The End of the Pivot to Asia?

The "Chinese aggression" in SCS is just convenient jargon for domestic and foreign audiences that need to hear moral-sounding words to make themselves feel good. The real reason US is and will continue to have strong presence in Asia is, being a Pacific nation, it has core national interests in the region. It is also in China's interest to have strong US presence in the Indo-Pacific because the region would be more stable with US than without. Also, it's not in either China or US interests to have two blocks that are mutually exclusive and hostile to the other; better for China to compromise with US and negotiate co-leadership of the region, instead of playing with fire and try to push US out of the Western Paficic.

Click to expand...

Generally agree, but remember that the USA is separated from Asia by the Pacific Ocean which is 8+ hours by airplane, 2weeks by boat, the time zone difference, culture/language etc. Most Americans have never even left the USA (and of those who do, the vast majority have only been to Europe).

NB. China is happy to negotiate co-leadership of Asia with the USA, as it is a huge step forward for Chinese influence, which would be risk free. It essentially means a G-2 where the US and China decides what happens in Asia, at the expense of Japan or India for example.

The problem is that the USA is not willing to cede sole leadership and treat China as a true equal. We see that with the attitude of US exceptionalism, the US Navy saying it will go wherever it pleases, that US should write trade rules for Asia etc etc

@AndrewS .... good one. It is only a matter of time the co-leadereship in Asia between the US and China. The US is still somewhat resistant as the US economy and military is significantly bigger and stronger than China ..... when the economy is about equal (or bigger) and Chinese military strenghth is roughly 60-70% of the US ..... then thats the only option for both. I reckon the timeframe for that is 2025-2030 (at that time most experts believe Chinese nominal GDP will be larger than the US .... Chinese PPP is already larger than the US since 2014/2015)

But time will tell ... hopefully there is no major war from now to 2030 ... otherwise all predictions will be wrong and the world economy would colapse and world population would be down to maybe only 2B

AndrewS said:

SE Asia is not an economic powerhouse.

The Chinese economy is some 4x larger than ASEAN, and sees ASEAN as a good trade/investment destination.

Indeed China is larger than the rest of Asia combined

Click to expand...

Interesting analysis ... I do know that China's GDP is 4-5x larger than ASEAN and roughly the size of ASEAN+Japan+SK+Taiwan+India .... but I never thought would be bigger than Asia ?

ASEAN+Japan+SK+Taiwan+India is most of Asia already.

Plus China still has to revise its GDP upwards with SNA 2008 etc

Thanks @AndrewS
So China hasn't ? I thought it had this year?

So how much GDP would be added if SNA 2008 implemented?

Blackstone said:

The "Chinese aggression" in SCS is just convenient jargon for domestic and foreign audiences that need to hear moral-sounding words to make themselves feel good. The real reason US is and will continue to have strong presence in Asia is, being a Pacific nation, it has core national interests in the region. It is also in China's interest to have strong US presence in the Indo-Pacific because the region would be more stable with US than without. Also, it's not in either China or US interests to have two blocks that are mutually exclusive and hostile to the other; better for China to compromise with US and negotiate co-leadership of the region, instead of playing with fire and try to push US out of the Western Paficic.

Click to expand...

All sounds good except I don't believe these words reflect the reality.

• Compromise: It is a two way road.
• Co-leadership: Obama openly and clearly declared that he (on behalf of U.S.) can not let anyone else (including and specifically China) to set rules, that means no co-leadership.
• Push US out: how could China want to push U.S. her No.1 or No.2 (if EU counted as one entity) trading partner out? For what purpose.

I think there are more mind changing and rethinking homework to be done in the U.S. before a sustainable and peaceful cohabitation between the two in the region.

I also prefer cohabitation or co-existence over co-leadership. More influential or being followed by neighbors as role-model, yes. Leadership by dominating the rule-setting? No, that is hegemony. There is a thousand-years lesson that China has learnt from her own history, 王道vs霸道, Chinese has learnt that 霸道 did not work from Spring Autumn and warring state era 3000 years ago. 霸道 is literarily hegemony. I couldn't find an equivalent concept of 王道 in western culture, but it is a much preferred way by Chinese.

No such thing as coleadership, one will always take precedence over the other.

Thanks @AndrewS
So China hasn't ? I thought it had this year?

So how much GDP would be added if SNA 2008 implemented?

Click to expand...

It was just a minor upwards revision to add R&D to GDP this year.

The studies indicate SNA 2008 would add about 10% of China's GDP figures.

taxiya said:

All sounds good except I don't believe these words reflect the reality.

• Compromise: It is a two way road.
• Co-leadership: Obama openly and clearly declared that he (on behalf of U.S.) can not let anyone else (including and specifically China) to set rules, that means no co-leadership.
• Push US out: how could China want to push U.S. her No.1 or No.2 (if EU counted as one entity) trading partner out? For what purpose.

I think there are more mind changing and rethinking homework to be done in the U.S. before a sustainable and peaceful cohabitation between the two in the region.

Click to expand...

Compromise is indeed two way street. The reason the word, as you said, doesn't reflect reality is no one has really offered compromises; it's been mostly my way or the high way. In the end, bilateral accommodation is the only way forward.

You could call it co-leadership, cohabitation, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is US must accommodate China and accept it as a full partner in managing Asian affairs. In return, China must accept strong US presence in the Indo-Pacific. Call it what you want, but that is the way forward.

I also prefer cohabitation or co-existence over co-leadership. More influential or being followed by neighbors as role-model, yes. Leadership by dominating the rule-setting? No, that is hegemony. There is a thousand-years lesson that China has learnt from her own history, 王道vs霸道, Chinese has learnt that 霸道 did not work from Spring Autumn and warring state era 3000 years ago. 霸道 is literarily hegemony. I couldn't find an equivalent concept of 王道 in western culture, but it is a much preferred way by Chinese.

Click to expand...

Do you want to be right, or do you want to get the job done? Getting the job done means painful compromises by Washington and Beijing to peacefully accommodate each other. After the core agreements are in place, then you could wordsmith for public consumption.

Trump and Clinton are level in the polls to become the next US President.

Therefore Asian nations have to take seriously the idea that Trump will become the next President. He would conceivably consign the Pivot to Asia to the dustbin, as part of his America First narrative. And even if he loses, the next Republican candidate is highly likely to run on the same sort of platform.

So when Asian nations hear that the USA will always be an Asian nation, they take those words with some skepticism.

They have long experience of the USA losing interest in Asia over the past 100 years.