The Asian doctrine
28/11/12 20:18![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
abomvubuso.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics[Error: unknown template video]
There was great symbolism in this visit. Just a few days after being re-elected, and hours after the new leaders in Beijing were known, Barack Obama went on a historic trip to South-East Asia. Thailand, Myanmar and Cambodia - all countries that are usually not actively present at the world stage, and could easily be described as China's backyard. And yet, Obama chose them for his first international trip after re-election. Why?
The message was clear. After a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is turning to the Far East. The diplomatic initiative was carefully planned, and was meant to be a clear sign of America's engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. But the unexpected flares in Palestine instantly overshadowed it. Hillary Clinton had to make an urgent detour from the US delegation and mediate the ceasefire in Gaza.
This was a fine example that, even if they wanted it badly, the US still won't be able to turn their back to the Middle East completely. Not so fast anyway. Despite the long proclaimed shifting of the focus to East Asia by the Obama administration, and his desire to be the "Pacific president", and to focus on the region where the future battles for global domination will take place, the conflicts of the past are still dragging him back.
It wasn't so long ago that Hollywood sent Rambo the superhero to Myanmar to dispense justice upon the bad totalitarian guys in Rambo-IV. Now it was Obama who went there, and he wasn't delivering punches and bullets, but speeches about freedom and democracy. It's what any US president would do, right?
It was Myanmar that was the focus of the first ever POTUS visit there, of course. Since president Thein Sein came to power last year, a remarkable transition process to democracy and open market economy has ensued - the party of legendary Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed into parliament, thousands of political prisoners were released, full media freedom was guaranteed, dozens of new independent media popped up in public space, new laws were adopted, regulating foreign investment and creating a stable banking system.
So the moment of Obama's visit was timely and well chosen, because Myanmar is at a point where the reforms are looking irreversible. On one side, he showed that he's personally interested about the progress of the situation, and on the other side, he sent a clear message that those who've chosen the path to democracy, would have America's support.
Actually why did the military junta which had ruled with a heavy hand for half a century, suddenly budge and hand power over to a civilian government, still remains a mystery. The theories vary, from an astrological prophecy, to fear of becoming victim to something resembling the Arab spring. The military probably deemed it a risk to resist democratisation for too long. The international sanctions on the regime had already rendered the economy completely dependent on China. And when all your eggs are in one basket, it's a risk by itself. So "Burma" figured it had to diversify its foreign partners and open itself up to the world. The only way to do that was democratisation and opening its markets. So the reforms that ensued could be interpreted as a reaction to their own insecurity and a sense of impending menace.
It's still unclear how far the impulse for reform would go, or whether Obama's messages alone would help the country turn into a real democracy. But one thing is for sure: a resource-rich country with a strategic location has opened itself to the world, and has preferred a closer relationship with the US to becoming China's appendix, which is undeniably a diplomatic and geopolitical victory for America. And Obama's visit is not only related to ideology, but trade and economic relations, and subsequently diverting Myanmar away from China's orbit.
I don't know what our US friends would say about this, but Obama's foreign policy is being mostly regarded as "pragmatic" in most of the outside world. It lacks that radical simplistic division of the world into black and white, friend and foe, that was so typical for the Cold War period and which was temporarily back under GWB (and in some elements of Romney's election campaign). Under Obama, the US foreign policy has been mostly focused on the US interests as they relate to the existing realities, and in that sense it's become more flexible, compared to his predecessor. And now, when the question about Obama's re-election is no more on the agenda, I'd wager this tendency would only be deepening.
The current US policy toward Asia is mostly a continuation of the classical geopolitical realism. Sure, as all other representatives of the US government, Obama, too, is promoting democracy, human rights, etc. On the other hand, he's making efforts to isolate China and form a coalition of US allies surrounding it, the way the USSR was being encircled on the grand geopolitical chessboard. And the main tool he's using to achieve that, is offering humanitarian aid and economic cooperation to anyone who'd join that coalition. A compelling offer indeed.
The significance of the Asian-Pacific region could hardly be overrated. 2/3 of the world's population is concentrated there, and nearly 1/4 of the global GDP (and growing), plus the two largest markets in the world (China and India). Besides, these countries have been increasing their defense spending for years. It's the most dynamic region in the world, and the events there will be setting the pace for all the rest. So it's hardly a surprise that Obama's national defense advisor Tom Donilon announced at the beginning of the tour that "America's success [is] directly linked to Asia's success". And he didn't just mean economic success, but also diplomatic and military.
In fact, Obama's statement that in the future 60% of America's military fleet would be moved to the Pacific, which became famous as his vow to make a major shift to Asia, doesn't reflect a complete strategy by itself, but more like an articulation of a process that has started a long time ago. In the last 20 years the US military presence in the region has been growing steadily. Realistically, after the end of the Cold War, neither Europe nor the Middle East pose any serious existential threats for the US and its allies (Jihadist terrorism being a huge nuisance, but not a fundamental threat to the US global domination). Meanwhile, Asia's importance both economically and politically is growing, and there are a number of problems still unsolved there - from the territorial scramble in the South China Sea, to the future of nuclear North Korea, to China's growing economic and geopolitical aspirations.
The US carriers and business investors look very much alike - and it's hard to decide which came first, the chicken or the egg. They're closely intertwined. That's fully valid for the US policy in Asia as well. Although from a first sight it would seem that there's a fear in South-East Asia from the Chinese ascent, and a natural urge for closer relations with the US, that's not exactly the full story. While the Philippines and Vietnam are indeed very concerned about China's rising power, India is more interested in cooperation in the hi-tech sphere, and Myanmar mostly cares about attracting foreign investments. Everything is related to the national interests of the separate countries, and here economic cooperation is factor number 1.
In order to understand the position of each country in the region, we could look for examples at the situation in the ASEAN, the regional trans-border organisation in South-East Asia. Its member states prefer not to be in a position where they're forced to choose between America and China. So Obama has to act very carefully there, and create the impression that he doesn't necessarily aim to isolate China, but rather his primary goal is to help develop the economies of these countries, i.e. he needs to be more subtle. This is a de facto forging of a new coalition, even if it's not officially called that way.
So if the US establishes some form of partnership in free trade with the ASEAN countries, the Americans could later rely on their geopolitical support. Especially in cases like the territorial dispute in the South China Sea. In turn, the Asian countries could also rely on US support in possible rows with China. That's the model the Obama administration should be trying to forge in the years to follow. Such a development would naturally force China to increase its military expenses even more (a familiar story in the Soviets' case during the Cold War) - especially as far as the navy is concerned. And that's crucial for slowing down their development and possibly causing internal problems. Meanwhile, Beijing would be compelled to intensify their cooperation with Russia, as they try to move away from Japan, India and of course the US. This strategy might be a useful political move on America's part, but I'm not entirely sure it'd have positive effects on the region itself in the long run, because no one could predict where it'd lead eventually.
The US is undoubtedly the only global superpower with interests in every corner of the world. And when we're talking about shifting to the East, we're mostly talking of a shift in priorities. Which doesn't mean a complete neglect of the rest of the world, including the constantly flaring Middle East and belly-button gazing Europe.
Still, the Gaza conflict has shown that the US is changing its methods. Initially, it took quite some time for the US administration to react, and even then Obama preferred to first turn to the influential countries in the region (Egypt, Turkey, Qatar) - but at the end of the day the US had to intervene directly after all. Hillary Clinton arrived there, and without her intervention probably no truce would've been possible. Actually what we saw in Gaza was the same behaviour model like in Libya and Syria. The US are doing their best to not get directly involved; they rely on diplomacy, amassing international pressure in the desired direction, and mediation from the important regional powers. But still, they're prepared to intervene whenever necessary.
On the surface, the main reason for the withdrawal from the Middle East and the turning to the Far East may be fatigue and disappointment from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The recent forecast of the IAEA that in two decades the US would be fully energy independent and self-sufficient is contributing to that attitude as well. Not only that, but the US is expected to become the primary oil and gas exporter within the next 20 years. And then 90% of the Middle East oil will be going to Asia, China being by far the biggest client. So, in a way, the turn to Asia is not diverting America from the Middle East, but rather turning it back there, but via a different, more indirect route. After all, this is the 21st century. The power balance is shifting, and America has to respond adequately.
There was great symbolism in this visit. Just a few days after being re-elected, and hours after the new leaders in Beijing were known, Barack Obama went on a historic trip to South-East Asia. Thailand, Myanmar and Cambodia - all countries that are usually not actively present at the world stage, and could easily be described as China's backyard. And yet, Obama chose them for his first international trip after re-election. Why?
The message was clear. After a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is turning to the Far East. The diplomatic initiative was carefully planned, and was meant to be a clear sign of America's engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. But the unexpected flares in Palestine instantly overshadowed it. Hillary Clinton had to make an urgent detour from the US delegation and mediate the ceasefire in Gaza.
This was a fine example that, even if they wanted it badly, the US still won't be able to turn their back to the Middle East completely. Not so fast anyway. Despite the long proclaimed shifting of the focus to East Asia by the Obama administration, and his desire to be the "Pacific president", and to focus on the region where the future battles for global domination will take place, the conflicts of the past are still dragging him back.
It wasn't so long ago that Hollywood sent Rambo the superhero to Myanmar to dispense justice upon the bad totalitarian guys in Rambo-IV. Now it was Obama who went there, and he wasn't delivering punches and bullets, but speeches about freedom and democracy. It's what any US president would do, right?
It was Myanmar that was the focus of the first ever POTUS visit there, of course. Since president Thein Sein came to power last year, a remarkable transition process to democracy and open market economy has ensued - the party of legendary Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed into parliament, thousands of political prisoners were released, full media freedom was guaranteed, dozens of new independent media popped up in public space, new laws were adopted, regulating foreign investment and creating a stable banking system.
So the moment of Obama's visit was timely and well chosen, because Myanmar is at a point where the reforms are looking irreversible. On one side, he showed that he's personally interested about the progress of the situation, and on the other side, he sent a clear message that those who've chosen the path to democracy, would have America's support.
Actually why did the military junta which had ruled with a heavy hand for half a century, suddenly budge and hand power over to a civilian government, still remains a mystery. The theories vary, from an astrological prophecy, to fear of becoming victim to something resembling the Arab spring. The military probably deemed it a risk to resist democratisation for too long. The international sanctions on the regime had already rendered the economy completely dependent on China. And when all your eggs are in one basket, it's a risk by itself. So "Burma" figured it had to diversify its foreign partners and open itself up to the world. The only way to do that was democratisation and opening its markets. So the reforms that ensued could be interpreted as a reaction to their own insecurity and a sense of impending menace.
It's still unclear how far the impulse for reform would go, or whether Obama's messages alone would help the country turn into a real democracy. But one thing is for sure: a resource-rich country with a strategic location has opened itself to the world, and has preferred a closer relationship with the US to becoming China's appendix, which is undeniably a diplomatic and geopolitical victory for America. And Obama's visit is not only related to ideology, but trade and economic relations, and subsequently diverting Myanmar away from China's orbit.
I don't know what our US friends would say about this, but Obama's foreign policy is being mostly regarded as "pragmatic" in most of the outside world. It lacks that radical simplistic division of the world into black and white, friend and foe, that was so typical for the Cold War period and which was temporarily back under GWB (and in some elements of Romney's election campaign). Under Obama, the US foreign policy has been mostly focused on the US interests as they relate to the existing realities, and in that sense it's become more flexible, compared to his predecessor. And now, when the question about Obama's re-election is no more on the agenda, I'd wager this tendency would only be deepening.
The current US policy toward Asia is mostly a continuation of the classical geopolitical realism. Sure, as all other representatives of the US government, Obama, too, is promoting democracy, human rights, etc. On the other hand, he's making efforts to isolate China and form a coalition of US allies surrounding it, the way the USSR was being encircled on the grand geopolitical chessboard. And the main tool he's using to achieve that, is offering humanitarian aid and economic cooperation to anyone who'd join that coalition. A compelling offer indeed.
The significance of the Asian-Pacific region could hardly be overrated. 2/3 of the world's population is concentrated there, and nearly 1/4 of the global GDP (and growing), plus the two largest markets in the world (China and India). Besides, these countries have been increasing their defense spending for years. It's the most dynamic region in the world, and the events there will be setting the pace for all the rest. So it's hardly a surprise that Obama's national defense advisor Tom Donilon announced at the beginning of the tour that "America's success [is] directly linked to Asia's success". And he didn't just mean economic success, but also diplomatic and military.
In fact, Obama's statement that in the future 60% of America's military fleet would be moved to the Pacific, which became famous as his vow to make a major shift to Asia, doesn't reflect a complete strategy by itself, but more like an articulation of a process that has started a long time ago. In the last 20 years the US military presence in the region has been growing steadily. Realistically, after the end of the Cold War, neither Europe nor the Middle East pose any serious existential threats for the US and its allies (Jihadist terrorism being a huge nuisance, but not a fundamental threat to the US global domination). Meanwhile, Asia's importance both economically and politically is growing, and there are a number of problems still unsolved there - from the territorial scramble in the South China Sea, to the future of nuclear North Korea, to China's growing economic and geopolitical aspirations.
The US carriers and business investors look very much alike - and it's hard to decide which came first, the chicken or the egg. They're closely intertwined. That's fully valid for the US policy in Asia as well. Although from a first sight it would seem that there's a fear in South-East Asia from the Chinese ascent, and a natural urge for closer relations with the US, that's not exactly the full story. While the Philippines and Vietnam are indeed very concerned about China's rising power, India is more interested in cooperation in the hi-tech sphere, and Myanmar mostly cares about attracting foreign investments. Everything is related to the national interests of the separate countries, and here economic cooperation is factor number 1.
In order to understand the position of each country in the region, we could look for examples at the situation in the ASEAN, the regional trans-border organisation in South-East Asia. Its member states prefer not to be in a position where they're forced to choose between America and China. So Obama has to act very carefully there, and create the impression that he doesn't necessarily aim to isolate China, but rather his primary goal is to help develop the economies of these countries, i.e. he needs to be more subtle. This is a de facto forging of a new coalition, even if it's not officially called that way.
So if the US establishes some form of partnership in free trade with the ASEAN countries, the Americans could later rely on their geopolitical support. Especially in cases like the territorial dispute in the South China Sea. In turn, the Asian countries could also rely on US support in possible rows with China. That's the model the Obama administration should be trying to forge in the years to follow. Such a development would naturally force China to increase its military expenses even more (a familiar story in the Soviets' case during the Cold War) - especially as far as the navy is concerned. And that's crucial for slowing down their development and possibly causing internal problems. Meanwhile, Beijing would be compelled to intensify their cooperation with Russia, as they try to move away from Japan, India and of course the US. This strategy might be a useful political move on America's part, but I'm not entirely sure it'd have positive effects on the region itself in the long run, because no one could predict where it'd lead eventually.
The US is undoubtedly the only global superpower with interests in every corner of the world. And when we're talking about shifting to the East, we're mostly talking of a shift in priorities. Which doesn't mean a complete neglect of the rest of the world, including the constantly flaring Middle East and belly-button gazing Europe.
Still, the Gaza conflict has shown that the US is changing its methods. Initially, it took quite some time for the US administration to react, and even then Obama preferred to first turn to the influential countries in the region (Egypt, Turkey, Qatar) - but at the end of the day the US had to intervene directly after all. Hillary Clinton arrived there, and without her intervention probably no truce would've been possible. Actually what we saw in Gaza was the same behaviour model like in Libya and Syria. The US are doing their best to not get directly involved; they rely on diplomacy, amassing international pressure in the desired direction, and mediation from the important regional powers. But still, they're prepared to intervene whenever necessary.
On the surface, the main reason for the withdrawal from the Middle East and the turning to the Far East may be fatigue and disappointment from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The recent forecast of the IAEA that in two decades the US would be fully energy independent and self-sufficient is contributing to that attitude as well. Not only that, but the US is expected to become the primary oil and gas exporter within the next 20 years. And then 90% of the Middle East oil will be going to Asia, China being by far the biggest client. So, in a way, the turn to Asia is not diverting America from the Middle East, but rather turning it back there, but via a different, more indirect route. After all, this is the 21st century. The power balance is shifting, and America has to respond adequately.
(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 19:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 02:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 04:43 (UTC)People may find this interesting: Is it Burma or Myanmar? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7013943.stm)
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 07:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 10:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 09:06 (UTC)Until events there come biting 'Murrkka on its ass. Then things get real.