The economic shutdown led President Obama to miss a planned trip to Asia on Oct. 5 – one of three recent trips to the region that the President has cancelled to deal with domestic issues. The cancellation is the latest in a slew of signals that Obama’s first-term promise to “pivot to Asia,” was an empty one. According to former assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs Kurt Campbell, Asia is third on the administration’s priority list in terms of international affairs, behind the Middle East and Europe.
Why did Obama’s pivot fail to get off the ground? Most likely because many other issues call for his attention, both at home and abroad. Before this most recent trip, Obama was forced to miss trips abroad to Asia, particularly in Indonesia, for reasons related to domestic policy.
“It’s not just once, it’s a repeated cancellation of these trips that have nothing to do with foreign policy at all, actually the reasons why he’s cancelled have all been domestic crises,” said William Hurst, an assistant political science professor at Northwestern. “But because he keeps cancelling, it’s perceived by some players in Indonesian politics as a snub and as a devaluation of that relationship.”
Arisa Toyosaki, a McCormick sophomore and Japanese native, thinks Obama has never gone forward with a strong policy in Asia because he simply wasn’t all that committed in the first place.
“I feel like it was by default that it went unfulfilled [Obama’s promise to pivot to Asia] because firstly, the content within the promise was very empty and secondly, different countries in Asia would react in different ways because we all want different things from America,” Toyosaki said.
The lack of coherent policy towards Asia as a whole has important political repercussions for the U.S. The most obvious of these concerns are economic in nature. On Obama’s most recent missed trip, he had planned to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s conference. A chance to cooperate with China in the region and to establish the U.S. as a leader among others turned into just another heavily criticized missed opportunity.
According to Hurst, Obama’s lack of passion toward politicking in Asia is a continuation of U.S. policy of presidents past.
“I would say that for at least the past 30 years, the U.S. has for the most part failed to properly maintain its strong alliances with countries like South Korea, Japan, Philippines and Singapore,” Hurst said. “It’s also neglected to forge stronger more meaningful relationships with countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. It also has failed to manage the relationship with China successfully, particularly as both countries roles in the region change and evolve.”
Beyond general political inefficacy in Asia, Professor Hurst elaborated on the economic aspects of the U.S.’s failure to communicate effectively with potential partners, such as China and Japan.
In Japan, the U.S. has missed out on the opportunity to partner with a nation that Professor Hurst thinks could potentially be quite amenable to cooperation, and that also happens to have the third largest economy in the world.
“In terms of Japan, Japan also has gone through a lot of change over the last several years, changes of government, changes of party even … and [Obama’s] administration hasn’t really been proactive enough in maintaining close communication with Japan, to the point where Japan is apprehensive about U.S. initiatives in the region that actually could benefit Japan,” Hurst said.
As for China, Professor Hurst believes there have been times when the U.S. could have patched up relations with an unnecessary foe, but that they have been mostly taken for granted.
“China’s gone through a very important political transition just recently in 2012-13 and the Obama administration seems to have not taken advantage of, or undervalued the degree to which the U.S. could engage with China both at the end of the previous leadership terms and the beginning of the new one ... in that respect they’ve sort of dropped the ball in terms of a positive opportunity,” Hurst said.
For the most part, U.S. critics focus on President Obama’s inability to bring about an influential economic policy in Asia. This focus is due to a combination of factors. On one hand, with the exception of North Korea, Asia does not represent the same security threat that say the Middle East does. This means less emphasis on the brass tacks of diplomacy between the U.S. and Asia. The focus on the economy also stems from the worldwide belief that the U.S. will eventually fall behind China as a global superpower, largely for economic reasons.
While the American critical perspective hones in on the economy, this single-minded focus is certainly not representative of international students on campus, who would like to see the relationship between the two regions built on something more than trade.
“Well I think one thing I would like to see is that the bridge between Asia and the U.S. can be built on culture, business, academics etc. together rather than simply on trade,” said McCormick sophomore and Chinese international student Leo Shea. “The U.S. is definitely making a lot of effort in foreign trade, but in terms of culture exchange I think they are not doing a very good job.”
Outside of the feelings of cultural neglect that Shea associates with current policies towards Asia, others remain skeptical about how any such American politics could play out in the region.
“I read an interview for World Economics Forum where the current Prime Minister of Singapore mentioned that China is wary about America's underlying intentions in trying to dominate Asia,” Toyosaki said. “I guess my advice to [Obama] would be to take his hands off and let things run its own course ... If America's interests are truly benign and is to support Asia's long-term development, then it should only be there to support when things aren't going the right way.”
With conflicting agendas and beliefs on the parts of both Americans and Asians, it’s unclear how to mend the economic and diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Asia in the future.
From Professor Hurst’s perspective, there are many ways that the U.S. could improve its relationship with Asia. These issues are diverse and complex, varying throughout the region depending on the country and its current relationship to the U.S.
The issue of American and Asian international relations is definitely more personal for certain NU community members than others. However, with U.S. debt tied intimately to Asian markets, the developing relationship between these regions will remain topical and controversial for years to come. While Asia might not be at the top of Obama’s priority list right now, he has a few more years to re-evaluate that position and alter his mediocre record in Asia.