America in the World

Barack Obama pursues 'minilateralism' in Copenhagen, bypassing UN for deal with China, India, Brazil and S Africa

One of the most interesting features of the Copenhagen summit was President Obama's decision to work with a very small number of nations once it had become clear that all nations gathered by the United Nations were not going to reach agreement.

The UK Liberal Democrat MEP Fiona Hall matter-of-factly noted the President's actions on LibDemVoice blog:

"After yesterday afternoon’s impasse on an international agreement, President Obama took matters into his own hands, struck a deal with China, India, Brazil and South Africa – and promptly left the country."

For a president who has been critical of his predecessor's go-it-aloneism the decision to form this small group is noteworthy. George W Bush had his coalition-of-the-willing in Iraq. Obama's grouping of China, India, Brazil and South Africa will probably get a name in due course too.

A technical name for what Obama engineered has already been proposed by Moisés Naím of Foreign Policy. He suggested that the failure of multilateralism will increasingly leads to minilateralism:

Naím on the failure of multilateralism: "When was the last time you heard that a large number of countries agreed to a major international accord on a pressing issue? Not in more than a decade. The last successful multilateral trade agreement dates back to 1994, when 123 countries gathered to negotiate the creation of the World Trade Organization and agreed on a new set of rules for international trade. Since then, all other attempts to reach a global trade deal have crashed. The same is true with multilateral efforts to curb nuclear proliferation; the last significant international nonproliferation agreement was in 1995, when 185 countries agreed to extend an existing nonproliferation treaty. In the decade and a half since, multilateral initiatives have not only failed, but India, Pakistan, and North Korea have demonstrated their certain status as nuclear powers. On the environment, the Kyoto Protocol, a global deal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has been ratified by 184 countries since it was adopted in 1997, but the United States, the world's second-largest air polluter after China, has not done so, and many of the signatories have missed their targets."

Naím on the need for minilateralism: "By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach: We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism's magic number. The magic number, of course, will vary greatly depending on the problem. Take trade, for example. The Group of Twenty (G-20), which includes both rich and poor countries from six continents, accounts for 85 percent of the world's economy. The members of the G-20 could reach a major trade deal among themselves and make it of even greater significance by allowing any other country to join if it wishes to do so. Presumably, many would. Same with climate change. There, too, the magic number is about 20: The world's 20 top polluters account for 75 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. The number for nuclear proliferation is 21—enough to include both recognized and de facto nuclear countries, and several other powers who care about them. African poverty? About a dozen, including all the major donor countries and the sub-Saharan countries most in need. As for HIV/AIDS, 19 countries account for nearly two thirds of the world's AIDS-related deaths."

A $30m investment could provide citizens of repressive regimes free access to the internet

An interesting editorial in yesterday's Washington Post argues that a $30m investment could mean that fifty million extra people in repressive regimes could have access to Twitter. Apparently the US State Department has the money within its budgets for this very purpose but has not yet disbursed it.

The Global Internet Freedom Consortium and similar groups have developed the capacity to give citizens of China, Burma, Iran, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes free access to internet services like Twitter. The Consortium declares its mission with these powerful words:

Writing in June, Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times described the power of these "censorship-evasion technologies".

Barack Obama avoids human rights talk during China visit

A leading article in the FT warns Obama against 'kow-towing' to China:

"Mr Obama’s efforts to occupy the moral high ground are also undermined by his flirtation with protectionism, particularly his decision to slap tariffs on Chinese tyres.

His administration has failed to spell out a convincing trade policy – and that is seen as a stark omission for a business-oriented Asian audience. Such perceived deficiencies have hobbled his ability to cajole China with any real conviction.

When it comes to human rights, too, the US seems to have drawn the conclusion it is not good policy to badmouth its chief creditor.

Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, set the tone early when she said that human rights should not “interfere” with matters of implicitly greater urgency. Mr Obama obligingly omitted all references to Tibet, Xinjiang and even Taiwan from his Tokyo speech. There was also not a single mention of India, a potential regional counterweight to China, yet another indication that Washington is behaving as though it is treading on eggshells. It was therefore all the more refreshing to hear Mr Obama criticise Chinese censorship during his town hall meeting in Shanghai on Monday – though even that could not undo his own self-censorship in refusing to meet the Dalai Lama before this week’s trip.

It is right and proper that the US acknowledge the rising significance of China. Mr Obama’s assurances that China’s rise need not be a threat were spot on. But by the same token, US accommodation can be taken too far. Contrary to common perception, China’s huge holdings of US treasuries are not a sign of great strength. They are evidence of how dependent Chinese growth has been on the US consumer.

Equally, any idea that China, with an economy less than a third the size of the US and a GDP per capita roughly the same as Angola’s, can somehow save the world is ludicrous. Mr Obama is right to show respect to China. He need not – and must not – kowtow."

China accuses Obama of "rampant protectionism"

Last week China accused Barack Obama of "rampant protectionism" after the American President imposed a new duty of 35% on Chinese tyre imports.  US labour unions - a key part of the Democratic Party's coalition - had sought the tariffs.

Writing for The Financial Times, Charles Freeman accuses the Obama administration of "calculated cynicism" in its new protectionist attitude toward China:

"The levying of new tariffs on imports of Chinese tyres is not particularly heartening. To be sure, China is no angel in international trade matters. As everywhere, China’s domestic politics complicate Beijing’s economic policies and bedevil efforts of international negotiators to ensure a level playing field in cross-border trade. But this particular White House decision, taken through a process that is widely despised in China as uniquely discriminatory against that country, is no mere slap on the wrist for run-of-the-mill Chinese perfidies. This decision provides fodder for nationalist interests in China that will not just push for tit-for-tat retaliation against US economic interests, but play into a broader trend within China to roll back market-opening reforms. That could result in a back-and-forth battle of retaliatory trade measures which, given the importance of US-China trade relations to global commerce, will provide cheer to only the most parochial of interests worldwide."

An international consensus against Sino-authoritarianism

Today in Notable Arguments, we highlight John Tkacik's case for America to build an international consensus - he does not use the word 'alliance' explicitly - in opposition to China. Tkacik argues:

• While America has confronted major authoritarian dictatorships in the past, none have had the economic, industrial and "and-soon-military" weight of China
• The optimism of many of America's leaders about China's potential for peaceful and democratic development is misplaced - we know from history that a freer economy need not mean a freer society
• Current Chinese foreign policy on Sudan, on Zimbabwe, on Burma, on North Korea and on Iran provides a better - and more ominous - guide to China's future
• America must respond by reaffirming her commitment to her allies, focus the minds of those allies on "the magnitude of the task at hand" and build an international consensus to balance China's rise: "a balance of forces in favor of economic and political freedom".

In AmericaInTheWorld's briefing on China, we examine in greater detail the country's foreign policy in these and other parts of the world. Of all possible alternative global leaders, China is currently by far the most likely to displace the United States. But this would not, in our view, be a desirable turn of events for the world.