block any actions in the international system that it considers threatening. (Its successful efforts against UN reform and the Doha round come immediately to mind.) The quotation that most struck me in the coverage of last weekend's APEC summit was when a senior American spoke about the "compelling need" for the U.S. "not [to] be left out" of Asian regional economic integration.

The United States does not strike this plaintive note when considering initiatives by its old partner, Europe. The U.S. is not worried about being left out of European initiatives. The U.S. can take Europe for granted, except when it wants Europe to show initiative, as in Afghanistan. (General Jones cannot be looking forward to those troop-gathering trips.) China, meanwhile, is honing the art of never being taken for granted.

The Group of 20 meeting in Washington provided evidence of this. France's Nicholas Sarkozy and Britain's Gordon Brown, in their very different ways, each tried to portray himself as the champion of Europe and of a European alternative to American free-marketeering. The claims were great -- but the policies were running aground in Europe all but immediately. No one country will ever lead the European Union. Many will, from time to time, "speak for Europe," but that kind of talk is pretty cheap, as Europeans know better than anyone.

Meanwhile the order is changing, and not in Europe's direction, much less at its direction. One shouldn't make too much out of photo-op positioning, but at the G20 that was Hu Jintao on one side of President Bush, and Lula on the other.

What alarms me slightly about the new team is that its China experience is so thin. From Jones to Susan Rice to Clinton to Steinberg and Gates, there are glimmers of China experience, but not much. Given the situation we're in, it seems downright... unpragmatic.

* * * *

Having written in my last post about Chinese eagerness to participate in the international system, it was distressing -- not to say somewhat embarrassing - when a friend in China wrote to say he couldn't read the blog because the HuffPost isn't allowed in China, a fact I later confirmed. Well, well. In Chinese, "firewall" is made of two characters: one for censorship, the other for opportunity. All right, I made that up. But I'll live in hope that openness in one area will bring openness in others.

Comments

[watereddown]

Great piece. What is interesting to me goes beyond the contents of the article. Simply put it transcends the usual (constant) rant- we must defend the left at all costs- style of writing that passes for journalim on this website. Sometimes that works but every article emanates the same 'aroommma'. Less ideology and more ideas here on HP would be greatly appreciated. This article simply stated an opinion, a evocation of ideas and steps aside. We need more writers and articles like this on this blog. Very refreshing.

[ScottMalcomson]

thank you, watereddown. and may i say in return what an awesome handle "watereddown" is.

[stephanemot]

In the key China-Korea-Japan area, there's a gap to fill.
ROK's politicians are desperate to find entry points into the next US Administration.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Scott - a pleasure to read you here and a great post. Your cautionary note on China seems very well taken; could there be an appointment to be made that might remedy this seeming failing?
I wonder, though, if you write Europe out of the equation a little too readily. For example, if exit in Iraq involves something like the Biden plan, the politics of getting Turkey to go along with an independent Iraqi Kurdistan will be difficult. Maybe a solution hangs only on U.S.-Turki­sh bilateral relations, but I tend to think EU issues are liable to become part of that discussion.

[ScottMalcomson]

good to hear from you, steve.
re China apptmts: there are only so many senior foreign-policy posts. henry paulson's China channel reflected that; he had to invent a forum. the Obama administration could, of course, do something similar.
as far as individuals go, christopher hill comes immediately to mind. his experience in the six-party talks is invaluable. another person with very valuable recent China experience at a very high level is bob zoellick. he already has a job at the World Bank, of course, and his policies there have not been ones that Obama would dislike, i don't think. so perhaps he'd want him to stay there.
richard holbrooke also has China experience. (among other things, he was ass't sect'y of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, and is chairman of the Asia Society.) and evidently he has no senior Obama post.
Admiral Dennis Blair is rumored to be the next director of national intelligence. he is well informed about Asia and well known there, mainly due to his service as commander in chief - Pacific (that's Cincpac to you!). the intelligence community has long been more interested in China than have other parts of the foreign-policy bureaucracy, as witness the National Intelligence Council's recent 2025 report. but DNI has not (yet?) been a policy-formation center.
...I agree about Turkey and EU. same is true for other EU-periphery issues, which are simultaneously Nato issues. and the EU is critical for Russia management.

[john55]

Dennis Blair has a quite sordid record when it comes to East Timor and Indonesia. As militia and Indonesian military violence was escalating in 1999 Blair went to Indonesia. Instead of delivering a strong message that the Indonesian military should back off, he offered understanding and further U.S. military assistance. The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) describes this here http://etan.org/news/2008/12blair.htm

[altohone]

Hmmm.

With Bush adopting the Chinese government's mentalities on rights, censorship, privacy and torture, I'm not so sure a co-dependant relationship is a good thing for America.

[SethBLiNK]

First, the President-elect hasn't even begun to introduce his Foreign Policy team. I know that there has been much leakage and speculation, but there was much speculation about his economic team as well. Some thought Somers would be Secretary of Treasury and some didn't, but I didn't think many predicted that he might fill big roll other than Secretary of Treasury. What Obama has shown this week with the naming of his economic team (or should I say teams?) is that he wants to stack his staff with lots of talent. The SOT, the Economic Advisor, the Council of Economic Advisors, this new group he announced today... all heavy hitters and he hasn't even officially announced Richardson for Commerce yet.

Foreign Policy, I'm sure will be the same. He will fill each job with the best person for that job. If, after the top row has been filled, there is nobody whose strength is China, you can be sure there will be an under-Secretary who will be a leading light on China, backed by a similarly qualified China team.

Do we really need to have one post after another picking at nits on appointments that haven't been named yet?

As for Obama going Pragmatic vs. Values, I am certain that is something that is only noted on observers' scorecard and not something that is being done consciously. As he made clear this morning, a pragmatic hire might lead to a values policy... and vice versa.

[omahkohkiaayo]

The Chinese can be ignored or toyed with only at the peril of those who attempt to do so. They have every reason to have it in for the West--that they have never attacked--given the history from the Opium Wars and before, up to WWII support for Kuomintang--not Communist--forces against the Japanese forces, to the 1950s/60s during which China was repeatedly threatened with nuclear annihilation, embargos and encirclement while denied entry into the UN under the fiction of the Taiwan clique being the "legitimate" government of all of China.

Scholars and others I met while in China at Tsinghua University were generally first-rate not only in intellect , temperament and in wisdom to look long-run. In Chinese language they have two sayings worth considering: one is "shang cang bu lu" (guard words and intentions carefully) and "dian dao wei zhi" (use words to clearly convey meaning but in such ways and tone as not to cause loss of face or shame). Belicosity, grandiosity and bragging (common in America) are not appreciated in Chinese culture.

This notion that not only is the U.S. deep in debt, but, even worse, it is in debt to China, is insulting and likely to backfire. The Chinese need only say if being in debt is so offensive to you Americans, who have much lower interest rates with our lending, we can help you with your problem by not lending more and demanding immediate repayment on existing debt.

[degenerate1991]

Of course, if the US economy collapses, then China's will be quick to follow, so it is in their vested interest to keep us pumped up with loans, unless they wish to return to the days of "the great leap forward".

[altohone]

America's debt to China is helping to prop up a repressive regime.

Feeling insulted by those pointing out the moral stance of those who believe in freedom and democracy, for example the statement above or my disgust at the Chinese people being denied access to HuffPo, would seem to indicate support for those policies. I apologize if your words were meant to clearly convey a different meaning.

I understand (but disagree with) the argument for engagement as a means of nudging the Chinese government in the right direction, but even so that doesn't mean every American must give up their right to complain about how little progress has been made beyond economics.

[FearlessFreep]

Unfortunately, few of the Big People have much China experience. And guess which is more important to BO?