HIllary Clinton is running for president in 2016. How would U.S. policy
toward Asia look under her leadership?
Sunday, Hillary Clinton formally entered
the 2016 presidential race with a video announcement and social
media push. She’ll hit the campaign trail immediately. Traditionally, foreign
policy plays a very small part in determining the outcome of American
elections. But, ahead of President Obama’s 2015 state of the union address, the
Pew Research Center
released a poll saying that the share of Americans who rated foreign policy as
more important than domestic policy for the president to cover in the speech,
doubled from the previous year. Overall, however, that still only amounted to
20 percent of those polled and isn’t necessarily an indication of how Americans
will make their decision on the country’s 45th president. Another poll from Pew,
indicates that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to
issues of terrorism and foreign policy.
Hillary
Clinton, with her term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, is nonetheless
well-positioned to claim the most experience when it comes to foreign policy
and especially when it comes to Asia. Michael Fullilove,
executive director of the Lowy Institute, said that “the rebalance is Clinton’s
signal foreign policy achievement as Secretary of State, she’s invested in it.”
In a
massive 2011 piece in Foreign Policy, Clinton outlined what was
initially known as the American “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific (later rebranded as
a “rebalance”). She’d used the term before and in fact she and the president
had made multiple trips to the region in the previous two years, engaging in
what she called in 2010 “‘forward-deployed’ diplomacy.”
The title of the FP article–America’s Pacific Century–succinctly articulated
the administrations larger strategic vision. The Asia-Pacific, Clinton wrote,
“has become a key driver of global politics” and “U.S. commitment there is
essential.”
Clinton
categorized the rebalance strategy as having three elements:
We are
practicing robust regional engagement in the Asia-Pacific, we are working to
build trust between China and the United States, and we are committed to
expanding economic, political, and security cooperation wherever possible.
In the
same speech, a lecture on U.S.-China Relations in the 21st century delivered in
2011, Clinton addressed the proverbial elephant in the room directly:
Some in
the region and some here at home see China’s growth as a threat that will lead
either to Cold War-style conflict or American decline. And some in China worry
that the United States is bent on containing China’s rise and constraining
China’s growth, a view that is stoking a new streak of assertive Chinese
nationalism. We reject those views.
In that
speech Clinton admitted that the U.S. and China “are two complex nations with
very different histories, with profoundly different political systems and
outlooks” and while this does not necessarily preclude cooperation, cooperation
also does not preclude competition.
Although
a considerable proportion of Americans don’t seem to be completely aware of
territorial disputes between China and its neighbors (39 percent said they
heard “nothing at all” about such disputes, according to a recent survey),
Clinton is definitely aware of them, and other Asian flashpoints. This is where
the first and third elements of the original pivot policy come into
play–regional engagement and cooperation to tackle global challenges in the
economic, political and security spheres.
In 2010
remarks, made after meeting with ASEAN ministers for two days, Clinton outlined
the American perspective on the South China Sea issue, saying that “the United States,
like every nation, has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open
access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the
South China Sea.” She went on to say:
The
United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for
resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion. We oppose the use
or threat of force by any claimant. While the United States does not take sides
on the competing territorial disputes over land features in the South China
Sea, we believe claimants should pursue their territorial claims and
accompanying rights to maritime space in accordance with the UN convention on
the law of the sea. Consistent with customary international law, legitimate
claims to maritime space in the South China Sea should be derived solely from
legitimate claims to land features.
In early
2009, Clinton made her first trip abroad as secretary of state. In that first
trip, during her visit to Indonesia, Clinton met with ASEAN
Secretary-General Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, who commented that her “visit shows the
seriousness of the United States to end its diplomatic absenteeism in the
region.”
In her
own remarks, Clinton acknowledged the skepticism in the region regarding
American commitment.
And we
have listened to our friends in ASEAN. They have expressed their concern that
the United States has not been fully engaged in the region at a time when we
should be expanding our partnerships to address the wide range of challenges
confronting us, from regional and global security, to the economic crisis, to
climate change and human rights.
That
skepticism has persisted among the United States’ partners in the region, just
as China continues to harbor the suspicion that “rebalance” is merely
“containment” by another name. The next U.S. president will have to decide what
to do with the Asia rebalance policy which has been left in mid-step, pushed
aside in U.S. domestic headlines by ISIS, Iran, and Russia. The growing
importance of Asia in the next century is not disputed, what the next U.S.
president should do about it certainly is. Whether Clinton would continue to
pursue the Asia rebalance strategy she helped build as secretary is a question
worth asking as she tries her hand at winning the White House in 2016. By Catherine
Putz
No comments:
Post a Comment