How
much is the United States willing to commit in protecting its interests and the
region's?
The average western citizen has probably never
heard of the Paracel Islands, an archipelago of 30-plus specks located in the
South China Sea. There’s not much to suggest. It’s a good place to fish and
perhaps drill for oil, but on the whole the islands are inconsequential. They
are not game changers in the sense that control over them would shift
geopolitical standings.
Yet for centuries the Paracels have been hotly
contested, changing hands between the Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and French
at one point or another. Today the islands are claimed by both China and
Vietnam, although it is China that has controlled and garrisoned troops on
them. A long and complicated history of ownership has merely added the Paracels
to an equally long and complicated list of territorial disputes between China
and Vietnam.
Given the less than strategic nature of the
islands, however, they are valuable to use to as a measure of the United
States’ commitment to Asia and the Pacific.
Expectations
Although China seized the Paracels in the
1970s, their continued control is a demonstration of continuing Chinese
regional military might. The China in the 1970s was vastly different from the
China today -- predominantly closed to the global community, starved and poor.
What can be achieved by today’s China can be much more, and this newfound
confidence and capability have worried its neighbors, who have looked to the
United States for support to act as a counter-balance to China’s rising
influence, But what exactly can these countries expect from the US?
President Barack Obama has more than once
expressed American commitment to the Asia-Pacific, economic and security-wise.
However, it is questionable just how much the US can do in the region, both
financially and militarily. This is not to say that the US has lost its
position in the world as a global superpower, but it can no longer wield its
influence worldwide as it once did post-Second World War.
One could argue that the US has maintained its
resolve but that its capability to project power has dwindled. Economic reality
has forced Obama to reduce the US armed forces, while politics and his
re-election in particular have made discussion on foreign policy secondary to
domestic issues. It is customary, if not necessary, for politicians to talk
about issues that interest voters. Elections and re-elections are won by
convincing the people that you, as the candidate, have their best interests at
heart, and that one's opponent is the source of all the people’s woes.
If those Asian nations currently following the
US presidential elections are looking for some clue, some hint as to how the US
would approach the region in 2012 and beyond, they are perhaps better off
scavenging the Internet for information. This is not to say that US foreign
policy has disappeared completely, but it has instead faded into the
background.
Looking
ahead at more of the same
For the moment, interested parties can only
participate in the guessing game. With Obama’s re-election in the balance,
there is no telling how the US will approach the Asia-Pacific. However, the
Democrats and Republicans are probably not so different with respect to the
Asia-Pacific. The rise of China and the rapid growth of the Asian markets, and
how the US could benefit from this, are of interest to both political parties.
Should Obama win his bid for a second term,
expect him to carry on as he is currently. However, he will undoubtedly put
forth more manageable promises given that his focus would be to help lead the
US economy back to good standing. A cabinet reshuffle might occur, but it is
unlikely that such an event would seriously alter Obama’s foreign policy
objectives in the Asia-Pacific.
On the other hand, should Obama lose the White
House this November, the Republicans would likely delay addressing Asia-Pacific
issues, as there is greater priority in fulfilling campaign promises on the
domestic front. Moreover, should the Republicans win, you can expect the first
term to be one where foreign policy (save for American commitments in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the volatile nature of Iran) takes a back seat. Those
Asian nations looking to the US for support should expect more or less the same
if Obama had won—four years of expedient, politically safe forays.
Testing
the water
As much as the battle between China and
Vietnam over the Paracels in 1974 was a test of the international community’s
reaction to China’s seizure of territory, China’s rise this past decade and for
the years ahead is a test of the US's commitment to the region. As in the past,
and as it appears today, the US has neither the inclination nor the political
will to engage in additional and potentially costly foreign operations (Libya
being an exception, where the US played a supporting role rather than a leading
one).
Where does this leave the Asia-Pacific? On the
list of issues to address, Asia would fall somewhere after Iran but before the
International Space Station. The reality for politicians is that there is too
much to do and too little time to do it. Political agendas are always bigger
than reality permits, and, unfortunately but inevitably, that means carrying
out said agenda almost always fall short of expectations.
But is this a reflection of the US’s weakening
military might, popular discontent at home, or the byproduct of economic
difficulties? The answer is perhaps all the above in varying degrees. The US
armed forces are indeed shrinking, but the country is still capable of
projecting power abroad. Voters, reflecting the attitude of the population as a
whole, have expressed their dissatisfaction with Washington DC, in its handling
of the recession.
Priorities have changed to focus
overwhelmingly on domestic affairs, although one could make the argument that
foreign affairs have solely been the domain of Washington politics, with or
without the consultation of the American people. And of course, economic
constraints have forced the US to reassess its commitments at home and abroad.
The reality is that the potential for US
support exists but will be limited. Hindsight being 20/20, however, perhaps I
will be proven wrong. Perhaps the US will withdraw from the region or (and
maybe a little more likely) the US will commit completely and without
reservation. Nevertheless, as long as China remains part of the discussion, so
will the United States, that much is certain.
Khanh Vu Duc
Asia Sentinel
(Khanh Vu Duc is a Vietnamese Canadian lawyer
in Ottawa, focusing on various areas of law. He researches on International
Relations and International Law.)
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Consulting, Investment and Management, focusing three main economic sectors: International PR; Healthcare & Wellness;and Tourism & Hospitality. We also propose Higher Education, as a bridge between educational structures and industries, by supporting international programs. Sign up with twitter to get news updates with @SaigonBusinessC. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment