Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger seek to avoid cold war with China

One of the downsides of being US Secretary of State is having to listen to and, on occasion, having to seek Henry Kissinger’s blessing. It paid off for Hillary Clinton on the New START treaty with Russia.  On China, the two of them were offering advice to Americans last week on how to avoid an unnecessary cold war with China.

Hillary Clinton and the President have just had a couple of very good of months in their dealings with Asia and her speech on Friday showed it. The emergence of China as a great power, she argued, is not a threat to American supremacy. She insisted that the United States wants a positive and co-operative relationship with China. 

She talks as though she’s dealing from strength and, in many respects, she is. The United States’ trade, military and diplomatic relations with every one of China’s significant neighbors have improved. And the market democracies of Asia are either emerging or are mature powers in their own right.  She struck only one uneasy note:

“Some in the region and some here at home see China's growth as a threat that will lead either to Cold-War-style conflict or American decline,” Ms. Clinton said. “And some in China worry that the United States is bent on containing China's rise and constraining China's growth.”

But Ms. Clinton said: “we reject those views.  In the 21st century, it does not make sense to apply zero-sum 19th century theories of how major powers interact.”

Click on: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/clinton-touts-china-as-emerging-equal-not-rival/article1870302/

Not to open a fresh wound, but. The 19^th century was serene compared to the last one. Unnecessary war was the 20^th Century’s hall mark and up-start resentment toward the policies of dominant powers was at the heart of its bloodiest conflict. China may see itself in a similar light. 

Kissinger addresses this danger by proposing yet another world order. Clinton rejects the idea of a G-2 running the world; Kissinger seems to embrace it:

“The proposition that China must prove its bona fides is grating to a country that regards itself as adjusting to membership in an international system designed in its absence on the basis of programs it did not participate in developing. . .

A concept of a Pacific community could become an organizing principle of the 21st century to avoid the formation of blocs. For this, they need a consultative mechanism that permits the elaboration of common long-term objectives and coordinates the positions of the two countries at international conferences.

The aim should be to create a tradition of respect and cooperation so that the successors of leaders meeting now continue to see it in their interest to build an emerging world order as a joint enterprise.”

Click on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011304832.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Kissinger may know Beijing by now better than Clinton understands Washington. However, his inclination to clean the slate and crowd out old sentiments and old “programs” in order to do business with the other guy in the room with the most power is reflexive, not necessarily an expression of  America’s abiding interests.

The postwar international trade regime, the US consumer and US military supremacy hardly got in the way of the rise of Germany and Japan and, if anything, have facilitated the extraordinary rise of China.  In the first instance, American diplomacy ought to employ the generous principles of the present liberal order, including open and secure trade, and solidarity with friends who play by the rules.

Multi-billionaires can lose it too

In accepting a “Globalist of the Year” award from the Canadian International Council Monday night, George Soros reportedly declared:

“The world order as we know it is turning into disorder. The Washington consensus is finished. Disappeared.

“I have to say that today China has a more, not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.”

Reviewing his own words, he suggested, “Saying that is a shocking thing.”

Click on:http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/16/billionaire-soros-wins-cic-globalist-of-the-year-award/

No. Saying these things in Toronto and in other financial centers is trite, not shocking.

However, for George Soros—whose global market ideas have flourished for the last two decades and made him a fortune, as well—they are peevish and overwrought.

World trade, the developed and emerging economies are all growing again. The G-20, for the fourth time since the Great Recession, has re-committed 80% of global economic activity to open markets and private sector economic growth—the so-called Washington consensus.  Divisions amongst small-d democrats in Washington entertain Asians when they wake and Europeans when they dine at night. On the other hand, China’s leaders insist that no democrats of note even live in China and complain that they can’t allow their currency to float without precipitating intolerable social unrest.

Sure. It’s been a bad month for big-d democrats, but the United States and Western civilization is still on its feet and in the ring.

Michael Fortier’s calendar for big decisions

Michael Fortier, an unlucky former Minister of Trade and former Conservative Senator from Quebec, suggested in a letter to La Presse last month that it might improve the political climate in Quebec if a referendum on the constitutional status of Quebec was conducted only once every fifteen years.  Immediately, Stephen Harper’s communication/crisis management team ridiculed the idea. Fortier will survive the scolding.

Of course, political elites in Quebec will not easily turn their pet issue over to a calendar. However, Fortier was at least trying to find a way out of Quebec’s growing malady: constant attention to the big picture and neglect and retrenchment on the management problems of collective daily life.

Whatever the fate of Fortier’s idea in Quebec, the idea of making up our minds on one big thing at least every fifteen years would be an awesome leap forward for the rest of Canada.

Since the close defeat of the Charletown Accord in the national referendum in 1992—eighteen years ago—a grey old man’s mantra has settled over our national affairs. It asserts that the distinguishing economic, social, and political characteristics of Canada are settled and needn’t be disturbed. Of course, a handful of utterly central questions for a self respecting democracy (for instance, the authority of the Crown and Govenor General, the status of the Senate, the appointment of judges to our Supreme court, whether we can be closer or should further away from the United States) are up in the air, in seminars and in pending files. Isn’t that the safest place to keep them?

The problem of making a career out of avoiding big challenges is that skilful small thinking gets too big a head. Leaders and schemers start believing that incrementalism and procrastination are always enough, the responsible course.  In the spirit of Michael Fortier, this blog is dedicated to the notion that those who care about politics should exercise their appetites for change, and their skills in persuading others to make a real difference.

National Post Article: http://Click here