David Rothkopf makes an off-hand observation:

The problem with U.S. foreign policy is that more often than not the true Secretary of State of the United States is yesterday’s newspaper. That’s what determines what today’s policy will be. We achieve balance in complex relationships through cyclical inconsistency. Slam China on tires … tiptoe around them on Tibet … hope that gives you some room to make nice with Taiwan on arms transfers. Too often the countervailing measures are out of whack in terms of real importance to us or to them.

I think this can be true, but not in this particular case.  Obama’s decision to avoid a meeting with the Dalai Lama is not the direct result of the decision to ratchet up tariffs on tires, but rather part of a broader strategy of “constructive engagement” with China that, the Administration hopes, will encourage China to work with the U.S. on a range of issues (including not only the economy but also Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan).

In accusing the Administration of “inconsistency,” Rothkopf is pretty selective — how is this Administration acting any less consistently than President Bush, who met with the Dalai Lama and yet also gave the Chinese carte blanche to abuse human rights in Xinjiang?  In fact, I would argue that the outlier here is the tire tariff — every other Administration statement on China has sought to emphasize common interests.

I think the President was mistaken in not welcoming His Holiness to the White House.  I’ve been deeply disappointed by his Administration’s downgrading of human rights as a foreign policy priority.  But given the Obama Administration’s past statements on China and human rights, the decision was hardly inconsistent.

Related posts

• Thought of the Day: Priorities
• Systems Theory and U.S. Foreign Policy: Obama’s Trip to Europe
• Reality Bites: The New Realism of U.S. Foreign Policy
• Ping Pong is to U.S.-China Relations as. . .
• Obama, China, and the Media’s Noob Kremlinologists