U.S. athletes win gold and silver medals in women’s downhill at Vancouver. Photo: Flickr user Beachpiks

Our northern neighbors are concerned. Perhaps buoyed by hosting the Winter Olympics, a Canadian TV interviewer asked me about a “touchy” subject recently: Has America lost its mojo? How are Americans feeling these days? Are we going to be OK again?

I had to be honest that Americans are in the dumps. Many of us are experiencing the hardest times of our lives, and meanwhile China, India, and others seem to have bounced right back.

Our national gloom explains why the ruminations on America’s decline are coming fast and furious. Book titles tell the story: The Post American World, The End of Influence, When China Rules the World, Freefall.

It is bleak now, but America should step back from the ledge because the future is looking up. Here are 10 things to remember about America and decline:

1. America’s fate is in its own control

This is cold comfort given the dysfunction in Washington, but it is nonetheless important to remember that the decisions Americans make at home determine our fate far more than anything China or any other pivotal power does — including keeping its currency undervalued, as destructive as that is.

America can put itself in a position to thrive in a world with stronger powers by investing in its own future, and first and foremost in the innovation that drives economic growth. This includes funding basic research and development, improving education, reforming health care, and renewing infrastructure.

America also needs to trim and refocus the defense budget, rein in the budget deficit, and shift to renewable energy sources. All of these steps are easier said than done, but let’s put the onus for our fate where it belongs.

2. We are still number one

We shouldn’t forget that America is still far ahead of all other emerging and established powers by nearly every important measure. And we have demographics on our side. Because we welcome immigrants and because many parents are bravely choosing to have three kids or more, America’s population is set to grow over the coming decades.

Of the other major pivotal powers, only India can say the same. The rest are either already shrinking — Japan, Russia, much of Europe, and Brazil — or looking at a huge baby boom problem within 20 years: China.

3. Our relative decline is inevitable

Relative to other pivotal powers such as China and India, we are declining — the huge gap between the United States and the others is shrinking. That is a function of two factors completely out of American control: the size of their populations being many times larger than ours, and the fact that they are at earlier stages of their economic growth, still climbing out of poverty and moving people off subsistence farming.

There isn’t a causal connection—they are not growing because of our decline. One day, they will likely have economies larger than ours. But we can’t go around hoping that poor countries will stay poor. Moreover, their growth will lift us, too, if we make smart investments (see number 1) because their new middle-class consumers will buy quality American products.

4. Primacy isn’t what it used to be

It is not as important as it used to be for a power to remain on top by a huge margin. Countries used to acquire power by conquering each other, and in that world, primacy is a life or death matter. The contest today is to see who can grow and lure more innovative talent, and become energy independent first. Land grabs are a waste of time and money.

Sheer military power is also not enough anymore for America — or any other country — to keep its own population safe. Terrorist attacks, freakish weather events and lethal flu viruses are harming Americans — not other big countries. The United States will need to work with other nations to address those border-crossing evils whether we are on top or not.

5. Americans have it really good and will for generations

Here’s another key point to remember: China and India’s growth will not change living standards for the vast majority of Americans if we make the right choices at home. Even if China’s economy does grow to be larger than ours one day, there is no reason to think Americans will be worse off. We could even be better off. Look at the British — they enjoy very comfortable lives and take a lot more vacations since they gave up their empire.

The fact that the American middle class did not gain during the last expansion was as much the result of domestic policy favoring the wealthiest as it was new wage competition from abroad. A strong China or India will make our lives different, and America will not always get its way, but American standards of living will remain high if we deal with our demons at home.

6. Americans are safe

Americans enjoy an unimaginably high degree of safety from outside threats compared to most other peoples. We are protected by oceans, a strong military deterrent, and a stable society based on the rule of law. The growing strength of other powers will not change that fact.

7. The trajectories of future powers is unknowable

It seems that China, Brazil, and India are rising inexorably, and maybe they are. But maybe they aren’t. The Soviet Union looked like it would be around forever in 1988, and in 1990, Japan was seen as the undefeatable hegemon. We just don’t know, and can’t control, the futures of other big powers — which is yet another reason to focus on getting our own act together.

8. American leadership is vital, and everyone knows it

Even after eight years of stomach-churning foreign policy under the Bush administration, most countries acknowledge that American leadership is vital to solving major global problems and keeping order. If China could snap its fingers and halve America’s power, it is not clear it would — who would protect its oil tankers? No other power has the same credibility, capacity, and inclination to step into our shoes. China doesn’t want to lead, and other powers trust Beijing even less than they do Washington. America will thus continue to be influential even as its relative power declines.

9. Previous bouts of self-doubt have proven unjustified

As Atlantic correspondent James Fallows recently explained, Americans are prone to cyclical periods of self-doubt. Our worries have been part of American culture since the days of our founders. We have beaten ourselves up and written ourselves off on many past occasions including Sputnik in the 1950s, culture wars of the 1960s, oil crises of the 1970s, and Japan paranoia in the 1980s. The only difference now is a 24-hour news cycle that makes a profit by probing and sensationalizing our malaise.

10. We still have fundamental strengths

America doesn’t have nationwide broadband, consistent cell coverage, high-speed rail, or large-scale solar, though we need them. But it does have a high tolerance for failure, which encourages zany and sometimes very profitable ideas. We also have deep and broad capital markets that reward risk, although hopefully no longer in crazy financial instruments; great universities; creativity; diversity; and a willingness to embrace anyone who works hard.

So don’t count America out just yet. Instead, contact your senator. You know what to say.

- Nina Hachigian

Chinese soldiers saluting. Photo: AlanShanley on Flickr

Nina Hachigian is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-author of The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise (out in paperback next week).

The news coverage of the U.S.-China relationship is getting more hysterical by the day.

The Washington Post last week ran an editorial accusing the Obama Administration of spending its first year “going out of its way” to “cater” to Beijing. Moreover, the editorial concluded, this approach backfired, and now China is more aggressive than ever, “busting with hubris,” and testing to see how far it can push the new U.S. president.

The Economist’s coverage was nuanced, but its cover this week shows a giant smoking dragon looming over a tiny Barack Obama, who appears to be pleading for a rational chat.

The New York Times has run a series of pieces suggesting the Administration is kowtowing to Beijing, and Robert Kagan and other conservative commentators accuse the Obama administration of appeasing dictatorships and abandoning democracies.

A common narrative in this coverage is that the U.S. decision to sell a large package of arms to Taiwan last week was because Obama administration officials finally realized they needed to take a harder stance. Why? Because their earlier “soft” approach was not working.

What is actually going on here?

The early stages of the U.S.-China relationship during the Obama administration have not played out according to the usual script. The president did not promise on the campaign trail to be “tough” on China — a position he would have been forced to abandon within a few months, just as Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did.

In the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis, the Obama administration instead came to office wanting to preserve the stability of the U.S.-China relationship while also placing a new emphasis on joint global problem solving.

This is not appeasement. This is common respect and pragmatism born of looking down the road at a whole host of challenges — where the only way forward is to cooperate with China. It is also part of a larger administration effort to mend fences around the world by listening and extending basic courtesy, both of which cost nothing.

But cordiality should also not be confused with deference. From the beginning, the administration also made decisions that cut against Chinese interests, such as imposing tariffs on imports of Chinese tires. And despite many accusations to the contrary, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials have repeatedly pressed the Chinese on human rights, both publicly and privately.

The Obama approach has yielded some significant results, especially in the area of climate and energy. During the president’s trip to China in November, deliverables included, among other things, a partnership on developing clean-coal technologies and a collaboration to help China develop an accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory — so we can all know if China is actually bringing those emissions down.

For the first time, China not only voted for tough U.N. sanctions against North Korea last year, it also enforced them. Beijing also joined in a harsh rebuke that the International Atomic Energy Agency issued against Iran in November for its illicit nuclear activities.

Beijing agreed during the darkest days of the financial crisis to coordinate their macroeconomic moves with the United States and other economies around the world and, in line with U.S. wishes, enacted the largest economic stimulus of any country, on a percentage basis.

Of course, the glass is still half-empty. The Chinese position at the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen was better than most had expected six months earlier, but still not nearly enough to actually prevent the worst effects of global warming. Beijing continues to protect Tehran from additional international sanctions.

Beyond the difficulties on the shared global challenges is the Bermuda triangle of the U.S.-China relationship—trade, Taiwan and Tibet—that are always neuralgic. In the space of a week, the Obama Administration promised to sell Taiwan a $6.4 billion in arms, confirmed that the president will meet the Dali Lama in February, and raised the pressure on China’s currency policies.

China’s reaction to all of these actions (so far at least) is well-within historical norms, especially given that Tibet and Taiwan touch at the core of Chinese anxieties about territorial unity and foreign intervention. China’s leaders face pressure from a loud minority of their own citizens screaming for Beijing to take a “tougher” approach to the United States.

Is China more confident? Yes.

Will its increasing diplomatic weight sometimes make it more difficult for America to achieve its priorities? Yes.

Is the Obama administration being “tougher” because it suddenly realizes this? Of course not.

It is continuing a policy to expand areas of cooperation while dealing with the sometimes sharp differences in an open and straightforward manner.

Aside from fulfilling the ever more ubiquitous media practice of characterizing everything in terms of a conflict, the recent China coverage also plays into the larger meme of American decline that is going around like a bad flu. It is true that China is stronger. And America is weaker. But, importantly, the two are not causally linked.

If America is going to get stronger again, it needs to concentrate on its problems at home. Investments in health care, education, innovation and clean energy are the real answers to America’s ability to thrive in a world with stronger powers.

The gridlock in Washington will influence future American generations much more than what China does or doesn’t do this week. The breathless coverage of the latest spat with China is a distraction from the work at hand.

U.S. President Barack Obama. Photo: WhiteHouse on Flickr

He probably won’t focus on it much in his State of the Union address, but President Obama is revolutionizing the core paradigm of American foreign policy. If he succeeds, our children and grandchildren will be set to thrive in the more multipolar era to come.

Think back a few years to the Bush Administration when the central strategic pillar of national security strategy was to maintain American primacy. To remain safe, the reasoning went, America had to continue to stay more powerful than all other countries by the existing, huge margin.

This strategy had a number of conceptual flaws. It suggested to the many rising powers, China, India, Brazil, Russia and others, that the United States would stand to benefit by their failure. That is largely false, and thus a needlessly antagonistic message that amplified existing distrust.

Moreover, the source of the most lethal and immediate threats to Americans was and is not strong countries but terrorists, viruses and global warming. Americans need the help of those same pivotal powers, and they need ours, to tackle those threats.

Reduce nuclear proliferation without Russia? Slow climate change without China? Good luck with that.

In the end, the primacy strategy failed to deliver. It tempted our leaders into a reckless war. It did not prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. It did nothing to slow China’s influence, as was its implicit goal. And it helped wreck our relationship with Russia.

A fixation on primacy paradoxically undermined the influence and authority America did have in much of the world. But the Bush strategy was not exceptional, only exceptionally badly executed. For all previous administrations since WWII, American primacy has either been a goal, an assumption or both.

America is still the world’s only superpower, but from day one, President Obama rejected a single-minded quest for primacy as the organizing principle of our foreign policy. He signaled this in his inaugural address when he said “Our power alone cannot protect us.”

Later, in a speech in Moscow, he was more explicit about his great power strategy: “[G]iven our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game - progress must be shared.”

The Administration knows that the central challenge now is getting these other pivotal powers to solve problems, play by the rules, support international institutions and share the costs of providing for the global common good.

It’s still early days, but they’ve had some success so far with their approach, which I call strategic collaboration. China has agreed to limit its carbon intensity, though it must do more. And for the first time last year, China not only voted for tough U.N. sanctions against North Korea; it also enforced them.

Despite how neuralgic the issue is there, Russia decided to allow the United States to transport supplies through its territory into Afghanistan. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, co-chaired by the United States and Russia, is up and running again. These nations and others agreed during the darkest days of the financial crisis to coordinate their macroeconomic moves.

Finally, Beijing and Moscow did recently join in a harsh rebuke that the International Atomic Energy Agency issued against Iran.

Of course, China and Russia, not to mention India and Brazil and others, need to do more to help solve global challenges. We will continue to have differences with these pivotal powers, some very heated, particularly in the areas of human rights and democracy.

But there is no quid pro quo. Washington can cooperate with Beijing and Moscow to contain swine flu or climate change and still press them, as President Obama has, for political reform.

Not everyone is happy with this shift in America’s foreign policy. Conservative commentators claim Obama officials are naïve to think that great powers will cooperate, and they accuse the Obama Administration of adjusting to the relative decline in American power rather than trying to stop it.

While the Administration is rightly updating our foreign policy to this new age of security interdependence, it is certainly true that American power is vital. America needs to retain significant influence in the international system to protect American interests and the liberal nature of the system.

Moreover, while it seems unlikely, China or some other big power could become an aggressive hegemon one day, and America must be prepared.

But it’s not enough to say America should continue to be strong. It takes controversial investments; convincing politicians to prioritize long-term success over short-term gain is never easy.

And that is where Obama’s domestic agenda comes in. What health care reform, investments in basic science, green technologies, banking regulation and renewing public education are all about is retooling America so it can thrive in the global economy. Every great power needs a great economy.

America will continue to be an indispensable nation, in many cases, the indispensable nation. Not because of its unassailable power, but because of its ideas, values, and leadership.

Nina Hachigian is the co-author of The Next American Century: How the US Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Obama and his national security team. Photo: Flickr user WhiteHouse

One unquestionable success of the Obama administration so far has been to turn the page on the failed Bush foreign policy framework.

Not so, says Robert Kagan, who reveals a perverse nostalgia for the previous paradigm in his recent writings in which he argues that the Obama administration is formulating foreign policy from a perspective that accepts, rather than fights, the decline of American power.

To understand this yearning for American policy of yore, you have to remember that American foreign policy leaders during the Bush administration clung to the false promise of primacy, the belief that the lynchpin of American security was for it to remain more powerful than all other countries by a huge, fixed margin.

Mona Sutphen and I described why this was a misguided strategy in our 2008 book, The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive As Other Powers Rise. But the proof is in the pudding. In the end, the primacy strategy didn’t deliver.

Primacy tempted our leaders into a reckless war in Iraq. It did not prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. It did nothing to slow China’s influence, as was its implicit goal. And it wrecked, with Moscow’s help, our relationship with Russia. A fixation on primacy paradoxically managed to undermine the influence and authority America did have. Nevertheless, the fact that the Bush administration embraced the notion of primacy was a comfort to the remaining Cold Warriors.

President Barack Obama’s approach is different, to say the least. His political allies and his detractors can agree that Obama sees foreign policy not in terms of asserting America’s unparalleled might, but of seeking common cause, including with other major powers. On the one-year mark of his presidency, the contours of the new paradigm are fairly clear:

• Lead the world in addressing shared challenges
• Treat other governments and peoples — friends and foes — with respect
• Forge strategic collaborations with big, pivotal powers and demand responsibility from them on global challenges
• Reinvigorate and repair existing alliances
• Reengage with international institutions and rules, pushing for increased accountability
• Make basic political and economic rights available to more people, knowing that democratic government is the best way to achieve this goal

As for primacy, Obama dismissed that as a strategy goal in his inaugural address when he observed, “Our power alone cannot protect us.”

Later, in Moscow, Obama elaborated on his view of great power relations, saying, “a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries…[G]iven our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game — progress must be shared.”

Robert Kagan now accuses President Obama of reorienting American foreign policy away from its WWII and Cold War roots, focusing on how “to adjust” to the decline in American primacy instead of trying to reverse it. He portrays administration officials as naïve ideologues, buttering up autocracies and forsaking our democratic allies.

Kagan’s analyses fail to discuss two major developments that demand a new approach—the increased potency of transnational threats and the new salience of domestic policy in America’s world standing.

Kagan writes as if the Obama administration is engaging with re-emerging powers to prove an ideological point that great power strife is a relic of history. Yet no staffer that I have ever spoken with would suggest that these relationships are beyond rivalry.

More importantly, Kagan does not reveal the Obama administration’s reasons for pursuing strategic collaborations with China, Russia, India, and other pivotal powers.

In fact, these partnerships are necessary to protect Americans from common threats in terrorists, global warming, economic crises, nuclear proliferation, and pandemics such as swine flu — the forces of disorder that can and do affect Americans right here at home.

Kagan barely mentions these threats, but to keep its own people safe, America needs Russia to secure its loose nuclear materials so terrorists cant get it. America needs China — the world’s largest emitter — to cut down on its carbon. And America needs India to help track extremists. Moreover, America needs all of them to contain pandemics.

How can we get these big, proud countries to take these steps? Aggressive diplomacy.

Transnational threats also explain why the Obama administration is taking international institutions seriously. It’s not because the president is looking to attend more international meetings; it’s because international rules and institutions play a vital coordinating role when threats cross borders.

The World Health Organization led the battle against swine flu last year just as the International Monetary Fund bailed out a slew of countries headed toward financial ruin. Fortunately, international architecture and traditional alliances are not mutually exclusive, as Kagan would imply.

It’s still early days, but the Obama approach is paying dividends. China has agreed to limit its carbon intensity. And, for the first time last year, China not only voted for tough U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang; it also enforced them, in contrast to Kagan’s assertion that the administration has failed to gain “any meaningful Chinese help in North Korea.”

Russia has allowed the United States to transport supplies through its territory into Afghanistan. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, co-chaired by the United States and Russia, is up and running again. A successor to the START treaty to reduce our arsenal of nuclear weapons is not yet complete, but it’s on the way.

And these nations and others agreed during the darkest days of the financial crisis to coordinate their macroeconomic moves. Iran remains a challenge, but Beijing and Moscow did recently join in a harsh rebuke that the International Atomic Energy Agency issued.

Of course, we continue to have differences with these pivotal powers, including on human rights and democracy. Kagan is simply wrong to suggest that administration officials have failed to “continue to press Russia and China for reform.” They have, just not in a grandstanding, provocative way that ends up being counterproductive.

Here, for example, is what President Obama said in Moscow:

The arc of history shows us that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not. Governments that represent the will of their people are far less likely to descend into failed states, to terrorize their citizens, or to wage war on others. Governments that promote the rule of law, subject their actions to oversight, and allow for independent institutions are more dependable trading partners. And in our own history, democracies have been America’s most enduring allies, including those we once waged war with in Europe and Asia– nations that today live with great security and prosperity.

And here is what he said in Beijing a few months later:

Finally, as I did yesterday in Shanghai, I spoke to President Hu about America’s bedrock beliefs that all men and women possess certain fundamental human rights. We do not believe these principles are unique to America, but rather they are universal rights and that they should be available to all peoples, to all ethnic and religious minorities. And our two countries agreed to continue to move this discussion forward in a human rights dialogue that is scheduled for early next year.

Where does Kagan get the idea that Obama is not a champion for liberal democracy? The difference is that the Obama staffers have no illusions about how hard it is to impose a liberal transformation from the outside. Every country has to forge its own future. America can help, but we can’t call the shots.

Kagan also accuses administration officials of squandering American primacy. “Instead of attempting to perpetuate American primacy,” he writes, “they are seeking to manage what they regard as America’s unavoidable decline relative to other great powers.”

The truth is that America’s relative decline is, in fact, unavoidable in the short term. That’s just a matter of definition when China’s economy is growing at 8 percent or 10 percent, India’s at 6 percent, and ours not at all. It won’t always be this way, but it is now.

Rather than pretending otherwise, the administration is facing and addressing this uncomfortable fact. Because while it is true that our toughest global challenges require cooperation, American power is a vital ingredient to securing the best possible future for Americans.

Kagan declines to mention domestic policy, yet rebuilding American strength is, at the end of the day, a task for us here at home. Behind every great power is a great economy.

We can try to perpetuate our power and influence all we like, but if our economy doesn’t begin to grow steadily again in the years to come, all our scrimping will be for naught—we simply will not be able to afford the tools for an expansive foreign policy, not to mention rising living standards for future Americans.

Growing American strength is not about rhetoric; it involves tough political choices. Getting politicians to prioritize long-term success over short-term gain is never easy.

The unifying theme of President Obama’s domestic agenda is retooling America so it can prosper in the global economy. That is what the health care debate, investments in basic science, green technologies, and public education are all about, not to mention the banking rules designed to prevent another bubble/bust cycle. All of these investments would be a lot easier if the last administration hadn’t committed a trillion dollars to a needless war. Talk about squandering primacy.

America will bounce back. And it will continue to be an indispensable nation, not because of our unassailable power, but because of our ideas, our flexibility, and our leadership–- the strengths that in fact enabled our still vast military superiority.

Fortunately, Barack Obama has proven to be a leader that reads America’s virtues broadly, and enlists others in their promise. Perhaps it is simply too inclusive a worldview for those that miss the clarity of a bipolar ideological contest.

But as Obama has pointed out, such clarity is a luxury we can no longer afford.

- Nina Hachigian

Hillary Clinton meets with S. Korean military officers in February 2009. Photo: Flickr user IMCOMKorea

Hillary Clinton is off to Asia, her second trip there since she took office. Right away, she became the first Secretary of State in four decades to go to Asia before Europe. The Obama Administration is playing its cards well on Asia so far.

Despite the contentious issue of the location of the American military base at Futenma, the Administration has forged solid ties with a brand-spanking-new government in Japan, which came to office having very public doubts about the alliance.

Relations with China now have a set structure, with the annual Strategic Economic Dialogue, Presidential summits and formal bilateral talks on a whole host of subjects, terrorism recently included.

The Administration is pushing China to play a constructive role on global challenges, with some results in climate and on Iran.

Rough patches are coming up, however, on trade, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, President Obama’s upcoming meeting with the Dalai Lama and China’s recent crackdown on dissidents.

And the harsh sentencing of democracy activist Lu Xiabo is a depressing sign of the times.

The U.S. has signed ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, allowing the U.S. to appoint an ambassador and formally tying the US closer to SE Asia. President Obama was the first U.S. president to attend an ASEAN summit. As China’s courting of SE Asia has been in overdrive in recent years, this is a welcome symbol of U.S. engagement in the region.

North Korea’s nuclear program continues to vex, but the Administration persevering. China actually enforced sanctions against its neighbor last year, and the Obama Administration can take some credit for that.

We’ll see whether the Obama Administration’s willingness to talk bilaterally will succeed in the end. The U.S. does not seem willing to give any additional concessions to get North Korea back to the negotiating table.

The Administration certainly breathed new life into the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

And they checked the box on a “strategic” relationship with India, though the relationship needs deepening.

Secretary Clinton is going to visit Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea — and then give a major address on Asia policy during her trip.

One major theme will be: America is back.

- Nina Hachigian

Read their most compelling personal accounts and commentary from 2009, touching on subjects ranging from the seemingly-endless war in eastern Congo to pop culture in North Korea.

	INDIA “Slumdog” immigrant waits for U.S. Green Card lifeline	Rajeet Mohan is an Indian living in the U.S. on an H-1B visa. He shares his frustrating immigration experience and offers some solutions to retain and leverage highly-skilled immigrants in the U.S.
	CONGO War still rages on in corners of eastern Congo	Michael J. Kavanagh reports on the conflicting news coming out of eastern Congo. In the region’s most remote areas, Kavanagh has seen victims of attempted massacres, torture and kidnappings, as well as sex slaves.
	TAIWAN Taiwanese baseball fans outraged by game-fixing charges	Hsin-Yin Lee writes how a game-fixing scandal has rocked Taiwanese professional baseball. Fans are wondering whether there is a future for the island’s beloved sport. Evidence says Taiwan’s league is all mobbed up.
	JAMAICA Gay men in Jamaica must lead two separate lives	Lisa Biagiotti shares the story of a gay Jamaican who received asylum in the U.S. on the basis of his sexuality. While he is now free from persecution, he struggles with his identity and still conceals his sexuality from family members.
	SYRIA Watching Oprah in a Syrian refugee camp	Kristen Gillespie produced two signatures stories out of Jordan for Worldfocus. She writes about the global reach of “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” which has impacted a refugee living in a Syrian refugee camp.
	PAKISTAN Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in Pakistan	S. Azmat Hassan argues that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan will not succeed in fighting the Taliban. He outlines Taliban groups on both sides of the border and explains the Pakistani reluctance to take on the Afghan Taliban.
	NORTH KOREA Sweet dreams of Beyonce in N. Korean people’s paradise	Part 4 of 6 of our Inside the Hermit Kingdom series on the people and culture of North Korea. Ben Piven writes about popular music, food and beer in the most isolated country on earth. Believe it or not, North Koreans know Beyonce.
	CUBA Cuba provides free health care without the worry	Apropos of the current health care debate in the United States — what happens when a government you dislike does some good things? Cuba has a startling level of health care, writes Worldfocus blogger Peter Eisner.
	MYANMAR A Burmese family’s story of multiple arrests, weekly bribes	Karen Zusman writes about one Burmese family caught up in the human trafficking on the border. In June, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report blacklisted Malaysia for trafficking refugees into Thailand.
	CHINA Post-Tiananmen, it’s no easier seeking human rights abroad	On the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, Nina Hachigian writes that in the last 20 years, while standards of living in China have risen dramatically, political reform has stalled and dissidents continue to live in terror.

. Traditional Chinese drummer takes part in a Global Day of Action on the environment. Photo: Greenpeace International

I want to write about China, but let me first take a moment to note that the leaders of the entire world are coming together, in the snow, to tackle a global threat. Yes, it’s chaotic and disappointing so far, but that such a gathering is taking place at all is somewhat amazing and hopeful.

The more each of us recognizes that we are world citizens as well as citizens of our nations, tribes, religions, etc, the better able we will be to find solutions to our common problems. If global warming has a silver lining, other than for Canadian farmers, it is that it encourages us to think in planetary terms.

Onto China. China has a lot of good reasons to demand all it can from the developed world at the Copenhagen summit. And the developed world needs to own up to its responsibility for past and current emission sins.

The U.S. has a long way to go to meet its own obligations, and we need to make up for the last eight years of irresponsible inaction. But the future of global warming belongs in large part to China.

The U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, pointed out earlier in the summit that almost all the growth in emissions from now until 2030 will come from the developing world, half from China alone. At the end of the day, as a pivotal power, China has to be willing to sacrifice for the global common good.

In a recent report, I concluded that it is still rare for China to act proactively to solve global problems. But it has happened, as in the case of North Korea’s nuclear program — and on pandemics.

When it comes to global warming, with the international spotlight shining brightly, China did pledge to cut the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of its gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. That was a significant development, though not ambitious enough, according to many.

Now the sticking point seems to be “MRV.” China is refusing to have its targets be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.” Without that provision, other countries, most notably the U.S., will not know whether China is sticking to its commitment or not. China’s point of view is that the burden should be on the West to do more, not on them.

So what are China’s reasons for holding firm against developed world demands that they do more in a treaty on global warming?

• It’s the economy (and demography). The imperative to grow the Chinese economy, and safely manage its estimated 24 million unemployed (and thus hold onto political power) is an immediate mandate, requiring great energy resources, whereas the threat of global warming is more distant and will evolve more gradually. Moreover, the Chinese population is aging rapidly and could peak as early as 2020, which means that by 2035, China will be carrying an enormous elderly population. There is great pressure on China’s leaders to develop and grow the economy as quickly as possible.
• Equity. The Chinese argue that the West grew rich spewing carbon and that it is unfair to demand costly limitations from them at this stage in their development. Deborah Seligsohn explains: “Chinese scratch their heads. They know they live in tiny apartments, turn off all lights, wear three layers of clothing indoors in the winter, and only run the air conditioner on the hottest days. Then these Americans come to town on jets, blast the air conditioning and lecture them about their energy use.” The Chinese also argue that when Western nations import industrial and manufactured products en masse from China rather than producing them domestically, they effectively outsource their carbon emissions to China.
• Skepticism. The American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year falls far short of where China thinks developed economies need to be. The Chinese are also skeptical about whether the United States will ultimately make it law and then implement it in a rigorous way. They also point out that the bill uses “offsets,” or credits for carbon that was not released but otherwise would have been, which China thinks is a politically expedient provision that could act as a major loophole.
• Suspicion. The belief that American demands for carbon reductions are motivated not by concern for the planet but by a desire to limit China’s growth and keep it weak continues to find some currency in China.
• Performance anxiety. China has set ambitious domestic targets for itself, as noted above. Yet the Chinese don’t want to commit to them internationally because they want to be able to outperform whatever they promise. They have a strong political incentive to exceed all targets. Beijing is also concerned that if they don’t make the targets, they won’t get credit for trying.
• Lagging self-perception. As it has happened so quickly, some Chinese leaders have not come to terms with the size of China’s impact. “It was like squeezing blood from a stone,” explains a senior U.N. official, requesting anonymity, “to even get the Chinese to realize even implicitly, let alone explicitly that they are now the world’s largest emitter.”
• Uncertainty. Climate targets being considered by the international community reach out to 2050. But China is likely to change between now and then in ways difficult to predict. The level of uncertainty is substantially higher than in most countries in the developing world and may contribute to a reluctance to commit internationally to long-term goals.
• Tactics. China may still be waiting to make its big move so it can “save the day.”
• Beijing’s limited leverage. While Beijing elites may prefer a more environmentally balanced growth structure, they sometimes can exert little control over provincial politicians who favor GDP growth at any cost.
• Wanting to keep its coalition together. China does not want to take actions that will separate it from its developing country caucus. China has worked hard to build relations with the developing world and does not want to be seen abandoning them but rather defending their interests in international arenas.

As I said, these are compelling reasons for trying to get the best deal possible. But they are not good enough to scuttle the possibility of a treaty that will help forestall the devastation a heating planet will visit on China, and every other part of the world.

I want to be hopeful and, generally, when heads of state show up, if things are going to happen, they happen. But in this case the divisions seem very deep.

And as much as the symbolism of more than 100 heads of state coming together is exciting, I worry they will bog down negotiations as much as help them. Still, here’s hoping China doesn’t want to pass up an excellent opportunity to look like the world’s savior.

Read much more at the Center for American Progress‘ climate change blog.

- Nina Hachigian

The American and Chinese leaders. Photo: Al Jazeera

I generally listen carefully when Les Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, speaks. He challenges conventional wisdom with enthusiasm and his policy ideas are often original and useful. But while some observations were on point, his dismissal of President Barack Obama’s trip to Asia struck me as largely off base.

First of all, there were some important deliverables announced during the president’s trip to China, particularly on climate, such as an electric car initiative, a joint clean-energy research center, a partnership on developing clean coal technologies and a collaboration to help China develop an accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

Gelb’s critique also didn’t adequately appreciate that President Obama was the first U.S. president ever to attend a meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations, that important 10-member group of dynamic and growing economies that sits astride the Indian and Pacific oceans.

If that doesn’t count as involving the United States in Asian multilateralism, I don’t know what does. After all, following eight years of perceived slights by Washington while China filled the vacuum with copious diplomacy, the United States has to show up and listen at such forums before our leadership will again be welcomed and trusted.

On China in particular, President Obama’s trip has yielded further progress since he returned. First, on Thanksgiving, China — the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases — pledged to cut the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of its gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

It is a very big deal that Beijing has moved off its long-held position of refusing agree to any firm limits on its carbon emissions. Of course, given China’s economic growth, these targets are not adequate to prevent the 2 degrees of warming scientists tell us we must, but it’s a significant start and farther than many thought China would go.

Moreover, China’s decision will translate into political momentum as negotiators from around the world alight in Copenhagen later this month to develop an international deal to address global warming. And now that China has agreed to a target, in the future it will be that much easier to have discussions about making that target even more ambitious and about helping China develop the capacities needed to measure its emissions and reach that goal.

Beyond this big news, a few days ago, China (and Russia) endorsed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s order that Iran immediately freeze operations at a once-secret uranium enrichment plant. This was the first time the IAEA made such a demand of Iran. China and Russia’s participation in it was a real breakthrough.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called both of these policy shifts the “direct result” of President Obama’s trip. I don’t doubt that, but even if you take into account that causality can be tricky to determine in diplomacy, the Obama trip, at the very least, was a major factor in both of these outcomes.

Today, I feel vindicated in my relatively positive analysis of the president’s trip. Within 10 days of President Obama leaving China, China took two major steps toward being the responsible global steward we want it to become.

As I outlined in a recent report, the United States will not want to accelerate the coming of the day when China will throw its weight around in all issues, but we do need China to help solve international problems and strengthen the international system. Getting emerging powers to do their part will be a vexing challenge for American foreign policy for years to come.

These are victories for Obama’s strategic approach toward China—persistent, tough, quiet diplomacy. We may not see a lot of fireworks, but the president is racking up steady progress with China on very tough problems.

There will be tensions, for sure, and particularly on issues where we diverge, such as human rights, but in one trip, Obama achieved more with China than his predecessor did in eight years on a critical global issue — climate change. Obama is making steady progress on nuclear proliferation as well. I’d call that a worthwhile expense of Obama’s time.

- Nina Hachigian

President Barack Obama is taking the right approach in treating China as a key partner on global challenges by emphasizing the need for joint problem solving on his recent trip. But no one said it would be easy to cooperate with China’s leaders—or thrilling.

Case in point: the joint statement released by President Obama and his counterpart Hu Jintao. The document is remarkable in scope, but shows that the most we can expect on our shared agenda is incremental progress.

A presidential summit is what they call in government an “action-forcing event.” When heads of state meet and the cameras roll, the foreign policy bureaucracies of both nations are motivated to go for the gold. The results of the summit likely represent the most the United States and China could both sign off on at this moment. These gains are not earth shattering, but they unquestionably represent forward movement in some areas.

The most specific and ambitious plans came in climate and energy. In addition to throwing support behind a binding deal at Copenhagen, the two sides agreed to launch, among other programs:

* An electric car initiative
* A joint clean-energy research center
* A partnership on developing clean coal technologies
* A collaboration to help China develop an accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory
* A U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program to bring the private sectors of both nations into the clean-energy transformation so necessary for both nations to undertake

On the economy, less specific plans were announced but the two presidents reaffirmed the role of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations as the premier international leadership forum as well as the “cooperative process on mutual assessment” agreed to by the G-20 last month. This refers to an initiative announced at the recent G-20 summit in Pittsburgh whereby member countries will submit their macroeconomic plans to one another for review.

This G-20 review process could prompt uncomfortable exposure for the Chinese on their undervalued currency, so their recommitment to it is welcome. And though China did not make any new pledges on the value of the renminbi at the summit, the central bank earlier indicated a new flexibility about determining its value, and President Hu vowed, again, to continue to move toward a more domestic demand-led economic growth model. The other side of this needed bilateral rebalancing came in the form of a U.S. promise to rein in its budget deficits over the long term.

The two sides also agreed to push for the reform of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and to provide more resources to these multilateral institutions. That’s good news, and would signal a change if it comes to pass. As a recent report of mine describes, China is engaged in the international system but has not yet used its clout to strengthen international institutions and is decidedly avoiding a leadership role on most global challenges.

Also included in the joint statement were promises to increase cooperation in counterterrorism, agriculture, and pandemic disease. You get the idea: lots of issues, lots of pledges. As they are implemented, though, these could really matter. Each could mean greater safety for individual, ordinary Americans—from terror plots, tainted food, and swine flu.

Ultimately, that is why the relationship with China is so important. Beijing holds big cards on threats that can harm Americans. As a growing export market for U.S. goods and services, it also represents a partial answer on how to generate new U.S. jobs.

But let us be clear—they need us, too. Media stories have played on the theme of China’s rise and America’s decline. But American global leadership is real, it continues, it benefits the Chinese in many ways, and they know it. Interdependence works both ways. America being out in front is what allows China to take a back seat on many global issues.

The difficulty the United States faces in the future will be persuading China to help more in solving global problems– as the earlier mentioned report details– while at the same time being able to live with the reality that China’s leaders are not going to follow the U.S. playbook when it does not serve their interests. The lack of emphasis at the first Obama-Hu presidential summit on pressuring Iran on its nuclear program and the “agree-to-disagree” outcome on human rights and on Tibet illustrate this clearly.

But perhaps the new unilateral U.S. initiative announced at the summit– to send 100,000 American students to China over the next four years– will be the most important outcome from President Obama’s China visit. That program will pay future dividends in a greater understanding of this pivotal power among the American people and provide the Chinese who encounter these students a better sense of us, too.

Shanghai. Photo: flickr user Furryface

Last week, as he prepared to leave for Asia, President Obama called the U.S. relationship with China a “strategic partnership.” This new label is 100% certain to be met with accusations of appeasement and naivete by the not-always-so-loyal opposition. The neocons didn’t like the concept of “strategic reassurance” that Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg unveiled a few weeks ago, and spoke about at a recent Center for American Progress event, and they are going to like this even less. But using this term before his first visit to China is quite a smart move.

After also calling it a “competitor,” Obama referred to a strategic partnership with China in the context of major transnational threats. China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon, its most dynamic large economy (and owner of some $800 billion in US treasuries) and a nuclear power that neighbors North Korea and buys more oil from Iran than any other country. If China doesn’t become our partner, then we are in trouble.

Unfortunately, China has not been a reliable partner so far on these global challenges. As I detail in a new report, China is very engaged in all the international institutions and diplomacy, and this is a big step in the right direction. But you can count on a couple of fingers the number of times China has taken proactive leadership on a global threat: North Korea (but it took enormous and constant US pressure to get them to lead on the Six Party Talks); and the avian and swine flu pandemics, although its active leadership has consisted of convening international conferences of health experts– important, but not exactly mind-blowing.

In fact, Beijing is not using its leverage with Iran to end its nuclear program; it has so far resisted agreeing to specific targets for its carbon emissions that would make a global deal to address climate change possible; and the steps China is taking to move to a domestic-led growth model that will address global economic imbalances are welcome, but too few and too slow.

What the Chinese will tell you is that they achieve a productive relationship by, first, developing trust with their counterpart and only then embarking on problem-solving together. This is exactly reverse, they will say, of Americans, who want to get things done and develop trust in the process. President Obama is thus offering a modicum of pre-trust that the Chinese say they need. This is not weakness– it is clever diplomacy.

The Asia itinerary makes clear that China is only one element of U.S.- Asia policy. President Obama is strengthening our traditional alliances in Japan and South Korea, and finally getting the US in the game of multilateral diplomacy in APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) on which China has been running the tables over the last eight years.

Ultimately, though, for the new label to match reality, the Chinese need to pony up — on climate, currency, Iran and Afghanistan, among other issues — to help solve these problems, reassure the US that they are indeed willing to act like partners and confirm that the political risk President Obama took in nomenclature was worthwhile. Moreover, tackling each of these threats is in China’s own long-term interests.

If, over time, the Chinese do not cooperate more deeply, then “strategic partnership” could end up just a blip in the historical fluctuations of US-China terminology. But instead I hope that, in a few years, it turns out to be a positive, accurate and highly unremarkable description of our relationship with China.

- Nina Hachigian

Nina Hachigian with Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg. Photo: Flickr user CenterforAmericanProgress

I haven’t much posted recently because I just finished a report about China’s role in the international system.

China’s New Engagement in the International System looks at China’s engagement on four transnational threats that the Obama Administration has prioritized — global warming, the global economic crisis, nuclear proliferation and global pandemics like the swine flu.

The bottom line conclusions I reached were these: China’s transformation on the international stage has been profound, moving from a hostile, aggressive “rogue” state outside the international system to a full and active participant in global institutions.

China is deeply engaged in international institutions and initiatives. Chinese officials show up to all meetings, they are serious, and they often contribute to policy discussions in a constructive manner. This is no minor milestone.

Yet the quality of China’s engagement today on these four transnational issues leaves something to be desired from an American point of view. While China does play by the international rules to a large extent in these four areas, China does not reliably use its clout or leverage either to solve global problems or strengthen the system.

Rarely does it show proactive leadership on global problems, though the cases of North Korea’s nuclear program and pandemic flu are hopeful exceptions.

We launched the report this week at an event at the Center for American Progress with Deputy Secretary of State (and my former boss) Jim Steinberg. I asked him all questions about the framework for US-China relations and the upcoming trip. You can watch it here.

I’ll write more on this topic and the President’s upcoming trip to Asia in posts to come.

As he has said himself, his accomplishments aren’t comparable to past recipients (so far). But President Obama’s foreign policy vision is worthy of international accolade. He is implementing a strategy that recognizes that nation states have to hang together in this world or suffer apart.

Countries that want peace and prosperity — which is most of them — need to work together to have any hope against forces of chaos like global warming, worldwide economic crises, omni-present swine flu or terror attacks.

And they need to strengthen the international system that helps fight them, too. That is a far cry from thinking that rising powers as a threat to us as many in Washington tend to do.

Last year, in conjunction with the book I co-authored on this topic (see sidebar), an artist made this video:

It’s often described as “edgy” by my foreign policy friends–to try to illustrate this point and we had the following discussion about it.

I’d like to hear what you think.

- Nina Hachigian

Students sing in honor of the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China.

This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

What better way to celebrate a birthday than to take to the world stage? Last week, Hu Jintao became the first Chinese president to address the U.N. General Assembly, a privilege seemingly reserved for the president of the United States and colorful despots such as Moammar Kadafi. The People’s Republic, which turns 60 on Thursday, has evolved from tin-pot polity to powerhouse. And among the spectacular transformations China has undergone, its dramatic turnabout in how it relates to the world stands out.

China began as a pariah state, rejected by and immensely hostile toward the world community. Marxism shaped its view of international organizations as the “instruments of capitalist imperialism and hegemonism,” and for decades China had little to do with them.

Fast-forward to last week, when Hu proclaimed the “important role” of the United Nations and entreated the international community to “continue our joint endeavor to build a harmonious world of enduring peace and common prosperity.”

Today, China has joined every major international organization to which it is eligible and signed more than 300 international treaties. It has even had a hand in creating new regional groups. “They are acting like the new us,” a U.S. official told me. They prepare, send huge delegations to summits and carefully cultivate diplomatic capital.

This is not just lip service. In many cases, China’s engagement with global entities such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund has prompted Beijing to bring its conduct in line with international standards.

The next step, though, is a critical one. Now that China is fully engaged and has earned considerable clout, what will it do? Will it increasingly abide by and support international standards? Could it eventually become a genuine leader for the global common good, with the risk and sacrifice that often entails?

Beijing sends mixed signals. On the hopeful side, we see China’s leadership on the North Korean nuclear issue — hosting many rounds of the six-party talks, producing draft agreements and now, for the first time, enforcing U.N. sanctions against its nominal ally. And although it once objected to the whole idea, China now has 2,000 of its citizens in U.N. peacekeeping operations.

China has also done an about-face since the 2003 SARS debacle, when it covered up the outbreak and deceived international health officials. This time, it is sponsoring international conferences on swine flu and vaccinating millions of its people. In the economic realm, the stimulus package Beijing enacted in response to the global meltdown was huge — exactly the scale that the IMF and the U.S. recommended.

Of course, every nation acts in its own interests, but in all these cases, China also promotes the broader safety and prosperity of the world.

However, other areas show the zero-sum side of China’s international engagement. On climate change, China is one of the big bumps in the road on the way to a binding treaty at the Copenhagen summit in December. Thankfully — as it is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — Beijing is going gangbusters on efficiency standards and renewables. But unless those domestic ambitions can be turned into specific and verifiable international commitments, there will be no deal, and the world will continue toward climate calamity.

There are other concerns. Chinese companies are signing billion-dollar energy contracts with Iran just as the international community is trying to ratchet up the pressure on the Tehran regime over its nuclear ambitions. And Beijing is still holding out against tougher sanctions as the U.S., France, Britain and even Russia push forward.

Also, China’s human rights conduct does not live up to international standards, and, often to ensure access to natural resources, it supports and shelters dictators who abuse their people. Its concerted efforts at industrial espionage undermine international law, and its no-strings-attached development assistance, while doing some good, is setting back anti-corruption efforts.

The U.S. does not have the power to make China a global do-gooder, but it has some cards to play. Administration officials have begun to frame the bilateral relationship in terms of global challenges, so that the health of the U.S.-China relationship, which Beijing cares deeply about, is tied to progress on major threats such as climate change and Iran. The U.S. is also reengaging with multilateral organizations, which increases Washington’s leverage when dealing with Beijing.

One of the most effective ways for Washington to shape China’s evolution is to remove Beijing’s excuses for inaction by leading ourselves — passing strong climate change legislation, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, making good on President Obama’s disarmament pledges and increasing efforts to alleviate extreme poverty around the globe.

U.S. exceptionalism has often provided political cover to China. In his own speech to the United Nations last week, Obama acknowledged that the United States hasn’t always been a fully responsible superpower, and he pledged to do better.

The Chinese say it is unfair to expect a still-developing China to shoulder so much international responsibility. But the forces of globalization that made China the major power it is today are the same ones breeding threats that only nations acting in concert can address.

China has come a very long way in two generations. Let’s hope that the next 60 years see China’s growth into a model citizen and stalwart supporter of the international system — for its own sake, and for ours.

- Nina Hachigian

Photo courtesy of Flickr user kevsunblush under a Creative Commons license.

G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh. Photo: Argentine Government

A surprising amount happened last week on the diplomatic scene, from the Iran confrontation to President Hu’s historic first speech ever by a Chinese president to the U.N. General Assembly where he announced some pretty dramatic steps on climate to President Obama using his leadership at the U.N. to pass the non-proliferation resolution to the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh.

Policies within the established architectures were changing, but finally the architectures were changing too. First, the G-20 resolved to replace the G-8 as the go-to group for global economic leadership. As I’ve written frequently, this is the right move. But a lot of questions remain including — who are the 20? Are they going to be the current 29 or so leaders, or will they find a way to shrink the group to a more manageable size? More importantly, will they find a mechanism to “refresh” the membership every so often? The top economies won’t always be comprised of this group. It would ensure the group’s future relevance if they brought in new blood and excused old blood every now and again, as I’ve suggested in the past.

The IMF is also — finally — going to better reflect the economic realities of today, because the G-20 agreed to shift 5 percent of voting shares from the developed to the developing countries. This might not sound like a lot, but in the world of IMF governance, it’s major. It shows Europe’s willingness to give up some of its over-representation.

Finally, the G-20 undertook two interesting experiments in accountability. First, it reviewed its progress to date. The result sounded like a puff piece, but the exercise, if taken seriously and done regularly, is one method to hold this group to account for its performance. Finally, it asked member countries to submit their macroeconomic policies to a “peer review” process. This is an interesting way to try to put teeth in a system with no built in enforcement mechanism. Peer pressure can be a powerful force, even among major powers.

- Nina Hachigian

Nina Hachigian is joined by Bruce Jones, the director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University and senior fellow and director of the Managing Global Insecurity Initiative at the Brookings Institution.

The agenda for this week’s meeting of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations is full, but when the leaders of all these countries sit down in Pittsburgh to discuss banking regulation, energy and poverty alleviation, one question will not be on the table — the question of who should be at the table in the first place.

Deciding which nations will sit at the global decision-making table is more politically charged than whether to tie bankers’ bonuses to the risks they take or whether countries can and should stop subsidizing fossil fuel consumption. Resolving which nations will try to forge consensus on these and other critical questions, however, is key to determining whether any resolving actually gets done.

The current G-20 — which in fact consists of roughly 27 countries — came to life when the Bush administration was in a big hurry to address the global financial crisis back in 2008. The previous global leadership forum, the Group of 8 — the United States, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia — lacked the participation of newly emerging economic powers such as China and Brazil as well as several other major economies such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea. A global crisis requires global participation, and the G-8 was clearly the wrong tool for the job.

Since the G-20 already existed at the ministers’ level, President George W. Bush moved it up a notch to create a new forum. Pittsburgh marks the fourth time this group of leaders has met, but it still operates on an ad hoc basis and the confusion of who attends is undermining confidence in its ability to deliver. The challenge now is to forge a G- grouping that actually works.

The first problem with the current G-20 is that its membership is somewhat arbitrary. It is loosely based on economic weight, but Argentina, whose economy is not in the top 20, attends meetings and Poland, which is in the top 20, does not. If the G-20 were comprised of the actual top economies, then at least extremely time-consuming and distracting squabbles over who is in or out would be minimized. Using objective criteria for membership also has the aura of fairness in determining eligibility.

To increase legitimacy by increasing representation, the Center for American Progress proposed a variation of this idea earlier this year. The plan would take the top two economies from each of five regions of the world and then fill in with the next 10 largest economies. The group could also evolve over time, with membership recalculated every five years to reflect the actual economic and power realities of the moment. That “refresh” makeover would ensure that the group doesn’t quickly become a relic.

Another approach would be to base membership not just on economic weight but also population. One version proposed by the Brookings Institution’s Managing Global Insecurity project, would be to combine economic weight and population in determining the rankings of the top 16 countries.

Both the CAP and Brookings’ approaches allow for the inclusion of important populous countries such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Nigeria in addition to the big emerging economic powers that are now in the G-20. This has the potential to make the group’s decisions resonate with a far wider set of countries. That would help ensure greater global compliance with any decisions the leaders of these countries agreed to take.

The difficulty with all of these proposals, as President Barack Obama points out, is how do you explain to the 17th or 21st country that it is not welcome? That’s tough politics.

Hence a third answer is popular these days, which is to have a core of powerful countries act as the new G-grouping and then vary the membership depending on the issue. But if the politics of who’s at the G-20 table are thorny, why repeat them every single time a new meeting is convened? Surely better to take a tough decision once, rather than endlessly renegotiate it.

The choice of a global leaders-level summit grouping involves tradeoffs of important attributes. The new grouping should be broadly representative to maximize its legitimacy, but small enough to be effective. It should tie membership to responsibility, but also serve to shape the choices of less responsible, yet powerful, actors. Ideally it would be inclusive but small, representative but value-based, and legitimate, but effective.

That may simply be an unattainable goal in today’s world. Thus the Obama administration and other governments at the G-20 summit next week need to decide what attributes are most important and then brave the consequences. We believe that the most important balance to strike is between efficiency and buy-in — largely confining the club to those with actual power in the world economy and global security but bringing in a few countries that represent broader regions or groupings of states.

Right now, with the G-8 still active and the G-20 also meeting, the window is open for the Obama administration to develop a consensus around a new grouping of global leaders, or perhaps more than one, that could play a key role in global cooperation for decades to come. If they don’t seize this moment, however, important issues could drift, setting back progress.

If this issue isn’t tackled head on and some degree of stability brought into global decision making, both resentment and uncertainty will rise. That puts at risk the broader strategy that President Obama has outlined of forging broad cooperation on critical issues, such as non-proliferation or the upcoming talks in Copenhagen to forge a global carbon-emissions accord. These are problems that can’t wait for solutions.

- Nina Hachigian and Bruce Jones

See the original post.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user iwasaround under a Creative Commons license.

Missile defense during the Bush administration was so contingent as to be faith-based — if Iran builds long-range missiles, if they choose to commit a suicidal act by launching one, if the system can be made to work…if, if, if.  Of course, we need to plan for long-term and unknown threats, but not at the expense of protecting against more immediate and known threats. This shift also opens up more potential for cooperation with Russia on Iranian nuclear ambitions, by removing an irritant in the relationship but, more importantly, by showing just how serious we are about the threat from Tehran. Another victory for rational defense policies.  Go Gates.

- Nina Hachigian

Pollution in northern China. Photo courtesy of Flickr user AdamCohn under a Creative Commons license.

It’s good to be back. Some recent bits of news on China and climate caught my attention. First was Todd Stern’s admonition in Tuesday’s FT that China and India risk protectionist measures in the U.S. Congress if they do not agree to bind themselves in Copenhagen to curb carbon emissions.

Politically, this is certainly true. But it made me wonder whether tactically we should decouple China and India on climate in the run up to the negotiations in Copenhagen. Todd Stern has forgotten more about these issues than I will ever know, and, of course, in the long run we absolutely need all the major economies on board. Emissions from India and Russia could potentially catch up to China’s one day.

But, today, the real problem (other than us) is China. That fact is reinforced by a two-year study conducted by Chinese government thinktanks, released Wednesday, that said if China’s energy usage structure remains unchanged, its emissions of greenhouse gases would represent 60 percent of total global emissions and three times China’s current production. Of course, China’s usage IS changing, and that’s the encouraging news. China is massively investing in clean and efficient technologies.

That said, China is the largest emitter in the world and will be for some time to come. The U.S. and China account for about 20 percent each of global emissions and India is currently only at 5 percent. A 2006 study [PDF] from the Department of Energy has that disparity continuing until 2030. Even if India catches up, much faster, or China slows its emissions growth dramatically, China will still a much bigger part of the problem well into the future.

Moreover, the critical political point for today is that the largest emitter, China, has refused to commit to binding targets at Copenhagen for reducing its emissions. Without that commitment, the international community can’t forge a deal. Lumping India and China together offers China political cover in the negotiations. It reinforces China’s strategy of aligning itself with truly poor developing countries, like, say, Chad, that really cannot be asked to bear the costs of climate change. Further, while the Chinese government can likely deliver on an international commitment, its not clear that the Indian government currently has the capacity.

Right now, it may make sense to isolate China as a unique case. Particularly when by China’s own measure this week, it is no longer a low-income country, but a middle income one. I am not suggesting bilateral negotiations — the current set of mechanisms is fine. And we need the other emerging economies signed onto any treaty with as good a commitment as possible. But pressure where pressure is due — the real challenge of the coming months is the PRC.

- Nina Hachigian

When the kids of an uninsured family start showing symptoms, they will head to the emergency room — because they can’t call their primary care doctor for an initial read. ERs could easily get overwhelmed as the pandemic spreads. That will place a huge, expensive and ultimately deadly stress on the system.

I realize that insuring the uninsured is not what average Americans care about right now given the economy — it sounds expensive and the insurance lobbyists and neocons such as George Will are trying hard to play that up. So I think it’s right for the administration to be emphasizing the virtues — that a new health care plan means that preexisting conditions will be covered and that you can never lose your insurance for good.

The last thing they want is to create a panic around H1N1. But soon, it might be the virus that sells the Obama health care plan.

- Nina Hachigian

Clinton made a surprise trip to North Korea.

Update: North Korea has reportedly pardoned the two U.S. journalists.

Those who have complained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has too many envoys are going to have a field day with this. But the decision to send former President Bill Clinton to Pyongyang to try to negotiate the release of the two Americans held there, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, is a smart move.

First, sending a well-respected former U.S. president shows the kind of respect Pyongyang is likely to respond well to.

Second, having such a seasoned political observer on the ground will give the U.S. some intelligence about what is going on in Pyongyang these days, with rumors about Kim Jong Il on dialysis and the plan to hand the reins to his youngest son, Kim Jong Un.

To the extent that the Obama administration wants to send a signal that they want to find a way to reengage after the second nuclear test, President Clinton can be trusted to handle that carefully.

Fourth, Bill Clinton is an excellent hands-on negotiator, and he won’t give up.

Finally, the fact that the U.S. is sending such a high-level figure means that back channels have indicated the possibility of success. I’m willing to live with the smirks for a decision that might return two Americans to safety and could help break the impasse with North Korea.

- Nina Hachigian

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton under a Creative Commons license.