The East Asian issue that does not exist

It is election season again in the United States and, thus, a bit of China-bashing is in vogue. But this year, it is more muted than usual, probably will have little effect on Sino-US relations in the long run, and ignores the most important issue concerning America's future in East Asia.

The question of how to deal with China has been a recurring political topic ever since the 'Who lost China?' debate of the 1950s, after the communists defeated the American-backed nationalists. It was especially prominent in 1992, when candidate Bill Clinton accused the first president George Bush of coddling the 'butchers of Beijing' who ordered the Tiananmen massacre.

China policy is much less emotional this time; Iraq is the dominant issue. But there are economic matters that can be blamed for some of America's slow job growth, creating yet more splits between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. These could cause new friction between Washington and Beijing if the campaign rhetoric eventually turns into specific action.

Already, there have been some minor moves. Bowing to political pressure, Mr Bush has allowed modest protection measures against such less-than-crucial Chinese products as bras and bedroom furniture. The key is that he seems willing to do so whenever Chinese imports can be blamed for job losses in constituencies he cares about.

More importantly, the White House is pressing China to revalue its currency sharply upwards to help cut the huge US trade deficit. For the record, it wants China to float the yuan and let market forces set its value, although both American and Chinese economists consider such a move unwise.

For Senator Kerry, this is not nearly enough. He accuses Mr Bush of being 'asleep at the wheel' and demands tougher action against Beijing's allegedly 'illegal currency manipulation' and unfair trade practices. He accuses Mr Bush of letting China violate its own obligations to let in more foreign products under World Trade Organisation rules, claiming this destroys the jobs of many workers. Precisely what he would do if elected is not clear, but the thrust is that he would be tougher and more demanding of China's leaders.

It is not clear what difference this will make when the next presidential term begins, no matter who wins. Although China has said that floating its currency is the long-term goal, it will not happen soon. And while Washington can tinker with import rules or seek Chinese trade restraint, the WTO system prohibits drastic, unilateral protectionism. Disputes are likely to continue for years, with modest compromises from time to time.

However, if China does repeg its currency relatively soon, as it might, much of the tension will dissipate. The Institute for International Economics, a Washington think-tank, estimates that a 20 per cent upward valuation could cut the US trade deficit by nearly 10 per cent, useful but not decisive - provided that other Asian nations strengthen their currencies along similar lines. If so, it will not be due to American politics; China has good economic reasons for upgrading the yuan.

Not much is said about Taiwan or human rights; Mr Bush and Senator Kerry seem willing to leave these touchy matters dormant. Even less is said about the longer term American presence. The Pentagon is withdrawing troops from South Korea, and otherwise disengaging from East Asia and elsewhere, the Middle East excluded. It is a little-noted but radical shift that largely ignores the diplomacy involved. This raises doubts about America's future reliability as a friend and ally, and speeds other Asian nations' efforts to reach political, diplomatic and economic deals with Beijing.

In brief, it is a strategic shift that raises fundamental questions about America's future world role. But as far as the campaign is concerned, the subject does not exist.

Robert Keatley, now based in Washington, was the Post's editor from 1999 to 2001