|
President Barack Obama finally canceled his entire
Asia trip altogether. He will miss two important summits, the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit and the East Asia Summit (EAS), where the
future of the Asia-Pacific region is being crafted. Most summit participants
will surely miss him but some might in fact cheer his absence.
While anticipated, the decision is still disappointing. President Obama had promised to make Asia Pacific the epicenter of his foreign policy. Through the “Asia pivot” or “rebalancing” strategy announced in November 2011, the Obama administration has in fact intensified the US’ engagement with East Asia.
A flurry of diplomatic, economic and military steps taken during 2012, especially regular participation from President Obama, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton and then defense secretary Leon Panetta in ASEAN-centered summits and ministerial meetings, began to dissipate some doubts about the US’ commitment to its “Asia pivot”.
Indeed, the US’ pivot to Asia has been welcome at a time when the strategic environment in the region is in flux due to the changing power relationship among major powers.
True, many in East Asia, especially in Indonesia, want to see the pivot strategy implemented in a comprehensive manner, not only in a military capacity. That expectation appeared to be fulfilled when the Obama administration began to describe its approach to East Asia as a “rebalancing” policy.
The question, however, remains: Can the US sustain the “rebalancing” strategy consistently and not in an ad hoc sort of way? President Obama may be genuinely committed to the “Asia pivot”.
However, domestic constraints (both financial and political) and the US’ entanglement with the Middle East have continuously served as two obstacles to a full and consistent implementation of “Asia pivot” strategy.
When President Obama’s choice for Secretary of State, John Kerry, began to “pivot back” to the Middle East, doubts about the US’ ability to sustain its “Asia pivot” resurfaced again across East Asia.
President Obama’s speech at the United Nations two weeks ago, during which he focused more on the Middle East, left many to wonder about the place and future of the “Asia pivot” in US foreign policy.
Now, President Obama’s decision to not attend what Asia sees as an important diplomatic event has reinforced the perception that the “Asia pivot” is indeed not sustainable. If the architect of the “Asia pivot” himself, President Obama, cannot sustain and follow through with his own vision and strategic innovation, what will become of the “Asia pivot” once he is no longer at the helm of US foreign policy?
However, I would argue that while the US’ fixation with the Middle East, and President Obama’s no-show at APEC and the EAS, might have heightened East Asia’s concerns about the US’ staying power and the sustainability of the “Asia pivot”, it is unlikely that Washington will “pivot away” from East Asia.
The region’s significance as the fulcrum of global transformation is too important for the US to ignore. For Washington, pivoting to the Middle East or to East Asia will require a strategic balancing act with regard to the needs of the present and those of the future. That is a strategic conundrum for the US itself to resolve.
The Asian debate on the status and the future of “Asia pivot”, however, once again highlights East Asia’s own strategic conundrum. On the one hand, strategic transformation taking place in the region, with its uncertain implications, has reinforced the need to intensify the on-going efforts to construct a new regional order based on norms and institutions.
But regional institutions would not function properly unless there was a stable balance of power among the major powers in the region, which, in turn, requires the US’ sustained role and engagement in East Asia.
Finding a solution to this predicament is a great challenge for East Asia. It would be great if East Asia could resolve its strategic conundrum together with the US. However, there is not much we can do about it.
With or without the US’ “Asia pivot”, the construction of regional order should and would go on. For this, East Asian countries need to work harder and closer with each other. ●
While anticipated, the decision is still disappointing. President Obama had promised to make Asia Pacific the epicenter of his foreign policy. Through the “Asia pivot” or “rebalancing” strategy announced in November 2011, the Obama administration has in fact intensified the US’ engagement with East Asia.
A flurry of diplomatic, economic and military steps taken during 2012, especially regular participation from President Obama, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton and then defense secretary Leon Panetta in ASEAN-centered summits and ministerial meetings, began to dissipate some doubts about the US’ commitment to its “Asia pivot”.
Indeed, the US’ pivot to Asia has been welcome at a time when the strategic environment in the region is in flux due to the changing power relationship among major powers.
True, many in East Asia, especially in Indonesia, want to see the pivot strategy implemented in a comprehensive manner, not only in a military capacity. That expectation appeared to be fulfilled when the Obama administration began to describe its approach to East Asia as a “rebalancing” policy.
The question, however, remains: Can the US sustain the “rebalancing” strategy consistently and not in an ad hoc sort of way? President Obama may be genuinely committed to the “Asia pivot”.
However, domestic constraints (both financial and political) and the US’ entanglement with the Middle East have continuously served as two obstacles to a full and consistent implementation of “Asia pivot” strategy.
When President Obama’s choice for Secretary of State, John Kerry, began to “pivot back” to the Middle East, doubts about the US’ ability to sustain its “Asia pivot” resurfaced again across East Asia.
President Obama’s speech at the United Nations two weeks ago, during which he focused more on the Middle East, left many to wonder about the place and future of the “Asia pivot” in US foreign policy.
Now, President Obama’s decision to not attend what Asia sees as an important diplomatic event has reinforced the perception that the “Asia pivot” is indeed not sustainable. If the architect of the “Asia pivot” himself, President Obama, cannot sustain and follow through with his own vision and strategic innovation, what will become of the “Asia pivot” once he is no longer at the helm of US foreign policy?
However, I would argue that while the US’ fixation with the Middle East, and President Obama’s no-show at APEC and the EAS, might have heightened East Asia’s concerns about the US’ staying power and the sustainability of the “Asia pivot”, it is unlikely that Washington will “pivot away” from East Asia.
The region’s significance as the fulcrum of global transformation is too important for the US to ignore. For Washington, pivoting to the Middle East or to East Asia will require a strategic balancing act with regard to the needs of the present and those of the future. That is a strategic conundrum for the US itself to resolve.
The Asian debate on the status and the future of “Asia pivot”, however, once again highlights East Asia’s own strategic conundrum. On the one hand, strategic transformation taking place in the region, with its uncertain implications, has reinforced the need to intensify the on-going efforts to construct a new regional order based on norms and institutions.
But regional institutions would not function properly unless there was a stable balance of power among the major powers in the region, which, in turn, requires the US’ sustained role and engagement in East Asia.
Finding a solution to this predicament is a great challenge for East Asia. It would be great if East Asia could resolve its strategic conundrum together with the US. However, there is not much we can do about it.
With or without the US’ “Asia pivot”, the construction of regional order should and would go on. For this, East Asian countries need to work harder and closer with each other. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar