The Second Bush Presidency: Priorities and issues for Asia (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Paradoxes of Paramountcy: Regional Rivalries and the Dynamics of American Hegemony in East Asia
Global Change, Peace & Security, 2003
In the 1970s and 1980s a number of observers argued that the United States had entered a phase of irreversible decline, in which its economy would not only be overtaken by Japan's, 2 but would prove incapable of underwriting its strategic ambitions. 3 Yet, by the end of the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the seemingly terminal demise of socialism as an alternative to capitalism, to say nothing of the East Asian financial crisis and the remarkable renaissance of the US economy, pessimism was replaced by triumphalism, 4 and expectations about the rise of Asia were eclipsed by visions of a new American century. American observers and strategists routinely talked of a new 'unipolar moment' in which American power was set to enjoy an unrivalled and enduring position of dominance at the heart of a broadly supported, stable international order. 5 The new millennium, however, has witnessed yet another reassessment of America's position.
The Challenge of Maintaining American Security Ties in Post-Authoritarian East Asia [1
The United States faces challenges trying to maintain robust security partnerships with politically liberalizing societies where Washington was perceived complicit in suppression of legitimate indigenous interests. This mixed legacy can inspire electorally empowered publics to raise new complications for continued U.S. presence and influence. Washington must understand and mitigate attendant risks. To explain why and how, we draw on in-depth conversations and interviews with a wide variety of interlocutors in the societies discussed. New domestic dynamics in politically liberalizing societies demand revisions to relations with Washington, complicating a range of U.S. interests, including forward deployment, ensuring freedom of navigation and maintaining regional stability. Yet, these societies often wish to maintain substantive security cooperation with Washington. Hence, their " ambivalent alignment. " Today, these developments are most readily apparent in East Asian societies, complicating " rebalancing " efforts. Over time, the legacy of American complicity in single-party dominance and even authoritarian rule may likewise affect the U.S. position in other key regions such as the Middle East. Washington must actively address challenges associated with political transition to better mitigate the attendant volatility and risks associated with such processes. American policy makers have to recognize how American security ties influence the politics of liberalization and consider measures to preemptively dampen fallout that may follow from attempts at using perceptions of the United States for partisan mobilization. The U.S. military, in particular, should minimize negative social effects associated with numerous personnel operating from a given area. These concerns are especially salient in areas where the United States has a long relationship with a previously dominant regime.
USAK Yearbook of International Politics and Law Vol.5, pp.195-225, 2012
Since 9/11, Southeast Asia began to attract U.S. attention and became the U.S. second front against terrorism. Under the influence of neo-conservativism, the Bush administration changed Washington’s “benign neglect” strategy against Southeast Asia and slowly led the U.S. back to the region. Under the Obama administration, the Washington has placed its emphasis on “complete return to Southeast Asia” and adopted a smart power strategy that applies both the carrot and the stick at the same time. The Obama administration seeks to balance China’s growing regional influence, advance U.S. status in East Asia and respond to issues such as global terrorism, financial crisis and climate change. This article seeks to address U.S. policy changes in Southeast Asia and identify important factors that affect policy transformation. The authors examine the policy differences and transitions between the Bush and Obama administration.