Well, at least this is a bureaucratic battle worth having

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Friday, January 30, 2009 - 10:20 PM Share

Noam Scheiber reports on a battle a-brewin' within the Obama administration:

Foggy Bottom has spent the last month hinting at its designs on economic policy, which would presumably come at the expense of Treasury. The latest indications are that Hillary's first target may be the U.S.-China relationship, which Geithner's immediate predecessor, Hank Paulson, spearheaded in the Bush administration. Publicly, Treasury officials welcome a more active role for State. Privately, they say parting with Paulson's brainchild, the Strategic Economic Dialogue, is highly unlikely, noting Geithner's longstanding experience in the region. Let the border skirmishes begin.

On the one hand, this kind of turf war clearly needs to get settled in short order.

On the other hand, in a perverse kind of way, it's not a bad battle to have. Despite all the foreign policy heavyweights in the administration, China is kind of like the orphaned child looking through the window. Since Obama took office, I think it's safe to say that they haven't been feeling the love.

I normally abhor a big bureaucratic battle royale, but in this case it might be good for the Chinese to know that they're wanted.

Question to readers (and Laura Rozen and Megan Carpentier): who wins? Given the status quo -- in which Treasury controls the SED -- my money is on Geithner.

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS, CHINA

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BILL HARSHAW

2:37 PM ET

January 31, 2009

Clinton Travel Plans

Post this morning suggests Clinton's first trip will be to Japan and China--not Europe.

BALTIMORON

6:29 AM ET

February 1, 2009

Are you endorsing Scheiber on

Are you endorsing Scheiber on Geithner?

I see two arguments in that backhand attack on Lawrence Summers. Firstly, that Geitner should go to Beijing because he grew up in India and Thailand. Really, it's hard to find a more diverse continent than Asia. Just Japan and PRC are two different planets. Secondly, that Geithner should take his turf battle with Summers out on Foggy Bottom? What kind of argument is that? If Geithner can't stand up to Summers, then maybe the president should have appointed an adult to Treasury. Obama has already backed up Geithner by calling Beijing to apologize for his currency manipulation blunder.

Clinton as the country's top diplomat going to East Asia sends a far stronger signal: the US takes East Asia seriously and wants to figure out the world's fastest-growing region. Treasury can do its SED, too, but after Geithner takes off the training wheels and stops getting Scheiber to bitch for him!

Boy wonder needs to do his job first, and then he can play with the adults!

A DUOIST

10:24 AM ET

February 2, 2009

And just what macro-economic

And just what macro-economic credentials does the State Department bring to their intervention in US-China economic relationships? What do they know about China's $2 trillion in reserves--the largest fortune ever assembled--or China's recent switch from RMB appreciation to depreciation? Is there even one semi-brilliant economist at the State Department who could pass the vetting process of the Senate? What in the world is State going to say, representing the world's largest debtor nation, to China, the world's largest lendng nation? Our State Department interfering in economics can't help but make one think of the great book from last mid-century: "The Ugly American."

How is this not an echo of Mrs. Clinton's uninvited thrust into US health care policy when she was First Lady?

BALTIMORON

11:42 PM ET

February 2, 2009

Let Each Department Do Its Job

And, just what diplomatic clout does Treasury bring? I didn't argue that State should take Treasury's portfolio. I argued that State should lead on East Asian affairs in their totality, from security, energy, and the environment to the broadest aspects of the economy and G20. Let Treasury get deep in the weeds with the SED. Each of the four major departments - State, Defense, Treasury, Justice - have their own bailiwick, and privileging one, as the Bush administration did with Defense, only weakens the presidency. Your simplistic characterization of the current crisis at least proves you shouldn't make a case for a proper representative.