Kerry On China (2001) Gives A Good Intimation Of His Way Of Thinking

I just re-read this, and was impressed by it's window into Kerry's thinking. Foremost, the man is an international chessmaster. He understands the short-term, but also plays 10 moves ahead. Secondly, he very much believes in laying the case out to the public why international policies matter. Thirdly, he is very much conscience of the ways culture informs policy for other nations. Fourthly, he is absolutely committed to the long-term need for both international cooperation and raising international standards of conduct.

---

"China will continue to be the most important—and most difficult—bilateral U.S. relationship in the years to come. It is clear that the Bush administration will maintain the policy of engagement with China, but it must engage China more effectively to better serve our national interests and rebuild the consensus in Congress in support of engagement. Bush must do four things to meet that challenge.

First, he must recognize that engagement is not an objective in and of itself. Engagement is a process through which the United States and China pursue respective interests—some mutual, some not. Given the differences, engagement must be long term and promises to be challenging.

When China takes actions to which we object, whether toward Taiwan or its own citizens, we cannot let fear of disrupting the process of engagement restrain us from responding firmly, in public as well as private.

Second, the president must more clearly articulate U.S. national interests with regard to China if we are to do more than simply lurch from one crisis to the next. We need to give Americans a better understanding of why we must engage China and what is at stake for the United States.

If Americans fail to understand the linkage of interests with China, then setbacks in one area, such as human rights or trade, can undermine our ability to effectively maintain the overall relationship. By clearly stating our interests and our goals, we can stay focused on the issues of real importance and avoid unnecessary and harmful distractions.

Third, we must be more realistic about expectations for short- and long-term progress. Concluding a WTO agreement with China was a short-term goal. Promoting human rights and change in China is a long-term objective, and success or failure is not simply a function of our bilateral relationship.

We must realize that China’s fractious history and desire to maintain power has embedded in its leaders a deep-rooted fear of too much rapid change and a resistance to anything that might undermine stability and cohesion. Due to this tendency, our ability to influence China varies—a point that policymakers in both the executive branch and the Congress must understand and convey more clearly to the U.S. public. For this reason, a pragmatic U.S. approach to China must include multilateral efforts.

Finally, we must be prepared to hold China accountable for its actions. When proliferation agreements or human rights are violated, we must invoke the enforcement mechanisms within international institutions such as the Geneva Human Rights Commission, the International Labor Organization, or soon the WTO, as well as enforce our own domestic laws.

The international community must insist that China be responsible for full compliance with its commitments. The U.S. public will not continue to support engagement unless we are more realistic about China’s transgressions and oppose them openly. The level of debate has been frustrating and less than visionary."

www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

<>

I read through all that twice, and I still don't understand the point he was trying to make. Was the point as simple as "We need to keep an eye on China and make sure that our interests are entwined with theirs so that we will have some leverage over them through trade."?

This doesn't seem that hard to grasp. Kerry is saying that Bush must continue Clinton's commitment to long-term engagement with China. And while we must openly condemn them when they do bad things, we must also keep our eyes on the prize. In other words, every time China screws with Taiwan or abuses human rights, we have to recognize that Rome wasn't built in a day - so we shouldn't cut off relations like we did in North Korea (the next section of the article).

I'm not sure where he is using difficult language or makes a confusing point. I can understand if you were trying to make this about Howard Dean, you might be looking for trade agreement specifics, but that's only a part of the picture here.

We need to keep an eye on China and make sure that our interests are entwined with theirs so that we will have some leverage over them through trade.

We should use that leverage with the help of other countries, while speaking openly, to promote better support for human rights and political change within China.

That's pretty much what I came up with.

And the American people need to understand that it is better to work with the Chinese towards this goal, that this is why we have trade policies with China, but that it won't be easy or completely problem-free. When those problems come up, we need to be stronger in addressing them and condemning China's actions. Where we are today with China, isn't where we want to be in 20 years.

And I would agree, if Kerry wants the American people to understand foreign policy, he is going to have to change his wording. At the same time, I'm not sure this publication was directed at the mainstream. If I have to choose between a President who is too smart or too dumb, I'll go with smart. A Press Secretary does most of the speaking for the President anyway.

we can't continue with BUSH INC.'s "policy" of smacking people around and expecting them to do what we say out of fear. when you engage nations in a sincere open dialogue, and they have the sense that if they comply it will benefit them, only then will realations improve.

kerry's experience in foreign realtions and international policy, and his open, progressive ideas for extending good-will for the benefit of the citizens of all nations is key if our country is ever going to be respected by anyone else on this planet. it is also extremely important now since BUSH INC. has compromised our safety by being an international bully and demanding compliance through terror.

That old saying, "politics stops at the water's edge", sounds quaint now, but with a President like Kerry, who has shown his ability to work with those he disagrees with, perhaps America will be able once again to speak with one voice to the world.

First, our greatest assets as the world s remaining superpower are our friends and allies. Whether dealing with China, Russia, Iraq, proliferation, terrorism, or the spread of HIV/AIDS, the nations and issues that challenge U.S. national interests cannot be addressed without the help and support of our allies. Although we do not hesitate to call on our friends when we need their help, we often miss opportunities to benefit from their advice and support by failing to consult regularly with them on the full range of issues and interests we share. To build a more coherent, consistent U.S. foreign policy, we should move away from this damaging trend.

Second, the best way to advance U.S. interests be they economic, security, or humanitarian is to maintain an open dialogue with those nations with whom we have serious disagreements. The new president and the new Congress must resist the temptation to cut the United States off from potential adversaries. Greater dialogue will give us an opportunity to clarify our interests and our expectations, combat dangerous misperceptions, and perhaps lay the groundwork for eventually narrowing the differences between us.

Third, no foreign policy can be sustained over time without the support of the U.S. public. Bush should take the opportunity to address the U.S. public directly and frequently about the importance of U.S. international engagement. He must acknowledge the limits to our ability to promote some of our interests human rights in China, political change in Iraq, ethnic peace in the Balkans and that these important and difficult issues require sustained U.S. effort in concert with our allies. The new administration must be more realistic in communicating with the U.S. public and Congress about what we can achieve and over what time period.
http://www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

They seem to both have that goofy eggheaded charm and tremendous strength of character, and a real depth of knowledge. Bartlet may have more Clintonian charm, but I see a definite resemblance.

<>

which is why if Dean were to do the same he wouldn't have said: "America will not always be the world's strongest nation militarily".
I think if Kerry reminded New Hampshireites of that ONE stupid line, he'd get a lot of independents to bail out of Dean's camp faster than if he hit them with a baseball bat.
Hey Chris Heinz- you here taking notes? :evilgrin:

Check out the vocab and the flow of logic. It isn't easy to follow. The listener or reader has to think and concentrate in order to understand. Clinton is called a genius because he was able to take complex issues and make them understandable. Kerry may need some help in getting this and his other complex ideas understood.

It was written for policy wonks. But clearly Kerry has an amazing grasp of really complex international issues. He's not on the Foreign Policy Committee twiddling his thumbs. He's also ranking Democrat on the Sub-Committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

yet so many support someone who only grasped the idea that it's good to sound as angry as an internet message board.

Few politicians who truly love GOVERNANCE have the grasp and intellect of John Kerry. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Gary Hart are but a few.

I've also always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself. I think it's all an expression that grows out of this profound respect people have for those forces that human beings struggle to define and to explain. It's all a matter of spirituality.

For instance, thinking about China, the people and their policy-how do we respond to their view of us? And how do they arrive at that view of us and of the world and of life choices? I think we have to think about those things in the context of the spiritual to completely understand where they are coming from.

So here are a people who, you know, by and large, have a nation that has no theory of creationism. Well, that has to effect how you approach things. And until we think through how that might effect how you approach things, it's hard to figure out where you could find a meeting of the minds when approaching certain kinds of issues.

So, the exploration of all these things I find intriguing. Notwithstanding our separation between church and state, it is an essential ingredient of trying to piece together an approach to some of the great vexing questions we have internationally.

http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/mag/back/issue5.5c.html

Honestly, I have so much f'n respect for this guy.

...in a way. John Kerry is a Roman Catholic who has studied "The Golden Bough" and also understands Zen and Buddhism and the world's other great philosophies and religions. We may yet see, not a philosopher-king, but a philosopher-President, Doc F!

One of the hardest things for Westerners to understand is that you can't apply Western preconceptions or solutions on the East - and a lot of it is because the East looks at the world in a fundamentally different way spiritually. It's the root of all differences, and that John Kerry understands this is really important.

he definitely does not have a one-track, one-dimensional mind... he can approach an issue from several angles and come up with an innovative, progressive solution. he also has patience and doesn't expect things to be solved within term limits.

i think our hyperactive culture could benefit from the idea of delayed gratification, working toward a goal and not being so selfish as to expect everything to make money for me, me, me; now, now, now. a lot of kerry's drive is to leave this world better for future generations. too many people ignore the consequences of our actions.

than Kerry. That's why the GOP will do everything to stop him early in the primary before he can go head to head with Bush.

i'm totally gonna tivo that shiz up and SAVE UNTIL I DELETE.

screen shots of when they cut to shrubby looking like an ass during one of kerry's numerous pummelages.

I can see it almost like a tv spot: Kerry on the left answering all the difficult questions and dumb a$$ on the far, extreme right standing there with that "deer in the headlights" look. I keep praying that this time shrub has to answer for his drunk driving convictions, his awol status, his state side status during Nam. Only Kerry can nail him.

1. Conduct yourself like a chessmaster. Understand short-term effects, but have long-term goals.

2. Lay the case out to the public on why international policies matter. Americans are notoriously short-sighted and short attention-spanned. They need to understand what the short and longview are to gain consent. Government accountability is crucial to this.

3. Understand the ways culture informs policy for other nations. Although someone may have travelled to a country, that doesn't mean they understand how culture informs public policy. Kerry knows this stuff.

4. Maintain an absolute commitment to the long-term need for both international cooperation and raising international standards of conduct.

<>

Don't play to where the puck is. Play to where the puck is going to be.