Is the Obama Doctrine Applicable to Asia?

Published in China Times
(Taiwan) on 11 April 2011
by Ei Shin Chen (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jou-Chi Ho. Edited by Drue Fergison.
After President Obama gave a series of speeches against Libya, American academics and politicians began to explore the “Obama Doctrine.” Simply speaking, the Obama Doctrine means that the U.S. and the international community “have a responsibility to protect” people who are in danger of severe human rights violations. The English abbreviation of “responsibility to protect” is R2P. The Obama Doctrine is exactly what the U.S. and the international community implemented in Libya. The question is: What would happen if the Obama Doctrine were implemented in Asia?

Is Intervention Related to Cost?

So far, there is no massive genocide, like the one in Cambodia, occurring in Asia. While the Thai government has repressed the “Red Shirts,” the situation is mostly under control. It has been rumored that the Myanmar government quelled rebel forces, but the situation is still taking shape. North Korea is facing a succession crisis and any troubles incur forceful oppression. China has the strictest social control, but it nipped calls for a “Jasmine Revolution” in the bud.

From the content of the speech, the Obama Doctrine is a mixture of old and new foreign policy: 1) The U.S. will selectively continue in the position of world cop; 2) In order to reduce danger and casualties, the U.S. will not send its ground troops to areas of non-vital interest; 3) If the scale is limited and is supported by the international community, the U.S. will take military action to deal with humanitarian crises; 4) After consulting with its allies, the U.S. will take joint military action, launching the Marines and Air Force; 5) The U.S. supports its allies by playing the leading role or allowing the possibility of handing command over to them; 6) In global hot spots, the U.S. would have limited involvement, if costs are low.

Before the U.S. started the war in Libya, Samantha Power (of the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council) insisted that the U.S. and the international community should not repeat mistakes made in Rwanda and the Balkan Peninsula, where military strongmen committed genocide. As a liberal intellectual, Ms. Power laid out her concept of anti-genocide in her book, “A Problem from Hell,” later arguing for Obama’s prevention of a Libyan massacre, which is quite commendable. However, if it were like Russia quelling the Chechens or China’s suppression in Tiananmen Square, the possibility of the Obama administration’s intervention would be slight. It is also doubtful that the Obama administration would condemn Beijing.

Nevertheless, if sovereignty claims by various countries or participation by China’s first aircraft carrier in the South China Sea Fleet were to create conflict, would the U.S send troops in a dispute over the Senkaku Islands or if China invaded Taiwan during a natural disaster or if reunification negotiations were postponed?

It is not possible for the U.S. to intervene in conflicts such as those in Chechnya or Tiananmen Square, not only because it is unable to gain support from allies and the United Nations but also because sending troops to Russia and China is not in America’s interests. However, it would be the complete opposite in the South China Sea, Senkaku Islands and Taiwan Strait.

First, although a large number of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations economically rely on mainland China, their lack of agreement with China on South China Sea-related security issues has put them under the leadership of the United States. In 2010, Beijing’s firm position on claiming sovereignty of the South China Sea area caused Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia to stand with the United States.

Second, despite the fact that the conflict between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands has not resulted in any military action, U.S-Japan joint military maneuvers have indicated that their target is China. Furthermore, North Korea’s sinking of the ROKS Cheonan and bombardment of Yeonpyeong forced Japan and South Korea closer to the U.S. militarily.

Third, although some scholars argue for abandoning Taiwan in order to improve relations with China and avoid possible nuclear war, once Taiwan becomes one of China’s military bases, the U.S, Japan, South Korea and many ASEAN countries will be more insecure.

Last, and most important, the U.S. “return to Asia” and “Obama Doctrine” foreign policies were both established by Obama and should go hand in hand.


在美國總統歐巴馬針對利比亞連續發表幾篇演說後,美國政學界開始探討「歐巴馬主義」。簡言之,「歐巴馬主義」就是美國與國際社會「有責任保護」處於嚴重違反人權危險中的人民;「有責任保護」(responsibility to protect),英文簡稱為R2P。美國與國際社會在利比亞,實施的正是歐巴馬主義。問題是,當歐巴馬主義適用於亞洲,情況又會如何?

 干預與否攸關代價

 目前,亞洲暫時沒有出現像當年赤柬那樣大規模屠殺人民的情形。泰國政府鎮壓紅衫軍的情況雖不時出現,但還算在可控範圍內;緬甸軍政府鎮壓反對派也時有所聞,但情況尚不致失控;北韓正面臨繼承危機,任何風吹草動必遭強力鎮壓;雖然中國大陸社會監控最為嚴密,但前一陣子對茉莉花的浪潮仍全神戒備,唯恐星火燎原。

 從其演說內容可以看出,歐巴馬主義是美國外交政策新舊思維雜陳的一套理念:1.美國將選擇性地繼續擔任世界警察;2.美國不會在非重大利益地區派遣地面部隊,以減少危險與傷亡;3.如果軍事規模有限又有國際社會支持,美國同意採取軍事行動處理人道危機;4.美國會與盟國諮商後採取協同行動出動海空軍;5.美國支持盟國帶頭或不排除將指揮權交給盟國;6.在全球熱點地區,美國會有限度參與,但前提是代價不能太高。

 白宮國安會主管多邊事務的鮑爾女士(Samantha Power)在美國用兵利比亞前,力主美國與國際社會不能重蹈上個世紀西方在非洲盧安達與巴爾幹半島任令軍事強人進行種族屠殺的錯誤。作為自由派的知識分子,鮑爾女士能夠秉持其書《A Problem from Hell》反對種族屠殺的理念,力主歐巴馬應制止利比亞濫肆屠殺,頗為難能可貴。但如果是俄羅斯再度重兵鎮壓車臣,或是中國大陸類似天安門事件再起,歐巴馬政府干預的可能性微乎其微,能否像老布希政府那樣譴責北京,不無疑問。

 然而,如果南中國海爭端隨著各國宣稱主權,以及大陸第一艘航母加入南海艦隊,導致衝突愈演愈烈;中日兩國因釣魚台列島之爭相持不下;或是大陸趁台灣複合式天災人禍,或是因為台灣久拖不談而對台用兵,美國是否會考慮用兵?

 區隔亞洲安全問題

 美國不可能介入車臣或類似天安門事件的衝突,不僅是他們不可能獲得盟國與聯合國的支持,而且對俄中兩國用兵也不符合美國重大的利益。不過,南中國海、釣魚台列島與台灣海峽卻迥然不同。

 首先,雖然東協不少國家在經濟上仰賴中國大陸,但他們卻在南中國海相關安全議題上,以美國馬首是瞻。北京在2010年暗示核心利益涵蓋南中國海與在周遭海域上的強勢表現,使得越南、馬來西亞、新加坡、泰國、印尼決定在安全問題上與美國站在一起。

 其次,儘管2010年中日兩國釣魚台列島之爭並未導致兵戎相見,但是美日兩國奪島聯合軍演的強烈針對性,加上南韓天安艦遭北韓擊沉,與北韓砲轟延坪島事件,促使日本與南韓在軍事上更加靠攏美國。

 第三,雖然美國學界有人主張放棄台灣,以改善美中關係或避免核戰,但一旦台灣成為中共軍事基地,美國、日本、南韓與東協許多國家恐怕更會席不安枕、寢食難安。

 最後,更重要的是,美國「重返亞洲」與「歐巴馬主義」都是歐巴馬制訂的外交戰略,二者應可並行不悖。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Topics

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Related Articles

Taiwan: 2 Terms Won’t Satisfy Trump

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Japan: US-Japan Defense Minister Summit: US-Japan Defense Chief Talks Strengthen Concerns about Single-Minded Focus on Strength

Taiwan: A Brief Look at Trump’s Global Profit Grab

Taiwan: Taipei Must Act To Soften Trade Blows