EDITORIAL: Is "Engaging" China Really a Choice?

There has been much made of President Obama's "engaging" China's President Hu Jintao, who visited the U.S. this week. "What has he gotten for this?" many pundits wondered aloud. It is this sort of hubris, the thinking that we can ignore world superpowers who don't toe the line, that will be dangerous to our nation in years to come.

The China-America relationship will, barring some quick and unforeseen decline on either side, dominate world politics and financial markets for the rest of this century. China is relevant to our country in many ways – as the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, our largest trading partner, and a major player on the world financial stage.

President Hu and President Bush at the White House in 2006

China is also an emerging military force that is growing so rapidly that they will very soon become our greatest rival – though they remain well behind us to date. Last week, they tested their first stealth fighter jet and have been making significant progress in their Naval capacity. While they could not challenge the U.S., their dominance in the Pacific region changes the landscape in terms of our influence – as demonstrated in the recent North Korea/South Korea missile incident.

It is plausible – and not preferrable – that the U.S. and China could ultimately engage in "proxy wars," much in the way that we did with the Soviet Union throughout the cold war. The Soviets were never a terribly dangerous threat to us head on, however, their ability to impact U.S. affairs through strategic global alliances and the support of certain movements that may have been counter-aligned with our interests, made them a very important and ever present factor in American affairs.

Let's face it, diplomacy is always preferred to combat, but especially with a formidable (or soon to be so) enemy. Establishing a mutually beneficial framework with China is preferable to the cold shoulder, if not now, certainly when a crisis emerges later. China will also be an important partner as we tackle major challenges like global warming, or if and when we are faced with the sort of global pandemic that would require the cooperation and shared resources of such super powers. Simply put, we cannot afford to turn our back on China – especially when we don't have to.

Nixon went to China, Bush sat down with Putin and Ronald Reagen famously engaged Mikhail Gorbachev (who himself broke tradition to engage China) because that is what world leaders do. Sitting down with only your friends accomplishes little, especially since in terms of world politics, your friends are usually in your camp when you're the big dog on the block because they are no threat.

If we stubbornly pretend that countries like China and India are growing in all matters of strength and that we can ill afford to act like we are the only show in town, a country that can afford to ignore other superpowers, it will be to our own detriment. Presidents are diplomats of the highest order. One of President Obama's strengths is his ability to sit down at the table from a position of strength without inspiring animosity through condescension.

He should be sitting down with every world leader of any country that we have a major stake in. No other course of action, especially warfare, can possibly be just when civil discourse was never attempted first. The U.S. must seek to come sit at the table, rather than wait until it's too late and turn it on its side.