The Rising East: Obama's 'Pivot' To Asia Draws Fire From Skeptics

State Department photo by William Ng / Dec 01, 2011

America’s “Asia hands” applauded last fall when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that the Obama Administration was pivoting the nation’s foreign policy away from Europe and the Middle East to give priority to Asia and the Pacific.

President Obama underscored that decision during an Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering in Honolulu. Then he flew to Australia and on to an East Asia summit in Indonesia to deliver the message again. Those, especially in Hawaii, who believe that America’s future will be influenced by events in Asia, were pleased.

In the ensuing weeks, however, a streak of skepticism has set in. Critics complain that there’s little new in the strategy. Eurocentric policy wonks fear the influence they’ve had since World War II has been diminished. Middle East hands who thought the Arab Spring would give them, especially pro-Israeli activists, a new lease on life are anxious.

Allies and friends of the U.S. in Asia, while initially pleased, have slipped into a “wait and see” mode. They want to find out what Washington will do, particularly on military budgets, before making new commitments. The Chinese, predictably, consider the pivot to be no more than a new ploy in America’s master plan to “contain” China.

The issue has crept into Republican politics as candidates vie for the party’s presidential nomination. Mitt Romney, the current front runner, said: “China and Asia are on the move economically and technologically” and “we must be ready and able to compete.” He asserted: “If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity” but that “if America fails to act, we will be eclipsed."

In response, Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for Asia and the Pacific, sought to refute the skeptics last week in an address in Seoul. “What we are hoping to convey,” he said, “is that after a period of necessary and intense engagement in the Middle East and South Asia, the United States is returning to a focus, to a recognition that in the twenty-first century, the lion’s share of the history of the world will be written in the Asia-Pacific region.”

The United States wants to be “an active friend and open engager with all the countries in the Asia-Pacific region,” he said. “And so what you are seeing in Asia is not simply a momentary surge or a quick policy push that will be quickly replaced by a focus elsewhere.”

“I think what you are witnessing,” Campbell concluded, “is a fundamental reorientation of American priorities to a place where we all understand that the greatest dynamism, the greatest possibilities lie, in the Asia- Pacific region.”

Among the skeptics who have questioned the pivot are Ralph Cossa and Brad Glosserman, president and executive director respectively of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu. They wrote in a recent newsletter: “The only thing new about the US pivot toward Asia is the word ‘pivot.’”

They contended: “Ever since the end of the Cold War, US presidents have been acknowledging the growing importance of Asia and the need for the United States to remain engaged in this critical region in our own national interest.”

Similarly, the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said in Washington: “The Navy’s been in the Western Pacific for a long time.” He said: “This area is vital to the United States. We know that. It’s been an area vital to our Navy and our focus for decades because of the demographics, the trade routes, the large economies.”

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, evidently sensing the skepticism, has sought to deflect the doubts by changing the language. Instead of “pivot,” he prefers “rebalance,” as in rebalance the forces between the Middle East and Asia.

Speaking to American troops in Germany last week, Panetta noted that the Army will “rebalance” deployments to Europe by withdrawing two combat brigades from Germany in coming months while leaving two brigades there.

Foreign Policy magazine, in which Hillary Clinton in November announced the plans to “pivot,” says in its January issue that policymakers see the rise of China, Arab Spring, and the global debt crisis as the three top U.S. foreign policy problems today. Academic specialists on foreign policy said much the same.

Under the headline “Fading Camel, Rising Dragon?,” the magazine said 85 percent of the policymakers and 72 percent of the scholars held that, 20 years from now, East Asia, including China, “will be the most important strategic region for the United States.”

Loading