Foreign Policy Priorities for the Obama Administration

The Obama administration certainly has challenges with important foreign policy issues in 2011, all of which are of great importance to national security and America prominence in the world. For instance, President Obama must contend with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict; revolution spreading across the Middle East; Iran’s nuclear ambitions; terrorism; an unstable Pakistan; a drug war at our border in Mexico; an E.U. in financial trouble; and to top it all off, a financial crisis of the likes not seen since the Great Depression. Yet, excluding the above issues, two foreign policy priorities for the Obama administration that stand out are China and North Korea, as both hold immediate and long term threats to U.S. national security. In this essay, I will analyze each in turn.

China

To begin, China, more than any other nation will likely shape U.S. foreign policy over the next century. China is a rising power with a strong economy, nuclear capability, and the largest population in the world. Its government also adheres to an ideology that conflicts with democratic ideals and American interests. Thus, history and geopolitics dictate that the next great power struggle will be between the U.S. and China, but it will likely be much different than the last great power struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Rising powers by nature challenge the status quo and China is no exception. Even with the world fast becoming multi-polar, China, more than any other country has already begun to challenge U.S. hegemony. This is evident in China’s increased military spending, weapons advancement, emboldened rhetoric, and its push to widen its sphere of influence in Asia. To be sure, China has a long way to go to reach U.S. military spending and capability, but revelations of new missile and anti-satellite technology as well as development of a stealth bomber are nonetheless startling and a direct threat to our allies and influence in the region. If such military advances continue at a rapid pace there is always the possibility of an arms race, which would be costly and dangerous.

The likelihood of such a scenario will be contingent upon Chinese autocrats’ ability to foster sustained economic growth; a prospect that is likely given the lack of transparency in government and economic transactions and that a middle class is only just beginning to form in China. What’s more, China has overtaken the U.S. as preferred economic partner in many areas of the world. Chinese money, at the moment, is more plentiful and it comes with fewer restrictions than Western money often does, allowing China to tap into markets in Africa and of other emerging powers to ensure its continued growth. At some point China’s economy will indeed slow from its current pace, but it will likely remain strong for long a time simply out of absolute size and momentum. Supporting this notion is Goldman Sachs prediction that China’s economy will be bigger than the U.S. economy by 2027, and with the current financial crisis others believe it could be sooner. So what does this mean for the U.S.? Simply put, money equals power, and as long as China’s economy continues to grow then its military and influence will as well.

The U.S. must contend with this reality when sizing China up and act accordingly. It must also contend with the fact that China owns $2.5 trillion in foreign reserves, most of it U.S. debt, making the U.S. more beholden to China than other rising powers, or than the U.S. ever was to the Soviet Union. This fact has emboldened China, given the current state of the U.S. economy, and the U.S. should expect Chinese hubris to only grow with its economy. Hence, economics will likely shape this power struggle, but ideology will fuel it.

When the U.S. claimed ownership of the label “global hegemon” from England after WW II, the transition was rather smooth. That was not the case with the Soviet Union; the reason being ideology. The U.S. and England were traditional allies and they shared democratic forms of government. The U.S. and Russia did not, nor do the U.S. and China. This crucial difference is the reason the next great power struggle will be between the U.S. and China, and not India, Brazil, or Turkey. It is also the factor that will most likely shape and drive U.S. foreign policy with China; a country that is unlikely to implement democratic reform any time soon.

A cornerstone of U.S. hegemony has always been its values, and for the U.S. to maintain its spot at the top of the superpower list it must be superior in the realm of values as much as economy and force. At the moment, China is enjoying a boon in trade partners, partly because their money comes with fewer strings attached and they are simply a welcome alternative to the U.S. But after awhile, many of those countries may become disillusioned with China’s lack of transparency, human rights abuses, and the unequal playing field of foreign investment in, and access to, the Chinese market. It is also unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future, that China would risk slowing its economic momentum by backing its allies with military force or by acting as world policeman as the U.S. often does. Thus, it is not unlikely that a majority of countries will ultimately prefer a democratic ally and business partner over a communist China. The U.S. should exploit this fact and shape a foreign policy with China accordingly.

The good news is China is not another Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons and one party states are where the analogies between the two end. China has a different agenda and economy than the Soviet Union and therefore the threat of nuclear war is less likely in any power struggle. What’s more, because the Chinese and American economies are so reliant upon each other, both countries have a vested interest in seeing the other’s economy succeed. China also has a slew of domestic problems that the U.S. should take into account when shaping its Chinese policy such as demographic and environmental issues, unequal income distribution, scarcity of resources, as well as inflation, rural social unrest, increasing demands for political reform, currency issues, inadequate social safety nets, corruption, and transitioning its economy from export driven to consumptive.

So how should the U.S. deal with China?
It’s been a long time in coming, but China has arrived on the global stage and they are here to stay. Thus, strong diplomatic ties with China are pertinent to U.S. national security and influence in the world. On the economic front, the U.S. and China need each other, but at the moment the playing field is unequal. Thus, the U.S. should continue to pressure China on the issues of its currency, direct foreign investment, and tariffs. This should be done first through dialogue and diplomatic channels, then through the WTO, congress, and the implementation of tariffs. To be sure, it will be a delicate process, but it is likely to bear fruit once the U.S. economy has fully recovered.

On a broader geopolitical front, the U.S. should pursue a policy of containment with China. This will stymie China’s influence in the world, dip into its coffers, and keep Beijing on its toes. It will also send a message that the U.S. will not relinquish its position in the hierarchy of states to China. To do this, the
U.S. must maintain navel superiority in the Asian region. Therefore, Obama was prudent in renewing ties with our Asian allies and in befriending new ones like Vietnam. The U.S. should also bolster its cyber warfare and defense programs, an area which China appears to have taken the lead. The U.S. should also promote itself abroad by engaging in sustained public diplomacy programs and soft power approaches to humanitarian and political issues. This will promote democracy and America’s status in the world. Finally, all of this should be done while fostering an atmosphere of dialogue and friendship that allows the U.S. to pressure China diplomatically for democratic reform and political change.

North Korea

Another important foreign policy issue for the Obama administration is North Korea. Often referred to as “The Hermit Kingdom,” North Korea has been a foreign policy concern for the U. S. since the end of armed conflict between the two Koreas in 1953. As a communist dictatorship with an inept leader and nuclear ambitions, North Korea has been extremely belligerent and prone to sudden acts of provocation over the years. Even as one of the poorest countries in the world, North Korea has a massive conventional armed force, long-range missile development, and a WMD program. Other security concerns include arms dealing, counterfeiting, and drug trafficking, making North Korea perhaps the most dangerous rogue nation in the world, and the Korean peninsula one of the most volatile places on the planet.

Recent provocations by North Korea only attest to the seriousness of its threat to the region and U.S. national security. Since the sinking of a ROK navel ship last year and the shelling of an island by the North that houses a ROK military base, tensions on the peninsula have not been higher since the end of the Korean War. All of this current turmoil is also unfolding during a transitioning of power in North Korea, which is often a delicate and dangerous process within dictatorships and one-party states. During such periods, there tends to be a lot of in fighting and tension between military and political leaders, making the country less stable and more aggressive.

What’s more, the recent provocations have implications for U.S. foreign policy with China, as Beijing has voiced its disapproval of a greater U.S. naval presence in the area as a result of the current incitements on the peninsula. Thus, given the rise of China and the current dynamics in Eastern Asia, if fighting was to break out in Korea, the incident could escalate quickly into a much larger war between superpowers, which would badly destabilize the entire region and affect U.S. power abroad.

So how should the U.S. deal with North Korea?
The most important issue here is that North Korea ceases any further development of its nuclear program. Thus, the goal is to get North and South Korea to return to six-party talks. Yet, North Korea is a unique issue for the U.S. because the two countries have severed diplomatic ties, making dialogue between the two very difficult. As a result, the U.S. must rely on third parties and special envoys for communication. For this reason, it is important that the U.S. pressure China to take a greater role in resolving this issue; a golden opportunity to push China to act as a more responsible leader in global affairs.

Beyond six party talks, the U.S. should continue a policy of sticks and carrots through isolation and sanctions. If there is one thing rogue nations crave, it’s attention, and by isolating North Korea from the rest of the world the U.S. puts pressure on Pyongyang to comply if it wishes to be a relevant player on the world stage and receive the attention it so desires. The U.S. should be firm on sanctions with the North, which should continue and not be lifted until the North allows full and unfettered access to its nuclear facilities. Too many times in the past the North has fallen back on its promises and it will continue to do so if sanctions are lifted too easily. With that in mind, sanctions should be focused as much as possible on things that directly affect the political leadership and military apparatus rather than the entire nation, which is helpless and starving. In short, the U.S. should continue its hard line with North Korea while pressuring China and maintaining a strong presence in the region.

In conclusion, as a superpower the U.S. has a greater burden than most to be involved in world affairs. This responsibility requires that the U.S. engage in sound foreign policy that ensures national security, protects our vital interests and allies, and engenders an atmosphere of peace and cooperation across the globe. In order to do this effectively the U.S. must maintain strong ties with other nations in the world through consistent and productive dialogue. Thus, diplomacy is our country’s first line of defense. It helped to build our nation in its early stages by garnering economic ties and keeping us out of war. Diplomacy also averted nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis and ushered in a new era with China, and today it guides and shapes out foreign policies for the next century. I have endeavored in this essay to analyze just two of the many important foreign policy issues that the Obama administration faces in 2011. I am sure that U.S. policy with China and North Korea will change as circumstances change, but I have no doubt that the Obama administration will, with the capable aid of the Foreign Service, analyze both issues meticulously and form foreign policies that adhere to national interest and American ideals.