What is Obama’s Asia policy?

Thursday, March 5, 2009

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.

—–

Originally posted March 4, 2009 on Filipino Voices.

—–

READ AND POST COMMENTS HERE.