Myanmar President's US Visit and Obama's 'Western Front Strategy'
On May 17, Myanmar President Thein Sein began his historic visit to the U.S. This reformist leader, on whom the West has placed high hopes, is the first from Myanmar to visit the U.S. in 47 years. Thein Sein’s trip is not only a courteous return visit following Obama’s trip to Myanmar last year, but also indicates a major adjustment in Myanmar’s foreign policy.
If you look from a higher strategic level, I believe Myanmar is Obama’s greatest gain since he launched his “pivot to Asia” strategy almost two years ago. Obama’s strategy consists of three fronts: the Korean Peninsula on the eastern front, the South China Sea and East China Sea on the central front, and Myanmar on the western front. When examining the actual results, the U.S. has achieved gains along all three fronts, but in the short term, no major breakthroughs have occurred on the eastern and central fronts. In comparison, the Obama administration has realized a historic achievement only with Myanmar on the western front.
The Obama administration’s contest over Myanmar highlights the country’s important international geopolitical position. In an atmosphere where China has abruptly risen as the world’s second largest economy, Obama proposed a “pivot to Asia” strategy. If you apply the “clash of civilizations” paradigm, the U.S. has changed the direction of its international strategy since the Obama administration took office. In fact, the most economically competitive civilization, China, has become the U.S.’ main contender for supremacy.
The Obama administration’s strategic decision recognizes that the real threat to the U.S.’ international hegemonic position lies in economic strength. Of course, Obama’s reluctance to interfere includes personal factors: From his family background and educational environment while growing up, Obama is a veritable “product of the Pacific Rim” and is the White House leader who most lacks a “European complex” in U.S. history. It is also because of this strategic decision that Obama still refuses to intervene in Syria with military force after more than two years of continued crisis.
But just as I said earlier, Obama’s change in direction is actually an important strategic decision, especially as this historic shift occurred during a major adjustment in the Middle East’s strategic situation. Clearly, Obama’s decision was not affected by the turbulent circumstances in the Middle East. Thein Sein’s visit to the U.S. precisely reflects how Obama continues to adhere to this change in stance in his second term.
Regarding the U.S., can Obama’s strategic decision withstand the test of history? Republicans are currently seizing on the mistakes in Obama’s Middle East policy, especially the Benghazi embassy attack and the retreat from the “red line” on Syria’s chemical weapons, criticizing Obama as weak. In this writer’s opinion, in Obama’s choice between the Middle East and Asia, he made a challenging strategic decision between an immediate contradiction [in policy] and a long-term contradiction. As for whether it was right or wrong, perhaps only history can make an objective judgment.
If you look from a higher strategic level, I believe Myanmar is Obama’s greatest gain since he launched his “pivot to Asia” strategy almost two years ago. Obama’s strategy consists of three fronts: the Korean Peninsula on the eastern front, the South China Sea and East China Sea on the central front, and Myanmar on the western front. When examining the actual results, the U.S. has achieved gains along all three fronts, but in the short term, no major breakthroughs have occurred on the eastern and central fronts. In comparison, the Obama administration has realized a historic achievement only with Myanmar on the western front.
The Obama administration’s contest over Myanmar highlights the country’s important international geopolitical position. In an atmosphere where China has abruptly risen as the world’s second largest economy, Obama proposed a “pivot to Asia” strategy. If you apply the “clash of civilizations” paradigm, the U.S. has changed the direction of its international strategy since the Obama administration took office. In fact, the most economically competitive civilization, China, has become the U.S.’ main contender for supremacy.
The Obama administration’s strategic decision recognizes that the real threat to the U.S.’ international hegemonic position lies in economic strength. Of course, Obama’s reluctance to interfere includes personal factors: From his family background and educational environment while growing up, Obama is a veritable “product of the Pacific Rim” and is the White House leader who most lacks a “European complex” in U.S. history. It is also because of this strategic decision that Obama still refuses to intervene in Syria with military force after more than two years of continued crisis.
But just as I said earlier, Obama’s change in direction is actually an important strategic decision, especially as this historic shift occurred during a major adjustment in the Middle East’s strategic situation. Clearly, Obama’s decision was not affected by the turbulent circumstances in the Middle East. Thein Sein’s visit to the U.S. precisely reflects how Obama continues to adhere to this change in stance in his second term.
Regarding the U.S., can Obama’s strategic decision withstand the test of history? Republicans are currently seizing on the mistakes in Obama’s Middle East policy, especially the Benghazi embassy attack and the retreat from the “red line” on Syria’s chemical weapons, criticizing Obama as weak. In this writer’s opinion, in Obama’s choice between the Middle East and Asia, he made a challenging strategic decision between an immediate contradiction [in policy] and a long-term contradiction. As for whether it was right or wrong, perhaps only history can make an objective judgment.
Previous article![]( "Zero Moral Basis")
Next article![]( "Aspirations and Reality")
