Despite Obama’s Absence, China Remains Calm

U.S. President Barack Obama has his hands full lately with the federal government shutdown and had no choice but to completely cancel his originally scheduled trip to Asia, missing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and the East Asia Summit. This decision has inevitably disappointed some Asia-Pacific countries which were counting on that hope of America’s return to the Asia-Pacific. Concurrent with disappointment, some countries are also posing questions: Is America’s “return to the Asia-Pacific” sustainable or not? When problems arise in both domestic and foreign affairs, can America still afford to play such an ambitious “re-balancing” game?

Although Kerry said at the APEC summit that Obama canceling this visit would not influence U.S. Asia-Pacific strategy, every country’s media is filled with interpretations of Obama’s absence. Some commentary pointed out that Obama, entangled in the government shutdown, has made China the big winner by missing the summit. Not only did America lose this advantageous opportunity to exert pressure on China over the South China Sea dispute, it also halted lobbying efforts for Southeast Asian countries joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership — for which enthusiasm was never high to begin.

Even America’s own media — The Wall Street Journal — issued an Oct. 5 report stating that Obama’s absence at this APEC summit, caused by the government shutdown, damages diplomatic momentum in the Asia-Pacific region, perhaps leaving the door wide open for China to broaden the scope of its own diplomatic influence. The U.S. Cable News Network also commented that Obama’s absence at this summit gives China an opportunity to strengthen its dominant position in the Asia-Pacific region.

It seems that America feigns calmness on the surface, while deep down it is extremely vigilant about China’s continuously improving relationships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The U.S. is worried that China will seize this chance to rope in the Southeast Asian countries, uniting with them on the “battle line” to collaborate against America. It may not say so out loud, but at heart, the U.S. definitely considers China its number one enemy in the Asia-Pacific region.

In contrast to this antagonistic mentality of the U.S., China is much calmer and more collected. China knows very well that if it overemphasizes America’s “blank space” this time, it could bring about a rise in the “China threat” discussion. This would create an unwanted disturbance in long-term Asia-Pacific strategy. Peking University’s expert on Sino-U.S. issues expressed that “the U.S. government shutdown was manufactured by the U.S. system of government; this has nothing to do with U.S. diplomatic strategy national strength. China absolutely must not adopt a shortsighted approach for this.”

Compared to China’s vision, America’s “return to the Asia-Pacific” strategy seems rather ill-considered. While we should not overexaggerate the influence of Obama’s cancelled Asia trip over a U.S. “return to the Asia-Pacific” itself, we should, however, add a question mark to the currently-implemented U.S. “re-balancing” strategy. America undoubtedly has the capability of “returning to Asia” — and moreover, of implementing its “return to the Asia-Pacific” strategy — but has America even considered what kind of strategy can stay in line with Asian nations’ expectations for America? At the very least, it isn’t repeated calls to arms, endless pestering and vilifying of China in the Asia-Pacific region.

If America is smart enough, then it ought to realize there is no advantage to making enemies in the Asia-Pacific. The Asian-Pacific nations naturally are very welcoming of invigorating and helpful U.S. “interventions,” but if America just came to stir up trouble and offend China, then many Asian-Pacific nations are going to reconsider their relations with the U.S. This absence of American leaders has indeed brought the re-balancing strategy — which America so hoped to push forward as soon as possible — to a halt. Moreover, it has given some Asian-Pacific nations doubts: How does such a politically dysfunctional and financially irresponsible nation — one that can’t even manage its own domestic issues — become the world leader?

The U.S. should take advantage of this “comma” to thoroughly reflect for a moment upon all its conduct in the Asia-Pacific, recognize reality and appropriately deal with its relationship with China, bringing a “re-balancing” strategy that is genuinely beneficial to peaceful development across the Asia-Pacific.