Rebalancing U.S.-China relations à la Henry Kissinger

Very rarely does one come across an authentically good foreign policy piece concerning U.S-China relations. Most analyses are highly polarized, stressing either engagement on the one hand or polarization on the other. What a joy it was to stumble upon today's Washington Post op-ed piece by Henry Kissinger! Independent of what one may think of Kissinger, his argument is an exemplar of brilliant realist foreign policy, which assumes a rather neutral position on U.S-China relations. No alarm bells or calls of 'can't we all just get along' involved. A snippet (you'll simply have to read the rest...):

China has a major interest in a stable -- and preferably growing -- U.S. economy. But China also has a growing interest in reducing its dependence on American decisions. Since American inflation as well as deflation have become for China nightmares as grave as they are for America, the two countries face the imperative of coordinating their economic policies. As America's largest creditor, China has a degree of economic leverage unprecedented in the U.S. experience. At the same time, the quest for widening the scope of independent decision exists in ambivalent combination on both sides.

Thank you for your message... again

The CS Monitor has compiled a most noteworthy map of sorts detailing the content of Hilary Clinton's message on her recent trip to Africa. The image accompanies a great piece by CS contributor Tracey Samuelson from which we learn that, well, American politicians quite generally have very little to say to their African counterparts, having instead opted to master the art of recycling messages that have been touted since the 1970s - or thereabouts (Ms. Samuelson does not mention this point; I have noted it here to stress the general absurdity and lack of a U.S. policy towards Africa).

Honestly, what's the point of undertaking an extensive African tour if the message will more or less be the same across the board? Presumably it's much more efficient to go to one country, get all the points out and instruct all other African governments to "See [insert country here] for message."* Based on the CS Monitor's map, a simple trip to Angola would have more or less done the trick:

Now don't misunderstand me, the vast majority of the issues Secretary Clinton brought up are quite worthwhile and indeed applicable in the contexts in which they were raised. Yes, of course we must discuss HIV/AIDS in South Africa and the security crisis in Kenya. And given that Angolan oil exports are of particularly great importance to U.S. strategic interests, the trade terms surrounding them must also enter into discussion. I'm not at all suggesting that her rhetoric was necessarily wrong, only that it was quite generally meaningless and did absolutely nothing to carve out an American policy towards the continent. Blanket statements are fine and dandy for a time, but at a certain point it becomes necessary to delve into the nitty gritty details of policy. Well, we are well beyond that point and seemingly no such efforts are being made - not by the U.S. at least; the Chinese have been on point for quite some time now.

* I am, of course, being completely facetious in suggesting such a thing and strongly favor a much more nuanced U.S. policy towards Africa. Unfortunately, few in State have yet to catch on to this novel idea...

You thought having only one child was bad? Try having only one dog

I must being today's post by noting that I have spent much of this morning getting caught up on my Bugle podcasts, which rather hinders me in my ability to take any political/IR goings-on quite seriously. For those unaware, The Bugle is an absolutely marvelous weekly satirical news podcast hosted by John Oliver (from The Daily Show) and Andy Zaltzman. Some of the humor is quite English, what with references to rugby and cricket and the like, but it is nevertheless absolutely amazing and certainly worthy of your attention.

All that being said, I appear to be finding the humor in just about everything this morning, and thus cannot help but draw this to your attention:

For decades, most Chinese residents of the southern city of Guangzhou have resigned themselves to the country's strict one-child policy. Now, a similar restriction on dogs has got them howling mad.

[...] On July 1, city authorities implemented the "one-dog policy" seen as a crackdown on the estimated 100,000 unregistered dogs in Guangzhou ahead of the Asian Games in the city next year...

The hits just keep on coming, don't they? Not only are Chinese families restricted in the number of children they can have - with severe repercussions for families who 'illegally' have more than one - but now their pet-keeping habits are also squarely under the auspices of the CCP! Evidently the reach of the government continues to run deep in China - from bedroom to kennel.

According to Chinese authorities, this so-called "one dog policy" is aimed at curtailing the spread of rabies across China. The CCP must really be running short on inspiration, however, as this is the very same excuse that was used in 2006 when the policy was implemented in Beijing. Well, three years and the slaughter of hundreds of dogs hasn't done the trick, so let's have another go at it. What logic! At least do try to mix it up a bit, guys. Surely there must be a 'Creative Propaganda Bureau' lodged in the government apparatus somewhere...

Oh, China, you never cease to amuse me.