The End of the Pivot to Asia?

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

Two items to clarify, 1) US Presidential candidates traditionally bashed foreigners during election campaigns, only do lighten up upon entering office, and 2) what about "America first" narrative? All nations place their well being above others, and US isn't any different than... China! Problem with Trump is he has the bad grace to say it in vulgar terms.

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.

Click to expand...

Problem with your statement is, US doesn't say its an Asian nation, but a Pacific Nation. There shouldn't be any skepticism about that, since the shore of the Pacific Ocean is less than 20 miles from my house. Also, US has never lost interests in Asia, from the founding of the Republic through today. It fought several wars to first gain foothold, and then eventually displacing previous hegemons in the area. US presence in Asia is a core national interest, and that's not going to change in the foreseeable future.

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's hard to say who will win but for sure none of them proposed an easing up with China politics for their term... If you thought that Trump will close military bases around Western Pacific - you are wrong. He's the guy who voiced that economical terms with China is unfair to the US and thet it's trade agreements between both countries will be renegotiated as unfair to the US in the first place (as well as with few other countries).

Blackstone said:

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.


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.

Click to expand...

If you have said "Compromise is two way street" in your original post, I wouldn't mention it in my reply, but you did not. It is good that we both agree that it is indeed a two way street.

The name does matter (to the Chinese who you are dealing with), so you have to care. It matters a lot because it is the reflection of one's intension and goal, it makes a huge difference in the end result. "名不正，则言不顺". It can be loosely translated to "without the right name, nothing matters". BTW, Confucius said that, you can call him the "god" of Chinese thinking whom all Chinese leaders hold high regards, be it emperors or Presidents or General Secretaries. You may not care the name, but if you are dealing with China, you have to care how Chinese think and act.

The core is what both sides want to be the end goal which is defined by the name (wordsmithing?). You can NOT agree with anybody anything if you want totally different things. One can not let his feet to decide for his head. You should turn the after-then around.

The latest Trump soundbite is on not honouring NATO Article 5 has basically left everyone speechless. So it may not actually matter a country hosts a US military base, because the USA may not honour the treaty. Apparently Trump is renowned for not paying his bills and ignoring the contract.

Plus we now have the WSJ reporting on TPP

Odds Worsen for TPP Trade Deal
Wall Street Journal

The 2016 presidential campaign has dealt a potentially lethal blow to President Barack Obama’s signature Pacific trade agreement, with the chances of congressional passage now looking slim either after the election or under the next administration.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

If you have said "Compromise is two way street" in your original post, I wouldn't mention it in my reply, but you did not. It is good that we both agree that it is indeed a two way street.

Click to expand...

Point of order, I'm consistent in saying US should compromise with China and vice versa.

I've just finished reading "The Pivot: The Future of American Statecraft in Asia" by Kurt Campbell - who was the architect of the Pivot whilst he was working for Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

Here are some of my thoughts.

===
"Indeed, a chief challenge in constructing a durable Asia strategy for the United States is that most important nations in the region have strong commercial ties with Beijing."

- All important nations in the region have strong commercial ties with Beijing. China is either their largest or second largest trading partner, and has been for a number of years now. Plus in 2016, China has become the largest investor in many Asian countries as well.

===

"China seems unconcerned that its high-speed trains already carry twice as many passengers as its airlines and cut into airline profits, since it is proceeding with plans to construct eighty airports and expand over one hundred in five years."

- If he did a comparison of transport requirements between Japan/USA/China, it would become very obvious that China is going to see a huge expansion in air travel in the coming years. I reckon most of China's airports are already at or nearing design capacity.

===

"Asia has historically required the active participation of benevolent external powers to reinforce its peace and stability"

- Actually Asia was pretty stable under the Chinese tribute system for a much longer time period.

===

"Although Asia is famous for its exports to Europe and the United States, nearly 56 percent of Asian trade is conducted within the region itself—a percentage second only to Europe, which has the benefit of a fully liberalized common market."

- In other words, Asia forms a natural (and separate) trade bloc?

===
"Europe should pivot to Asia, and support the USA"

- Realistically not going to happen.

===
Conducting US-Asia diplomacy is exhausting.

- Well yes, the US and Asia are 8-11hours by plane and separated by 8+ time zones. In comparison, China is in the middle of Asia and is in the same time zone so it's much easier to travel/communicate.

===
Lots of complaints about how Americans don't care about Asia.

"If these arguments are made by top-level political leaders, it may be possible to secure sufficient popular support for Asia policy."

- Yes, Europe and the Middle East are just so much more familiar and important that an alien Asia. The Pivot to Asia just sounds like another elite project, whereas there are more pressing concerns.

===
"America’s demographic evolution and its growing contacts with Asians abroad will gradually extricate the country from the prejudices of the past. As myth gives way to reality, mockery to respect, and menace to reassurance, the United States will gradually move beyond the clichés and stereotypes of the past."

- Unfortunately Asians only account for 5% of the US population and vast majority of Americans will never make it to Asia. The mass media (TV/Hollywood/Sports) have a better chance of changing US stereotypes of Asians.

Plus politics is moving from a LEFT/RIGHT divide to a Globalisation/Anti-Globalisation divide. I think America's demographic evolution will eventually prevail, but there will be heightened racial tension as whites become a minority in the coming years. Many of those whites have not benefited from globalisation or the existing system, and are in an anti-foreign/immigrant/trade/elite mood.

We can see they've already captured the Republican Party. And even if Trump loses this round, the following candidates are highly likely to follow the same path, as it is a winning electoral vote formula as long as they tone down on the unacceptable remarks that Trump has made.