The End of the Pivot to Asia?

Americans in general also support engagement with the Middle East and Europe - which they regard as far more important due to historical/religious/linguistic ties.

In comparison, Asia is regarded as filled with alien cultures with unfamiliar languages.

Plus 60:40 will likely have to become 70:30, then 80:20 in the coming years.

So that doesn't leave much for Europe or the Middle East.

Despite Obama’s Moves, Asian Nations Skeptical of U.S. Commitment
New York Times

SINGAPORE — When President Obama announced Monday that he was ending a half-century-long arms embargo against Vietnam, it was another milestone in his long-running ambition to recast America’s role in Asia — a “pivot” as he once called it, designed to realign America’s foreign policy so it can reap the benefits of Asia’s economic and strategic future.

Yet as Mr. Obama’s time in office comes to an end, Asian nations are deeply skeptical about how much they can rely on Washington’s commitment and staying power in the region. They sense that for the first time in memory, Americans are questioning whether their economic and defense interests in Asia are really that vital.

Read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

There's no way the u.s would end the pivot to Asia just based off of Chinese aggression in the region and south east Asia is an economic powerhouse so it makes sense for the U.S to focus on that region

The Philosopher said:

There's no way the u.s would end the pivot to Asia just based off of Chinese aggression in the region and south east Asia is an economic powerhouse so it makes sense for the U.S to focus on that region

Click to expand...

If the US can have a Monroe Doctrine for the western hemisphere, then China and Russia doing the same for their areas would be no different in the protection of their interests either.

The Philosopher said:

There's no way the u.s would end the pivot to Asia just based off of Chinese aggression in the region and south east Asia is an economic powerhouse so it makes sense for the U.S to focus on that region

Click to expand...

The "Chinese aggression" in SCS is just convenient jargon for domestic and foreign audiences that need to hear moral-sounding words to make themselves feel good. The real reason US is and will continue to have strong presence in Asia is, being a Pacific nation, it has core national interests in the region. It is also in China's interest to have strong US presence in the Indo-Pacific because the region would be more stable with US than without. Also, it's not in either China or US interests to have two blocks that are mutually exclusive and hostile to the other; better for China to compromise with US and negotiate co-leadership of the region, instead of playing with fire and try to push US out of the Western Paficic.

@Blackstone ... I totally agree with your analysis above. The region is much safer with the present of US force. I think both China and the US should cooperate, Asia is big enough for two Giants ... perhaps the US also need to compromise a bit to accomodate China rise and negotiate co-leadership (as you mentioned) ... the same thing for China. I see that the US would still the leader in the region for foreseable future and I believe China is ok with that ... as long as the US is not too hostile against China

Blackstone said:

The "Chinese aggression" in SCS is just convenient jargon for domestic and foreign audiences that need to hear moral-sounding words to make themselves feel good. The real reason US is and will continue to have strong presence in Asia is, being a Pacific nation, it has core national interests in the region. It is also in China's interest to have strong US presence in the Indo-Pacific because the region would be more stable with US than without. Also, it's not in either China or US interests to have two blocks that are mutually exclusive and hostile to the other; better for China to compromise with US and negotiate co-leadership of the region, instead of playing with fire and try to push US out of the Western Paficic.

Click to expand...

These all sound good and well, but the reality is quite different and much tougher. You make it sound that China is pushing the US out of the region - let's just say this is very disingenuous. I don't think China believed it wanted or was able to push the US out of the region. Seriously, the US has multiple treaty alliances in the region, with many military bases around China. The US also has very close trade and investments relationships with most countries in the region, including China. How could possibly China push out the US? What would be the risks and response that this strategy could engender?

On the contrary, from China's perspective, it is the US that initiated its "Pivot to Asia" strategy back in 2010, which is two-pronged: the military one with plan to move 60% of its navy to Asia-Pacific; the economic one to take over the TPP negotiation with an "everyone but China" strategy. China has repeatedly called for a "new type of major power relationship," without getting any positive response from the US side. The symbolic increase of voting shares in IMF for China and other emerging economies approved by members in 2010 can not go ahead because the US Congress would not approve it. China could not wait for this forever and it started its AIIB initiative, which was off to a great start.

Let's call a spade a spade: US started the Asia Pivot strategy because after a decade of entanglement in Middle East and Anti-Terror War, it suddenly found that China's ever-growing economic power and influence in Asia and it felt its "primacy" in Asia was threatened by China. What does it do? Certainly not "negotiating a co-leadership" of the region with China. It brings the weapon where it still has the biggest lead over China: the weapons, and "hijacks" the TPP initiative to impose its own rules and exclude China. And you call China trying to push out the US? Like Obama said, the US does not want to live in a world in which China sets the rule, I guess what he was really saying is that the US does not want to live in a world (or region, even if others region) where it does not get to set the rules.

So here we have the fundamental structural problem: the US has never wanted to share power or leadership with any other countries, but China has never wanted to be any country's underling, not in her own region, not when she believes she is now merely returning to the historical norm of being East Asia's leading power. It's just not in the two nations' characters, as Henry Kissinger has repeatedly pointed this out.

I think the US and China will maintain both certain tension and competitive relationship at least in the short to medium term, despite the facts that they have a lot of common interests outside the Western Pacific region, as well as close trade and economic relationship. Longer term, it will depend on the balance of power reached between the two countries, both economic and military. Meanwhile, let's hope both countries can manage their relationship reasonably well without a serious conflict.

fatfreddy said:

With every day the economic benefits of working with China grows stronger..

Click to expand...

Didn't Trump say last week that he will fight seriously with Chinese violating the inellectual properties coming from US as well as taking steps to abolish 'unfair' international trade agreements and starting the process from China and 'few other countries'?

There's no way the u.s would end the pivot to Asia just based off of Chinese aggression in the region and south east Asia is an economic powerhouse so it makes sense for the U.S to focus on that region

Click to expand...

SE Asia is not an economic powerhouse.

The Chinese economy is some 4x larger than ASEAN, and sees ASEAN as a good trade/investment destination.

Indeed China is larger than the rest of Asia combined

Jeff Head said:

No, the Asian pivot will continue.

A lot of momentum already in place, and bases have been prepared for it as ell as agreements put in place with allies.

This is one Obama era initiative that will probably be recognized and continued...though it may very well change if Trump is elected because his terms with the allied nations will not be the same as Obamas. he will expect that they pay the US for bringing the forces to them, and not that the US fund it all.

So it may well be modified accordingly.

But, IMHO, on UIS owned and operated bases...it will continue.

Click to expand...

The pivot is mainly a matter of Strategy in fact re deployment of units, ships, equipments, several years ago about 50 % of military forces for Atlantic Area same for Pacific for about 2020 40 and 60 % approx. during Cold War it was the opposite.

Necessary look by differents Services, eventually Branch :

- Army no real changes almost all forces from end of Cold War ( except temporary overseas operations ) are stationed in CONUS
Only recently one AH-64 Bat re created in Alaska.

- USMC ground forces, same as Army the more big part from WWII, 6 Div in the Pacific is stationed there 2/3 Div only changes 6/12 months a Bat deployed to Darwin.

- Nuclear Forces also no particular changes from several years 8/14 SSBN based in the West Coast Bangor. 3 ICBM and the 5 bombers bases are divided up on an axis South - North In the center.

- USAF/USMC Aviation again right now no particular changes begin in 2020 with a Wing of 48 F-35 based to Eielson a very direct way for Pacific yet 48 F-22 close, PACAF exept in Alaska have 200 fighters in 8 Sqns but regurlarly reinforced by Detchts EA-18G to Misawa, EA-6B to Iwakuni, P-3/8 to Misawa/Kadena, sometimes 1/2 Sqn of F-22 to Kadena, Bombers, RQ-4 to Guam in more one USMC F-18D sqn to Iwakuni.
Kadena is the more big base out of the CONUS with 54 F-15 13 KC-135, 2 E-3, RC-135 etc... and i have say P-3/8 !
The first VMFA of USMC which do transition on F-35 are those in the Weast Coast and next year F-18D Sqn to Iwakuni replaced by F-35B.

Also USMC aviation get very modern equipment almost all new for 2025/30 yet all CH-46/UH-1 units have do transition on CV-22/UH-1Y after AH-1W to Z, CH-53K later... and ~ 420 F-35B/C for 2030.

US Navy where there are the more big changes coz Asia Pacific area need mainly Air/Naval forces as during WWII aicrafts can be moved fast, enough USAF have especialy for it 450 Tankers but ships need more time in the more big Ocean in the World yet 57 % of SSN, 55 % DDG/CG the 4 LCS
3/4 new Burke, 3/3 Zumwalt, others LCS for 2017 and have received LHA America.

MSC have also many and big cargos for moved mainly equipment ( personnal mainly by air ) some ar ep forward deployed with all vehicles, logistic aboard especialy for USMC units a very big capacity completely unusual.

First glimpse, presentation after more details especialy for Navy homeports, changes with my KMZ files i look very well and have idea do a map more easy for see and nothing want a map for Strategy.