Sen. Barack Obama has yet to take a clear position on whether or not President Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics to protest China’s poor human rights record. I think this is a problem for the candidate that is running on foreign policy wisdom. At this point both Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown are not going to be there. First Read covers Obama’s answer on this topic at a town hall session today. Obama argued:

“And in our policy towards China, we have not been consistent enough and tough enough and pushing them to deal with Tibet properly, but also their continued support of Sudan, a country that has been engaging in genocide against the peoples of Darfur…We have to take a stronger stance. We have to take a stronger stance and it’s got to be more consistent over time. Let me make one last point about China: It’s very hard to tell your banker that he’s wrong, all right? And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we’re borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It give us less leverage to talk about human rights, it also is giving us less leverage to talk about the uneven trading relationship that we have with China.”

This is a bit contradictory.

On one hand he critiques America’s current standing (“we have not been consistent enough and tough enough”) as problematic. But he avoided signing-on to the boycott of the opening ceremonies or outlining a clearer plan for constructive engagement. If you visit the foreign policy section of his website, this is all you’ll be able to unearth about China:

“Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.”

(emphasis mine)

One of the reasons I am an Obama supporter is his superior foreign policy judgment. He’s been right on Iraq from the start, vindicated on Pakistan, and provided the best direction on Iran and Cuba. So why the holdup on China? It’s been a few days since the issue of our relationship with China got raised. As the candidate running on a track-record of good judgment, this moment requires Obama make a call or at least outline his pro-active vision instead of just a offer a diagnosis of the problem.

In the past, Obama has sort of done this. In this debate answer, he explained his strategic approach to China:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, what are America’s three most important allies around the world?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think the European Union as a whole has been a long-standing ally of ours. And through NATO, we’ve been able to make some significant progress. Afghanistan, in particular, is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there. Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we’ve rooted out terrorism in that region. We also have to look east, because increasingly the center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia. Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years, but obviously China is rising, and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region. That’s something I’d like to do as president.

But the present moment requires even more insight and details into his approach. I personally think that the symbolism of Pres. Bush skipping the opening at the request of Sen. Clinton is not efficient statecraft and I argued as much in an earlier post after Sen. Clinton issued her call. I suspect that Obama’s practical, realist inclinations also deem this symbolic act as tactically correct but strategically poor given our past inconsistencies and lack of leverage. Whatever his approach, his candidacy will be enhanced by his exposition of his thinking-out a solution. I believe his public explanations of his thought-process is what has captivated and persuaded many activists (like moi) and even some voters in the past.