How Should We View America’s “Return to Asia?”

After President Obama spoke at the Australian congress and the East Asia Summit at Bali, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote a well-grounded article “America’s Pacific Century” in Foreign Policy magazine, the change in U.S. foreign policy toward Asia became a hot topic at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Finance Ministerial Meeting held in Honolulu.

The purpose of this meeting was to assess the substantial content and significance of the Obama administration’s shift of focus to this region, as well as to understand the responses of the Asia-Pacific nations or how they would respond to such a change.

We shall look at the three following issues.

America’s Seven Major Contentions
　　
Question 1: What proposals did America actually make?
　 　
From what I understand, the proposals included seven contentions. First, the U.S. is a pacific and regional superpower, not a foreign power. Therefore, the U.S. has a long-term obligation to the region and shall remain in it. Second, compared to other regions, the U.S. pays more attention to this region. This is recognizing the presence of the world’s most vital economy in this region in the 21st century. Additionally, this is also recognizing the fact that economic power is gradually shifting from the West to the East. Unless the U.S. economic vision aligns with that of the region, the Obama administration’s dual goal of increasing exports and creating jobs will not be realized.

Third, after withdrawing from Iraq and reducing the number of soldiers posted in Afghanistan, the U.S. will strengthen its military influence in this region. The recent decision to send 250 Marines into Darwin, and then increasing that number to 2,500, exhibits this intention. Fourth, the U.S. will deepen its economic relationship with the region in trade, investment and business transactions. In recent years, the U.S. has lost some territories to the EU and China. For example, the U.S. had always been the biggest or the second biggest trade partner of Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its member nations, but it is now only the third or fourth. In terms of the number of bilateral or full free trade agreement entered into with Asian countries, the U.S. is behind China, but it still leads the EU.

Fifth, the U.S. will inject a new vitality into its alliances with Japan, Korea, Australia and the Philippines. Sixth, the U.S. is going to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement as the main tool to reduce trade and investment barriers as well as to promote the economic integration of the Asia-Pacific region. Seventh, the U.S. has elevated the importance of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations . Recently, Obama held his third annual summit with the leaders of the member nations (including leaders of Myanmar). Obama was willing to interact with the Burmese and he encouraged them to move on the road to democracy. This is a refreshing change.
　　
The media love a controversial issue. Therefore, many reporters and commentators chose to interpret U.S. policy as targeting China. This is hardly surprising. The increasing anti-China views coming from the government and American leaders in Congress augmented the credibility of such a view, one designed to garner voters’ support before the elections next year.

I believe the relationship between the U.S. and China is not a zero-sum game. The rise of China does mean that America is a declining superpower. In the same way, I do not think Beijing should view the U.S. policy of returning to Asia as something that is damaging to the interest of China. Asia and the Asia-Pacific region is big enough to accommodate a rising China and a reviving America.

China’s Rise Is Unstoppable

Obama has stated repeatedly that suppressing China’s rise is not an American policy. I will go a step further to say that under different leadership, America’s attempt to suppress or block China’s rise would not succeed either. In my opinion, the rise of China is unstoppable.

Some of my friends in China suspect that the U.S. is attempting to establish an anti-China alliance, the members of which include America’s allies and other democratic countries. I do not believe this is Obama’s policy, though I admit that some Americans might hope to do something like that. Then again, even if America’s next administration were to attempt to do this in the future, it would not succeed. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, for example, would never join such an alliance. It does not fear China’s growing prosperity, power and influence. It has already benefited from China’s prosperity and resolves to maintain a friendly and cooperative relationship. It has, however, indicated clearly to China that its policy of neighborly and peaceful development is currently being tested at the South China Sea.

When I was in the U.S., I was often asked if the Association of Southeast Asian Nations supports China. When I was in China, I was often asked instead if it supports America. I answered them every time that it is most important that the group supports itself. Indeed, in the Asian family, some member nations are closer to the U.S. while others are closer to China. As a regional organization, however, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is neutral, and it will not support any superpower to oppose other superpowers. Its objective is to interact with all parties of interest and integrate them into a cooperative framework to promote peace and stability in our region. This is the reason it invited the U.S. and Russia to join the East Asia Summit, as well as why it has established a dialogue partnership with key regional superpowers, including the U.S., China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the EU.

I also do not think that India will be a part of an anti-China alliance lead by the U.S. India may have had some differences with China and both sides lack mutual trust, but they have many common interests. Just as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has often said, the world is big enough for a rising China and a rising India. I believe India will abide by the late Nehru’s will to pursue its own path in the world.

Question 3: Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement a tool that America is using to oppose the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus Three free trade agreement?

Beijing has a view that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is something America has designed to oppose the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus Three free trade agreement. Such a view is erroneous.

First, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was not started by Americans. When Association of Southeast Asian Nations leaders held a meeting in Bogor, Indonesia in 1994, they accepted the desire for implementing free trade and investment in the Pacific, and realized this desire in developed economies in 2010, and will do so in developing economies in 2020. After that, the Business Advisory Council persuaded the leaders of member nations to accept the objective of establishing the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific. Three smaller Association of Southeast Asian Nations economies, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore began Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations in 2002 as a way to realize the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific objective. Brunei joined the talks subsequently. The U.S. joined the talks in 2008.

Second, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is open. Any Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation economies that are willing and reach the high standards set by the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement can request to join it. One of its rules is that the current member nations must all agree to accept the entry of a new economy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement had only four members when it started in 2004, and it currently has nine negotiation partners. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting held in Honolulu, Canada, Japan and Mexico expressed their interest to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. I hope China will consider joining as well. China does not need to be invited. When the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement has received the support of all 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation economies, it would become the Free Trade Area of the Asia-, and the desire and objective of Bogor would also be realized. It shall become the world’s largest free trade zone.

Third, China should not view the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus Three free trade agreement, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus Six free trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement as mutually repellent. Singapore believes that they can complement one another. We believe that free trade and investment can benefit all nations. Therefore, we support all proposals for the liberalization of trade and investment, be they bilateral, regional, trans-regional or global. In truth, some amount of competition can help promote economic liberalization.

Allow me to conclude this speech with three views. First, I believe that America’s role in the Asia-Pacific region is positive. It helps in maintaining peace and stability and aids the social, economic and political developments of the nations within the region. Therefore, I welcome the Obama administration’s shift of focus to the Asia-Pacific. As an American president cannot have more than two terms in office, Obama should explore the institutionalization of the U.S. policy paradigm shift.

Second, China’s prosperity has benefited the region. As China’s power and influence grows by the day, the world expects it to take on a greater responsibility in maintaining international institutions. I also hope that China will continue its neighborly policy and comply strictly with the stipulations of international laws.

Third, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations does not wish to see a new Cold War between the U.S. and China. Yes, the two nations have their differences, but they also share many common interests. The wisest move would be to work together on common interests and compete where their interests differ. They should handle differences constructively. It would not be wise if they see each other as rivals and enter into a zero-sum game.