The Decline of American Hegemony in East Asia

Disappointment still lingers from Barack Obama’s recent visit to Asia. His defense of human rights lacked power, as did his call for revaluing China’s currency. Now that the dust has settled comes a realization: the current resident of the White House didn’t get more out of his first Asian trip because the geopolitical balance of that part of the world has shifted, and the United States is no longer in a position to act as a hegemonic power.

From Tokyo to Beijing and Seoul, by way of Singapore for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, Mr. Obama was almost on the defensive as he hammered home his message: the United States is a Pacific power. And of course it is, due to its political, economic and military presence. A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt was already emphasizing this fact: “Our future history will be more determined by our position on the Pacific facing China than by our position on the Atlantic facing Europe.” The current statement of the obvious means that Washington has realized that America’s influence in that part of the world is declining.

Trans-Pacific Asia no longer reflects America’s self-image as an “imperial” power. East Asia’s response to Barack Obama’s message is simple – the United States is still an important player on the Asian stage, but no longer has top billing. The American president was at pains to project a conciliatory image, breaking with his predecessors, “the Cold War winners.” His apparent lack of toughness when he evoked the universal values the United States is so proud of reflects not so much a change in Washington’s political direction as a kind of forced realism.

While George Bush was waging his “War on Terror,” dividing the world into the “good” and the “evil-doers,” and starting the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in which he enlisted his country and its allies, a new hand was being dealt in Asia. China was supplanting the United States as the main economic partner of South Korea and Japan. China also became the United States’ principal creditor with $800 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds. Mr. Obama “[is] coming to pay his respects to his banker,” the New York Times reported, with some irony, on the eve of the president’s departure for Asia.

Even faithful Japan – the “American aircraft carrier” of the Pacific – is moving away from its unswerving loyalty to the United States. When it came to power in September, the Democratic Party of Japan wanted to redefine relations with Washington while maintaining the Japanese-American alliance. This reflected a laborious maturation of public opinion. For a long time Japan had thought of its alliance with the United States in bilateral terms. In reality, it’s a triangular relationship; China, which needed to be “contained,” was always on the horizon of this alliance. Japan’s safety was insured by its pact with the United States, but at the price of strengthening the bonds of trust with neighboring countries. Tokyo is taking stock today of the weakness of its past diplomacy.

American policy toward China is no longer aimed at “containment,” but at cooperation. The two countries are busy taking stock of each other’s power. Japan, which China will soon dethrone as the world’s second-largest economy, is watching with a rather jaundiced eye as a kind of “duopoly” (China-United States) emerges on the horizon. Harvard historian Niall Ferguson believes that this “Chimerica” (Chinese-American chimera) could likely vanish when China breaks ties with the United States and becomes less dependent on the American market.

This future scenario only makes Japan’s proposal (which Beijing views with “polite” interest) for creating an East Asian economic community more relevant. It’s a sign that Tokyo needs to become more “Asianized” and restructure its alliance in the context of “open regionalism” that doesn’t exclude the United States.

Japan and South Korea, as well as the Southeast Asian countries, are aware that they owe their prosperity to American ascendancy in the region. But, going forward, they see it as a counterweight to Chinese hegemony in the region. For Washington, this region is important. Outside of its two centers of power (China and Japan), it is home to more Muslims than the Middle East, with India and Malaysia. These two countries have staked their future on economic expansion and prosperity in their geographic region.

Mr. Obama’s Asian trip may seem to have a weak bottom line. But perhaps it let him rid himself of an illusion. American influence in this part of the world can no longer be taken for granted, and Washington can no longer leave these alliances on “autopilot.” The new hand being dealt in Asia calls for concerted initiatives. The American president’s visit should be viewed as part of a new strategy of openness toward China (which implies avoiding bothersome subjects), but also toward Burma and North Korea.