The meaning of Hillary Clinton’s visit to Asia*

Asia-Pacific is big enough to hold only China and the United States

Asia-Pacific is big enough to hold only China and the United States

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on her Asian tour earlier this month. Her discussions touched on many issues, from the South China Sea (SCS) territorial dispute to the crisis in Syria.

In Timor Leste, she sought to advance economic development in the region and issued US$6.5 million in scholarship grants.

While in Jakarta, Clinton urged ASEAN countries to unite in solving territorial issues with China.

She also reiterated strong US support for the regional initiative to ease rising tensions over the disputed island in the SCS.

In China, she was assertive in conveying possible resolutions to the SCS territorial dispute. She also spoke about the Syrian situation, with Clinton asking China, which keeps on blocking the UN Security Council’s move to sanction Syria, to stop backing the regime of President Bashar Assad.

It seems that Clinton’s visit has failed to persuade the Chinese as Beijing remains a staunch supporter of the Assad regime. Beijing also reiterated that the SCC territorial dispute is an issue of Chinese sovereignty and integrity, and isonly willing to discuss it through bilateral talks.

Her tour ended in Brunei in a move to buttress escalating SCS conflict and to coax Brunei in preparation for its ASEAN chairmanship in 2013.

But what is the meaning of her visit to Asia?

First, she is reaffirming the US’s “pivotal” role in the Asia Pacific; the US wants to revive its economic weight in the region.

There is no doubt that the center of economic gravity has now shifted to Asia, and Southeast Asia has a strategic role to play concerning this trend.

Second, it is a way for the US to critically evaluate its choices for crafting a strategy for Asia Pacific in the midst of a rising China.

In my view, there are only three courses; whether the US recapitalizes its forces in the region, encourages its allies to take on larger security responsibilities or limits its commitments.

Third, this may have been seen as a “divide-and-rule” strategy used by the US to weaken China’s political, economic and security influences in the region. As for that case, ASEAN countries have the dilemma of presenting themselves equally to the US and China.

Fourth, encircling China in preparation for a US centered hegemonic order. The US envisages itself as a “pivot” to Asia Pacific, where it can use its leadership in the shaping of the region and its future.

In the new US Defense Strategic Review (January 2012), it is mentioned that the challenge posed by a rising China is at the very heart of America’s new defense strategy in the region.

Fifth, to view the importance of Chinese shipping lanes and Sea Lines of Communication from the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Malacca Strait. With the visit to Timor Leste, it also highlights the geostrategic importance of the eastern flank of Indonesia.

Eighty percent of China’s oil imports still pass through the Malacca Strait and this is why it is a vital choke point. However, the US seems to have a contingency plan in the eastern part of Indonesia if the crisis erupts.

Sixth, the US wants its traditional alliances in the region to relax and feel secure with its growing military capabilities in Asia, and to not appear to be at odds with China.

The US does not want any rivalry within the region as the guarantor of peace and stability. The US’ plans to deploy new missile defenses can be seen from this context.

Last but not least, the US wants to reaffirm its presence and influence in the region, or at least to neutralize China in order to sustain the status-quo.

China’s desire to reduce US influence is an uneasy fact for the US. The “battle” of ensuring order in Asia Pacific then rests on how the US continues and consolidates its current pattern of hegemonic order.

ASEAN countries are at risk of division if they cannot, internally, find solutions to break the “battle” of this regional leadership between US and China.

Outside of intra-ASEAN and the EU; China, Japan and the US continue to be ASEAN’s major trade partners. China is the fastest growing partner with its growth tipping more than 10-fold since the Asian financial crisis in 1998.

While the US and Japan remained to be the top providers of ASEAN inflows for 2010, outside the EU and intra-ASEAN.

It is likely that the visit of the secretary of state will yield a closer relationship with the Asia Pacific

and greater commitment from the US toward the territorial dispute in the SCS.

This can be seen as an extended deterrence of China for the sake of US interest. The structure of competition and cooperation coexist in Asia.

ASEAN has a strategic balancing role within the region to maintain its independent voice and constructive role in the international community. It employs three general strategies, which are bridge building, engagement and hedging to maintain strategic stability and minimize risk.

Indonesia therefore plays a vital role as it must become the glue for the cohesiveness of ASEAN and because of her free and active foreign policy she can give structure and be the bridge between the US and China.

*A published version of this article has appeared under the same title in the Jakarta Post, Tuesday, September 18, 2012. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/09/18/the-meaning-hillary-clinton-s-visit-asia.html

Advertisements

2 comments on “The meaning of Hillary Clinton’s visit to Asia*

  1. clintonwatson says:

    Great piece of writing Frass. I complete agree with you about the US pivot and Washington wanting to assert its presence in the region. But I wonder whether you’re placing too much weight on Clinton’s visit. You say that “she is reaffirming the US’s “pivotal” role in the Asia Pacific; the US wants to revive its economic weight in the region”. How does a visit by the Secretary of State increase US economic weight in the region? The private sector is what drives the economy in the US. I don’t see how Clinton’s visit will affect decisions made by American firms.

    You say Clinton’s visit “is a way for the US to critically evaluate its choices for crafting a strategy for Asia Pacific in the midst of a rising China”. I wonder how different a new strategy would be from the current US strategy. The US has had a pretty clear strategy in the region since the 1950s through the San Francisco System with its bilateral security alliances. It doesn’t appear that the US is trying to craft another system any time soon. I certainly don’t think Clinton’s visit in itself will lead to a radical new evaluation of policy options. The China encirclement policy has also been around for decades, so it’s nothing new to the scene.

    You say “It is likely that the visit of the secretary of state will yield a closer relationship with the Asia Pacific and greater commitment from the US toward the territorial dispute in the SCS.” I have found US reaction to the territorial disputes quite interesting. With the SCS, Clinton said the US “took no position in the claims”, but the US is trying to get itself in on the game by referring to the dispute as an “international issue”. The US has increased its military aid to the Philippines clearly in reaction to Beijing’s belligerent tone. Yet with the East China Sea Washington seems to be trying to distance itself as much as possible, calling for China and Japan to sort it out themselves. While it hasn’t taken sides, it has also reaffirmed its commitments under the bilateral security arrangement with Japan. So it’s clear where the US would line up if push came to shove. There is a real danger that if Japan does not feel sufficiently reassured that the US will come to its aid, it will amend its constitution and make sweeping changes to its defence policy.

    I’m not so convinced as to the link between the stopover in Timor Leste and alternative energy routes. It’s not in the interests of the US to block the Malacca Strait chokepoint since US allies would also be affected. In fact, Japan, the US’s unsinkable aircraft carrier, is more reliant on the Strait than China for its energy supplies.

    It will be interesting to see whether Indonesia steps up and becomes the glue of ASEAN. So far ASEAN has been unsuccessful in uniting and speaking together on the South China Sea. Time will tell.

    • frassminggi says:

      Thanks Clinton for your comments. The Secretary of State has always increase US economic weight because US foreign policy formulations are heavily impacted by economic interests of US multinational. Series of her visit to Asia can be seen from this context. Also, it has been made clear by Mrs. Clinton that her visit is to promote economic growth and trade development in the region.

      Mrs. Clinton visit has give different new strategy in a series of tryouts conducted by the US since Obama accession in 2009. The difference is on how US change and renews its focus as the resident power in the midst of economic downturn and China’s rise. The US has never left Asia but continuously act as the guarantor security and public goods since 1945. In other words, it represents expansion rather than a transformation of US policy.

      Last but not least, I think this is the essence of US “smart power”. It is a kind of inconsistency that for a quite a while the US has repeatedly made welcoming remarks on China’s rise but at the same time it has shown little respect for it. Xinhua said “The US politicians, who preposterously fancy they could do gold-digging in China and rein in China’s rise simultaneously, should remember the old saying that no one can have his cake and eat it too.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s