Conservatives often compare President Obama's foreign policy with the Carter Administration's. Their argument has been bolstered by handshakes with Hugo Chavez, so called apologetic speeches directed to the people of the Middle East, and the disastrous Benghazi affair, the worst event to hit the State Department since the 1979 Iranian embassy hostage crisis.
However, while the analogy between the Carter and Obama Doctrines can be cleverly crafted by terrestrial evidence, I believe that reality illustrates a far different historical comparison, Richard Nixon. Why you may ask? Because Nixon and Obama have shared one common goal in their foreign policy doctrines, engagement with Asia as a Pacific power, in particular China. However, I believe President Nixon came to the conclusion of Asia's importance due to his top foreign policy advisor Henry Kissinger.
President Obama on the other hand was raised with a Pacific centric world view. Born in Hawaii and raised in Indonesia, Obama's world view not only has a strategic connection with the region but a personal one. He is America's first Pacific President, and in an era with so many international distractions from Europe and the Middle East, this world view is needed more than ever. The strategic shift from the Middle East to Asia will undoubtedly be President Obama's greatest foreign policy legacy.
But why Asia? Why now? As it now stands all signs point to Asia as the center of geopolitical importance in the 21st century. Asia accounts for a majority of the world's economic growth and military expansion. Furthermore, there are plenty of problems to be dealt with.
Like the Middle East, Asia suffers from numerous nontraditional security threats such as piracy in the Melaka Straights, drug/human trafficking in Southeast Asia and muslim extremism in the southern islands of the Philippines. Geopolitical posturing occurs between several regional actors especially India, Pakistan, the Koreas, Japan, ASEAN, and China. India, Vietnam, North Korea and China have all expanded military capabilities within the last decade as a result of mutual distrust. Japan has even considered building a military beyond peacekeeping purposes.
The region's primary destabilizing force is China, whose power and influence has made it the region's hegemon. Recent diplomatic spats with China over islands in the East and South China Seas have erased China's image as a peaceful rising power previously held by other cautious regional actors. The only force that can serve as a balance to China is the US. So it is no surprise that we have heard demands for an increased US presence in the Asia Pacific from Vietnam and the Philippines. It should come as no surprise that Australia welcomed 2,500 US troops with open arms. It should be of no surprise that conservative pro US factions have won parliamentary majorities in recent elections in Japan and South Korea.
US presence in the region isn't only important for Asian nations. Security threats brought by a rising China and nontraditional security threats have the potential to affect global trade routes in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. US soft power would improve dramatically in region by providing a positive security role. Such soft power has the potential of advancing economic interests such as free trade agreements and other economic partnerships. Furthermore, as has been the case with previous engagements with the Asia Pacific, the American military and diplomatic establishment can build a sense of understanding about how Asian cultures and political systems affect geopolitics. Such knowledge would prove invaluable in the 21st Century.
In recent decades, the US has yielded very little from our efforts in the Middle East, as the Arab Spring has demonstrated. It is a region far more unpredictable than the Asia Pacific. The region provides far less strategic value in the 21st Century as America continues to use domestic natural resources and develop clean energy technologies. In regards to the War on Terrorism, the threat will continue to exist, if not in the form of Al Qaeda than some other organization. Furthermore, the presence of US forces only provides more fuel to the coercive ideologies of Islam based terrorist organizations. Ironically, it was the Carter Doctrine that initiated America's path as the security policeman of the Middle East. After 30 years, it's time for America to hang up the baton and return to the proper theatre for the 21st Century, the Asia Pacific. If anything, President Obama is attempting to leave the Carter Doctrine behind.
Will President Obama be able to make the transition to the Asia Pacific a reality? Perhaps not. Several environmental constraints hinder the administration's efforts such as an inflammatory Middle East, nuclear bound Iran, and a massive fiscal sequester expected to hit the Defense Department. But the president has at least been able to get the ball rolling. Like Reagan, Obama's successor will probably be in office to see the finalized results of his efforts. If that's the case, President Obama still deserves credit for acknowledging and acting upon the necessary geopolitical challenges of the 21st Century. For America, it's Asia or bust.
No comments:
Post a Comment