Politics and Government

This week, Mexican president Felipe Calderón and Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf both spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. In his speech on Monday, President Calderón, who is in his last months in office, described what he called a transformation of Mexico’s economy in recent years. Though poverty remains, he said, Mexico has a robust middle class, improved health and educational systems, and a strong export-oriented economy (video and transcript). He also discussed continuing challenges in security and the rule of law. On her blog, CFR senior fellow Shannon O’Neil analyzes President Calderón’s speech, writing: To sum up the past six years in office, Calderón highlighted his country’s achievements in concrete numbers: opening 140 new public universities, building or repairing 3,000 new health clinics, and constructing or repairing some 20,000 km of roads. He also spoke more conceptually of Mexico’s successes: arguing that its adherence to free trade and fiscal responsibility enabled a quick recovery from the 2009 global financial crisis, the rise of Mexico’s middle class, and its increasing global competitiveness. You can read the full blog post here. In her speech today, President Johnson Sirleaf highlighted the progress Liberia has achieved during her six-year tenure, with accomplishments ranging from impressive economic growth to better government institutions to higher school enrollment for girls. She also noted that substantial development challenges remain, including high youth unemployment, a rapidly growing population, and vast infrastructure needs. Overall, President Johnson Sirleaf’s ambitions are striking: she wants Liberia to be free from official development assistance in ten years and to attain middle-income status by 2030. You can view the video of her speech here or below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M5VKLFOUP_I

Significant Middle East Developments Israel and Palestine. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly yesterday within minutes of one another, with each focusing on divergent issues. Abbas lashed out strongly at Israel and called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu, in turn, attempted to convince world leaders, the United States in particular, that a red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear program to avoid a military confrontation. I wrote a "First Take" analyzing both leaders’ speeches yesterday, which can be read here. Iran. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, said today that Israel’s purported threats of military action only serve to reinforce Iranian “determination to continue in the same direction.” On Wednesday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad addressed the UN general assembly for the last time as president of Iran in a speech seemingly to lack his usual fire and infamous Holocaust denials. My colleague Ray Takeyh prepared an excellent "First Take" on the Iranian leader’s remarks. On Tuesday, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry claimed it possessed new evidence of attempts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program through computer-virus infected equipment from the United States, France, and Germany. The announcement followed a statement over the previous weekend that Iranian security officials had discovered explosives inside equipment purchased from the German company Siemens. President Obama in New York.  President Barack Obama spoke before the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, paying tribute to slain Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and then providing a vigorous defense of freedom of speech, particularly in the Middle East. Connecting the transformations across the Arab world to the ideals of the United Nations and to freedom of speech, Obama said “true democracy, real freedom is hard work.” Before concluding, Obama addressed Iran’s nuclear program, saying, “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” For an excellent analysis of the President’s speech, see my colleague Jim Lindsay’s "First Take" here. Egypt.  In response to President Obama’s UN remarks calling free speech a universal value, Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi called for restrictions on offensive speech in his General Assembly remarks on Wednesday. Instead, he urged the UN to consider international action against speech that defames religions, saying “Egypt respects freedom of expression…Not the freedom of expression that deepens that deepens ignorance and disregards others.” Morsi criticized the world’s approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it shameful that a “member of the international community would continue to deny the rights of a nation that seeks independence.” He also declared that stopping the bloodshed in Syria is “our main concern.” Speaking separately to Charlie Rose, Morsi reaffirmed his doubts about the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, saying, “However I do not see any tribunal that was held in a clear way to decide for sure who did this and who helped who.” Syria. Rebel and regime forces continued to clash in Aleppo today in the second day of what has been termed a major offensive by the opposition. The escalation follows reports that Wednesday was the deadliest day of the uprising with three hundred and five deaths reported across the country. Rebel forces also bombed headquarters of the army and air force in Damascus on Wednesday. The leadership of the Free Syrian Army has relocated from Turkey to the “liberated areas” of Syria, according to a video statement released on Saturday by Colonel Riad al-Asaad, the FSA’s commander-in-chief. On Wednesday, Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi used his UN General Assembly remarks to declare his support for Assad’s departure and his opposition to foreign intervention, contrary to Qatari emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who called the previous day for a unilateral Arab intervention to stop the conflict. Libya. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters on Thursday that the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi “was a terrorist attack.” U.S. intelligence officials have shared their belief that the militants involved were largely connected to Libyan Islamist militant group Ansar Al-Sharia, but that one or two individuals had connections to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The State Department has continued to withdraw staff from the embassy due to heightened security alert. Mohammed Magarief, the head of Libya’s new General National Congress, promised to disarm militias, but a militia attack on a Tripoli hotel Tuesday housing members of the GNC and an admission that a large number of shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles were stolen over the weekend underscores the difficulty of the task. Quotes of the Week “We are in an election period, so maybe this isn’t a diplomatic way to say it, but I hope that after the election the American government looks at this matter in different way.” – Qatari prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani told CNN on Monday “The legitimacy that I represent before you today was not the product of a fleeting moment... this revolution... was triggered by a long struggle of genuine national movements that sought a life of pride and dignity for all citizens. It is thereby reflecting the wisdom of history and sending a clear warning to those attempting to put their interests before the will of the people.” – Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi said in his first address to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday “It is time for Israel to turn around, look at the future we share, and make a just and lasting peace with the Palestinians.” – King Abdullah II of Jordan said on Tuesday in his address to the UN General Assembly “The two-state solution is the only sustainable option. Yet the door may be closing, for good.” – UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the UN General Assembly on Tuesday “The economic conditions in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem were much better before Oslo.” – Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of Hamas, said in an interview on Tuesday While We Were Looking Elsewhere Gaza. Hamas’ leader Khaled Meshaal will not seek reelection as the movement’s head, Salah Bardawil, a senior Hamas official confirmed on Sunday. Potential candidates to replace Meshaal include current Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and deputy chief of Hamas Mousa Abu Marzouq. Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters in Gaza called for Hamas’ overthrow on Tuesday after a three-year-old boy died in a fire caused by a lit candle during a power outage. The boy’s father proclaimed that he holds “both the governments in Gaza and in the West Bank responsible for what happened to us,” while Taher Al-Nono, a Hamas spokesman, blamed Egypt for delaying efforts to solve the energy crisis in Gaza. Also on Tuesday, Qatari ambassador Muhammad al-Imadi announced that Qatar is planning on providing $450 million in assistance to the Gaza Strip over the next three years. Kuwait. Kuwait’s highest court rejected a bid by the government on Tuesday to change the electoral boundaries. The opposition had promised to take to the streets in protest if the ruling was in favor of the government. This Week in History This week marks the eightieth anniversary of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On September 23, 1932, King Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud issued a royal decree that unified the kingdoms of the Hejaz and Najd into one realm. The unification of the Hejaz and Najd capped three decades of conquest led by Ibn Saud, beginning with the capture of Riyadh in 1902, and the subsequent establishment of the Saudi state that exists today.  

The African National Congress’ (ANC) firebrand outcast Julius Malema has been formally charged with money laundering linked to state contracts in his native Limpopo province, probably the poorest in South Africa. Malema, former leader of the ANC’s Youth League, is a radical voice calling for nationalization of the mines and expropriation of white owned land without compensation. Formerly allies, he and South African president Jacob Zuma are now bitter enemies. The ANC expelled Malema from the party and the youth league in November 2011. However, many–perhaps most–of the youth league members still regard him as their leader. (The youth league is traditionally the most radical part of the ANC.) The current wave of industrial unrest in the mines is a political boost for Malema. He was the first politician to visit the Marikana mine during the strike, and subsequently addressed a small number of the South African Defense Force on suspension for rioting. Parts of the ANC appear worried about his influence, and whites in the investor class see him as a boogeyman. In the townships, however, he is a hero. Malema, born only in 1981, has a flamboyant lifestyle characterized by expensive cars, women, and the club scene. Born into poverty, he now has access to nearly limitless resources. The common theory is that his wealth originates in corruption. In politics, his black populism can be reckless; he has been convicted multiple times for hate speech against whites, and has revived the old liberation chant of “kill the settler, kill the Boer.” Undisciplined, he may well self-destruct—if the ANC and South African establishment do not overreact to him. Why is he being charged with corruption now? South African commentary ties the charges to his exploitation of mining unrest to advance his political career. The South African judiciary has a reputation of independence. But the prosecutorial authority is often politicized. Malema’s enemies within the ANC may have calculated that he should be brought to court now before the ANC party convention in December, where Zuma will likely face serious opposition to his continued leadership.

The World Next Week podcast is up. Bob McMahon and I discussed the first presidential debate; Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States; freedom of speech; and Georgia’s parliamentary elections. [audio: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/media/editorial/2012/20120927_TWNW.mp3] The highlights: The topic of next Wednesday’s presidential debate at the University of Denver is the economy and domestic issues. Mitt Romney will likely stress his overarching theme that America cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama; the president will counter by arguing that America cannot afford to go back to the failed policies of the past. Romney is certainly under pressure to “win” the debate. Polls out this week show him falling behind in the critical battleground states of Florida and Ohio; no GOP president has ever won the White House without also winning Ohio. So if Romney does not fare well in Denver, GOP-leaning Super PACs might shift their money away from the former Massachusetts governor and toward Republicans facing tough House and Senate races. President Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu used their speeches to the UN General Assembly this week to warn against the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Meanwhile, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used his address to accuse Israel of warmongering against Iran. Speculation continues as to whether Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the U.S. elections on November 6 and whether Iranian leaders believe that an Israeli attack could help break Iran’s international isolation. President Obama used his address to the General Assembly to offer a spirited defense of the American conception of freedom of speech. The speech played well to American ears, but it did not receive universal acclaim. The idea that even offensive speech should be protected is unthinkable in many parts of the world, and many Muslim-majority countries are lobbying the UN for anti-blasphemy laws. Even many Western governments restrict some forms of speech. These different conceptions of what is acceptable speech are likely to continue to clash in a globalized and digitalized world. Bob’s Figure of the Week is 1.3 percent. My Figure of the Week is Shinzo Abe. As always, you’ll have to listen to the podcast to find out why. For more on the topics we discussed in the podcast check out: Obama and Romney face off in the first presidential debate. The New York Times provides poll results showing show that Obama is widening his lead in battleground states. Politico thinks that the Denver debate is “do-or-die” for Romney. The LA Times predicts that Obama will get less practice than Romney for the debates and reports what to expect from the first debate.  ABC writes that Paul Ryan has confidence that Romney will best Obama in the debates.  The Commission on Presidential Debates provides the topics for the first debate and the full presidential debate schedule. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits United States. Reuters writes that Netanyahu continues to push Obama to set a red line for Iran and that Netanyahu drew an actual red line on a picture of a bomb during his UNGA speech.  Politicker reports that Netanyahu will meet with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. The UN debates Freedom of Speech. The New York Times reports on the calls by the presidents of Egypt and Yemen for curbs on free speech. Colum Lynch reviews the push for anti-blasphemy laws. The Miami Herald reports on a Coptic Christian sentenced to six years in an Egyptian prison for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. Georgia holds parliamentary elections. Foreign Policy writes that the recent prisoner abuse scandal will be a significant challenge for Georgia’s ruling party before parliamentary elections on October 1. The Daily Beast notes that this is a prime opportunity for the opposition party to take control of the government. Reuters reports that Russia has criticized the current government on its inability to defend human rights.

Human rights organizations are charging the Zimbabwe police with accelerating harassment of the gay community as the country approaches the election season.  Robert Mugabe is opposed to provisions in the draft constitution that would dilute presidential authority, and is angling to create popular support against the draft before it is submitted to a voters referendum.  Though the current draft makes no reference to gay rights or gay marriage, Mugabe and his supporters may be using that silence on both issues to rally opposition to it by association. Earlier in the year, Mugabe tied the new constitution to gay rights by saying that there were efforts to insert a same-sex marriage clause in the draft. He is quoted as saying, “we won’t accept that.” Human rights organizations’ charges that Mugabe is manipulating homophobia to advance his political agenda are entirely credible. Homophobia is widespread in Zimbabwe as it is elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.  In traditional societies, marriage and procreation provide for the care of elders.  As homosexual relationships do not do that, they are seen to threaten wider society. Only South Africa’s constitution protects gay rights, but even there populists sometimes try to rally popular homophobia to advance their political agendas.

Moeletsi Mbeki, with Refiloe Morwe, has written a must-read piece for South Africa watchers: “Economic Growth in South Africa:  Has the ANC Got It Wrong?” His bottom line:  yes, it has. Like many other commentators currently writing about South Africa, Mbeki starts with the Marikana massacre, where he argues that the “ANC government demonstrated to the whole world that it is prepared to use all necessary force to keep South Africa’s…mines in operation.” He goes on to argue that the basic cause of instability in South Africa is that the “transition to non-racial democracy” in 1994 was not accompanied by “change in the underlying economic structure.”  A consequence, he argues, is that any government is hobbled in terms of what it can actually do. But, the “capitalists”—owners and investors in the productive sector, which remains predominantly white controlled—face continuing uncertainty over taxes, the threat of expropriation, and corruption, and are therefore unwilling to overtly upset the present situation. Until this dichotomy is addressed, Mbeki foresees continued, and increasing, instability in South Africa. The ANC has bought-on to the unstable status quo, even while resentment against it is building among the poor and dispossessed who continually vote them into office. But, Mbeki posits no easy solutions: he observes that government efforts to radically redistribute wealth as advocated by radicals like ANC Youth League Leader Julius Malema will simply lead to owners taking their money elsewhere–outside South Africa. And that would make a bad situation worse. With that as his central argument, he shares many other important insights in this short piece. One example: South Africa is an old country and an old society–that makes it very different from most other developing or middle income countries. He also highlights the failure of the education system to address the roots of structural unemployment–a major cause of poverty. It might be objected that Mbeki has produced an analysis of what is wrong without providing solutions.  I do not accept that implied criticism.  Mbeki has tried to analyze the problem.  It is only when we understand what has gone wrong that we can think about what to do about it. Mbeki is the deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs.  He is the brother of Thabo Mbeki, and was a frequent critic of the Mbeki government and of the ANC.  He is also a businessman.  He is the leader of an informal South African circle that is thinking hard about how to reform the South African educational system.

CFR.org just posted a First Take that I did on President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly this morning.  The speech was fairly predictable, and it was undoubtedly aimed as much at American voters as it was to the delegates in the auditorium. Obama denounced the recent wave of attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities, defended freedom of speech, called for the condemnation of hatred and intolerance directed at any religion, and warned yet again of the dangers that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. One topic that Obama discussed at length that I didn’t mention in my CFR.org piece was Syria. The president denounced a “dictator who massacres his people” and pledged to “stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision” for their country. But to those hoping—or fearing—that Obama would do more to stop “a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings,” he offered nothing new. Washington will impose sanctions and threaten those who commit war crimes with prosecution. U.S. military intervention or support, however, is not in the cards. In all, Obama gave just the sort of speech one would expect just six weeks before Election Day in a race that looks headed for the wire and with Republicans intensifying their criticisms of his foreign policy. Diplomats from around the world may have been in the auditorium with Obama, but his real audience was American voters. And his message to them was: I stand up for American interests and values, and I am not about to plunge U.S. troops into yet another messy conflict in the Middle East. (P.S. While President Obama was speaking to UN delegates in Turtle Bay, Mitt Romney was speaking in Midtown Manhattan at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting. I haven’t had a chance to read the governor’s speech in its entirety yet, but its main point seems to be that more conditions should be attached to foreign aid. As previous presidents have discovered, that is easier said than done, especially when it comes to countries that Washington wants something from. Just think back three years to the flap in Pakistan over the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill.)

This is a guest post by Jim Sanders, a career, now retired, West Africa watcher for various federal agencies. The views expressed below are his personal views and do not reflect those of his former employers. The recent tragedy in Benghazi exhibited flash mob characteristics, which Wired magazine makes a useful comparison to with similar violence in Mexico, Darfur, and Nigeria. These dynamics were also present in the London 2011 riots, which I have commented on previously. Instead of a pre-planned, lethal attack by known enemies such as al-Qaeda, individuals proposed actions without any central direction, they gained momentum, and in rather short order a tragedy occurred.  Though the outcome may not have been part of the original intent, it was generated by the momentum that built up.  This is how flash mobs and "do-ocracy" (an organization or movement where respect and power are awarded based on action) operate. It is unlike classic insurgencies.  They at least have leadership cadres that plan operations. This phenomenon seems relatively new to Libya.  It is not new to Nigeria.  Boko Haram, I believe, has been operating in a similar way for quite a while now. Implications for policymakers, domestically and internationally, are scary because there is little they can do to guard against this dynamic.  There is more they can do to try to defend against groups like al-Qaeda because it at least is known to have specific leaders. But what does a government do, when confronted with flash mobs and "do-ocracies"?  These are groups that lack conventional cohesion.  They are held together instead by a sense of "belonging" to a gang--a social role with its own morality and self esteem--but one that holds meaning in a world with limited prospects. From this it follows that the end game is probably not anything we would recognize, i.e., nothing we are likely to be familiar with from history or our own experience.  A rioter interviewed after the London riots in 2011 admitted that the violence and destruction did not solve his problems, but the riots were, nonetheless, the greatest thing he had ever participated in. Boko Haram members may feel the Kingdom they say they seek is nearing.  That sense is capable of generating a great deal of enthusiasm, but one must be participant to sense and feel it.  Foreign policy professionals think in terms of end states, so as to know how to structure negotiations for example, but they may be intellectualizing the situation more than the participants.  I imagine (and maybe that is what it takes) the feeling of action, of getting to the Kingdom is more gratifying than the end state itself.  That is why Boko Haram continues the struggle.  One reason why the Nigerian government trumpets every arrest, every Boko Haram killing, and prevented attack in the press is to create a perception of progress against a threat they know they cannot handle.  In contrast, Boko Haram carries on, seemingly undeterred.

Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s two-week visit to the United States has thus far proven highly successful, at least on the terms understood in advance. As she did in Europe, Suu Kyi has wowed audiences in the United States, on a level that can be compared to no one other than the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela for the awe that people feel in meeting her. She has received award after award, and graciously sat for more policy meetings, roundtables, events, and conferences than any Washington official would ever want to endure while jetlagged. Without a doubt, Suu Kyi’s relationship with the United States, as well as with other democratic powers, is important for Myanmar’s future, and critical to increased aid flows to the country. Yet much of the discussion at policy seminars and other events with Suu Kyi has seemed to focus on the idea that the U.S. and Europe are the critical players in Myanmar’s future. In part, this is due to the admiration for Suu Kyi in the West, and the low profile of President Thein Sein in the West —his United Nations General Assembly appearance has received far less coverage than Suu Kyi’s bravura tour, and yet Thein Sein, despite his military past, has been the key to implementing the radical reforms over the past two years. Thein Sein also is primarily responsible for the recent cabinet reshuffle that further consolidated the control of reformers in the government, marginalizing or simply canning several important hard-liners. What’s more, the discussions in the United States with Suu Kyi have also tended to avoid another fact: the most important players in any future democratic Myanmar are China, India, Thailand, and Singapore. That truth is not going to change, and in fact, as Myanmar opens up, it will become even more closely integrated with its near neighbors. And yet the relationship between Suu Kyi (and the broader Myanmar democracy movement) and nearly all of these near powers is tenuous and sometimes downright poor. Even with India, the democracy movement’s relationship has gone downhill in recent years, after India reversed decades of pro-democracy support regarding Myanmar and pursued a more realist policy, accommodating the past ruling junta. If Suu Kyi and the democracy movement really are going to win national elections in 2015 (which, if they are free and fair, is almost sure), they must rapidly repair their relations with these critical neighbors, rather than focusing on the West, which is where most Burmese democracy advocates have become most comfortable over the past two decades.

As a teaser for next month’s presidential debates, CNN.com’s Global Public Square asked a group of “historians and commentators” to offer their judgments on which presidents enjoyed the most success on foreign policy and which enjoyed the least.  I was lucky enough to be invited to weigh in. GPS posted the picks for most successful foreign policy president yesterday, and it posted the picks for least successful foreign policy presidents today. I opted for a bipartisan theme with my picks in both categories, selecting Franklin Roosevelt and George H.W. Bush as the most successful foreign policy presidents and Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush as the least successful.  The other picks for most and least successful foreign policy president also leaned heavily toward presidents from World War II on. (Bruce Jentleson of Duke swam against the tide, applauding Thomas Jefferson for engineering the Louisiana Purchase and booing James Polk for initiating the Mexican-American War.) The tilt toward more recent presidents no doubt reflects the natural tendency to emphasize what we are most familiar with. But it also reflects the fact that foreign policy constitutes a much more significant part of the president’s job after Pearl Harbor than it did before it. Things change when you become a global superpower. Of course, all such lists and picks are subjective. A lot of presidents have scored significant foreign policy successes, and regrettably a fair number of presidents have botched things. Many have done both. I could easily make the case against all my picks and argue that some other president did better or worse. Indeed, the more I look at the list that GPS compiled, the more I think that one president got slighted and another got off easy. The president who got slighted? George Washington. His decision in 1793 to declare the United States neutral in the war between Britain and France might have been the most consequential foreign policy decision in U.S. history. Had Washington followed the advice of his secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, and sided with the French he might well have plunged the country into a war that ruined the fledgling republic. Washington followed that decision up with a Farewell Address that set the bar high for future foreign adventures, something that benefited a young and weak country. The president who got off easy? James Madison. When you ask Congress to declare war and the result is that your national capital is sacked and you have to flee the White House with the china and silverware, you should at least be mentioned in the conversation about least successful foreign policy presidents. So consider it done. Anyway, feel free to offer up your picks for America’s most and least successful foreign policy presidents in the comments box below.

In one U.S. Presidential election after another, the media hype the specter of China as an issue of real policy import. It has been two decades, however, since China has been anything more than a blip on a Presidential debate television screen; and frankly, that has been a good thing. Campaigns rarely elevate thinking on substantive issues. This time around, however, China is becoming a genuine political football, tossed around without any clear aim but hard enough to cause some real damage. Out on the campaign trail, China rhetoric lives mostly in the realm of political insult. Governor Romney’s campaign argues “President Obama promised to take China ‘to the mat’ but instead he has allowed China to treat the United States like a doormat." Should he become president, Governor Romney has stated that “I will finally take China to the carpet and say, ‘Look you guys, I’m gonna label you a currency manipulator and apply tariffs unless you stop those practices.”  For his part, President Obama has railed against Governor Romney’s private equity experience with China: "I understand my opponent has been running around Ohio claiming he’s going to roll up his sleeves, and take the fight to China…. Ohio, you can’t stand up to China when all you’ve done is send them our jobs.” In reference to China’s trade subsidies, President Obama has asserted that “It’s not right, it’s against the rules and we will not let it stand.” Such throwaway campaign lines are part and parcel of U.S. presidential politicking, but China deserves to be treated seriously in the Presidential race for all the reasons everyone already knows, including: it manipulates its currency; its companies routinely violate intellectual property rights and engage in cyber-espionage; its regional security rhetoric and military activity have become much more assertive in the past few years; and its political practices—both at home and abroad—challenge U.S. notions of good governance and often undermine U.S. efforts to address crises in global hot spots. While China’s policies may not be that different or even as detrimental as those of many other countries, the size of its population, economy, and military greatly amplify its impact. Thoughtful discourse should not be difficult. President Obama has a record on China that he can defend and Governor Romney can challenge. There are also emerging issues that have yet to be tackled and desperately need to be addressed.  Here are my suggestions for four China-related issues the candidates might debate: 1)     Is the U.S. pivot toward Asia the right strategy? This is one of President Obama’s hallmark initiatives, and Governor Romney asserts it has been oversold and under-resourced. 2)     Assuming China is not going to wake up tomorrow and decide it is important to play by all the rules of international finance and trade, what should the United States do? President Obama has focused much of his energy on the WTO and multilateral engagement and enforcement mechanisms; in contrast, Governor Romney has advanced a set of unilateral and punitive actions. 3)     How will the United States manage the wave of Chinese investment activity that may soon be washing up on its shores? What is the potential upside, as well as downside risk? I haven’t heard anything from either candidate on this front. 4)     Are we making China into an enemy we don’t need and they don’t want to be, and if so, how do we avoid this trap? If the candidates themselves can’t get China right, the Chinese media are apparently ready to step in to help. The Global Times, for one, has offered up its services: “As US elections often involve China-bashing, China cannot remain out of the affair. China should play a role in the elections and correct the attitude of both candidates and the American public toward China.” My guess is that on this particular China policy, both candidates would have the same reaction: Thanks, but no thanks.