As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to debate the renewal of FISA revisions made in August, President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are endorsing a unique double-standard when it comes to immunity for telecommunications firms. Within the United States, they argue, service providers such as AT&T and Verizon must cooperate with U.S. government demands for access to Americans' electronic communications and should be immune from citizens' lawsuits. But in China and elsewhere, as Republican reaction to this week's Yahoo saga suggests, not so much.

The Bush administration bill, supported by Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and virtually all Republicans in Congress, allows the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to issue year-long surveillance orders without prior court review where one party is outside the U.S. There are no protections for Americans who may have no connection to a foreign "target"; their electronic communications will be swept up in the same dragnet. Importantly, so-called electronic communications providers (or ECP's) are compelled to cooperate with government directives requiring surveillance or information access or risk of substantial fines and contempt of court charges. (Grounds for appeal via the FISA court and the Supreme Court are limited.)

In return, the companies gain immunity from civil lawsuits for their role in enabling NSA domestic surveillance of their customers' data and communications dating back to September 11, 2001. Section 202 of Title II gives the Attorney General unilateral power to decide that "a covered civil action shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court, and shall be promptly dismissed" on his certification alone.

But as the controversy surrounding Yahoo this week shows, Republican leaders strike a mirror image pose when it comes to protecting Chinese civil liberties. Put another way, what telecommunications firms must do (and should be protected in doing) to assist the U.S. government in monitoring their customers, they must never do in China and elsewhere.

First, a little background. On Tuesday, Yahoo settled lawsuits brought by two Chinese journalists who had been jailed as a result of the company's provision of their user information to the Beijing government. Yahoo's surrender came just days after founder Jeff Yang and general counsel Michael Callahan were rightly savaged by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) condemned Yang and Callahan as "moral pygmies" for cooperating with a Chinese government "subpoena-like document" to supply information about journalists accused of the "illegal provision of state secrets." Committee member Chris Smith (R-NJ) went further in a blistering critique of Yahoo, firms that cooperated with Nazi Germany during World War II:

"There certainly is a parallel here. People are being tortured and mistreated today because of that complicity."

And so with no sense of irony, Smith reiterated his call for passage of his proposed Global Online Freedom Act. As Wired reported yesterday, Smith's bill in essence stands the telecom immunity and compulsory ECP cooperation mandates of the Protect America Act on their head:

In a statement issued Tuesday, Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey said that the settlement doesn't obviate the need for his proposed bill, which would among other things make it illegal for US tech companies to divulge identifying user information to repressive regimes, and allow affected parties to bring civil suits against such companies in the United States.

"As a nation, we have a responsibility to continue to push for the release of these human rights leaders and pass the Global Online Freedom Act to prevent this egregious human rights abuse from happening to others," said Smith in a statement. "Much like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, my legislation will make certain that US companies are not compelled to comply with local Secret Police or any other unlawful policies when operating in foreign markets."

For China and other repressive nations, Smith's bill inverts his support of the draconian infringements to American civil liberties he voted for in August. Despite the almost certain unconstitutionality of President Bush's regime of illegal NSA domestic surveillance prior to August 2007, Smith and his Republican allies would both compel American firm to cooperate with the Bush's administration's "unlawful policies" and protect them from subsequent lawsuits. (Senator Russ Feingold is offering an amendment to strike retroactive immunity for precisely this reason.) But in China, Yahoo, Google and other service providers would face precisely the reverse.

No doubt, legislation is needed to prevent firms like Yahoo from succumbing to censorship and privacy violations that jeopardize the freedom - and lives - of their users in countries like China. No doubt, the intent of Rep. Smith's bill is to target only "repressive" regimes (including those in Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Tunisia, and Vietnam), and not the democratic United States.

Sadly, in George W. Bush's America, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

In Washington Tuesday, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee savaged Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and General Counsel Michael Callahan for the company's involvement in the 2005 jailing of a Chinese dissident. But if their bipartisan criticism of Yahoo's behavior - cooperating with a Chinese government "subpoena-like document" to supply information about journalist accused of the "illegal provision of state secrets" - sounds disingenuous, it should. After all, those are trademark tactics of the Bush administration and its Republican amen corner in the aftermath of 9/11.

That Yahoo's accommodation with the information requests and censorship demands of the Chinese government is reprehensible, like that of its competitor Google, is beyond doubt. In April 2004, Yahoo China officials in Hong Kong officials were contacted by the Chinese government seeking the usage records that ultimately helped it identify journalist Shi Tao. Yahoo, receiving a "subpoena-like document" that declared "your office is in possession of items relating to a case of suspected illegal provision of state secrets to foreign entities," cooperated with Chinese investigators. As a result, Shi's home was raided in November and his computer confiscated. In March 2005, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

House Committee members of both parties delivered a firestorm of condemnation upon Yang and Callahan. "While technologically and financially you are giants," Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) said, "morally you are pygmies." Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) played the Hitler card, comparing Yahoo's acquiescence with the Chinese government to firms that cooperated with Nazi Germany during World War II:

"There certainly is a parallel here. People are being tortured and mistreated today because of that complicity."

Sadly for Americans, the analog for Yahoo's China syndrome may not be Adolf Hitler's Germany, but George W. Bush's United States.

The disturbing parallels begin with those Chinese "subpoena-like documents," which seem eerily similar to National Security Letters (NSLs) under the Patriot Act. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI now issues 30,000 NSLs a year, documents issued without warrants which demand telephone, electronic, financials of ordinary Americans merely suspected of ties to foreign spy organizations or terrorist groups. NSL recipients receive a gag order barring them from even disclosing their receipt of the letter. And as Connecticut librarian George Christian learned in November 2005, the language of the NSL even resembles Yahoo's experience in China, demanding "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who accessed a specific library computer.

All of which adds more irony to the exchanges between the Committee and the Yahoo CEO and general counsel. For example, as the AP reported:

"I cannot ask our local employees to resist lawful demands and put their own freedom at risk, even if, in my personal view, the local laws are overbroad," Callahan said.

Lantos interrupted him.

"Why do you insist on repeating the phrase 'lawful orders'? These were demands by a police state," Lantos said.

"It's my understanding that under Chinese law these are lawful," Callahan responded after some hesitation.

Whether or not National Security Letters remain lawful in the United States is another question. In September, a federal judge ruled the FBI's use of NSLs an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment. And in the wake of widespread abuses reported to Congress, even faithful Bush supporters like Dan Lungren (R-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) warned the FBI that "can't get away with this and expect to maintain public support for the tools that they need to combat terrorism."

Of course, the similarities between Communist China and George Bush's America don't end there. Like the Chinese government in the Shi case, the Bush administration and its amen corner believe journalists should prosecuted for revealing classified information highlighting its wrongdoing and criminal behavior.

Calls for the prosecution of both leakers and reporters followed the Washington Post CIA "black sites" and New York Times NSA domestic surveillance stories. (Of course, the outing of Valerie Plame was another issue altogether for Republicans.) For example, following the Times' revelations in December 2005 about President Bush's illegal NSA domestic spying scheme, President Bush raged about what he deemed "a shameful act" that is "helping the enemy". Claiming he didn't order an investigation, Bush added "the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation" At a subsequent press conference that same day, Alberto Gonzales suggested the retribution that was to come:

"As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, as the President indicated, this is really hurting national security, this has really hurt our country, and we are concerned that a very valuable tool has been compromised. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, we'll just have to wait and see."

As it turned out, of course, there was a leak investigation. In August 2005, the FBI raided the home of Thomas M. Tamm, a veteran prosecutor and former official of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) within Gonzales' Justice Department. That was not sufficient for the President's echo chamber at publications like Commentary magazine, which renewed its call for the prosecution of the New York Times and its journalists James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for breaking the NSA story.

The parade of ironies at yesterday's Yahoo hearing hardly end there. Yahoo lawyer Callahan rightly came under withering assault for his misleading 2006 testimony that Yahoo had no idea about the nature of the Chinese government's investigation of Shi. Despite former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' repeated lies to Congress regarding the U.S. attorneys purge and his role in the NSA program, Republican Smith had the gall to ask:

"How could a dozen lawyers prepare another lawyer to testify before Congress without anyone thinking to look at the document that had caused the hearing to be called? This is astonishing."

And given all of the Bush administration's incompetence, ethical lapses and outright criminality from Katrina, the Iraq occupation and NSA spying to the prosectors purge, Dana Rohrbacher was furious that no Yahoo employees were disciplined or fired as a result of the handling of the Shi case. "You think," he asked sarcastically, "that sends the right message to your employees?"

That's a question the American people have been asking George W. Bush for almost seven years. And as Congress debates providing immunity to telecommunications and Internet firms for their cooperation with the U.S. government in its surveillance of American citizens, the questions shouldn't end there.

On the same day that former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told Congress about the politicization of his office by the White House, a bizarre story from China served as a reminder of other past Bush wrong-doing at the FDA. The Beijing government punished the former head of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration for approving bogus medicine in exchange for cash. Which sounds like President Bush's former FDA chief, Dr. Lester Crawford.

As you may recall, Crawford mysteriously resigned in September 2005 after only two months on the job. The mystery was solved in April 2006, when a grand jury commenced an investigation into potentially improper financial dealings and making false statements to Congress. In February, Dr. Crawford was convicted of lying about stock he owned in companies being regulated by his own agency. He was sentenced to pay $90,000 in fines and given three years of supervised probation.

As you may also recall, Crawford during his brief tenure emerged as one of the poster children for Bush White House scientific fraud and ideological hijacking of American health care. A veterinarian and supposed food safety expert, Crawford played a central role in stonewalling over-the-counter sales of the Plan B emergency contraceptive despite a consensus about its safety and its overwhelming approval by FDA's professional staff. (For more, see "Plan B's Tangled Web.") By the time Plan B eventually overcame the opposition of the religious right and its allies in the White House, Lester Crawford was off to face his day in court.

His Chinese counterpart wasn't so lucky. The regime on Beijing, already worried about the safety of Chinese food and drug exports in advance the upcoming Olympics, executed Zheng Xiaoyu for his admittedly much more serious crimes. Under Xiaoyu, the State and Drug Administration (SFDA):

approved six untested drugs that turned out to be fake, and some drug-makers used falsified documents to apply for approvals, according to state media reports. One antibiotic caused the deaths of at least 10 people.

Lester Crawford, of course, didn't kill anybody. But like so many in the Bush administration, he put ideology before science. He served not the interests of the American public, but the very companies he was supposed to regulate. (That, of course, should make him a logical choice for the Libby treatment from President Bush.) After his conviction, Crawford stated, "I want to assure you that I accept responsibility for what I've done."

Lucky for him he didn't live in China.

This week's startling revelations regarding Beijing's successful test of an anti-satellite weapon provided just the latest evidence of China's growing geo-strategic challenge to the United States. And as I first wrote almost three years ago, the Bush administration seems rudderless in the face of rapidly rising Chinese economic power, military might and diplomatic strength.

For sure, the size, sophistication and aggressiveness of the Chinese military pose a direct threat to American hegemony, especially in the Pacific. The Chinese ASAT test potentially threatens the network of U.S. spy satellites and its backbone of space-based smart weapons systems. The Chinese launch followed within days of the introduction of the new Jian-10 advanced fighter, Beijing's first domestically developed, world-class jet. Just weeks earlier, American media reported that a Chinese submarine successfully penetrated a U.S. carrier battle group, putting the USS Kitty Hawk at risk. Whether or not the Chinese develop and deploy their own carriers as part of a blue water fleet, the American ability to maintain strategic ambiguity regarding the defense of Taiwan is increasingly at risk.

Perhaps more dangerous to the United States is the explosive economic growth of China. Even as the overall U.S trade deficit dipped in November, the American imbalance with Beijing ballooned to $213.5 billion over the previous 12 months. At the same time, China has emerged as banker to the United States, holding billions of dollars of American treasury notes. The insatiable Chinese demand for energy has led the Beijing to lock up long-term oil contracts with Iran, Kazakhstan, and other nations. It's no wonder that legendary Hong Kong investor Lee Shau Kee advised Forbes readers to "hold China, shun dollars."

The impact of Beijing's new-found power extends to the diplomatic sphere as well. Just today, the McClatchy papers featured an analysis of the tightening relationship between China and Washington's traditionally steadfast ally, Australia. A recent poll by the Lowy Institute shows that the Australian people hold the United States and China in similar regard, a clear reflection of Beijing's growing role in the economy of Australia and the Pacific Rim. As Richard Gibbs, chief economist at Macquarie Bank put it:

"Look, a majority of Australians are sensitive and aware that we have a dynamic and powerful neighbor. People do see the ships leaving the ports, and they hear about the iron ore mines opening up."

Meanwhile in President Bush's Washington distracted by the Iraq war, the prospect of Chinese power is greeted with silence. Six years after the collision of a Chinese fighter jet and an American P3 Orion surveillance aircraft produced a diplomatic crisis for the Bush administration, the correlation of forces has clearly moved away from the United States. Only China's economic interdependence with its largest debtor may be keeping the United States from strategic disaster.

In the Washington Post this New Year's Day, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke has a compelling op-ed piece ("While You Were At War...") on the dangerous and rising opportunity costs of the Bush administration's Iraq fixation.

In a nutshell, Clarke argues that while President Bush and the U.S. national security apparatus have been focused like a laser beam on "grave and deteriorating" war in Iraq, other mounting security challenges have fallen off the radar. While the emphasis may differ, Clarke's warning is strikingly similar to my own expressed in June of 2004.

Clarke's thesis is straight-forward:

With the nation involved in a messy war spiraling toward a bad conclusion, the key deputies and Cabinet members and advisers are all focusing on one issue, at the expense of all others: Iraq.

National Security Council veteran Rand Beers has called this the "7-year-old's soccer syndrome" -- just like little kids playing soccer, everyone forgets their particular positions and responsibilities and runs like a herd after the ball.

The threat posed by the Bush adminstration's "kids soccer syndrome" over Iraq is that nascent security challenges will grow and fester. By the time the United States begins to respond, he warns, it may be too late.

For Clarke, the top 7 looming threats start with global warming, with its potential for devastating environmental change and economic upheaval. Second, an increasingly aggressive, retrograde Russia under Vladimir Putin will poses strategic worries and diplomatic roadblocks for the United States. Next, the growing leftward movement of Latin American democracies threatens to undermine America's position even as South America becomes economically more important - and independent.

Africa, too, is threatening to spiral out of control, as AIDS, genocide in Darfur, conflict in Congo and Somalia, economic deprivation and environmental disaster combine to potentially produce instability and humanitarian crisis on a massive scale. Meanwhile, with Iran, North Korea and other nuclear threats going unchecked, the risk of WMD proliferation continues to grow. In addition, the expanding network of transnational crime syndicates involved in drugs, weapons and human smuggling may undermine the abilities of sovereign national governments combating them. And last but not least, the still simmering fire of the Al Qaeda/Taliban sanctuary along the Afghan-Pakistan border poses growing threats to the Musharraf government - and us.

If Clarke's alarm bells sound familiar to Perrspectives readers, they should. After all, in June 2004, I described the coming end of American unilateralism and the new 21st challenges the U.S. would face.

In "The End of the Unilateral Moment: Five Global Challenges for a New American Internationalism", I highlighted five priorities for U.S. policymakers that were being lost in the haze of Iraq. Beyond winning the war against Al Qaeda, these include addressing nuclear proliferation, managing the growing economic and military power of China, accommodating the rise of the European Union as an economic competitor, and adjusting to the realities of the new global economy. In 2004, I highlighted five key priorities for U.S. policymakers that were being lost in the haze of Iraq. Beyond winning the war against Al Qaeda, these include addressing nuclear proliferation, managing the growing economic and military power of China, accommodating the rise of the European Union as an economic competitor, and adjusting to the realities of the new global economy. As I wrote in 2004:

With American unilateralism disgraced and discredited [over Iraq], the United States can and must move on to a new internationalism to meet the five global challenges of the 21st century. In a time of global terrorist threats, the U.S. must rebuild its alliances, partnerships, and most of all, its reputation, to help ensure its security. In a time of new competition from the EU, China, India and others in the global economy, the U.S. must skillfully manage economic transition to maximize the American standard of living. At a time of rapidly growing Chinese economic and geo-political power, the United States must ensure that competition does not become conflict. And with the building threat of nuclear proliferation, the United States must work in concert with allies and international institutions.

With this as in so many other matters, Richard Clarke is helping to the point the way to the future. Hopefully, he'll get a better hearing from the Bush White House this time.

Signs of China's rapid growth into an economic superpower are everywhere. The latest indicator comes in a report from the China National Bureau of Statistics announcing a staggering 9.9% rise in Chinese GDP in 2005. With its $2.26 trillion economy, China has leap-frogged the UK, France and Italy to become the fourth largest in the world.

As Perrspectives has written before, China's explosive economic growth, aggressive military upgrading and diplomatic muscle-flexing pose a myriad of challenges for the United States.

From a national security standpoint, the United States may have to dramatically expand and alter it force structure to contain a resurgent China. With the Pentagon Quadrennial Defense Review due to Congress next month, the implications for American strategies, tactics and force levels are profound. Not least among these will be the unwritten security guarantee for Taiwan.

The Chinese challenge to American economic leadership and standards of living is even greater. With two consecutive years of GDP growth nearing 10%, China's massive trade surplus with the United States, $120 billion in all of 2003, reached $20 billion in the month of October alone. Increasingly, China is also America's banker, financing U.S. deficits through loans and purchases of American securities. China's dynamic economic growth has also driven explosive growth in its demand for energy, forcing prices upward as the United States and China (and to a lesser degree, India) compete to line up sources of oil.

With all eyes in the U.S. trained on Iraq and the war against Al Qaeda, managing China's coming superpower status seems to have fallen off the Bush administration's radar. It can't stay that way for long.

It�s been a busy week for energy news in the United States. First, the average price of a gallon of unleaded gas in the United States topped $2.60. Then, a barrel of oil flirted with $68, yet another record. And Bush Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta announced minor revisions to the federal CAFE fuel efficiency standards for some light trucks and SUVs.

But the most important development for the long-term health of the American energy market came from China. On Monday, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) announced it was buying the Canadian firm Petro Kazakhstan for $4.18 billion. Already the number two consumer of oil worldwide, China is on a clear path to compete with the United States for access to supplies in a post-peak oil production environment.

The Chinese move in Central Asia is part of an aggressive global strategy to secure oil and natural gas resources for Beijing�s exploding economy. Beijing has committed $850 million to build oil pipeline, due to open in December, capable of moving 400,000 barrels of crude a day from Kazakhstan to China. In addition, Chinese interests have secured a 60 per cent stake of another major Kazakh oil producer. In Uzbekistan, where the United States will soon be vacating a major air base, CNPC inked a $600-million oil joint venture. The Chinese have also extended $900 million in loans to countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization � which includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The competition for access to oil is fierce and the stakes are high. As Paul Roberts noted in his book, The End of Oil, competition and conflict over oil resources will become greater still, as the U.S., China, Japan, Western Europe and other nations battle to secure reserves, especially in non-OPEC states (and including U.S. companies like UnoCal). Nothing less than economic growth, prosperity and maintenance of living standards is at stake. And as the Washington Times reported, the Chinese are playing for keeps:

The difficulty for U.S. and other companies is that Chinese firms are willing to overpay for foreign assets, if those purchases will bolster China's clout abroad and help it secure energy resources. In that regard, the companies serve as a platform for Beijing's foreign policy goals, while U.S. firms consider market factors.

Welcome to the future of oil politics. As Kazakhstan's Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev put it, "It's very difficult to compete with the Chinese."

A recurring topic here at Perrspectives has been the rise of China as a economic, military and diplomatic superpower and its impact on American security and prosperity. Since its inception, the response of the Bush administration to Beijing's emergence as American creditor, trading partner and strategic rival has alternately been silence or incoherence.

This week, the pressure for policy clarity towards China ratcheted up another notch. At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has delayed the annual report due to Congress assessing Chinese military threats and capabilities. DoD consensus has been stymied by internal disagreements about Chinese intentions and the scope of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. (The Chinese, it should be noted, are following this drama closely - and with great skepticism.)

Meanwhile, the rhetoric over Taiwan continued to escalate. Chinese general Zhu Chenghu warned that China would use nuclear weapons if attacked by the United States in a confrontation over Taiwan. "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," he said. While both sides tried to downplay the comments, the United States continued to wrestle with its policy of strategic ambiguity regarding the defense of Taipei, including debate over whether to add an aircraft carrier battle group to the Pacific Theater.

In the United States, all eyes have been focused on Iraq. As one of the most critical global challenges facing the U.S., however, China can't remain on the backburner much longer.

For more Perrspectives coverage of rapidly developing issues and challenges in Sino-American relations, see:

• "The Coming Draft Debate"


• "Getting Drafty: The Hybrid Model of National Service"


• "China Syndrome"


• "On the Wrong Side of History"


• "The End of The Unilateral Moment: Five Global Challenges for a New American Internationalism"

UPDATE (7/19/05): The Pentagon has now released the long-awaited report to Congress, "The Military Power of the People�s Republic of China 2005." A PDF of the report is available here.

Ronald Reagan once famously said that presidents should "never say never" But when it comes to the reinstatement of the military draft, recent public opinion polls seem to suggest that the American people think "never" would be a fine idea, indeed. A recent AP/Ipsos poll showed only 27% of Americans favored conscription, with a whopping 70% opposed.

As the casualties mount and recruiting woes build from the Iraq crisis, both political parties continue to make this issue moot for the American people. President Bush and the Republicans consistently and staunchly opposed national service as part of their "free-lunch" marketing strategy for Iraq war. And with the exceptions of Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) and rumblings from Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the Democrats have played to their base by playing on fears of the draft. (This fear mongering was one of many tactical mistakes of the Kerry campaign in 2004.)

But the time for a collective free ride on national service is over. Our overcommitted American military is stretched to the breaking point, with a terrible toll and unfair demands on active duty troops and reservists alike. As the situation in Iraq smolders, the prospect of twin crises in the Korean peninsula and Iran remain very real. All the while, the rise of Chinese economic, diplomatic and military power means the United States may once again have to pursue a strategy of continental containment in Asia. And the increasing needs for bolstered security at home and peacekeeping missions abroad mean the United States must make dramatic new investments in civil defense forces.

Those growing national security needs simply can�t � and shouldn�t � be met by a volunteer American military. The time has come for new, expanded American armed forces. Combining an enlarged professional fighting force with a new conscript-based Civil Defense Force (CDF), our new hybrid military would be prepared to face the challenges of the next decade. And by reintroducing national service, the United States might actually reinstill democratic values of shared defense and sacrifice across all sections of American society.

[Continue reading "Getting Drafty: The Hybrid Model of National Service"]

In his press conference last night, President Bush paid scant attention to China. Outside of the contexts of the North Korean nuclear crisis and climbing global demand for energy, the administration has been virtually silent about China's growing superpower status.

The rapid transformation of China into a formidable strategic competitor for the United States may not be on George Bush's radar screen, but it is for just about everyone else. In the June issue of The Atlantic, Robert Kaplan and Benjamin Schwarz weigh on the looming regional and global threat from Chinese power. Also this week, the Progressive Policy Institute looks at the dramatic impact of Chinese energy consumption and pollution on the global environment.

Perrspectives too has been focused on China's growing superpower status as one of the key challenges of American global leadership and economic prosperity. As I wrote last June:

Even more dramatic than the steady rise of the EU as an economic force is that of China. And this hasn�t gone unnoticed by Americans. As the press has widely reported, the Chinese demand for energy has had a major impact in driving up the prices of gasoline in the United States. The statistics for the Chinese economy are undeniable and staggering: 1.3 billion people, passing Japan with the second largest GDP ($6 billion), growth rates approaching 10%, and an annual trade surplus (2003) with the U.S. topping $120 billion. China�s manufacturing leadership, increasingly competitive high-tech sector, WTO membership and even the 2008 Beijing Olympics clearly point to a greater Chinese role on the international stage.

Competition does not have to mean conflict, but the challenge posed Chinese power is a serious one that requires subtlety, not Bush-style machismo. The 2001 confrontation over the collision of a Chinese MiG and an U.S. EP3 spy plane showed the tension � and nationalism � just below the surface of Sino-American relations. China�s comparatively small nuclear arsenal and lack of a blue-water fleet limit its ability today to project power globally. Its increasing regional power in the Asia/Pacific theater, however, is unquestioned. Chinese mediation has become central to resolution of the crisis on the Korean peninsula. Growing Chinese belligerency and confidence towards Taiwan will put extreme pressure on American policymakers and the 55 year-old U.S. commitment to Taiwan�s defense.

And just this February, I highlighted how the changing relationships of China to the U.S. and EU could also put pressure on the Trans-Atlantic partnership:

A new CIA strategic forecast projects China (as well as India) as rising powers which could potentially threaten U.S. leadership. China's massive trade surplus with the United States, its huge holdings of U.S. treasuries and its unquenchable thirst for energy increasingly impacts American economic prosperity. Last week's announcement of IBM's sale of its PC division to Chinese leader Lenovo was a potent symbol of things to come. Worried U.S. officials may seek to block the deal. But whether it goes through or not, the tensions over China's regional and worldwide economic power will only grow.

To bring the changing global landscape for the United States full circle, EU leaders announced last week that they would seek to end the European Union arms boycott of China. Driven by France and Germany, with the grudging approval of the UK, the EU will end the Chinese arms ban imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Pentagon officials and the U.S. national security establishment will have more sleepless nights with the prospect of an increasingly muscular and belligerent Chinese military acquiring sophisticated European weaponry. China is a strategic rival for the United States; not so for the EU. So while President Bush and Condi Rice may speak of greater cooperation with Europe in the war on terror, this issue of growing strategic divergence across the Atlantic will require serious diplomacy - and soon.

Managing China's coming superpower status should be at the center American economic and national security concerns. The Bush administration once again just does not have its eyes on the prize.

Once in a rare while, tectonic historical change occurs with the span of only few days. The dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall heralding the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, was one of those watershed moments. And for many Americans, the events of the last 10 days of January, with the Rice confirmation, the Bush second inaugural, and the Iraqi elections, represent a democratic tide sweeping the Middle East, a sea change the whole world is watching.

Sometimes, though, dramatic changes in the global balance of power and riches slip by almost without notice. And for the United States, the signs of silent upheaval come not from Iraq and the terror threat of radical Islam. Instead, while all eyes here were focused on Iraq, other January developments in Europe and China may augur more dramatic change and a more difficult future for American global dominance.

Start with the rumblings in Europe. As Condoleezza Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, in France the European aircraft consortium Airbus was announcing its new superjumbo jet, the A380. Seating up to 800 passengers, the double-decked A380 dwarfs the Boeing 747 and aims to capture market supremacy in trans-oceanic long haul travel. And no less than staunch American ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair was on hand at the unveiling ceremony to drive that point home:

"It's [the A380] a symbol of economic strength, technological innovation, the dedication of the work force that built it and above all of a confidence that we can compete and win in the global market."

Once sneered at by U.S. business and government officials alike as a European-subsidized financial black hole, Airbus passed Boeing as the global market share four years ago. With 150 advance orders and building interest in China, Airbus will break even on its $13 billion investment by 2008. The United States clearly has a serious competitor for the global market for commercial and military aircraft, and the feeder avionics industry that support it.

Speaking of China, its continued emergence as an economic and military superpower was also on display in January. A new CIA strategic forecast projects China (as well as India) as rising powers which could potentially threaten U.S. leadership. As we've written previously, China's massive trade surplus with the United States, its huge holdings of U.S. treasuries and its unquenchable thirst for energy increasingly impacts American economic prosperity. Last week's announcement of IBM's sale of its PC division to Chinese leader Lenovo was a potent symbol of things to come. Worried U.S. officials may seek to block the deal. But whether it goes through or not, the tensions over China's regional and worldwide economic power will only grow.

To bring the changing global landscape for the United States full circle, EU leaders announced last week that they would seek to end the European Union arms boycott of China. Driven by France and Germany, with the grudging approval of the UK, the EU will end the Chinese arms ban imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Pentagon officials and the U.S. national security establishment will have more sleepless nights with the prospect of an increasingly muscular and belligerent Chinese military acquiring sophisticated European weaponry. China is a strategic rival for the United States; not so for the EU. So while President Bush and Condi Rice may speak of greater cooperation with Europe in the war on terror, this issue of growing strategic divergence across the Atlantic will require serious diplomacy - and soon.

Among the favorite phrases of President Bush and the conservative ascendancy is being "on the right side of history." In his fantastical Second Inaugural, President Bush noted that "history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty."

That may or may not be the case. But while Iraq burns, the world turns. And a preoccupied United States could be, as another conservative mantra goes, "mugged by reality."

That giant sucking sound you may have heard last week was the last vestiges of American unilateralism spinning down the drain. Perhaps barely noticed in the din and drumbeat of the Reagan commemoration, the short and unhappy life of President Bush�s policy of �America Alone� mercifully came to an abrupt halt. In securing passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution recognizing the new Iraqi Interim Government, the Bush administration unwittingly pronounced the death of an idea whose time had never really come. America cannot go it alone; its security requires alliances and partnerships, its global leadership and influence contingent on its legitimacy in world opinion and international institutions.

Like a house of cards, the post-Cold War vision of America Unbound espoused by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and others has collapsed of its own weight. With the fall of the Soviet Union during the first Bush administration, Cheney and Wolfowitz aggressively argued for an overhaul of American foreign policy, one whose new primary �objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.� The controversial draft 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) authored by Wolfowitz stated bluntly that the U.S. should �establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role.� He added that �the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated� to ensure �the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.� Publicly rejected by the Bush 41 administration then, the unilateralism of the DPG became the reigning orthodoxy of George W. Bush after September 11, 2001. That is, until last week.

Whether the Bush administration will publicly acknowledge what virtually everyone knows to be true is another matter. Regardless, the converted internationalists at the White House have, in the words of neo-conservative Irving Kristol, been �mugged by reality.� The mounting casualties in Iraq, the overstretched U.S. military, the disgrace of Abu Ghraib, the chaos in Saudi Arabia, and the dangerous alienation of friends and foes alike showed the limits on the exercise of pure American military power. In the end, the prospect of defeat both on the ground in Iraq and at the polls at home led George Bush back to the United Nations, tail between his legs.

With American unilateralism disgraced and discredited, the United States can and must move on to a new internationalism to meet the five global challenges of the 21st century. In a time of global terrorist threats, the U.S. must rebuild its alliances, partnerships, and most of all, its reputation, to help ensure its security. In a time of new competition from the EU, China, India and others in the global economy, the U.S. must skillfully manage economic transition to maximize the American standard of living. At a time of rapidly growing Chinese economic and geo-political power, the United States must ensure that competition does not become conflict. And with the building threat of nuclear proliferation, the United States must work in concert with allies and international institutions.

Continue reading "The End of the Unilateral Moment"...