What Is the Biggest Mistake in Obama’s Visit to Asia?
Published in Xinhua
(China) on 19 November 2010
by Tang Jianduan (link to original)
(China) on 19 November 2010
by Tang Jianduan (link to original)
Translated from
by Rose Zu.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
Obama’s recent visit to Asia has been called an unsuccessful trip. One of the biggest shortcomings was his inability to sign a free trade agreement with South Korea.
Initiated from U.S.-Korean free trade talks during the Bush administration, an agreement would bring an increase of $1 billion of exports and create 70,000 job opportunities per year. Obama knew this full well and pledged as early as his June visit to South Korea that an agreement would be signed at the November G20 summit. However, when the leaders met and Obama asked that the other’s car market be further opened up, South Korea refused, running aground the agreement.
In a recent article, the Washington Post revealed that compared to a year earlier, when leading South Korean officials were falling over each other in order to curry favor with the visiting Obama, at this return to the G20 summit, regardless of whether it was Lee Myung-bak or any other leading South Korean official, all lacked warmth with Obama.
When Lee Myung-bak and Obama were together, a reporter asked: are you worried that American economic policies will trigger inflation? He replied, “I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me.” This indirectly yet clearly conveyed his dissatisfaction with the U.S.
This article believes that, compared to other countries, the U.S. should have more influence with South Korea because there are still tens of thousands of soldiers stationed there to “protect Korea’s prosperity.”
And Korea makes me believe that the reasons for Obama’s return home with his tail between his legs, when success was just within his grasp, include pressure from domestic companies but more importantly, a worry that because of Obama’s losses in the midterm elections, he will not have the ability to push the agreement through Congress. Time magazine therefore believes that the inability to sign the agreement is just like the U.S.’s inability to lead the processes of the G20 summit, both indicating that American influence is ebbing.
However, Obama’s visit to Asia magnified the fact that the U.S.’s determination strengthens the schematic diagram of its influence.
This year, when Obama announced again that he would visit Asia, explicitly indicating that he would serve as the leader of Asia, he effectively saw China as a stumbling block on the path to leadership. In this returning trip to four countries, China can be said to be as inseparable as a shadow.
When visiting India: Obama outlined a list of several hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military transport machines for India. Indian public opinion believes that these planes have the ability to quickly deploy armed forces to the disputed land between China and India, significantly increasing India’s ability for deterrence in its strategy with China.
When visiting Indonesia: He vaguely said that the “lack of freedom and prosperity is poverty,” which was taken widely as a reflection on China.
When visiting Japan: He clearly knew that China wishes to peacefully resolve the dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, yet he declared the need to be “unshakeable” in defending Japan and called Japan a “model citizen,” yet said that China needed to “act appropriately, adopting an attitude of responsibility.”* The instigation here is obvious.
When visiting South Korea: He gave a speech at the Yongsan Garrison, saying that “[The Korean War] was no tie … It was a victory then, and it is a victory today.” Of the widely-known confession by American commander Clark — “I was the first American commander to put his signature to a paper ending a war when we did not win it” — he was completely unaware.
The U.S. wants to lead the most economically energetic region in the world. The U.S. wants to regain its lost influence. This can be understood, but the problem lies in the implications. Obama’s four-country trip in Asia basically used a sharp sword as support for working in the U.S.’s interest.
Furthermore, public opinion says that the U.S. is trying to surround China and put it into a “metal barrel.” China has never been afraid of being surrounded. At the same time, it hopes to be in a win-win situation with all countries in Asia Pacific, including the U.S.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Initiated from U.S.-Korean free trade talks during the Bush administration, an agreement would bring an increase of $1 billion of exports and create 70,000 job opportunities per year. Obama knew this full well and pledged as early as his June visit to South Korea that an agreement would be signed at the November G20 summit. However, when the leaders met and Obama asked that the other’s car market be further opened up, South Korea refused, running aground the agreement.
In a recent article, the Washington Post revealed that compared to a year earlier, when leading South Korean officials were falling over each other in order to curry favor with the visiting Obama, at this return to the G20 summit, regardless of whether it was Lee Myung-bak or any other leading South Korean official, all lacked warmth with Obama.
When Lee Myung-bak and Obama were together, a reporter asked: are you worried that American economic policies will trigger inflation? He replied, “I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me.” This indirectly yet clearly conveyed his dissatisfaction with the U.S.
This article believes that, compared to other countries, the U.S. should have more influence with South Korea because there are still tens of thousands of soldiers stationed there to “protect Korea’s prosperity.”
And Korea makes me believe that the reasons for Obama’s return home with his tail between his legs, when success was just within his grasp, include pressure from domestic companies but more importantly, a worry that because of Obama’s losses in the midterm elections, he will not have the ability to push the agreement through Congress. Time magazine therefore believes that the inability to sign the agreement is just like the U.S.’s inability to lead the processes of the G20 summit, both indicating that American influence is ebbing.
However, Obama’s visit to Asia magnified the fact that the U.S.’s determination strengthens the schematic diagram of its influence.
This year, when Obama announced again that he would visit Asia, explicitly indicating that he would serve as the leader of Asia, he effectively saw China as a stumbling block on the path to leadership. In this returning trip to four countries, China can be said to be as inseparable as a shadow.
When visiting India: Obama outlined a list of several hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military transport machines for India. Indian public opinion believes that these planes have the ability to quickly deploy armed forces to the disputed land between China and India, significantly increasing India’s ability for deterrence in its strategy with China.
When visiting Indonesia: He vaguely said that the “lack of freedom and prosperity is poverty,” which was taken widely as a reflection on China.
When visiting Japan: He clearly knew that China wishes to peacefully resolve the dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, yet he declared the need to be “unshakeable” in defending Japan and called Japan a “model citizen,” yet said that China needed to “act appropriately, adopting an attitude of responsibility.”* The instigation here is obvious.
When visiting South Korea: He gave a speech at the Yongsan Garrison, saying that “[The Korean War] was no tie … It was a victory then, and it is a victory today.” Of the widely-known confession by American commander Clark — “I was the first American commander to put his signature to a paper ending a war when we did not win it” — he was completely unaware.
The U.S. wants to lead the most economically energetic region in the world. The U.S. wants to regain its lost influence. This can be understood, but the problem lies in the implications. Obama’s four-country trip in Asia basically used a sharp sword as support for working in the U.S.’s interest.
Furthermore, public opinion says that the U.S. is trying to surround China and put it into a “metal barrel.” China has never been afraid of being surrounded. At the same time, it hopes to be in a win-win situation with all countries in Asia Pacific, including the U.S.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Next article![]( "Who Is Investigating [WikiLeaks]?")
