The Increasingly Clear ‘Error’ of American Policy in Asia

In the four years since the United States announced its return to Asia, when it started out on its policy of strategic rebalancing in the region, it has provided no economic energy to the region. Instead, it has steadily increased insecurity and anxiety over the growing regional presence of American weaponry and rhetoric. More and more facts are increasingly laying bare the error of U.S. policy in Asia.

First, the United States draws lines around military alliances, which fails in the context of traditional Asian diplomacy. The U.S. today still has many bilateral military alliances – with countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand – that are based on security and defense agreements that were concluded in the wake of World War II during the emergence of the Cold War and the opposition between East and West.

Economic interdependence among all Asian countries has increased in large measure in the face of accelerating economic globalization. Even as Asia pushes forward on a new path of peaceful development, the United States – unable to find or create a real enemy – uses the North Korean military threat as an excuse to implement its strategy of rebalancing in Asia. This entails, in particular, strengthening its military ties with Japan and the Philippines, and deploying the most advanced military equipment in Japan, as well as increasing long-term military presence in the Philippines through the rotation of troops stationed abroad. The U.S. is further attempting to find new military allies, even going to Asia’s neighboring Australia, and building a military base there in efforts to increase the strength of its presence abroad.

Over the last few years, the facts clearly show that the countries and peoples of Asia have met American attempts to strengthen relations with military allies and the increased military strength in Asia coldly and with disdain. Despite the U.S. exerting great pressure and its continual efforts at persuasion, not a single Asian country has yet publicly entered a military alliance with the United States, other than some countries permitting the U.S. to land warplanes or dock ships in their territory. Even the Philippines has recently stated that it will not permit American troops to be permanently stationed there.

Second, as Asian countries undergo adjustments in their economic systems, they face the tasks of increasing economic growth and employment, and maintaining financial stability. They urgently need the U.S. to increase imports of Asian products and development aid and investment in Asia; they need the U.S. to promote all types of cultural, educational and technological exchanges, and cooperation.

Instead, the U.S. only cares about its own interests and concentrates on rewriting the rules of international trade: It tries to sell Asia products that are advantageous to itself, such as agricultural products, and increases exports of obsolete military equipment. As a result, U.S. imports of Asian products, investment in Asia, and development aid to Asia have not increased as obviously as its military presence there. The actions of the U.S. in Asia are completely contrary to the needs of Asian countries and their people.

Third, the U.S. postures as a world “leader” in order to exert hegemony and political pressure in Asia. In collusion with countries like Japan and the Philippines, the U.S. has deepened its involvement in the China Sea territorial conflicts. As a regional outsider, it seeks every excuse to lead in the framing of the disputes and impose its view on other countries. Not only has the U.S. failed to correct the error of illicitly giving Japan authority over the Diaoyu Islands,* but it also goes against basic norms of international relations. The U.S. has also violated the integrity of China’s territorial sovereignty by claiming that China’s Diaoyu Islands are covered under Article 5 of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, which was included in the U.S.-Japan Joint Statement produced during President Obama’s visit to Japan in April. Not only has this act deepened differences between China and Japan and damaged regional peace, but it is also a simply wasted effort that has brought no benefit.

China’s regular naval patrol in the waters around the Diaoyu Islands has established China’s exercise of sovereignty over the islands and invalidates the U.S. and Japan’s conspiracy to infringe on China’s sovereignty via the islands. As China disputed ocean rights with the Philippines and other countries, U.S. involvement deepened: First, it claimed that protecting free usage of shipping lanes was a “national interest,” opposing the use or threat of force; later, it stood on the side of the Philippines and Vietnam, supporting them and openly criticizing China’s ordinary economic activities in the South China Sea as “provocations.” The U.S. subsequently ignored historical facts by claiming that the South China Sea question should be resolved according to international law, and then inhibiting China’s activities in its own territory and infringing on China’s territorial integrity.

Even more importantly, the U.S. has increased activities of aircraft carriers and submarines in the South China Sea. When China strongly opposed or intercepted this reconnaissance, high U.S. officials said that fighter planes should accompany spy planes to protect their passage. By thus attempting to instigate a conflict, the U.S. has wrecked the stability of the South China Sea and the U.S. and China’s bilateral military relations.

Fourth, U.S. attempts to increase cooperation with Asia and international trade and economic growth not only lack enthusiasm and supportive encouragement, but also raise obstacles to trade and exert a negative influence on the countries involved. The progress of the Asia Pacific in proposing and beginning to create a free trade region has real and positive significance for the eradication of trade barriers and smoother facilitation of trade.**

Asia’s establishment of an investment bank for basic infrastructure can make up for the insufficiencies of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and give a helping hand to developing countries in Asia that need investment to set up basic infrastructure.

The attitude of the U.S. toward the two initiatives mentioned has disappointed and earned the disdain of Asian countries and their people.

It appears that the U.S. theory of rebalance in Asia uses the same old mentality and zero-sum logic of the Cold War era; this is deeply rooted and will not be easily changed. American political elite and policy makers clearly do not seem to understand why the U.S. cannot solve Asia’s new 21st century challenges with a super-strong military force and a strategy of military alliances. They cannot understand that in Asia, promoting their country’s military hegemony will only damage peaceful stability and harm the personal interests of people across Asia.

They also cannot see that the countries and peoples of Asia always place the pursuit of development and promotion of cooperation at the forefront of foreign relations strategy, that they use cooperation to build mutual trust, and that using mutual trust to promote security and maintain prosperity is how Asia works.

Even more, the U.S. refuses to abandon its wild ambition to dominate Asia, or the old, mistaken idea that Asia must be “led’ by the United States.

Nevertheless, the general trend of Asian countries and peoples strengthening cooperation and promoting economic development will not change just because of American interference; it will become more and more clear that the U.S. does not take Asian countries’ and peoples’ core interests seriously, but only exerts dominance over the region for its own selfish interest. And so, as the United States continues to obstinately and heedlessly adhere to its erroneous Asia policy, the final result will be a gradual decline in U.S. influence on Asia.

That author is a researcher at the China International Issues Research Fund

*Translator’s note: Chinese press refers to what the U.S. – out of deference to Japan – calls the “Senkaku” Islands as the “Diaoyu” Islands.

**Translator’s note: This appears to refer to the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, a regional trade agreement that competes with the American-sponsored Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).