The Asia-Pacific Region - Essay Example

Introduction The United s has several involvements in the Asia-Pacific region that incumbent Secretary of Hillary Clinton views it as “a fulcrum of global politics and economics” (Kellerhals, 2010). This view was not always shared by previous administrations. Indeed, changes in administration have affected the country’s foreign policies, which often results to continuity or change. The Asia-Pacific region needs a strong political-economic relationship with the US in the name of sustainable development and global justice. Every US administration is thus faced with the challenge of a viable and beneficial Asia-Pacific policy. To understand better how administration changes tend to affect policy continuity in the Asia-Pacific area, this essay will first scrutinize the ways in which the change of political leaders, their varying ideological orientations and the decisions they make will continue or restructure a foreign policy. Secondly, the essay discusses how US administrations handled their Asia-Pacific policies and whether the current Obama administration will continue or change some of the foreign policy legacies of its precursor. How Administration Changes Affect Asia-Pacific Policies The effect of personality on policy continuity has already been affirmed by an unnamed White House official who stressed out that “personalities matter… in the conduct, formulation, and implementation of [foreign policy]” (cited in Lampton, 2001, p.313). A change in administration means that there is also a change in the personality leading that administration. Such a personality may have a different set of visions, follow a divergent ideology, or employ a different mindset from his predecessor. Indeed, “leadership turnover and regime change” may significantly affect patterns of US policy behavior and “likely result in foreign policy change and restructuring” (Dixon & Gaarder, n.d., p.185). The policies initiated or planned by the previous administration will experience restructuring should the succeeding president seek to prioritize other policies or tend to misinterpret his predecessor’s intentions or methods of implementation, because the ideology he adhered to is markedly opposed to that of the former president. Behavior of US foreign policy has particularly been affected by the ideological differences of Republican-led and Democratic-led administrations. The former tends to be “more conservative internationalist in orientation,” while the latter is “more liberal internationalist in orientation” (Rosati, 1994, p.251). The direction of US policy has experienced modifications with every new administration. However, this is not only due to the change in the leading personality or the regime. There are two theoretical parameters which are functions of successive presidential administration and which determine how administration changes affect policy continuity. Firstly, foreign policy will depend on the strength of the president’s “intended magnitude of change”; secondly, it assesses how he can overcome “bureaucratic inertia” or any resistance to foreign policy reforms for that matter. These parameters are, in turn, affected by the individuals and policies associated with the current president. According to Dixon and Gaarder (n.d.), presidents can relatively have more freedom in “[exercising] individual prerogatives in less familiar relationships” (pp.195-201). This means that there is more variety in administrations when presidents are detached from staff or individuals who may influence his decision-making. At the core of personalities leading one administration after another are their decisions. The model of decision making employed by different presidents in their foreign policies may result to continuity or change. As per mandate of the US Constitution, the executive and legislative branches are both endowed with foreign policy powers. The president makes, decides upon, and modifies foreign policy together with Congress and they indefinitely interact with one another (Grimmett, 1999). In deciding a foreign policy, however, the president is accompanied by the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Department, National Security Council, State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other such institution. There are also times when presidents independently decide on a course of action. For the administrations of John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush, foreign policy was largely based on a “rational decision-making process.” Presidents with this type of decision-making are purposeful and focused on maximizing their individual goals and thorough cost-benefit analysis. Kennedy’s policy on dismantling Soviet-imported missiles during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Bush’s declaration of a “global war on terrorism” following 9/11 were seen by scholars as rational foreign policy decisions. Meanwhile, if the president decides policy directions with the aid of appropriate government institutions, a “bureaucratic decision-making” takes place (Kegley, 2009, pp.58-65). The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), thought to be “an odd beast among trade agreements” because it has never developed from a “traditional reciprocity-based framework,” illustrates how decisions of presidents and how they affected foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific area, particularly in economic aspect. “Concerted unilateralism,” was the mantra of APEC operations. This means that each member state was anticipated to embark on free trade “at its own pace and by its own path” (Barfield, 2009). The Clinton administration tried to propose and install a multi-sector reciprocity-based trade liberalization framework in the APEC system, but failed when met by a Japanese-led opposition. Clinton’s big push was plainly wrong timing for it came at the heart of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, where Asian economies suffered the biggest setback since their 1960s take-off. To save face, the Clinton administration neglected APEC, claiming that it had never considered trade liberalization seriously. When it was the turn of the Bush White House, the fortuitous 9/11 terrorist attacks pushed APEC trade liberalization initiatives into the background of foreign policy. Bush mostly ignored the crucial economic position of the APEC and transformed his administration into a bustling “vehicle for anti-terrorist activities.” The administration also advocated for security as a regional priority. Not until 2006 were there overdue attempts to initiate new regional free trade agreements by Bush trade officials. The Free Trade Agreement for the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) was established as an off-shoot of the long ignored worries of the APEC framework. The initiative was received politely and passed on to study groups. With terrorist networks still on the loose and eating the pride of the Bush administration, the negotiation powers vested in US trade officials were kept low (Barfield, 2009). Making assessments on the Obama administration’s foreign policy and scope of influence in Asia-Pacific will be premature, since the President is barely half-way there and has completed but a year of service. It is safe to say, however, that when the Obama administration started, there were already sweeping changes in East Asia brought about by a boom on bilateral Free Trade Agreements. During President Obama’s trip to define the US role in Asian economic integration, the administration is somehow unprepared to move ahead on key proposals. As Barfield (2009) advised: “[The Obama administration] should make a trans-Pacific vision for regional integration a clear and central U.S. priority.” At present, Asia-Pacific policies of the Obama administration does not “depart too significantly from” the previous administration’s policies. Some scholars have assessed Bush’s policy of engagement and functional cooperation with China as resembling that of Obama’s and signified by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea. This is a reassurance that the region is central to the present administration’s strategic agenda and has not been neglected in its foreign policy priorities. Asia, with its large population surpassing that of the West, is definitely a US asset, and Obama’s administration must learn from the “pitfalls” of its predecessor by engaging in bilateral and multilateral partnerships and avoiding “bilateral supremacy” (Tow & Loke, 2009, pp.443-444). However, Clintons trip to Asia early in 2009 emphasized a touch of continuity and change in the Obama administrations Asia policy. According to Cossa (2009), “Generally speaking, her visits in Northeast Asia – to Japan, Korea, and China – represented continuity; her trip to Indonesia signaled change.” In a speech she delivered at the East-West Center in Hawaii, Clinton enumerated guidelines for America’s leadership and multilateral engagement in Asia-Pacific. First, she highlighted stable and secured alliance as the cornerstone to the US involvement in Asia-Pacific. She also encouraged regional institutions to focus on economic growth and opportunity, and addressing nuclear proliferation, and military competition to protect democracy and human rights (Kellerhals, 2010). More importantly, Clinton met with the families of Japanese "abductees" allegedly kidnapped by North Korea around 1980s. Giving away the same promise as Bush, this visit signified how the Obama administration may retain the Bush administration’s Asia-Pacific policies especially with regard to the U.S.-Japan alliance. The Japanese once felt "betrayed" when Washington removed Pyongyang from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Nevertheless, North Korea’s denuclearization is an important to the present administration’s foreign policy just as it was in the previous one. As for the neglected Southeast Asia, Clinton promised that the administration is going to “pay attention” to its development, saying that the US “must have strong relationships and a strong and productive presence… in Southeast Asia" (Cossa, 2009). Insights and Conclusion A change in administration affects the continuity of policies whenever the personality assuming leadership adopts an ideology, and decision-making model that veers away from that of the personality leading the previous administration. It is usually generalized that administrations with Democratic presidents had liberal foreign policies while Republicans were more conservative. In addition, policy continuity is constrained by the president’s individual drive to affect change and mobilize the bureaucracy vary, which could also be affected by the individual and policies associated with him. The various frameworks for decision-making employed by different presidents account for differences in foreign policies and distinguishes the more radical policies (i.e. global war on terrorism) from the traditional ones (i.e. economic aid). In the Asia-Pacific region, US policies have not only changed with every change in administration but have also been less coherent and selective. Only a few developments have entered the less industrialized nations because US mostly focused on East Asia. However, this may be due to the nuclear capabilities of North Korea, whose presence alone threatens the progress of its Asia-Pacific neighbors. The Obama administration has to make the herculean task of making an objective but practical and holistically beneficial foreign policy for the region. Doing this entails learning from the “pitfalls” and successes of Bush and other administrations before him. Reference List Barfield, C., 2009. APEC: the keystone to US Asian policy. [Online] The American, The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute. Available at: http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/apec-the-keystone-to-u-s-asian-policy [Accessed 27 January 2010]. Cossa, R. A., 2009. Continuity and change: U.S. Asia policy. [Online] Global Communications Platform, Japanese Institute of Global Communications. Available at: http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20090307_cossa_continuity/index. html [Accessed 25 February 2010]. Dixon, W. & Gaarder, S., n.d. Explaining foreign policy continuity and change: U.S. dyadic relations with the Soviet Union, 1948-1988. In: J. Rosati, J. Hagan & W. Simpson, eds. 1994. Foreign policy restructuring: how governments respond to global change. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina. Ch.9. Kegley, C., 2009. World politics: trend and transformation. California: Cengage Learning. Kellerhals, D. M., 2010. United States seeks deeper ties with Asia-Pacific. [Online] America.gov, U.S. Department of State. Available at: http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/January/20100112212 627dmslahrellek0.4727899.html [Accessed 25 February 2010]. Lampton, D. M., 2001. Same bed, different dreams: managing US-China relations 1989-2000. Berkeley: University of California. Rosati, J., 1994. Cycles in foreign policy restructuring: the politics of continuity and change in U.S. foreign policy. In: J. Rosati, J. Hagan & W. Simpson, eds. 1994. Foreign policy restructuring: how governments respond to global change. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina. Ch.11. Tow, W. T. & Loke, B., 2009. Rules of engagement: Americas Asia-Pacific security policy under an Obama administration. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 63 (4), pp.443-457. Read More