Reverse China Hedge

For the past five years or so, the common wisdom in Washington was that the best way to deal with China's uncertain future was for U.S. policymakers to employ a "hedging strategy" toward Beijing. The logic was elegant: Warriors at the Pentagon should dissuade China from acting aggressively while diplomats in Foggy Bottom should persuade China to act responsibly and peacefully.

This hedging approach was clearly articulated in 2006 in President Bush's National Security Strategy, saying it would "encourage China to make the right strategic decisions for its people while we hedge against other possibilities." Earlier that year, the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review Report similarly spelled out that while it would focus on "encouraging China to play a constructive, peaceful role in the Asia-Pacific region” it would also aim to create "prudent hedges against the possibility that cooperative approaches by themselves may fail to preclude future conflict."

While the United States has been trying to create more policy coherence and be more consultative in its posture toward the world, China has been displaying some elements of a hedging strategy against what some might see as an uncertain future for U.S. power. Several factors might explain China's more multifaceted approach toward the United States, including domestic demand for an external scapegoat for economic woes, uncertainty about how the financial crisis will play out, and an overall more intertwined relationship between China and the world.

When Chinese asked me five years ago whether China was a friend or a challenge to the United States, I would say both. I called this seemingly dissonant approach toward China the result of a complex democratic process of policy making. Similarly, as China's middle class grows and its social stability becomes more worrisome, its own posture is becoming less monolithic.

This is one of the main findings from a trip to China I took last week with China scholar Josh Eisenman. The trip, which was a follow up to a delegation we led last September to Beijing, took us to four Chinese cities (Beijing, Qingdao, Nanjing, and Shanghai) and one farming village in Shandong. In my view, our conversations revealed more ambivalence about China's approach to the United States. As some have said, China may "seize" perceived U.S. weakness to reconfigure its position in the global pecking order. There was no question that China benefited from good relations with the United States and everyone preferred a healthy U.S. economy. But the doubt over U.S. economic health relative to Chinese economic growth has opened the door to a deeper debate.

On one hand, China benefits from the U.S. security, markets, and financial arrangements. On the other, however, China is naturally, almost mechanically, reconsidering its place as it grows.

This theme emerged during a long conversation we had with a senior Chinese scholar. It went something like this:

"Does China feel that the United States is a threat?"

"No."

"So why does China feel the need to expand its power projection and build its military?"

"It is in response to U.S. military power."

In other words, China may not feel that the United States is a threat per se, but the very fact that the United States is powerful is driving China to grow its power and act more like a "great nation." It is like international relations balance of power theory is a natural law.

My message to our Chinese hosts was simple: If China would like to act more assertively in the South China Sea, for example, it needs to provide global public goods as well. As it stands, China's opaque and increasingly powerful military is starting to scare its neighbors. The international system is predicated on safe sea-lanes that are guaranteed by the U.S. navy; the safe sea-lanes facilitate open trade and foster global peace and prosperity. If China wishes to challenge this arrangement, it will have to offer something.

Another area in which this theme has turned up is in the U.S-China economic relationship. Just before we left for our trip to China, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said he was worried about his dollar assets. "We have lent a huge amount of money to the US. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried," he said. His statement masked China's dilemma: It needs the United States to stimulate its economy with loser fiscal and monetary policies, which could drive down the value of the dollar, hurting China's dollar assets. Complicating the relationship, a weaker dollar could also lead to a lower volume of Chinese exports to the United States at least in the long run.

Fortunately, this week at the G20 meeting in London, Presidents Hu Jintao and Barack Obama found common ground on shared interests of stabilizing the global economy, cooperating in addressing climate change, and creating a high-level strategic and economic U.S.-China dialogue, which could help build trust between these two powerful nations. Out of a common sense of fairness, there seems to be agreement that the governance of the IMF must be restructured as well. The China hedge may be reversing but so far longer-term, strategic interests have prevailed.

Photo of Tiananmen Square taken by the author during the trip.

Army Invades Second Life

By Joshua S. Fouts
Carnegie Council Senior Fellow
Chief Global Strategist, Dancing Ink Productions, LLC

In the wake of Google closing down its virtual world, "Lively," and Reuters noisily closing its Second Life office, you'd think that virtual worlds would warrant the Sturm und Drang predictions that have replaced an equally misguided first-round buzz of interest.

Maybe it's just growing pains.

Enter the United States Army.

Wired reporter Noah Shachtman recently blogged that the US Army will be opening up shop in the virtual world of Second Life over the next month. According to Shachtman, their effort "will actually consist of two virtual islands. One of them will serve as a ‘welcome center' with an information kiosk and the means to contact a recruiter." The other will offer virtual experiences like, "jumping out of airplanes, and rappelling off of towers and using a weapon."

I asked my friend Peter W. Singer, who is director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution, and author of the upcoming book Wired for War -- what he thought of this. (Singer's program at Brookings is notable in that it was one of the first to host a session on the impact of Second Life on the future of politics -- Singer's wife Sue works for Linden Lab, the creator of Second Life).

"A lot of credit is due to the Army for being willing to take this first step," he emailed back. "It is a great way to connect to potential recruits, who it might not reach otherwise, through a growing medium. But I hope they don't just see it as merely an advertising tool. Just like many other organizations entering Second Life have found, there is a whole new world of possibilities, as well as perils, for them to learn more about."

It's indeed a wise decision for the Army. In our research for the Understanding Islam through Virtual Worlds project, CCEIA Senior Fellow Rita J. King and I encountered many people from around the world who found the experiences in virtual worlds offered them a safe environment in which to explore things with which they were unfamiliar. Why not present the Army in the same light? Stanford University researcher Jeremy Bailenson has already found that people take experiences in virtual worlds with them into the physical world. A May 12, 2008 Time magazine article reported "even 90 seconds spent chatting it up with avatars [in a virtual world] is enough to elicit behavioral changes offline."

The Army might also learn something about their potential recruits in Second Life that they might not learn otherwise from meeting them in person. In an interview I conducted in January 2008 with IBM executive Sandra Kearney, Global Director for Government Research Initiatives and Programs and the lead for many years behind IBM's Virtual Universe Community, she explained that work within virtual worlds has, "made obvious the value people have beyond the box they work in all day long. I'm able to leverage in the organization the passions and the skills that the employee has by what I learn from and about them in virtual worlds. It's addressing the whole person in a really different way."

But it's also a risk--one that I'm glad to see the government taking. Ironically, these kinds of chances seem to be lead by the military more than other parts of the government. For example, in May 2000, before online video games had fully entered into the psyche of advertisers and marketers, the US Army commissioned the creation of the video game "America's Army" which was released in 2002 and later turned into a wildly popular game exceeding even the Pentagon's expectations to become the number one online action game in 2004.

There's reason for hope that other parts of the US foreign and military apparatus are watching and learning. James Glassman, US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, made a stunning announcement at the New America Foundation on December 1, 2008 about the State Department's "Public Diplomacy 2.0" efforts. Glassman, who is the "the government-wide lead in strategic communications, or war of the ideas," provides "leadership and coordination for … the Defense Department, the intelligence community, and beyond." In his speech, Glassman makes the case for the importance of integrating a full-fledged approach to Internet outreach, arguing that government needs to let go of its desire to control the message. "[I]n this new world of communications, any government that resists new Internet techniques faces a greater risk: being ignored. Our major target audiences – especially the young – don't want to listen to us lecture them or tell them what to think or how wonderful we are."

I found Glassman's words inspiring and exciting. In the fall of 2005, as director of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, I had the opportunity to brief Under Secretary Glassman's predecessor Karen Hughes before she took office as Under Secretary of State. Our group recommended that, among other things, she integrate games, virtual worlds and blogs into her public diplomacy outreach strategies. Nearly three years later, I'm thrilled to see that her successor has implemented all of those ideas and more. (Disclosure: Glassman's speech also mentions a January 12, 2009 event in Second Life in which he will be appearing that Rita J. King and I will be co-hosting as part of a project with the American University in Cairo.)

Glassman argued, as do we, that virtual worlds are no substitute for real world experiences. They serve, however, as excellent gateways to better understanding people or opportunities to augment or extend ideas – such as expanding and continuing relationships formed in exchange programs.

While the Army is considering Second Life, maybe they should also consider theater. A year ago, Rita J. King wrote about a play by the Scottish National Theater called "Blackwatch." The play, about the famed Scottish military regiment, described the collapse of the unit after their involvement in the War in Iraq. The play's tour in the US was funded by the British Council, the public diplomacy arm of the British Government. It shed unique insight into the British experience in the US-led War on Terror.

A few weeks ago I had a chance to get a better understanding of a US soldier's experience in the Iraq War. I was a participant in the off-Broadway production of "Surrender," a play co-written by my friend Josh Fox (who coincidentally played in a high school rock band with the aforementioned Wired journalist Noah Shachtman – Shachtman played bass) and Sergeant Jason Christopher Hartley, Iraqi War veteran and author of the extremely well-written "Just Another Soldier," about his experiences in the war in Iraq. The three act play allows you to either observe or participate. I chose to participate. I arrived a few minutes late and was rushed into a changing room where I was issued a standard military uniform while the sound of a drill sergeant (played by Jason Christopher Hartley) barked orders to a group to do push-ups until the latecomers were ready. The play began with training in basic combat techniques including a crash course in rifle handling, room clearing and engaging the enemy. In act two I was deployed with my squad, which consisted of actors and participants, although I did not know which was which breaking into darkened rooms under the deafening cacophony of helicopter gun ships, sirens, gunfire, screams all capped my squad and company leaders fevered commands. Each room offered a different panic-inducing scenario – from interrupting a tryst and having the paramours shoot at you, to encountering an otherwise innocent looking family who also then shot at us. Act three was our hallucinatory "reintegration" into society in which the various participants were required to act out the fate of their characters. This entailed reading lines from a teleprompter while actors responded accordingly. I played the part of a soldier who had to have his legs amputated and ended in a mental institution. Next it was determined, that I had a pre-existing mental condition and would not be receiving medical coverage.

The experience participating in Surrender was a powerful one. It radically changed my view of the experience of soldiers in urban ground combat.

Surrender is opening for one week only January 7 – 12. If you're in New York City and want to understand the Army, this is one virtual experience you don't want to miss. After that, try something little more relaxing like visiting the Army's virtual offices in Second Life.

cross posted at The Ethical Blogger
photo by Seb Ulysses

Blogging from the Battlefield: "Front Line, First Person"

I am at Brown University's Watson Institute today and tomorrow, attending a fantastic conference, "Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories," on soldiers blogging from the battlefield.

The first day's talks are just ending now. Here are a few of my notes from a very emotional and relevant discussion (I am paraphrasing what some of the panelists say below):

Colby Buzzell (blogger, author My War: Killing Time in Iraq) tells his story of how he was deployed in Iraq in 2004. With his blog he was able to tell what really happened despite news stories with contrary information. His blog was turned into his book as well as animated stories for PBS. Relating to our project, blogs certainly strengthens the truths. He wishes more books and more accounts were written about the war because “it becomes more real.”

Senator Lincoln Chafee retells the story of voting to go to war to Afghanistan days after 9/11. He said things were happening so fast Congressmen were unclear whether they were voting on funding for NYC or war in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan “all of a sudden the drums are beating for Iraq.” People weren’t even deliberating on what a WMD was. Carl Levin asked for the debate to slow down but that failed by the same vote level that authorized the war shortly later. “If the administration wanted to remake the Middle East, let’s have that debate. It didn’t happen.” When visiting Iraq right after the war, Chafee saw people put their hands on their hearts as a sign of respect. A year later, Chafee couldn’t get past the airport road.

Matthew Burden (veteran, blogger, Blackfive; author “The Blog of War: Frontline Dispatches from Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan”) – I tried to stay connected to my some 200 friends stationed in Iraq to get to the truth. I started Blackfive to tell the stories that weren’t getting told by the media. The first colonel was supposed to review a soldier’s blog but that was pretty lenient. But there are more violations of operational security on the DOD website than on solders’ blogs. The problem we have now is the speed of the information—that scares some. I would like to have military bloggers have the same restrictions as embedded reporters. Many of the people in my book stopped blogging because of the restrictions put on them. You don’t hear enough of the acts of kindness. Blogs help give a sense of balance to reporting.

Eric Rodriguez (veteran, Brown student) – How do we understand something as horrible as war? My family started the second largest gang in California. I wanted something different. I was born in LA but I wasn’t seen as American as others were. After being homeless, I wanted to join the Army so that people wouldn’t be able to look at my family and wonder if we were American. I believe in service to country, and nothing can change that. My transition to the military was easy because I didn’t have to worry about meals, I got a roof over my head, and I was getting paid. After Iraq happened, I decided to go—I ended up in a Chinook getting shot at. Going to Iraq made me a better person in terms of building character. My dream was to go to college. When I was in a minefield facing death, what was important to me became clear—service to country, getting home and going to college. I wrote a 15-page essay called “Straight Out of My Car” to make sure I didn’t fall victim to my abandonment, my sister’s pregnancy, and other pieces of my past. A few colleges got ahold of it and invited me. I brought my friends and mom to college. I hope from my story you see a humanistic side of the Iraq war. There are a lot of good people over there. It’s not black and white. It is a big, gray, scary area. This morning, I taught a high school sex education class, rewrote my economics paper, and prepared for a quiz. Now I am here talking to you.

SFC Toby Nunn (author, Northern Disclosure, soldier currently serving in Iraq) - I have an ethical obligation to tell the story of my buddies. The result is to try to instill a betterment, a better faith of humanity. There is more to armed conflict than the actual violence. It’s not just the action you see, it is the impact you make—delivering school supplies, developing infrastructure, etc. I am from Canada and am trying to become an American citizen because I want to be part of something great and earn my place in society.

Deborah Scranton showed a clip from her film "The War Tapes," showing how U.S. soldiers tried to save Iraqis after a suicide bomb went off, contrasting with the media reports, which did not show these acts of heroism.

A Stronger Japan: Some Like It, Some Don't

Norimitsu Onishi reports in the New York Times today that Japan is buying weapons that blur the lines between defensive and offensive use:

Japan is acquiring weapons that blur the lines between defensive and offensive. For the Guam bombing run, Japan deployed its newest fighter jets, the F-2’s, the first developed jointly by Japan and the United States, on their maiden trip here. Unlike its older jets, the F-2’s were able to fly the 1,700 miles from northern Japan to Guam without refueling — a “straight shot,” as the Japanese said with unconcealed pride.

The summary of Onishi's article titled "Bomb by Bomb, Japan Sheds Military Restraints" mentions that this change in Japan is "rattling nerves in northeast Asia." Although Onishi only sites two top Korean officials to back up the assertion, the claim is probably true, given South Korea's suspicion of the Japanese military, North Korea's outright hostility toward Japan, and China's rivalry for regional dominance.

But what about Southeast Asia?

I wonder why the article didn't mention the other side of the coin, that in Southeast Asia, many welcome a stronger Japan to balance China. In my trip to Asia this summer, I found senior observers in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Singapore not only in support of a more assertive Japan but also in favor of a stronger Japanese military. Many see Japan as a transparent, accountable actor with a good track record.

I guess the answer you get depends on whom you ask.