June 2013 (published in the ThirdConcept, an international Journal of Ideas)
The American
announcement of ‘Asia Pivot’ in 2011, which was officially pronounced by then
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton by publishing an article in Foreign Policy Magazine
titled “America’s Pacific Century”, it has brought an alarming signals in the
circles of geo-strategists not only in Asia-Pacific region but also in Europe
as well.[i] United
States has been a stabilizing factor in both geo-political and geo-economic
terms in Europe in the post 2nd World War period and Europe has
always contemplated on US vis-à-vis its economic and political security is
concerned. The US has been financing the Europe to recover from the shakes of 2nd
world war in the form of Marshal Plan.[ii]
Notwithstanding, the given argument that Europe has much recovered in all
respects, but the fact cannot be denied that US had its own interests in
bringing the stability in Europe as it was then critical to US security paradigm,
keeping in view the ex Soviet Union factor and its influences in Europe.
The post world war
globe has dramatically changed since the end of Cold War and downfall of Soviet
Russia. The strategies of American policy makers are also showing visible signs
of new preferences and moods. The US has realized that Asia will be a
dominating factor in geo-politics and global economy in the twenty first
century, thereby, US has accordingly molded its foreign policy preferences.
“The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and
the United States will be right at the centre of the action” underlined by the
former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, thus made an alarming signal to
European States in the form of ‘Asia Pivot’ that US will invest its
diplomatic-cum-economic investment in Asia Pacific than elsewhere.[iii] It
is more significant as Asia Pacific promises future economic opportunities and
therefore, US will calculate its preferences between Europe and Asia.
Under the
Obama Administration, the United States has made a major shift towards Asia and
the Asia-Pacific region in general. “For the United States, this reflects a
broader shift. After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly,
in blood and treasure, the United States is turning its attention to the vast
potential of the Asia Pacific region,” Mr. Obama said during his trip to
Australia last year in November.[iv]
The new focus on this region reflects a fundamental truth that the United
States has been, and always will be, a Pacific nation, he said. “Asian
immigrants helped to build America, and millions of American families,
including my own, cherish our ties to this region. From the bombing of Darwin
to the liberation of Pacific islands, from the rice paddies of Southeast Asia
to a cold Korean Peninsula, generations of Americans have served here, and died
here so democracies could take root; so economic miracles could lift hundreds
of millions to prosperity,” Mr. Obama said. “Here, we see the future. As the
world’s fastest-growing region and home to more than half the global economy
the Asia Pacific is critical to achieving my highest priority, and that’s
creating jobs and opportunity for the American people,” the US President said.
With most of the world’s nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will
largely define whether the century ahead will be marked by conflict or
cooperation, needless suffering or human progress, Mr.Obama said during his
Australia trip. “As President, I have, therefore, made a deliberate and
strategic decision as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger
and long-term role in shaping this region and its future, by upholding core
principles and in close partnership with our allies and friends,” he said.[v]
The terms like “Asia Pivot,”
“Strategic Rebalance,” and “Asia Focus,” popularized by then U.S. Defence
Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Asia Pivot can be comprehended from two broad
perspectives. One the geo-economics of the pivot and two, the geo-politics of
the Asia pivot.
Geo-Economics
of the Pivot:
a.
Asia-Pacific
region is stretched from Indian subcontinent which also includes India Ocean to
the shores of Americas through the Pacific Ocean thus makes it most promising from
navigation, resources and trade point of view.
b.
This
region promises unprecedented prospects for investment, technology, trade and
ensuring freedom of navigation and sea lines.
c.
This
region is most populated region as it includes world’s two most populated
states of China and India thus promises abundant man/labour power.
d.
The
region of Asia-Pacific is more significant as the region is key engine of
global economy. The two big emerging economies of the world- China and India
are located in this region and they will be decisive in the future economic
diplomacy.[vi]
Geo-Political
significance:
a.
The
region of Asia-Pacific holds the key allies to the United States such as Japan,
South Korea Australia etc. thus make this region more attractive to US.
b.
The
region of Asia-Pacific holds not only rich land/marine resources but also key
sea routs and straits which are very critical from security point of view.
c.
Important
trade routes are going through this region which is very critical to US
security given the fact that the region has huge potential of resources.
d. Rich seas such as south china and
East China Sea are located in this region and are very critical to the allies
of US.[vii]
The Asia Pivot as has
been underlined by the Hillary Clinton has following broad contours:
a.
Strengthening
the bilateral security alliances as US has already started to proceed on these
lines with Australia, South Korea, Japan etc.
b.
Strengthening
and deepening its engagements with the emerging powers of the world such as
China. Indonesia and India.
c.
Engaging
with regional multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC etc.
d.
Expanding
trade and investment in the region as the regions has huge potential on these
lines.
e.
Forging
a broad based military presence in the region in order to ensure its security
as well as of its alliance partners.
f.
Advancing
democracy and human rights in the region.[viii]
The Obama administration has sought to rebalance American
policy toward Asia since the middle of 2011. The rebalance, or misnamed
“pivot,” is usually depicted in military or security terms, with America
shifting its focus and resources from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan back to
the Asia-Pacific region, where U.S. economic and security interests are
greater. In fact, rebalancing was originally an integrated strategy with
military, diplomatic, and economic initiatives intended to strengthen U.S.
involvement in the region, demonstrated by President Obama’s ten-day trip
through Asia in November 2011.
The Asia
Pivot operation has already begun with the Obama’s visit to Asian states last
year. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that “The President’s trip to
Asia will be an opportunity to build on our successful efforts to refocus on
the Asia Pacific as the most rapidly growing and dynamic region in the world”.[ix]
Last year when President Obama travelled to Thailand, Cambodia and Burma,
simultaneously, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the Defence
Secretary Leon Panetta were also in the region; which is vindication of the
importance being attached to the Asia Pacific region by the Obama
Administration. The Jay Carney also reiterated that, the President will focus
on expanding US trade and economic ties in the region, supporting democracy and
human rights, and working through regional institutions to ensure that nations
abide by the rules of the road”.[x]
There is a transformational shift in the new US foreign policy preference
and the most visible
sign is in its military sphere. US have planned to expand its military presence
in the Asia-Pacific region to counter any upcoming challenge as it has already
announced new deployment or rotations of troops and equipments to Australia and
Singapore.
The
American ‘Asia Pivot’ is not immune from risks it embodies. In an era of
constrained U.S. defense resources, a new shift in U.S. military emphasis on
the Asia-Pacific region might lead in a
reduction in U.S. military
capacity in other regions of the world. The next important is budgetary
consideration is that plans to restructure U.S. military deployments in Asia
and minimize cuts in the Navy may run up against more restrictive funding
constraints than plans yet assume. Furthermore, the perception among many that
the “rebalancing” is targeted against China could strengthen the hand of
Chinese hard-liners. Such Prints could also substantially make it more
difficult for the United States to achieve China’s cooperation on a range of
issues. Moreover, the prominence the Obama Administration has given to the
initiative has raised the costs to the United States if it or successor
administrations fail to follow through on public pledges made, particularly in
the military realm.[xi]
China
factor:
Some commentators
believe that the Asia Pivot is nothing but containment of China by other means.
China is not only likely to overtake US as a dominant economic power but also
emerging as a capable military power to ascertain its position in the
Asia-Pacific region. China is becoming more assertive in
its responses to territorial sovereignty disputes, and its influence on
international and regional affairs is growing. Unforeseen events complicated the
picture. Tensions erupted between the Philippines, Vietnam, and China in the
South China Sea, between Japan and China in the East China Sea, and between
Japan and South Korea over disputed but relatively insignificant territorial
claims.[xii]
The Chinese influence in the Asia Pacific region has grown
considerably for last few years as China has always considered Asia-Pacific as
its area of influence. China has now declared ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over
South China Sea; as also its ‘core area of interest'. Seeking a historic shift
in the Asia-Pacific ‘balance of power', China tries to replace the US as a
dominant Asia Pacific power by its assertive diplomatic-cum-military presence
in the region.[xiii]
President Obama referred to China for the first time as an
“adversary.” The US China relations today face great challenges from trust
deficit in bilateral relations to regional tension over the issue of
territorial sovereignty in the Asia Pacific region. The instability in Asia also
poses dilemmas for a Washington that has doubled down on its alliance
commitments across the Pacific. The growing rift between China and its smaller
neighbors in the South China Sea and the East China Sea pose serious challenge
for the United States in the western Pacific.[xiv]
A Pentagon ‘National Military Strategy’ paper underlines
that US strategic calculations and its security paradigm will overwhelmingly
concentrate in Asia-Pacific. Robert Gates, ex US Defense Secretary said that
Pentagon would sustain funding for ‘air superiority and mobility, long range
strike, nuclear deterrence, maritime access, space, cyberwar, intelligence and
surveillance’ in South-East Asia. Barrack Obama’s presence in Bali during the
recent East Asian Summit is an indication of US enhanced strategic engagement
in Asia-Pacific. In cognizance with the new emerging dynamics, the US is
deploying more troops, submarines and surface vessels to strengthen its forward
presence, besides taking counter measures against Chinese missiles.[xv]
Therefore,
China too will have to identify the parameters and implications of American
pivot so for as China’s own security paradigm is concerned. The biggest game
changer may well be the new administration in Beijing — the mood and demeanor
of the new leadership led by Xi Jinping. Given the narrative that US is no more
a sole power and the era of American dominance has gone therefore, the form and
content of the U.S. pivot to Asia may be determined more by Asians than
Americans.
The essential goal of the US Asia Pacific policy is
to devote more effort to impact the development of the Asia-Pacific’s norms and
rules, more significantly as China has emerged an assertive regional power. Given
that one implication of the “pivot” or “rebalancing” toward the Asia-Pacific is
to strengthening U.S. credibility in the region.[xvi]
This is more important as US economy is not in good shape and also budgetary
constraints will determine to what extent the Administration’s plans are
implemented and how various trade-offs are managed.
Pivot’s
Implication on Europe:
The “pivot to Asia” proclaimed by
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underlined “the future of politics
will be decided in Asia.” The Clinton reiterated the American commitment towards
Europe in the form of aid and security but now “The time has come for the
United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power.” [xvii]
There is great ambivalence in the new foreign policy of US
as there will be a shift in focus from Europe to Asia Pacific in the US
calculation of global geo-politics. The
2011 Transatlantic Trends Report marked the first time that the American public
believed that their national interest are secure more with Asia than with
Europe.
The
message Ms Clinton has transmitted is very clear to Europe that Asia is more
important than Europe in its calculation as she put it like this “as the war in
Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the
United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have
allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we
need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that
we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our
interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American
statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially
increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in
the Asia-Pacific region”.[xviii]
The
US economy is recessing and is not much promising as defined by the Obama
administration that US is committed to continue the expenditures in Asia and
shall not be reduced therefore, the scheme will hit none other than Europe. As
US is cutting down its $500 billion in its expenditures which will directly
expose the Europe and also US administration has already
announced that it intends to withdraw two of the four U.S. army brigades
currently deployed in Europe — with overall military spending in Europe set to
decline by 15 percent.[xix]
Now
there is a genuine threat being worried to all the European states that US
shift in its policy is somewhere giving signals that Europe is no more as
relevant as it used to be in post second world war. It is China, India and
Indonesia which is more significant than Europe to US vis-à-vis US geostrategic
designs are concerned. “The fulcrum for our strategic turn to the
Asia-Pacific,” According to the New
York Times, this includes
“six aircraft carriers and a majority of the Navy’s cruisers, destroyers,
littoral combat ships and submarines, [and] an accelerated pace of naval
exercises and port calls in the Pacific.”[xx]
Therefore, it will be an interesting
to see to what extent US will succeed in its new approach given the fact that
US is no more a sole decisive power and it has to face Chinese resistance in
the region which will be a litmus test to US in new realities of global
politics. There is one narrative that USA has declined and in order to protect
its sole power status it has brought Asia Pivot to show the world that America
is still in control of world affairs. Additionally, USA also realize Chinese
threat and its growing influence in the Asia Pacific region which can be
vindicated from the fact that how China maneuvered the last ASEAN summit which
ended without any official communiqué, given the fact that ASEAN was supposed
to press on China to resolve its dispute amicably with its neighbors on the
disputed South China Sea.
The new development in the form of
US-Europe free trade agreement which some commentators believe is reverse of
Asia Pivot. The new team of President Obama’s administration which includes
John Kerry, US Secretary of State, Chuck Hegel, Defence Secretary etc. have new
priorities and the time will tell will they reverse the Asia Pacific narrative
or continue with the Clinton-Gates legacy.
The
recent visit of John Kerry to Europe to push US-Europe free trade agreement
demonstrates that Europe is still promising. John Kerry on his visit to Germany
said “we think this is something that can help lift the economy of Europe,
strengthening our economy, create jobs for Americans, for Germans, for all
Europeans, and create one of the largest allied markets in the world”.[xxi]
President Obama in his recent State of the Union address underlined US-E.U.
free trade negotiations in a single sentence well down in the text: “Tonight,
I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership with the European Union, because trade that is fair
and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-playing American Jobs.”[xxii]
The
Year before Obama and his team lead by Hillary Clinton was busy with drawing
the parameters of Asia Pivot and but now, the new Obama team has different
engagements not in Asia but in Europe in stretching the parameters of US-E.U.
free trade agreement. Now, a question which confronts, is US going back to
Europe? If so, then does it mean that US is not able to catch up the influence
of assertive China in the Asia Pacific region. The above account does portray a
complicated situation and the time will define whether US is coming back to
Europe or keeping in hand both of these.
[i]
Clinton
Hilary, “America’s Pacific Century,” Foreign
Policy, November 2011, Available here: http://
www.foreignpolicy.com
[ii] Rachman
Gideon, “The US Pivot to Asia-should Europeans worry”, April 2012, Available
at: http://www.cepolicy.org
[iii]
“America’s
Pacific Century,” by Hilary Clinton. Foreign
Policy, November 2011. Available here: http://
www.foreignpolicy.com
[iv] “Asia trip to
refocus on the most rapidly growing region: US”, online edition, The Hindu,
November 10, 2012, Available at: http://www.thehindu.com
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Morse S. Eric, “Pivot
to Asia: Calculus and Consequences”, Fall
2012 Volume 21, Issue 4. Available at: http://www.nationalstrategy.com
[vii] Ibid.
[viii]
Clinton
Hilary, “America’s Pacific Century,” Foreign
Policy, November 2011, Available here: http://
www.foreignpolicy.com
[ix] Gerson
Joseph, “Reinforcing
Washington’s Asia Pacific Hegemony”, Foreign Affairs, September 13, 2012,
Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ross S. Robert,
“The
Problem With The Pivot”, Foreign
Affairs, November/December 2012, Available at:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com
[xii]
“Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward
Asia”, Congressional Research Service, March 2012, Available at:
http://www.cfr.org
[xiii]
Pall D. H.
& Haenle Paul, “A new great power relationship with Beijing”, November
2012, Available at: http//www.e-ir.org
[xiv]
Swieboda
Pawel, “Who
is afraid of the big bad Pivot: Central Europe’s worries about U.S. foreign policy”, Foreign
Affairs, December 2012. Available at: http//www.foreignaffairs.com
[xv] Dwivedi. G. G., “Dragon’s
fire ignites a strategic rethink”, Available at: http://www.tribuneindia.com
[xvi] Saran Samir, “Obama’s
Eastern Pivot made in Asia”, November 2012, Available at:
http://www.thehindu.com
[xvii]
Rachman
Gideon, “The US Pivot to Asia-should Europeans worry”, April 2012, Available
at: http://www.cepolicy.org
[xviii]
Clinton
Hilary, “America’s Pacific Century,” Foreign
Policy, November 2011, Available here: http://
www.foreignpolicy.com
[xix] “Rachman
Gideon, “The US Pivot to Asia-should Europeans worry”, April 2012, Available
at: http://www.cepolicy.org
[xx] Gerson Joseph, “Reinforcing Washington’s Asia Pacific
Hegemony”, Foreign Affairs, September 13, 2012, Available at:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com
[xxi] http://www.diplonews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment