On the Re-adjustment of Obama Administration’s Global Strategy

  2011/5/11 source：

Global strategy as well as foreign and security policies are the important subjects of the US Presidential Election 2008. It was the unexpected financial crisis that forced the US government and public to delay the launch and implementation of the global strategy. 2010 is the year for the Obama administration’s global strategy to form a basic shape and be enforced gradually. In May of the year, the Obama administration published its first National Security Strategy report and defined the global strategy as “national rejuvenation and global leadership”. It was implemented combining with global economy, power co-relations and regional policies. Of course, the Obama administration also adjusts and amends the strategy in the process of implementation. Likewise, the US strategies and policies towards China are in the constant processes of re-adjustment.

I. US Global Strategy Re-adjustment under the Banner of “Change”

The re-adjustment of the US global strategy began at the second term of George W Bush administration. Yet, being the new president, Obama is the representative of believing in all-around and gradual adjustment of the US global strategy. Under the leadership of President Obama, the strategic awareness of the US is adjusted from Pax Americana to “multi-partnership of first among equals”. The strategic thinking is transformed from “regime change” based on military prowess to smart power featuring with both hard and soft powers. The strategic perspective is altered from a relative concentration to the military and security fields centered on counter-terrorism to emphasizing economy, education, science and technology, energy, nuclear security and cyber and space activities. The strategic planning intention is changed from “two great expansion plans” (Greater Middle East and Greater Central Asia Partnership Initiatives) to the planning of ‘West Retreat, East Advancement’. The strategic goal and mission is adjusted from focusing War on Terror to an overall balance of both politics and economy. The military strategic concept is amended from winning two conventional wars at the same time to winning the “current war” for the first time. The strategic approach is transformed from unilateralism to selected multilateralism. This shows that the Obama administration readjustment on the US global strategy is not fundamental, yet it is substantial in fact.

The main factors underlying the Obama administration to readjust its global strategy are as follow: Firstly, the George W Bush administration’s War on Terror strategy centered on the Greater Middle East and Greater Central Asia suffered a serious defeat. The US is trapped in two non-winning wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The “preemptive strikes”, “regime change” and “unilateralism” once preached and enforced by the Bush administration made it lose ethical support and international credibility, thus substantially reducing the strategic initiatives that the US accumulated since the end of the Cold War.

Secondly, dealing with economic issues resulted from the international financial crisis and economic recession. From the final critical moment during the Presidential Election to his first year in the White House, President Obama is confronted with serious challenges of the impact of financial crisis, severe economic recession, as well as financial deficits, trade deficits and fast-growing unemployment. Restoring world economy and walking out of the difficulties of financial crisis are the subjects for Obama administration to tackle first. Furthermore, maintaining the leading position of the US economy in the world is also the core root to uphold the US hegemony.

Thirdly, when the US is forced to form multi-partnership with major actors, it must explore the strategy and approach to safeguard its leadership of the global issues under the new circumstances. To the current US, it is forced to open the historical process of facing squarely the polarization of the world. The Obama administration’s global strategy must consider sharing leading rights and discussing re-organization of the international system together with other major actors. Improving relations with major powers, G20 and regional cooperation mechanism, etc. are the important means to re-adjust its global strategy.

Finally, the US tries to re-position China and the China-US relations when maneuvering its global strategy. To the US, which is used to taking “enemy” and “opponent” as strategic goals, how to deal with a China with growing comprehensive national power makes the Obama administration at loss. On the one hand, China is neither a current enemy nor a destined adversary of the US. On the other hand, to the US that desires to maintain its world leadership, China’s rise challenges the US in the aspects of the shifting configuration of international powers, right of international regulation making and discourse, the Asia-Pacific cooperation framework, developmental path and model and hot-spots in the world. Therefore, the Obama administration attempts to formulate a global strategy that could cope with the historic challenges and put them into practice.

II. Progresses of the US Global Strategy

Two years after Obama came into power, the administration has made phased achievements in promoting its global strategy. First of all, the Obama administration utilizes the timing of regime change between the Democrats and the Republicans and has a clear-cut difference from the Bush administration. Guided by “smart power”, the Obama administration has initiated effective diplomacy and improved the US international image in some degree. The fact that Obama was sworn into the Presidency as the first African American demonstrates the appeal of American Dream coming truth to the world. And it causes ‘hurricanes’ of applauding the US in his career concerned countries like Kenya, Indonesia and so on. As a result, there are calls of “we need our own Obama” in some countries. At the beginning of his term, Obama emphasizes cooperation and dialogue with the Islamic countries and extends an olive branch to Iran and the North Korea. President Obama was even conferred Nobel Peace Prize as an encouragement.

Secondly, the Obama administration re-seizes the agenda-setting right of global issues. Distinguishing from indifferent attitude on the global issues by the Bush administration, the Obama one devotes to establishing global order with greater enthusiasm. Number One, on the climate change issue, the Obama administration not only responds actively but also reshapes this process according to its own interests. Number Two, in order to reduce energy reliance abroad, the US initiates a revolution in the international energy field although the outcome of this revolution turns complicating and confusing due to the deficiency of new energy in industrialization and marketization. Number Three, on the non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament issues, the US is establishing a new framework with the slogan of “nuclear-free world”, the breakthrough of the US-Russia new treaty and “nuclear security” as the new concept, which may lead to a new order in this field. It can be said that the Obama administration does attach great importance to the agenda-setting of global issues and re-shaping of the global order.

Thirdly, the US gains in the right to discourse in international system restructuring to cope with the shifting configuration of powers. Compared with some of his predecessors, the Obama administration has a deeper understanding on the importance of international multilateral institutions. Compared with Europe and Japan, the US shows more confidence in admitting the shifting gravity of international powers and international system restructuring on a new foundation. This does have relations to its overall strength, yet the US understanding on the tendency of the power center shifting. Amongst the developed countries, the US actively promotes G20 and believes in the weakening role or even the disappearing of G7/8. At the same time, the US is a strong promoter in reforming the IMF and World Bank.

Fourthly, the Obama administration has improved relations with allies, major and regional powers and regional organizations in terms of blocs, groups, regions and levels. The Obama administration supports the EU common foreign and security policy and takes heed of the European opinions, attaches greater importance to the role of Japan, Korea, Australia and other allies in the Asian Pacific region, and approves Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty when “re-setting” the US-Russia relations. It has achieved a “high-beginning” of China-US relations in 2009, strengthened the US-India “new partnership”, and reinforced relations with regional powers like Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey and Brazil. Additionally, there is a greater progress in its relations with regional organizations including Organization of American States (OAS) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Finally, the Obama administration has made progress in throwing off burdens left by the Bush administration. The US finally ends the military operation in Iraq and decides to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. Moreover, the US has re-launched the Middle East peace process and made a symbolic step in breaking up the Arab-Israel deadlock.

III. Predicament of the US Global Strategy

First of all, the guiding thinking of the US global strategy is still to restore its unparalleled leadership in the old times. From the perspective of historical development, the US, in the co-relations of international powers, is confronted with the trend of its relative declining and the collective rise of the emerging countries against the background of globalization, multi-polarization and multi-diversities. It is impossible for the Obama administration to revive the old dream of mono-polarity and hegemony.

Besides, the US per se is or has become a producer of some global issues. Therefore, the US global strategy would not resolve these issues from the root. Objectively or subjectively, the Obama’s new global strategy still shows the selfish economic strategy, the parochial ways of dealing with climate change and the out-of-date mentality of the Cold War. On the issue of reforming the international monetary system concerned by the current world, the US self-profiting policy towards US dollar as the international reserve currency at the expense of others has become a target for all. On the issue of perennially disturbing counter-terrorism, the Obama administration has no good strategies apart from lowering the strategy goal from the very top to one of the top issues.

Moreover, there is a huge gap between objective and capacity in the US global strategy. The Obama administration indulges in talking about world leadership but lacks the domestic foundation, implementation capacity and international appeal. To the US, the problem does not only lie in the increase of inward-looking and the relative decline of its economic power. Furthermore, it is the political, economic and social system of the US that it is not sufficient to meet the challenges of globalization. To the election- driven US government, it is not provided with the condition of enforcing institutional reform in a long time. The US’ appeal in the world is no longer like before. The “9•11” shows the vulnerability of US security. The international financial crisis reveals the governance deficit of the US economic model. The rise of non-Western culture and thinking also narrows down the world influence of the American culture in a relative sense.

When dealing with global issues and hot-spots, the Obama administration struggles with ways and means. When coping with the international financial crisis, the US emphasizes its own interests. When dealing with climate change, the US shirks responsibilities and acts but lacking of strength. When tackling with anti-US extremist thinking and behavior, the US is in a very passive situation and has no other tricks left to play. The US remains unchanged on the rift in the Iran and North Korea nuclear issues and faces challenges of the issues that turn more deepened and complicated. The US also feels not easy in pushing Arab-Israel conflicts and Palestine-Israel peace talks and making no substantive progress in combating piracy.

IV. Development Trend of the US Asia-Pacific Strategy

From the perspective of integrating Obama administration’s strategic thinking with policy implementation, the trend of the US Asia-Pacific strategy is as follows.

In the Obama administration’s global strategic re-adjustment featuring with West Retreat and East Advancement, the Asia Pacific is the important region. In the current political and economic gravity-shifting from the West to the East and from the North to the South, Asia-Pacific region has been lifted onto a higher level in the US global strategy. The US is gradually shaping the concept and awareness of ‘Greter Asia’ and expanding the geographic definition of the ‘Asian-Pacific region’, in other words, expanding from ‘East Asian and West Pacific region’ to ‘Asia and West Pacific region’.

The Obama administration boosts its leading strategic role in Asia and Pacific region whilst continuing to increase interactions with major actors. Proceeding from the traditional geo-strategy and geo-politics, the Obama administration tries hard to control the interaction trend between the US and the actors in Asia and Pacific region, thereby, affecting the interacting relations between actors in the region. On implementation, the Obama administration enhances interaction with China, Japan, Korea, ASEAN (especially Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore) and India at different fields and levels.

The US strives to safeguard its dominant position in the Asia Pacific region in agenda-setting. Viewing the relative decline of the US economic and cultural influence in the Region, the Obama administration highlights and makes security issues to safeguard its regional influence. The US occupies the strategic point in South Asia and the Central Asia in the name of combating terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, consolidates the bilateral military alliance system in the name of tackling with the Korean Peninsula issue, expands strategic and political influence in the South China Sea in the name of safeguarding free navigation, weakens the main communicating role of “10 3” and takes the TPP as the new cooperative point.

Taking the advantage of military security, the Obama administration expands its diplomatic, political, economic and cultural influence in the Asia Pacific region. Half-way to his first term, President Obama has already started with “campaigning” for a second term. In order to achieve this, the Obama administration is maping the strategic planning for post-withdraw from Afghanistan, strengthening military relations with Japan, India and some ASEAN countries and highlighting “legitimacy” of its presence in the Region. In order to achieve this, the US will also undertake several rounds of political, diplomatic and cultural diplomacy in the Asia Pacific region, consolidate and develop its leading position in the Region by maneuvering amongst various groups and employing the technique of combining threats with inducements.

V. Prospects of China-US Strategic Interaction in this Decade

In the second decade of the 21st century, global power equilibrium tends to be more balanced. On the one hand, China is at a favorable position in the formation process of multi-polarity, the rise and decline of economic plate of the American, Europe and Asia, as well as the collective rise of emerging countries. On the other hand, the contrast of China and the US is still in the process from accumulative to quantitative changes. The US still maintains advantages in an overall and general way.

The spotlight of China-US strategic interaction is at the global level. In the global issues of this decade, institutional building and issue response occupy importation position. Against the background of incomplete global governance and international mechanism, cooperation among big powers becomes more important. Being two global powers, Chinese and American global perspectives, global strategies, global interests and global influences are incomparable to the others. Therefore, both China and the US should constitute greater driving forces in reforming the current international system and establishing new ones. In a new round of establishing international mechanism, China and the US should continue to cooperate and compete. Yet, cooperation means more than competition. Both countries should continue to coordinate relations with other parties concerned in building up international finance and trade mechanism in order to accomplish the re-organization mission of the international mechanism in a fundamental way. On resolving global issues, China and the US share common interests and implementing capacities in guaranteeing energy security, dealing with climate change, countering terrorism, preventing nuclear non-proliferation, combating piracy and preventing epidemics and disaster relief. What should also be pointed out is that, with strengthening and deepening of China-US interaction at the global level, China and the US differences in the concept of the times, the concept of interests and the concept of value would be more apparent, thus increasing competition and friction of the two countries at the global level.

The priority of China-US strategic interaction is at the regional level. In Obama administration’s strategic re-adjustment of West Retreat and East Advancement, the Asia Pacific region is the priority of taking offence for defense. Looking into the years of this decade, the China-US strategic interaction in the Asia Pacific region will have the following main trends. Firstly, China-US relations should have overall and strategic significances. Yet, the main platform of the two countries’ strategic interaction is at China’s neighborhood. Both China and the US will gradually formulate ‘Greater Asia Pacific Strategy’ that would cover the whole Asia and the West Pacific region, and link with the international system reshaping vertically and connect with bilateral and multilateral relations with other parties horizontally. Secondly, after the US increases participation in the Asia-Pacific there are growing numbers in main regional state-actors. The existing non-state actors like 10 X experiences significant changes. China and the US enter into a running-in period of principles, designs and adjustments centered on regional framework. In addition, the China-US main field topics focus on high politics. The two countries face new challenges in maritime security, non-proliferation, territorial (sea) disputes and other issues. Thirdly, re-patterning multilateral relations in the Asia Pacific region. There are new developments in the multilateral relations between China and the US in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, The Six-Party Talks, China-Russia-India, China-US-Japan, China-US-Vietnam and the US-Japan-India-ASEAN, etc. The two countries’ difference in expectation, mechanism, capacities and other issues become more palpable.

The complexity of China-US strategic interaction is at bilateral level. One of the important cruxes of China-US relations is the absence of strategic trust, which will exist for a long time. Tracing its origin, firstly, the two countries not only have a big difference in history, culture, religion, political thinking, social system and development level, but also have opposite views on how to understand and cope with the current conflicts and issues. Secondly, domestic support of sustaining China-US strategic trust is still weak. The two governments prioritize domestic issues instead of international issues. The room of compromising China-US relations for both leaders is narrowing. And “showing strength and power” often causes extreme interpretation. Thirdly, to safeguard its only global superpower position, the US increasingly alerts on a continuously growing of a powerful China, weakens and dilutes China’s diplomatic, economic and cultural influences. Fourthly, in order to safeguard its leading position in the Asia Pacific, the US worries that China tries to drive it out and replace it as the leading country. Therefore, the US is making strategic and preventive planning in China’s neighborhood. Fifthly, the two countries are still different in the China’s core interests related to China’s Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang. In fact, both parties use worst scenarios to interpret one another’s words and act accordingly. Finally, the existing bilaterally interacting mechanisms are not sufficient to resolve their strategic distrusts fundamentally. Therefore, the two countries could only achieve the objective of increasing trust and reducing suspicions by constantly expanding the depth and breadth of cooperation.