School Daze (December 12, 2023)
Welcome to Home & Away. I was away in the Asia-Pacific for only a week, but it feels much longer, in part because of the many meetings and jetlag, in part because of all that happened here and elsewhere while I was on the road. Taylor Swift was named Time person of the year, both Sandra Day O’Connor and Norman Lear passed away, and, in the world of sports, Jon Rahm defected to the Saudi-backed LIV Tour while the Yankees picked up Juan Soto and the Dodgers Shohei Ohtani. As the show used to tell us, That Was the Week That Was.
Pacific Overtures
I traveled to China, South Korea (the Republic of Korea for you purists) and Japan. I will start with China. I have been going there for four decades, and this time was different in several ways. For starters, the security situation was tighter than ever. Uniformed police were ubiquitous around Beijing. I tried walking from my hotel to Tiananmen Square and had to go through three security checks where my passport was scanned (Chinese citizens had their identity cards scanned) only to be told the Square was off limits.
Also off limits is public discussion of politics or anything with political consequences. There are public debates on foreign policy issues, from the situation in the Middle East to the war in Ukraine and to the question of what it means for China if Donald Trump is the next president of the United States. On this latter question, there are some who argue a second Trump presidency would be a boon for China as U.S. ties with its allies would weaken and U.S. democracy would come under increasing strain. Others fear the unpredictability of a Trump presidency could make it hard for China to choose a trajectory and stick with it. While such debates on international affairs are allowed, they cannot go too far: criticism of Putin is off limits, as it could be read as an implicit critique of Xi Jinping.
As for the meetings with Chinese officials, it was as if they had studied and channeled the 1992 Clinton campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid.” They understand that the export-led growth model that served China well for decades is no longer an option. They also understand the need for consumer-led growth. But understanding it and generating sufficient domestic demand are two very different things, and there are good reasons to believe that Chinese citizens will continue to save more than spend given their concerns over the state of the economy and the adequacy of the social safety net.
The other economic focus in Beijing is on U.S.-China trade and investment. It is not clear how much U.S. export controls and restrictions on outbound investment have contributed to China’s economic woes, but Chinese officials are clearly intent on avoiding new ones and, if possible, rolling back existing ones.
China wants an economic relationship with the United States shaped and determined by economic considerations alone. Officials are hoping that the business community here and in other countries will become an advocate for the same. My guess is that this won’t pan out, and that the economic relationship will increasingly be affected by the political and strategic relationship – as it should.
It is this divergence of views that threatens the staying power of the apparent consensus reached at the recent San Francisco summit to stabilize and put a floor on U.S.-China relations. My own reading is that the two governments wanted the same thing but for very different reasons. China is hoping for economic calm; America for geopolitical calm. An early test will come with China’s willingness to implement the agreements on reining in the export of Fentanyl precursors and the resumption of military-to-military communications channels. Subsequent tests could well come over Taiwan, Chinese support for Russia, and the Middle East.
Several of my Chinese interlocutors mentioned Henry Kissinger, who had passed away just before I traveled to the country. He is widely seen there as a historic figure, not just for his role in helping to launch the modern U.S.-Chinese relationship, but for advocating for friendly relations when many others in this country adopted a much tougher line. And unlike the current leaders of China, Kissinger knew and worked with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, something that gave him rare stature and legitimacy in their eyes. One feels a sense of concern among these officials that with Kissinger’s passing they have lost their most forceful advocate in the United States.
As is always the case with China, Taiwan is much on their minds, although as noted, economic matters had pride of place. But Chinese officials are closely watching next month's presidential election in Taiwan and very much hoping the candidate of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) does not come out on top. If he does, I would expect China to say and do some things to increase the pressure on Taiwan in the (misplaced) belief that doing so will prompt the new government to adopt Beijing’s preferred position on cross-strait relations.
South Koreans are also focused on elections: their own parliamentary elections in April, which will be interpreted as signaling support, or a lack of it, for the current president.
But the election that has those in Seoul even more worked up is that scheduled for this country in November. The South Korean government had a rocky relationship with Trump the first time around and officials worry the second time would be as bad or worse. At a minimum, the government expects demands for larger payments in support of the U.S. troop presence, at worst they fear U.S. military reductions, or even withdrawal, and an erratic U.S. policy on North Korea. Simply put, South Koreans have less confidence in the value of U.S. security guarantees under a Trump presidency.
The debate about what to do is already gaining steam. If current arrangements cannot be extended, Seoul would have three options. One would be to appease China and/or North Korea. The good news is there is little support for such a stance. But there is real interest in a more self-sufficient posture (possibly to include a South Korean nuclear weapons program) or moving closer to Japan, or a mix of the two.
That moving closer to Japan is even being entertained in South Korea is a fascinating development given the longstanding historical animosity between the two countries. That this is now even imaginable is an outgrowth of some creative American diplomacy and the willingness of the leaders of both countries to buck public opinion and take bold steps that are in their national interest.
One reason the two governments have moved closer together is a shared concern about China and North Korea and their growing military capabilities. I heard many references to China’s militarization of the South China Sea and its growing pressure on Taiwan. As for North Korea, neither Seoul nor Tokyo has any good ideas as to what to do about its nuclear and missile arsenals, which seem to grow inexorably in the face of sanctions, negotiations, or love letters.
I should say one other thing about South Korea. It is what might be described as an under-appreciated country. It is one of the world’s leading advanced economies and now aims to become one of the top arms producers and exporters in the world. Seoul has provided more artillery shells to Ukraine than all of Europe combined. Expanding the Group of Seven (G7) to include South Korea (along with Australia) is an idea whose time has come.
Japan is also under-appreciated. It is still the world’s third-largest economy, and possesses one of its most capable militaries. Japan is this country’s most important ally in Asia, and one could argue the world given the challenge posed by China.
Japan is also concerned about possible leadership changes at home and in the United States. It will be difficult for the current prime minister to survive likely challenges when the party leadership gathers in September. This has implications for U.S. relations with Japan, as it is not clear that any candidate for prime minister would be able to navigate a Trump presidency nearly as successfully as Shinzo Abe did.
Helping Hamas
I want to write about one other international story that came up repeatedly in the course of my trip: the Middle East. The war between Israel and Hamas is now in its third month. Israeli military action in Gaza continues unabated. Upwards of 15,000 civilians have been killed. I do not believe there is any intent to kill civilians, but at the same time the Israeli military seems not to be taking great care to avoid doing so. The overwhelming priority is to kill Hamas leaders and fighters and to make the people of Gaza pay such a price for October 7 that they will turn on Hamas. The bombing might have this effect with some, but it is just as likely to radicalize elements of Gaza’s civilian population.
The military campaign is certainly hurting Israel’s standing in world, including in this country. Even though the Israelis have acquiesced to some U.S. demands regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including opening a second border crossing to allow for more aid to enter, it is increasingly clear that admonitions by the Biden administration, by both the president and the secretary of state, that Israel act more surgically in its fight against Hamas, do not appear to be influencing this prime minister and his government.
This then leaves the Biden administration with four options. It can continue on its present course, but only at the risk of looking feckless and becoming increasingly isolated internationally. The president might also pay a domestic political price given the gap between his position and where the Democratic base is on this issue and the increasing number of Arab and Muslim-American and young voters who are threatening not to support his reelection.
A second option is to change how the United States votes in the UN Security Council. The United States stood alone in vetoing this weekend’s resolution calling for a ceasefire. Instead, it could choose to agree to or even introduce an alternative resolution critical of Israel’s conduct of the war. Doing so would not have immediate effect, but it would make Netanyahu uneasy as such an action would represent a shift in long-standing U.S. policy. Some might even interpret it as a way station to sanctions. For this reason, such a move would be unpopular with some Biden supporters.
A third option would be to deny certain armaments to Israel or to condition their export on a change in its behavior. This too would please some of the president’s base and alienate others.
A fourth and final course would be to introduce a diplomatic initiative that would over time pave the way to negotiations on the terms of a Palestinian state. It would not be welcomed by Israel’s current government, but it could trigger a much-needed debate there. President Biden is loath to choose among these four options, but not to choose is to choose.
In the meantime, Israel still has no answer to the question of what follows in Gaza when it comes to maintaining security or providing governance after the war is over. This and previous Israeli governments have ruled out anything that might create momentum toward a Palestinian state.
This is not new. There was a fascinating New York Times piece detailing how Israel has long supported Qatar’s funding of Hamas, both because it thought doing so would buy peace and because it saw Hamas as a useful counterweight to the Palestinian Authority and proof that Israel had no partner for peace. It was a Middle East version of divide and conquer, of helping to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian partner that could advance the arrival of a Palestinian state. But what Netanyahu didn’t see coming, and which October 7 demonstrated with tragic results, is that the enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy.
As for Hamas, it continues to get something of a free pass. On the savage terrorism of October 7. On taking hostages. On its systematic rape of women. On the nature of its rule in Gaza. None of this seems to occur or matter to those marching against Israel or on behalf of Palestinians. Hypocrisy and double standards are everywhere.
November 2024
I have already alluded several times to the American election that is eleven months off. A few thoughts. I cannot say I was sorry to miss the latest Republican debate. Although I do agree with Chris Christie that Vivek Ramaswamy is the most obnoxious blowhard in America. That he is even on the stage is a depressing comment on our times. Nikki Haley is right about him and a good deal else.
That said, I am far from sure these debates matter a whole lot as Trump remains far in the lead. What is more, polls show him to be ahead of President Biden in the popular vote, which translates into his being even more ahead in the electoral vote.
Last week, the President was quoted as saying he is staying in the race to defeat Trump. I hear him but I am not sure he has it right here. Biden has the burden of incumbency at a time people want change. He is hurt as well by his age and his border policy.
To this I would add that it is not clear the president is helping himself with sustained detailed involvement in the Middle East. It is not just that it associates him with a policy that divides the Democratic party. It is also that it connects him to events Away when most Americans would prefer he focus at Home. What is more, immersion in the hostage crisis echoes 39 while immersion in foreign policy echoes 41. Both turned out to be one term presidents.
Poisoned Ivies
Last, it is impossible to look back on the week and not say something about the testimony of the three university presidents, one of whom is now an ex-president. I don’t think that the question put to them was all that difficult. They would not have had a hard time answering it if it were based on race or gender or sexual orientation. And that tells you a good deal of what you need to know.
At a minimum, Jewish students need to be treated no differently (and certainly no worse) than others. But the ideal outcome is not to make Jewish students another overly protected class. It would be much better for these elite schools to reconsider many of their current practices. They ought to eschew institutional statements on national and international issues; that is not their job. They ought to set consistent guidelines on free speech and enforce them. With respect to DEI efforts, more emphasis should be placed on providing equal opportunity to students of all backgrounds, not on identity politics. The one exception in the diversity realm might be political. Schools should look at their own lack of intellectual diversity when it comes to their faculties and student bodies and address how to remedy it. The time has come to make the liberal arts truly liberal.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Thursday, November 30: Bloomberg Wall Street Week on the legacy of Henry Kissinger.
Friday, December 1: MSNBC Meet the Press & CBC Rosemary Barton Live on the Israel-Hamas war.
Articles
Why Washington Couldn’t Quit Kissinger (The New Yorker)
A Starting Point Interview Series: Israel & Palestine Conflict
Part 1: Questions from the ASP Audience
Part 2: A History of Conflict
Part 3: The Current Crisis
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens