Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Will next US President have same Asian focus?

In his penultimate year-end press conference on Dec 18, before his annual Christmas holiday, United States President Barack Obama said America’s global leadership as a superpower is more than just “bombing somebody”. Moments later, he ended the session — where he had discussed a range of topics from terrorism to climate change — saying: “Okay, everybody, I’ve got to get to Star Wars.”

TOP PHOTO: Democratic U.S. presidential candidates Senator Bernie Sanders (L), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley. BOTTOM: Republican presidential candidates, from left, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul. Photos: Reuters, AP

TOP PHOTO: Democratic U.S. presidential candidates Senator Bernie Sanders (L), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley. BOTTOM: Republican presidential candidates, from left, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul. Photos: Reuters, AP

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

In his penultimate year-end press conference on Dec 18, before his annual Christmas holiday, United States President Barack Obama said America’s global leadership as a superpower is more than just “bombing somebody”. Moments later, he ended the session — where he had discussed a range of topics from terrorism to climate change — saying: “Okay, everybody, I’ve got to get to Star Wars.”

He was heading off for a special White House screening of the latest instalment of the sci-fi franchise for the next-of-kin of fallen US troops. With these final words for 2015, Mr Obama — whose term finishes in January 2017 after eight years in office — has shown how his administration uses both hard and soft power.

It is a balance that Washington has also struck in Asia Pacific since 2011, when he announced a strategic rebalancing to the region as a key foreign-policy initiative, after years of American preoccupation with the Middle East and North Africa.

In the past four years, by broadening economic and strategic ties with the Asia Pacific, the US has flexed its superpower muscle and exerted its benign influence on the region.

The so-called “pivot” to Asia culminated in October’s conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest regional trade accord in history. Signed after more than five years of talks, the TPP draws together 12 countries representing 40 per cent of the global economy, from Canada and Chile to Australia, Japan and Singapore, into a web of common rules governing trans-Pacific commerce.  

Ratification of the TPP will be both a top priority for Mr Obama in his last year in office and a legacy-making achievement. However, election politics in America next year means he could face a tight fight securing approval for the trade pact from Congress.

The broader concern for US partners and allies in the Asia Pacific is whether Washington’s rebalancing to the region will continue or change after Americans elect a new President in November.  

With candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties duking it out on the campaign trail to become their party’s presidential nominee, the Asia-Pacific region has remained a largely under-discussed topic, save for repeated criticisms on Mr Obama’s handling of China. 

Instead, opposition to the TPP has surfaced in the campaign rhetoric, even within the Republican camp, which is traditionally pro-trade.

Among the Republican frontrunners, only Mr Marco Rubio — a Senator from Florida — has expressed clear support for the deal. Mr Donald Trump has called the TPP a “disaster”, and said it would short-change American businesses.  

Mr Ted Cruz, a Texas Senator, has said that while he supports free trade, he believes the TPP would undermine US immigration laws, adding that he would vote against it.

Democratic nominees Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley argue the TPP would be bad for American workers. Even Ms Hillary Clinton, who championed the pact as Secretary of State in Mr Obama’s first term, has voiced her objection to it, citing concerns that the TPP lacked sufficient protections against currency manipulation, among other issues.

STAKES ARE TOO HIGH FOR THE U.S. TO TURN BACK

Analysts and experts caution against reading too much into the frontrunners’ rhetoric on the TPP at this early stage of the campaign — when candidates are trying to win over the broad support of party colleagues and supporters in the lead-up to internal party elections for the presidential nominee.

“At this point, it’s impossible to discern whether this opposition (to the TPP) stems from partisanship, populism, vote pandering or a sincere political stance,” said Mr Harry Sa, a research analyst in the United States Programme at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore.

Mrs Clinton, for instance, could be playing to influential pro-labour groups in the Democratic Party by opposing the TPP.  Campaign rhetoric aside, analysts expect measured and positive momentum toward the eventual ratification of the TPP trade deal in the coming year.  

“The leaderships of both parties understand that the political, economic and security stakes are too high to turn back (on the TPP),” said Mr Willis Sparks, the Global Macro Director for the New York-based think-tank, Eurasia Group.

To be sure, the TPP and US foreign policy are not the top concerns of voters.  

A Gallup poll last month shows that the key issues in the election are the economy, unemployment, the way government operates in Washington, healthcare policy and homeland security.

“The economy has dominated the past two presidential elections. 2016 should be no different,” said Mr Sa of RSIS. “Though the US economy has shown signs of recovery, many Americans remain unconvinced and are uneasy about the future.” 

Analysts and experts say another explanation for Asia’s absence in campaign speeches so far is that there is broad support in both parties that the US should remain engaged in the region, even though there are important nuances in the parties’ views.  “The Republicans may be in favour of US engagement in Asia, but they are also in favour of more active engagement in the Middle East,” said Mr Rory Kinane, Programme Manager for the US Programme at the London-based think-tank, Chatham House.

“So in terms of overall resources, they may be less able to commit resources to Asia. The Democrats would also be likely to be less hawkish in their attitude towards China.” 

Regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican president takes over the Oval Office, America’s rebalancing approach to the Asia-Pacific region is likely to continue, experts say. 

“Both parties have traditionally said that America’s presence and strength in the Asia-Pacific is a critical part of America’s foreign policy, and that Asia is one of the most strategically and economically important regions in the world to the US,” said Dr Sheena Chestnut Greitens, a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, noting that Republicans’ criticism of the policy has largely centred on its implementation.

At its core, the US rebalancing approach is a multifaceted one supported by both parties, added Dr Huang Chin-Hao, a political science lecturer at the Yale-NUS College in Singapore.

“The strategy hinges on broadening trade, business, and economic ties with Asia, improving and expanding US security partnerships in the region with allies and other partners, as well as strengthening educational, cultural, and other people-to-people exchanges,” he said. 

FIRST SUMMIT WITH ASEAN IN AMERICA

In this past year, the US has moved to anchor itself diplomatically with emerging partners in the Asia-Pacific region — hosting the first visit to the US by the head of Vietnam’s Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong, and welcoming Indonesian President Joko Widodo for his first trip to America.

At the same time, America has also stepped up its engagement with regional allies and established partners, from deploying a newer Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in Japan, to elevating defence ties with Singapore earlier this month. Washington also upgraded relations with the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) to the level of a strategic partnership.

With Mr Obama’s presidency into its final year, he has stressed that he will not be a lame duck leader and will press ahead with his agenda on foreign policy and domestic issues.

A case in point — Mr Obama will be hosting the first US-ASEAN summit talks on American soil in early 2016. A key topic is expected to be territorial disputes and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, where China’s reclamation activities have raised concerns about the way Beijing is staking its claims in the disputed waters. American leaders and military commanders have repeatedly called for China to stop its reclamation work and avoid militarising the area.  

Analysts note, however, that Washington’s rebalancing strategy to Asia goes well beyond managing relations with China. 

“A common pitfall is to assume that the US strategy is all about appearing tough on Beijing. Doing so might yield short-term dividends on the campaign trail, but it misses the larger point about the purpose and strategy of US foreign policy toward an increasingly important region,” said Dr Huang.

“A sustained US rebalancing to Asia is about being more attuned, responsive, and attentive to regional concerns and priorities, all of which are achievable with the right balance of political, economic, security, and diplomatic efforts and initiatives.”

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.