In recent months, American academia has been consumed by endless debates on whether the United States’ influence is waning in world affairs, as it faces its new challenger — China.
A recent round of discussions, under the auspices of New York’s Asia Society, between two contemporary thinkers — Ian Bremmer, a respected political scientist and president of the Eurasia Group, a political risk research/consulting firm, and former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, a China expert and presently chairman of Asia Society’s Policy Institute — provided some interesting insights into the roles of the US and China in the global arena.
Contrary to many doomsday soothsayers, who predict that the decline of America as the world’s superpower was programmed and that it was making way for China, Bremmer argued that America will continue its dominant global role despite global challenges. But Bremmer also called for a complete review of America’s international role, following what he described as its “incoherent and prohibitively expensive foreign policy strategy since the end of the Cold War”.
Washington has not had a well-defined foreign policy strategy since the Soviet Union’s collapse, but now it was time for America to take a look at the options and make a choice. “American politicians have the ability to lead in foreign policy, if they want to,” Bremmer exclaimed, adding that young Americans did not want to get involved in foreign adventures.
Rudd, who has also written a study report called ‘The Future of US-China Relations under [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’, maintained that China is now a significantly more important trading partner than the US for every country in Asia, including every single American military ally and strategic partner.
Bremmer contended that without US leadership, the chaos in the world would be far worse. Of course, since America cannot be everywhere and do everything, it will have to make adjustments in its “responsibilities”: It will have to do more in Asia, by virtue of its pivot, and do less in the Middle East where the situation is too complex and perilous for both US and China. The Chinese, deeply worried by the deadly mix of politics and religious extremism in the region, have their own problems with the Uighur uprising in the restive Xinjiang province.
US foreign policy has been largely reactive since the Soviet Union’s collapse. This view is widely shared amongst many US experts and US allies. Merely reacting to issues, which reflects an ad hoc approach in the increasingly dangerous and unstable geopolitical environment, is not an option for the world’s only superpower.
China has been making some smart moves aimed at weaning away allies and important regional players from the US; its recent launching of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) caused some trepidations in North America because most US allies, including Britain, which touts its “special relationship” with Washington, joined the AIIB. Bremmer argued that China should have waited for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to be finalised before launching the AIIB to first see how the TPP progressed. If the AIIB failed, it would create problems for China. Indeed, some US experts even doubt China’s ability to handle “capitalist assets with a communist approach”.
China is being typecast as a big bully in the South China Sea, where the countries in the region, particularly Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan, have claims to gas and oil-rich islands that China claims as its own because of “historical reasons”. Thus, the US pivot to Asia is being welcomed by these states, much to China’s vexation.
One key to counter China’s global influence lies in preventing Moscow from joining hands with Beijing. Thus, Washington would be advised not to slam the door shut against Russia, and instead talk to it, despite the Ukraine crisis, on issues such as Syria, Iraq, etc.
By flexing its muscles, China is losing goodwill in much of Asia, with deep distrust against Chinese intentions stretching across the huge arch from India through Southeast Asia to Japan. If provoked, these countries would rush to form new mutual defence alliances against China, which could become Asia’s Beelzebub.
The perception that the absence of strong US leadership could plunge the world, including Asia, into utter chaos is not entirely unfounded. For many, the worrying factor is that without US leadership, China will fill in the vacuum. However, this does not mean that US allies and pro-US institutions will be led by China, though they will appear weaker and less cohesive.
The big test for the US will be the 12-member TPP, which needs to be pushed in a focused manner. Before the two-term President Barack Obama rides into the sunset in some 15 months, he needs to surmount the hurdles in the way of ironing out the TPP, which can provide a fillip to reviving US economic ties with Asia. The US is viewed today as more of a military power and less of an economic force. China, on the other hand, is viewed as an economic power, though it can easily lose this status if it engages in reckless military adventurism against its neighbours.
Foreign policy should be high on the next US president’s agenda. The US does have the potential to lead on the foreign policy front, but the next president must be resolute and willing to do so.
Manik Mehta is a commentator on Asian affairs.
