Recently in United States Category

I'm not a huge CNN fan, although I think some of the over-the-top criticism of the network recently was unfair. I've also written many times in this space defending western media from Chinese critics, mainly because the situation appears black and white to this writer: a monopolistic state-run media machine has very little credibility in critiquing the journalistic values of a free-market, free-press journalism environment in the west.

Despite this, there are problems with corporate ownership and consolidation of media properties in western countries. I am a firm believer that the more voices, opinions, and points of view that can be aired, the better. So I was saddened - although not totally shocked - when I read that the venerable CBS News may contract out its news gathering operations to CNN:

Over the last decade, CNN has held intermittent talks with both ABC News and CBS News about various joint ventures. But during the last several months, talks with CBS have been revived and lately intensified, according to the executives who asked for anonymity because of the confidential nature of the negotiations.

Broadly speaking, the executives described conversations about reducing CBS's news-gathering capacity while keeping its frontline personalities, like Katie Couric, the CBS Evening News anchor, and paying a fee to CNN to buy the cable network's news feeds.

This would be a sad development. While CBS News lags behind the two other major networks, ABC and NBC, in the nightly news ratings, millions of people continue to tune in. It's always better to have more voices than fewer ones, so here's hoping CBS decides to maintain its independent news coverage - and its integrity.

I'm going to begin this diatribe by pointing out straight off the top that I find China's military spending ridiculous. Any country which still claims the title of "developing" should in no way be spending some 417.8 billion Yuan (57.2 billion USD) in 2008 (official figures) on a military that does virtually nothing. And there is absolutely no reason why China should be maintaining a military with over 2 million soldiers, particularly given that China engages in minimal peace keeping exercises for the United Nations and - aside from shoveling snow and playing soldier games with countries like India and Russia - spends most of its time marching down the sidewalks and 'protecting' government buildings. If the CPC really wanted to prove that it was engaging in a 'peaceful rise,' it would actually be cutting spending on it's military rather than increasing it 17.6 percent in 2008. That said, I find the latest report out from the Pentagon regarding China's military spending equally hypocritical on a number of fronts.

The United States Military budget request for this year was 481.4 billion USD. This doesn't even include war requests. Even if you add up China's hidden military costs (China's official budget for military spending does not include moneys for nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and fighter jets which falls under the space/science development and training which falls under the education budget) China would still be spending about 4 to 7 times less than the US does (depending on how the numbers come out in the wash, and depending on which source you look at). This is the obvious stat that the Chinese government leans on whenever it is criticized by the United States. And I say fair enough. Why should the United States maintain the monopoly on military spending? I don't think it should be China trying to close the gap for the reasons stated in the first paragraph, but why does the US government feel that it can complain when another country wants to spend more on its military? I find this particularly frustrating and hypocritical.

The other point I would like to argue is that the Pentagon, in my mind, has lost a lot of credibility over the last few years in a number of different areas when it comes to global assessments. The first, and most obvious miscalculation, is the war in Iraq. Who can forget US President Bush in 2003 landing on that aircraft carrier and telling the world that it was 'mission accomplished' in Iraq. Don't think he would have done that if his top brass hadn't told him that they had things in control. The Pentagon also reallocated troops in Afghanistan to Iraq, which eventually led to a resurgence in the Taliban movement. Thanks to this, it's now up to the Canadian military to try to clean up the mess in that country. And the Pentagon, when it comes to China's military spending, could well be playing to its own interests. In 2004-2005, the US Department of Defense estimated that China was spending some 90 billion US dollars that year on its military. However, the RAND Corporation came out with a report which stated that China's military spending was likely half that figure (though still above official Chinese statistics). It is statistics like this that make me believe that the Pentagon is extracting the highest-possible figures for the 'hidden' Chinese military costs, and passing them off to lawmakers as a reason to get its own budget increased.

China's military spending makes for good press. Let's face it. China's international reputation has a pretty muddy and checkered past and present. But what I find just as frustrating is that the hawkish elements in the Pentagon appear to be capitalizing on US lawmakers' naivety and cold-war mentality about China to support their own interests, and that very little critical analysis is done by the media into these official government reports. Though, I suppose in the final analysis, if China wants to curtail the hawks in Washington, it should look first at getting its own PR house in order.

Hosting an analysis show on state-run media here in China can be best described as an interesting experience. Coming here two and a half years ago, I had to sort of retrain myself and put myself in the Chinese government mindset when it comes to the things you can or can't say. I'd like to think that I picked up the concept rather quickly...though there have been a few occasions where I've crossed that invisible and undefined line in the sand that the CPC doesn't like. Thankfully, the repercussions have been minimal. That being said, I'm still often times at a loss to explain (and never given any official explanation) as to why certain events and topics are taboo. The past week and a bit is a prime example of this.

Three major international events have taken place recently that - in my mind - screamed to be talked about on an analysis show like mine: Kosovo declaring independence, Castro resigning (and possibly dying, though this is just a pet conspiracy theory of mine) and the election in Pakistan. But, much to my frustration, all three were on the banned list. So I'm going to try to reason through for you why said events will not be aired.

Kosovo: Well, this one is pretty obvious. Any connection - thin as it may be - to the potential independence of Taiwan makes the Foreign Ministry's sphincter pucker up tighter than a snare drum. In fact, any connection to the "3-T's" is almost always off limits. Once during a program on immigration, I made reference to the Statue of Liberty in the United States as a beacon for European immigrants to that country. That reference was subsequently nixed because - as was reasoned to me - it potentially could have reminded people of a certain icon that was on display during a certain event that took place here in Beijing in the summer of 1989.

Castro: This one is a bit more confusing. But I think there are a few reasons behind why I won't be talking about Fidel. One is historical. Though they are both communist countries, China and Cuba have never had a strong relationship. Castro closely allied himself with Khrushchev in the 60's and made the Soviet Union his close ally. This came at a time when the Sino-Soviet split was starting. And since then, China has had no more than a passing relationship with Cuba. Another reason, in my estimation, is the current state of global affairs. The United States, one of China's key export markets, continues to maintain an embargo on Cuba. As such, analyzing Castro and Cuba on Chinese state-run media - as far as the Foreign Ministry is concerned - could be interpreted by the US as sympathetic gesture toward Cuba, and potentially strain relations with its big trading partner. And the third reason I can think of is potential concern about angering the Cuban embassy here. A few years back, the Cuban embassy launched a formal complaint with the Foreign Ministry after one of the news readers at this radio station referenced Fidel Castro as Cuban dictator instead of the preferred nomenclature of Cuban leader. Needless to say, this radio station has been walking on eggshells ever since when it comes to the Cuban embassy.

Pakistan: This one too is a bit more difficult to figure out. But there may be a couple of possible explanations. One is that this current CPC leadership group has always maintained a good relationship with Pervez Musharraf. And given the outcome of the vote, the Pakistani administration wouldn't be too pleased to hear Chinese media picking apart the reasons why Musharraf got his ass handed to him at the polls. The other, and perhaps more obscure, reason may relate the leadership in Zhongnanhai itself. Musharraf is the President and head of the Pakistani military. Hu Jintao is the President and Chair of the Central Military Commission. Musharraf is potentially going to be ousted by a coalition of people who don't support his policies. Hu Jintao...well... You see why there might be some concern about analyzing the situation too deeply.

As I've said before, there are times working in state-run media where I'm surprised what I can get away with saying. But, that being said, I suspect as the Olympics draw nearer, anxiety is only going to push the people in charge of the state-run media organs to become that much more politically conservative.

Periodically we will be posting about the US Presidential election, which is a big story worldwide. I thought I'd chime in with thoughts about John McCain below.

It is with bemused smiles that I've watched leading Republicans squirm as John McCain begins to secure the party's nomination for President.

Glenn Beck on CNN proudly proclaimed that he'd hold his nose and vote for Hillary in a general election, called a "suicide vote" in the New York Post. On Super Tuesday coverage on Fox News, Brit Hume seemed so dejected you'd think the Democrats had just swept to power, leaving the GOP in tatters.

Perhaps that is what he, and many others in the Republican establishment think: electing John McCain as the party's nominee is tantamount to destroying the party as we know it.

Laura Ingraham made a comment on Fox saying that she'd stick with McCain in a general election, but she's hoping he'd be open to "influence" from the conservative establishment. Herein lies most Republicans' problem with McCain: he's not easily influenced.

Make no mistake, McCain is a profoundly conservative man. As a Senator with 20 years of experience, he has a long record to pore over. Many voters who have heard questions about John McCain's conservative credentials are surprised to learn that he's a pro-life Christian, opposes strict gun control laws many feel would infringe on their civil liberties, supports the continuation of the war in Iraq until a definitive American victory is won, and voted to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. So what's his party's problem with him?

For starters, McCain is not a partisan Republican. The GOP has an old-boys network that supports one another, even if the policies they introduce and support are self-serving and hurt the American people. Campaign finance reform is Exhibit A. Republicans, the party which draws the most "soft money" donations, steadfastly opposed the McCain-Feingold legislation. McCain knew the legislation would hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, but that didn't mean introducing the bill was the wrong thing to do. He saw beyond his own party's interests to do something that most Americans would agree with: reign in the influence of money from third-party organizations on America's democratic process. But today, he continues to pay a price for going against the establishment.

Secondly, he voted against Bush's tax cuts. McCain has been adamant during the campaign that he supported the tax cuts, but only if the bill also included reductions in spending. It didn't, so he voted against it. Like McCain's early support of General Petraeus' surge, his support for spending cuts may also have been right; with no reduction in spending accompanying a huge billion tax cut, America is running itself into the ground financially, with an expected $410 trillion deficit this year and $407 projected in 2009.

Despite his occasional disagreements with the party establishment, McCain is a steadfast Republican who has served his party well. But unlike most other candidates in the past several decades, McCain is an American first, a Republican second. He's a classic conviction politician who knows the issues well and sticks to his principles. What riles his critics in the party is that he won't kowtow to their partisan demands.

The Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and James Dobsons of the world are clinging to their last vestiges of influence, and can't bear to see a Republican in the White House who not only won't listen to them, but won't even acknowledge them. The battles of the last 15 years, pitting extremists on the left with zealots on the right, has hurt and divided America. It's time to move on, and John McCain is as good a choice as any to get the process started.

I don't blame establishment Republicans for fretting over a John McCain presidency. Anybody who is about to see their influence and stature diminished will surely begin hitting the panic button. McCain is his own man, and does what he believes to be right. It's ironic that the GOP's best hope for a new generation of ideas and stronger spirit of bipartisanship lies with a 71 year old patriot who has served his country honourably for his entire life.

As McCain has said repeatedly on the campaign trail, he cannot ask for your vote until he has earned your respect. And any man who does what he says, and sticks to his principles, is a man deserving of at least that much.

US President Bush has delivered his swan song to Congress. And while the economy loomed large as the main focus, China's role in it has yet again been ignored. And if there is any consideration amongst the Chinese that this is a snub, I have one piece of advice: Get used to it!

George W. Bush has delivered his final State of the Union speech to lawmakers. And aside from one suggestion of creating a clean energy development plan for developing countries like India and China, Mr. Bush paid no attention to the middle kingdom. Instead, Mr. Bush's focus on trade was more directed toward South America, urging the Congress to approve trade agreements in that hemisphere instead.

So I'm going to be curious to see over the next day or so how the State of the Union address is going to be interpreted in the state-run media here in China. Undoubtedly there will be some attempt to link onto some aspect of the economic direction of the speech and tie China to it somehow. And if and when it happens, you can - at best - equate the impact of any said story to that of...say...a radio station in Lexington, Kentucky running a story about someone from that community who was in Brooklyn when the 9/11 attacks took place in Manhattan. While it may be a 'local' connection to a big story, in the grand scheme of things it means really nothing to anybody. I would argue that today's State of the Union should be a wakeup call for those in this country who have become convinced that China is one of the biggest and most important components when it comes to the politics surrounding the United States economy.

As a Canadian, I've become used to being overlooked by US Presidents and lawmakers when it comes to important policy speeches about economics. This, despite the fact that Canada is not only the United States' largest neighbor, but also shares with it the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. Well over 500 billion dollars last year. Yet, we as Canadians get lip service, at best, in US politics. But you know what...it's been like that for us for years, and we've become accustomed to being ignored. Sure, we'd like to get a mention every once in a while during big speeches like the State of the Union address. But, you know what, in the grand scheme of things, we know we just don't score very large on the radar screen. And let's face it, sometimes as a Canadian it's nice to not be mentioned by a President with the popularity rating of Mr. Bush!

But for all the bluster and hype that you hear in the Chinese media about bilateral trade with the United States, the trade deficit and the valuation of the Renminbi, today's speech should be an indication that China isn't really carved too high on the political totem pole when it comes to US economics.

Sure, China's got a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It's got nuclear weapons. It's got the Olympics in a few months. But in the grand scheme of things, when it comes to what's most important in US politics, which is almost always the economy, it's time to realize - if China hasn't already - that politically speaking, it still isn't making big waves.

A fascinating headline recently caught my attention and got me doing some reading. You may have read recently about a new report from a coalition of Washington-based think tanks which noted that Beijing would consider the option of sending PLA troops into North Korea if the Kim Jong-Il regime ever went in the tank. The splashy headlines belie the fact that the report is actually quite vague, and makes reference to this concept as coming from Chinese academics. That is to say that no government official was quoted as saying the idea of direct Chinese intervention into a destabilized North Korea was on the table. That's not to say that there aren't such plans swirling around somewhere. However, having read "Keeping an Eye on an Unruly Neighbor" myself, I think you have to take what's contained in it with a grain of salt.

But in reading through the 28 page document, I did discover a couple of highlights worth noting. One part of it points out that within academic circles, there is interest now in discussing North Korean stability directly with the United States.

There is apparent new willingness among Chinese institute analysts and PLA researchers to discuss the warning signs of instability in North Korea and how China might respond if the situation gets out of control and threatens Chinese security. Some Chinese experts say explicitly that they favor holding a discussion on stability in North Korea in official channels with the United States, including possible joint responses in support of common objectives such as securing nuclear weapons and fissile material. Other analysts maintain that such discussions are premature.

I find this somewhat interesting. Of course, if the North Korean government did collapse, it's in China's interest to make sure that it doesn't get a flood of refugees filing over its border. But what I find curious is that there is desire to discuss the issue with the United States. China has long been shoring up its influence in the Asian theatre as the big player on the block. So why get the US involved in its own back yard? In theory, China has the resources and apparent ability to deal with a collapsing North Korea. So why involve a country that is likely going to insist that a democracy be the order of day as the replacement for the Kim Jong-Il regime? Why invite trouble to your doorstep if you are China? This revelation makes me think that China isn't nearly as able to keep stability in the Northeast 'rustbelt' as we might be led to believe.

The other nugget that caught my attention was the obvious concern being expressed by the Chinese academics about a rapid increase in the US-North Korean relationship. Of course, the official line is that the Chinese would encourage strengthened bi-lateral ties between Washington and Pyongyang. However, this report notes something that you won't hear about from the Chinese:

Some Chinese experts even worry that Washington and Pyongyang will cut a deal that will permit North Korea to keep its nuclear weapons in exchange for concessions by the DPRK. A leading Chinese analyst suggested, for example, that the DPRK could pledge to not proliferate and give up long-range nuclear missiles in return for U.S. acceptance of the country as a nuclear weapons state.

The report goes on to point out that if this were to happen outside of the 6 party framework that it would essentially leave Beijing twisting in the wind, because China has insisted that Pyongyang has to give up its nukes. The report also notes that the United States urged China to put pressure on India after its nuclear test in 1998, only to reverse its position and condone India's nuclear program, leaving China cleaning up a political mess between itself and India for the next two years.

So will the United States allow Pyongyang to hang on to its nukes? A year ago, I would have said no way. Personally meeting Assistant US Secretary of State and lead US negotiator Christopher Hill last year (over a pint at the Irish Embassy for St. Paddies day), he seemed quite confident that North Korea was going to be totally disarmed by the end of the year. Well, 2008 is upon us, and Pyongyang still has the bomb. And with the Bush Administration's time ticking down, there may be additional pressure on Mr. Hill to get a deal done to give the outgoing President a legacy in Asia. As such, I'm starting to wonder if there's maybe something like the Chinese are worried about brewing between the US and North Korea.

All in all, "Keeping an Eye on an Unruly Neighbor" -- in my mind -- holds minimal appeal and merely reinforces what most of us already know.

It's been fascinating for this political junkie to watch Hillary Clinton flailing as she is brought down by a young, charismatic upstart. The Clinton campaign machine -- a formidable machine, at that -- is now desperately grasping at straws in ways that we've never seen before. Hillary realizes New Hampshire is do-or-die (well, not technically, but figuratively: if she loses the first two states, Obama's message of hope will only gain traction) and her desperation seems to be turning voters off of her in droves. The latest poll from Rasmussen points to Obama with 37% support, and Clinton 10 points behind.

Now, watching somebody slowly sink in public is morbid fun for most people, but with Hillary, it could've been avoided, or at least mitigated, with some more careful strategic planning.

People have always had doubts about Hillary. Sure, she's polished and says the right things. But there's still a sneaking suspicion that, for whatever reason, there is a wolf under that sheep's clothing. Something about her just isn't palatable -- in fact, it turns people off.

Hillary knows this, which is why through most of the campaign she has focused on the "likeability factor", which both Obama and Edwards have in spades (so do many of the Republican candidates, most notably Mr. Huckabee). There are plenty of potential reasons for her lack of warmth -- but the fact is it's an issue she has to deal with.

Which was why I was surprised that she ripped Iowa voters following her loss in the state's caucuses this week. If she has a "witch" side, it showed in these comments from her campaign:

"The worst thing would be to over count Iowa and its importance," said chief strategist Mark Penn, just hours after the New York senator finished in a disappointing third place, behind Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

"Iowa doesn't have a record of picking presidents. We're in a strong position to move forward," Penn told a handful of reporters on board a chartered midnight flight [...]

Most people inside the Clinton camp are shrugging off Iowa all together. "Iowa is so small, it's like a mayor's race in a medium-sized city," traveling press secretary Jay Carson said. "It wouldn't be wise to put too much emphasis on it."

Now, to be fair, Hillary didn't say these words herself - but she didn't have to. The campaign speaks on behalf of the candidate, and the comments were not only insulting to Iowa voters but also arrogant. And they confirmed people's fears. She was begging for their votes and praising Iowans as being "sophisticated" just prior to voting day -- now they can be written off?

Then there was her last-minute debate appearance tonight, where she lit into the agents of change in an "angry" way, according to some pundits. I watched the clip myself (you can find it on YouTube here) and think people are being a little unfair. Sure, she got testy, but I think if that were Giuliani or Edwards or Obama, they wouldn't be taking nearly the heat for it, which goes to my point: Hillary must be extra careful in these exchanges because the spotlight is on, and people are just waiting for evidence to prove their suspicions that she's not fit for office. When you're looking for it, you'll find it, and they did tonight.

To me, Hillary was at her best when she looked confident. Unlike what her advisers have clearly told her to do, I don't believe the scrappier Hillary is helping at all, and the facts appear to be backing that up. At a Democratic dinner in New Hampshire last night, Hillary was booed twice -- booed by Democrats! -- while Obama received a reception like a rock star. This isn't to mention that she also now trails Obama by 10 points, as I mentioned earlier, and seems to plummet further with each gaffe. It doesn't help that the media smells blood, and is now going after her. As Carl Bernstein said, Obama's campaign has received so much momentum that it's becoming a crusade, and with each passing day it's becoming stronger.

So what can she do? Unfortunately, not much. As some analysts have pointed out, her campaign didn't see the broad theme of "change" until it was too late, and she was bowled over in Iowa. It was awkward to see her standing on stage following her loss in the caucuses with Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright standing nearby -- that makes it awfully difficult for her to wrap herself in the mantra of "change". As many used to say about Obama, Hillary's speech just didn't seem "authentic."

That being said, here are a couple of things she should've done earlier, and might like to try now anyway, because it's hail mary time.

• Get rid of the vestiges of the Bill Clinton regime - Perhaps even two years ago this may have worked, when people yearned for the smooth, well-spoken, Clinton, who had the economy humming. But change is this year's theme, and having Bill and Madeleine hang around hurts her message.
• Don't shy away from your record - She did this a bit in the debate. Hillary has much more experience than Obama in the White House, and in the Senate. Use it.
• Don't be afraid to attack Obama's experience - Hillary has done this too, but in a way that makes her out to be the villain. Obama is turning his biggest weakness - inexperience - into a strong point by advocating change. But his inexperience is also his biggest weakness, and it needs to be forcefully pointed out. Hillary needs to say to the American people: "Right now, our country is at war. Iran is on the cusp of getting nuclear weapons. Pakistan is crumbling. China is rising. Senator Obama cares for this country deeply and has some good ideas for the future, but it is too risky to put a young, one-term Senator in the White House before he is ready." (I can almost guarantee that this will be the attack line of the Republicans if Obama wins the nomination).
• Admit that Obama is strong, and politely draw parallels - I wish more politicians would do this, because it makes them more human and more likeable (and we all know Hillary needs all the help she can get). There's nothing wrong with saying Obama is a strong speaker, and he has good ideas for the country. But he's been light on specifics and big on rhetoric, so Americans should read the fine print before making such an important decision.

Unfortunately for Hillary, there are a number of variables in this year's campaign that are working against her, regardless of her campaign strategy. The biggest and most overwhelming, of course, is change. From TIME:

But it's possible that the most difficult problem is not Obama; it could be Clinton. How can she retool her message -- and her identity as a virtual incumbent -- to resonate with an electorate that seems to yearn more for change than any other quality? Says one longtime Democratic strategist, who is close to the Clintons: "Fundamentally, she is who she is; she can't change who she is, and maybe this is not her time."

As I said before, it's too late now for any changes in campaign strategy to have much of an effect, at least on voters in New Hampshire. Hillary's candidacy is not dead yet, but I'd venture to say it's getting close to life support. New Hampshire will be big, and Hillary needs at least a strong second-place showing to maintain a shred of momentum.

But there's blood in the water, and if tonight's debate was any indication, Obama, Edwards, and even some media outlets are going in for the kill.

One of the great joys of being back in Canada is a seemingly limitless selection of excellent books and periodicals. I picked up the latest issue of Foreign Affairs last night (great Christmastime reading, I know) and read through a Campaign 2008 series they are currently running.

In each issue, they are running two essays written by two of the first tier candidates from each party. I have taken the liberty of posting their thoughts on China below. Not surprisingly, it seems China is not in the top-tier of foreign policy priorities for any of the candidates. References to China are found after platforms for handing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism, Middle East peace, North Korea, energy independence, the rise of Russia, and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The collection of essays can be found on the Foreign Affairs website.

Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership

And as we strengthen NATO, we must build new alliances and partnerships in other vital regions. As China rises and Japan and South Korea assert themselves, I will work to forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. We need an inclusive infrastructure with the countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity and help confront transnational threats, from terrorist cells in the Philippines to avian flu in Indonesia. I will also encourage China to play a responsible role as a growing power -- to help lead in addressing the common problems of the twenty-first century. We will compete with China in some areas and cooperate in others. Our essential challenge is to build a relationship that broadens cooperation while strengthening our ability to compete.

Hillary Clinton - Security and Opportunity in the 21st Century

Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The United States and China have vastly different values and political systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet, there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together. China's support was important in reaching a deal to disable North Korea's nuclear facilities. We should build on this framework to establish a Northeast Asian security regime.

But China's rise is also creating new challenges. The Chinese have finally begun to realize that their rapid economic growth is coming at a tremendous environmental price. The United States should undertake a joint program with China and Japan to develop new clean-energy sources, promote greater energy efficiency, and combat climate change. This program would be part of an overall energy policy that would require a dramatic reduction in U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

We must persuade China to join global institutions and support international rules by building on areas where our interests converge and working to narrow our differences. Although the United States must stand ready to challenge China when its conduct is at odds with U.S. vital interests, we should work for a cooperative future.

Rudolph Giuliani - Towards a Realistic Peace

Much of America's future will be linked to the already established and still rising powers of Asia. These states share with us a clear commitment to economic growth, and they must be given at least as much attention as Europe. Our alliance with Japan, which has been strengthened considerably under this administration, is a rock of stability in Asia. South Korea has been a key to security in Northeast Asia and an important contributor to international peace. Australia, our distant but long-standing ally, continues to assume a greater role in world affairs and acts as a steadfast defender of international standards and security. U.S. cooperation with India on issues ranging from intelligence to naval patrols and civil nuclear power will serve as a pillar of security and prosperity in South Asia.

U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today.

Dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American president. Recent prosperity in China has brought more people out of poverty faster than during any other time in human history. China's newfound power implies responsibilities. It raises legitimate expectations that internationally China will behave as a responsible economic partner by developing a transparent code of conduct for its corporations, assuring the safety of its exports, adopting a market approach to currency valuation, pursuing sustainable environmental policies, and abandoning its go-it-alone approach to world energy supplies.

China could also bolster its claim that it is "peacefully rising" by being more transparent about its significant military buildup. When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests antisatellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts. When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note. When China enjoys close economic and diplomatic relations with pariah states such as Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, tension will result. When China proposes regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia, the United States will react.

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests. U.S.-Chinese relations can benefit both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values.

John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee did not make any significant remarks pertaining to China in their essays. Essays for other candidates have yet to appear.

I used to have many discussions with my former Communications Manager at the Ministry of Transportation in the Province of BC Government regarding US political strategy. He was the ultimate spin-meister, was professional, and offered keen insight into winning political PR wars. (He was also well-read, and we often swapped books on the subject).

I am also interested in public/media relations (I currently work in this field in Beijing), however I've never shown much interest for branding strategies, marketing, luxury brands, etc. The rough-and-tumble of a political campaign, however, gets my juices flowing. And there's nobody better at winning elections than the guru himself, Mr. Karl Rove.

I can only imagine he's chomping at the bit to get involved as Election '08 rolls around. He has a sterling record as chief campaign advisor dating back to his small-time days in Texas. Many would argue that he ruined America, divided the country, and/or has caused trouble for the GOP going forward. But there's one thing we can't overlook: he's a proven winner.

So with that, I direct your attention to his extremely well-thought out advice column for Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate who's struggling to stay above water in his fight with front-runner Hillary Clinton.

This is solid advice, and for the sake of the Democrats, I hope Obama takes it.

If you get a chance on this Saturday afternoon, please head to China Matters to read this post on the on-going saga surrounding China's decision to deny the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk port in Hong Kong during the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday.

China Matters argues that China has taken the first step to exert its authority over Asian waters, and George W. Bush has done nothing but meekly go along with this new reality:

The Chinese clearly wanted to make a point with the Kitty Hawk--and make it publicly.

And to have the Bush administration flinch--and trout out a lame, concocted excuse that the Chinese briskly and completely rebutted--makes it looks like the truth about what's going on in the west Pacific is something that the PRC is ready to deal with, but the U.S. is unwilling to confront.

This is a must-read for anybody following the Kitty Hawk story.

Previously on Zhongnanhai:

• A lonely Thanksgiving at sea, courtesy of the Communist Party

Elsewhere:

• China Rises: Ruffled feathers over the Kitty Hawk