What is Obama’s Asia policy?
March 4th, 2009 by J
Notwithstanding Asia being the destination of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first foreign trip as President Barack Obama’s top diplomat, it remains unclear to me whether Asia would indeed occupy a prominent place in the new US administration’s foreign policy.
As many pundits on this site and everywhere note, the Philippines has gone off the Americans’ radar. This was obvious when President Obama snubbed- deliberately, in my opinion- Mrs. Arroyo thrice. This was confirmed when Secretay Clinton refused to accept Mrs. Arroyo’s invitation for her to visit Manila, and when the State Department published a series of reports criticizing rampant human rights violations and cases of corruption under the present regime.
But it seems that the Philippines, which many regard as America’s oldest ally in this part of the world, is not the only traditional US partner left snubbed by Secretary Clinton. Thailand, another major non-NATO ally (which, incidentally receives more military aid than the Philippines does even though it doesn’t have a VFA with Washington), was sidelined as well.
Indonesia, the only ASEAN country visited by Secretary Clinton, appears to be the replacement for the Philippines and Thailand in Southeast Asia. Some believe that such a “replacement” was necessary because of the growing instability of democracy in Manila and Bangkok. Some on the other hand, point to President Obama’s sentimental connection to Indonesia; which, I think, is not something the new President would anchor his foreign policy on.
But beyond these symbolic gestures, it is doubtful if President Obama is indeed moving to annoint Indonesia as its key ally.
This is because due to human rights abuses by Indonesian military’s elite special forces Kopassus, strenghtening ties with the world’s most populous Muslim country is unpopular with the Administration’s liberal friends. Democratic senators Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold, for instance, were at the forefront of the campaign during the Bush Administration against cementing a deeper alliance with Jakarta unless the human rights issue is properly addressed. We can expect both senators to continue raising the issue. And we can expect President Obama to avoid pissing off any senator, especially now that he is struggling to rally Congress behind his policies.
Personally, I think Secretary Clinton’s visit to Jakarta is a gesture not to Asia per se, but to the Muslim world, to which President Obama is trying to reach out by proving that Western and Islamic values can co-exist. In his inaugural address, the President said: “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
To appreciate what Indonesia’s role is in this context, consider Secretary Clinton’s statement: “If you want to know if democracy, Islam, modernity, and women’s rights can coexist, go to Indonesia”
Therefore, I think Secretary Clinton’s Indonesia visit gives us with little clue about President Obama’s over-all Asia policy.
Which leads me now to another country: Japan.
In Japan Obama’s Annointed, which appeared last week on the Inquirer, analyst Amando Doronilla pointed out that Tokyo would occupy the prime spot in the new American administration’s Asia policy. Mr. Doronilla is correct in saying this. In fact, Japan has always been Washington’s most important ally in Asia even before President Obama came to power.
But what’s worth seeing is the fresh approach the Obama Administration has on the United States’ ties with Japan. It seems poised to bring change to the alliance, which probably gives some clues as to how President Obama is going to handle Asia.
Traditionally, the Republicans are seen as more Japan-friendly than the Democrats. I believe this is because of the conservative tendencies of both the GOP and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has ruled Japan almost uninterruptedly for five decades. And the alliance between the two have always focused on security and on keeping the Americans’ foothold on Japanese soil.
President Obama, on the other hand, is keeping the Tokyo-Washington alliance not on ideological but on pragmatic reasons. And it seems to me that his vision of the alliance is, on the short term, anchored on his priority, which is Afghanistan; and, in the long term, towards a more “equal” sharing of burden by both countries regarding regional security.
Afghanistan has been dubbed by some as Obama’s war. This is because, unlike the War in Iraq, which the President wants to disengage from, President Obama believes that the War in Afghanistan is a just battle that is key in winning the War on Terror.
According to a report by Foreign Policy, “President Obama has decided to increase the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by roughly 17,000 troops over the next few months. The increase will begin with an initial deployment of 8,000 Marines in the next few weeks, to be followed by subsequent deployments of an Army brigade of 4,000 troops and about 5,000 support troops next summer.”
The problem, however, is that most of America’s allies are not as willing as President Obama to increase their military presence in the Taliban-infested land-locked country.
This is where Japan gets into the picture. It is arguably one of the few countries that America can ask to support the Afghanistan debacle.
Last Wednesday, conservative Prime Minister Taro Aso became the first foreign guest of the Obama White House. Mr. Aso believes that Japan should contribute more to the NATO-led efforts in Afghanistan by providing re-fueling services to NATO troops.
Prime Minister Aso’s problem, however, is that he is no longer in a position to commit Japan’s all-out support for President Obama’s Afghanistan campaign. This is because he and his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is, in fact, in a political survival mode.
It can be remembered that in 2006, the flamboyant Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s young successor, Shinzo Abe, recklessly ignored bread and butter issues that matter to the Japanese in his zealous attempt to amend the pacifist constitution. His ignorance cost his party the control of the parliament’s less powerful Upper House. He had since resigned and was replaced by Yasuo Fukuda, who also resigned because the opposition in the upper house, led by former LDP stalwart and now leader of Japan’s Democratic Party (DPJ) Ichiro Ozawa, kept on blocking his legislative policies. Mr. Aso was elected by his party last year in the hopes that his popularity would save the party and lead it towards regaining control of the Upper House.
But Mr. Aso’s popularity has since plummeted dues to a sereies of gaffes made by his Cabinet ministers and by himself. Right now, there is pressure on Mr. Aso to resign or to at least call for snap elections, which will likely end his party’s almost uninterrupted fifty-year control of the country.
But Mr. Aso’s lack of political capital notwithstanding, President Obama’s message to Japan is clear. He wants it to play greater role in Afghanistan. “The expectation is that Japan will be a part of that effort (in Afghanistan). But unlike the previous administration, the Obama administration looks unwilling to praise Japan for marginal, symbolic contributions to the effort. While respecting Japan’s constraints on the use of force abroad, the adminstration appears ready to take Japan at its word. Japanese leaders talk of the need to contribute abroad even as they are reluctant to commit the Self-Defense Forces? Fine, then make a meaningful civilian contribution, the new administration has signaled,” says Tobias Harris, a Japan analyst.
Forcing Japan to contribute beyond the marginal symbolic gestures, if you ask me, is a bit of a deviation from the traditional context of Tokyo-Washington alliance. Where the United States had in the past allowed Japan to depend on it on matters of security (although, of course, it can be said that Japan is the one shouldering the financial burden), now President Obama wants Japan to be contribute on the United States’ undertaking outside East Asia. Considering the fact that the Americans are now in the process of significantly moving their troops from Okinawa to Guam, I think it would not be a stretch for me to speculate that President Obama might be eyeing a Japan that is more independent of the US in terms of security.
Ideologically speaking, although they won’t publicly admit it, a Japan that is more independent of the US in terms of security is what the conservatives, from Koizumi to Abe to Aso, ultimately aim for. Essentially, this is what Mr. Abe meant by a “normal country.” And curiously enough, after his one-on-one meeting with Secretary Clinton, Mr. Ozawa stated that, should he become prime minister (which many believe is inevitable), he, too, would favor less US involvement in Japan’s security matters.
Some say, of course, that Mr. Ozawa’s statement was made merely as a way for him to woe the conservatives, which form Mr. Aso’s support base, in an effort to consolidate his forces. But the fact that Secretary Clinton met with an opposition leader who favors less US involvement in Japan’s security means that, first, the Americans are now willing to work with whoever is in Japan and, second, that indeed the Americans wouldn’t mind having lesser role in Japan in the future.
President Obama’s Japan policy, of course, is not the miniature version of his over-all Asia policy. But if it does give a clue on what President Obama’s policy in the Far East would be, I think an American government that wouldn’t mind having lesser role in Japan would be less anxious as, say the Bush Administration, to keep the United States deeply involved in Asian affairs. It could mean that President Obama consider Asia only in light of his other priorities (i.e. Japan’s help in Afghanistan/ China’s help in solving the economic crisis). This might explain President Obama’s willingness to ignore Thailand and the Philippines, its strategic footholds in this part of the world.
And if indeed the United States under President Obama would be willing to be less involved in Japan in particular and in Asian affairs in general, the implication would be a more assertive Japan, which could trigger a balance of power game between Tokyo and its Northeast Asian neighbors China and Korea. This would not manifest itself while the economic crisis is still around of course, but it is not unlikely.
March 4, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Not so…many of Hilary Clinton political
supporters are Filipino Americans. They can put
the Philippines on her agenda. Chelsea Clinton,
her daughter needs them for future political
clout.
March 4, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Timoteo: Unfortunately it is Obama, not Clinton, who decides Foreign policy.
March 5, 2009 at 12:40 am
It is not Obama’s sole decision on foreign policy. Decision making are based on collective feedback from the executives. Some decisions may require Congress to deliberate and some may not just like the VFA. Obama may not be the most powerful. I am very pessimistic with him pushing healthcare reform NOW at this time of crisis. Reforming it may change expenses and labor cost allocation. Many hospitals are now decreasing salary up to 5%. Even with union, his reform may put every professional in healthcare at risk of losing yearly revenue from decreasing salary. The ripple effect may continue and the economy may not recover as expected. Whatever he does on healthcare can also affect the many filipinos in the USA and remittances. That to me has more direct effect to our economy.
So what’s the fuzz of this foreign policy?
March 5, 2009 at 2:46 am
“And if indeed the United States under President Obama would be willing to be less involved in Japan in particular and in Asian affairs in general, the implication would be a more assertive Japan, which could trigger a balance of power game between Tokyo and its Northeast Asian neighbors China and Korea.”
I agree with J. However, I think, the power game is not so much with Korea but more between Japan’s historical adversaries Russia and China which are the real super powers to contend with.
What is worrying is, a Japan, left to fend for itself against traditional ruthless adversaries will be forced to shed its pacifist stand and certainly, in the context of self-preservation, will militarize.
So, Japan, having the resources and the capabilities of people, technologies and materials available within its own territory will in no time become the new superpower of the world complete with nuclear offense and defense weaponries comparable and/or might even be superior to those of the other superpower’s.
March 5, 2009 at 3:07 am
i think little weight should be put into America’s ‘present’ stance on foreign policy as almost the entire American bureaucracy is focused on their own economy and on survival mode..
i see the current round of as a mere ‘tour-of-assurance-and-assessment’ focused primarily on reviewing existing alliances, establishing a general outline for US foreign policy, and of course diplomatic formalities..
if you would look here:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/index.htm
there are no major agreements or actions that would show that the Obama administration already has a comprehensive policy on particular countries. aid mentioned, most probably, have been programed by the previous administration. even the reports are based on the foreign policy agenda of the Bush government, not Obama.
The Obama administration may have a general framework, but as of now, the individual departments and players in the US State Department are currently lobbying for their pet programs to have a slot in Obama’s foreign policy.
so what im saying here is: Relax. as Achilles would have said it in the movie, Troy, “..it’s too early in the war to be killing princes..”
and remember, it’s always America first before others.
March 5, 2009 at 4:07 am
amen, i say to you, liam. indeed, some people are either just too onion-skinned, or have too high and unrealistic sense of self-importance, as to be slighted by a non-visit or non-return of a phone call.
i agree. at this point, the inexperienced obama, with an inexperienced sec. of state, is still groping around for a definitive foreign policy. i doubt whether it is in america’s best interest to downgrade asia, japan in particular, among its priorities in matters of foreign relations.
March 5, 2009 at 7:46 am
Welcome back to FV, Mr. Tinio. :)
How are things at the OP Official Corresponce Office?
Happy hunting here at FV dude.
March 5, 2009 at 9:31 am
waaa.. im not here to troll.. im here to learn.. ;)
what i’ve realized in reading FV for several months now is that if you just wipe off the passionate words, this is a treasure trove of ideas..
March 5, 2009 at 10:44 am
When Bush was here for a less than 24 hour State Visit, we saw that Condi Rice wasn’t thrilled to be in Manila. I’m sure that her successor Hillary Clinton isn’t too.
March 5, 2009 at 11:14 am
Obama’s foreign policy right now is acting as bankruptcy trustee for all foreign creditors of the U.S. economy. How the hell are foreigners going to collect their money loaned to the U.S. economy and how much will they lose?
Please note below the outstanding debts of the the three major agents of the U.S. economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303321.html
“By the middle of 2008, for example, American households had build up debt of $13.9 trillion, more than double what it was a decade before. Businesses had accumulated debt of $10.9 trillion, also doubling in a decade. And financial institutions had piled up debt of $16.6 trillion, up from $6.3 trillion in 1998.”
“And the federal government? During that same period — drum roll — its debt rose from $3.8 trillion to $5.3 trillion.”
March 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm
First of all, I’m not slighted by the non-visit of Mrs. Clinton. It was mentioned as a fact. And from that fact is the conclusion that perhaps the importance of the Philippines in US’ Foreign Policy has to some extent diminished.
Secondly, I admit that there are no agreements or promulgation of policies/ directives that would show the general framework of Obama’s foreign policy.
But this post is meant to see if there are clues as to how Asia will figure in Obama’s policy from mrs. Clinton’s Asia visit.
March 5, 2009 at 6:34 pm
leytenian: several executives deliberate, but Obama alone has the final say.
Bert: i think its a stretch to say Japan is ready or, for that matter, capable, should US indeed leave it independent, to be a “superpower.” Most likely it would seek only to be a regional power.
March 5, 2009 at 8:29 pm
J,
you are such a baby.. In leagl context, Obama signs the paper as the final say. As I said, he is not the most powerful to me.
And how do you know that several executives deliberate? Meaning to say that Obama can have his final say only from a several few? I don’t think that’s how management work in the US. Impeachment is right around the corner. :)
but J.. great blog.
March 5, 2009 at 8:51 pm
RP under GMA is being “snubbed” because she has announced internationally that she was pulling out the Philippine contingent from Iraq at a time that the U.S. was trying her best to make a coalition forces in the area work.
It has nothing to do with her alleged corruption and records of human rights violations. The U.S. is capable of talking to the most duplicitious leader in any part of the world as long as it will promote U.S. interest in that part of the world.
Take GMA’s withdrawal of the troops from Iraq and the prospect of developing another key ally in the region who will stick with America no matter what, then you can decipher the reason behind the “snub”.
March 5, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Well, after the Juan de la Cruz incident, Bush still gave an audience to Arroyo, right?
March 5, 2009 at 9:02 pm
J,
Neither Thailand nor RP is a strategic outpost for U.S. interest in the region. Okinawa cancels out any strategic importance of RP/Thailand. Consider also the island of Guam. The inroads of technology has totally redesigned the traditional war maps that any bomb target in the region can be done inside a war room several thousand miles away from the target. Add to this also dozens of submarines and U.S.S. carriers that police the international seas which can be easily deployed in any flashpoint and launch missiles from the depth.
March 5, 2009 at 9:08 pm
you know the reason why.. because Bush’s chef is a Pilipino who insisted that he sees GMA, otherwise, she will poison the commander-in-chief. :) seriously, bush hands were tied with his loyal as well as disloyal allies. but in the case of obama’s regime, it can see through the “balimbing” side of RP may not be helpful to U.S. interest anymore.
March 5, 2009 at 9:23 pm
by strategic outpost i mean not necessarily strategic military basing areas per se, but source of political support for the US
March 5, 2009 at 9:31 pm
U.S. does not need us anymore and we should get the message. We should strive for more self-reliance or develop other key allies.
March 5, 2009 at 9:34 pm
jcc: exactly what this post suggest
March 5, 2009 at 9:45 pm
i don’t know j. i get the idea that the snub of RP was due to “corruption and human rights violation” of GMA, and you connected the dot by pointing out that Indonesia would not be a likely U.S. key ally in the region for the same reason,
then you are suggesting that may be U.S. does not need us anymore. you covered a lot of grounds in your post that there was no central theme anymore, and honestly and frankly, I was lost. :)
March 6, 2009 at 12:24 am
et tu, jcc? how can you say that clinton’s non-visit was a “snub” with an air of certainty? you are supposed to be a guy trained in the law but you seem to think (at least in this instance) like a layman (no offense meant to non-lawyers here). is the word “alleged” not in your legal vocabulary?
and where did you get the idea that a visit or non-visit necessarily depends on whether or not we are needed – or liked?
March 6, 2009 at 1:22 am
snub? never said that i was certain about it bencard that’s why i put in in quotation mark.
if you ask me, it was not a “snub”, it was pragmatic politics.
March 6, 2009 at 2:53 am
i have a question:
why is a visit important?
March 6, 2009 at 1:18 pm
bencard: Mrs Arroyo invited Mrs Clinton to visit. And she didn’t. Isn’t that a snub?
GabbyD: a visit is a subtle gesture indicating the extent of the visitor’s regard for its alliance with the visited country.
March 12, 2009 at 8:21 am
America has small vested in the Philippines, and being American bases it’s interests is vague, almost obsolete and non-existent. The last time I remember America paid attention to this government was during the events following the 9/11. Particularly the sensationalized eradication of Abu-Sayyaf. That was a publicity stunt at their finest and don’t feel I need to say anymore. Anyway, Philippines in the eyes of Uncle Sam has not changed since WWII example. Japan vs. Philippines after the war. South of Philippines island vs. Borneo. American bases in the Philippines in relation to the-off-the radar carefully crafted elimination of Marcos and his regime etc.. Other countries have suffered the same consequences like Argentina, Falklands vs. England. America is a big capitalist and it will protect it’s investment on the back and blood of it’s immigrants and citizens literally speaking. Considering the economy blunder that is going on in America I don’t think Philippines is going to be mentioned during the State of the Union speach or any speach for that matter. Although I’m hoping that America will not judge the female president of the Philippines her inability to run my beloved country based on her height even with a stilleto heels.
March 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm
As an Australia-based Mariners fan, I found your blog on google and read a few of your other Mariners posts.
I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.