|
The US remains the single most powerful nation on
earth and how well or poorly it projects its influence matters greatly to
Indonesia.
Recent developments have, however, rightly or wrongly, raised some question marks over the credibility and effectiveness of US foreign policy. We need to understand how this might affect Indonesia’s interests, especially in Southeast Asia.
The ongoing crisis over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria has diminished the US.
US President Barack Obama had, a year ago, drawn a red line, warning Assad that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated. Despite this, there was clearly a horrific deployment of chemical weapons against a large number of civilians in an area near Damascus that was occupied by rebel fighters.
The US and its allies said circumstantial evidence showed the Assad regime was culpable, though this was hotly disputed by Assad’s allies such as Russia. The US responded slowly and hesitated in the face of this violation of their red line.
When Obama did eventually decide to mobilize military force against the Assad regime, he faced a series of embarrassing setbacks. The UK, once the Americans’ most dependable ally, pulled out of military action against Syria when its parliament voted against the idea.
Obama did not help matters when he chose to seek Congressional approval for action even though it was not needed. Not only did this slow decision-making depict the US as ponderous and indecisive, it turned out that a large section of Congress was reluctant to support him. In the end, it was a Russian proposal for Syria to voluntarily agree to dispose its chemical weapons that opened the way to a potential resolution of the crisis.
This episode has weakened the US in many ways. First, the impression has been given that the US is no longer able to mobilize a credible “coalition of the willing” as it was once able to. Even if it is the world’s only superpower, the world is far too complex and unmanageable a place for the US to act alone. Without the capacity to pull together such dependable coalitions, US power will be somewhat circumscribed.
Second, the domestic support for a US president to act forcefully in international affairs appears to have weakened significantly. While US politics have always been partisan and US presidents have rarely had their way on everything, there had been a consensus until recently that both sides of the partisan divide should put aside their differences and support presidential action when the US faced an international crisis.
The weakening of this domestic consensus signals to the US’ enemies that it is less capable of acting against them should they test the US’ will and capacity to respond. It also signals to the US allies that it might be a less than dependable friend in times of need.
Third, the US appears to have partly lost the initiative to Russia in a region it has dominated for decades. Since the early 1970s when it brokered an improvement in relations between Egypt and Israel, the US has dominated the Middle East: it has mediated disputes, been the largest aid donor to the region, the main supplier of military weaponry and has helped underwrite support for the continued rule of the political elites who govern key countries in the region. Now Russia has shown up the US — at least in this episode — Middle Eastern powers might be more willing to turn to the Russians as a counter to the US.
What are the underlying problems? It would be easy to say that these setbacks are simply due to misjudgments made by a president who is relatively inexperienced in international affairs and the weak foreign policy team that he has put together for his second term.
However, the causes go deeper and reflect lasting damage from bad policies pursued by previous US administrations.
In particular, the debacle in Iraq has undermined the US in many ways. For instance, the US public is now very wary of supporting foreign adventures as a result. Moreover, there is much more international distrust of the US after its basis for invading Iraq (Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction) was shown to be untrue. The failure to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan after a decade of trying underlines the limits of US power.
There are two other challenges to the US. Its fiscal position is parlous in the long term, which means that the fiscal constraints on its military and foreign policy are likely to become more serious over time. With these more limited resources, it will have to face the inexorable rise of China — which will over time force the US to share power and influence with China, limiting its current dominance.
An analysis of the US position is not complete without also taking into account its extraordinary strengths. The US is — and will remain for at least the next few decades — unbeatable as a source of technological innovation, especially in defense matters.
Its military spending exceeds that of the next 12 countries combined — and this too will be the case for a long time to come. Its economy may eventually become smaller than China’s but it will still remain the most sophisticated and advanced country in the world.
More importantly, while the US does make mistakes, it also learns from these mistakes and adapts quickly. The US will remain a formidable superpower for a long time to come.
This resilience of the US as a power to contend with is evident in Indonesia’s backyard. Just as some Chinese commentators were dismissing the US as a declining power, the US has announced a decisive re-engagement with Asia, with the promise to deploy more troops and air and naval assets to the region.
It is strengthening its strategic and military alliances with Japan, Australia and some of the smaller countries in Asia while building a new one with India. For all its challenges, the US will remain a force to be reckoned with in Indonesia’s backyard.
Indonesia will be affected by how US power rises or weakens.
First, for the sake of its development, Indonesia needs a stable global and regional environment. The rise of China could pose a risk to Indonesia if China is not balanced by another power in the region and only the US can play that role. Since Indonesia cannot keep the big powers out of Southeast Asia, the next best thing is to have a balance of powers with no one big power dominating.
Second, whether we like it or not, the US is the only global policeman. It alone has the resources and incentive to provide global public goods such as maintaining peace and security in major oil producing regions such as the Middle East. Without the US playing such a role, Indonesia could well see highly damaging spikes in oil prices and perhaps even disruptions of oil supplies.
A diminished US is, therefore, not good news for Indonesia. We should all hope that Obama regains the political initiative and restores a clear sense of direction to US foreign policy. ●
Recent developments have, however, rightly or wrongly, raised some question marks over the credibility and effectiveness of US foreign policy. We need to understand how this might affect Indonesia’s interests, especially in Southeast Asia.
The ongoing crisis over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria has diminished the US.
US President Barack Obama had, a year ago, drawn a red line, warning Assad that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated. Despite this, there was clearly a horrific deployment of chemical weapons against a large number of civilians in an area near Damascus that was occupied by rebel fighters.
The US and its allies said circumstantial evidence showed the Assad regime was culpable, though this was hotly disputed by Assad’s allies such as Russia. The US responded slowly and hesitated in the face of this violation of their red line.
When Obama did eventually decide to mobilize military force against the Assad regime, he faced a series of embarrassing setbacks. The UK, once the Americans’ most dependable ally, pulled out of military action against Syria when its parliament voted against the idea.
Obama did not help matters when he chose to seek Congressional approval for action even though it was not needed. Not only did this slow decision-making depict the US as ponderous and indecisive, it turned out that a large section of Congress was reluctant to support him. In the end, it was a Russian proposal for Syria to voluntarily agree to dispose its chemical weapons that opened the way to a potential resolution of the crisis.
This episode has weakened the US in many ways. First, the impression has been given that the US is no longer able to mobilize a credible “coalition of the willing” as it was once able to. Even if it is the world’s only superpower, the world is far too complex and unmanageable a place for the US to act alone. Without the capacity to pull together such dependable coalitions, US power will be somewhat circumscribed.
Second, the domestic support for a US president to act forcefully in international affairs appears to have weakened significantly. While US politics have always been partisan and US presidents have rarely had their way on everything, there had been a consensus until recently that both sides of the partisan divide should put aside their differences and support presidential action when the US faced an international crisis.
The weakening of this domestic consensus signals to the US’ enemies that it is less capable of acting against them should they test the US’ will and capacity to respond. It also signals to the US allies that it might be a less than dependable friend in times of need.
Third, the US appears to have partly lost the initiative to Russia in a region it has dominated for decades. Since the early 1970s when it brokered an improvement in relations between Egypt and Israel, the US has dominated the Middle East: it has mediated disputes, been the largest aid donor to the region, the main supplier of military weaponry and has helped underwrite support for the continued rule of the political elites who govern key countries in the region. Now Russia has shown up the US — at least in this episode — Middle Eastern powers might be more willing to turn to the Russians as a counter to the US.
What are the underlying problems? It would be easy to say that these setbacks are simply due to misjudgments made by a president who is relatively inexperienced in international affairs and the weak foreign policy team that he has put together for his second term.
However, the causes go deeper and reflect lasting damage from bad policies pursued by previous US administrations.
In particular, the debacle in Iraq has undermined the US in many ways. For instance, the US public is now very wary of supporting foreign adventures as a result. Moreover, there is much more international distrust of the US after its basis for invading Iraq (Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction) was shown to be untrue. The failure to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan after a decade of trying underlines the limits of US power.
There are two other challenges to the US. Its fiscal position is parlous in the long term, which means that the fiscal constraints on its military and foreign policy are likely to become more serious over time. With these more limited resources, it will have to face the inexorable rise of China — which will over time force the US to share power and influence with China, limiting its current dominance.
An analysis of the US position is not complete without also taking into account its extraordinary strengths. The US is — and will remain for at least the next few decades — unbeatable as a source of technological innovation, especially in defense matters.
Its military spending exceeds that of the next 12 countries combined — and this too will be the case for a long time to come. Its economy may eventually become smaller than China’s but it will still remain the most sophisticated and advanced country in the world.
More importantly, while the US does make mistakes, it also learns from these mistakes and adapts quickly. The US will remain a formidable superpower for a long time to come.
This resilience of the US as a power to contend with is evident in Indonesia’s backyard. Just as some Chinese commentators were dismissing the US as a declining power, the US has announced a decisive re-engagement with Asia, with the promise to deploy more troops and air and naval assets to the region.
It is strengthening its strategic and military alliances with Japan, Australia and some of the smaller countries in Asia while building a new one with India. For all its challenges, the US will remain a force to be reckoned with in Indonesia’s backyard.
Indonesia will be affected by how US power rises or weakens.
First, for the sake of its development, Indonesia needs a stable global and regional environment. The rise of China could pose a risk to Indonesia if China is not balanced by another power in the region and only the US can play that role. Since Indonesia cannot keep the big powers out of Southeast Asia, the next best thing is to have a balance of powers with no one big power dominating.
Second, whether we like it or not, the US is the only global policeman. It alone has the resources and incentive to provide global public goods such as maintaining peace and security in major oil producing regions such as the Middle East. Without the US playing such a role, Indonesia could well see highly damaging spikes in oil prices and perhaps even disruptions of oil supplies.
A diminished US is, therefore, not good news for Indonesia. We should all hope that Obama regains the political initiative and restores a clear sense of direction to US foreign policy. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar