Continuing Strategic Rebalancing to Asia: The Do’s and Don’ts

With Vice President Biden in Kiev and President Obama arriving in Asia tomorrow, the need and capacity for the United States to manage multiple priority issues is on full display, including balancing long-term strategy with near-term crises. In Asia, the President will meet with leaders in Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Malaysia to consolidate and deepen strategic rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific. As a long-term policy movement, rebalancing to Asia will require sustained attention at the whole-of-government level – particularly to ensure properly-scaled distribution of resources – and coordinated priorities. Of special concern going forward is investing the necessary diplomatic capital in the region, as recommended by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a new report, and ensuring the success of economic statecraft in Asia with efforts like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It will also be key to build a stronger institutional web of crisis management mechanisms as disputes persist between China and America’s allies. Avoiding getting off track will be equally important, especially resisting conservative calls to evaluate America’s commitment in the Pacific primarily in terms of the presence of dedicated U.S. military assets.  As the SFRC correctly notes, “the core of U.S. policy and strategy in the region rests on our alliances and partnerships,” making coordination and capacity building primary tools.  The Administration must also reject the false choices some have implied between America’s priorities in Asia and its ability to manage crises elsewhere.

Events in Ukraine do not undermine U.S. credibility in Asia – or elsewhere. Kenneth Lieberthal of the Brookings Institution and former senior director for Asia on the National Security Council explains, “We have long-standing alliances in Asia with most of the countries where the maritime territorial disputes with China are most severe. And we have stated time and again that we will meet our alliance commitments… We don’t have any such commitments to Ukraine. We don’t have an alliance. We have never assured Ukraine’s territorial integrity by threatening the use of force. We have not tried to make Ukraine a part of NATO. So…it’s a different situation and I think the Chinese are very clear about those differences.” [Kenneth Lieberthal, 4/18/14]

Continuing the rebalance does not require higher levels of Pentagon spending; instead, continued rebalancing of DOD’s budget priorities is called for. Former Assistance Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Ely Ratner of the Center for New American Security explain, “as defense spending falls, skeptics wonder how the United States will be able to invest the resources necessary to reassure its Asian allies and dissuade would-be provocateurs, especially as China’s power and influence continue to grow. The answer is that rebalancing toward Asia will not require dramatic new funding; rather, the Pentagon will need to be more flexible and find better ways to spend. For example, as the United States reduces the overall size of its army, it should sustain its military presence in Asia and invest in naval and air capabilities better suited to the region’s security environment… Washington should do more to improve the capacity of Asian militaries by conducting more educational and professional exchanges, enhancing multilateral military exercises, passing along equipment that U.S. forces no longer need, and engaging in more joint planning.” [Kurt Campbell and Ely Rather, 4/19/14]

Going forward, reassuring allies and coordinating the whole-of-government to implement rebalancing over the long hall would benefit from further strategic guidance. Shawn Brimley, former Director of Strategic Planning at the NSC and now of CNAS, and Ely Ratner explain: “Now that the foundation of the strategic shift to Asia has been laid, the main challenge for U.S. policymakers will be to secure the resources necessary to continue it. The United States will find it difficult to advance its interests in the region if its allies, partners, and potential adversaries doubt that its commitments will be upheld. Locking in the new approach will require Washington to set aside money and personnel and to ensure that agencies are mobilized across the U.S. government in ways that reflect an institutional commitment to its Asia policy.” To help this task, and to further develop and help implement strategic rebalancing across government, they recommend that, “the White House should explic­itly articulate the rebalancing strategy, perhaps in the form of a presidential policy directive, outlining its near- to long-term priorities and coming up with specific metrics that departments and agencies can use to track their progress in executing it.”  [Shawn Brimley and Ely Ratner, 2/13/14]

Particular items to be prioritized include:

Ensuring sufficient diplomatic resources in the region: While the Obama Administration has taken extensive and tangible steps to prioritize diplomatic engagement in the region, including high-level participation in ASEAN and new bilateral engagement mechanisms in the region, like the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China, more work remains. The need for strategic guidance to coordinate whole-of-government efforts appears to be gaining in importance.  A recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report found that “The State Department devotes just 8 percent of its diplomatic engagement budget to its Asia-Pacific bureaus and 4 percent of aid money to a region which accounts for 33 percent of the world’s population,” according to the Washington Post. [Shawn Brimley and Ely Ratner, 2/13/14. Washington Post, 4/16/14]

Ensuring successful economic statecraft in the region, especially the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): In Japan, President Obama is expected to discuss the TPP with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Japan is one of the eleven other economies negotiating the agreement, which has run into negotiation snags. Former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon explains the significance of the TPP, “the rebalance is about more than military assets; it places an even greater emphasis on diplomacy and trade. The centerpiece of the economic rebalancing is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the most important trade deal under negotiation today. By eliminating trade barriers and harmonizing regulations, the TPP would connect a dozen Asia-Pacific economies in a massive trade and investment framework covering 40 percent of global gross domestic product. It would directly provide the United States with some $78 billion in annual income. The TPP’s most important aims, however, are strategic. A deal would solidify U.S. leadership in Asia and, together with the negotiations over a free trade pact in Europe, put the United States at the center of a great project: writing the rules that will govern the global economy for the next century.” [Tom Donilon, 4/20/14]

In the security domain, maritime disputes highlight the need for enhanced crisis management. In both Japan and the Philippines, ongoing maritime disputes between U.S. allies and Beijing are likely to be top items of discussion. Margaret K. Lewis, Associate Professor at Seton Hall Law School, explains the need for enhanced crisis management mechanisms between China and the U.S.: “concrete measures are needed both to forestall conflicts and to create channels to promptly address confrontations before they balloon into crises. Given persisting legal ambiguities about military activities at sea, as well as the increasing frequency of encounters due to assertive U.S. maneuvers and growing Chinese military might, the two countries should take the lead in establishing specific, practical ‘rules of the road’ for use when their military forces encounter each other to lessen the chance of future incidents.” [Margaret K. Lewis, 12/2/13]