The Politics of the US “Pivot” to Asia

There is a bewildering array of developments in the politics of the Asia Pacific region: the swift responses of Western governments to the evolving internal politics of Myanmar, including unprecedented official visits from the U.S. Secretary of State and the UK Prime Minister; the first group of American marines to be stationed in Darwin, which the Australian Minister of Defense has declared a “historic day”; joint naval exercises between the U.S. and Philippines in the midst of the dispute between China and the Philippines over the island of Huangyan [Scarborough Shoal]; India’s first successful test of an ICBM, strengthening its military armaments; revelations by the Washington Post that the Pentagon will take advantage of its expiring lease in 2016 to give up the strategic base in Diego Garcia directly south of India, and move eastward to Australia’s Cocos Islands.

Not only has America accelerated its economic and military cooperation with Vietnam, its mortal enemy of half a century ago, but on April 21 Japan also convened a summit of the five nations of the Mekong basin in Tokyo and produced a “Cooperation Strategy for 2012”; Tokyo promised to Thien Sein, the first President of Myanmar to visit in the last 30 years, that it would forgive $3.7 billion in debt and renew its development aid. The Prime Minister of Vietnam, Nguyễn Tấn Dũng, publicly invited the U.S. and Japan to “take part in solving” the South China Sea sovereignty dispute.

Behind this series of developments there is clearly the silhouette of Uncle Sam, and the international climate that accompanies China’s sudden rise to become the second largest economy in the world. From a historical perspective, what I have summarized is the classic strategy of transferring from strong points to weak points for the last 10 years and more. The recent crucial move is the “pivot” made by the Obama administration after its recent rise to power: deemphasizing political conflict with the Islamic world after the 10-year war on terror and turning to China, its most powerful economic competitor, as the main opponent in the contest of civilizations.

In the Obama administration’s “pivot” one can clearly see that the greatest threat to America’s position of international hegemony is really economic strength, and not the new specter of political Islam that haunts the world. Aside from this, it is also an examination into the way Washington uses the tactic of the moral “high ground” and “low ground” with different international opponents, especially the soft power of “universal values” that won the Cold War against the Soviets, as well as the huge force of public opinion that NATO directed against the Warsaw Pact. 10 years of the war on terror have shown that America can’t effectively use these two Cold War weapons against political Islam, but still possesses great potential with regard to the current pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Washington’s series of tactical moves from Europe to East Asia, especially in Myanmar, which is in China’s backyard, are clearly cases of the “universal values” and public opinion tactics — indeed putting Beijing in the “low ground” position.

As I have stressed many times, Beijing’s great problem is the deficit of moral authority. Not only does this give rise to “troubles within the family,” but may end up giving an advantage to foreign aggressors. The recent scandal involving the leader of Chongqing [Bo Xilai] is a clear example of this.* It exposed corruption at the highest level, and could be compared with the Lin Biao affair, which ultimately destroyed the personality cult of Mao Zedong at the time. Internationally, this scandal not only directly involved prominent overseas figures, but the South China Morning Post of Hong Kong also revealed that it led to Europe and America paying greater attention to the appearance of similar corruption at high levels in the Chinese military.

International allies are another vulnerable spot for Beijing. Let us consider the larger trends of the ebb and flow of strength in the East Asia region.

One notable point is the decline of Japan. The New York Times and the Washington Post both recently published special reports on the conditions that trumped Japan’s sudden rise after World War II: the decline of manufacturing, especially in consumer electronics, where they were once the world’s leader. For example, Sony, Sharp and Panasonic, who had been industry leaders for many years, continue to lose money and lay off employees, while Sharp has been forced to sell stock and factories to Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Industry Company.

In contrast with this is South Korea’s sudden rise, beginning to surpass Japan both in traditional manufacturing and in the electronics industry. In the international arena, not only has the “Korean Wave” spread overseas, but their disproportionate influence on world affairs can be seen in the fact that a South Korean national is the Secretary General of the United Nations, and a person of South Korean descent is the president of the World Bank.

On the subcontinent, the economic success of India is reflected in its guided missile tests, but in contrast the economy of Pakistan is sluggish, and politically it continues its slow collapse. Members of the U.S. Congress even recently recommended a motion in support of independence for the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. Furthermore, Beijing has identified a direct connection between this year’s terrorist violence in Xinjiang’s Kargilik county and Islamist organizations in Pakistan.

One can take a lesson from history. The Franco-Prussian War of unification created the German Second Reich, which experienced a sudden rise in economic strength at the time, soon leading the European continent and moving toward becoming a global superpower. This trend was reversed by the First World War; one crucial reason for this was the international allies that Germany chose. At the beginning of the World War, after Germany’s famous general, Erich von Ludendorff, paid an official visit to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he reported to the Kaiser: “We are allied with a corpse.”

The real misfortune was that Germany had made alliances with two corpses, the other corpse being the waning Ottoman Empire.

If we examine the present situation, Beijing’s main allies in Asia are the military governments of Pakistan, North Korea and Myanmar. It might be too much to call them “corpses,” but they aren’t exactly living, thriving, reliable partners. They aren’t even sustainable entities in the long term, which gives one something to ponder.

*Editor’s note: Bo Xilai, former party chief of Chongqing, ran a wire-tapping system across Chongqing that was discovered when it tapped into Hu Jintao’s phone line.