America: In Your Pivot to Asia, Careful You Don't Sprain Your Back

In 2011, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton coined the phrase “pivot to Asia.” Now, it has become a core focus of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

In the wake of the severe damage inflicted by super Typhoon Haiyan’s passage over the Philippines, the U.S. has poured an enormous amount of effort into disaster relief operations. This has included money, an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious ships; in flexing its muscles, the U.S. has demonstrated the unparalleled soft power wielded by a superpower. The Western media has further painted the U.S. as the indispensable hero of today’s world through a series of disparagements against China.

But in this world, there is no such thing as unconditional love. The United States’ exertions in the Philippines have been interpreted by a variety of experts, as well as many in the media — including mainstream U.S. outlets — as the Western power jumping at the chance to strengthen U.S.-Philippine military ties in the midst of disaster relief operations, and thus advance a step further in its “pivot to Asia.”

Due to last month’s impasse at home, President Obama did not attend the ASEAN summit. A number of people have lamented that Obama’s absence from the meeting was a missed opportunity for the U.S. to court other nations in the Asia-Pacific region, and was thus detrimental to the implementation of the pivot strategy. Furthermore, some speculated that this had allowed China to capitalize upon the opening by flaunting its own status as a power. The result has caused no small amount of brow-furrowing within certain circles.

Haiyan has seemingly presented the U.S. with a golden opportunity to remedy this. Many reports have noted how an active and rapid response to Haiyan may be the perfect window for the U.S. to shift its center of gravity to Asia and the Pacific.

Some view developmental prospects for the U.S.-Philippine military alliance as fairly promising. Prior to 1991, the U.S. had established 23 military bases within the Philippines; it has already paved the way to reopen them.

However, things may not be as simple as all that.

Although the Obama administration has placed great emphasis on the pivot to Asia, some U.S. allies have expressed disappointment that the shift has never been fully realized. Indeed, the administration finds itself facing a number of difficulties in that area. In the United States’ previous foreign policy nucleus of the Middle East, the Obama administration’s unhesitating abandonment of Mubarak, iterative stance on the Syrian issue and proactive engagement with Iran have all come as a chill wind blowing over its traditional Middle Eastern allies. The fear of being neglected or even abandoned by their “master” has given rise to all manner of remonstrations from these allies in their appeals for greater attention. The U.S. is now caught up in several entanglements that it would very much like to extract itself from, but cannot.

In the Asia-Pacific region, negotiations over the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership have proven difficult. Not only has it been a challenge to address the interests of all parties involved in an impartial fashion, but the U.S. has more recently also run up against domestic obstacles. Accusations of insufficient transparency and hurting U.S. interests have become the latest stumbling blocks for the TPP.

Despite the overwhelming praise from Western media on the United States’ role in providing disaster relief to the Philippines, there exist dissenting opinions that, while minor, cannot be overlooked. Some have pointed to the limited practical significance of involving naval vessels in disaster relief operations. The use of helicopters has been unable to resolve the problem of supplies piling up; C-130s have not been able to evacuate large amounts of survivors quickly. Some victims have also said that what is needed from the U.S. instead is professional doctors and dedicated volunteers. It is hard to criticize disaster relief efforts too strongly. However, lacing excessive political elements within humanitarian relief is, after all, somewhat less than honorable conduct.

For the U.S., the “pivot to Asia” has already been irrevocably set in motion. Now, it must seize every opportunity it can to hasten the process. But the U.S. should remember that if it “pivots” too quickly, it can easily sprain its back. More importantly, it should remember that a zero-sum mentality has no place in the modern world, and that cooperation for mutual benefit is the way of the future.