The Foreign Service Journal, December 2013

The U.S. and Asia: What Pivot? B arack Obama’s first term as president was filled with rhetoric concerning the United States’ foreign policy and stat- ure as a world power. In particular, former Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton championed an initiative to forge stronger social, economic and military ties through a “Pivot to Asia.” Two years later, however, President Obama’s decision not to attend October meetings of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (in Bali) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (in Brunei), and to cancel visits to U.S. allies in the region, has led many to ask whether the pivot is simply a rhetorical device without any real substance to it. Anticipating that reaction, the White House sent Secretary of State John Kerry in the president’s place, and emphasized its intention to reschedule a trip to Asia as soon as possible. But the very reason it gave for the cancellation—the federal government shutdown—stirred up unpleasant memories of the fact that Pres. Obama had also been forced to delay a 2010 trip to the region twice over domestic issues. A survey of reac- tions to the news, and the inter- national fallout, suggests that analysts are coming at the subject from all sorts of angles. Politically conservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation see the main value of the pivot in the potential to ensure Ameri- can military and political dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. To make that case, AEI’s analysts lean heavily on Cold War- era terminology like “conventional deter- rence,” while Heritage urges pursuit of an expansive military plan for the region. But other think-tanks believe that nonmilitary aspects of U.S. strategy are what will enhance American influence in Asia. For instance, Robert M. Hathaway of the Wilson Center declares that the United States must dedicate “institutional struc- ture, budgetary support and conceptual legitimacy to the idea that America’s fate is inextricably linked to Asia.” Still, he warns, for U.S. foreign policy to flourish, Wash- ington must get its own house in order, citing the shutdown as a case study. Few Foreign Service Journal readers will be surprised that much of the debate concerns Sino-American relations, which many observers view as a zero-sum game. They noted that as soon as the White House announced the cancellation, Chinese President Xi Jinping moved up his own trip to Bali to signal interest in court- ing Southeast Asian governments. Among other exploits, Xi not only addressed the Indonesian parliament, but scored diplo- matic points for opening his speech in the country’s official language, Bahasa. Perhaps more significantly, America’s no-show delayed negotiations to final- ize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a maj or trade deal involving the United States and 11 other nations—but not China. Beijing seized the resulting opening to promote its own proposal, a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—which happens to exclude the United States. In Foreign Affairs, Robert S. Ross argues that a real Asian pivot would be detrimen- tal not only to Sino-American relations, but to our national interests. And Bonnie Glaser, of the Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies, cautions that Washington must proceed with “subtle firmness” to avoid exacerbating regional suspicions. Despite such concerns, Secretary Kerry declared in his speech at the APEC sum- mit that the pivot is alive and well. His assurances, however, have been met wi th international skepticism. The Australian , for instance, speculates that the Obama administration is simply too overwhelmed by other international issues, particularly in the Middle East, to “pursue the pivot.” Whatever the truth of that claim, Asia’s accel- erating transformation into an economic, political and military powerhouse, and Beijing’s increasingly energetic diplomacy, make it incumbent on the United States to step up its game there—or be left on the sidelines. —Valerie Sanders, Editorial Intern Close, but No SIGAR O ver the past 12 years, the United States has appropriated roughly $100 billion for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan. 10 DECEMBER 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL TALKING POINTS Illustration by Mike Munger