American ‘Pivot to Asia’ Will Be Difficult to Maintain
The recent resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel means that the Obama administration will see its fourth secretary of defense; this hasn’t occurred since the Korean War, during the Truman administration. This has caused people to pay attention to whether the administration will continue its “strategic focus” on the Asia- Pacific. Objectively speaking, the Obama government can continue to support the “pivot to Asia,” but the continuing strength and sustainability of this strategy has come into question.
First, the implementation over the past three years of the "pivot to Asia" is clearly suffering from a lack of balance. The Obama administration has attempted to create an American-led security and economic framework in the Asia-Pacific region. However, there has been an overplaying of military buildup in the region, a stalling of the Trans-Pacific Partnership without China, and uncertainty in just about every other measure. At the same time, the U.S. wants to build its relationship with China and promote regional integration, but in the end, it encourages the Japanese military, which seeks to revise its constitution and is unwilling to think about its history. The U.S. says it has a strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific, but in reality, the strategic focus is currently on North Africa and the Middle East — not to mention Ukraine. Events have led America by its nose farther and farther away from the Asia-Pacific. It will be very difficult for America to fix this imbalance in the years to come.
Second, at the same time, the Obama administration’s diplomatic decision-making process is in disarray, with a lack of motivation to push forward this strategy inside the government. During the first four years of the administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was able to implement the “rebalancing” strategy. At that time, then-Senators Kerry and Hagel were fringe players on this issue — the Asia-Pacific strategy’s plans and implementation were crafted by a small group of core players and national security advisers. Many people questioned Obama’s efforts, or lack thereof, of getting input and edits from other departments of the government.
The results of the midterm elections have aggravated the disputes between the president and foreign affairs leaders in the Senate. Looking forward to the 2016 elections, any foreign policy actions taken by the president are sure to become highly partisan, as Republicans launch major challenges and criticisms to them. Thus, they may be more willing to see more inaction on the part of the Obama administration — to paint him as ineffective and passive.
Third, the weakening of America’s own strength will aggravate problems with the rebalance. Fierce polarization in politics has made more people question the effectiveness of the American political system. Domestic racial issues, unemployment, and immigration policy have all worked to hinder the vitality and recovery of the American economy. Without systematic rethinking or deep reform, America’s recession could irreversibly accelerate. Already, there is a disconnect between America’s actual strength and its position as a global hegemonic leader. The Obama administration’s attempts to reduce military expenditures and withdraw troops from abroad are in a difficult condition. In addition, America’s involvement in hotspots across the world have not had the desired effects or outcomes.
Fourth, suspicions by Asia-Pacific countries toward America’s rebalancing are increasing. The rebalancing strategy refers to notions of a region divided across security and economic lines — in tune with Cold-War thinking. America is trying to turn countries away from economic reliance on China, and keep countries reliant on the U.S. for security. This old style of thinking was what led to the division of Europe between the West and the USSR during the Cold War. Asian countries don’t wish to see that tragedy of Europe manifest itself in the Asia- Pacific. The main proponents of the rebalance in Asia are America’s allies; most other countries wish to keep their distance.
In summary, the “rebalance” strategy is an American creation aimed at maintaining its system, where it plays the role of a hegemonic power. However, the existence of many troubling factors means that it will be difficult for America to meet its projected targets. Whether to seek to maintain that old world order or to slowly build a more suitable multipolar world system is the dilemma that America is currently facing.
First, the implementation over the past three years of the "pivot to Asia" is clearly suffering from a lack of balance. The Obama administration has attempted to create an American-led security and economic framework in the Asia-Pacific region. However, there has been an overplaying of military buildup in the region, a stalling of the Trans-Pacific Partnership without China, and uncertainty in just about every other measure. At the same time, the U.S. wants to build its relationship with China and promote regional integration, but in the end, it encourages the Japanese military, which seeks to revise its constitution and is unwilling to think about its history. The U.S. says it has a strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific, but in reality, the strategic focus is currently on North Africa and the Middle East — not to mention Ukraine. Events have led America by its nose farther and farther away from the Asia-Pacific. It will be very difficult for America to fix this imbalance in the years to come.
Second, at the same time, the Obama administration’s diplomatic decision-making process is in disarray, with a lack of motivation to push forward this strategy inside the government. During the first four years of the administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was able to implement the “rebalancing” strategy. At that time, then-Senators Kerry and Hagel were fringe players on this issue — the Asia-Pacific strategy’s plans and implementation were crafted by a small group of core players and national security advisers. Many people questioned Obama’s efforts, or lack thereof, of getting input and edits from other departments of the government.
The results of the midterm elections have aggravated the disputes between the president and foreign affairs leaders in the Senate. Looking forward to the 2016 elections, any foreign policy actions taken by the president are sure to become highly partisan, as Republicans launch major challenges and criticisms to them. Thus, they may be more willing to see more inaction on the part of the Obama administration — to paint him as ineffective and passive.
Third, the weakening of America’s own strength will aggravate problems with the rebalance. Fierce polarization in politics has made more people question the effectiveness of the American political system. Domestic racial issues, unemployment, and immigration policy have all worked to hinder the vitality and recovery of the American economy. Without systematic rethinking or deep reform, America’s recession could irreversibly accelerate. Already, there is a disconnect between America’s actual strength and its position as a global hegemonic leader. The Obama administration’s attempts to reduce military expenditures and withdraw troops from abroad are in a difficult condition. In addition, America’s involvement in hotspots across the world have not had the desired effects or outcomes.
Fourth, suspicions by Asia-Pacific countries toward America’s rebalancing are increasing. The rebalancing strategy refers to notions of a region divided across security and economic lines — in tune with Cold-War thinking. America is trying to turn countries away from economic reliance on China, and keep countries reliant on the U.S. for security. This old style of thinking was what led to the division of Europe between the West and the USSR during the Cold War. Asian countries don’t wish to see that tragedy of Europe manifest itself in the Asia- Pacific. The main proponents of the rebalance in Asia are America’s allies; most other countries wish to keep their distance.
In summary, the “rebalance” strategy is an American creation aimed at maintaining its system, where it plays the role of a hegemonic power. However, the existence of many troubling factors means that it will be difficult for America to meet its projected targets. Whether to seek to maintain that old world order or to slowly build a more suitable multipolar world system is the dilemma that America is currently facing.