READING CHINA WRONG Michael Pillsbury any observers have harshly criticized President Obama’s China policy for being at best overly optimistic and at worst tragically naïve. In 2012, it is Mcommon to see strategic mistrust between the U.S. and China. The cover of the September 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs thus features an article on how China sees the United States as hostile and aggressive. A senior American lawmaker has noted that China’s rhetoric toward Obama has grown angry, with the official Peo- ple’s Daily accusing the United States of “fanning the flames and provoking divi- sion, deliberately creating antagonism with China, “ and that newspaper’s overseas edition going so far as to say that it was time for the United States to “shut up.”1 Is it fair to judge Obama’s China policy to be so naïve, at least until the “pivot” began in 2012? Cautious historians may claim that no one can fairly judge the successes and fail- ures of the Obama administration’s policy toward China for at least 30 years hence, when the relevant classified documents will be publicly released in the State Depart- ment Historian’s book series called Foreign Relations of the United States. That series lags far behind the times, and even the volume covering the controversial years of Jimmy Carter has not yet been released. However, one can still reach a tentative judg- ment based on new three books, published in 2012, which agree in their criticisms of failure of Obama’s early China policies. The core issue seems to be the erroneous deci- sion to try and “build trust” with China’s leaders by pandering to their sensitivities with regard to Taiwan, Tibet and other issues. MICHAEL PILLSBURY was head of defense planning in the Reagan administration, serving as Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning, and is author of two books on China published by the National Defense University Press. He also served as special assistant for Asia for Andrew Marshall, Director of Net Assessment, in the Pentagon. Michael Pillsbury “Building trust” has been tried for However, Bader and Obama wanted to several decades by a long string of NSC reverse the influence of another group of staffers. Each has reported in his mem- advisers with whom the moderates “had oirs that the approach was ill-fated, only to fight bruising internal battles with a to have the next president’s NSC staff shifting coalition of neoconservatives proceed to try the same idea again. The and hard-liners.” During the campaign in Obama administration’s experience in 2008, Bader reports, “our campaign team 2009 and 2010 should stand as a warn- did not see our role as that of articulating ing to any future U.S. president not to dramatic new policy initiatives to reverse underestimate China’s misperceptions eight years of Asia policy.”6 of American hostility. Yet such a warn- Besides the decision to continue the ing is unlikely to be heeded, because of policies of Powell, Armitage, Zoellick, persistent hope that China would like Kelly and Paal, the Obama team decided to cooperate with us—if only we could to “avoid the mistakes of the presiden- build trust. tial campaigns of 1980, 1992, and 2000, which had damaged U.S.-China rela- “Building trust” has been tried for tions early on and taken anywhere from several decades by a long string of one to three years to get past.” Bader says Obama wanted to “put a floor NSC staffers. Each has reported under the relationship, to convey that we in his memoirs that the approach intended to expand areas of cooperation was ill-fated, only to have the next while managing differences.” The key strategy was “to establish a relationship president’s NSC staff proceed to try with a modicum of trust between U.S. the same idea again. and Chinese leaders so that there could be political incentives for cooperation.”7 Former NSC staffer Jeffrey A. Even this modest goal, however, could Bader presents the most positive evalu- not be achieved with regard to Iran, ation of Obama’s China policy in his North Korea, climate change or any memoir, Obama and China’s Rise.2 By other major issue. Rather, Bader reports contrast, two other books by distin- in detail Obama was unfairly criticized guished journalists cite interviews that by almost everyone from the Friends of highlight Obama’s foolishness. James Tibet to human rights advocates and Mann’s The Obamians3 and David sometimes even “the front page of the Sanger’s Confront and Conceal4 bluntly New York Times.” assess Obama’s China policy as naïve during his first two years. Continuity, not change Bader is a reliable guide, actually an In The Obamians: The Struggle eyewitness, to Obama’s early intentions Inside the White House to Redefine toward China. He stresses how modest American Power, James Mann dwells on the goals were: that Obama did not want a significant point: that the Obama strat- any “dramatic changes in U.S. policy egy was not just a continuation of George toward East Asia.” Bader praises part of W. Bush, but its roots and personnel went the Bush foreign policy team and singles all the way back to many of the same for- out “a number of people—notably Colin eign policy hands who had worked under Powell, Bob Zoellick, Rich Armitage, Jim Clinton. These Clinton alumni were con- Kelly, and Doug Paal” for praise because fronting a changed world, one that the they well understood the “requirements younger Obamians took for granted but and subtleties of a sound Asia policy.”5 the Clinton alumni did not. 96 THE JOURNAL OF INTERNAtiONAL SECURitY AFFAIRS Reading China Wrong Mann, in his conclusion, suggests America essentially one nation among that the “pivot” to Asia may have been many.”10 Mann reports the Obama team the most important step Obama took in rejects this criticism that they are declin- his entire foreign policy. But he hints it ists, citing Biden’s adviser Tony Blinken: may have just been rhetoric. According “This is the contrary of decline: It’s about to Mann, “If a single word captured the figuring out, in a more complicated world, Obamians’ view of their overall strategy with new constraints, how to maximize in dealing with the world, from the very our power, and that’s what we’ve done,” start of the administration, it was the asserted Blinken.11 concept of ‘rebalancing.’ They repeated this word again and again in private The Obama strategy was not just conversations, in official briefings and in a continuation of George W. Bush, written documents such as their National Security Strategy.” 8 but its roots and personnel went Mann criticizes the “Obamians” all the way back to many of the who used “rebalancing” in a variety of same foreign policy hands who had contexts. In general, they said, America should rebalance its priorities toward a worked under Clinton. greater emphasis on domestic concerns. In foreign policy, America needed to The mirage of “building rebalance from an overreliance on the trust” military toward diplomacy and other The first two years of Obama’s means of statecraft. The United States China policy seem to be roundly con- also needed to rebalance away from a demned by everyone. Secretary of State preoccupation with the Middle East and Hillary Clinton got off to a bad start by toward the prosperous region of East seeming to trivialize human rights, and Asia. In economics, Obama and his aides Jeff Bader had to ask the Tibetans in exile spoke of the need to rebalance the inter- to postpone a visit by the Dalai Lama. national economy, the global markets, the Bader blames the press and the Chinese distribution of imports and exports, and for criticizing Hillary and less than gal- the values of various countries’ curren- lantly tells how he had to save her on cies. In meetings with Chinese president board her plane with talking points she Hu Jintao, whose government held ever badly needed. growing foreign exchange reserves, the Bader takes a dim view of Hillary’s need for rebalancing was at the heart of early Asia diplomacy in part because the Obama’s message. Chinese viewed the secretary “with some Mann writes, “To some experienced wariness.” They did so for two reasons. Washington politicians, the Obamian During the Beijing Women’s Confer- concept of rebalancing seemed laudable ence in 1995, she had delivered a speech but not exactly right.”9 The “Obamians” strongly criticizing the heavy-handed seemed to mean that they believed in way the Chinese ran the conference and the idea of America’s “decline,” as their treated the attending nongovernmental opponents sometimes suspect. “The ulti- organizations (NGOs), thereby becoming mate purpose of [Obama’s] foreign policy a rallying point for women and human is to make America less hegemonic, less rights critics. She also had issued some arrogant, less dominant,” wrote Charles “fairly hot rhetoric about China” during Krauthammer during Obama’s first year. the campaign, mostly on currency and “In a word, it is a foreign policy designed trade issues. Therefore, while the Chinese to produce American decline—to make leaders had a very good relationship with THE JOURNAL OF INTERNAtiONAL SECURitY AFFAIRS 97 Michael Pillsbury Bill Clinton, they were not sure if “his The incident seemed to “support alle- spouse viewed China in the same light as gations that the Obama administra- he did.” Fortunately, in the name of build- tion was prepared to, as some liked to ing trust with China, Bader was able to say, ‘kowtow’ to the Chinese on human save her by providing talking points for rights issues.”14 Predictably, columnists the media which she delivered “in a dead- and editorial writers piled on.