The visit of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Southeast Asia last week reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to an expanding U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific. Although the administration has remained relatively mum in recent weeks about the so-called “pivot” (leading some to speculate that the strategy’s political viability was undergoing reassessment), and despite the looming threat of massive cuts to the U.S. defense budget, Panetta asserted the position in a June 2 address in Singapore: “Make no mistake – in a steady, deliberate, and sustainable way the United States military is rebalancing and bringing an enhanced capability development to this vital region.” Here, are the most important takeaways from Panetta’s nine-day trip, and their implications for both U.S. policy and the regional dynamic:
Not Another Cold War
Panetta’s trip to Asia commenced with a stop in Singapore to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue, a prominent annual defense summit in Asia. The most noteworthy moment of his address there came with the unveiling of the numbers behind the United States’ pivot to Asia, a plan that had hitherto been defined quite broadly. The secretary declared that the United States naval fleet will transition from its current fifty/fifty split between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, to a sixty/forty split by 2020. Analysts have debated whether the increase will have a legitimate tactical impact, but the announcement was perhaps most significant for its diplomatic signaling. Panetta towed the administration line in Singapore, vowing that the pivot shouldn't be construed as an attempt to contain China: “Our effort to renew and intensify our involvement in Asia is fully compatible – fully compatible – with the development and growth of China,” he said, “Indeed, the increased U.S. involvement in this region will benefit China as it advances our shared security and prosperity in the future.”
But most onlookers, including the United States’ own allies in the region, believe such assurances are disingenuous. It would be hard for even the most novice policy analyst to conceive that China’s ever-growing defense spending, which has increased by 500 percent in the past 13 years, is a non-factor in the new U.S. calculation. Beijing officials are said to be vexed by Washington’s activism in Asia, and it was perhaps more than a mere scheduling conflict that kept senior Beijing officials from attending the Shangri-La Dialogue this year (last year, then-secretary Robert Gates and Chinese defense minister Liang Guanglie held talks on the conference’s periphery).
Make New Friends, but Keep the Old
The envisioned U.S. pivot to Asia levies long-standing alliances in the region, while also cultivating new partnerships. In his address at Shangri-La, Panetta noted a new agreement with Singapore that will allow the United States to deploy four new Littoral Combat Ships to its main naval port in 2013. While in Singapore, Panetta also met with Philippine national defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin to discuss ways in which the newly-rejuvenated alliance could be further enhanced. After Singapore, Panetta then jetted to Vietnam, a partner whose geostrategic significance has elevated its status in the United States’ regional stratagem in recent years. To the dismay of many human rights activists, while in Singapore Panetta suggested that the United States is even open to improving military ties with Burma should the country continue on its current reform trajectory.
Some onlookers thought it strange that Thailand, a longtime U.S. ally, wasn’t on the secretary’s Asia itinerary – perhaps owing to the recent censorship clampdown and the increasingly sensitive political climate there. However, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey did travel to Bangkok, where he met with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Thai defense officials. Among the topics of conversation was the creation of a joint center of excellence in Thailand devoted to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
Making Waves
While previous U.S. participation at Shangri-La has often focused on the issue of Taiwan and the North Korean threat, the South China Sea as a flashpoint for conflict was the threat du jour at this year’s conference. In his address, Panetta asserted the United States’ role as a the preeminent guardian of the commons, and, without explicitly reprimanding China for its recent heavy-handedness, noted that U.S. was closely monitoring the situation in Scarborough Shoal and was absolutely opposed to “provocation,” “coercion” and “the use of force.” He also urged all territorial claimants to further develop a code of conduct and settle on a mechanism for dispute resolution.
One topic that was paid seemingly little attention was terrorism. Panetta, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, only mentioned terrorism fleetingly in his address – while describing U.S. relations with the Philippines. As the Philippines, Indonesia, and other ASEAN countries remain homes to some of the world’s most radical Islamic elements, and in light of February’s bombing by an Iranian militant in Bangkok, it’s surprising that threat reduction and cooperation on terrorism was not given a more prominent spot on the U.S. agenda this trip.
Tightrope Walking
Following the conference, Panetta traveled to Vietnam, where he gave an address from the flight deck of the USNS Richard E. Byrd in Cam Ranh Bay. The secretary recognized the seventeenth anniversary of the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam, and restated Washington’s commitment to helping Vietnam defend its national interests. Although Panetta never mentioned China in his address, the Middle Kingdom nevertheless loomed large in the consciousness of everyone onboard. As the New York Times does an excellent job of describing, Vietnam is facing the precarious challenge of walking a tightrope between the two powers.
While Hanoi views enhanced corporation with the United States as an important buffer to growing Chinese influence, it remains ever-sensitive to offending its northern neighbor. Vietnam’s distrust of China is linked to its own self-view, a historical narrative that centers on over two thousand years of fending off foreign aggression, namely by China. But, despite the deep-seated mistrust, China remains Vietnam’s single most important bilateral relationship and the leading proprietor of Vietnam’s trade deficit.
Elizabeth Leader is a Research Associate for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. This entry originally appeared at Asia Unbound here.

vic
@observer
America has been rocking the world for quite some time. To try to comprehend America’s actions (which is very prolific as a nation killer), we must try to know her history; we must try to know the ‘nature of the beast’.
America is born of violence (genocide of Native American tribes), and is accustomed to violence. That her conduct in foreign affairs is most often one of extreme violence, is simply her nature. If we read her DNA correctly, we may learn how to sidestep her and appease her for the sake of our own survival.
Errol T
Since we’re reciting history here… America wasn’t always agressive. Yes, America was born from evicting the Native Americans off their lands, but after that, America aspired to be an isolationist. If you doubt me, check WW1. America wanted to stay out of it, but got dragged in when its citizens were killed in the sinking of the Lusitania.
This is only an idea of mine, but maybe America would rather go to war now and keep it small instead of having a war get out of hand and even more lives would be lost in the process. I think it’s the reason why America tends to act as the world police, despite protests from other nations. I’d welcome any ideas about that.
vic
It would not be too unfair to say that often times American cure is worse than the perceived disease. In Asia, we are often on the receiving end of the gun. That there is a negative racial element in American treatment of Asia is due to the very nature of America itself.
Japan went all out, during the Meiji Restoration, to slavishly copy Western culture, (lock,stock and barrel) in order to rapidly modernize. Japan had copied the Tang Dynasty model, and when Chinese culture reached its terminal stage, Japan switched to the Western model. However, Japan copied too slavishly, including its military aggressiveness and exploitative predilections. China failed to see the modernity of the West as a necessity for civilization improvement; for this, she paid an extremely high price. That China survived is a near miracle. Today, China is modernizing rapidly; her eyes are now wide-open.
When US placed an oil embargo on Japan, Japan struck out at Pearl Harbor. The Americans said how sneaky it was for Japan to attack, without informing us first (the British used to laugh at this statement, as Germany never announced either).
Japan hit American military targets. Towards the end, US nuked not one but two cities (they ain’t my brothers, nor my sisters, nor my children, they ain’t people). One was uranium, the other plutonium. One day, Japan will ask, why the second bomb?
In Vietnam, three million people got killed. All for what? They also used “agent orange” to get rid of trees and plants. All this, because “they ain’t my brothers”.
American violence is simply incomprehensible to Asians and, I think, to most other people and cultures.
Civilization is never about only gadgets and weapons; it is about how one man treats another man.
nirvana
@vic,
Why two Bombs on Japan? Read the historical debates within Imperial Japan court during this period. Without the wisdom of Emperor Hirohito and if the military coup did not fail to kill/capture him (to prevent him to broadcast the surrender message), the Japanese army would be still fighting today. You must understand what the term "honor" means to the Japanese Imperial soldiers.
If it hadn't been Truman who got the Bomb first but a crazy man like Mao, it would not be two cities "but all the cities West of Xian" that would be sacrificed. If it had been Stalin who got the Bomb first, Warsaw, Berlin would not exist today, and possibly Mao would not be able to joke with Tanaka that he thanked the Imperial Army for weakening the ROC forces. So you should say thank you to uncle SAM, for not using the incredibale monopole he had for more than 5 years.
Cruelty and barbarity is not in the White DNA or the Yellow DNA. You don't need to go far back into the past to find "crimes against humanity" perpetrated by Chinese Emperors.
nirvana
Typo: "all the cities EAST of Xian".
a_canadian_observer
@vic: Again, you're either dishonest or ignorant. Just the comment "In Vietnam, three million people got killed. All for what?" is misleading. We all know, the major deaths were caused by the communist block which china and the USSR were the leaders.