With the coming US China summit, Obama can make history

This version was written at the request of New America Media.

China’s president Xi Jinping will be visiting the U.S. later this month. He will be in Washington for his first formal state visit. A lot could be riding on this summit between President Obama and Xi, or not at all. Much will depend on how Obama chooses to orchestrate the proceedings.

China’s ambassador Cui Tiankai has been diligently speaking and writing about Xi’s visit as part of the effort to tee up the high profile event. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor even made a special trip to Beijing to meet with Xi as part of the preparation for the upcoming visit. Rice expressed hope for achieving a “milestone” in the bilateral relations as an outcome of the summit to come.

Obviously, both sides appreciate the importance of the summit with respect to the U.S. China relationship and the importance of the bilateral relations to ensuring a stable world.

The pomp surrounding the ceremonial state visit won’t likely remind anyone of the spectacular opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics. However, the substance to come out of the Washington summit could be unprecedented and make history if Obama were up to making the necessary bold moves.

Since Obama began his presidency, his contribution to world peace and stability has, to put it mildly, fallen far short of what’s expected of a Nobel Peace prize recipient—a premature award at the beginning of his presidency that merely serves to remind us of his foreign policy stumbles. Destabilized Libya, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine and emergence of ISIS, along with Afghanistan and Iraq as festering canker sores, are all taking place under his watch.

Lately, based on his initiative to normalize relations with Cuba and strike a nuclear accord with Iran, Obama seems finally willing to take independent action over conventional thinking. It’s possible that leaving a more positive legacy to his presidency now commands a far higher priority than getting along with his critics. If so, his actions toward China could make a material difference in how history will view his presidency.

Heretofore his policy with China has been on par with his other foreign policy forays, namely a few ups but many more downs. His inviting Xi in 2013 to an informal summit in Sunnylands could have laid a foundation for a string of collaborations but the opportunity was frittered away by a subsequent series of highly publicized accusations and confrontations.

He is in danger of becoming the first president since Nixon visited China to leave the bilateral relations in a worse shape than when he found it.

With Xi’s state visit, Obama has the opportunity to dramatically rectify the trajectory and significantly improve the bilateral relations, perhaps to even claim achieving the milestone hoped for by Rice.

Xi has steadfastly asserted that China has no desire to be a rival much less an adversary of the U.S., but up to now Obama and Washington have insisted on treating China as a potential enemy.

Thus, the first gesture of reconciliation Obama can take is to tell Xi that he will stop flying surveillance flights off the coast of China. Both sides understand that the surveillance flights have largely been symbolic trappings of the aggressive prerogative of a super power. His offer to stop the flights will be a big boost to building mutual confidence and give Xi a lot of face when he goes back to China.

Next, the highest priority in Xi’s agenda is to complete his anti-corruption drive at home and he has been frustrated by the relative ease corrupt officials have in fleeing to the U.S. By offering to stop admitting Chinese fugitives and help apprehend those already in the U.S., Obama would be providing enormous assistance to Xi. At the same time, Obama can take a principled stand that America is not a safe haven for crooked officials.

When Xi announced the formation of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and the “one belt, one road” economic initiative, Obama committed an embarrassing gaff by telling the world not to join the bank. Only Japan listened while 57 other countries including America’s closest allies--among them Australia, South Korea and U.K.--became founding member nations. On the occasion of the summit, Obama should congratulate Xi for his vision and offer to cooperate in the economic development of Asia.

The aforementioned three initiatives are well within Obama’s power to render at the summit meeting and each of them will make a positive impression on Xi and lessen the strain in the bilateral relationship. Even more dramatic and within Obama’s authority is to propose to Xi that China and the U.S. along with S. Korea begin to explore steps that would denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

Up to now six party talks have gotten nowhere because North Korea knows China cannot let its regime implode. As matters stand, while China could welcome the unification of the two Koreas, China could not stand having American military presence in the north. Therefore, if Obama were willing to withdraw American troops from Korea, the North would no longer be able to hold China hostage.

Beijing and Seoul get along as well as Seoul with Washington. Once the three parties see eye to eye on dealing with the North, Pyongyang will either have to moderate their belligerent posture or face real prospects of a regime change.

In untying the Gordian knot that has been North Korea, Obama will have accomplished something that has eluded all seven of U.S. presidents that preceded him. He will be able to claim a spectacular foreign policy win and leave a legacy of his presidency worthy of a Nobel Peace prize laureate. Moreover, he will finally set a course for collaboration instead of confrontation between China and the U.S.

Xi’s state visit gives Obama an opportunity to make history

For myriad of reasons, I have written several commentaries on Xi Jinxing's state visit. This version appeared in China-US Focus and repeated in Asia Times.

China’s president Xi Jinping is coming to the U.S. next month. He has been here before but this time he is coming as head of state for an official state visit. Aside from a great show of pomp and color to beam back for the home TV audience, what else can he accomplish as his prize for coming?

Shortly after Xi became China’s paramount leader, he accepted President Obama’s invitation for an informal summit meeting in a bucolic southern California estate. He must have thought that getting to know Obama on a personal basis would be an important step to building a closer bilateral relationship. From the outset, Xi has placed a closer working relationship with the U.S. among his highest priorities.

When Obama visited Beijing last November, besides a red carpet treatment, he and Xi made two joint surprising announcements. One was an accord to control the emission of green house gases and the other was to issue ten-year, multiple entry visas to citizens of the other country. The multi-entry visa has already resulted in a significant increase of Chinese tourists to the U.S. and a substantial boost to the local economy. Control of green house gases has been one of Obama’s major initiatives that he could now check off as mission in process of being accomplished.

He got tangible results and should feel good about his trip to China. This time, what tangible outcomes Xi will get out of his visit to the U.S. is very much up to Obama.

From the beginning of Obama’s administration to now, America’s relationship with China has been more down than up. For every 100,000 strong initiative to encourage American students to study in China, there have been befuddled gestures contrary to building a friendlier relationship. One of the strangest was to vocally opposed the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. For that Obama got a well-deserved rebuff from the community of nations that overrode his concerns.

For most of his administration, Obama’s foreign policy followed the disastrous course left by his predecessor combined with his desire to offend the least number of his Congressional critics. Lately, however, Obama appears to be conducting more independent measures of foreign policy (note as examples, Cuba and Iran), more according to what he thinks is proper and perhaps with an eye to building his presidential legacy.

Now with Xi’s visit, Obama has a chance to make a positive course correction on America’s most important international relations.

Surely leaving America’s relationship with China worse off, despite the efforts of the seven presidents that preceded him, would only tarnish and not contribute to his legacy. If Obama is receptive to taking actions that would significantly improve relationship with China, I have some suggestions.

First, Obama can visibly stop treating China as an adversary of America. To that end, he should order the military to stop surveillance flights off the coast of China. He won’t be giving up anything that can’t be obtained by satellite. (Let his successor resume those flights in some future date, if that’s what he/she wants.) The main effect of those flights has been as a psychological irritant and the public relations impact of halting the flights would be huge—a small gesture that would give Xi a lot of face back home.

Second, Obama can offer to help Xi’s anti-corruption campaign by making it difficult for corrupt officials to hide in the U.S. In so doing, Obama would be rendering valuable assistance essential for Xi to complete the most important task on his agenda. At the same time, Obama would put America on the moral high ground and be able to tell the world that America does not coddle criminals and fugitives from other countries. Heretofore allowing crooked officials to run loose in America is hardly what the Statue of Liberty’s welcome of immigrants stands for.

Third, Obama should take the opportunity of this summit to reverse his awful and awkward position relative to Xi’s pet projects, namely, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank alongside his silk-road initiatives. Obama should openly applaud Xi for his vision and pledge enthusiastic support and willingness to co-invest and work alongside China in Asia. Xi most likely won’t think of how to take up Obama’s offer but nonetheless his gesture would be warmly appreciated. His message of goodwill would be noted around the world.

The above three initiatives are easy for Obama to implement and can contribute a lot to bringing the two countries closer together. There is yet a fourth initiative that Obama could put on the table with chutzpah and panache on the occasion of his private meeting with Xi, and that would be to propose working on denuclearizing Korea.

Obama can see that South Korea president Park will be in Beijing to celebrate the 70^th anniversary of the end of WWII. North Korea’s Kim is not invited. Arguably China gets along with South Korea as well as the U.S. The three parties, sitting on the same side of the table, can begin the serious discussion that would neutralize future threats from the North. It would take serious efforts from all the parties over time, and Obama can seize a statesman’s initiative by proposing to Xi to let the three parties begin the process.

Solving the Korea conundrum would be a spectacular exclamation mark of his legacy, an accomplishment that has eluded all the presidents that preceded him. His mere willingness to suggest taking on a risky and delicate project would build confidence and mutual trust with Xi and could lead to successful collaboration on many other fronts.

The Limits of American Exceptionalism

This first appeared in Asia Times.

          

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz, published their essay in praise of American exceptionalism (WSJ, 8/29/15) on the same day Asia Times posted Alexander Casella’s criticism of America’s Middle East policy. The contrast would have been amusing except the toll of human suffering attributed by Casella as horrible consequences of American acts of exceptionalism were too much to bear for any one with a conscience and moral scruples.

Casella spoke of the unintended devastation caused by American military incursions into Iraq and Libya. Knocking out the tyrants with the exceptional American firepower was the easy part, the part that the Cheneys adore. Maintaining order and keeping the countries from falling apart has not been as easy, and that’s the part the Cheneys don’t give a hoot about or take any responsibility for. 

Yet, the chaos from destabilized Iraq and then neighboring Syria and Libya have resulted in the deaths of untold thousands of refugees due to drowning at sea or suffocation on land. According to the UN, 60 million people are on the run seeking safe havens. The U.S. created the mess but it’s the Europeans that are left to deal with the humanitarian crisis. The human tragedy being played out now does not concern the Cheneys; they are looking for other places to throw their exceptional weight around.

The purpose of the WSJ piece was to let the Cheneys, under the guise of extolling the virtues of American exceptionalism, rant against Obama’s foreign policy for not being tough enough. Ironically, in Libya Obama and Hillary Clinton followed the Bush/Cheney script for Iraq. Just as tragic, Obama left Libya in as much disarray as Bush did in Iraq.

It's about time America learns that breaking a vase is easy, but holding it together after the breakage is a challenge. It is hard to know how long the U.S. can remain exceptional if we continue to listen to the likes of Dick and Liz Cheney and their ilk and to act on the principle that might is right and damn the consequences.

            

Abe's speech gets a failing grade

This commentary first appeared in China-US Focus.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s speech on the 70^th anniversary of the end of WWII proves that he is master of words that couldn’t be reduced to substance.

The past PM Tomiichi Murayama, in contrast, gave the 50^th anniversary speech that was 60% shorter, yet was met with more favorable reaction around the world.

The biggest difference was that Murayama expressed his personal “deep remorse” and “heartfelt apology.” Abe acknowledged, “Japan has repeatedly expressed the feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology,” but made no personal connection to expressions of regret.

In Abe’s near 1700-word, rambling speech of regret, there were phrases here and there that might appeal to those listening intently for a breakthrough in Japan’s attitude about WWII. But the listeners would find no breakthroughs and plenty of fodder for objections.

He began his speech reviewing his version of history that led to Japan becoming the aggressor of WWII. In summary, the colonial western powers with their protectionist economic policy caused Japan to take “the wrong course and advanced along the road to war.” In other words, the West forced Japan into becoming the aggressor.

Abe barely acknowledged the comfort women issue, the one major issue that has bedeviled Japan’s relations with Asia and the one (of many) issue that Japan has not been able to come to grips with. 

Abe said early in his speech, “We must never forget that there were women behind the battlefields whose honor and dignity were severely injured.” Does that mean he was admitting that Japan forced young women and girls into sexual slavery and ruined their bodies and dreams of future?

Toward the end of his speech, he said, “We will engrave in our hearts the past, when the dignity and honor of many women were severely injured during wars in the 20^th century.” That was it, his total reference to the comfort women issue.

There was a paragraph of remarkable double talk that’s one heck of a head scratcher. He said, “We must not let our children, grandchildren, even further generations to come, who have nothing to do with that war, be predestined to apologize.”

In practically the same breath, he then said, “We have the responsibility to inherit the past, in all humbleness, and pass it on the future.” Huh? Double huh? This is the kind of double speak that leaves plenty of room for future interpretations and misinterpretations.

He didn’t even make passing references to all the atrocities committed by the Imperial troops. His reference to Japan’s unpleasant past was as artful as Hirohito’s national proclamation in admitting defeat.

It has become increasingly obvious that Japanese politicians and government leaders need help in crafting a straightforward, mince no word apology that would be as effective as Willy Brandt’s act of contrition by kneeling before a monument in Warsaw’s Jewish ghetto.

How should an apology sound that would finally put the history of WWII in the rear view mirror for the people of Asia and Japan as well? I have a version to propose to the leaders of Japan.

“To the people of the world, as the Prime Minister of Japan, I wish to apologize to you on behalf of Japan for all the wanton acts of war and brutal crimes against humanity that the Japanese imperial forces committed during World War II.

“I apologize for the destruction of property and killing of innocent civilians.

“I apologize for the rape and murder of women and for forcing young women of all races into sexual slavery in the military brothels that were organized by Japan’s military.

“I apologize for the biological and chemical warfare Japan launched in China and for the live biological experiments conducted on POWs and civilians.

“I apologize for the inhumane hardships that civilians and POWs endured in slave labor camps for the duration of the war.

“I urge all relevant Japanese organizations to quickly make amends to any survivors and heirs of the victims from the aforementioned atrocities.

“I solemnly swear that to ensure history is not repeated, the textbooks in Japan shall describe the unvarnished truth of the War in full and without distortion.”

My version of apology consists of less than 200 words, less than 1/3rd of Murayama’s and about 1/10^th of Abe’s. I’d wager less is more. A simply worded apology with clarity and absent of obfuscation would finally put the memories of WWII to rest.

Willy Brandt will be remembered for his act of reconciliation. A place of immortality awaits a courageous leader from Japan for an act of genuine atonement.

Norman Hsu, the ghost of US elections past

First appeared in Asia Times. 

The resurfacing of Norman Hsu reminds us that he was a well-known bundler for Hillary Clinton just two election cycles ago. Today he is ensconced in prison making $40 per month as a high school tutor for his fellow prisoners.

By giving his first interview since he was convicted and sent to prison (WSJ, 8/12/15), we are reminded that he once lived the American dream. He took money for the gullible promising handsome returns. He then gave some to the politicians. The photo-ops with politicians gave him credibility, which enabled him to take more money from more gullible people.

Instead of merely taking money from the later investors to pay off the early ones, his cutting politicians in on the take gave his Ponzi scheme an extra twist. OK, according to the Journal article, he didn’t siphon from funds he raised so much as he badgered his investors into making political contributions directly to the candidate. After all, he was making so much money for the suckers that they should be happy to donate just to stay on the good side of Hsu.

Norman Hsu and Hillary Clinton at 2005 fund raiser

As anyone running a Ponzi scheme can tell you, you have to bait your scheme by giving away money to early investors in order to establish credibility. Hsu gave money to politicians and gained even greater credibility and faster.

At the time of Hsu’s arrest, the mainstream media made a big deal out of his being a Chinese from Hong Kong. Rush Limbaugh among others suspected conspiracy from the sinister Mainland China. The anti-China hysteria raised during the Wen Ho Lee scandal and alleged campaign finance irregularity had not yet gone away. If some white guy had tried the con, the case would have been nowhere near as sensational.

Being Chinese had nothing to do with Hsu’s con. He was simply taking advantage of the flaw in the American political process. He understood that politicians gravitate towards the rich and famous, because the rich and famous can write big checks and can influence others to do the same.

If the campaign fundraisers are really good at it, they are called bundlers. If they step over a fine line and violate the law, they become launderers. Successful bundlers get recognition and status. If the candidates they support get elected, they get appointed to positions in the government. At the very least, they get access and can claim to have influence in high places.

This is the American democracy in action. It’s all about money. To get elected, the candidate has to raise lots of money. Once elected, the successful candidate has to raise more money so as to scare potential rivals into not running against him or her again. The strength of any candidacy is measured by the amount money in his/her war chest.

Today only money talks. Hsu simply used the system to create a new persona for himself. Others have done the same before him and others will follow. If they are not ethnic Asians, they will not be noticed.

Media’s attention has focused on the scoundrel but not the system that makes such scoundrels possible. Yet it is the system that is corrupt. In America, democracy is no longer one person, one vote. It is $1 million (or some amount depending on the office but increasing with every election) one vote. It is not possible to even run for local city council without raising a lot of money. Small wonder, public interest and voter participation is declining.

It’s laughable to go around the world telling others to be more democratic and be more like us when our system is badly broken and not one any other country would wish to emulate.