Left Flank

(Continuation of President-Elect Barack H. Obama's Press Conference, December 1, 2008)

Aside from Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden's «President» gaffe, Jason Zengerle is still surprised President-Elect Barack H. Obama, the «No-Drama» manager, didn't «...jump all over the national security issue currently getting the most headlines.»

I thought he might have made some mention of Hillary playing a role in monitory and defusing tensions on the subcontinent, but no. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm sure the question of India and Pakistan will be at the top of Obama's agenda; and, obviously, the issues of Afghanistan and the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea--which he did mention--do involve Pakistan.

A little more seriously, The Economist warns that the Obama national security team is full of «humanitarian hawks»

...the four people who joined him on stage and who will be responsible for shaping America's foreign policy—Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Susan Rice, Joe Biden—are all, to varying degrees, humanitarian hawks. If we look at their responses to this decade's most notable humanitarian concern—in Darfur, Sudan—we see that through his appointments, the president-elect seems to be taking our advice.

Three of Mr Obama's appointees have criticised the Darfur policy of the current administration, which has called the situation genocide but decided against intervention. Mr Biden and Ms Rice have been the most outspoken critics, with both advocating some form of military action.

This seems straightforward enough -and Ezra Klein seems to acknowledge it, even if I can't tell if he's praising General James Jones - but Matthew Yglesias and the other paleo-progressives are arguing with themselves.

If Obama is looking for political cover under which to undertake a dramatically new foreign policy, then he would have to avoid signaling clearly that that's what he wants to do. But he might just be acting cautious because he intends to implement a cautious strategy.

What?! I think Yglesias is stuck irretrievably in the inner corridors of the progressive castle knocking on office doors. Attackerman likes the team, and highlights its devious political impact. Obama did remarkably well to articulate a snappy synopsis of his goals without undue stress on any live issue, probably not to tip his hat to the Bush administration. I'm thrilled about Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security, but Ezra Klein raises a good point. I thought the emphasis on using all of American tools quite clear, as well as elevating the UN ambassadorship to cabinet status again. If paleo-progs want a checklist, frustration might be a four-year ailment for them, and a duty for Obama to ensure their marginalization.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I guess I should just get used to reading the progressive perspective, on China, but on all aspects of foreign policy, since Senator Clinton is one of them.

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that China will, decades from now, have both the capability and intent to confront us directly, and we must stay well prepared for that possibility. But we need China's help today to confront forces of destruction. We rely on China to stomp out outbreaks of avian flu and other nasty diseases before they spread here. U.S. inspectors are in three Chinese ports to help screen shipping containers for smuggled radioactive devices headed for our shores. Without Beijing's deep engagement, North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons. And we are never going to avoid a catastrophic climate crisis without China on board.

Rather than preparing for a military confrontation with a big state — something we know how to do — America has to do something unfamiliar and even more difficult — leverage China and the other «pivotal powers» of the world, India, Russia, the EU and Japan, into working hard to solve common threats we all face: terrorism, pandemic disease, failed states, nuclear proliferation and climate change. Terrorists want to kill us today and could. The Chinese do not want to and can't.

But for America to thrive in a world with more big powers, we also have to reinvest in American strength at home. If we don't want US companies to outsource to China and India, we need to develop a healthcare system that delivers excellent care but also controls costs. And if we want our workers to cope with transition instead of rooting for protectionism, we need to provide them not just with retraining, but with a cushion to help them bounce back, in initiatives like wage insurance and universal 401(k)s. And if we want to keep innovation happening here even as more discovery happens overseas, we need to do a better job of growing scientists. Finally, if we want China and India to respond to the specter of the climate crisis, we need to move ourselves to a low carbon economy.

PRC's deep engagement in DPRK is exactly the sort of diplomacy I fear. Joseph Nye is also perceptive enough to recognize how Taiwan fits into the relationship between the PRC and US. Are progressives still fooled by the aura of a communist government, or is it just the sheer girth of its shadow across the Pacific Ocean?