CSIS Senior Adviser Ambassador Richard McCormack was interviewed by the Financial Times regarding President Bush's trip to Asia.

Financial Times (London, England) November 14, 2005 Monday London Edition 1 SECTION: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY & THE AMERICAS; Pg. 7 HEADLINE: Bush trip designed to demonstrate Asia is highon Washington's agenda Some say the administration has too little expertise on the region and has been paying it too little attention, writes Caroline Daniel BYLINE: By CAROLINE DANIEL BODY: As he flies to Japan today, President George W. Bush will be anticipating a moment of quiet reflection watching the leaves turning bright red at Kinkakuji, the Golden Pavilion in Kyoto, ancient capital of Japan. A week later his Asia tour will end with the sort of symbolism savoured by this White House: the first visit by a sitting president to Mongolia. Noting that vice-president Henry Wallace visited Mongolia in 1944, a senior administration official said: "The president and the first lady are really looking forward to it. It will be a little bit cold, but we are confident that the people of Mongolia will be very warm in welcoming him." Mongolia may be virgin territory for a president, but the other countries he is visiting Japan, South Korea and China - are almost equally so for Mr Bush. Indicating the level of priority the administration has given Asia, Ivo Daalder, senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution think-tank, cites two numbers: between 2001 and May 2005 Mr Bush spent 46 days in Europe and 13 in Asia. "I love Europe, but it is totally nuts to spent a lot of time thinking about Europe when the biggest geopolitical challenge is managing the rise of China and ensuring it becomes an effective player in the international system," says Mr Daalder " He points to a woeful lack of Asia experience among senior officials. "At a time when Asia looms larger, we have populated the State Department with Europeanists. Bob Zoellick (deputy secretary of state) is a generalist. . . . Nick Burns came from the Russia desk. Chris Hill is largely a Europeanist with the exception of his time as ambassador to South Korea. So good Europeantalent is running our Asia policy."

On the right, Gary Schmitt, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, warns: "The US hands are full. There are a lot of things that need attention, such as the Chinese military build-up. The administration is treading water." Vin Weber, a Republican strategist, says the void has been filled by business interests. "There is an entire community of people who are desperately engaged in US-China policy. It's just that they're in the private sector." That has led to policy being focused on economic priorities rather than human rights or political reform. The cumulative result, says one former official, is that the US has seemed tone-deaf about how its agenda is seen in Asia. "It is always the war on terror, Iraq and democracy, which is not at the top of their agenda. The trip to Mongolia is about the fact they sent troops to Iraq, but in Asia makes us look like Johnny One-notes. The secretary of state not going to the Asean summit was a very unfortunate decision. How can you complain that the Chinese are succeeding when we are not in the game ourselves?" Against this background, Mr Bush's trip is designed to send a clear message that the US is deeply engaged. Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, said that Mr Bush, in a speech in Kyoto, would "offer a positive vision of American engagement in Asia, Asia's own progress in this new century, and the importance of the president's freedom agenda for Asia's continued success." The substance of the trip will come from bilateral talks with leaders in Japan, South Korea and China, rather than from what one analyst described as Mr Bush's "drive-by shooting" at the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in South Korea. Of the bilaterals, China's is the most important. Officials are playing down hopes of "specific deliverables or specific outcomes". Instead, they want to shore up Mr Bush's image as a competent leader, candid about the issues. Mr Bush will call for further revaluation of the Chinese currency, highlight unsustainable trade imbalances, and tread softly on human rights concerns, but he will make more noise about less delicate problems such as intellectual property rights and avian flu. Yet there are still issues that could overshadow the talks. One is North Korea's nuclear ambitions. A second is how far Mr Bush will push China to become a "responsible stakeholder", using its economic leverage with countries such as Sudan, Iran and Zimbabwe. A September speech containing that phrase from Mr Zoellick - the administration's most important strategic thinker on China - is still intensely debated by Chinese officials, says Ambassador Richard McCormack, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "They are trying to see to what extent the speech represents administration thinking and asking 'Are Americans asking us to show restraint in Sudan and Iran as a price for greater US co-operation?' . . . If China protects Iran's nuclear programme, all the bees will fly out of the hive."

Debate over the issue is continuing, says Randall Schriver, former deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs and partner at Armitage International, a consultancy. "There has been discussion about the need to address strategic distrust. The White House has been working for some time on a joint statement about how each views the other. It believes China is emerging as a more influential power as long as they play by the rules, but (the White House is) having trouble on the right formula. The Chinese want something more positive about partnership and co-operation." That suggests that even foreign travel will offer little easy relief for the president. If the talks in China go badly, he may look forward even more to the warm welcome of the Mongolians next Monday. LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2005