Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009
China: Self-Centered on the World's Center Stage
By Austin Ramzy / Beijing
President Barack Obama went to Beijing with a broad array of issues to put before China's leaders. If there was one theme that linked them, it was that U.S.-China ties were no longer just about the U.S. and China; they were also about the rest of the world.
"The relationship between the United States and China has never been more important to our collective future," Obama said on Tuesday as he stood before reporters with Chinese President Hu Jintao. "The major challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic recovery, are challenges that touch both our nations and challenges that neither of our nations can solve by acting alone. That's why the United States welcomes China's efforts in playing a greater role on the world stage — a role in which a growing economy is joined by growing responsibilities."
China, for its part, has been reluctant to take up those new responsibilities. The late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping once admonished his countrymen to "disguise their ambitions and hide their claws." It was useful advice for a country trying to pull itself out of decades of war and chaos. But now China's booming economy and resilience in the face of the global slowdown have left it in a prime position. It holds nearly $800 billion in U.S. Treasuries, making it Washington's biggest creditor. But Beijing is still not confident in acting on the world stage for any interest besides its own. A recent survey of Chinese élites by Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based foreign policy research institute, found that more than 90% rejected a special leadership role for China and more than 70% said the greatest contribution the country could provide the world would be to provide for its own development.
While China has vastly expanded trade ties and investments in Africa, Central Asia and South America, its foremost goal is to ensure its access to natural resources. In Afghanistan, China's $3 billion copper-mine investment is the country's largest single investment, but the stability of the war-torn region didn't merit a mention in Hu's 20-minute address. Neither did appreciation of China's currency, the renminbi, which Obama called "an essential contribution to the global rebalancing effort." Hu did, however, say that China and the U.S. "need to oppose and reject protectionism in all its manifestations in an even stronger stand," reinforcing China's view that recent U.S. tariffs pose a greater threat to the global economy than an undervalued renminbi, which has helped China prop up its exports sector even as global trade has slumped. (See pictures of China's economic expansion into Africa.)
But while Obama leaves Beijing with little in the way of a diplomatic victory, Hu was able to win some acknowledgments from the U.S. Obama said the U.S. considers Tibet to be part of the People's Republic of China. While that is long-standing American policy, scholars could recall no point when a U.S. President has stated it publicly. Territorial questions like Tibet remain top priorities for China, and Obama's mention of that issue was a key win for Beijing. It's a sign that while China doesn't know how it wants to use its newfound clout on the global stage, it is learning how to get what it wants from the U.S.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
On Obama’s Asia Trip, Not Much Adulation
November 19, 2009
On Obama’s Asia Trip, Not Much Adulation
By HELENE COOPER and MARTIN FACKLER
SEOUL, South Korea — For all of President Obama’s laying claim to the title of “America’s first Pacific president,” Asia was always going to be a tough nut for him to crack.
Without the first lady at his side, he would not have the kind of round-the-clock coverage the first couple got during their inaugural tour of Europe. Without a popular gesture like elevating the plight of the Palestinian people to equal status of the Israelis’, he would not be showered with the kind of praise he got for his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. And without a stop in Indonesia, his boyhood home, he would not bask in the kind of adulation he received in Accra, Ghana.
Instead, with the novelty of a visit as America’s first black president having given way to the reality of having to plow through intractable issues like monetary policy (China), trade (Singapore, China, South Korea), security (Japan) and the 800-pound gorilla on the continent (China), Mr. Obama’s Asia trip has been, in many ways, a long uphill slog.
So it is no wonder that on the last day of the toughest part of his trip — the China part — Mr. Obama took a hike: a brisk, bracing 30-minute climb up the Great Wall. At around 3:30 Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Obama’s mile-long motorcade arrived at the Great Wall’s Badaling section, which snakes over jagged, rocky mountains.
Visitors to that touristy section of the wall generally encounter a cacophonous melee of vendors, but on this day, the place was like a ghost town, courtesy of Chinese authorities who had shut it down. (The same happened Tuesday when Mr. Obama sped through an empty-but-for-his-entourage Forbidden City.)
Even the two sightseeing trips did not offer a total respite, however, as they were prominent, well-publicized examples of what Mr. Obama did not do in China. He steered clear of public meetings with Chinese liberals, free press advocates and even average Chinese, with his aides citing scheduling conflicts. Mr. Obama did, though, give an interview on Wednesday morning to Southern Weekly, one of China’s most popular newspapers, sometimes known for poking the authorities by breaking news on delicate subjects.
Still, for an American president who has tried to make openness a hallmark of his public persona, it was a departure, made more stark since Chinese authorities largely hijacked Mr. Obama’s one other attempt at a give and take with Chinese students, a town hall meeting in Shanghai, by stuffing the auditorium with young Communist Party aspirants.
A week ago, when Mr. Obama kicked off his trip in Japan, things were not so grim. Tokyo welcomed him as much as a celebrity as a world leader, with cries of “Obama-san!” from the people who gathered in the rain to watch his motorcade pass. Local newspapers gushed about how he told his Japanese hosts that he wanted to eat tuna and Kobe beef. Even the ballyhoo from right-wing bloggers back at home over Mr. Obama’s deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not seem to dent Mr. Obama’s Japan experience; his aides say he was unfazed by the criticism.
But Mr. Obama quickly discovered that popularity on the Asian streets did not necessarily translate into policy successes behind closed doors in the Kantei, the Japanese White House, let alone in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
Political analysts in Japan gave Mr. Obama high marks for what was one of his principal goals: improving communication with Japan’s outspoken new government. But the trip managed only to paper over some of the recent differences between the sides, like the contentious issue of the relocation of an unpopular Marine air base in Futenma, on the southern island of Okinawa. Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama could not solve that issue, instead merely deferring a tough decision by agreeing to form a working group to look at the relocation problem.
One former Japanese diplomat praised the president for showing patience and avoiding mishaps that would have further tarnished the relationship. The former diplomat, Kunihiko Miyake, who now teaches international affairs at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, said the United States and Japan still did not see eye to eye on their single biggest bilateral issue: how to make their cold-war-era alliance relevant in a region where the balance of power had been upset by China’s rise.
“The two countries are in the same bed, but dreaming different dreams,” Mr. Miyake said. “The Americans want the alliance to be stronger, but the Japanese seem to want to do less.”
Mr. Obama’s next stop was Singapore for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference best known for its quaint custom of making all the leaders wear the same colorful shirt, helpfully supplied by the host country. Mr. Obama, in blue, wore a brave grin in the group photo, flanked by the red-shirted Singaporean prime minister and an identical blue-shirted Indonesian president.
This year, APEC made headlines, though not the sort Mr. Obama might have liked. With a deadline looming for a big climate change conference in Copenhagen, the leaders convened a hastily called breakfast meeting to acknowledge that they would not be able to resolve entrenched differences in time.
And then, Mr. Obama departed for China, where the authorities stage-managed and restricted access to his town hall meeting in Shanghai. He did offer a nuanced, oblique critique of China’s rigid controls and restrictions of the Internet and free speech without mentioning, let alone condemning, China’s government.
Mr. Obama and President Hu Jintao presented their two days of talks as substantive, even though they did not appear to make much progress on issues like Iran, China’s currency or human rights. Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, took the unusual step of sending a statement to reporters — something he did not do for either stop in Japan or Singapore — saying the China trip went well.
In Seoul, where Mr. Obama ends his trip, he will have perhaps his easiest leg. South Korea is a longtime ally that has been cooperating with the United States on vital issues like North Korea and does not appear to have any big ax to grind with the United States.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
On Obama’s Asia Trip, Not Much Adulation
By HELENE COOPER and MARTIN FACKLER
SEOUL, South Korea — For all of President Obama’s laying claim to the title of “America’s first Pacific president,” Asia was always going to be a tough nut for him to crack.
Without the first lady at his side, he would not have the kind of round-the-clock coverage the first couple got during their inaugural tour of Europe. Without a popular gesture like elevating the plight of the Palestinian people to equal status of the Israelis’, he would not be showered with the kind of praise he got for his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. And without a stop in Indonesia, his boyhood home, he would not bask in the kind of adulation he received in Accra, Ghana.
Instead, with the novelty of a visit as America’s first black president having given way to the reality of having to plow through intractable issues like monetary policy (China), trade (Singapore, China, South Korea), security (Japan) and the 800-pound gorilla on the continent (China), Mr. Obama’s Asia trip has been, in many ways, a long uphill slog.
So it is no wonder that on the last day of the toughest part of his trip — the China part — Mr. Obama took a hike: a brisk, bracing 30-minute climb up the Great Wall. At around 3:30 Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Obama’s mile-long motorcade arrived at the Great Wall’s Badaling section, which snakes over jagged, rocky mountains.
Visitors to that touristy section of the wall generally encounter a cacophonous melee of vendors, but on this day, the place was like a ghost town, courtesy of Chinese authorities who had shut it down. (The same happened Tuesday when Mr. Obama sped through an empty-but-for-his-entourage Forbidden City.)
Even the two sightseeing trips did not offer a total respite, however, as they were prominent, well-publicized examples of what Mr. Obama did not do in China. He steered clear of public meetings with Chinese liberals, free press advocates and even average Chinese, with his aides citing scheduling conflicts. Mr. Obama did, though, give an interview on Wednesday morning to Southern Weekly, one of China’s most popular newspapers, sometimes known for poking the authorities by breaking news on delicate subjects.
Still, for an American president who has tried to make openness a hallmark of his public persona, it was a departure, made more stark since Chinese authorities largely hijacked Mr. Obama’s one other attempt at a give and take with Chinese students, a town hall meeting in Shanghai, by stuffing the auditorium with young Communist Party aspirants.
A week ago, when Mr. Obama kicked off his trip in Japan, things were not so grim. Tokyo welcomed him as much as a celebrity as a world leader, with cries of “Obama-san!” from the people who gathered in the rain to watch his motorcade pass. Local newspapers gushed about how he told his Japanese hosts that he wanted to eat tuna and Kobe beef. Even the ballyhoo from right-wing bloggers back at home over Mr. Obama’s deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not seem to dent Mr. Obama’s Japan experience; his aides say he was unfazed by the criticism.
But Mr. Obama quickly discovered that popularity on the Asian streets did not necessarily translate into policy successes behind closed doors in the Kantei, the Japanese White House, let alone in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
Political analysts in Japan gave Mr. Obama high marks for what was one of his principal goals: improving communication with Japan’s outspoken new government. But the trip managed only to paper over some of the recent differences between the sides, like the contentious issue of the relocation of an unpopular Marine air base in Futenma, on the southern island of Okinawa. Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama could not solve that issue, instead merely deferring a tough decision by agreeing to form a working group to look at the relocation problem.
One former Japanese diplomat praised the president for showing patience and avoiding mishaps that would have further tarnished the relationship. The former diplomat, Kunihiko Miyake, who now teaches international affairs at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, said the United States and Japan still did not see eye to eye on their single biggest bilateral issue: how to make their cold-war-era alliance relevant in a region where the balance of power had been upset by China’s rise.
“The two countries are in the same bed, but dreaming different dreams,” Mr. Miyake said. “The Americans want the alliance to be stronger, but the Japanese seem to want to do less.”
Mr. Obama’s next stop was Singapore for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference best known for its quaint custom of making all the leaders wear the same colorful shirt, helpfully supplied by the host country. Mr. Obama, in blue, wore a brave grin in the group photo, flanked by the red-shirted Singaporean prime minister and an identical blue-shirted Indonesian president.
This year, APEC made headlines, though not the sort Mr. Obama might have liked. With a deadline looming for a big climate change conference in Copenhagen, the leaders convened a hastily called breakfast meeting to acknowledge that they would not be able to resolve entrenched differences in time.
And then, Mr. Obama departed for China, where the authorities stage-managed and restricted access to his town hall meeting in Shanghai. He did offer a nuanced, oblique critique of China’s rigid controls and restrictions of the Internet and free speech without mentioning, let alone condemning, China’s government.
Mr. Obama and President Hu Jintao presented their two days of talks as substantive, even though they did not appear to make much progress on issues like Iran, China’s currency or human rights. Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, took the unusual step of sending a statement to reporters — something he did not do for either stop in Japan or Singapore — saying the China trip went well.
In Seoul, where Mr. Obama ends his trip, he will have perhaps his easiest leg. South Korea is a longtime ally that has been cooperating with the United States on vital issues like North Korea and does not appear to have any big ax to grind with the United States.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Obama is Saving the Best for Last
Douglas H. Paal
South China Morning Post, November 16, 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama will end his first trip to Asia since he entered the White House in January with a visit to Seoul. South Korea, where Obama’s visit was originally scheduled as an afterthought, will prove to be the most rewarding stop.
On October 30, the Korean government announced a new commitment of 300 troops and 200 civilians to constitute a Provincial Reconstruction Team for an as-yet unnamed province in Afghanistan.
In return for its troubles, Seoul seeks White House support for the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korus), which has been languishing in Congress for more than two years. Obama is unlikely to do more than commit to a further review of the pact, which he criticized as falling short in his presidential campaign.
Nonetheless, the background of this visit reveals a positive change in the management of the alliance, in contrast with the policy spats between Washington and Seoul towards North Korea under President Lee Myung-bak’s two predecessors. Obama’s team has reestablished genuine consultation with America’s Korean allies.
Even under Lee’s predecessor, the late president Roh Moo-hyun, and despite noisy public disputes, substantial progress was achieved in modernizing the alliance, as South Korea contributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reached a free trade agreement, and undertook long-delayed adjustments in the footprint of the US military presence. The White House staff naturally sought to limit Obama’s travel time, but he wisely recognized that it would be an unpardonable snub not to stop in South Korea and show his commitment to the alliance. So he is due to fly in from China late on Wednesday evening, and leave after lunch the next day.
Nine days is a substantial commitment of White House time, and a wise gesture to reassure Asian nations that, while China is growing in power and influence, the US will not abandon them to face it alone. At the same time, Obama’s trip signals that Washington seeks no confrontation with Beijing and in fact hopes to work with China on problems too great for any one power to manage.
Obama is also boosting the message that America is back after its long preoccupation with terrorism. Within that context, U.S. relations with South Korea are their best in 12 years. But the US cannot take Seoul for granted, as political support for the high-visibility free trade agreement is starting to wane in South Korea while the Obama administration sorts out its domestic priorities and examines flaws it sees.
Obama will also need to be careful not to let new and worthy, but less domestically sensitive, free trade opportunities – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership – jump the queue on Korus, which would only fire up Korean opponents of a deal that already favors US exporters overwhelmingly.
By paying respects in Seoul, and addressing the South Korean people’s concerns with sincerity and action, Obama can depart from Asia on a high note, demonstrating American co-operation with a longtime ally in the region and underscoring the purpose of his trip.
South China Morning Post, November 16, 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama will end his first trip to Asia since he entered the White House in January with a visit to Seoul. South Korea, where Obama’s visit was originally scheduled as an afterthought, will prove to be the most rewarding stop.
On October 30, the Korean government announced a new commitment of 300 troops and 200 civilians to constitute a Provincial Reconstruction Team for an as-yet unnamed province in Afghanistan.
In return for its troubles, Seoul seeks White House support for the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korus), which has been languishing in Congress for more than two years. Obama is unlikely to do more than commit to a further review of the pact, which he criticized as falling short in his presidential campaign.
Nonetheless, the background of this visit reveals a positive change in the management of the alliance, in contrast with the policy spats between Washington and Seoul towards North Korea under President Lee Myung-bak’s two predecessors. Obama’s team has reestablished genuine consultation with America’s Korean allies.
Even under Lee’s predecessor, the late president Roh Moo-hyun, and despite noisy public disputes, substantial progress was achieved in modernizing the alliance, as South Korea contributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reached a free trade agreement, and undertook long-delayed adjustments in the footprint of the US military presence. The White House staff naturally sought to limit Obama’s travel time, but he wisely recognized that it would be an unpardonable snub not to stop in South Korea and show his commitment to the alliance. So he is due to fly in from China late on Wednesday evening, and leave after lunch the next day.
Nine days is a substantial commitment of White House time, and a wise gesture to reassure Asian nations that, while China is growing in power and influence, the US will not abandon them to face it alone. At the same time, Obama’s trip signals that Washington seeks no confrontation with Beijing and in fact hopes to work with China on problems too great for any one power to manage.
Obama is also boosting the message that America is back after its long preoccupation with terrorism. Within that context, U.S. relations with South Korea are their best in 12 years. But the US cannot take Seoul for granted, as political support for the high-visibility free trade agreement is starting to wane in South Korea while the Obama administration sorts out its domestic priorities and examines flaws it sees.
Obama will also need to be careful not to let new and worthy, but less domestically sensitive, free trade opportunities – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership – jump the queue on Korus, which would only fire up Korean opponents of a deal that already favors US exporters overwhelmingly.
By paying respects in Seoul, and addressing the South Korean people’s concerns with sincerity and action, Obama can depart from Asia on a high note, demonstrating American co-operation with a longtime ally in the region and underscoring the purpose of his trip.
Lee, Obama to focus on N. Korea, FTA
Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Barack Obama will hold a summit today to coordinate their strategies to denuclearize North Korea before Washington resumes high-level dialogue with Pyongyang soon.
The leaders will also discuss how to advance a stalled Korea-U.S. free trade agreement and reaffirm their commitment to a broader partnership, Lee's aides said.
Obama yesterday arrived in Seoul, the last leg of an Asian trip that also took him to Japan, Singapore and China.
Also on the agenda will be cooperation for next year's Group of 20 summit in Seoul and joint efforts to promote green growth, including development of renewable energy sources, Lee's aides said.
It will be their third bilateral summit, following one in London in April and another in Washington in June. They also met on the sidelines of multilateral forums such as G8, G20, U.N. and APEC summits.
The presidents are scheduled to meet one-on-one and have an extended session with aides present at Cheong Wa Dae. Obama then will visit a U.S. military base before leaving the country in the afternoon.
The summit is expected to set the stage for the allies' concerted diplomacy to engage North Korea. Obama is expected send his special envoy Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang by the end of this year to try to bring the North back to the six-party nuclear disarmament talks.
The North declared in April that it will not take part in the dialogue in protest of a U.N. action against its rocket firing. In October the Stalinist state expressed willingness to return to multilateral talks depending on results of upcoming bilateral meetings with Washington.
Lee and Obama are expected to coordinate their long-term comprehensive approaches to deal with North Korea.
Lee and Obama discussed the possibility of a package deal with the North when they met in Washington in June.
In September, Lee proposed the "grand bargain," a one-step agreement to provide the North with security guarantees and economic assistance in exchange for its irreversible dismantlement of its core nuclear programs.
Obama said last week the two leaders are "in full agreement on the need to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the nuclear, missile and proliferation problems.
Obama has repeatedly assured the North's security and prosperity if it drops nuclear programs.
"North Korea has a choice. It can continue down the path of confrontation and provocation that has led to less security, less prosperity and more isolation from the global community, or it can choose to become a full member of the international community," Obama said after a summit with Chinese leader Hu Jintao in Beijing on Tuesday.
Another focal point of the Lee-Obama summit is the bilateral free trade pact which was signed in 2007 but has languished at both counties' the legislatures.
Chances are low that the summit will generate more than a declaration of their political will to expedite its ratification.
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said earlier this month that Korea must address U.S. concerns over automobiles and beef before the Obama administration can send the pact to Congress.
On Wednesday, the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee said that the pact must be revised to fix Korea's rules limiting sales of American cars.
Obama is also likely to appreciate Seoul's recent decision to send workers and security staff to Afghanistan. But Seoul's dispatch will not be discussed during the summit, a senior Lee aide said.
The two leaders will also review the progress made since they adopted the Joint Vision for the Alliance in June promising to forge a comprehensive strategic partnership to tackle regional and global challenges, Cheong Wa Dae said.
(jjhwang@heraldm.com)
By Hwang Jang-jin
2009.11.19
The leaders will also discuss how to advance a stalled Korea-U.S. free trade agreement and reaffirm their commitment to a broader partnership, Lee's aides said.
Obama yesterday arrived in Seoul, the last leg of an Asian trip that also took him to Japan, Singapore and China.
Also on the agenda will be cooperation for next year's Group of 20 summit in Seoul and joint efforts to promote green growth, including development of renewable energy sources, Lee's aides said.
It will be their third bilateral summit, following one in London in April and another in Washington in June. They also met on the sidelines of multilateral forums such as G8, G20, U.N. and APEC summits.
The presidents are scheduled to meet one-on-one and have an extended session with aides present at Cheong Wa Dae. Obama then will visit a U.S. military base before leaving the country in the afternoon.
The summit is expected to set the stage for the allies' concerted diplomacy to engage North Korea. Obama is expected send his special envoy Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang by the end of this year to try to bring the North back to the six-party nuclear disarmament talks.
The North declared in April that it will not take part in the dialogue in protest of a U.N. action against its rocket firing. In October the Stalinist state expressed willingness to return to multilateral talks depending on results of upcoming bilateral meetings with Washington.
Lee and Obama are expected to coordinate their long-term comprehensive approaches to deal with North Korea.
Lee and Obama discussed the possibility of a package deal with the North when they met in Washington in June.
In September, Lee proposed the "grand bargain," a one-step agreement to provide the North with security guarantees and economic assistance in exchange for its irreversible dismantlement of its core nuclear programs.
Obama said last week the two leaders are "in full agreement on the need to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the nuclear, missile and proliferation problems.
Obama has repeatedly assured the North's security and prosperity if it drops nuclear programs.
"North Korea has a choice. It can continue down the path of confrontation and provocation that has led to less security, less prosperity and more isolation from the global community, or it can choose to become a full member of the international community," Obama said after a summit with Chinese leader Hu Jintao in Beijing on Tuesday.
Another focal point of the Lee-Obama summit is the bilateral free trade pact which was signed in 2007 but has languished at both counties' the legislatures.
Chances are low that the summit will generate more than a declaration of their political will to expedite its ratification.
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said earlier this month that Korea must address U.S. concerns over automobiles and beef before the Obama administration can send the pact to Congress.
On Wednesday, the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee said that the pact must be revised to fix Korea's rules limiting sales of American cars.
Obama is also likely to appreciate Seoul's recent decision to send workers and security staff to Afghanistan. But Seoul's dispatch will not be discussed during the summit, a senior Lee aide said.
The two leaders will also review the progress made since they adopted the Joint Vision for the Alliance in June promising to forge a comprehensive strategic partnership to tackle regional and global challenges, Cheong Wa Dae said.
(jjhwang@heraldm.com)
By Hwang Jang-jin
2009.11.19
Engaging the DPRK: A “Deferred Delivery” Option?
Georgy Toloraya
Regardless of rhetoric, there is little doubt that North Korea is not prepared to give up its nuclear capability any time soon. Although it might simply be a bargaining position, Pyongyang has even made it clear that there can be no such outcome until the whole world becomes free of nuclear weapons.1 That creates a new strategic reality – even if we do not recognize North Korea as a nuclear power, we will have to live side by side with it as a de-facto nuclear possessing state for a considerable period of time. While the United States is separated from it by an ocean, for Russia, China and South Korea there is just a river or a border. How are all the parties concerned going to deal with this country?
Although the risk of conflict has probably not increased with the DPRK becoming a de-facto nuclear power, a further escalation of tensions is a serious threat. Nuclear proliferation and the emergence of new regional nuclear powers also constitute serious threats. To avert such threats, the diplomatic process, even when seemingly fruitless, must be maintained. Additional pressure on North Korea would only be likely to result in further provocative actions by Pyongyang, including new WMD programs, increased risk of proliferation, and even military actions near the southern border (although probably limited) meant to discourage its opponents from stepping up the pressure. Such spiraling tensions, with the potential of leading to open conflict, should be avoided by re-engagement of the de-facto nuclear North Korea. The choice is between a hostile and cornered nuclear North Korea and a nuclear North Korea engaged in a search for compromise and acting responsibly.
The current cycle of tensions leading to the emergence of the DPRK as a de-facto nuclear weapons state started when North Korea became disappointed concerning the lame-duck Bush administration’s true intentions in the Six Party talks. North Koreans grew frustrated as their actual gains from the diplomatic process were marginal - they did not come much closer to obtaining substantial security guarantees. Even a largely symbolic (and easily reversible) “delisting” of DPRK as a terrorist state caused much controversy in the US and abroad, and when the US demanded new concessions in exchange from North Korea, they saw this as a breach of trust. As to the modest economic assistance promised when the accord was sealed, only the US and Russia actually fulfilled their obligations (200,000 tons of heavy oil), while other countries either totally abstained (Japan) or dragged their feet (ROK). For its part, the DPRK felt that its concessions were not fully recognized and valued. “Hawks” in Pyongyang might have suspected that these concessions were perceived in the West as a sign of weakness and testimony to its pressing need to normalize relations. Kim Jong Il probably considered that the incoming Obama administration would not take North Korea seriously enough and that he would not get the regime sustainability guarantees he needed by continuing tit-for-tat bargaining. Pyongyang therefore decided to “tame” the new US leaders and “teach them a lesson”. The new message was that Obama would have to talk to an established nuclear state. The strategy of increasing tensions to raise the stakes was adopted.
Now that yet another round of negotiations (first US-DPRK bilateral “contacts”, to be followed, if those are reasonably successful, by talks in a broader format) is about to begin, it is worth considering the objectives and evaluating different ways of attaining them.
Could the talks yet again be perceived (as some in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo do perceive them) simply as a tool to prevent further provocations and increase of WMD and military capabilities on the North Korean side while waiting for the regime “to collapse”? Such a strategy would mean that no significant concessions would be granted to Pyongyang, while North Korea would be kept at bay by promises, while the possible expansion of cooperation with the West and South Korea would be used to soften and undermine the regime. Such thinking seems to me delusory. Over-suspicious North Koreans well see these dangers and will not accommodate such treatment from their adversaries. In such a case tensions and provocations are almost certain to re-emerge periodically.
I believe that a totally different “gambit” is called for. Actually the only chance for denuclearization is to promote a substantial evolution in North Korea that would enable it to become a “normal” country that could live without nuclear weapons. The often-repeated declaration that NK should be “rewarded” by economic assistance and strategic reassurances after denuclearization is taken seriously neither by North Koreans nor its allies. If a chance to achieve the de-weaponization of DPRK is not to be lost, the sequencing should be reversed. That means that engagement, both political and economic, should precede phased denuclearization. The current political and economic system of the DPRK should be assisted in its positive evolution, ensuring the smooth transition to a new generation of leaders and “conventionalization” of the country. Such a changed North Korea would feel that militarization (including WMD) as a deterrent and guarantee of preserving its statehood is redundant. This would lead to a natural conclusion of the need to renounce WMD and decrease military potential.
Such a vision presupposes that denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should remain a vital final goal, but it cannot become the sole issue to be discussed with North Korea. As prior experience has shown, no progress from such a discussion can be expected without taking into consideration the legimate interests of the DPRK. No “denuclearization first, cooperation later” scenario is plausible. The agenda for future talks should be comprehensive, including the issue of a Korean and regional security and peace regime, non-proliferation and economic cooperation. If we are to take seriously North Korea’s position that “the DPRK will never participate in the talks any longer nor it will be bound to any agreement of the six-party talks”2, the convening of completely new talks will probably have to be considered, with a broader agenda, provided all parties proclaim their adherence to the agreements reached in the course of the Six-Party talks, including the September 19, 2005 Statement. However, the format should be the same – the original six parties, plus, perhaps, UN representative and observers from the EU and other interested parties. The talks should discuss the modalities of phased denuclearization and new security regime building.
Such an approach, or a similar one, has long been advocated by specialists in member countries of the Six-Party talks, including Russia, and it has sometimes served as a basis for practical policies. Those policies were moderately successful in freezing and at times even halting DPRK nuclear programs, although so far they have only led to false starts for a variety of reasons. The single most important reason for these failures has been the absence of any genuine commitment by the opponents of North Korea to coexist with the regime. Insincere and half-hearted “partial” engagement, with an underlying intention of regime change, does more harm than good. A “strategic decision” on coexistence with the DPRK’s existing regime needs to be taken in the capitals of Pyongyang’s adversaries – to be followed by Pyongyang’s own “strategic decision” to forego nuclear weapons when relations are normalized. This could be the basis for a future “package deal” or “grand bargain”.
If we analyze the results of the DPRK leadership’s recent strategy (demanded by the military and ideologues) of closing up and tightening the screws when frightened by Kim Jong Il's sudden illness, we notice that efforts to reestablish centralized control on the population were not equally successful in all spheres. The hardening of political and ideological pressure caused no major opposition, and even the number of those seeking to leave the country seems not to have increased. However, attempts (perceptible from 2005 but reinforced since 2008) to limit “marketization from below”–which began following the economic crisis of the 1990s–failed. Strangely, the restoration of Kim Il-Song era governance methods augmented by militarization (songun ideology) is proceeding against a background of grassroots economic liberalization, which tends to become irreversible. As signs of the times, cell phones, “Kentucky” chicken and pizza are in vogue in Pyongyang, while markets thrive with imported goods regardless of sanctions.
Such a development could be for the DPRK's own good. Transformation is needed unless North Korean leaders want to risk cornering the country into a geopolitical impasse and eventually a catastrophe.
The country has all the possibilities for economic advance. It is located at the very center of the world's most vibrant and dynamically developing region and it possesses labor and mineral resources, a history of industrial and technological development (unlike, say African countries with a comparable national income). The changes should start with gradual “marketization” of the economy, first on the microeconomic level (already happening), later extending to the macroeconomic level under state control. This could lead to a “guided market economy”, and the evolution of multi-sectoral production and trade conglomerates (resembling South Korean chaebols).3 These actors could become the centerpiece of engagement, which could continue irrespective of periodic setbacks in the diplomatic process. Economic sanctions only impede the return to normality. As the Kaesong zone experience showed in 2008-2009, unreasonable politicized demands from ideology-dictated North Koreans tend to subside, leaving room for sounder economy-based approaches even if ideologues are not happy with it.
Successful engagement is one in which the country experiences the benefits of economic development and a more peaceful environment. Unconditional economic assistance is not the answer. Assistance should be aimed at developing the marketized sector of the economy, which should not be perceived by DRPK leaders as a threat to their power. Rather, this sector should be brought out of the shadows and produce resources (via taxation, increased employment and incomes, and corresponding growth in demand and in other forms) for the development of strategic industries, which are typically unprofitable and which the government wants to keep state-owned and controlled.
This could lead to a transformation of the structure of the economy: the decline of outdated and non-competitive branches and the emergence of industries based on comparative advantage–cheap and comparatively well-educated labor, mineral resources, and location/transit potential–thanks to foreign capital (chiefly South Korean, Chinese, perhaps eventually Japanese). Economic growth would bring about socio-political stabilization, which, while alleviating DPRK security concerns, would enable the authorities to soften their grip on the population. Communist ideology might eventually give way to “social-nationalism” and “patriotism” (with a sacral role for the founder of the state) as the foundation of the societal mentality. The political system in the long run might evolve into a sort of “constitutional monarchy” or a “collective leadership” with much greater feedback from the grassroots for Kim Jong Il's successor. A corresponding decrease of tension and confrontation between the DPRK and the outside world would set the stage for military confidence-building measures and eventual creation of a multilateral system of international arrangements for Korean security (a system of checks and balances guaranteed by the US, Japan, China, and Russia). Of course, this is a long time off. However, embarking on this road offers the only opportunity for North Korea to recognize that it no longer needs the absolute strategic deterrent. This would enable it to voluntarily abandon its nuclear and other WMD ambitions (following a variant of the ”South African model”) and reduce its level of militarization within a broader agreement.
Such an option, however long it might take (one or two decades at least) is the only realistic peaceful path to achieve the goals of denuclearization and peace in Korea for the international community to pursue. This also corresponds with North Korea's own interests. The responsibility to embark on this road largely rests with the US. There seems as yet to be no clear concept of what policy the US should adopt regarding the Korean issue. No strategic decision on a US commitment to co-exist with the present DPRK leadership is in sight. On the contrary, there seem still to be expectations of possible turmoil in the country due to the succession issue leading to implosion and a South-led unification, thus solving all the problems.
Such expectations date back to Clinton’s failed 1990s approach. So far the Obama administration, enraged by North Korean provocations (the “slap in the face”, “a fist in exchange for a hand outstretched”) and unable to decipher their meaning, have chosen a wait and see approach, enforcing sanctions without offering any coherent vision. Yet such a vision is a pre-requisite for meaningful talks. The October-November bilateral “contacts” thus far seem to be just “talks about talks” on the US side, while North Koreans present a fairly clear view of what they want US to do. Even if positive results might be viewed as extending well beyond its term in office, the Obama administration should take a new, bolder approach and spearhead these efforts without letting unrealistic “prior denuclearization” theory block the way. A new strategy should include assurances that the US will undertake a strategic commitment to coexist with the DPRK regime. As proof, North Korea should feel the benefits derived from its cooperation with the world community, both political (normalization of relations without prior conditions) and economic. The aid, however, should help change, with the consent of the North Korean authorities, the political economy of the country in ways that allow it to develop on its own basis while taking advantage of the international division of labor. These policies should not have a “hidden agenda” of undermining the regime. As a result the economic reality of the country would change.
However idealistic it might sound, strategic reassurances and international assistance may be granted in exchange for a promise (probably a summit-level public commitment) to completely denuclearize by a target date, say 2012, in exchange for multilateral security guarantees. By that time the Pyongyang leadership (perhaps with a larger group of a new generation of reformists and pragmatists resulting from the above-mentioned changes) will have to face a choice: either to lose all the achievements resulting from normalization of international standing and economic cooperation, while keeping its nuclear weapons, or accept the bargain. The two decades long experience of half-hearted attempts to get the goods (denuclearization) first and pay later should prompt us to try this “deferred delivery” approach for a change. After all, 2012 is much closer than 1993 when the bargaining over nuclear issue started. And even if not totally successful such a policy (which could easily be reversed if North Koreans did not keep their word) could at least keep a lid on North Korean military programs, including nuclear and missile ones.
Georgy Toloraya is Director of Korean Programs, Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Science.
Recommended citation: Georgy Toloraya, "Engaging the DPRK: A 'Deferred Delivery' Option?" The Asia-Pacific Journal, 47-2-09, November 23, 2009.
See the following articles on related themes:
Michael Yo, Sleight of Law and U.S.-North Korea Relations: Re-nuclearization and Re-sanctioning
Ruediger Frank, Ideological Risk versus Economic Necessity: The Future of Reform in North Korea
Leonid Petrov, The Politics of Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation: 1998-2009
Leon V. Sigal, Why Punishing North Korea Won’t Work . . . and What Will
Notes
1 The Pyongyang media stated in October 2009, “In order to make the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free, it is necessary to make a comprehensive and total elimination of all the nuclear weapons on earth, to say nothing of those in and around south Korea. A prerequisite for global denuclearization is for the U.S., which tops the world's list of nuclear weapons, to cut down and dismantle them, to begin with.”
2 DPRK Foreign Ministry Vehemently Refutes UNSC's "Presidential Statement”, KCNA, 14 April 2009.
3 For details see Georgy Toloraya, ‘The Economic Future of North Korea: Will the Market Rule?’ KEI Academic Paper Series on Korea Vol.2, (Washington, 2007).
Regardless of rhetoric, there is little doubt that North Korea is not prepared to give up its nuclear capability any time soon. Although it might simply be a bargaining position, Pyongyang has even made it clear that there can be no such outcome until the whole world becomes free of nuclear weapons.1 That creates a new strategic reality – even if we do not recognize North Korea as a nuclear power, we will have to live side by side with it as a de-facto nuclear possessing state for a considerable period of time. While the United States is separated from it by an ocean, for Russia, China and South Korea there is just a river or a border. How are all the parties concerned going to deal with this country?
Although the risk of conflict has probably not increased with the DPRK becoming a de-facto nuclear power, a further escalation of tensions is a serious threat. Nuclear proliferation and the emergence of new regional nuclear powers also constitute serious threats. To avert such threats, the diplomatic process, even when seemingly fruitless, must be maintained. Additional pressure on North Korea would only be likely to result in further provocative actions by Pyongyang, including new WMD programs, increased risk of proliferation, and even military actions near the southern border (although probably limited) meant to discourage its opponents from stepping up the pressure. Such spiraling tensions, with the potential of leading to open conflict, should be avoided by re-engagement of the de-facto nuclear North Korea. The choice is between a hostile and cornered nuclear North Korea and a nuclear North Korea engaged in a search for compromise and acting responsibly.
The current cycle of tensions leading to the emergence of the DPRK as a de-facto nuclear weapons state started when North Korea became disappointed concerning the lame-duck Bush administration’s true intentions in the Six Party talks. North Koreans grew frustrated as their actual gains from the diplomatic process were marginal - they did not come much closer to obtaining substantial security guarantees. Even a largely symbolic (and easily reversible) “delisting” of DPRK as a terrorist state caused much controversy in the US and abroad, and when the US demanded new concessions in exchange from North Korea, they saw this as a breach of trust. As to the modest economic assistance promised when the accord was sealed, only the US and Russia actually fulfilled their obligations (200,000 tons of heavy oil), while other countries either totally abstained (Japan) or dragged their feet (ROK). For its part, the DPRK felt that its concessions were not fully recognized and valued. “Hawks” in Pyongyang might have suspected that these concessions were perceived in the West as a sign of weakness and testimony to its pressing need to normalize relations. Kim Jong Il probably considered that the incoming Obama administration would not take North Korea seriously enough and that he would not get the regime sustainability guarantees he needed by continuing tit-for-tat bargaining. Pyongyang therefore decided to “tame” the new US leaders and “teach them a lesson”. The new message was that Obama would have to talk to an established nuclear state. The strategy of increasing tensions to raise the stakes was adopted.
Now that yet another round of negotiations (first US-DPRK bilateral “contacts”, to be followed, if those are reasonably successful, by talks in a broader format) is about to begin, it is worth considering the objectives and evaluating different ways of attaining them.
Could the talks yet again be perceived (as some in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo do perceive them) simply as a tool to prevent further provocations and increase of WMD and military capabilities on the North Korean side while waiting for the regime “to collapse”? Such a strategy would mean that no significant concessions would be granted to Pyongyang, while North Korea would be kept at bay by promises, while the possible expansion of cooperation with the West and South Korea would be used to soften and undermine the regime. Such thinking seems to me delusory. Over-suspicious North Koreans well see these dangers and will not accommodate such treatment from their adversaries. In such a case tensions and provocations are almost certain to re-emerge periodically.
I believe that a totally different “gambit” is called for. Actually the only chance for denuclearization is to promote a substantial evolution in North Korea that would enable it to become a “normal” country that could live without nuclear weapons. The often-repeated declaration that NK should be “rewarded” by economic assistance and strategic reassurances after denuclearization is taken seriously neither by North Koreans nor its allies. If a chance to achieve the de-weaponization of DPRK is not to be lost, the sequencing should be reversed. That means that engagement, both political and economic, should precede phased denuclearization. The current political and economic system of the DPRK should be assisted in its positive evolution, ensuring the smooth transition to a new generation of leaders and “conventionalization” of the country. Such a changed North Korea would feel that militarization (including WMD) as a deterrent and guarantee of preserving its statehood is redundant. This would lead to a natural conclusion of the need to renounce WMD and decrease military potential.
Such a vision presupposes that denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should remain a vital final goal, but it cannot become the sole issue to be discussed with North Korea. As prior experience has shown, no progress from such a discussion can be expected without taking into consideration the legimate interests of the DPRK. No “denuclearization first, cooperation later” scenario is plausible. The agenda for future talks should be comprehensive, including the issue of a Korean and regional security and peace regime, non-proliferation and economic cooperation. If we are to take seriously North Korea’s position that “the DPRK will never participate in the talks any longer nor it will be bound to any agreement of the six-party talks”2, the convening of completely new talks will probably have to be considered, with a broader agenda, provided all parties proclaim their adherence to the agreements reached in the course of the Six-Party talks, including the September 19, 2005 Statement. However, the format should be the same – the original six parties, plus, perhaps, UN representative and observers from the EU and other interested parties. The talks should discuss the modalities of phased denuclearization and new security regime building.
Such an approach, or a similar one, has long been advocated by specialists in member countries of the Six-Party talks, including Russia, and it has sometimes served as a basis for practical policies. Those policies were moderately successful in freezing and at times even halting DPRK nuclear programs, although so far they have only led to false starts for a variety of reasons. The single most important reason for these failures has been the absence of any genuine commitment by the opponents of North Korea to coexist with the regime. Insincere and half-hearted “partial” engagement, with an underlying intention of regime change, does more harm than good. A “strategic decision” on coexistence with the DPRK’s existing regime needs to be taken in the capitals of Pyongyang’s adversaries – to be followed by Pyongyang’s own “strategic decision” to forego nuclear weapons when relations are normalized. This could be the basis for a future “package deal” or “grand bargain”.
If we analyze the results of the DPRK leadership’s recent strategy (demanded by the military and ideologues) of closing up and tightening the screws when frightened by Kim Jong Il's sudden illness, we notice that efforts to reestablish centralized control on the population were not equally successful in all spheres. The hardening of political and ideological pressure caused no major opposition, and even the number of those seeking to leave the country seems not to have increased. However, attempts (perceptible from 2005 but reinforced since 2008) to limit “marketization from below”–which began following the economic crisis of the 1990s–failed. Strangely, the restoration of Kim Il-Song era governance methods augmented by militarization (songun ideology) is proceeding against a background of grassroots economic liberalization, which tends to become irreversible. As signs of the times, cell phones, “Kentucky” chicken and pizza are in vogue in Pyongyang, while markets thrive with imported goods regardless of sanctions.
Such a development could be for the DPRK's own good. Transformation is needed unless North Korean leaders want to risk cornering the country into a geopolitical impasse and eventually a catastrophe.
The country has all the possibilities for economic advance. It is located at the very center of the world's most vibrant and dynamically developing region and it possesses labor and mineral resources, a history of industrial and technological development (unlike, say African countries with a comparable national income). The changes should start with gradual “marketization” of the economy, first on the microeconomic level (already happening), later extending to the macroeconomic level under state control. This could lead to a “guided market economy”, and the evolution of multi-sectoral production and trade conglomerates (resembling South Korean chaebols).3 These actors could become the centerpiece of engagement, which could continue irrespective of periodic setbacks in the diplomatic process. Economic sanctions only impede the return to normality. As the Kaesong zone experience showed in 2008-2009, unreasonable politicized demands from ideology-dictated North Koreans tend to subside, leaving room for sounder economy-based approaches even if ideologues are not happy with it.
Successful engagement is one in which the country experiences the benefits of economic development and a more peaceful environment. Unconditional economic assistance is not the answer. Assistance should be aimed at developing the marketized sector of the economy, which should not be perceived by DRPK leaders as a threat to their power. Rather, this sector should be brought out of the shadows and produce resources (via taxation, increased employment and incomes, and corresponding growth in demand and in other forms) for the development of strategic industries, which are typically unprofitable and which the government wants to keep state-owned and controlled.
This could lead to a transformation of the structure of the economy: the decline of outdated and non-competitive branches and the emergence of industries based on comparative advantage–cheap and comparatively well-educated labor, mineral resources, and location/transit potential–thanks to foreign capital (chiefly South Korean, Chinese, perhaps eventually Japanese). Economic growth would bring about socio-political stabilization, which, while alleviating DPRK security concerns, would enable the authorities to soften their grip on the population. Communist ideology might eventually give way to “social-nationalism” and “patriotism” (with a sacral role for the founder of the state) as the foundation of the societal mentality. The political system in the long run might evolve into a sort of “constitutional monarchy” or a “collective leadership” with much greater feedback from the grassroots for Kim Jong Il's successor. A corresponding decrease of tension and confrontation between the DPRK and the outside world would set the stage for military confidence-building measures and eventual creation of a multilateral system of international arrangements for Korean security (a system of checks and balances guaranteed by the US, Japan, China, and Russia). Of course, this is a long time off. However, embarking on this road offers the only opportunity for North Korea to recognize that it no longer needs the absolute strategic deterrent. This would enable it to voluntarily abandon its nuclear and other WMD ambitions (following a variant of the ”South African model”) and reduce its level of militarization within a broader agreement.
Such an option, however long it might take (one or two decades at least) is the only realistic peaceful path to achieve the goals of denuclearization and peace in Korea for the international community to pursue. This also corresponds with North Korea's own interests. The responsibility to embark on this road largely rests with the US. There seems as yet to be no clear concept of what policy the US should adopt regarding the Korean issue. No strategic decision on a US commitment to co-exist with the present DPRK leadership is in sight. On the contrary, there seem still to be expectations of possible turmoil in the country due to the succession issue leading to implosion and a South-led unification, thus solving all the problems.
Such expectations date back to Clinton’s failed 1990s approach. So far the Obama administration, enraged by North Korean provocations (the “slap in the face”, “a fist in exchange for a hand outstretched”) and unable to decipher their meaning, have chosen a wait and see approach, enforcing sanctions without offering any coherent vision. Yet such a vision is a pre-requisite for meaningful talks. The October-November bilateral “contacts” thus far seem to be just “talks about talks” on the US side, while North Koreans present a fairly clear view of what they want US to do. Even if positive results might be viewed as extending well beyond its term in office, the Obama administration should take a new, bolder approach and spearhead these efforts without letting unrealistic “prior denuclearization” theory block the way. A new strategy should include assurances that the US will undertake a strategic commitment to coexist with the DPRK regime. As proof, North Korea should feel the benefits derived from its cooperation with the world community, both political (normalization of relations without prior conditions) and economic. The aid, however, should help change, with the consent of the North Korean authorities, the political economy of the country in ways that allow it to develop on its own basis while taking advantage of the international division of labor. These policies should not have a “hidden agenda” of undermining the regime. As a result the economic reality of the country would change.
However idealistic it might sound, strategic reassurances and international assistance may be granted in exchange for a promise (probably a summit-level public commitment) to completely denuclearize by a target date, say 2012, in exchange for multilateral security guarantees. By that time the Pyongyang leadership (perhaps with a larger group of a new generation of reformists and pragmatists resulting from the above-mentioned changes) will have to face a choice: either to lose all the achievements resulting from normalization of international standing and economic cooperation, while keeping its nuclear weapons, or accept the bargain. The two decades long experience of half-hearted attempts to get the goods (denuclearization) first and pay later should prompt us to try this “deferred delivery” approach for a change. After all, 2012 is much closer than 1993 when the bargaining over nuclear issue started. And even if not totally successful such a policy (which could easily be reversed if North Koreans did not keep their word) could at least keep a lid on North Korean military programs, including nuclear and missile ones.
Georgy Toloraya is Director of Korean Programs, Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Science.
Recommended citation: Georgy Toloraya, "Engaging the DPRK: A 'Deferred Delivery' Option?" The Asia-Pacific Journal, 47-2-09, November 23, 2009.
See the following articles on related themes:
Michael Yo, Sleight of Law and U.S.-North Korea Relations: Re-nuclearization and Re-sanctioning
Ruediger Frank, Ideological Risk versus Economic Necessity: The Future of Reform in North Korea
Leonid Petrov, The Politics of Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation: 1998-2009
Leon V. Sigal, Why Punishing North Korea Won’t Work . . . and What Will
Notes
1 The Pyongyang media stated in October 2009, “In order to make the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free, it is necessary to make a comprehensive and total elimination of all the nuclear weapons on earth, to say nothing of those in and around south Korea. A prerequisite for global denuclearization is for the U.S., which tops the world's list of nuclear weapons, to cut down and dismantle them, to begin with.”
2 DPRK Foreign Ministry Vehemently Refutes UNSC's "Presidential Statement”, KCNA, 14 April 2009.
3 For details see Georgy Toloraya, ‘The Economic Future of North Korea: Will the Market Rule?’ KEI Academic Paper Series on Korea Vol.2, (Washington, 2007).
A Letter to the Citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki From a Hibakusha residing in Okinawa
Tsukishita Miki and Yuki TANAKA
Introduction
Tsukishita Miki, an A-bomb survivor, recently sent copies of the following letter to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo shortly before U.S. President Barack Obama visited Japan on November 13. Tsukishita was four years and seven months old when the city of Hiroshima was destroyed and many civilians instantly annihilated by the atomic bombing on the morning of August 6, 1945. He was four kilometers away from the hypocenter when the atomic bomb exploded. Miraculously he survived.
As Tsukishita compellingly describes in his letter, he has never been free from the “haunting memory of the unforgettable experience” of the atomic bombing, despite his young age at the time it occurred. Thus this horrific experience profoundly has affected his attitude towards life. As a university student in the 1960’s he was involved in the student movement opposing Japan’s re-militarization and Ampo, the US-Japan Security Treaty, as well as in the anti-pollution movement in Minamata. Leaving the university without completing his degree, he went to work for a private Japanese trading company. In the late 1960’s and early ‘70’s, he lived in Holland, working at a Dutch branch office of the company. While in Europe he visited Auschwitz and many other war commemoration and memorial sites, which led him to reflect deeply on peace and humanity. He also traveled to the Sahara Desert and saw the ancient cave paintings at Tassili N'Ajjer, which led him to realize the immense strength and durability that fine art possesses. He consequently believes that art should be fully utilized to promote peace. Returning to Japan, he resigned from the company and set up his own art and design production company. At the same time he started producing his own Chinese-ink paintings. Since the early 1980s he has held a series of exhibitions of his own work entitled “A Peace Monologue,” combining his artwork with various types of peace-promoting activities such as a hunger relief campaign for poverty-stricken nations, both within and outside Japan. In 2006, he moved to Okinawa to concentrate on his art, while remaining deeply involved in peace and anti-nuclear movements.
In his grand speech in Tokyo on November 14, Obama repeatedly emphasized the importance of “human dignity” before an invited audience of 1,600. He stated that:
‘the United States will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear - and that includes respect for the religion and cultures of all people - because support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America.’
‘The longing for liberty and dignity is a part of the story of all peoples. For there are certain aspirations that human beings hold in common: the freedom to speak your mind, and choose your leaders; the ability to access information, and worship how you please; confidence in the rule of law, and the equal administration of justice. These are not impediments to stability, they are the cornerstones of stability. And we will always stand on the side of those who seek these rights.’ (emphasis added)
In reading Tsukishita’s letter, you will find that what he is asking of the U.S. President is “human dignity” and “the equal administration of justice” for the A-bomb survivors, the victims of indiscriminate mass killing carried out by the U.S. 64 years ago. Tsukishita also requests free access to information on the effects of radiation on A-bomb survivors which the U.S. still holds and refuses to disclose. He reminds us of the fact that the United States has neither apologized to, nor provided financial support for, the medical care of the hibakusha.
While in Tokyo, Obama expressed his interest in visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the future. I sincerely hope that, before Obama visits Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he will recall his own words as mentioned above, and will fulfill his responsibility as U.S. President to respect A-bomb survivors’ human rights and human dignity. A repetition of a rhetorical and eloquent emphasis on human rights and human dignity alone will not bring about meaningful change to those whose lives have been irreparably altered. Obama needs to prove in a concrete manner his claim that supporting such fundamental values is the moral tradition ingrained in America.
At the same time, we Japanese also need to respect the human rights and human dignity of the vast number of people who became victims of the brutal and inhumane conduct of our own nation throughout the Asia-Pacific during the 15 year long war between 1931 and 1945. As Obama said, ‘the final area in which we must work together is in upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of all human beings.’ This applies to us all, regardless of nationality.
Dear Citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
I am a hibakusha, an A-Bomb survivor, and I live in a place called Yambaru in the north of the main island of Okinawa. I am an old man, trying to heal the pain of being irradiated by living amongst the myriad gods breathing in the mountains, rivers, grasses and trees of this island. In reading this letter, I would like you to understand and remember that I cannot claim my voice to be representative of all hibakusha, but I feel my message is an important one.
On August 6, 1945, the atomic bombing made many citizens of Hiroshima hibakusha, and three days later, the second atomic bombing also made many people of Nagasaki hibakusha. Sixty-four years have passed since then. Now, the majority of the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not hibakusha as the hibakusha population is rapidly diminishing as it ages. Soon we hibakusha will all disappear from this world. For the last sixty-four years we have been desperately trying to survive, tormented by the haunting memory of an unforgettable experience: the indescribable agony of sudden death caused by the most atrocious and inhumane weapon ever produced in the history of mankind. Yet it is not only this memory that torments us. We live with the constant fear that the residual radiation embedded in our bodies may kill us unexpectedly, at any time. However, the pain of being an A-bomb survivor differs from person to person, and cannot be summarized in a few words under the general term “hibakusha.”
For my part, I must be honest and state that for some time after the war, I bitterly hated the U.S. and often reflected on how my life could have been different if the bombing had not occurred. Had I been able cry out, “You diabolical Americans!” it might have eased my anger a little. At a time when Japan was under the occupation of the Allied powers, such action was impossible. However, my feelings towards my situation have changed over the years.
We hibakusha are not intolerant. We have developed creative methods for survival as we have all struggled to overcome grave despair, to find hope and to understand the meaning of our lives. We therefore sincerely wish from the bottom of our hearts for peace and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we feel that our souls and bodies must first be healed before we can discuss the abolition of nuclear weapons. Please base your understanding of our situation on the fact that each hibakusha has his or her own distinctive pain. It is our honest belief that once we are healed and our pain is understood, we can then turn our attention to the movement to abolish nuclear weapons. I wonder whether I am alone in feeling that anti-nuclear movements have so far been promoted solely in the interest of politics without trying to disentangle the tangled threads of the deep and complex sorrow of each hibakusha.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s recent bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games is one incident which reflects the callous attitudes of those who exploit the symbolic nature of these cities, ignoring the pain of the hibakusha. Another such reflection can be seen in the proposal that U.S. President Obama visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many are keen for this to happen; I, on the other hand, would like him to first express his remorse for the atomic bombings on behalf of all Americans, the people responsible for spreading the fear of nuclear weapons worldwide and creating the hibakusha population.
I would like to ask the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to consider the following:
The leader of the United States, the nation that developed and used atomic bombs, is going to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, an award ironically established by the person who became a millionaire for his invention of smokeless gunpowder and dynamite. I am unsurprised, as this kind of celebration is an old ploy frequently exploited by people with money and power to deceive the public. I do, however, find it shocking that the anti-nuclear movement is collecting signatures from the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to encourage President Obama to visit these cities. This situation is akin to that of the arsonist firefighter, who sets fire to a house, and is then the first to rush to save it. This push for President Obama to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki is no different from inviting the arsonist to the scene of his crime without asking him to express any remorse or to pay compensation. Please do not hurt the hibakusha any further by pursuing such insulting projects. Though the anti-nuclear movement is promoting the collection of signatures as an act of goodwill, we find their cause very upsetting and feel we have nowhere to appeal. We are old and do not have much time left to us. Before President Obama is urged to visit the cities that his country destroyed, he must be asked to agree to pay all the hibakusha’s medical expenses, living allowances and compensation for damages, and must also be requested to release all information collected by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission through its medical examinations of hibakusha. The ABCC operated for many years only for the purpose of collecting data on the effects of radiation on human bodies and never offered medical treatment to hibakusha.
I would like to convey to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the following message:
I cannot help harboring deep doubts about your dignity and ability as mayors of your respective cities, given that both of you publicly and shamelessly promote Hiroshima and Nagasaki as potential hosts of the Olympic Games, an event which inevitably incites nationalism. Through this exploitation, you are making fools of the hibakusha. Do you think that the Olympic Games could be held at Auschwitz? Ever since the Nazis held the Olympic Games in Berlin as a grand festival to exult the Aryan race, they have been continually berated for exploiting the occasion and showing off their nation-state under the guise of sportsmanship. Do you wish the same criticism to be directed at your cities?
You may think that Nazi nationalism is a bygone matter that no longer has anything to do with our lives today. Yet the recent bidding to host the Olympic Games clearly revealed the ugly greed of all the candidates, and one could sense a war-like atmosphere behind the process. It is generally believed that competition cultivates personal character and gives individuals confidence, but in fact, competition actually gives most individuals, save a very small number, an inferiority complex that weakens their confidence. Moreover, competition can be a dangerous tool as it reduces the value of individuals, the value of a nation, city, school, to mere numerical figures: the outcome of the competition. We must not forget that spiritual power, which cannot be converted into numbers, cultivates humanity.
Why is it that we cannot eliminate war? Even if we could successfully abolish nuclear weapons, I am certain that we would not be able to avoid the occurrence of new conflicts. As a result, more destructive weapons could potentially be developed. Encouraging compassion on the other hand, enables one to extend one’s imagination to the pain suffered by the hibakusha, as well as by all other war victims, and is essential in rendering all weapons meaningless. This is the starting point to freeing humankind from war. In this sense, the abolition of nuclear weapons should be a movement for the creation of the spirit of peace.
From now on, we, the people of the Earth, need to generate the strong will to live together as a global family, overcoming the barriers of race and nation, and together we must explore alternatives to war for the resolution of friction between peoples. There appears to be no other way for mankind to retain its dignity.
When reading any piece of writing, one must read between the lines to fully comprehend what it is that the author wishes to say. I ask you to listen to the voice of the voiceless hibakusha in a similar manner.
Thank you very much for reading my letter.
November 2009
Tsukishita Miki
(Edited and translated by Yuki Tanaka)
Yuki Tanaka is Research Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute, and a coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal. He is the author most recently of Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn Young, eds., Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth Century History. He wrote this article for The Asia-Pacific Journal.
Recommended citation: Tsukishita Miki and Yuki Tanaka, "A Letter to the Citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki From a Hibakusha residing in Okinawa," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 47-1-09, November 23, 2009.
Introduction
Tsukishita Miki, an A-bomb survivor, recently sent copies of the following letter to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo shortly before U.S. President Barack Obama visited Japan on November 13. Tsukishita was four years and seven months old when the city of Hiroshima was destroyed and many civilians instantly annihilated by the atomic bombing on the morning of August 6, 1945. He was four kilometers away from the hypocenter when the atomic bomb exploded. Miraculously he survived.
As Tsukishita compellingly describes in his letter, he has never been free from the “haunting memory of the unforgettable experience” of the atomic bombing, despite his young age at the time it occurred. Thus this horrific experience profoundly has affected his attitude towards life. As a university student in the 1960’s he was involved in the student movement opposing Japan’s re-militarization and Ampo, the US-Japan Security Treaty, as well as in the anti-pollution movement in Minamata. Leaving the university without completing his degree, he went to work for a private Japanese trading company. In the late 1960’s and early ‘70’s, he lived in Holland, working at a Dutch branch office of the company. While in Europe he visited Auschwitz and many other war commemoration and memorial sites, which led him to reflect deeply on peace and humanity. He also traveled to the Sahara Desert and saw the ancient cave paintings at Tassili N'Ajjer, which led him to realize the immense strength and durability that fine art possesses. He consequently believes that art should be fully utilized to promote peace. Returning to Japan, he resigned from the company and set up his own art and design production company. At the same time he started producing his own Chinese-ink paintings. Since the early 1980s he has held a series of exhibitions of his own work entitled “A Peace Monologue,” combining his artwork with various types of peace-promoting activities such as a hunger relief campaign for poverty-stricken nations, both within and outside Japan. In 2006, he moved to Okinawa to concentrate on his art, while remaining deeply involved in peace and anti-nuclear movements.
In his grand speech in Tokyo on November 14, Obama repeatedly emphasized the importance of “human dignity” before an invited audience of 1,600. He stated that:
‘the United States will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear - and that includes respect for the religion and cultures of all people - because support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America.’
‘The longing for liberty and dignity is a part of the story of all peoples. For there are certain aspirations that human beings hold in common: the freedom to speak your mind, and choose your leaders; the ability to access information, and worship how you please; confidence in the rule of law, and the equal administration of justice. These are not impediments to stability, they are the cornerstones of stability. And we will always stand on the side of those who seek these rights.’ (emphasis added)
In reading Tsukishita’s letter, you will find that what he is asking of the U.S. President is “human dignity” and “the equal administration of justice” for the A-bomb survivors, the victims of indiscriminate mass killing carried out by the U.S. 64 years ago. Tsukishita also requests free access to information on the effects of radiation on A-bomb survivors which the U.S. still holds and refuses to disclose. He reminds us of the fact that the United States has neither apologized to, nor provided financial support for, the medical care of the hibakusha.
While in Tokyo, Obama expressed his interest in visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the future. I sincerely hope that, before Obama visits Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he will recall his own words as mentioned above, and will fulfill his responsibility as U.S. President to respect A-bomb survivors’ human rights and human dignity. A repetition of a rhetorical and eloquent emphasis on human rights and human dignity alone will not bring about meaningful change to those whose lives have been irreparably altered. Obama needs to prove in a concrete manner his claim that supporting such fundamental values is the moral tradition ingrained in America.
At the same time, we Japanese also need to respect the human rights and human dignity of the vast number of people who became victims of the brutal and inhumane conduct of our own nation throughout the Asia-Pacific during the 15 year long war between 1931 and 1945. As Obama said, ‘the final area in which we must work together is in upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of all human beings.’ This applies to us all, regardless of nationality.
Dear Citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
I am a hibakusha, an A-Bomb survivor, and I live in a place called Yambaru in the north of the main island of Okinawa. I am an old man, trying to heal the pain of being irradiated by living amongst the myriad gods breathing in the mountains, rivers, grasses and trees of this island. In reading this letter, I would like you to understand and remember that I cannot claim my voice to be representative of all hibakusha, but I feel my message is an important one.
On August 6, 1945, the atomic bombing made many citizens of Hiroshima hibakusha, and three days later, the second atomic bombing also made many people of Nagasaki hibakusha. Sixty-four years have passed since then. Now, the majority of the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not hibakusha as the hibakusha population is rapidly diminishing as it ages. Soon we hibakusha will all disappear from this world. For the last sixty-four years we have been desperately trying to survive, tormented by the haunting memory of an unforgettable experience: the indescribable agony of sudden death caused by the most atrocious and inhumane weapon ever produced in the history of mankind. Yet it is not only this memory that torments us. We live with the constant fear that the residual radiation embedded in our bodies may kill us unexpectedly, at any time. However, the pain of being an A-bomb survivor differs from person to person, and cannot be summarized in a few words under the general term “hibakusha.”
For my part, I must be honest and state that for some time after the war, I bitterly hated the U.S. and often reflected on how my life could have been different if the bombing had not occurred. Had I been able cry out, “You diabolical Americans!” it might have eased my anger a little. At a time when Japan was under the occupation of the Allied powers, such action was impossible. However, my feelings towards my situation have changed over the years.
We hibakusha are not intolerant. We have developed creative methods for survival as we have all struggled to overcome grave despair, to find hope and to understand the meaning of our lives. We therefore sincerely wish from the bottom of our hearts for peace and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we feel that our souls and bodies must first be healed before we can discuss the abolition of nuclear weapons. Please base your understanding of our situation on the fact that each hibakusha has his or her own distinctive pain. It is our honest belief that once we are healed and our pain is understood, we can then turn our attention to the movement to abolish nuclear weapons. I wonder whether I am alone in feeling that anti-nuclear movements have so far been promoted solely in the interest of politics without trying to disentangle the tangled threads of the deep and complex sorrow of each hibakusha.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s recent bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games is one incident which reflects the callous attitudes of those who exploit the symbolic nature of these cities, ignoring the pain of the hibakusha. Another such reflection can be seen in the proposal that U.S. President Obama visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many are keen for this to happen; I, on the other hand, would like him to first express his remorse for the atomic bombings on behalf of all Americans, the people responsible for spreading the fear of nuclear weapons worldwide and creating the hibakusha population.
I would like to ask the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to consider the following:
The leader of the United States, the nation that developed and used atomic bombs, is going to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, an award ironically established by the person who became a millionaire for his invention of smokeless gunpowder and dynamite. I am unsurprised, as this kind of celebration is an old ploy frequently exploited by people with money and power to deceive the public. I do, however, find it shocking that the anti-nuclear movement is collecting signatures from the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to encourage President Obama to visit these cities. This situation is akin to that of the arsonist firefighter, who sets fire to a house, and is then the first to rush to save it. This push for President Obama to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki is no different from inviting the arsonist to the scene of his crime without asking him to express any remorse or to pay compensation. Please do not hurt the hibakusha any further by pursuing such insulting projects. Though the anti-nuclear movement is promoting the collection of signatures as an act of goodwill, we find their cause very upsetting and feel we have nowhere to appeal. We are old and do not have much time left to us. Before President Obama is urged to visit the cities that his country destroyed, he must be asked to agree to pay all the hibakusha’s medical expenses, living allowances and compensation for damages, and must also be requested to release all information collected by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission through its medical examinations of hibakusha. The ABCC operated for many years only for the purpose of collecting data on the effects of radiation on human bodies and never offered medical treatment to hibakusha.
I would like to convey to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the following message:
I cannot help harboring deep doubts about your dignity and ability as mayors of your respective cities, given that both of you publicly and shamelessly promote Hiroshima and Nagasaki as potential hosts of the Olympic Games, an event which inevitably incites nationalism. Through this exploitation, you are making fools of the hibakusha. Do you think that the Olympic Games could be held at Auschwitz? Ever since the Nazis held the Olympic Games in Berlin as a grand festival to exult the Aryan race, they have been continually berated for exploiting the occasion and showing off their nation-state under the guise of sportsmanship. Do you wish the same criticism to be directed at your cities?
You may think that Nazi nationalism is a bygone matter that no longer has anything to do with our lives today. Yet the recent bidding to host the Olympic Games clearly revealed the ugly greed of all the candidates, and one could sense a war-like atmosphere behind the process. It is generally believed that competition cultivates personal character and gives individuals confidence, but in fact, competition actually gives most individuals, save a very small number, an inferiority complex that weakens their confidence. Moreover, competition can be a dangerous tool as it reduces the value of individuals, the value of a nation, city, school, to mere numerical figures: the outcome of the competition. We must not forget that spiritual power, which cannot be converted into numbers, cultivates humanity.
Why is it that we cannot eliminate war? Even if we could successfully abolish nuclear weapons, I am certain that we would not be able to avoid the occurrence of new conflicts. As a result, more destructive weapons could potentially be developed. Encouraging compassion on the other hand, enables one to extend one’s imagination to the pain suffered by the hibakusha, as well as by all other war victims, and is essential in rendering all weapons meaningless. This is the starting point to freeing humankind from war. In this sense, the abolition of nuclear weapons should be a movement for the creation of the spirit of peace.
From now on, we, the people of the Earth, need to generate the strong will to live together as a global family, overcoming the barriers of race and nation, and together we must explore alternatives to war for the resolution of friction between peoples. There appears to be no other way for mankind to retain its dignity.
When reading any piece of writing, one must read between the lines to fully comprehend what it is that the author wishes to say. I ask you to listen to the voice of the voiceless hibakusha in a similar manner.
Thank you very much for reading my letter.
November 2009
Tsukishita Miki
(Edited and translated by Yuki Tanaka)
Yuki Tanaka is Research Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute, and a coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal. He is the author most recently of Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn Young, eds., Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth Century History. He wrote this article for The Asia-Pacific Journal.
Recommended citation: Tsukishita Miki and Yuki Tanaka, "A Letter to the Citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki From a Hibakusha residing in Okinawa," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 47-1-09, November 23, 2009.
Japanese Curry, Snubbed by Michelin, Finds Fans: Tokyo Dining
Review by Rocky Swift
Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The Michelin Guide’s list of top Tokyo restaurants features French eateries, sushi shops and even blowfish specialists. Left entirely unrepresented is one of Japan’s favorite foods: curry.
Yet this gooey, affordable culinary transplant regularly tops surveys as the favorite food among Japanese school kids and adults. Introduced from India by way of English traders in the 19th century, curry has been adapted to local taste and has become as much a part of Japanese popular culture as baseball.
The Japanese version is almost like a gravy, and is thicker than Indian and Thai curries. Most shops here plant their flag either in the Indian camp, which is more aromatic and heavy on cloves, or the more-improbable European side, featuring meaty stews built on a long-reduced stock. Some Tokyo restaurants have attracted fans on the Internet and lines outside their doors.
To get up to the speed on all things curry, start with these two restaurants in central Tokyo.
The first, called Tokyo Curry Lab, is nestled inside the base of the city’s neon-lit Tokyo Tower in the southern part of the city. True to its name, its decor invokes a laboratory atmosphere, with a glass-walled demonstration area in the front and jars of spices suggesting chemical reactions.
Seats are arranged around a bare white counter with soundless movies and cartoons playing on tiny personal TV sets, and place mats that offer trivia such as “curry causes body temperature to rise and increases the blood flow in our brain.”
Pork, Chicken
I tried a combo dish of the spicy pork and almond chicken varieties; the pork was mild enough for infants and the chicken was a bit gritty from the pounded nuts mixed into the sauce.
The other curry classroom is in the basement food court of the Itocia building in the Yurakucho area. Called Club of Tokyo Famous Curry Diners, it claims to serve curries from five of the city’s most-celebrated restaurants. While the restaurant offers variety, it lacks made-to-order appeal.
On a recent visit, I tried a special “beef-beef” menu item, a minced meat keema curry on rice with a rich, European- style meat reduction sauce in a separate bowl to dump over the rest. It was rich and filling; my companion said her chicken curry was too mild.
According to Japan’s Supleks Web site, which ranks the nation’s best curry and ramen noodles based on surveys, the second-best curry eatery is the Curry Rice Senmonten Ethiopia, in the central Ochanomizu district. Despite its name, this joint specializes in Indian-inspired curries.
At the vending machine inside the door, I chose a chicken- and-vegetable mixed curry for 1,200 yen ($13.40) and a tall bottle of Heartland beer for another 500 yen.
Free Potato
Taking a seat at the long counter, the waiter delivered a steamed potato with a pat of butter (I had three: they’re complimentary. Awesome.) and asked how spicy I wanted my curry on a scale of one to 70. He steered me toward Level 3, while that scholarly kid to my right ordered the same at Level 20.
The curry had large chunks of juicy chicken and veggies -- including broccoli, shimeji mushrooms and okra -- that were still crisp amidst the steaming broth. The sauce was somewhat watery and lacking the complexity I’d expected.
To sample a more European-style joint, I went with one of food writer Robb Satterwaite’s recommendations to a place called Tomato, in the commuter neighborhood of Ogikubo in western Tokyo. A server there explained the name came from using tomato as a base for many of their sauces.
Beef-Tongue Curry
I heard a number of orders for the beef-tongue curry, but I went with the veal option for 1,680 yen as it seemed the most decadent. The rice was sprinkled with preserves and cheese and the sauce came in a separate metal pot.
Described as mild on the menu, I was still surprised at how meek the milk-infused sauce was; its aromatic seasonings, creamy texture and lack of salt gave it an odd latte-like flavor. Maybe I should have done the tongue.
Well, enough messing around, it was time to go for the best. I went on a pilgrimage to M’s Curry, in a nondescript neighborhood west of the city center. Down a typical commercial alley and sharing a strip with a butcher and fishmonger, I could tell M’s popularity just by the line out the door.
Around 15 minutes later, I was sitting at the L-shaped counter in front of an open kitchen and a bearded chef, who alone took orders, fired the burners, served the meals and collected the money.
I chose the popular 870-yen pork curry. The complimentary salad was a simple affair made more interesting by a homemade Italian-style dressing. The curry resembled a landscape sculpture on a plate: an ocean of brown sauce with a cliff of roasted pork next to a narrow peninsula of white rice.
The sauce is dense with flavor, with sweetness and meaty richness trumping the spiciness; the pork was plentiful and soft.
The combination was just amazing, which goes to show that when it comes to Japanese curry, you might have to brave the outer boroughs.
The Bloomberg Questions
Cost? 800 yen to 2,000 yen.
Sound level? All the restaurants are quiet.
Date place? Not really.
Inside tip? The Kanda area, near where Ethiopia is located, has a cluster of some of the country’s top-rated curry spots, as ranked by Supleks.
Special feature? Try the 70 times spice at Ethiopia.
Private rooms? No, mostly counter seating.
Will I be back? Yes to all.
Rating? Tokyo Curry Lab *, Club of Tokyo *, Ethiopia **, Tomato **, M’s Curry ***
Tokyo Curry Lab, Tokyo Tower 2nd Floor, Shibakoen 4-2-8, Minato-ku. +81-3-5425-2900. http://www.orange-p.co.jp/currylab/
Club of Tokyo, Itoocia B1, Yurakucho 2-7-1, Chiyoda-ku. +81-3-3211-0616. http://www.t-curry-m.com/
Ethiopia, Kanda Ogawamachi 3-10-6, Chiyoda-ku. +81-3-3295- 4310. http://www.ethiopia-curry.com/menu.html
Tomato, Ogikubo 5-20-7, Suginami-ku. +81-3-3393-3262.
M’s Curry, Sasazuka 2-10-6, Shibuya-ku. +81-3-3378-4744.
What the Stars Mean
**** Incomparable food, service, ambience.
*** First-class of its kind.
** Good, reliable.
* Fair.
(No stars) Poor.
(Rocky Swift writes for Bloomberg News. Opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer on the story: Rocky Swift in Tokyo at rswift5@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 18, 2009 11:31 EST
Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The Michelin Guide’s list of top Tokyo restaurants features French eateries, sushi shops and even blowfish specialists. Left entirely unrepresented is one of Japan’s favorite foods: curry.
Yet this gooey, affordable culinary transplant regularly tops surveys as the favorite food among Japanese school kids and adults. Introduced from India by way of English traders in the 19th century, curry has been adapted to local taste and has become as much a part of Japanese popular culture as baseball.
The Japanese version is almost like a gravy, and is thicker than Indian and Thai curries. Most shops here plant their flag either in the Indian camp, which is more aromatic and heavy on cloves, or the more-improbable European side, featuring meaty stews built on a long-reduced stock. Some Tokyo restaurants have attracted fans on the Internet and lines outside their doors.
To get up to the speed on all things curry, start with these two restaurants in central Tokyo.
The first, called Tokyo Curry Lab, is nestled inside the base of the city’s neon-lit Tokyo Tower in the southern part of the city. True to its name, its decor invokes a laboratory atmosphere, with a glass-walled demonstration area in the front and jars of spices suggesting chemical reactions.
Seats are arranged around a bare white counter with soundless movies and cartoons playing on tiny personal TV sets, and place mats that offer trivia such as “curry causes body temperature to rise and increases the blood flow in our brain.”
Pork, Chicken
I tried a combo dish of the spicy pork and almond chicken varieties; the pork was mild enough for infants and the chicken was a bit gritty from the pounded nuts mixed into the sauce.
The other curry classroom is in the basement food court of the Itocia building in the Yurakucho area. Called Club of Tokyo Famous Curry Diners, it claims to serve curries from five of the city’s most-celebrated restaurants. While the restaurant offers variety, it lacks made-to-order appeal.
On a recent visit, I tried a special “beef-beef” menu item, a minced meat keema curry on rice with a rich, European- style meat reduction sauce in a separate bowl to dump over the rest. It was rich and filling; my companion said her chicken curry was too mild.
According to Japan’s Supleks Web site, which ranks the nation’s best curry and ramen noodles based on surveys, the second-best curry eatery is the Curry Rice Senmonten Ethiopia, in the central Ochanomizu district. Despite its name, this joint specializes in Indian-inspired curries.
At the vending machine inside the door, I chose a chicken- and-vegetable mixed curry for 1,200 yen ($13.40) and a tall bottle of Heartland beer for another 500 yen.
Free Potato
Taking a seat at the long counter, the waiter delivered a steamed potato with a pat of butter (I had three: they’re complimentary. Awesome.) and asked how spicy I wanted my curry on a scale of one to 70. He steered me toward Level 3, while that scholarly kid to my right ordered the same at Level 20.
The curry had large chunks of juicy chicken and veggies -- including broccoli, shimeji mushrooms and okra -- that were still crisp amidst the steaming broth. The sauce was somewhat watery and lacking the complexity I’d expected.
To sample a more European-style joint, I went with one of food writer Robb Satterwaite’s recommendations to a place called Tomato, in the commuter neighborhood of Ogikubo in western Tokyo. A server there explained the name came from using tomato as a base for many of their sauces.
Beef-Tongue Curry
I heard a number of orders for the beef-tongue curry, but I went with the veal option for 1,680 yen as it seemed the most decadent. The rice was sprinkled with preserves and cheese and the sauce came in a separate metal pot.
Described as mild on the menu, I was still surprised at how meek the milk-infused sauce was; its aromatic seasonings, creamy texture and lack of salt gave it an odd latte-like flavor. Maybe I should have done the tongue.
Well, enough messing around, it was time to go for the best. I went on a pilgrimage to M’s Curry, in a nondescript neighborhood west of the city center. Down a typical commercial alley and sharing a strip with a butcher and fishmonger, I could tell M’s popularity just by the line out the door.
Around 15 minutes later, I was sitting at the L-shaped counter in front of an open kitchen and a bearded chef, who alone took orders, fired the burners, served the meals and collected the money.
I chose the popular 870-yen pork curry. The complimentary salad was a simple affair made more interesting by a homemade Italian-style dressing. The curry resembled a landscape sculpture on a plate: an ocean of brown sauce with a cliff of roasted pork next to a narrow peninsula of white rice.
The sauce is dense with flavor, with sweetness and meaty richness trumping the spiciness; the pork was plentiful and soft.
The combination was just amazing, which goes to show that when it comes to Japanese curry, you might have to brave the outer boroughs.
The Bloomberg Questions
Cost? 800 yen to 2,000 yen.
Sound level? All the restaurants are quiet.
Date place? Not really.
Inside tip? The Kanda area, near where Ethiopia is located, has a cluster of some of the country’s top-rated curry spots, as ranked by Supleks.
Special feature? Try the 70 times spice at Ethiopia.
Private rooms? No, mostly counter seating.
Will I be back? Yes to all.
Rating? Tokyo Curry Lab *, Club of Tokyo *, Ethiopia **, Tomato **, M’s Curry ***
Tokyo Curry Lab, Tokyo Tower 2nd Floor, Shibakoen 4-2-8, Minato-ku. +81-3-5425-2900. http://www.orange-p.co.jp/currylab/
Club of Tokyo, Itoocia B1, Yurakucho 2-7-1, Chiyoda-ku. +81-3-3211-0616. http://www.t-curry-m.com/
Ethiopia, Kanda Ogawamachi 3-10-6, Chiyoda-ku. +81-3-3295- 4310. http://www.ethiopia-curry.com/menu.html
Tomato, Ogikubo 5-20-7, Suginami-ku. +81-3-3393-3262.
M’s Curry, Sasazuka 2-10-6, Shibuya-ku. +81-3-3378-4744.
What the Stars Mean
**** Incomparable food, service, ambience.
*** First-class of its kind.
** Good, reliable.
* Fair.
(No stars) Poor.
(Rocky Swift writes for Bloomberg News. Opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer on the story: Rocky Swift in Tokyo at rswift5@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 18, 2009 11:31 EST
Taiwan Sees Risks, Rewards In China's Embrace
November 17, 2009
Taiwan and China are enjoying their warmest relations in years, with stronger economic ties that have been welcomed by the business community.
But some on the island nation worry that Taiwan will pay a price for the closer ties. And as President Obama visits China for the first time, they say Americans need to understand the risks to the democratic principles the U.S. and Taiwan value.
China has viewed Taiwan as a renegade province since the days of the Chinese civil war. In the mid-1990s, Beijing was so angry with Taiwan for flirting with formal independence that it fired missiles toward the island during an election campaign. Taiwanese voters responded by giving the pro-independence candidate a clear majority.
But since then, Taiwan's economy has struggled and the country has lost much of its swagger. Now Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou says he has had no choice but to increase economic ties with China.
"As mainland China is rapidly becoming the second largest economy in the world, obviously, we cannot avoid doing business with the mainland," Ma said in an interview with American journalists.
Direct Flights To China
Last year, Ma approved direct flights to the mainland for the first time. His government is also working on agreements that would cut tariffs for Taiwanese products and could open the door to more Chinese investment.
Ma insists none of this will affect Taiwan's status as a de facto independent country.
"There have always been risks in dealing with mainland China, but there have always been opportunities as well," Ma said. "So, my job as president of this country is [to] maximize opportunity and minimize risk."
Political Opposition
But Taiwan's opposition politicians are skeptical.
"If Taiwan cannot separate itself from the Chinese economy, talking about political separation is going to be hard," says Joseph Wu, who served as the island's unofficial ambassador to the U.S. in 2007.
The United States has protected Taiwan for decades, and Americans have a vested interest in the island's fate, says Wu, a member of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party, which opposes the new policies.
"We hold the same value of freedom and human rights and democracy with the Americans," Wu says. "Any damage to Taiwan's democracy or that Taiwan is to be sucked into that authoritarian country, the United States should be concerned about that."
Such arguments seem to hold little sway with Taiwanese business people, most of whom applaud the opening to China and see it as long overdue.
The Friendly Skies
Until last year, flying between Taiwan and Shanghai took an entire day, because the Taiwanese government forced travelers to transfer in Hong Kong, says Yancey Hai, chief executive officer of Delta Electronics, which makes everything from cooling fans to digital projectors.
Now, travel is much easier.
"When I fly to Shanghai, it takes me about 90 minutes," Hai says. "So I can fly to Shanghai in the morning and come back in the evening."
Hai says warmer economic relations are also creating business opportunities.
"One of their biggest appliance companies came to us from China yesterday and, in the past, we [had] never talked about business," Hai says.
Some young people also support the new policies because they see their future in China — not Taiwan.
"Shanghai is the financial center of China," says Wang Junhong, a finance major at Taiwan's National Politics University. "So I guess there would be much more opportunity to get a good job or get a higher wage."
Taiwan's government has just signed a banking agreement with China and Wang hopes that will make it easier for him to find work at a bank in Shanghai.
But where Wang sees opportunity, Anya Liu, another student, sees threats. The president's opening to China will usher in a flood of mainlanders who will take the best jobs, she says.
China's "population is just too big and they're too capable," Liu says. "There's nothing we can do about it."
She adds: "The Ma government is too close to China. So in the end all our political sovereignty will be obliterated."
Impact On The Media
China's economic influence is also affecting the Taiwanese media, says Leticia Fang, who teaches journalism at National Politics University.
When a Taiwanese TV anchor appeared recently as a guest on China's state-run television, she criticized the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing considers to be a separatist.
A few years ago, that would have never happened, Fang says.
"Some media people, they are just sucking up," she says. Fang adds that here greatest fear is that more Taiwanese journalists wil become advocates for China.
Economic Repercussions
Beijing flexed its muscles earlier this fall after the Dalai Lama came to Taiwan to pray for victims of a typhoon. China criticized Taiwan for giving him a visa.
After officials in the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung welcomed the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government prohibited government tour groups from spending the night there.
The ban cost Kaohsiung's Hotel Kingdom 1,200 room bookings, says assistant general manager C.S. Chung.
"I really hope the government won't do anything that will infuriate the mainland and cause it to boycott our tourism," Chung says.
President Ma insists his efforts to forge economic ties to China won't affect Taiwan's autonomy.
"We are very much concerned about our sovereignty and our identity," Ma said. "So, in every agreement we sign with the Chinese mainland, you can read between the lines: there's no political words in that."
But as the Dalai Lama's visit shows, separating politics from economics across the Taiwan Strait is getting harder and harder.
Taiwan and China are enjoying their warmest relations in years, with stronger economic ties that have been welcomed by the business community.
But some on the island nation worry that Taiwan will pay a price for the closer ties. And as President Obama visits China for the first time, they say Americans need to understand the risks to the democratic principles the U.S. and Taiwan value.
China has viewed Taiwan as a renegade province since the days of the Chinese civil war. In the mid-1990s, Beijing was so angry with Taiwan for flirting with formal independence that it fired missiles toward the island during an election campaign. Taiwanese voters responded by giving the pro-independence candidate a clear majority.
But since then, Taiwan's economy has struggled and the country has lost much of its swagger. Now Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou says he has had no choice but to increase economic ties with China.
"As mainland China is rapidly becoming the second largest economy in the world, obviously, we cannot avoid doing business with the mainland," Ma said in an interview with American journalists.
Direct Flights To China
Last year, Ma approved direct flights to the mainland for the first time. His government is also working on agreements that would cut tariffs for Taiwanese products and could open the door to more Chinese investment.
Ma insists none of this will affect Taiwan's status as a de facto independent country.
"There have always been risks in dealing with mainland China, but there have always been opportunities as well," Ma said. "So, my job as president of this country is [to] maximize opportunity and minimize risk."
Political Opposition
But Taiwan's opposition politicians are skeptical.
"If Taiwan cannot separate itself from the Chinese economy, talking about political separation is going to be hard," says Joseph Wu, who served as the island's unofficial ambassador to the U.S. in 2007.
The United States has protected Taiwan for decades, and Americans have a vested interest in the island's fate, says Wu, a member of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party, which opposes the new policies.
"We hold the same value of freedom and human rights and democracy with the Americans," Wu says. "Any damage to Taiwan's democracy or that Taiwan is to be sucked into that authoritarian country, the United States should be concerned about that."
Such arguments seem to hold little sway with Taiwanese business people, most of whom applaud the opening to China and see it as long overdue.
The Friendly Skies
Until last year, flying between Taiwan and Shanghai took an entire day, because the Taiwanese government forced travelers to transfer in Hong Kong, says Yancey Hai, chief executive officer of Delta Electronics, which makes everything from cooling fans to digital projectors.
Now, travel is much easier.
"When I fly to Shanghai, it takes me about 90 minutes," Hai says. "So I can fly to Shanghai in the morning and come back in the evening."
Hai says warmer economic relations are also creating business opportunities.
"One of their biggest appliance companies came to us from China yesterday and, in the past, we [had] never talked about business," Hai says.
Some young people also support the new policies because they see their future in China — not Taiwan.
"Shanghai is the financial center of China," says Wang Junhong, a finance major at Taiwan's National Politics University. "So I guess there would be much more opportunity to get a good job or get a higher wage."
Taiwan's government has just signed a banking agreement with China and Wang hopes that will make it easier for him to find work at a bank in Shanghai.
But where Wang sees opportunity, Anya Liu, another student, sees threats. The president's opening to China will usher in a flood of mainlanders who will take the best jobs, she says.
China's "population is just too big and they're too capable," Liu says. "There's nothing we can do about it."
She adds: "The Ma government is too close to China. So in the end all our political sovereignty will be obliterated."
Impact On The Media
China's economic influence is also affecting the Taiwanese media, says Leticia Fang, who teaches journalism at National Politics University.
When a Taiwanese TV anchor appeared recently as a guest on China's state-run television, she criticized the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing considers to be a separatist.
A few years ago, that would have never happened, Fang says.
"Some media people, they are just sucking up," she says. Fang adds that here greatest fear is that more Taiwanese journalists wil become advocates for China.
Economic Repercussions
Beijing flexed its muscles earlier this fall after the Dalai Lama came to Taiwan to pray for victims of a typhoon. China criticized Taiwan for giving him a visa.
After officials in the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung welcomed the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government prohibited government tour groups from spending the night there.
The ban cost Kaohsiung's Hotel Kingdom 1,200 room bookings, says assistant general manager C.S. Chung.
"I really hope the government won't do anything that will infuriate the mainland and cause it to boycott our tourism," Chung says.
President Ma insists his efforts to forge economic ties to China won't affect Taiwan's autonomy.
"We are very much concerned about our sovereignty and our identity," Ma said. "So, in every agreement we sign with the Chinese mainland, you can read between the lines: there's no political words in that."
But as the Dalai Lama's visit shows, separating politics from economics across the Taiwan Strait is getting harder and harder.
Human Rights Official Decries China's Secret Jails
November 17, 2009
The group Human Rights Watch is calling attention to what it calls "severe rights abuses" in a network of secret, unlawful detention centers in China, known as "black jails."
Human Rights Watch interviewed 38 former detainees who described being abducted from the streets, hauled to makeshift jails and detained under harsh conditions. The detainees say they were jailed for filing grievances with the government, seeking redress for losing their land or their houses.
The group released its report to coincide with President Obama's visit to China. In his public remarks and in talks Tuesday with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama called for universal human rights.
Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch, tells NPR's Melissa Block that the jails can vary from very shabby rooming houses to very small cells. Treatment at the facilities can vary as well.
"Some people report being beaten," he says. "Other people report just being held indefinitely, basically suffering mental torture because they don't know who has taken them and how long they are going to be held."
The former detainees also report deprivation of food and sleep.
The number of people held in these facilities is unknown, but estimates range in the thousands. Adams says it also is unclear what determines how and when the detainees are freed, because there is no due process.
After the report was issued, the Chinese government denied the existence of the jails upon the report's release.
"I can assure you there are no so-called black jails in China," the Foreign Ministry spokesman said. "We put people first, and we are an administration for the people."
The group Human Rights Watch is calling attention to what it calls "severe rights abuses" in a network of secret, unlawful detention centers in China, known as "black jails."
Human Rights Watch interviewed 38 former detainees who described being abducted from the streets, hauled to makeshift jails and detained under harsh conditions. The detainees say they were jailed for filing grievances with the government, seeking redress for losing their land or their houses.
The group released its report to coincide with President Obama's visit to China. In his public remarks and in talks Tuesday with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama called for universal human rights.
Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch, tells NPR's Melissa Block that the jails can vary from very shabby rooming houses to very small cells. Treatment at the facilities can vary as well.
"Some people report being beaten," he says. "Other people report just being held indefinitely, basically suffering mental torture because they don't know who has taken them and how long they are going to be held."
The former detainees also report deprivation of food and sleep.
The number of people held in these facilities is unknown, but estimates range in the thousands. Adams says it also is unclear what determines how and when the detainees are freed, because there is no due process.
After the report was issued, the Chinese government denied the existence of the jails upon the report's release.
"I can assure you there are no so-called black jails in China," the Foreign Ministry spokesman said. "We put people first, and we are an administration for the people."
Obama, Hu Pledge Cooperation
November 17, 2009
President Obama met with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, for wide-ranging talks on the challenges facing their two countries. The two discussed how they can pursue a more balanced economic strategy, cooperate on curbing greenhouse gas emissions and the spread of nuclear weapons.
TRANSCRIPT
MELISSA BLOCK, host:
From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. Im Melissa Block.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
And Im Robert Siegel.
Jobs, climate change, trade and nuclear weapons today in China, President Obama and Chinas leader, Hu Jintao, discussed those topics and more. It was a full day for Mr. Obama. In addition to talks, he was formerly welcomed to the ceremony in Beijing. He toured the Forbidden City, which for centuries was home to Chinese emperors and he attended a state dinner.
NPRs Scott Horsley has this report on what Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart discussed when they sat down together.
SCOTT HORSLEY: More than halfway through an eight-day tour of Asia, President Obama is still keenly aware that the number one issue back home is jobs. He and President Hu talked about how the U.S. and China can pursue a more balanced economic strategy, so more Americans are working and more Chinese are shopping.
President BARACK OBAMA: A strategy where America saves more, spends less, reduces our long-term debt and where China makes adjustments across a broad range of policies to rebalance its economy and spur domestic demand. This will lead to increased U.S. exports and jobs on the one hand, and higher living standards in China on the other.
HORSLEY: With its rising living standards, China is beginning to consume more energy and produce more greenhouse gases. The U.S. and China agreed to work together on ways to generate cleaner energy. And while next months climate summit in Copenhagen now seems unlikely to produce a binding agreement on greenhouse gases, Mr. Obama says the U.S. and China hope to lead the way toward solid progress in that direction.
Pres. OBAMA: This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge. And we agreed that each of us would take significant mitigation actions and stand behind these commitments.
HORSLEY: The two leaders also talked about curbing the spread of nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran. China is part of the so-called P5+1 group of countries leaning on Iran to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful. Negotiations with Iran have so far been unsuccessful though, and the U.S. has said time is running out.
Pres. OBAMA: On this point our two nations and the rest of our P5+1 partners are unified. Iran has an opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intentions but if it fails to take this opportunity, there will be consequences.
HORSLEY: Presumably, those consequences would involve stiffer sanctions against Iran. China has been reluctant to go along with that though, and President Hu gave no indication today his position on sanctions has changed.
(Soundbite of bugle)
HORSLEY: Important differences between the U.S. and China were largely glossed over though on this day of ceremonial goodwill. The United States new ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, has been watching these events since the U.S. and China reopened diplomatic ties some three decades ago. And Huntsman, a Republican, said he was proud of Mr. Obamas performance.
Mr. JON HUNTSMAN (U.S. Ambassador to China): The President stepped off the plane in Shanghai in an environment that Id have to characterize as being really at an all-time high, a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory, thereby able to kind of sail above some of the windsheers and the storms that have typically been part of the bilateral relationship.
HORSLEY: President Obama did raise a few sensitive topics though in his meeting with President Hu. He urged China to stop censoring the Internet to respect the human rights of ethnic and religious minorities and quickly reopen talks with the exiled leader of Tibet.
Pres. OBAMA: While we recognize that Tibet is part of the Peoples Republic of China, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue between the Chinese government and representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve any concerns and differences that the two sides may have.
HORSLEY: The U.S. and China are scheduled to talk more about human rights at a meeting next year. President Hu said its only normal the two countries would disagree on some issues. After a day of bridging those barriers, Mr. Obama wraps up his China trip with a visit to the Great Wall tomorrow.
Scott Horsley, NPR News, Beijing.
Copyright ©2009 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved
President Obama met with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, for wide-ranging talks on the challenges facing their two countries. The two discussed how they can pursue a more balanced economic strategy, cooperate on curbing greenhouse gas emissions and the spread of nuclear weapons.
TRANSCRIPT
MELISSA BLOCK, host:
From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. Im Melissa Block.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
And Im Robert Siegel.
Jobs, climate change, trade and nuclear weapons today in China, President Obama and Chinas leader, Hu Jintao, discussed those topics and more. It was a full day for Mr. Obama. In addition to talks, he was formerly welcomed to the ceremony in Beijing. He toured the Forbidden City, which for centuries was home to Chinese emperors and he attended a state dinner.
NPRs Scott Horsley has this report on what Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart discussed when they sat down together.
SCOTT HORSLEY: More than halfway through an eight-day tour of Asia, President Obama is still keenly aware that the number one issue back home is jobs. He and President Hu talked about how the U.S. and China can pursue a more balanced economic strategy, so more Americans are working and more Chinese are shopping.
President BARACK OBAMA: A strategy where America saves more, spends less, reduces our long-term debt and where China makes adjustments across a broad range of policies to rebalance its economy and spur domestic demand. This will lead to increased U.S. exports and jobs on the one hand, and higher living standards in China on the other.
HORSLEY: With its rising living standards, China is beginning to consume more energy and produce more greenhouse gases. The U.S. and China agreed to work together on ways to generate cleaner energy. And while next months climate summit in Copenhagen now seems unlikely to produce a binding agreement on greenhouse gases, Mr. Obama says the U.S. and China hope to lead the way toward solid progress in that direction.
Pres. OBAMA: This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge. And we agreed that each of us would take significant mitigation actions and stand behind these commitments.
HORSLEY: The two leaders also talked about curbing the spread of nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran. China is part of the so-called P5+1 group of countries leaning on Iran to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful. Negotiations with Iran have so far been unsuccessful though, and the U.S. has said time is running out.
Pres. OBAMA: On this point our two nations and the rest of our P5+1 partners are unified. Iran has an opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intentions but if it fails to take this opportunity, there will be consequences.
HORSLEY: Presumably, those consequences would involve stiffer sanctions against Iran. China has been reluctant to go along with that though, and President Hu gave no indication today his position on sanctions has changed.
(Soundbite of bugle)
HORSLEY: Important differences between the U.S. and China were largely glossed over though on this day of ceremonial goodwill. The United States new ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, has been watching these events since the U.S. and China reopened diplomatic ties some three decades ago. And Huntsman, a Republican, said he was proud of Mr. Obamas performance.
Mr. JON HUNTSMAN (U.S. Ambassador to China): The President stepped off the plane in Shanghai in an environment that Id have to characterize as being really at an all-time high, a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory, thereby able to kind of sail above some of the windsheers and the storms that have typically been part of the bilateral relationship.
HORSLEY: President Obama did raise a few sensitive topics though in his meeting with President Hu. He urged China to stop censoring the Internet to respect the human rights of ethnic and religious minorities and quickly reopen talks with the exiled leader of Tibet.
Pres. OBAMA: While we recognize that Tibet is part of the Peoples Republic of China, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue between the Chinese government and representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve any concerns and differences that the two sides may have.
HORSLEY: The U.S. and China are scheduled to talk more about human rights at a meeting next year. President Hu said its only normal the two countries would disagree on some issues. After a day of bridging those barriers, Mr. Obama wraps up his China trip with a visit to the Great Wall tomorrow.
Scott Horsley, NPR News, Beijing.
Copyright ©2009 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved
Obama's Trip Draws Mixed Reaction In China
President Obama's talks in China were cordial, but it was not a breakthrough visit. The modest results have raised questions about how well the two countries can cooperate on important issues. In China, everyone's expectations of Obama's first trip there were different. Some expected him to try to connect more with ordinary Chinese.
Follow the link above to listen to the story.
Follow the link above to listen to the story.
"The Bow" Viewed from Tokyo
Published: November 18th, 2009 07:43 EST
"The Bow" Viewed from Tokyo
By Geoff Dean
There are two types of Americans in Japan (Blatant Stereotype Alert!) There are those who seek to use a few words of Japanese, respect cultural traditions, take off their shoes in the house, use chopsticks, and bow. They may do things inappropriately at times but they are greatly appreciated in Japan for trying. Then, there are those who speak only English, put ketchup on their sushi, call for a fork and spoon, and never ever bow. The proverbial "ugly Americans." Japanese people smile at them politely while thinking on the inside, "what a bunch of jerks!"
As an American living in Japan (I throw this in to sound qualified to comment, which I am not), I partake of some of both stereotypes but I strive to be sensitive. Bowing is a major part of this. Japanese people are very big on greetings (each year, public elementary schools hold a contest to see who can greet loudest and most clearly, bow the deepest, etc.). I, myself, find myself bowing many times a day, to the newspaper delivery guy, the mail carrier, the counterperson at McDonald`s, the tofu guy, the public bath proprietor, etc. I`m not a serial groveler. That is just common sense in Japan.
Still, when President Obama bowed, admittedly somewhat choppily, to the Emperor and Empress, many conservative commentators got hot under the collar. Dick Cheney was often held up as the example of "appropriate greeting", for his upright handshake with the Emperor. He decried Obama`s bow as "showing weakness" (as quoted in the New York Post and elsewhere). There was, he said, "no reason" for the US President to bow to anyone. Andrew Malcolm in the LA Times called the bow, "groveling" and "undignified" and showed that the President had no sense of history. The SOP`s own Robert Paul Reyes roundly criticized the "subservient" action in his report, "Video: Obama`s Bow to Japan`s Emperor: How Low Can You Go?"
My distinguished fellow columnists, in Japan, bowing has absolutely nothing to do with "groveling", "subservience" and/or "weakness". Sumo wrestlers bow to each other after every bout; I`d like to see Cheney call one of them weak. Bowing is a sign of respect, warmth, and even friendship and, in fact, has nothing to do with groveling. That is just the Western misunderstanding of an Eastern greeting.When Cheney did his famous "upright shake", the Emperor smiled and returned the greeting warmly (at least one of them has class!) but he was probably thinking "what an arrogant jerk!" People all over Japan surely did. Do we want our President to be learning manners and cultural sensitivity from the former VP?
Holding hands with a Middle Eastern potentate (as President Bush famously did), bear hugging a Russian leader (a la Ronald Reagan), kissing a French leader on the cheeks, and bowing to a Japanese leader, these are all cultural greetings. Are they required? Maybe not, but what is the problem with being culturally sensitive? Imagine if the Prime Minister of Japan came to the States and refused to shake hands with the President (after all, hand shaking is not his culture-it is too casual). Would the conservative critics smile and say there is "no reason" for a Japanese Prime Minister to shake hands with anyone? That would be "too undignified"? There is no need for him to "grovel" and act "subservient" to the US President? I kind of doubt it. Cheney and his cabal are of the view that when in America, do as the Americans do and when in Japan, do as the Americans do. This is the arrogance that has gotten America such a bad name all over the world.
Japan and America are facing some serious issues in their relationship. Bowing to the Emperor is a small symbol of the President and the US` respect of and friendship with Japan. Just a token, but small things have a big impact in Japan. It is a cheap and easy way to deepen the relationship. And to the Emperor, I`m sorry that there are some critics in America who can`t even let a greeting alone (I`m bowing deeply in humble apology!)
"The Bow" Viewed from Tokyo
By Geoff Dean
There are two types of Americans in Japan (Blatant Stereotype Alert!) There are those who seek to use a few words of Japanese, respect cultural traditions, take off their shoes in the house, use chopsticks, and bow. They may do things inappropriately at times but they are greatly appreciated in Japan for trying. Then, there are those who speak only English, put ketchup on their sushi, call for a fork and spoon, and never ever bow. The proverbial "ugly Americans." Japanese people smile at them politely while thinking on the inside, "what a bunch of jerks!"
As an American living in Japan (I throw this in to sound qualified to comment, which I am not), I partake of some of both stereotypes but I strive to be sensitive. Bowing is a major part of this. Japanese people are very big on greetings (each year, public elementary schools hold a contest to see who can greet loudest and most clearly, bow the deepest, etc.). I, myself, find myself bowing many times a day, to the newspaper delivery guy, the mail carrier, the counterperson at McDonald`s, the tofu guy, the public bath proprietor, etc. I`m not a serial groveler. That is just common sense in Japan.
Still, when President Obama bowed, admittedly somewhat choppily, to the Emperor and Empress, many conservative commentators got hot under the collar. Dick Cheney was often held up as the example of "appropriate greeting", for his upright handshake with the Emperor. He decried Obama`s bow as "showing weakness" (as quoted in the New York Post and elsewhere). There was, he said, "no reason" for the US President to bow to anyone. Andrew Malcolm in the LA Times called the bow, "groveling" and "undignified" and showed that the President had no sense of history. The SOP`s own Robert Paul Reyes roundly criticized the "subservient" action in his report, "Video: Obama`s Bow to Japan`s Emperor: How Low Can You Go?"
My distinguished fellow columnists, in Japan, bowing has absolutely nothing to do with "groveling", "subservience" and/or "weakness". Sumo wrestlers bow to each other after every bout; I`d like to see Cheney call one of them weak. Bowing is a sign of respect, warmth, and even friendship and, in fact, has nothing to do with groveling. That is just the Western misunderstanding of an Eastern greeting.When Cheney did his famous "upright shake", the Emperor smiled and returned the greeting warmly (at least one of them has class!) but he was probably thinking "what an arrogant jerk!" People all over Japan surely did. Do we want our President to be learning manners and cultural sensitivity from the former VP?
Holding hands with a Middle Eastern potentate (as President Bush famously did), bear hugging a Russian leader (a la Ronald Reagan), kissing a French leader on the cheeks, and bowing to a Japanese leader, these are all cultural greetings. Are they required? Maybe not, but what is the problem with being culturally sensitive? Imagine if the Prime Minister of Japan came to the States and refused to shake hands with the President (after all, hand shaking is not his culture-it is too casual). Would the conservative critics smile and say there is "no reason" for a Japanese Prime Minister to shake hands with anyone? That would be "too undignified"? There is no need for him to "grovel" and act "subservient" to the US President? I kind of doubt it. Cheney and his cabal are of the view that when in America, do as the Americans do and when in Japan, do as the Americans do. This is the arrogance that has gotten America such a bad name all over the world.
Japan and America are facing some serious issues in their relationship. Bowing to the Emperor is a small symbol of the President and the US` respect of and friendship with Japan. Just a token, but small things have a big impact in Japan. It is a cheap and easy way to deepen the relationship. And to the Emperor, I`m sorry that there are some critics in America who can`t even let a greeting alone (I`m bowing deeply in humble apology!)
In Obama's China trip, a stark contrast with the past
The U.S. tone toward Beijing is now much more conciliatory
By Andrew Higgins and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
BEIJING -- President Obama has emerged from his first trip to China with no big breakthroughs on important issues, such as Iran's nuclear program or China's currency. Yet after two days of talks with the United States' biggest creditor, the administration asserted that relations between the two countries are at "at an all-time high."
Although one concrete advance emerged -- that the United States may offer a target for carbon-emission cuts to boost climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month if China offers its own proposal -- it was a relatively small step for a new president who had campaigned on a promise to enact far-reaching change in U.S. diplomatic interactions.
If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. In a joint appearance with President Hu Jintao on Tuesday, Obama hailed China as an economic partner that has "proved critical in our effort to pull ourselves out of the worst recession in generations." The day before, speaking to students in Shanghai, he described China's rising prosperity as "an accomplishment unparalleled in human history."
Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors. But this reflected not so much a policy shift by a new administration in Washington as a dramatic and much bigger change in the power dynamic, particularly in economics, over the past decade -- a change that has been the central undercurrent of Obama's swing through China this week.
In 1998, when President Bill Clinton stood before television cameras in Beijing's Great Hall of the People, the United States owed more money to Spain than to China and did more than twice as much trade with Mexico. At a freewheeling news conference, Clinton criticized China's military crackdown a decade earlier in Tiananmen Square and traded spirited jibes with President Jiang Zemin.
On Tuesday, Obama stood in the same building alongside another Chinese leader. This time, with the United States in hock to China for more than $1 trillion dollars and flooded with Chinese-made goods, it was a Chinese-style news conference. Each leader read a prepared statement and eyed the other in silence. There were no questions.
Since leaving Washington last Thursday for an eight-day tour of Asia, Obama has occasionally nudged China on issues such as Tibet and Internet censorship. But he has more often trumpeted China's achievements and pleaded with Beijing for increased help on the world stage.
China returned the effusiveness in its music selection at a state dinner for Obama on Tuesday night. The People's Liberation Army serenaded him and other U.S. officials with "I Just Called to Say I Love You," "In the Mood" and "We Are the World," as Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sat on either side of the Chinese president over a steak dinner.
In many ways, the United States and China have never been closer, as reflected in a raft of joint projects outlined during Obama's visit here. Ahead of meetings with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Wednesday, Obama said the relationship is deepening beyond trade and economics to cover climate, security and other matters of international concern. Those would include previously announced and now reinvigorated efforts on stem-cell research, crime prevention and military contacts. But with the rituals and even the substance of the two nations' interactions increasingly on Chinese terms, Obama advisers insisted that their overtures and polite tone are in pursuit of long-term results, a reflection of China's growing importance.
When President Clinton visited China in 1998, the United States was still basking in its position as Cold War victor and the world's sole superpower. It sought China's help on only a narrow range of international issues, such as the spread of missile technology and North Korea. China was just shaking off the stigma of the 1989 crackdown. It was the seventh-biggest holder of U.S. Treasury securities. Today, China is the nation's biggest creditor and its trade with the United States has grown sevenfold.
Also changed are the faces in the Chinese leadership. Jiang, Clinton's 1998 sparring partner in the Great Hall of the People, was an often boisterous character who liked to sing, and also comb his hair, in public. Hu, Obama's host, is a far more buttoned-down and cautious sort.
Clinton could not tell Chinese leaders what to do. Indeed, he had to abandon a big push on human rights when China simply said no. And his challenge to Jiang over Tiananmen was paired with a significant concession over Taiwan.
But Clinton and other U.S. presidents never needed China's help nearly as much as Obama's America needs Hu's.
Whether as a creditor, an emitter of greenhouse gases or a neighbor of Afghanistan, China has clout that the United States now desperately needs. "The U.S.-China relationship has gone global," said Jon Huntsman Jr., the new U.S. ambassador to Beijing and a fluent Chinese speaker.
At the same time, however, China has been far more insistent about asserting its will, most obviously in small but symbolically significant matters of stage management. A town hall-style meeting in Shanghai that the White House had hoped would allow the president to reach out to ordinary Chinese was drained of spontaneity by Chinese-scripted choreography. Tuesday's news conference had no questions, at China's behest.
The Obama White House said it pushed back against restrictions, and it denied that the nation's indebtedness to China has made it any less forceful.
Referring to the fact that China holds Treasury securities worth nearly $800 billion, as well as billions more in other forms of U.S. debt, Michael Froman, economic adviser on the National Security Council, said "the $800 billion never came up in conversation."
"The president dealt with every issue on his agenda in a very direct way and pulled no punches," he said.
U.S. officials insisted that, despite constraints, Obama still got his message to the Chinese public. State television provided live coverage of his Tuesday appearance with Hu, which featured an appeal by the U.S. president on human rights.
"America's bedrock beliefs that all men and women possess certain fundamental human rights," Obama said, "are universal rights" that "should be available to all people." He also urged China to resume talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader.
White House officials described Obama as even more forceful behind closed doors, suggesting that the administration is more eager to engage with reality than grandstand. Obama had "as direct a discussion of human rights as I've seen by any high-level visitor with the Chinese" when he met with Hu, said Jeffrey Bader, the National Security Council's chief Asia hand, who also worked for President Clinton.
Furthermore, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, the administration had not expected "that the waters would part and everything would change over our almost 2 1/2 -day trip to China."
By Andrew Higgins and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
BEIJING -- President Obama has emerged from his first trip to China with no big breakthroughs on important issues, such as Iran's nuclear program or China's currency. Yet after two days of talks with the United States' biggest creditor, the administration asserted that relations between the two countries are at "at an all-time high."
Although one concrete advance emerged -- that the United States may offer a target for carbon-emission cuts to boost climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month if China offers its own proposal -- it was a relatively small step for a new president who had campaigned on a promise to enact far-reaching change in U.S. diplomatic interactions.
If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. In a joint appearance with President Hu Jintao on Tuesday, Obama hailed China as an economic partner that has "proved critical in our effort to pull ourselves out of the worst recession in generations." The day before, speaking to students in Shanghai, he described China's rising prosperity as "an accomplishment unparalleled in human history."
Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors. But this reflected not so much a policy shift by a new administration in Washington as a dramatic and much bigger change in the power dynamic, particularly in economics, over the past decade -- a change that has been the central undercurrent of Obama's swing through China this week.
In 1998, when President Bill Clinton stood before television cameras in Beijing's Great Hall of the People, the United States owed more money to Spain than to China and did more than twice as much trade with Mexico. At a freewheeling news conference, Clinton criticized China's military crackdown a decade earlier in Tiananmen Square and traded spirited jibes with President Jiang Zemin.
On Tuesday, Obama stood in the same building alongside another Chinese leader. This time, with the United States in hock to China for more than $1 trillion dollars and flooded with Chinese-made goods, it was a Chinese-style news conference. Each leader read a prepared statement and eyed the other in silence. There were no questions.
Since leaving Washington last Thursday for an eight-day tour of Asia, Obama has occasionally nudged China on issues such as Tibet and Internet censorship. But he has more often trumpeted China's achievements and pleaded with Beijing for increased help on the world stage.
China returned the effusiveness in its music selection at a state dinner for Obama on Tuesday night. The People's Liberation Army serenaded him and other U.S. officials with "I Just Called to Say I Love You," "In the Mood" and "We Are the World," as Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sat on either side of the Chinese president over a steak dinner.
In many ways, the United States and China have never been closer, as reflected in a raft of joint projects outlined during Obama's visit here. Ahead of meetings with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Wednesday, Obama said the relationship is deepening beyond trade and economics to cover climate, security and other matters of international concern. Those would include previously announced and now reinvigorated efforts on stem-cell research, crime prevention and military contacts. But with the rituals and even the substance of the two nations' interactions increasingly on Chinese terms, Obama advisers insisted that their overtures and polite tone are in pursuit of long-term results, a reflection of China's growing importance.
When President Clinton visited China in 1998, the United States was still basking in its position as Cold War victor and the world's sole superpower. It sought China's help on only a narrow range of international issues, such as the spread of missile technology and North Korea. China was just shaking off the stigma of the 1989 crackdown. It was the seventh-biggest holder of U.S. Treasury securities. Today, China is the nation's biggest creditor and its trade with the United States has grown sevenfold.
Also changed are the faces in the Chinese leadership. Jiang, Clinton's 1998 sparring partner in the Great Hall of the People, was an often boisterous character who liked to sing, and also comb his hair, in public. Hu, Obama's host, is a far more buttoned-down and cautious sort.
Clinton could not tell Chinese leaders what to do. Indeed, he had to abandon a big push on human rights when China simply said no. And his challenge to Jiang over Tiananmen was paired with a significant concession over Taiwan.
But Clinton and other U.S. presidents never needed China's help nearly as much as Obama's America needs Hu's.
Whether as a creditor, an emitter of greenhouse gases or a neighbor of Afghanistan, China has clout that the United States now desperately needs. "The U.S.-China relationship has gone global," said Jon Huntsman Jr., the new U.S. ambassador to Beijing and a fluent Chinese speaker.
At the same time, however, China has been far more insistent about asserting its will, most obviously in small but symbolically significant matters of stage management. A town hall-style meeting in Shanghai that the White House had hoped would allow the president to reach out to ordinary Chinese was drained of spontaneity by Chinese-scripted choreography. Tuesday's news conference had no questions, at China's behest.
The Obama White House said it pushed back against restrictions, and it denied that the nation's indebtedness to China has made it any less forceful.
Referring to the fact that China holds Treasury securities worth nearly $800 billion, as well as billions more in other forms of U.S. debt, Michael Froman, economic adviser on the National Security Council, said "the $800 billion never came up in conversation."
"The president dealt with every issue on his agenda in a very direct way and pulled no punches," he said.
U.S. officials insisted that, despite constraints, Obama still got his message to the Chinese public. State television provided live coverage of his Tuesday appearance with Hu, which featured an appeal by the U.S. president on human rights.
"America's bedrock beliefs that all men and women possess certain fundamental human rights," Obama said, "are universal rights" that "should be available to all people." He also urged China to resume talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader.
White House officials described Obama as even more forceful behind closed doors, suggesting that the administration is more eager to engage with reality than grandstand. Obama had "as direct a discussion of human rights as I've seen by any high-level visitor with the Chinese" when he met with Hu, said Jeffrey Bader, the National Security Council's chief Asia hand, who also worked for President Clinton.
Furthermore, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, the administration had not expected "that the waters would part and everything would change over our almost 2 1/2 -day trip to China."
In China, Obama's hosts show no signs of budging
In China, Obama's hosts show no signs of budging
President Obama is leaving China without any definable concessions on things such as support for tougher sanctions on Iran or currency exchange rates.
By Barbara Demick
November 18, 2009
Reporting from Beijing
When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.
He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences.
Only one more key meeting was scheduled for today before Obama's departure, a working lunch with Premier Wen Jiabao. Before flying to South Korea, the president will tour the Great Wall -- the famous symbol of Chinese tenacity and an appropriate backdrop for a visit in which China again showed its resistance to U.S. entreaties.
Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels.
On Tuesday, just hours after Obama stood with President Hu Jintao in the Great Hall of the People, praising China's commitment to "move toward a more market-oriented exchange rate over time," a senior Chinese official called a news conference across town to issue a rebuttal.
"We maintained a stable yuan during the financial crisis, which not only helped the global economy but also the stability of the world's financial markets," He Yafei, deputy foreign minister, said, adding that it was too soon since the worldwide financial crisis to talk about a change of strategy.
The Chinese official also slapped down Obama's call for more Internet freedom, saying that "we need to ensure that online communications do not affect our national security."
Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But Obama had hoped that China would at least fall into step with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who publicly criticized Iran's intransigence during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit over the weekend in Singapore.
"I would not say that we got an answer today from the Chinese, nor did we expect one," said Jeffrey Bader, director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council, briefing U.S. journalists after the meeting between the presidents. He acknowledged that the Chinese were less worried about Iran's nuclear program than about North Korea's.
During the news conference at the Great Hall of the People, where the presidents each read 15-minute statements outlining the highlights of the meetings as they perceived them, Hu conspicuously omitted mention of sanctions against Iran, saying only that there were differences on some issues.
After the ritual handshake and posing for photographs, the leaders left the podium -- refusing to answer questions from reporters, which is unusual for a news conference, even in China.
It was in keeping with the character of a presidential visit notable for its formality and lack of spontaneity. Every aspect of Obama's visit was carefully scripted, with the Chinese government taking pains to make sure nothing was left to chance. Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.
During Obama's "town hall" meeting in Shanghai on Monday, the 50 students selected to question him were mostly officers of the Communist Youth League. Wary that Obama might say something provocative, the Chinese government refused White House requests that the event be broadcast live on nationwide television. Instead, it was broadcast only on Shanghai television.
Coverage of Obama's visit was also subdued, with noticeably fewer stories in the Chinese newspapers and shorter television reports than during other presidential visits.
Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
"It used to be the U.S. could go around and say 'Do this and do that' because they had so much leverage," said Dali Yang, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Chicago. "Today, the U.S. can't do that."
Ding Xinghao, president of the Shanghai Institute of American Studies, said Obama did not seem to connect with the Chinese as well as did former President Clinton. He recalled a 1998 nationally televised question-and-answer session with students at Peking University. "That was an amazing event. . . . Clinton looked the students in the eye and answered very hard questions," Ding said. "Obama's performance in Shanghai was significant, but for me it couldn't compare."
Then again, as Ding noted, the novelty of a U.S. presidential visit has long since worn off.
In fact, it was difficult to find anybody in Beijing who would express any real enthusiasm for Obama's visit. Even at a shop selling Obama souvenirs, the reaction was ho-hum.
"Obama coming here doesn't have anything to do with us. He's the president of the United States. We're Chinese," said Yang Xiuying, a clerk at a Beijing crafts store selling dolls of Obama dressed as Superman.
Kenneth Lieberthal, a former Clinton administration official on China, now with the Brookings Institution, said Obama hasn't really had a chance to connect with the Chinese because both sides are still being cautious.
"Not that there is Obamamania, but I think the Chinese have a relatively favorable impression of him," Lieberthal said. "But they are sitting back, like most Americans, waiting to see what he actually gets done."
For their part, White House officials were taking pains to deny that there had been any disappointments in the president's maiden visit to China.
"I did not expect . . . that the waters would part and everything would change in the course of our almost 2 1/2 -day trip to China," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a reporter who suggested Obama's reception was chilly.
barbara.demick@latimes.com
Times staff writers Peter Nicholas in Beijing and Don Lee in Washington and special correspondent Lily Kuo in Beijing contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
President Obama is leaving China without any definable concessions on things such as support for tougher sanctions on Iran or currency exchange rates.
By Barbara Demick
November 18, 2009
Reporting from Beijing
When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.
He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences.
Only one more key meeting was scheduled for today before Obama's departure, a working lunch with Premier Wen Jiabao. Before flying to South Korea, the president will tour the Great Wall -- the famous symbol of Chinese tenacity and an appropriate backdrop for a visit in which China again showed its resistance to U.S. entreaties.
Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels.
On Tuesday, just hours after Obama stood with President Hu Jintao in the Great Hall of the People, praising China's commitment to "move toward a more market-oriented exchange rate over time," a senior Chinese official called a news conference across town to issue a rebuttal.
"We maintained a stable yuan during the financial crisis, which not only helped the global economy but also the stability of the world's financial markets," He Yafei, deputy foreign minister, said, adding that it was too soon since the worldwide financial crisis to talk about a change of strategy.
The Chinese official also slapped down Obama's call for more Internet freedom, saying that "we need to ensure that online communications do not affect our national security."
Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But Obama had hoped that China would at least fall into step with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who publicly criticized Iran's intransigence during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit over the weekend in Singapore.
"I would not say that we got an answer today from the Chinese, nor did we expect one," said Jeffrey Bader, director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council, briefing U.S. journalists after the meeting between the presidents. He acknowledged that the Chinese were less worried about Iran's nuclear program than about North Korea's.
During the news conference at the Great Hall of the People, where the presidents each read 15-minute statements outlining the highlights of the meetings as they perceived them, Hu conspicuously omitted mention of sanctions against Iran, saying only that there were differences on some issues.
After the ritual handshake and posing for photographs, the leaders left the podium -- refusing to answer questions from reporters, which is unusual for a news conference, even in China.
It was in keeping with the character of a presidential visit notable for its formality and lack of spontaneity. Every aspect of Obama's visit was carefully scripted, with the Chinese government taking pains to make sure nothing was left to chance. Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.
During Obama's "town hall" meeting in Shanghai on Monday, the 50 students selected to question him were mostly officers of the Communist Youth League. Wary that Obama might say something provocative, the Chinese government refused White House requests that the event be broadcast live on nationwide television. Instead, it was broadcast only on Shanghai television.
Coverage of Obama's visit was also subdued, with noticeably fewer stories in the Chinese newspapers and shorter television reports than during other presidential visits.
Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
"It used to be the U.S. could go around and say 'Do this and do that' because they had so much leverage," said Dali Yang, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Chicago. "Today, the U.S. can't do that."
Ding Xinghao, president of the Shanghai Institute of American Studies, said Obama did not seem to connect with the Chinese as well as did former President Clinton. He recalled a 1998 nationally televised question-and-answer session with students at Peking University. "That was an amazing event. . . . Clinton looked the students in the eye and answered very hard questions," Ding said. "Obama's performance in Shanghai was significant, but for me it couldn't compare."
Then again, as Ding noted, the novelty of a U.S. presidential visit has long since worn off.
In fact, it was difficult to find anybody in Beijing who would express any real enthusiasm for Obama's visit. Even at a shop selling Obama souvenirs, the reaction was ho-hum.
"Obama coming here doesn't have anything to do with us. He's the president of the United States. We're Chinese," said Yang Xiuying, a clerk at a Beijing crafts store selling dolls of Obama dressed as Superman.
Kenneth Lieberthal, a former Clinton administration official on China, now with the Brookings Institution, said Obama hasn't really had a chance to connect with the Chinese because both sides are still being cautious.
"Not that there is Obamamania, but I think the Chinese have a relatively favorable impression of him," Lieberthal said. "But they are sitting back, like most Americans, waiting to see what he actually gets done."
For their part, White House officials were taking pains to deny that there had been any disappointments in the president's maiden visit to China.
"I did not expect . . . that the waters would part and everything would change in the course of our almost 2 1/2 -day trip to China," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a reporter who suggested Obama's reception was chilly.
barbara.demick@latimes.com
Times staff writers Peter Nicholas in Beijing and Don Lee in Washington and special correspondent Lily Kuo in Beijing contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Q+A: Hong Kong's long struggle with Beijing over democracy
Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:38am EST
By James Pomfret
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong on Wednesday released a political reform blueprint for electoral arrangements in 2012 for its legislature and leader that will have a key bearing on the city's progress toward universal suffrage in 2017. After a three-month consultation, a final package will be drafted and voted upon by the city's legislature.
Hong Kong, a former British colony that reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, is the most politically liberal city in China. While Beijing has promised to grant universal suffrage in 2017, the city's pro-democracy political opposition remains angry at the slow pace of progress and skeptical about Beijing's intentions.
WHEN WILL HONG KONG BE ALLOWED TO Realize FULL DEMOCRACY?
Hong Kong's mini-constitution, the Basic Law, stipulates universal suffrage is the "ultimate aim," with the territory's spirited push for direct elections having posed a long-term challenge for China's conservative Communist leadership.
In December 2007, however, Beijing bowed to public pressure to lay out a timetable for granting universal suffrage. It pledged direct votes may be held for the Chief Executive in 2017, and Legislative Council in 2020, with two new electoral methods to be settled by 2012. Democrats remain skeptical, however, and fear China may propose its own power-preserving version of direct elections, with electoral rules stacked against pro-democracy candidates.
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG WANT?
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Hong Kong's seven million people want to see universal suffrage realized as soon as possible, preferably by 2012. More than 500,000 people took to the streets in July 2003 in a show of discontent with Beijing and government plans for a security bill to criminalize treason, secession, sedition, subversion and theft of state secrets. Rights groups said the bill threatened basic freedoms and it was shelved. China tightened its grip on the territory in April 2004, ruling out universal suffrage any time soon.
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS?
Hong Kong's incumbent leader, Donald Tsang, was selected in 2007 by an 800-person election committee stacked with Beijing loyalists, making it next to impossible for any opposition candidate to win under existing electoral rules.
In 2007, for the first time since the Chinese handover, an opposition candidate, Alan Leong, got on to the ballot sheet but lost in a landslide to the bow-tie wearing Tsang.
Half of the 60 seats on the city's legislative council are directly elected. The rest are voted upon by small, mostly commercial special interest groups called functional constituencies, which have traditionally been dominated by pro-establishment and pro-Beijing forces.
WHAT DOES THE PRO-DEMOCRACY OPPOSITION WANT?
Hong Kong's pro-democracy politicians control over 20 seats in the city's legislature, giving them a crucial one-third veto bloc over constitutional amendments including the political reform blueprint.
The democrats have been increasingly frustrated by Beijing's foot-dragging over democratic reforms and want universal suffrage implemented in 2012, the next available window. Failing this, the city's pro-democracy politicians say the electoral blueprint for 2012 must demonstrate clear democratic progress, along with a renewed pledge that true and fully democratic elections will be held in 2017.
Should this electoral package prove less liberal or far-reaching than hoped, the city's pro-democracy advocates have threatened to resign en masse from the 60-seat legislature.
DID THE BRITISH MAKE ANY EFFORT TO INTRODUCE DEMOCRACY?
The people of Hong Kong had no say in the choice of London-appointed governors since the middle of the 19th century when Hong Kong became a British colony. In the dying days of colonial rule, however, last governor Chris Patten pushed for more democratic elections for the city's legislature. In 1995 elections, pro-democracy groups took 70 percent of the vote, but after 1997, the post-colonial government moved rapidly to roll back British reforms.
(Reporting by James Pomfret; Editing by Nick Macfie)
© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.
By James Pomfret
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong on Wednesday released a political reform blueprint for electoral arrangements in 2012 for its legislature and leader that will have a key bearing on the city's progress toward universal suffrage in 2017. After a three-month consultation, a final package will be drafted and voted upon by the city's legislature.
Hong Kong, a former British colony that reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, is the most politically liberal city in China. While Beijing has promised to grant universal suffrage in 2017, the city's pro-democracy political opposition remains angry at the slow pace of progress and skeptical about Beijing's intentions.
WHEN WILL HONG KONG BE ALLOWED TO Realize FULL DEMOCRACY?
Hong Kong's mini-constitution, the Basic Law, stipulates universal suffrage is the "ultimate aim," with the territory's spirited push for direct elections having posed a long-term challenge for China's conservative Communist leadership.
In December 2007, however, Beijing bowed to public pressure to lay out a timetable for granting universal suffrage. It pledged direct votes may be held for the Chief Executive in 2017, and Legislative Council in 2020, with two new electoral methods to be settled by 2012. Democrats remain skeptical, however, and fear China may propose its own power-preserving version of direct elections, with electoral rules stacked against pro-democracy candidates.
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG WANT?
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Hong Kong's seven million people want to see universal suffrage realized as soon as possible, preferably by 2012. More than 500,000 people took to the streets in July 2003 in a show of discontent with Beijing and government plans for a security bill to criminalize treason, secession, sedition, subversion and theft of state secrets. Rights groups said the bill threatened basic freedoms and it was shelved. China tightened its grip on the territory in April 2004, ruling out universal suffrage any time soon.
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS?
Hong Kong's incumbent leader, Donald Tsang, was selected in 2007 by an 800-person election committee stacked with Beijing loyalists, making it next to impossible for any opposition candidate to win under existing electoral rules.
In 2007, for the first time since the Chinese handover, an opposition candidate, Alan Leong, got on to the ballot sheet but lost in a landslide to the bow-tie wearing Tsang.
Half of the 60 seats on the city's legislative council are directly elected. The rest are voted upon by small, mostly commercial special interest groups called functional constituencies, which have traditionally been dominated by pro-establishment and pro-Beijing forces.
WHAT DOES THE PRO-DEMOCRACY OPPOSITION WANT?
Hong Kong's pro-democracy politicians control over 20 seats in the city's legislature, giving them a crucial one-third veto bloc over constitutional amendments including the political reform blueprint.
The democrats have been increasingly frustrated by Beijing's foot-dragging over democratic reforms and want universal suffrage implemented in 2012, the next available window. Failing this, the city's pro-democracy politicians say the electoral blueprint for 2012 must demonstrate clear democratic progress, along with a renewed pledge that true and fully democratic elections will be held in 2017.
Should this electoral package prove less liberal or far-reaching than hoped, the city's pro-democracy advocates have threatened to resign en masse from the 60-seat legislature.
DID THE BRITISH MAKE ANY EFFORT TO INTRODUCE DEMOCRACY?
The people of Hong Kong had no say in the choice of London-appointed governors since the middle of the 19th century when Hong Kong became a British colony. In the dying days of colonial rule, however, last governor Chris Patten pushed for more democratic elections for the city's legislature. In 1995 elections, pro-democracy groups took 70 percent of the vote, but after 1997, the post-colonial government moved rapidly to roll back British reforms.
(Reporting by James Pomfret; Editing by Nick Macfie)
© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.
More reader comments about President Obama's bow to Japan's emperor
November 17, 2009 | 11:29 pm
Many of the initial responses to the blog post about President Obama’s bow to the emperor of Japan last weekend were -- critical would be too tame a word -- downright searing in their comments.
But in the last few days, commenters came out of the woodwork supporting the president’s gesture of respect, however overdone or flawed, or condemning those who were quick to cast the first stone criticizing the gesture as a gaffe. Yet even with this show of patriotism, the disapproving comments have not ceased.
In the spirit of this blog’s traditional purpose -- celebrating and printing our readers' opinions -- we have printed 10 comments below from those more tolerant of the gesture.
Frank Morgan wrote: Respect for others is a great virtue which I rejoice to see in our President.
Jayaprakash wrote: It is a diplomatic win over Japan's hearts by this simple action. Obama is more diplomatic than we think.
Zach wrote: A bow? People are calling for impeachment over a bow?!
Joe Bell wrote: The handshake/bow was a good mixture I think, as it is custmary for Americans to shake hands when greeted, and Japanese to bow when greeted, so a mixture of the two was mutualy respectable. Americans are too proud, and in this day and age, we have no right to be.
konnichiwa wrote: I love how there are a ton of people here throwing around casual racism and then claiming Obama is the one ruining the United States because he bowed to another official. It seems that a sign of respect clearly upsets a lot of folks in the good ol' US of A
scottosan wrote: Obama! Don't shake hands if your going to bow... either shake hands and don't bow or bow and don't shake hands and keep your hands at your sides…I hate your morals and everything else that you stand for but hey, at least you tried.
Frederico Franca wrote: THERE'S NO LONGER ROOM FOR YOUR ATIQUATED POINTS OF VIEW! OPEN YOUR EYES! TAKE A LOOK A YOUR PRESIDENT ICONOCLAST GESTURE AND GET PROUD!
Rick Cain wrote: Uhm, Japan is an ally. We should respect their emperor. There's no need for cold war style posturing. Heck Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein, now THAT was embarassing in retrospect.
Dee wrote: Courtesy doesn't cost a thing, and anyone with just a tiny bit of knowledge of Asian courtesy would recognize the bow as being courteous.
Pedeye wrote: Finally a president whose biggest foreign policy gaffes are showing too much respect for others. Beats getting more soldiers killed for dubious or manufactured WMD reasons.
You can leave your own comments below.
-- Kelsey Ramos
Many of the initial responses to the blog post about President Obama’s bow to the emperor of Japan last weekend were -- critical would be too tame a word -- downright searing in their comments.
But in the last few days, commenters came out of the woodwork supporting the president’s gesture of respect, however overdone or flawed, or condemning those who were quick to cast the first stone criticizing the gesture as a gaffe. Yet even with this show of patriotism, the disapproving comments have not ceased.
In the spirit of this blog’s traditional purpose -- celebrating and printing our readers' opinions -- we have printed 10 comments below from those more tolerant of the gesture.
Frank Morgan wrote: Respect for others is a great virtue which I rejoice to see in our President.
Jayaprakash wrote: It is a diplomatic win over Japan's hearts by this simple action. Obama is more diplomatic than we think.
Zach wrote: A bow? People are calling for impeachment over a bow?!
Joe Bell wrote: The handshake/bow was a good mixture I think, as it is custmary for Americans to shake hands when greeted, and Japanese to bow when greeted, so a mixture of the two was mutualy respectable. Americans are too proud, and in this day and age, we have no right to be.
konnichiwa wrote: I love how there are a ton of people here throwing around casual racism and then claiming Obama is the one ruining the United States because he bowed to another official. It seems that a sign of respect clearly upsets a lot of folks in the good ol' US of A
scottosan wrote: Obama! Don't shake hands if your going to bow... either shake hands and don't bow or bow and don't shake hands and keep your hands at your sides…I hate your morals and everything else that you stand for but hey, at least you tried.
Frederico Franca wrote: THERE'S NO LONGER ROOM FOR YOUR ATIQUATED POINTS OF VIEW! OPEN YOUR EYES! TAKE A LOOK A YOUR PRESIDENT ICONOCLAST GESTURE AND GET PROUD!
Rick Cain wrote: Uhm, Japan is an ally. We should respect their emperor. There's no need for cold war style posturing. Heck Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein, now THAT was embarassing in retrospect.
Dee wrote: Courtesy doesn't cost a thing, and anyone with just a tiny bit of knowledge of Asian courtesy would recognize the bow as being courteous.
Pedeye wrote: Finally a president whose biggest foreign policy gaffes are showing too much respect for others. Beats getting more soldiers killed for dubious or manufactured WMD reasons.
You can leave your own comments below.
-- Kelsey Ramos
In China, Obama's hosts show no signs of budging
President Obama is leaving China without any definable concessions on things such as support for tougher sanctions on Iran or currency exchange rates.
By Barbara Demick
November 18, 2009
Reporting from Beijing
When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.
He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences.
Only one more key meeting was scheduled for today before Obama's departure, a working lunch with Premier Wen Jiabao. Before flying to South Korea, the president will tour the Great Wall -- the famous symbol of Chinese tenacity and an appropriate backdrop for a visit in which China again showed its resistance to U.S. entreaties.
Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels.
On Tuesday, just hours after Obama stood with President Hu Jintao in the Great Hall of the People, praising China's commitment to "move toward a more market-oriented exchange rate over time," a senior Chinese official called a news conference across town to issue a rebuttal.
"We maintained a stable yuan during the financial crisis, which not only helped the global economy but also the stability of the world's financial markets," He Yafei, deputy foreign minister, said, adding that it was too soon since the worldwide financial crisis to talk about a change of strategy.
The Chinese official also slapped down Obama's call for more Internet freedom, saying that "we need to ensure that online communications do not affect our national security."
Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But Obama had hoped that China would at least fall into step with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who publicly criticized Iran's intransigence during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit over the weekend in Singapore.
"I would not say that we got an answer today from the Chinese, nor did we expect one," said Jeffrey Bader, director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council, briefing U.S. journalists after the meeting between the presidents. He acknowledged that the Chinese were less worried about Iran's nuclear program than about North Korea's.
During the news conference at the Great Hall of the People, where the presidents each read 15-minute statements outlining the highlights of the meetings as they perceived them, Hu conspicuously omitted mention of sanctions against Iran, saying only that there were differences on some issues.
After the ritual handshake and posing for photographs, the leaders left the podium -- refusing to answer questions from reporters, which is unusual for a news conference, even in China.
It was in keeping with the character of a presidential visit notable for its formality and lack of spontaneity. Every aspect of Obama's visit was carefully scripted, with the Chinese government taking pains to make sure nothing was left to chance. Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.
During Obama's "town hall" meeting in Shanghai on Monday, the 50 students selected to question him were mostly officers of the Communist Youth League. Wary that Obama might say something provocative, the Chinese government refused White House requests that the event be broadcast live on nationwide television. Instead, it was broadcast only on Shanghai television.
Coverage of Obama's visit was also subdued, with noticeably fewer stories in the Chinese newspapers and shorter television reports than during other presidential visits.
Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
"It used to be the U.S. could go around and say 'Do this and do that' because they had so much leverage," said Dali Yang, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Chicago. "Today, the U.S. can't do that."
Ding Xinghao, president of the Shanghai Institute of American Studies, said Obama did not seem to connect with the Chinese as well as did former President Clinton. He recalled a 1998 nationally televised question-and-answer session with students at Peking University. "That was an amazing event. . . . Clinton looked the students in the eye and answered very hard questions," Ding said. "Obama's performance in Shanghai was significant, but for me it couldn't compare."
Then again, as Ding noted, the novelty of a U.S. presidential visit has long since worn off.
In fact, it was difficult to find anybody in Beijing who would express any real enthusiasm for Obama's visit. Even at a shop selling Obama souvenirs, the reaction was ho-hum.
"Obama coming here doesn't have anything to do with us. He's the president of the United States. We're Chinese," said Yang Xiuying, a clerk at a Beijing crafts store selling dolls of Obama dressed as Superman.
Kenneth Lieberthal, a former Clinton administration official on China, now with the Brookings Institution, said Obama hasn't really had a chance to connect with the Chinese because both sides are still being cautious.
"Not that there is Obamamania, but I think the Chinese have a relatively favorable impression of him," Lieberthal said. "But they are sitting back, like most Americans, waiting to see what he actually gets done."
For their part, White House officials were taking pains to deny that there had been any disappointments in the president's maiden visit to China.
"I did not expect . . . that the waters would part and everything would change in the course of our almost 2 1/2 -day trip to China," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a reporter who suggested Obama's reception was chilly.
barbara.demick@latimes.com
Times staff writers Peter Nicholas in Beijing and Don Lee in Washington and special correspondent Lily Kuo in Beijing contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
By Barbara Demick
November 18, 2009
Reporting from Beijing
When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.
He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences.
Only one more key meeting was scheduled for today before Obama's departure, a working lunch with Premier Wen Jiabao. Before flying to South Korea, the president will tour the Great Wall -- the famous symbol of Chinese tenacity and an appropriate backdrop for a visit in which China again showed its resistance to U.S. entreaties.
Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels.
On Tuesday, just hours after Obama stood with President Hu Jintao in the Great Hall of the People, praising China's commitment to "move toward a more market-oriented exchange rate over time," a senior Chinese official called a news conference across town to issue a rebuttal.
"We maintained a stable yuan during the financial crisis, which not only helped the global economy but also the stability of the world's financial markets," He Yafei, deputy foreign minister, said, adding that it was too soon since the worldwide financial crisis to talk about a change of strategy.
The Chinese official also slapped down Obama's call for more Internet freedom, saying that "we need to ensure that online communications do not affect our national security."
Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But Obama had hoped that China would at least fall into step with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who publicly criticized Iran's intransigence during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit over the weekend in Singapore.
"I would not say that we got an answer today from the Chinese, nor did we expect one," said Jeffrey Bader, director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council, briefing U.S. journalists after the meeting between the presidents. He acknowledged that the Chinese were less worried about Iran's nuclear program than about North Korea's.
During the news conference at the Great Hall of the People, where the presidents each read 15-minute statements outlining the highlights of the meetings as they perceived them, Hu conspicuously omitted mention of sanctions against Iran, saying only that there were differences on some issues.
After the ritual handshake and posing for photographs, the leaders left the podium -- refusing to answer questions from reporters, which is unusual for a news conference, even in China.
It was in keeping with the character of a presidential visit notable for its formality and lack of spontaneity. Every aspect of Obama's visit was carefully scripted, with the Chinese government taking pains to make sure nothing was left to chance. Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.
During Obama's "town hall" meeting in Shanghai on Monday, the 50 students selected to question him were mostly officers of the Communist Youth League. Wary that Obama might say something provocative, the Chinese government refused White House requests that the event be broadcast live on nationwide television. Instead, it was broadcast only on Shanghai television.
Coverage of Obama's visit was also subdued, with noticeably fewer stories in the Chinese newspapers and shorter television reports than during other presidential visits.
Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
"It used to be the U.S. could go around and say 'Do this and do that' because they had so much leverage," said Dali Yang, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Chicago. "Today, the U.S. can't do that."
Ding Xinghao, president of the Shanghai Institute of American Studies, said Obama did not seem to connect with the Chinese as well as did former President Clinton. He recalled a 1998 nationally televised question-and-answer session with students at Peking University. "That was an amazing event. . . . Clinton looked the students in the eye and answered very hard questions," Ding said. "Obama's performance in Shanghai was significant, but for me it couldn't compare."
Then again, as Ding noted, the novelty of a U.S. presidential visit has long since worn off.
In fact, it was difficult to find anybody in Beijing who would express any real enthusiasm for Obama's visit. Even at a shop selling Obama souvenirs, the reaction was ho-hum.
"Obama coming here doesn't have anything to do with us. He's the president of the United States. We're Chinese," said Yang Xiuying, a clerk at a Beijing crafts store selling dolls of Obama dressed as Superman.
Kenneth Lieberthal, a former Clinton administration official on China, now with the Brookings Institution, said Obama hasn't really had a chance to connect with the Chinese because both sides are still being cautious.
"Not that there is Obamamania, but I think the Chinese have a relatively favorable impression of him," Lieberthal said. "But they are sitting back, like most Americans, waiting to see what he actually gets done."
For their part, White House officials were taking pains to deny that there had been any disappointments in the president's maiden visit to China.
"I did not expect . . . that the waters would part and everything would change in the course of our almost 2 1/2 -day trip to China," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a reporter who suggested Obama's reception was chilly.
barbara.demick@latimes.com
Times staff writers Peter Nicholas in Beijing and Don Lee in Washington and special correspondent Lily Kuo in Beijing contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
