Skepticism of Bannon declaring an "economic war" with China

Fresh off steering strategy for a presidential campaign and White House which has damaged institutions and democratic norms in the United States, Steve Bannon flew to Hong Kong in the second week of September to deliver a speech to investors at an event hosted by a Citic subsidiary. He was greeted by protesters outside the venue decrying the toxic politics Bannon is famous for nurturing. 

In line with his nationalist rhetoric, Bannon declared an "economic war" between China and the U.S. during his speech. At ChinaFile, a number of experts discussed the merits of this sort of label for the relationship between the two countries. My small contribution to the conversation is copied below. The entire discussion can be read here.

I question the motives of the messenger. The discussion above, to the credit of its participants, has revolved so far around the merits of using “economic war” as a concept in the discourse of U.S.-China relations and the extents to which China is competing on a fair playing field. But we should be wary of Bannon, a regressive political figure and “alt-right” enabler who craves conflict within the U.S. and apparently war with China, of dishing up a conversation on the policy nuances toward China. Somewhat like the race-based theories of social organization to which his Breitbart faithful adhere, Bannon seems to selectively use bits and pieces of acknowledged fact to advertise a normative argument for deeper conflict, in this case with China.

Many people within the policy and political science community have engaged for years in discussion of the U.S. trade stance toward China and its bucking of international norms and standards. This conversation should continue, inclusive of those across the policy spectrum. But we ought to remain circumspect toward those who may not be engaging in good faith, who do not intend to maintain a just and peaceful world or resort to conflict as a last resort, those who undermine democracy with ethnocentric populism and envision a world divided along such lines. Bannon’s Hong Kong speech is an effort to stay relevant after leaving the chaos he helped mold in the White House.

Conversation: How Should the Republican Party Approach China Policy?

President Nixon and Premier Zhou Enlai toast in Beijing (February 25, 1972)

ChinaFile hosted a conversation during the Republican National Convention on Trump's China Policy. It was kicked off with comments from his advisor Peter Navarro, a business professor at University of California Irvine. Along with others, I took part in the conversation. My comment is copied below. The conversation can be found here. 


For starters, Republicans should stop seeking out the next war. Historically, Bush II was good at war-making—though maybe not war-winning. The fear and simplistic narrative of war, splitting the world into ‘us’ versus ‘them,’ can be an effective tool to mislead and corral the public. Such a tool is especially potent in a national campaign during a time when people are struggling economically and told to dread impending, random violence. Donald Trump now looks to formulate another war, a trade war with China. The narrative is custom-made to evoke fear and nationalism: A far-off country with an authoritarian government and a bone to pick is maliciously stealing your livelihood and weakening your country.

There is considerable imprecision, narrowness, and risk in Trump’s China narrative.

First, an examination of history will teach us that manufacturing began declining in the U.S. in the 1970s, long before China came on the scene as an industrial powerhouse. Huge structural shifts were caused by our North American allies via N.A.F.T.A., but we are not declaring “war” (i.e., needlessly demonizing) Canada and Mexico because of their economic impact on the U.S. (But based on Trump’s wall and immigration rhetoric, we cannot seriously doubt that he would not escalate conflict with America’s southern neighbor.)

No. 2 U.S. Sinologist Predicts "Endgame of Chinese Communist Rule Has Begun"

Photo credit: Kevin Poh. Creative Commons.

In January, researchers at China's Foreign Affairs University (外交学院) published the "American China School Assessment Report" (Chinese link), rating the top U.S. sinologists based on a number of broad measures: a person's influence on actual U.S. China policy, academic influence, and social influence. Specific sub-measures include a sinologist's publications, testimony in relevant congressional hearings, social network and affiliations, etc.

Debating the Merits of Tearing Down Mark Zuckerberg for His Chinese Talk

On October 22, Mark Zuckerberg posted a 30-minute video of his discussion with students and faculty of Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management in Beijing. The video has reverberated around the halls of the Internet because Zuckerberg did the whole thing in Chinese.

Within a day, China observers around the world began giving their view of the talk. One reaction unfortunately set the tone, though. Foreign Policy's Asia Editor Isaac Stone Fish ("a Mandarin speaker" is at the top of his bio) berated Zuckerberg for his poor Mandarin presentation, publishing a post titled: “Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin Like A Seven-Year-Old.”

What followed in the subsequent week was an exchange between that FP editor and myself--the platform provided by James Fallows at The Atlantic--over the correctness of his views. My original response to the FP editor is copied below the break. The editor’s response to me is here. Finally, here is a third post on others’ views toward our conversation.

中国学生需要的不是恐怖而是鼓励 Chinese students need encouragement, not fear

(The English version is below the Chinese version.)

最近，在《外交学者》杂志上，姜Xueqin（不知中文名）写篇关于中国学生融入美国大学生活困境的文章。他认为这个社会问题基于中国与美国文化之间的基本差别，即“文明冲突”。他这个观点不仅是错的，而且他没提出对这个问题的任何解决办法。

姜先生争论由于中国的崛起正在挑战美国享有世界霸权的地位，因此美国大学生受到威胁并排斥中国学生。可是，姜先生的逻辑犯了一个经常又关键的逻辑谬论，即正比关系等于因果关系。而且，他把宏观层面上的事情与微观层面上的现象搞混。实际上，中国正挑战着美国的地位，中国学生的确是难以参与没大学生的生活，但是这两个现象同时出现不一定意味着两个之间有因果关系。

China is Low on "Threat Priority" List

In the past couple of weeks, two important documents have been released by NATO and the US government. Insofar as China is concerned, these strategic reports make it clear that the "China threat" is, in fact, not perceived as such a threat by those currently in power in the US and Europe.

PLA Modernization ≠ US-China War

If you’re familiar with international relations theory, then you know the school of thought called “realism”. As it pertains to China, in a nutshell, realists say that China and the US are headed for great conflict because history and the dynamics of international power say so.

When Superpowers Fall

History has demonstrated that power in the international system is rarely static. But, while empires are now falling at an increasingly rapid pace, today’s power transitions are more peaceful than they have been for much of the past few thousand years. These changes have seen two opposing trends strengthen simultaneously—one that gives the world’s preeminent power more security, the other making it more uncertain of its position at the top.

Leaked Video of Americans Killing Iraqis

On 5 April, Wikileaks, an organization that reveals once-confidental material, released a July 2007 video of American apache helicopters engaging Iraqis in Bahgdad, including two Reuters reporters and two children. None of the soldiers were prosecuted of wrong-doing.

China Gets Ready to Invade America

If you haven't heard yet, in November 2010, a remake of the film Red Dawn will hit theaters. In 1984, this film depicted the Soviet Union invading the U.S. This time, of course, it will be the Chinese.

Young People Will Save U.S.-China Relations

Here's my post from today's blog on RearClearWorld:

Recently, Gallup surveyed Americans on their views of other countries. Some of the results have been mentioned already on this [Compass] blog.

The results are particularly notable for the age-group breakdown.

A solid 62% majority of 18 to 34 year-old Americans had a favorable view of China at the beginning of February. Compare this to the general population: 42%. At the same time, in a 2007 survey (PDF) by the Committee of 100, 69% of Chinese 18 to 29 expressed a positive view of the U.S., where the general population was at 60%.

In general, younger people in both surveys are more likely than their older countrymen to throw love at other nations. But this doesn't make the results less significant. Rather, young people might be more internationally-oriented than previous generations.

More than their parents, young people in America have traveled to China, watched Chinese movies, and etched Chinese character tattoos on their arms -- whether or not they know the meaning. In China, youth have increasingly lived or studied in the U.S., learned English, and, as a result, watched a daily assortment of American TV shows and movies. This is all good for future U.S.-China cooperation.

Unless, of course, you're over the age of 34. In your case, those damn kids don't know anything.

The Costs of Imperialism

A friend recently sent me a presentation at TED by a doctor named Hans Rosling, who has already gained some fame at TED for his first talk, in which he made statistics more visually palatable and effective for learning. In the latest video, which you can view below, Rosling estimates that China and India will reach the per capita income level of Western countries by 2048. Seeing as growth models often change, this is open to debate.

Taiwan Should Say 'No' To U.S. Arms

Recently, RealClearWorld, the international sister site to RealClearPolitics, published my op-ed on the recent movement in the Obama Administration toward selling arms to Taiwan. Here's a link to the op-ed on RealClearWorld. But for convenience, I've included the full text below. As always, I would be glad to hear your thoughts.

December 11, 2009
By Kevin Slaten

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan - The U.S. might make a final decision for a new arms deal with Taiwan in the next two weeks. This weapons package should be put on hold, not because it's inconvenient for U.S.-China relations, but because it threatens the Taiwanese people. In fact, not one of these three countries has an interest in seeing this deal to fruition. And at best, the timing is terrible

On Dec. 9, the deputy assistant secretary of state for defense trade in the Obama Administration revealed that the U.S. is getting close to another major arms package to Taiwan, including Black Hawk helicopters, advanced Patriot missiles and diesel submarines. As expected, China responded a day later, unequivocally opposing the potential sale. President Obama's decision to notify Congress of the sale could come as early as the third week in December after Obama returns from Copenhagen.

This arms package should be frozen where it stands, namely in Congressional discussions and Pentagon war planners.

The common line of argument is that such a deal may damage the U.S.-China relationship, which is packed with important issue like climate change and trade. At the very least, it could halt the progress of Sino-U.S. military-to-military (mil-mil) exchanges.

In all likelihood, however, this arms deal would do little to affect negotiations on central economic and environmental issues. After past U.S.-Taiwan arms deals, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has not linked the security and economic realms. Despite U.S. arms deliveries to Taiwan from 2000-2007, trade between the U.S.-China grew 130% during the same period, from $116 billion to $386 billion.

But concerns over mil-mil exchanges may be more justified. In 2008, the Bush Administration approved an arms package to Taiwan, which resulted in the PRC suspending mil-mil talks. Given China's rapidly growing defense capabilities, the future of security in the Asian Pacific region depends on a more robust and less suspicious military relationship between the U.S. and China.

Despite this, the U.S.-Taiwan arms deal is much worse for the prospects of the Taiwanese people than that of their American or Chinese counterparts. Unlike the Sino-U.S. relationship, the Sino-Taiwanese relationship is not a conference of two equal powers, and Taiwan cannot afford to let its recent progress with the Mainland fall apart.

Right now, representatives of the PRC and Taiwan are negotiating an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which is a partial free trade agreement (FTA). This trade pact is essential to the continuing competitiveness of Taiwan in the East Asian economy because a free trade zone is fast emerging in region. The PRC has been in talks with Korea and Japan over a trilateral FTA and a China-ASEAN FTA comes into force on Jan. 1, 2010.

President Ma Ying-jeou hopes to sign the ECFA by spring of next year. If this trade deal were to fall through, the consequences for the Taiwanese people would be serious. According to the Council of Labor Affairs in Taiwan, the country's economy stands to lose 0.2% GDP and 47,000 jobs if the ECFA were not signed. And this is on top of the expected 2.5% contraction of Taiwan's economy in 2009, which is heavily reliant on exports. Even worse, none of these numbers can take into account the damage to Taiwan's GDP once business and investment start moving to ASEAN and China in 2010.

An arms package between the U.S. and Taiwan would jeopardize the ECFA. The PRC has a much smaller economic stake in the ECFA than Taiwan. China's GDP is growing at a brisk 8% clip, and the Chinese do not have the pressure of being left out of a looming East Asian free trade zone, namely because China is central to that zone. So although the Mainland might want to sign the ECFA, it loses little from making an example of the arms deal by putting the ECFA off until 2011. But the Taiwanese cannot afford any stalling.

The gains of this arms deal for Taiwan, however, are minimal. China has near 1,500 missiles pointed at Taiwan, around 70 submarines, and another 70 combat ships. The Chinese navy could overwhelm Taiwanese defenses. Yet Taiwan's deterrent against Chinese invasion has always been, and will remain, the economic disincentive for the PRC to invade as well as a strong American military presence in the Asian Pacific. The handful of missiles, helicopters and submarines included in this arms package will not change that.

Here in Taiwan, few people foresee a war with China. But economic stagnation is an everyday reality. Taiwanese, especially young people, are uncertain if they can get a job out of college.

Of course, the Obama and Ma Administrations do not want to be viewed as acquiescent to China by their respective critiques, so they might want this arms deal for domestic political appeal. But neither has much to lose from waiting until next year. Besides, the potential damage to Taiwan's economy could quickly override any gains of an arms package to President Ma's approval ratings.

So other than a small (and forgettable) political gain for Ma and Obama, these arms would increase no one's security.

Kevin Slaten was a junior fellow in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Now, he lives in Taiwan on a Fulbright Grant. His opinions in no way reflect the views of the State Department or Foundation for Scholarly Exchange. He blogs at www.kevinslaten.blogspot.com.

Still Enemies

A North Korean ship and South Korean ship faced off in a bit of armed violence yesterday (10 November). Now, this was far from the resumption of Korean War-like hostilities, but the spat is interesting for what it means: North and South Korea are still enemies.

The hostilities took place about 11 kilometers east of Daecheong Island, marked by the red 'X' in the upper-left corner of the image.

Some analysts point out that this is probably an attempt by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) to demand US attention just ahead of Obama's trip to East Asia, which begins this Thursday. Although this may be true, the very fact that the Koreas are able to exchange fire means something about the potential for Korean relations in the near- to mid-term future. Whether or not there is diplomatic positioning involved, if both sides are still willing to fire on one another, then they still staunchly view one another as enemies.

Although that may seem far from a revelation, the implications for Korean relations and stability in Northeast Asia are important. If North and South Korea cannot get past "enemies" to, at least, "suspicious neighbors", then a true Korean Peninsula peace is still a good distance down the road.

Moreover, if this true, then there are larger consequences for the region. First, China will still be able to control North Korea as a lever in gaining the attention of South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Second, the US and China will still have the Korean tension as a secondary issue of disagreement in the Sino-US relationship, given that the US seeks a denuclearized Korea while China may not necessarily find such an outcome in their favor right now. Third, until that peninsula is at peace, Japan will seriously consider a missile defense shield (via the US), and this is a tense issue in both the Sino-US and Sino-Japanese relationship.

One of these days, the Koreans will stop shooting at one another.

Peace in the Taiwan Strait?

Since President Ma took office in Taiwan last March, the relationship between China and Taiwan has improved rapidly. The two governments have concluded multiple agreements on trade, travel, and finance. And an impending Taiwan-China free trade agreement (FTA) -- called the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement -- could link the two entities irreversibly.

In fact, relations have warmed sufficiently, it seems, to merit some sort of punditry tipping point. Some are beginning to talk about the consequences of a Taiwan-China peace agreement for East Asia and the US. But one piece in particular, written by Philip Saunders and Scott Kastner, is notable for its clear-minded analysis on what a peace deal across the Strait might look like and, further, what it might do to affect other political calculations in the region.

In short, a true peace agreement -- in the sense of unification -- is far off. The Taiwanese political climate is not prepared for such a step. But, as Saunders and Kastner point out, "an interim peace agreement -- trading a Taiwanese commitment not to move toward independence for a Chinese commitment not to use force -- seems increasingly possible."

This is a confidence-building measure (CBM) proposal, and I would suggest reading the full article for the details. My general take is that it is not only an opportune time for such an agreement, but it is also a necessary agreement. First, any deep step toward unification is going to require baby steps that prepare both the Chinese and the Taiwanese for the idea of being more integrated economically and politically. Second, and more importantly, Taiwan needs this FTA with China. If Taiwan holds off much longer on economic integration with East Asia, then it will lose a significant amount of jobs and investment in the next decade as these travel to countries in the East Asian bloc, like Thailand or Vietnam.

There is only one argument the authors make with which I disagree. They rightly mention that for unification to ever be a real prospect, the divergent identities of Taiwanese and Chinese people need to be addressed. In other words, people on both sides need to get comfortable enough with one another to be able to see themselves as "one" national people. Here's what the article says:

"A peace agreement might help address this issue through the exchange of 'identity goods,' measures that allow one side the chance to influence the other side's perception of national identity. Expanded media, educational, and people-to-people exchanges could give Beijing a chance to persuade people on Taiwan about the benefits of unification, and allow Taiwan a chance to press for greater openness and political changes in China that would make unification more attractive."

I think the final phrase here is unrealistic. Without a drastic change in the domestic political climate of China, there is little to no chance that the Communist Party (CCP) would allow Taiwan or Taiwanese people to press for more political openness in China. At this point, it won't even allow its own people to flirt with such propositions, so why would the authors think that the CCP would permit the Taiwanese -- the people of its "rogue province" -- to press for a more liberal political system?

Putting this criticism aside, I think Saunders and Kastner have it right on expanding educational and people-to-people exchanges. As is usually the case, the potential for great change lies in the perspective of new generations. As young Taiwanese and Chinese come to know and accept each other, the "otherness" of their parents' generation will no longer make sense to them. It is these young people that will one day shake hands and say, "peace".

Obama eats his own words

Want to know what a contradiction sounds like when it comes out of a highly intelligent, eloquent lawyer? Watch or read President Obama's speech today on Guantanamo Bay Prison and the detainees held there.

To be fair, Obama delivered a detailed, well-prepared response to many of the recent falsehoods being spewed about this topic. The transcript reads like a well-balanced discussion by a professor. And he ought to be commended for many of the steps he's taken to uphold his commitment to close Gitmo and deal with its prisoners in a legal manner -- which were major campaign promises. (Some of these steps include banning torture, sticking to the closure of the prison, and reviewing every case.)

But a detailed and thoughtful argument does not necessarily mean a logical one.  

Obama says that each of the 240 remaining cases will fall into one of five categories: 

1. Try them in federal court under criminal laws.

2.  Cases that include "detainees who violate the laws of war and are, therefore, best tried through military commissions." But these commissions will be reformed to fall in line with the Constitution -- torture cannot be used as evidence, hearsay is more scrutinized, and greater rights for detainees to choose their counsel.

3. Those that are deemed innocent and will be released: "The courts have spoken. They have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo."

4. "The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer." 

5. Those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." The next quote is critical: 

"We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases, because evidence may be tainted, but who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States... Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at Al Qaida training camps or commanded Taliban troops in battle or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat, I am not going release individuals who endanger the American people."

A minute later, the president says, "But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes." And at three other points in the remarks, Obama stresses the importance of avoiding "fear-mongering" (his words) when discussing national security.

These two sets of quotes are, of course, a stark contradiction. But wait, there's more! A third set of incongruities: Obama spoke frequently about the need to uphold the rule of law and the values of the United States. The most instructive quote: "I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as commander-in-chief. And as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever turn our back on its enduring principles for expedient's sake."

I will simplify these three premises to make the fallacy more clear (contradiction in bold):

1. Rule of law will be upheld.

2. Appeals to fear are illegitimate means to make important decisions.

3. Some detainees will not be subject to the rule of law because Anericans should be afraid of the extraordinary security threat that they pose.

(I am not the only one that spotted this contradiction.)

One particular thing bothers me about this contradiction. As stated before, Barack Obama is a genuinely intelligent person trained in the art of logic. Thus, there is a reasonable chance that he knows, with a clear head, that he is rhetorically lying. There is no rational way that he can simultaneously uphold numbers 1, 2, and 3 above. So unless he has made a mistake, Obama is insincere about at least one of them. This bothers me. It ought to bother you. 

Leaving aside the extremely disappointing possibility that President Obama lied, there is the separate but (more) important problem of what to do about these detainees that continue to "pose a threat to the security of the United States." 

The solution: try to rehabilitate them and then let them go.   

First, the rehab step. Many of these prisoners are ideologically motivated and justify their violence through their religion. One way to change these motivations is to convince them to reinterpret their religion in a way that delegitimizes violence. It is performed by allowing religious scholars -- Islamic clerics in this case -- to argue with prisoners about doctrine. Rehab is a highly successful tool in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the US military in Iraq. (Here's a more detailed article on rehabilitation and its success.)

Second, whether or not rehab ultimately works, prisoners must be let go if they are not found guilty under the rule of law. This happens every day with people in the US prison system who have been trained with or have grown up within violent gangs, openly express hate toward other gangs or groups of people, or who could possibly kill Americans. Although they are effectively the same as Gitmo detainees, we would not claim that "they are at war with the United States." 

True, compared to the average citizen, these prisoners are more likely to commit a crime. But these are the sacrifices that we make in a system of law. Furthermore, if exceptions can be made for them, then they can be made for you.

Cold Winters

The EU recently signed an agreement with several countries to speed up the construction of the Nabucco gas pipe that will circumvent Ukraine and Russia. The goal is to both meet demand in the EU and reduce Russia's capabilities to cut off gas to shivering European countries in the dead of the Winter as it did this past season. 

Although meeting demand is an obvious imperative, the strategic goal of deleveraging Russia would require much more than Nabucco. According to the article, the pipeline will supply -- at best -- 5% of Europe's needs. This is compared to Russia's 20% slice of the EU's gas supply pie. So even if all 5% displaced Russian gas, Russian will remain in a strong position.

Furthermore, Nabucco won't be complete until 2014. Any advantage it might provide Europe is far-off at this point.

Seeing as global warming isn't working quite fast enough to reduce the EU's Winter gas demand by 20% in the next five years, the European Union would be wise to alter its strategy toward Russia. Together with the US, the EU needs to take away Russia's legitimate excuses. Namely, the implicit containment strategy of NATO and a missile shield in Eastern Europe. 

Obama's move to link the missile shield to Iran is smart. But in accepting new NATO members, Russia ought to be brought back into negotiations over new members through the NATO-Russia Council. (The first meeting since the Georgian war commences next week.)

Until Russia ceases to feel threatened by the West, it will continue to assert its privileged position as Gas King... and Europeans will suffer more cold winters. 

Clinton Slips on an Easy Question

Last Friday, Secretary of State Clinton was asked if the State Department is taking a softer tone with Hugo Chavez (president of Venezuela). And if the US is doing this, then why?

And in her response (last question on this webpage), Clinton made a significant mistake: 

"So we’re going to try some different approaches. No illusions about who we’re dealing with or what the issues are. But I think it’s worth a try, because what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked very well. And, in fact, if you look at the gains, particularly in Latin America, that Iran is making and China is making, it’s quite disturbing. I mean, they are building very strong economic and political connections with a lot of these leaders. I don’t think that’s in our interest."

This was absolutely unneeded. There is no reason to -- on the record -- explicitly associate America's more cooperative posture toward Latin America with countering the "disturbing gains" that another country is making in the region. Briefly, here are some primary reasons for excluding such language:

1. First, it can be debated whether or not more cooperation (i.e. more aid and economic assistance) between China and countries in L. America is necessarily a bad thing.

2. Even if it were, it goes unsaid. Anybody who cares to know about US foreign policy knows that America would engage more readily with the world in order to have a greater degree of influence. It's implicit. And what is also implicit is that if America has more influence, then other countries necessarily have a lesser ratio of influence. 

3. Clinton herself -- as well as President Obama -- will openly agree that a healthy US relationship with China is and will continue to be one of the most important US foreign policy priorities. Publicly stating, then, that Chinese influence is "disturbing" is counter-productive. It both slaps China in the face and expresses a significant lack of trust of China. This is intensified when China is being compared to Iran, which is far more inflammatory in its rhetoric and deed than China.  

Ironically, Clinton ends her remarks with this: "My bottom line is: What’s best for America? How do we try to influence behavior that is more in our interest than not? And that’s how we’re looking at it."

I would turn the question back on her. Apparently, her behavior and her bottom line are misaligned.

Let's hope the Chinese overlook this one... 

Follow the Trail of Bullets

A new report was recently released by SIPRI that details the flow of arms transfers around the world. So who, you may wonder, is fueling the conflicts of the world?

The answer would focus your attention on at least one country. This state is, far and away, the top exporter of arms to the conflict-ridden Middle East ($9.9 billion from 2006-2008). One out of every three weapons transferred from 2006-2008 -- this will be the period of reference in this post -- came from a factory in this country. Based on typical news reports and TV pundits, you may be forgiven if you point a finger at Russia or China. But alas, the primary global arms trader is the United States.

The US produces and exports more weapons to more countries than any other country. America exported over $37 billion in arms (30% of all arms). Russia is second, exporting $29 billion (23%). For some perspective, the next six top sellers are Western European states (arms producing is a costly business), including the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. How about the Chinese? They come in at 11th, selling $2.4 billion in arms, or about 2% of global arms exports. That leaves the People's Republic just above the arms sales of Sweden. (Ruminate over that for a few moments.)

So the US exports over 15 times more arms than China. For at least some people, this is not a revelation. But what is more interesting are some of the specifics of US firepower abroad.

By tracking the biggest recipients of US arms, it is like looking at a map and priority list of America's geostrategy. Please excuse the crudeness, but consider the following:

• Exports: $2 billion to Australia, $2.5 billion to Japan, $1.1 billion to Taiwan, and $6.5 billion to South Korea. These three combined are 32% of all US arms sales.
• Strategy: Hedge against China's rise.

• Exports: $4.4 billion to Israel and $3.8 billion to the United Arab Emirates (and one may even consider the $2 billion to Egypt). Counting Eygpt, 27% of all exports.
• Strategy: Hedge against Iranian influence.

• Exports: $1.5 billion to Canada and $1.7 billion to the United Kingdom. 8% of total.
• Strategy: Reassure long-time allies. These states are what Alex Wendt and the academic paradigm of constructivism would call America's "friends".

• Exports: $2.9 billion to Poland. 7.8% of total.
• Strategy: Hedge against Russian influence.

However, a potentially worrying figure is the $1.5 billion in US arms sold to Pakistan. It is not that anyone should be concerned about the weapons reaching militants in the Northwest provinces. Most of the weapons were not small arms and are unlikely to be stolen or transferred easily to unintended recipients. Rather, my concern is the effects of this tremendous arms transfer on Pakistan's unresolved rivalry with India. India only received 15% of the arms from America that Pakistan received. What does this portend for the balance of arms between them? Furthermore, is India party to these American decisions to shovel weaponry at its western neighbor? If not, then I worry about the consequences for the Indian-US relationship in the future. India is only going to get more prosperous and powerful in the coming decades, and the US should avoid both being on the wrong side of this trend and fomenting a South Asian conflict between India and Pakistan. (I would invite my colleague, Ashesh, to comment on the validity of these concerns.)

Of course, there are all sorts of other findings in this dataset. I'd suggest taking a gander at the linked summary above. If you want to know where the rhetoric meets mortality, then follow the trail of bullets.

An Obama Administration Misstep on Engagement

A couple of weeks ago, I posted some positive news about two US moves to boost its international authority through diplomacy -- joining the United Nations Human Rights Council and having an initial high-level meeting with Iran. 

But unfortunately, the consistency of engagement has faltered a bit. Recently, the Obama administration has pulled out of a large international conference on anti-racism, hosted by the United Nations. After some negotiations on the wording of the conference communique, the US left the negotiations due to disagreement over deeming 'defamation of religion' as racism as well as wording that tries to equate Zionism (i.e. Israeli claims to territory and treatment of Palestinians) with racism. 

Although both of these definitions of racism are objectionable for many (including myself), obviously there are a considerable number of people that believe in the wording or else it would not be a debated issue. (The religion and Zionism issues are supported by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.) But as I said in the previous post, only by staying engaged in these processes of deliberation over definitions of international norms and law can the US maintain maximal influence over the outcomes. By leaving these negotiations in a huff, the US only manages to diminish its influence. This is the tact that the Bush administration followed regularly; hence the decline of US authority.

The irony in this recent move is that a few weeks ago, in its bid to join the UNHRC, the Obama administration was explicitly espousing the idea of negotiating with those people or governments with which it disagrees. A wise principle. But apparently, consistency in its principles is a problem for the new White House. 

To be fair, all governments falter on upholding stated principles -- insofar as they claim to be following principles. But the degree to which a government falters is key. The Obama administration has pinned a large part of its foreign policy on reengaging with others (refer to Obama speeches during the presidential campaign, his address on Al-Arabiya television, or any recent remarks in Europe). So to begin wobbling in highly visible diplomatic venues on a paramount foreign policy principle seems neither pragmatic nor right. 

The US should recommit to discussions on the anti-racism conference.