The dust has settled down sooner than one would have thought on the US President Barack Obama's four-nation Asia tour, and the inevitable stocktaking is well under way. Obama earmarked an entire week for the trip that took him to Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines.
Without doubt, it was a major statement of the Obama administration's strategic foreign-policy reorientation. But that statement is already lending itself to varying interpretations because of endemic geopolitical realities and priorities in the
contemporary world situation. The sharpest criticism is, interestingly, appearing in the US itself.
The salience of the tour came to be that China didn't figure in Obama's itinerary and this is at a time when Beijing has locked horns with America's key allies in the East and South Asia Seas. Clearly, China was the elephant in the room.
As the New York Times noted, "The balancing act has become even trickier because of the sharp deterioration of America's relations with Russia. Perhaps no country has more to gain from a new Cold War than China, which has historically benefited from periods of conflict between the United States and Russia."
To be sure, Obama spoke to different audiences simultaneously. On the one hand, he tried to reassure US allies of its commitment to remain supportive at a juncture when there are fears that China could exploit the prevailing international climate to become even more assertive or even belligerent on the Pacific Rim.
On the other hand, while vowing to defend the allies, the US would expect them to show restraint themselves and even insisted that Washington sought solid relations with Beijing and hoped to enlist the latter to find solutions to various issues.
Furthermore, while underscoring at all available opportunities during his tour that "we're not interested in containing China", Obama also insisted that the US is interested in China "being a responsible and powerful proponent of the rule of law" and expected that in such a role China "has to abide by certain norms."
Getting the balance right
The jury is still out whether Obama got the balance right in reaffirming America's support for allies while carefully calibrating his statements to avoid giving an impression that the US sought to isolate or antagonize China. To quote New York Times, "So far, China's reaction has been muted … China, some analysts said, is content not to pick a fight with the United States at a time when events, in Asia and elsewhere, seem to be going in its favor."
Broadly, there are two perspectives possible on Obama's Asian tour, which are not necessarily contrarian. One, this was a catch-up appearance by Obama following his failure to show up last October at the string of ASEAN-related summit meetings, especially the East Asia Summit and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.
Obama failed to attend the summits due entirely to America's domestic preoccupations over the budgetary crisis on Capitol Hill and the government shutdown.
But Obama's absence from the ASEAN-related conclaves was perceived in geopolitical terms in the Asia-Pacific, especially the Southeast Asian region, as a telltale sign of the wavering commitment in Washington to the "pivot" to Asia, which in turn spawned gnawing worries in the minds of US allies. At the ASEAN-Japan summit in Tokyo early this year, the Southeast Asian countries refused to be persuaded by the Japanese entreaties to take an open stance against China.
Indeed, the contrast couldn't have been sharper: while the government shutdown in Washington presented a picture (rightly or wrongly) of a superpower in inexorable decline and cast the US political system itself in poor light as increasingly dysfunctional, China promptly capitalized on Obama's absence by the grand unveiling of its strategy to reopen the so-called Maritime Silk Road (that has a history of over two thousand years), devolving upon a promise of massive investments by Beijing in the economies of its ASEAN partners, which America would be hard-pressed to match in sheer financial terms.
A second perspective on Obama's Asian tour builds on the above perception that the "pivot" already has lost its shine and a "reset" is in order. The heart of the matter is that the world has changed unrecognizably in the past couple of years since the former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton unveiled the "pivot" strategy in her famous article in the Foreign Affairs magazine. In retrospect, the pivot turned out to be Clinton's swan song, so to speak.
Strong on rhetoric
Clinton is no more in the driving seat when it comes to American foreign policy, and in the highly personalized business of policymaking in Washington, her absence through the past one year appears to have made all the difference to the pivot strategy. Furthermore, the original architects of the pivot strategy - apart from Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell - they have all left the administration.
Having said that, there was always a question mark as to how far Obama himself genuinely felt passionate about the strategy as such or, more importantly, as regards its main thrust on "militarization", although he has been consistent in his emphasis on the crucial importance of the US tapping into the phenomenal growth of the Asian region in the world economy.
Without doubt, there is growing evidence that in his first term as president, Obama didn't really subscribe to many of the things that Clinton or Gates espoused. Indeed, he had misgivings about the "surge" in Afghanistan. Again, he chose a path ultimately on Syria that wouldn't have found favor with Clinton. (In fact, although she had left office, she still advocated US military intervention in Syria.)
Most certainly, Clinton's other pet project, the "new Silk Road" in Central Asia, has already become distant memory. There is even talk that Obama may be willing to consider a presence of fewer than 5,000 troops in Afghanistan. The opening to Iran has been almost exclusively an Obama initiative.
The point is, how far has Obama been really committed to the pivot strategy? There are no clear answers here, although conceptually and geopolitically, the strategy serves the US's long-term interests. There cannot be two opinions that Asia is a crucial arena for the US' global strategies, being a region which accounts for 40% of the world's population and a third of the world's global Gross Domestic Product (in purchasing-power parity terms).
However, as it happened, excessive attention came to be placed on the "militarization" of the pivot strategy, which instead of deterring China, held out the danger of precipitating a confrontation with China at some point. On the other hand, doubts have arisen over the long-term execution and sustainability of the strategy, given the grim reality that a fiscally-stretched US may be hard-pressed to locate the budgetary means to fund the pivot.
US allies in Asia already complain that the pivot is strong on rhetoric but lacking in substance. Indeed, the US deployments so far have been mostly symbolic. Meanwhile, the American commanders during recent Congressional hearings have been openly acknowledging that the US armed forces are being starved of resources.
For instance, in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington last month, Commander of the US Pacific Command Admiral Samuel J Locklear said:
Budget uncertainty has hampered our readiness and
complicated our ability to execute long-term plans and to efficiently use our
resources … Due to continued budget uncertainty, we were forced to make
difficult short-term choices and scale back or cancel valuable training
exercises, negatively impacting both the multinational training needed to
strengthen our alliances and build partner capacities as well as some
unilateral training necessary to maintain our high end war-fighting
capabilities. These budgetary uncertainties are also driving force management
uncertainty. Current global force management resourcing, and the continuing
demand to source deployed and ready forces from USPACOM AOR to other regions of
the world, creates periods in USPACOM where we lack adequate intelligence and
reconnaissance capabilities as well as key response forces, ultimately degrading
our deterrence posture and our ability to respond.
While referring to the pivot strategy in Asia,
General John Paxton, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps posed a key
question during a recent speech, "Do we [US] have enough people and enough
ships to do it?" He lamented, "We are on our way … to a less than a
300-ship navy. We are on our way to a 175,000 man Marine Corps."
According to General Paxton, the Marine Corps needs 54 amphibious ships to do its job, while current plans call for only 38, and that too is likely to shrink to 33. He asked, "With the dollars we have, and the ships we have and the aircraft we have, and the people we have, are we going to be ready to do what we need to do?"
Nuanced demeanor
In political terms, there is lingering uneasiness among US allies about the depth of Washington's resolve, notwithstanding remarks by the US President Barack Obama's hosts during his Asia tour that they were reassured by his words. To quote Narushige Michishita, a Japanese expert on security policy:
According to General Paxton, the Marine Corps needs 54 amphibious ships to do its job, while current plans call for only 38, and that too is likely to shrink to 33. He asked, "With the dollars we have, and the ships we have and the aircraft we have, and the people we have, are we going to be ready to do what we need to do?"
Nuanced demeanor
In political terms, there is lingering uneasiness among US allies about the depth of Washington's resolve, notwithstanding remarks by the US President Barack Obama's hosts during his Asia tour that they were reassured by his words. To quote Narushige Michishita, a Japanese expert on security policy:
The wording of his [Obama's] statements was OK, but
if you look at his demeanor and tone, he was very nuanced and trying not to get
entangled in disputes with China.
This "nuanced" approach suits China fine,
because it always took pains to maintain that its interests in the East China
Sea are unrelated to those in the South China Sea, and vice versa. While not a
mere naval strategy, China's two-fold objective is to make good its territorial
claims while at the same time ensuring unimpeded strategic breakout beyond the
constraints of the so-called First Island Chain that could be deemed to run
from Northeast China through Japan and the Ryukyu archipelago, the Philippines
and down to the Strait of Malacca.
Meanwhile, the Southeast Asian capitals are staying on the sidelines when it comes to tensions in the East China Sea, and they prefer to adopt a less direct and non-confrontational approach to China and keep tensions in check in the South China Sea.
The South Asian capitals have by and large kept a studied silence over the tensions between China and Japan. Simply put, they aren't interested in pushing the envelope in the East China Sea and would opt for a differentiated approach that serves the interests of maritime relations in the South China Sea.
Obama offered a clue to his own thinking on the 'pivot' strategy at his press conference in Manila at the fag-end of his Asia tour when he gave "the general takeaway" from his regional tour:
Meanwhile, the Southeast Asian capitals are staying on the sidelines when it comes to tensions in the East China Sea, and they prefer to adopt a less direct and non-confrontational approach to China and keep tensions in check in the South China Sea.
The South Asian capitals have by and large kept a studied silence over the tensions between China and Japan. Simply put, they aren't interested in pushing the envelope in the East China Sea and would opt for a differentiated approach that serves the interests of maritime relations in the South China Sea.
Obama offered a clue to his own thinking on the 'pivot' strategy at his press conference in Manila at the fag-end of his Asia tour when he gave "the general takeaway" from his regional tour:
Our alliances in the Asia Pacific have never been
stronger. Our relationship with ASEAN countries in Southeast Asia has never
been stronger. I don't think that's subject to dispute.
But what
followed was something quite extraordinary - the core tenets of what can
probably be called by now the "Obama Doctrine". Obama held forth at
some length to dispel the criticism in America regarding his foreign policy.
Its application to the pivot strategy has stunning implications, and the
important thing is that Obama articulated these thoughts during his Asia tour.
The bottom line, he said, is that he is being criticized at the failure to use military force, which is uncharitable because military force is something that needs to be deployed only as a last resort and it ought to be deployed wisely. Besides, he said that the American people have no interest in policies that "go headlong into a bunch of military adventures" that would have no bearing on the US's core security interests.
Obama elaborated, "[T]here are disasters and difficulties and challenges around the world, and not all of those are going to be immediately solvable by us [US]." Therefore, the prudent thing to do is to "look at what is it that is going to advance our security interests over the long term, to keep out military in reserve for where we absolutely need it." Obama went on to stress that military force is only one of "the tools we've got in the toolkit" and if there are occasions where "targeted, clear actions can be taken that would make a difference, then we should take them." But otherwise, it is the diplomatic track that ought to be given priority.
Obama claimed that this foreign-policy approach is paying off and "it is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are stronger, and in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the peoples here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest."
He concluded that the focus, therefore, ought to be on "steadily" advancing the interests of the American people and the US's partnerships. The stress was on an incremental approach.
Ironclad pledge
It is extraordinary that Obama spoke in this vein at the concluding lap of his Asia tour, which was being widely looked to locally for signs of a robust confirmation that America-led bilateral security relationships remained the backbone of peace and stability in the region and that was what the pivot primarily aimed at.
In a nutshell, Obama underscored that he eschewed military adventures abroad in countries engaged in messy conflicts, and wanted instead to focus more on diplomacy and trade.
This is perfectly understandable because Obama hopes to spend more time on domestic issues at a time when the economy is barely recovering and when social disparities are growing. Call it one of the vagaries of history, or the decline of a superpower, but Obama hopes to pay attention only on foreign-policy issues that affect the US's core interests.
Indeed, Syria has been a glaring example of how the "Obama Doctrine" is at work. We know that he nixed the proposal for arming and organizing vetted moderate Syrian opposition commanders - something that was collectively proposed by the then secretaries of state and defense Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and the then CIA Director David Petraeus. Later, he chose the path to work with Russia on eliminating Syria's chemical weapons rather than embark on a military strike.
Of course, the detractors are galore - be it on Obama's approach toward the Syrian conflict or on relations with Russia and the 'pivot' strategy in the Asia-Pacific. As an American columnist Trudy Rubin wrote:
The bottom line, he said, is that he is being criticized at the failure to use military force, which is uncharitable because military force is something that needs to be deployed only as a last resort and it ought to be deployed wisely. Besides, he said that the American people have no interest in policies that "go headlong into a bunch of military adventures" that would have no bearing on the US's core security interests.
Obama elaborated, "[T]here are disasters and difficulties and challenges around the world, and not all of those are going to be immediately solvable by us [US]." Therefore, the prudent thing to do is to "look at what is it that is going to advance our security interests over the long term, to keep out military in reserve for where we absolutely need it." Obama went on to stress that military force is only one of "the tools we've got in the toolkit" and if there are occasions where "targeted, clear actions can be taken that would make a difference, then we should take them." But otherwise, it is the diplomatic track that ought to be given priority.
Obama claimed that this foreign-policy approach is paying off and "it is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are stronger, and in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the peoples here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest."
He concluded that the focus, therefore, ought to be on "steadily" advancing the interests of the American people and the US's partnerships. The stress was on an incremental approach.
Ironclad pledge
It is extraordinary that Obama spoke in this vein at the concluding lap of his Asia tour, which was being widely looked to locally for signs of a robust confirmation that America-led bilateral security relationships remained the backbone of peace and stability in the region and that was what the pivot primarily aimed at.
In a nutshell, Obama underscored that he eschewed military adventures abroad in countries engaged in messy conflicts, and wanted instead to focus more on diplomacy and trade.
This is perfectly understandable because Obama hopes to spend more time on domestic issues at a time when the economy is barely recovering and when social disparities are growing. Call it one of the vagaries of history, or the decline of a superpower, but Obama hopes to pay attention only on foreign-policy issues that affect the US's core interests.
Indeed, Syria has been a glaring example of how the "Obama Doctrine" is at work. We know that he nixed the proposal for arming and organizing vetted moderate Syrian opposition commanders - something that was collectively proposed by the then secretaries of state and defense Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and the then CIA Director David Petraeus. Later, he chose the path to work with Russia on eliminating Syria's chemical weapons rather than embark on a military strike.
Of course, the detractors are galore - be it on Obama's approach toward the Syrian conflict or on relations with Russia and the 'pivot' strategy in the Asia-Pacific. As an American columnist Trudy Rubin wrote:
[S]ending the Ukrainian army MREs - yes, more of
them - just makes us look foolish. People are asking whether, as was the case
with those sent to the Syrian rebels, their sell-by date is about to expire …
In Manila, Obama seemed not to recognize that China is watching. So are
America's Asian allies, who have to judge whether Washington will support them
if Beijing makes aggressive moves… That kind of approach will convince Moscow,
Beijing and Tehran that Obama can be ignored, which will create new
foreign-policy headaches. It signals a president who isn't really interested in
the foreign-policy game.
Unsurprisingly,
an opinion piece in the Philippine Daily Inquirer framed the big question as
the US president headed home: "Is Obama pledge really ironclad?"
The fact of the matter is that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed during Obama's visit to Manila defines a new mode of security relationship between the two countries and revises the framework of the expanded presence of US forces in Philippine military bases. It is perceived by many as a counterweight to Chinese territorial expansion in the South China Sea as well as to meet the Chinese challenge to the US hegemony in Asia-Pacific.
The EDCA emanates out of a US commitment to defend the Philippines, which, in Obama's words, is "ironclad … because allies never stand alone." But how much ironclad is Obama's commitment? In a symbolic speech to Filipino and American soldiers at Fort Bonifacio last Tuesday before his departure after the overnight stop in Manila, Obama quoted from the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and said the two countries had pledged to defend each other "against external attacks, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone." He added that the "deepening of our alliance is part of our broader vision for the Asia-Pacific."
On the other hand, Obama didn't give a categorical answer when asked after the signing of the EDCA whether the 1951 MDT would apply in case the Philippines' territorial dispute with China escalated into an armed confrontation. He sidestepped neatly and said China had an "interest in abiding by international law" and that "larger countries have a greater responsibility" doing so. Obama added, "Our goal is not counter China. Our goal is not to contain China."
Throttled in the cradle
The big question will be how China perceives the reset of the pivot strategy by Obama. While Beijing is intensely watching Obama's policies on Ukraine, given its far-reaching impact on the world order, it will be wrong to rush to judgment that China views all of American policy through the prism of the most difficult crisis of the day, rather than taking the longer view.
The coming weeks and months will show whether Beijing would choose to exploit the recrudescence of old European enmities (and America's entanglement in them, being a congenital Atlantic power), to lean hard on China's neighbors in the region.
So far, the official Chinese reaction by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has narrowed down to a perfunctory objection to Obama's assertion that the US-Japan alliance treaty also covers Senkaku.
As for the 10-year Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the US and the Philippines, a commentary by Xinhua over the weekend analyzed that "the next few days could actually derail the implementation of the agreement", given the groundswell of opposition in the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives that their country "would not be getting much in return" for "virtually allowing the whole country to be an American military base."
The paradox cannot be lost on Beijing that although Obama is as "Pacific" an American president as could be in a long while, his presidency is still tied by umbilical cords to trans-Atlantic concerns and constrained by its involvement in the never-ending exigencies in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere.
In a sense, therefore, it is possible to say that Obama's tour is a valiant attempt to revert US Asia-Pacific policy to a "pre-pivot" mode - which was never going to be easy, because Obama also has to cope with the rise in regional tensions following the unveiling of the pivot two years ago. The latest standoff between China and Vietnam becomes a test case.
Without doubt, the fizz has gone out of the US' pivot strategy, as unveiled by the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Arguably, Beijing throttled the pivot in the cradle in 2012 on the Scarborough Shoal. The 'pivot' never really regained its verve after the US' failure to militarily intervene.
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe subsequently has tried his best to inject fresh life into the "pivot", but then came the Chinese move to create the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). China promulgated the ADIZ but then, curiously, it wouldn't enforce it. Suffice to say, Beijing has been reactive. Interestingly, Obama's Air Force One flew through the ADIZ after filing a routine fight plan.
The core issue comes down to the US' willingness to engage in a conflict with China, which could well happen if the US is bent on perpetuating its dominance of the region. But Obama understands the severe limitations in going to war with China. During his recent tour, he was throughout taking a position of strategic ambiguity when directly confronted with that question.
It is a moot point why Obama wouldn't give a blanket, all-weather commitment to protect Japan or the Philippines when he is prepared to do that in the case of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. But then, the US, including the Obama administration, has never made any bones about the fact that the NATO is of pivotal importance to America's global strategies. US Secretary of State John Kerry made a pretty strong valedictorian speech at the 50th Munich Security Conference in February to emphasize the point.
Ironically, the US is better placed today in Asia than it has been in the recent decade or two and why should it upset the apple cart? China's growth is integral to the recovery and rejuvenation of the American economy. China is potentially the principal source of investment in the American economy. China's proposed reforms in the direction of opening up the financial system and domestic market are hugely attractive for the American business. China's cooperation is vital to contain the North Korea problem; to conclude an Iran nuclear deal; to stabilize Afghanistan, and so on.
Again, India has transformed as a close friend of the US and there is huge untapped reserve in the US-Indian partnership. Malaysia has turned the corner and has left behind the openly anti-American decades in its foreign policy. Myanmar is moving out of China's orbit and is manifestly eager to engage the US. Vietnam has buried the old enmities and looks at the US as a counterweight to rising China, which creates more space for Hanoi to negotiate with Beijing.
Most certainly, the specter of nuclearization of the Far East haunts Beijing as well as Washington. Again, the US too feels uneasy about the surge in Japanese militarism, as indeed China (and South Korea). As for Beijing, the burgeoning trade and investment relations with the US (and the West) are critical to the realization of China's Dream. Thus, on the whole, the US-China interdependency could become a factor of regional stability in Asia-Pacific.
Therefore, if a reasonably good case can also be made that the present Chinese leadership consists of cool, rational, thinking people, and, secondly, assuming that China has set its national priorities of reform in all earnestness, Obama is doing the right thing to initiate a reset of the pivot strategy.
Era of retrenchment
Obama is not going to compel China to accept US leadership, which he knows is an unachievable goal anyway. During the remainder of the Obama presidency, a US-China confrontation can be safely ruled out.
Besides, it isn't at all as if the US's Asian partners do not have a mind of their own and are blithely taking shelter under the American umbrella. Expanding the flourishing trade and investment ties with China is a top priority for each of them.
Obama failed to meet the principal objective of his Asian tour, which was to secure agreements on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a US-dominated free-trade area. The TPP is facing stiff resistance from Japan and Malaysia, in particular.
By the way, not once during his Asia tour, Obama touched on China's "assertiveness", an argument that originally provided the raison d'etre for the pivot strategy. Obama's emphasis was on China's adherence to international law and an overall conduct with a sense of responsibility, which is only expected of big powers.
The notion of China's assertiveness was a flawed one in the first instance. The plain truth is that according to World Bank estimate, China is expected to replace the US this year as the world's largest economy on a "purchasing power parity" (PPP) basis. It means that very soon, China will have a bigger economy than of the US for purposes of military spending.
In PPP terms, China's economy can be 60% bigger than the US economy in a decade. Clearly, the talk about assertiveness has lost relevance. Containment of China, or the pivot to Asia, is no longer an affordable proposition, either. As a Guardian columnist put it recently, "Are Americans prepared to give up social security or Medicare in order to maintain US military supremacy in Asia?"
The heart of the matter is that paradigm shifts often take time to sink in. There is a shift in the US foreign policies taking place under the Obama presidency, which is away from its 'militarization'. David Sanger of the New York Times recently wrote, "Obama acknowledges, at least in private conversations that he is managing an era of American retrenchment."
Equally, the Asian region is rapidly transforming and while it is in need of more regional security contributions from the US, it is the resident states that are going to make the ultimate difference in the medium and long term. The economic trends are making the pivot unsustainable and the need arises for the US to negotiate more with China, promoting peace and stability by working with its allies for a regional framework that can manage tensions in the contested neighborhood.
It involves sharing power with China, which may not be easy but is becoming unavoidable and it could even have a pleasant outcome, as the end result could be more social and economic progress and reduced risk of wars.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).Joyo News
The fact of the matter is that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed during Obama's visit to Manila defines a new mode of security relationship between the two countries and revises the framework of the expanded presence of US forces in Philippine military bases. It is perceived by many as a counterweight to Chinese territorial expansion in the South China Sea as well as to meet the Chinese challenge to the US hegemony in Asia-Pacific.
The EDCA emanates out of a US commitment to defend the Philippines, which, in Obama's words, is "ironclad … because allies never stand alone." But how much ironclad is Obama's commitment? In a symbolic speech to Filipino and American soldiers at Fort Bonifacio last Tuesday before his departure after the overnight stop in Manila, Obama quoted from the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and said the two countries had pledged to defend each other "against external attacks, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone." He added that the "deepening of our alliance is part of our broader vision for the Asia-Pacific."
On the other hand, Obama didn't give a categorical answer when asked after the signing of the EDCA whether the 1951 MDT would apply in case the Philippines' territorial dispute with China escalated into an armed confrontation. He sidestepped neatly and said China had an "interest in abiding by international law" and that "larger countries have a greater responsibility" doing so. Obama added, "Our goal is not counter China. Our goal is not to contain China."
Throttled in the cradle
The big question will be how China perceives the reset of the pivot strategy by Obama. While Beijing is intensely watching Obama's policies on Ukraine, given its far-reaching impact on the world order, it will be wrong to rush to judgment that China views all of American policy through the prism of the most difficult crisis of the day, rather than taking the longer view.
The coming weeks and months will show whether Beijing would choose to exploit the recrudescence of old European enmities (and America's entanglement in them, being a congenital Atlantic power), to lean hard on China's neighbors in the region.
So far, the official Chinese reaction by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has narrowed down to a perfunctory objection to Obama's assertion that the US-Japan alliance treaty also covers Senkaku.
As for the 10-year Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the US and the Philippines, a commentary by Xinhua over the weekend analyzed that "the next few days could actually derail the implementation of the agreement", given the groundswell of opposition in the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives that their country "would not be getting much in return" for "virtually allowing the whole country to be an American military base."
The paradox cannot be lost on Beijing that although Obama is as "Pacific" an American president as could be in a long while, his presidency is still tied by umbilical cords to trans-Atlantic concerns and constrained by its involvement in the never-ending exigencies in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere.
In a sense, therefore, it is possible to say that Obama's tour is a valiant attempt to revert US Asia-Pacific policy to a "pre-pivot" mode - which was never going to be easy, because Obama also has to cope with the rise in regional tensions following the unveiling of the pivot two years ago. The latest standoff between China and Vietnam becomes a test case.
Without doubt, the fizz has gone out of the US' pivot strategy, as unveiled by the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Arguably, Beijing throttled the pivot in the cradle in 2012 on the Scarborough Shoal. The 'pivot' never really regained its verve after the US' failure to militarily intervene.
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe subsequently has tried his best to inject fresh life into the "pivot", but then came the Chinese move to create the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). China promulgated the ADIZ but then, curiously, it wouldn't enforce it. Suffice to say, Beijing has been reactive. Interestingly, Obama's Air Force One flew through the ADIZ after filing a routine fight plan.
The core issue comes down to the US' willingness to engage in a conflict with China, which could well happen if the US is bent on perpetuating its dominance of the region. But Obama understands the severe limitations in going to war with China. During his recent tour, he was throughout taking a position of strategic ambiguity when directly confronted with that question.
It is a moot point why Obama wouldn't give a blanket, all-weather commitment to protect Japan or the Philippines when he is prepared to do that in the case of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. But then, the US, including the Obama administration, has never made any bones about the fact that the NATO is of pivotal importance to America's global strategies. US Secretary of State John Kerry made a pretty strong valedictorian speech at the 50th Munich Security Conference in February to emphasize the point.
Ironically, the US is better placed today in Asia than it has been in the recent decade or two and why should it upset the apple cart? China's growth is integral to the recovery and rejuvenation of the American economy. China is potentially the principal source of investment in the American economy. China's proposed reforms in the direction of opening up the financial system and domestic market are hugely attractive for the American business. China's cooperation is vital to contain the North Korea problem; to conclude an Iran nuclear deal; to stabilize Afghanistan, and so on.
Again, India has transformed as a close friend of the US and there is huge untapped reserve in the US-Indian partnership. Malaysia has turned the corner and has left behind the openly anti-American decades in its foreign policy. Myanmar is moving out of China's orbit and is manifestly eager to engage the US. Vietnam has buried the old enmities and looks at the US as a counterweight to rising China, which creates more space for Hanoi to negotiate with Beijing.
Most certainly, the specter of nuclearization of the Far East haunts Beijing as well as Washington. Again, the US too feels uneasy about the surge in Japanese militarism, as indeed China (and South Korea). As for Beijing, the burgeoning trade and investment relations with the US (and the West) are critical to the realization of China's Dream. Thus, on the whole, the US-China interdependency could become a factor of regional stability in Asia-Pacific.
Therefore, if a reasonably good case can also be made that the present Chinese leadership consists of cool, rational, thinking people, and, secondly, assuming that China has set its national priorities of reform in all earnestness, Obama is doing the right thing to initiate a reset of the pivot strategy.
Era of retrenchment
Obama is not going to compel China to accept US leadership, which he knows is an unachievable goal anyway. During the remainder of the Obama presidency, a US-China confrontation can be safely ruled out.
Besides, it isn't at all as if the US's Asian partners do not have a mind of their own and are blithely taking shelter under the American umbrella. Expanding the flourishing trade and investment ties with China is a top priority for each of them.
Obama failed to meet the principal objective of his Asian tour, which was to secure agreements on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a US-dominated free-trade area. The TPP is facing stiff resistance from Japan and Malaysia, in particular.
By the way, not once during his Asia tour, Obama touched on China's "assertiveness", an argument that originally provided the raison d'etre for the pivot strategy. Obama's emphasis was on China's adherence to international law and an overall conduct with a sense of responsibility, which is only expected of big powers.
The notion of China's assertiveness was a flawed one in the first instance. The plain truth is that according to World Bank estimate, China is expected to replace the US this year as the world's largest economy on a "purchasing power parity" (PPP) basis. It means that very soon, China will have a bigger economy than of the US for purposes of military spending.
In PPP terms, China's economy can be 60% bigger than the US economy in a decade. Clearly, the talk about assertiveness has lost relevance. Containment of China, or the pivot to Asia, is no longer an affordable proposition, either. As a Guardian columnist put it recently, "Are Americans prepared to give up social security or Medicare in order to maintain US military supremacy in Asia?"
The heart of the matter is that paradigm shifts often take time to sink in. There is a shift in the US foreign policies taking place under the Obama presidency, which is away from its 'militarization'. David Sanger of the New York Times recently wrote, "Obama acknowledges, at least in private conversations that he is managing an era of American retrenchment."
Equally, the Asian region is rapidly transforming and while it is in need of more regional security contributions from the US, it is the resident states that are going to make the ultimate difference in the medium and long term. The economic trends are making the pivot unsustainable and the need arises for the US to negotiate more with China, promoting peace and stability by working with its allies for a regional framework that can manage tensions in the contested neighborhood.
It involves sharing power with China, which may not be easy but is becoming unavoidable and it could even have a pleasant outcome, as the end result could be more social and economic progress and reduced risk of wars.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).Joyo News
No comments:
Post a Comment