Clinton’s Dangerous China Stance
The rhetoric and tactics that Hillary Clinton has pushed on China policy demonstrate everything that is wrong about her campaign, and herself as a politician. Publicly advocating that President Bush should boycott the opening ceremony in response to a pu-pu platter of offenses by the Chinese Government would not only fail to help promote progress on the issues, it would serve as a significant set-back. As we have seen on a variety of issues, mostly vividly the currency revaluation, bombastic rhetoric and open confrontation rarely works with the Chinese Government. Instead, persistent pressure in a quiet way is much more effective.
But don’t believe me, just because I say it. Instead, listen to the words of one of Senator Clinton’s recently-resigned top East Asia advisers, Richard Baum.
Richard Baum, a political science professor at the Center for Chinese Studies at UCLA, resigned in light of what he called “grossly misguided accusations” made by Clinton about China.
“As a lifelong Democrat, it saddens me that Sen. Clinton has chosen to take the low road in her effort to gain our party’s presidential nomination,” Baum said in an e-mail to Politico.
The problem is that Senator Clinton is clearly much more concerned about the political points that she can score in the short-term, than any long-term policy goals. This is a pattern that we have seen over time. She claims that she wants to promote the Democratic agenda, and yet she has repeatedly said that John McCain has better qualifications than Barack Obama.
There are only two possibilities here:
- Ms. Clinton actually believes that announcing in April that Bush should boycott the Opening Ceremony will actually help to change China’s (the government, folks) stance on Tibet, human rights and Darfur, which would be stunningly ignorant about how China’s government works, or
- Ms. Clinton doen’t care about the impact that the move would have in China, which would be to make the leadership dig in its heels. It would mean she only cares about how it plays out in Pennslyvania.
It makes me sad that I suspect the latter is the correct rationale. She is willing to slash and burn everything in that perpeutal goal to make it to 50.1% of the vote. Imagine if she wins the nomination by having the superdelgates overturn the will of the people. Even if she won the presidency, which she wouldn’t, she would be so reviled that she wouldn’t be able to govern. Now imagine if she keeps advocating this dumb idea that Bush should publicly humilate China’s government by pulling out of the ceremony at the last minute. How much leverage do you think she would have with Beijing to implement the changes she hopes for when she becomes president?
None. And the point is she doesn’t care. For someone supposedly so dedicated to good policy, she seems disturbingly tied to short-term politics.
[Update]
I noticed this bit today. I’ll let Senator Clinton’s words speak for her.
This quotation is from Sunday as cited here:
“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain,” the New York senator said in Johnstown. She said the Arizona senator would follow “the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years.”
It came in response to this (note that Obama never criticizes Clinton in this):
“You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush,” Obama said.
“But what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?”
Now here is what Senator Clinton said March 1, according to CBS:
“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Or maybe we should look at this speech she gave five days later:
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”
There is a distinct pattern of political oportunism extending from the campaign to China policy.
Share This
Glen responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm →
Nice free plug for your boy (Obama). While I was disappointed by Sen. Clinton’s comments, they are not totally out of left field. Her trade policies would be far more beneficial for the U.S. - China relationship than Sen. Obama’s would be.
Really, none of the Presidential candidates is discussing China and that’s a shame. They don’t want to make promises that they’ll have to retract later.
Matthew Stinson responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 7:55 pm →
I tend to agree with Glen here. Hillary and Obama are a distinction without a difference when it comes to China.
Obama has also called on Bush to strongly consider boycotting the opening ceremonies.
Obama has similarly threatened to “shut off Chinese access” to American markets if China doesn’t revaluate the RMB faster.
Remember also that Obama has shot his mouth off about China before, only to fall back to a more moderate position. Do you recall the “ban all Chinese toys” comment just before Christmas?
Now, I don’t expect a lot to come from either candidate’s rhetoric in turns of policy. After all, I seem to remember that the first candidate Clinton in 1992 accused the first president Bush of “coddling the butchers in Beijing” and having too liberal a trade policy, but then went on as president to be cozy with Beijing, save for the 1999 embassy bombing incident. Hillary or Barack or John would be more of the same.
Josh responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 8:35 pm →
You might want to double check the “ban all Chinese toys” comment. Even on the site you gave it is clear what he meant, but just in case, here is the quote from the December 4 debate which I have posted on this site:
“I would, say, ‘Toys, they cannot come in.’ Food, Japan, they have set up their own inspection standards in China, and they say, ‘unless you meet our inspection standards, you cannot ship in here. If we don’t have labor agreements and environmental standards that are enforceable, there are consequences.’”
Stopping the importation of goods until they meet safety standards…not that crazy.
(minute 43 of the debate: here)
Peanut Butter responds:
Posted: April 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm →
Clinton made a good call. This idea that we should tip-toe around the Chinese in the hope of appearing unthreatening so that they’ll be convinced to do what we want them to do is nonsense. The weaker and more pandering you appear, the less anyone respects you, this is a universal rule and applies to China as much as anywhere else. I’m tired of us babying the Chinese.
Matthew Stinson responds:
Posted: April 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 am →
Josh, the ban all toys flap isn’t the worst of Obama’s China comments, but he did say “I would stop the import of all toys from China” on the stump (not in debate) and he had to retract/clarify that exact declaration. What Obama is doing on China is talking like Clinton, but hedging a bit around the edges.
In his defense, at least he’s not trying to out-McCain McCain in other foreign policy arenas.