You get the sense frustration has been mounting in Europe-first precincts. Teeth are gnashed and garments rended in direct proportion to the policy energy Asia consumes in Washington. In particular, the Obama administration's pivot to the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean has occasioned no end of fretful commentary.
Consequently, the news that the United States and the European Union will commence negotiating a transatlantic free-trade zone gave vent to rapturous commentary. Anne-Marie Slaughter, who oversaw the U.S. State Department's Policy Planning Staff from 2009-2011, hailed "The Coming Atlantic Century," appropriating the title of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2011 Foreign Policy essay announcing the Asia pivot. Writing in The New Republic, Brookings Institution scholar William Galston greeted "Obama's Pivot to Europe" while urging readers to "forget China." And so forth. Catharsis is good! Yet the euphoria is largely misplaced.
There are four problems with a putative Europe pivot:
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
A.D.S.
Ladies & Gentlemen of the United States of America:
Beware China. Embrace Europe. Otherwise America is entering its final chapter as a great power. The US Administration and its corporate leadership must embrace Europe, but especially western and western-leaning Europe, and encourage & support Western-mindedness in Russia. Europe and the US share strong roots of cultural, linguistic, philisophical, historical, traditional, legal, and economic harmony. But eh USA should also embrace Japan and South Korea, as they have been shaped by the Post-WWII American occupation and since then have consistently adopted strategies to embrace partnerships with the USA. China in contrsst merely exploits every international relationship it forms — no matter the damage to its would be partners; where national interests are concerned, China's policy makers as well as its businessmen are myopic and fixated on the exclusive interests of China to the expense of the rest of the planet; and cooperation is most often merely a tool to trick their opponents into being passive. In fairness, all nations exploit to some extent their relationship for their own interests. The USA would be wise to exploit the deeply running commonalities with Europe ahead of all else, for mutual benefit; the economic and security strategic interdependancies outweigh anything that the Pacific has to offer. The Pacific poffers mainly threats, especially in terms of econmomic competition and resource competition. China seeks to globally monopolize labour intense manufacturing, which is killing the US economic base. China seeks to monopolize fossil fuel and rare earth reserves, which is undermining US energy & resource strategic interests. China seeks to bankrupt Japan in order to render them irrelevant to US economic & security interests in the eyes of Administration strategists, so that they can expand their territories unchallenged by the USA or UN Security Council (thus Peking's protest at "outsideers" or "irrelevant countries" being involved in regional disputes with Japan, Vietnam, and the Phillipines. The Middle Kingdom seeks to enjoy regional hegemony territorially, but they seek to dominate the entire world in many other ways. Their rapant persuit of resources in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the fishing seas of all oceans is indicative of things to come. They do not make agreements except to lull their competitors and adversaries into complacency so that they can continue surreptitiously to persue their national strategies unhindered.
Beware China. Embrace Europe. Oh, and by the way, pass a budget agreement so that you can turn your attention to the strategic interests of your nation.
American endurance as a great power — even as a relevant power — is at stake. America must embrace Europe, otherwise China will bury the lot of us.
A.D.S.
Kanes
Unknown and indifferent Asia at the expense of known friendly Europe?
US influence will thin out in Europe with the pivot to Asia. Russia is waiting its turn to exert more influence on Europe. Looks like China and Russia are playing a game here. Russia's "pivot back to Cuba" is another interesting development. What a wonderful multi polar world!
Andrew K P Leung
Holmes needs no fear.
Obama's overture to Europe to create a Tranaltantic Free Trade Zone is, well, mainly trade. It by no means signal a re-pivoting from Asia!
This is in fact part of a two-pronged Grand Strategy illustrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his article “Balancing the East, Upgrading the West – U.S. Grand Strategy in an Age of Upheaval” in Foreign Affairs (January/February 2012), which is adapted from his soon-to-be published book, “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power”.
http://www.andrewleunginternationalconsultants.com/new/2012/04/grand-strategy-for-america-or-one-for-the-whole-world-not-least-china.html
Best regards,
Andrew
http://www.andrewleunginternationalconsultants.com
Rick M
This insightful essay points out what should be obvious to statesmen (and women) – that after a century of hot and cold war conflict, there are now limited "flash points" for confilct. None are in the Atlantic. Even the latest Russian foreign policy statement is conciliatory toward the US and NATO … China could learn a lot from 20th Century history. Germany and Japan, the rising powers of the last century, would have accrued regional hegemony as a matter of course – without aggresson, without bloodshed – simply because of their economic weight. Both nations were unwilling to wait and resorted to force. We know the end result. China should be patient. The East Asian hegemony it seeks is inevitable if – and only if – the Chinese do not resort to force … To underestimate the USA, which has a coalition of allies unprecedented in world history – Europe, Japan, Oceania – would be detrimental, and perhaps fatal. Learn from WW2. USA's pivot is less a realignment than a message. Take on a coalition many times your strength, and you will lose.
Bankotsu
"It is high time for Europe to take responsibility for its own surroundings, using some of its resources to construct serious armed forces."
But that would defeat the entire purpose of why these europeans states joined NATO in the first place. They wanted U.S to foot the bill.
You want europeans to re-arm themselves? Sure. But there's a political price for that.
U.S has to end their hegemony over europe.
Is U.S prepared to pay the price?
To again quote from the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, "we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order." Reassurance, the second prong of the hegemonic strategy, entails convincing major powers not to build up their military capabilities, allowing the United States to assume the burdens of ensuring their security instead.
In other words, while outspending allies like Germany and Japan on defense, the United States should be prepared to fight wars on behalf of Germany and Japan, sparing them the necessity of re-arming — for fear that these countries, having "renationalized" their defense policies and rearmed, might become hostile to the United States at some future date.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381
W. Tseng
You have it right on. A rearmed Europe/Japan would be a greater threat to world peace than 10 Chinas. Remember not too far back, 2 world wars, that perpetrated the worse genocide in human history, were both started in Europe & the one in Asia by Japan. Rearming Europe & giving the Japanese the Nimitz without an overpowering US hegemony would be a serious bad idea. Even now you can read, see & feel rising Japanese nationalism & assertiveness on territorial claims towards Russia, Korea and China. With the second most sophisticated armed force in Asia, what’s holding it back is just a tenuous US tether.
Radwulf
After WWII Western Europe arguably was not strong enough to defend itself against the Soviets and wasn't strong enough to protect the trade lanes so the US backstopped them to contain the Soviets and guarentee trading access for its own economy. After the Cold War the US tried to discourage potential peer competitors from establishing comparable militaries (Europe, Japan, Russia, China). This is not a secret and has been publicly stated by Brzezinski, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and others.
Central to this plan in Europe is NATO. Any European foreign or defence policy needs an exclusively European institutional infrastructure to be effective but the US has consistently opposed any initiatives that excluded the US and has emphasised NATO whilst supporting increased defence spending for individual countries. The support for increased individual military spending was designed to increase European capabilities to help the US but the undermining of European cooperation which could prove a threat ensured the Americans maintained a veto over European foreign and defence policy.
Examples of this in action include the strong US opposition to the French British St Malo agreement in 1998 and the shocking and petty anti 'Old Europe' and 'Freedom Fries' hysteria after the during the Iraq War.
The problem with this strategy is that if European countries can only act in concert with the US, they need US support. If the US supports it they will likely do it themselves. If they are going to do it themselves why should Europeans waste money, resources and blood on their militaries? The US objectives of strong individual country defence spending and no independent European defence were mutually exclusive.
It was only near the end of Bush Junior's tenure in 2007 that the US considered China a sufficiently big threat that they supported cooperative European defence capabilities but they still insist on NATO being central to European security with its implicit US veto. As long as the US does the heavy lifting in Europe there will be no strong European defence. As long as the US systematically handicaps European defence cooperation through its veto in NATO there will be no strong European defence.
J.Brown
EU+ US–(China)+Japan+India+ Asean+ Australia + Russia(?)= Circle.
Alex L
"Stopping or reversing the process would send a terrible signal to Asian capitals, prompting them to begin making their peace with Chinese supremacy."
Yes indeed. This would be America's worst nightmare. No wonder the professor is so against a pivot to Europe. But it is only a matter of time before Asians come to a consensus as to making peace with China. China can wait. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, China plays the long game. Can America stay in Asia for 10, 20, 30 years ?
Kanes
Good point. The long haul is what matters in Asia. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, etc. show a different picture.
talking points
i though the professor is honest enough to say US is Corleones. but i would be content to label US and China are both Corleones.
Leonard R.
@Talking Points: "i thought the professor is honest enough to say US is Corleones. but i would be content to label US and China are both Corleones. "
—–
@Talking Points: Stop insulting the Corleones, please. It's not true and it's impolite. No need to sully the name of a nice family in this thread.
The Corleones knew what they wanted and they knew how to get it. China knows what it wants. But it doesn't know how to get it. The US knows how to get what it wants. But it can't decide what it wants.
Bankotsu
"But it can't decide what it wants."
I disagree. U.S wants global hegemonmy and to americanise the global economy.
Bankotsu
"but i would be content to label US and China are both Corleones."
How come China is Corleones? U.S is Corleones I can understand, but China? What is the logic?
CB
Hey bankotsu,
Listen up! The US has already been a global power or a hegemon, if you will, for several decades; and thanks to this current world order, poor backward commie China has developed economically into the 2nd largest economy in the world. Now what do you, commies want?
Matt
Right on. Europe must contribute more for their defenses. The Pivot could help nudge them. The US must come up with ways to force the main powers to match (or close the massive gap) US defense spending as a percentage of GDP. We should be nudging Asian allies to do the same and enshrine a minimum proportion into whatever alliances we are building as we are building them. It is much more difficult to do after bad habits have been formed. As Holmes stated before we must help those who are willing to help themselves. Japan and Taiwan are two that need to step it up. If we cut our Navy sell those ships to our allies. Japan could use a Nimitz class and some attack subs… transfer some load to them and keep the ships in the fight.
Bankotsu
"We should be nudging Asian allies to do the same and enshrine a minimum proportion into whatever alliances we are building as we are building them."
You want to play the role of hegemon, you want to play the game of containment of China and Japan. You foot the bill.
Radwulf
The idea that Europeans should *match* US defence spending is ridiculous. The US currently spends about 4.7% of GDP on its military despite there being no direct threat to itself in order to project influence around the world. EU countries are also not directly under threat and haven't inherited other military obligations around the world.
The only defence spending justification for Europe is to secure its own trade lanes and resource and energy supplies in the maritime region from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean which should only require about 2.0% or so of GDP spending (an increase from ~1.6%). There is no justification for spending more than that unless you expect Europe to play a hard military role in the South China Sea.
But why should it? Yes it is in Europe's interest to maintain access to the SCS but it is on the opposite side of the world and the SCS is bordered by many great powers (China, Japan, India, Russia, South Korea, and the US as well). EU influence would be limited and the risk of being drawn into a major conflict of which it would not have a great ability to stop is a serious risk. Why does the US need Europe in East Asia rather than working with regional partners? Why can't Europe achieve its goals in the region through soft cooperation with regional partners?
They can of course. The US just wants to drag as many countries as possible into supporting its national security policies globally regardless of those countries' national interests. Every country tries to maximise its own self interest. The US stayed out of Europe and only got involved after it was attacked in the World Wars. Europe should do the same in East Asia.
Matt
The EU does need defenses. Mali is just the latest reason. Al Qaeda must be opposed wherever they are found. China is seeking to displace the US and the EU in Asia but also in Africa. Anyone thinking they can hunker down and let others do the hard work is sorely mistaken. If the EU wants to enjoy the benefits of a free world it must work to ensure it remains that way. What would the EU do in a war btw. the US and China? There would be no way the EU could remain neutral. That is just a fantasy. You might as well start pulling your weight before your reputation suffers anymore. Weakness is provocative and will entice the worst actors to take advantage. China is targeting the EU with their cyber campaign just as they have done with every other country. Are you going to sit back and give China the reins to your country? If they are able to steal the latest technology and control the power stations what do you think they will do with that capability? The EU has as much at stake in the world as the US. Its high time the EU got serious about defending themselves.
Radwulf
Yes Europe needs defences, but only enough to meet its strategic objectives. Its objectives are access to trade routes, materials and energy resources. It can get these through power projection into the maritime regions of the Arctic, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Indian Ocean as well as the land regions of Northern Africa, the greater Middle East and the Caucasus. Around 2% of collective GDP more efficiently spent should be enough for this, particularly given that the major shortfalls in Libya and Mali (ISTAR, strategic lift and aerial refueling) have solutions coming online within the next few years.
Agreed, Chinese expansion into Africa affects European interests, but this expansion is not military in nature and does not justify a military response, and unlike the US Europe can undergo joint resource operations with China without threatening core interests. China may develop military bases in the region but Europe already has some. China may conduct espionage and cyber warfare against Europeans but you are being naïve if you believe we're not doing the same to them.
In a war between the US and China Europe would probably declare a trade embargo on China. It would only get militarily involved if China achieved dramatic successes that threatened regional breakout or attacked Europe directly. This is unlikely given the power of China's likely foes and the lessons learnt from German and Japanese attacks on the neutral US in WW1 and WW2. You also underestimate the challenges to Europe of its fragmentation, poor demographics and collective sovereignty and legitimacy problems. These don't make Europe weak but they do make it brittle and will require time to resolve.
t_co
"Bandwagoning is rather like entering into a protection scheme with the Corleones, whereby ordinary citizens defer and provide goodies to the Family in return for protection from … the Family! Apportioning shrinking U.S. military forces equally between a safe and an embattled theater would constitute dubious strategy at best. America's standing in the Far East would suffer if it were seen as ceding ground to the Corleones."
Since this appears to be the root reason why analysts such as yourself believe Asian nations should support the American pivot (and the reason why the American pivot helps Asian nations), could you please explain in what ways Chinese regional hegemony would resemble a protection racket? Specifically, what rents would China be extracting from its neighbors?
gn
china is the biggest threat in the region: bullying its neighbours (like trying to steal senkaku islands from japan, and poisoning japanese air with its pollution, and pilfering japanese technology, and buillding aircraft-carrier using the money japan gives china as a financial assistance) and afar
hope the US will stop chinese hegemonism, and smash korean self-conceit by pivoting on its only reliable partner - japan
Be Way
@gn,
Nice try, little ugly Japanese but your fouling trolling around only show how childish and immature you are.
There exists no Senkaku Islands but Diaoyu Islands that were stolen by the fascist Japan as a result of naked aggression against China. Not only did the brutal Japanese animals killed millions of Asians but they have no shame until now, arrogantly of retaining all the stolen war loots as in the case of Diaoyu Islands as well as demanding the return of Dokdo Islands that belongs to South Korea.
When the Fukushima nuclear disaster was spewing out toxic dangerous radioactive all over Asia especially its neighbors China and Korea, both Korea and China not only don't accuse Japan of gross negligence and misdemeanor but they even contribute generosity and voluntarily to them. Comparing the toxic radioactive which is many millions of times more harmful, against a little smog is simply preposterous. The selfishness and ugliness of the inhumane Japanese obviously has no limits.
Japan given money to China? LOL. The money is not free but loans that China need to repay back. Until now, Japan not only doesn't compensate China for all the collateral damage it had inflicted on China but even its promise of removing the harmful chemical biological stocks it stored in China, has not been kept when not a single of this harmful waste stock has been removed. The sincerity and the morality of the Japanese is undoubtedly appalling. They are worst than any animals on earth.
gn
no, i'm not japanese
i'm russian, and i clearly understand the what the chinese threat means – take away siberia from russia, senkaku islands (chinese maps up until the '70s showed it as a japanese territory) from japan, feed the nasty north korean pet regime, make taiwan communist, take away islands from phillpines, and poison the atmosphere by pollution
fukushima was nothing that big actually (just a bad pr and fear mongering by ill wishers and anti-japanese elements), but it was "on the the surface", but who knows, giving the lack of transparency within china's regime, how much radioactive dirt coming from shabby chinese powerplants
during ww2 japan did nothing that much brutal in china compared to what english did in the 19th century (and all that stuff like "nankin" is just a big HOAX: how could there be more victims than the whole population?) – and who will compensate all copyright infingement of japanese intellectual property by chinese?
chinese parents allow their children to defecate publicly (even in airplanes), they shout, spit, and think only about their "face" – on contrary, japanese are polite, tidy and have cleanliness in high esteem – so who should really be called "animals"?
Ivan Yurevna
Russian? Nyet. Amerikan CIA troll? Da.
Brrrrr
The Corleone analogy is very useful. Pick up a copy of Mario Puzo’s novel and replace all references to burning Italian American businesses with burning Japanese businesses in China, and change the words olive oil to simply read oil.