I am hearing from my friends in Asia that the feeling is the Asian Pivot is "dead" is "no more" and "never was." Some fairly consistent skeptical
V/R
Dave
V/R
Dave
- September 10, 2013, 7:59 p.m. ET
ANALYSIS
Asia Ponders U.S. Role Amid Syria Strife
Doubts Rise in Asia Over U.S. Move to Rebalance Security Obligations Toward the Region
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AP358_CHINAS_G_20130910175739.jpg)
Agence France Presse/Getty Images
Hillary Clinton, on the USS Fitzgerald in 2011, marked the anniversary of the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty.
SINGAPORE—With the U.S. once again pushing to take military action in the Middle East, anxieties are building in Asia about Washington's commitment to the region under the much-touted "pivot."
Just two years ago, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, the U.S. "stands at a pivot point." Henceforth, she said, America would rebalance its diplomatic, economic and strategic commitments to the Asian-Pacific region to make the 21st century "America's Pacific Century." That foreign-policy grand strategy became widely known as the "pivot" to Asia.
The pivot infuriated China, which called it a Cold War-era policy of "containment." But it resonated with many Asian countries seeking U.S. security assurances to counter China's growing military power. China's territorial spats with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam had created broad anxiety in a region that is heavily reliant on China for its economic prosperity, but is wary of its strategic intentions.
Yet even before this latest crisis in Syria dragged U.S. attention back to the Middle East, there was reason to question how much substance the pivot really contained.
Some skeptics in Asia and the U.S. viewed the whole idea as mostly a marketing job by the Obama administration intended to change the story line of a post-financial-crisis America in terminal decline—and a China that was unstoppably ascendant.
Mrs. Clinton's successor, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, added to doubts at his confirmation hearing in January when he noted the negative reaction from China, and suggested it might be time to change tack. "You know, the Chinese take a look at that and say, 'What's the United States doing? They trying to circle us? What's going on?' And so, you know, every action has its reaction," he said.
Many Asian analysts also have noted that, despite his military service in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry's foreign-policy interests and personal networks run more through the Middle East than Asia. That perception has been reinforced by his early efforts to jump-start a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
What is more, Pentagon spending cuts have raised questions about the military initiatives planned under the pivot. Many military analysts believe that if there is any rebalancing of U.S. forces to Asia, it may come simply because of drawdowns in the Middle East and Europe, rather than a buildup in Asia.
Barry Desker, the dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said a consensus is building in Asia that "you're not going to have a significant shift of U.S. forces to this part of the world."
U.S. officials now protest that the pivot to Asia has been widely misunderstood: It was never conceived, they say, as a military buildup—and China was never the target.
They stress its nonmilitary initiatives, including the rapid advances that the U.S. has made to forge an ambitious new trade arrangement for the region within the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And they point to the diplomatic gains from the unprecedented air travel that Obama administration officials have logged on shuttle visits to Asia. For instance, in 2011 President Barack Obama became the first American president to attend the East Asia Summit, held that year in Bali, Indonesia.
(Continued at the link below)
No comments:
Post a Comment