From 2001:
"First, (a President) 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 take four things from this passage:
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.
Note on #3: Kerry's understanding of Chinese culture"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 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
