November 21, 2008
China's Other Western Friend
Back to blogging again, finally. The campaign trail has been very intense, and I'm trying to put every part of my normal life back together once again, including this blog. The following is my latest installment on Sino-Kazakh relations, a little discussed but significant topic. I will also begin a recap of my campaign experience soon (and try to have as much of a foreign policy spin on it as possible). Enjoy!
China's Other Western Friend
Because of the rising prominence of a rapidly growing China, China’s relationship with the rest of the world has been an important topic both in the political and the business world. While China’s relations with powerful western nations dominate the discussion, there is another country on the west of China that is receiving increasing attention from Beijing: Kazakhstan.
Bilateral trade between China and Kazakhstan has grown significantly in recent years. According to the Xinhua News Agency, China’s official news source, trade volume between the two countries reached 13.87 billion USD in 2007—a 66 percent jump from the previous year. On a symbolic level, the overseas portion of the 2008 Olympics torch relay kicked off in Almaty, Kazakhstan and President Nazarbayev was the first torch bearer outside of China. It is clear that both in terms of hard numbers and political gestures, China sees Kazakhstan as a strategic partner on its western border.
There are two main reasons why China regards Kazakhstan with such high importance. First reason, predictably, is the strategic resources that Kazakhstan possesses. China’s global hunt for oil to fuel its burgeoning economy is a well documented phenomenon and Kazakhstan is an important target of this pursuit. Because of its rich reserves and geographical proximity, Kazakhstan is an ideal partner for China. The long border that the two countries share would give China the advantage of ensuring safe and direct delivery of the resources with relatively low investment on security protection and pipelines (still under construction). With the global economic slowdown deepening by the day, President Hu Jintao will be working particularly hard to maintain his country’s economic growth and fight off the global recession, in order to maintain the legitimacy of his one-party rule—and Kazakhstan’s resources play a pivotal role in this ambitious campaign.
The second reason why Kazakhstan is strategically important is the country’s unique potential to help China quell its western border problems. Considering the long border between Kazakhstan and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, having Kazakhstan’s cooperation will significantly help China stop weapon trafficking, minimize refugee flow, and catch key leaders of the Uyghur independence movement. Although the issue of ethnic suppression on the Uyghurs has received relatively little international coverage compare to its Tibetan counterpart, it is an acute and sensitive topic in China. With the small scale bombings in Shanghai and Yunnan prior to the Olympics and the possibility of more attacks before or during other major events, e.g. the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, the Uyghur independence movement will continue to be China’s top domestic security priority. Nepal has thus far been cooperative in combating Tibetan resistance. By flexing its economic muscles, China is looking for Kazakhstan to do the same against the Uyghurs.
During my travel to Kazakhstan, China’s influence in the former Soviet satellite is easily detectable. Whether it is the high-rising skyscraper of the China National Petroleum Corporation or the conversations I had with Kazakh businessmen, who spoke to me in broken Mandarin, it is clear that China has a solid presence in Kazakhstan and aims to expand it. This expansion will not be without resistance. Kazakhstan has already rejected China’s proposal of a free-trade zone between China and Central Asia because it fears that China’s economic advantages will exploit its less developed industries. Russia is also wary of China’s growing influence in its backyard and is using its legacy to compete for power. Historically, Central Asia had always been a geopolitically critical region of the Eurasia landmass, and, as the largest country in Central Asia, Kazakhstan’s geopolitical significance will only grow; therefore, the development of Sino-Kazakh relation must be closely watched.
Posted by Kevin Xu at 12:51 AM | Comments (1)
June 22, 2008
Zimbabwe: A Lost Opportunity of American Leadership
In light of Morgan Tsvangirai's decision to drop out of Zimbabwe's presidential run-off election, the opposition party--Movement for Democratic Change--has officially failed its bid to end Mugabe's 28-year long tyrannical dictatorship. Citing unfair competition and continuous violence, Tsvangirai condemned the run-off race as illegitimate and does not want to continue for fear of causing more loss of lives due to this political struggle, though some Zimbabwean officials cite fear of an embarrassing defeat as the real reason behind Tsvangirai's withdrawal.
The continuation of Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe deals a heavy blow to all who believes in democracy and freedom's power to bring prosperity and justice. When evaluating the situation further, it is even more disappointing to realize that there was little international intervention during the months of political violence--where innocent people were killed or detained and women were raped or abused all because of their political affiliation and civil opposition to the Mugabe government--to stop the repression and provide the necessary security to conduct a fair run-off election. It was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to exercise its global leadership, regain its international standing, and deliver the good that its democracy promoting platform promises. In her recent essay in Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, forcefully and eloquently articulated a foreign policy platform where democratization continues to be the centerpiece of a so-called "American Realism" (combination of idealism and classic realism). Unfortunately, in the case of Zimbabwe, the U.S. failed to put its money where its mouth is, and allowed the opportunity to slip by. Since the Iraq War, the U.S. foreign policy establishment has been seemingly plagued by a shroud of fear of intervention even when its leadership is clearly called upon. The Burmese monk protest was one of these missed opportunities. The post-election violence in Kenya was another, but thanks to the aggressive leadership of Kofi Annan, a power-sharing deal was brokered and the Kenyan democratic institutions prevailed, though the U.S. had very little to do with it. The chaos in Zimbabwe presented another chance for President Bush to deliver his promise of democracy and end his disastrous foreign policy record on a high note, but he simply decided to put his hands in his pockets and went to Europe.
With one missed opportunity after another, it is not hard to become skeptical of the neo-conservative, democracy promoting doctrine of the Bush-Rice era, no matter how inspiring in words this doctrine sounds. Although Zimbabwe weighs very little in the calculus of U.S. national interest, it is not difficult to see how much benefit a humanitarian success story can bring to U.S. image around the world. This is not to say that we should only embark on a humanitarian mission if it improves our reputation; when people are suffering from brutal oppression from their leaders, the United States has an obligation to intervene to bring security and justice if a clear case for intervention is present. Two prominent scholars from the Center for Strategic and International Studies have already devised a workable plan for the U.S. to remove Mugabe's dictatorship and help improve and stabilize Zimbabwe's fledgling democracy, but our administration has decided to ignore it altogether.
Whether it is for our own interests or the interests of others, we should have intervened in Zimbabwe for the sake of democracy, freedom and humanitarianism--three concepts that should be resonating across the world but have been instead perceived as sugar coats for a selfish U.S. foreign policy. If the United States is truly committed to promoting democratic values and principles, which I imagine it will at least rhetorically, doesn't matter who becomes the next president, we must be ready to back our words with action when a justifiable case of intervention presents itself. Iraq of 2003 was not one of those cases, Zimbabwe of 2008 is. And until we deliver our promise, U.S. foreign policy will continue to bring more caution and fear than hope.
Posted by Kevin Xu at 07:41 PM | Comments (4)
June 10, 2008
Obamamania Around the World
With Barack Obama officially securing the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton officially, albeit bitterly, endorsing him and offering him every ounce of her support, the rest of the world is cheering for the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy led by a man of racial minority, diverse upbringing, sensible outlook on foreign relations, and genuine commitment towards dialogue and diplomacy, even towards a country like Iran. Whether the United States' next president should engage Iran or not is no doubt a hotly debated topic within both the academic and the policymaking circle. No matter who comes on top in this debate, the mere possibility that the U.S. could have Obama as its next president has energized people in the rest of the world both in closed door cabinet meetings and in the neighborhood cafes. The very image of swearing in an articulate, intelligent, African American in January 2009 will, I believe, instantly restore American standing in the world, giving us a historic opportunity to reconstitute an effective, comprehensive and robust foreign policy. People in France and Germany, two of the most adamant opponents of the Iraq War, are already rejoicing over Obama nomination victory. In Japan, a new TV drama was released, starring the handsome and forever-popular Takuya Kimura (木村拓哉), who plays a young Japanese Prime Minister. This character embodies many of Obama's qualities and was repeatedly doubted and scolded by older Japanese politicians but eventually won the hearts of the Japanese people. Japanese TV rarely produces shows with political themes, but Obama's global popularity has swept the often self-contained and apathetic island by storm (and to have one of its cities share the same name as the Illinois Senator doesn't hurt either).
Ironically, his biggest opposition is at home. If Obama were to win the election, foreign policy will not be his trump card. His experience is thin and his track record is essentially non-existent. While there are many intangible appeals to his charisma and moving personal history, voters will look more towards experience and track record when they think about national security. McCain definitely has the edge in this debate, and it would be smart for Obama to steer the election towards the ailing economy, not on security, defense, or foreign policy. His team has already realized this it seems, as Obama embarks on a two-week tour through all the major battleground states to undermine McCains economic policies while re-introducing and re-enforcing his own.
I am confident that Obama's character and judgment will quickly and dramatically improve U.S. foreign policy and American standing in the world. But in order to do that, he must first win the election. And to win the election, he must first stick with the economy and exploit McCain's weakness.
Posted by Kevin Xu at 12:36 AM | Comments (4)