With the incoming Trump presidency, much ink has been spilled regarding the “end” of President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia.
The pivot was centered on the military prong of moving 60 percent of U.S. naval assets to the Asia Pacific along with the economic prong of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. As the Washington Post stated in August, “The TPP was to be the anchor, symbolic and substantive, of a reinvigorated U.S. presence. The next president cannot simply leave a strategic vacuum in its place.”
In a way, it would serve as an Asian version of the European Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade agreement—referred to by some as the “Economic NATO”—to solidify U.S. presence in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
However, now it appears TPP is facing a calm demise with lack of support by Congress and President-elect Donald Trump. With the anchor of the Asia pivot crumbling, some observers have also questioned whether continuing crises in the Middle East may have diverted the Obama administration’s attention and resources away from Asia.
Admittedly, the Iran nuclear deal; eruption of ISIS; expansion of al Qaeda; and fratricidal violence between clans, tribes, power-seekers in Libya, Syria, and Iraq continued to preoccupy the Obama administration. Nonetheless, the Asia pivot may have already been running out of steam notwithstanding crises in the Mideast.
Not a binary option between U.S. and China
For one, forging an economic NATO that excludes the second largest economy in the world and largest trading partner in Asia, as well as ignoring China’s multi-trillion-dollar One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project in Eurasia, was a non-starter for many Asian, Mideast, and European allies. This was underscored by U.S. allies’ stampede to join the China-launched Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) to supplement financing shortfalls in the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank.
Despite an open invitation for Japan and the U.S. to join the AIIB, both states declined and prompted James Woolsey—current Trump advisor and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency—to criticize Washington’s boycott as a “strategic mistake.”
Other officials support Woolsey’s view. Former World Bank President Robert Zoellick noted the World Bank regularly works with outside financial actors, including Islamic and Arab funds, regional banks and private sector players, and criticized the Obama administration’s approach as “mistaken both on policy and on execution.” Former senior State Department official David Sedney observed there was a “strain in U.S. political thinking that says if we are not in the lead role, we should not be part of it—but I think that has been a mistake”—a view shared by U.S. allies on forcing a binary option between the U.S. and China.
An Asian diplomat, whose country is a founding member of AIIB, revealed that “The truth is no one in the region wants to choose between the United States and China,” but U.S. hostility to the bank actually prompted many countries to choose in China’s favor. Another scholar at Belgium’s Egmont Institute noted that “China is too big to avoid, deny, and difficult to embrace,” so it is important to partner with Beijing where interests overlap. In short, Washington needs a better response to China-led initiatives than attempting to lead a boycott, especially when allies see benefits in participation.
Another example of how a cold war mentality, rather than Mideast crises, may be largely responsible for the fizzle of the Asia pivot is allies’ concern with Washington’s militarizing of the Asia-Pacific.
In March, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong criticized the zero-sum posture of “rebalancing towards Asia with aircraft carriers and airplanes “ rather than deepening economic ties. And Australia’s Greens leader, Scott Ludlan, expressed alarm over the Talisman Sabre war games among 30 thousand Australian, U.S., and Japanese forces in an amphibious assault scenario which he maintains sends the wrong message to China.
Now Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte is aligning with China in response to U.S. military interventions and regime change policies, as well as a perceived double standard on condemning Manila on human rights when the U.S. itself could be prosecuted for war crimes in Yemen and Afghanistan.
With the Mideast destabilized, ISIS and al Qaeda on the march, Europe reeling from Brexit—the UK’s decision to leave the European Union—and the refugee crisis, the fact that the Asia-Pacific remains a region of relative stability and economic prosperity is something that should be protected and maintained rather than plunging it into yet another war zone. As George Koo rebuked in China-US Focus regarding Obama’s vision of U.S. leadership, Xi Jinping’s inclusive One Belt, One Road initiative offers “cooperation and collaboration on a path for common prosperity” while “Obama offers umbrella of missile defense protection and a path to death and destruction.”
Joint U.S.-China Eurasia pivot
Since Sino-U.S. relations are a key pillar of any future global system, it is imperative for Washington and Beijing to work together on issues of common interest. Indeed, Trump advisor Woolsey indicated he “expected a warmer response from Trump” on the AIIB and China’s OBOR project, which could provide a platform for cooperation and perhaps a chance for renewed transatlantic coordination via the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The 57-member OSCE, which includes EU, Britain, U.S., Russia and Eurasian countries, is already engaging China to promote connectivity on OBOR projects and likely counter-terrorism, since that is the main priority of the incoming Chairman of the OSCE.
As such, a Trump presidency, and Sino-U.S. cooperation via OSCE on the OBOR, may actually provide an opportunity for a joint pivot to Eurasia and a silver lining for renewed transatlantic coordination.
