America’s Shift EastFaces Many Difficulties

Last year, after President Obama announced a “return to Asia,” America’s strategic interests have accelerated eastward. However, this is the strategic focus, not the strategic center of gravity. Twenty years ago, America’s strategic focus was in Europe with the Cold War. But that situation was completely different than today’s in Asia. In regards to the strategic focus for America, both the environment and the composition of relations between rivals are completely different.

First, the environment and global trends are different. The multi-polarization of the world and deepening economic globalization means the world has moved from war and violent revolution into an era of “peace and development.” Peace, development and cooperation have become the irresistible trends of the time. Today’s Asia has never had a European-style NATO or Warsaw Pact, European Community or Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, or other organizations that promote military and economic antagonism and confrontation. But there are some groups like APEC, the East Asian Summits 101 and 103, as well as other regional dialogue and cooperation mechanisms. The pattern for peace and development in Asia has been basically formed because East Asia has been a “latecomer” to the cooperation game, but the U.S. cannot “hoodwink the public” and change this pattern.

Secondly, today’s Sino-U.S. relations and U.S.-Soviet relations of the past are very different. In the past, hegemony was the main aspect of U.S.-Soviet relations, but now cooperation leads China-U.S. relations. There was no economic interdependence at even in the best of times; U.S.-Soviet trade did not exceed $4 billion and the Soviet Union never held U.S. Treasury bonds. Today, China-U.S. trade has reached $400 billion, and China is the U.S.’ largest creditor. This has forced a “you need me, and I need you” situation on both sides, making full confrontation between the U.S. and China difficult.

Third, China has a delicate relationship with both American allies (like Japan, South Korea and the Philippines) as well as the new “point” countries (such as Vietnam, India, etc.). In the past 30 years, China’s sustained rapid development has made the relationship between the U.S. and Asia more complex and caused American influence in the region to decline. There are apparently conflicts between Japan and the U.S. as well Korea-U.S. coordination difficulties. For many Southeast Asian countries, the U.S. has been reduced to a security force in the area. China is the largest trading partner of all the U.S. allies and the new “point” countries, making it difficult to escape dependence on China. In Asia there has been a “dual leadership structure” led economically by China and in security by the U.S. The Soviet Union did not have the same relationship with America’s European allies. Indeed some countries in Asia seek to balance China and the U.S., but they are geographically close to China. For these countries, to please the U.S. is not necessarily to offend China. A few have used double-sided tactics like bringing in the U.S. against China, but they act as American thugs and not necessarily in line with their fundamental counter-China interests.

Fourth, in the past the U.S. spread “silver” throughout Europe and Asia and people ran with it. But in light of today’s economic difficulties, there is no longer such generosity with money and Asian countries may no longer follow it everywhere.

Finally, as the U.S. dominates the world, it faces a number of issues like the Arab conflict, the Iran nuclear issue, the war in Afghanistan and the financial crisis; it is impossible to focus all of its resources on China.

Constrained by the above factors, the refocusing of U.S. strategic interests eastward faces a large number of difficulties. But it is undeniable that as the U.S. refocuses in the post Cold-War environment, China faces the most serious challenges. We have to be taken seriously, not lightly.