President Obama had a good year in Asia in 2010. It featured a more realistic China policy, a breakthrough visit to India, the shelving of an irritating base dispute with Japan, a surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan that is creating results, intensification of a successful drone campaign against terrorists in Pakistan, and closer cooperation with key Southeast Asian nations. But challenges loom: China's growing assertiveness, mercantilistic trade policy, and development of anti-access capabilities that erode U.S. deterrence commitments in Asia; North Korean belligerence; Burmese repression and proliferation; and the continuing weakness of the Afghan and Pakistani states. How can President Obama counteract these trends in the new year while building on previous successes?

1.Implement a long-range strategy to sustain U.S. primacy in Asia in the face of China's challenge.

This means diversifying U.S. military-access and basing rights beyond Japan and Korea, deepening missile defense collaboration with these and other countries (including Taiwan), building up naval power in the Pacific and Indian oceans, and investing in next-generation technologies to counteract asymmetric Chinese weapons systems. With sustained commitment and smart investments, the United States is well-positioned to sustain its military edge in Asia, in part because nearly all regional powers find it reassuring and want to enable rather than constrain it. The harder work may be at home: decisively investing in the domestic reforms that liberate the United States to shape a new century, rather than wallowing in growing indebtedness and domestic discord.

2. Invest in the rise of key countervailing Asian powers that can contribute public goods of stability and security.

This includes prodding Japan, with its enormous but latent military and technological capabilities, to act on its new defense guidelines to become a "normal country" that is a net security provider in Asia; investing further in India's ascent to the top tier of global powers and partners; and working with Indonesia and Vietnam to develop the means to contribute to regional stability while maintaining their independence vis-à-vis their giant neighbor. It also means incorporating Russia into the Asian strategic equation in ways that reinforce common interests in sustaining the balance of power.

3. Unite the democracies.

Concern about China is accelerating the development of an array of minilateral groupings among regional democracies. These include U.S.-Japan-Australia, U.S.-Japan-Korea, and U.S.-Japan-India trilaterals as well as new security pacts between Japan and India, Japan and Australia, Australia and India, and India and South Korea. In the meantime, all these countries are working to forge closer strategic ties with Indonesia, a next-generation BRIC. An infrastructure of democratic security cooperation could help deter proliferation from problem states like North Korea and Burma, incentivize China's peaceful rise, and secure increasingly contested maritime commons.

4. Lead the big economies into deeper interdependence to catalyze trans-Pacific prosperity.

An aggressive agenda of economic liberalization is as important a source of U.S. leadership in Asia as its military forces stationed there. A new free trade agreement with South Korea, finalization of a Bilateral Investment Treaty with India, India's admission into APEC, and conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would all be building blocks toward a Free Trade Area of the Indo-Pacific that would make the vast space from Miami to Mumbai the world's economic center. Only the United States, with its equally deep ties to the European Union (still the world's biggest economy), can muster the leadership to bring about such an outcome -- putting us at the center of a new global web of prosperity.

5. Win in Afghanistan.

President Obama's commitment, General Petraeus' strategy, and the hard work of U.S. forces and civilians partnered with Afghans could lay the foundation for a new era of stability in Afghanistan that sidelines the Taliban -- if Washington and its Western and Afghan partners have the will to sustain recent progress until it is irreversible. Construction of an Afghan state that can govern and secure itself, in which the insurgency is neutralized through a combination of military campaigns, improved governance, and political co-optation, would change Pakistan's calculus about its Afghan interests in ways that could reinforce rather than undermine regional stability. The United States and its partners should see the effort through -- not so we can stay there forever but so we can move on to bigger challenges (see above).

6. Don't run away from our values -- run on them.

China's intense debate about political liberalization, endemic corruption, and the next stage of economic growth -- which will hinge on innovation and ideas rather than unskilled manufacturing- demonstrates the vitality of what even the Chinese debate acknowledges as "universal values" of openness, accountability, transparency, and rule of law. Open societies from India to Indonesia embrace these values as their own. That is why it is so odd to hear some Americans envy China's state capitalism, or to assume that India's democratic politics mean it can never grow as fast as China. It may be that only open societies can sustain economic dynamism over time in ways not undermined by social inequality or political revolution. The United States should assume that its reformed model of democratic capitalism, appropriately regulated by trustworthy public institutions, is the model of the future -- not of the past. That bodes well for our continued leadership in 21st century Asia.

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

COMPNAT

8:32 PM ET

January 5, 2011

Successful drone strategy in Pakistan???

you call the strategy in Afghanistan successful in 2010?
and above all, the drone strategy in Pakistan has been successful? I beg to ask how so FP? I think you can do better when it comes to analysing the world situation from now on... I hope you do in 2011.

for every suspected terrorist killed by the drone attacks, there's a collateral of almost 50 innocent lives. how's that successful? and the kind of revenge-based elements that you called terrorists that are created from these attacks know no ideology. they fight for no one! they want revenge for the lives of their families that have been lost in those attacks. So next time you call something successful, try to see the bigger picture.

The extremism in Pakistan is directly linked to the initation of drone attacks as well as the military operations in the north western part of the country. Pakistan being the number 1 threat as proposed boastly by your new cover that you so proudly present is a consequence of these drone attacks... so next time while you eliminate a threat make sure you don't create 50 new ones who have nothing else to lose!
there are better ways of going about things... if terrorism and extremism waas the prime concern of US or anyone, I'm sure United States has the capacity and intelligence to deal with it. Unfortunately, it's a game of different interests altogether!

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:02 PM ET

January 5, 2011

Dream on, Mr. Twining.

If only it was as easy as Mr. Twining makes it sound for Obama to overcome Asian challenges!
1. US budgetary constrains will prevent investment in next generation technologies that Mr. Twining pooh-poohs and China with its extensive spy network in Western countries, will get hold of those fantasy technologies as soon as they are invented or developed anyway. Reelection politics (the curse of democracy) will prevent the solution to indebtedness and domestic discord.
2. Only way to counter Chinese threat is to encourage Japan to become a military super power with nuclear weapons arsenal at par with China. Is US ready to discard its outdated nuclear non-proliferation mantra to counter-balance China?
3. Democratic security cooperation is easier said than done while deterring nuclear proliferation without China’s and Pakistan’s cooperation is just a hallucination on Mr. Twining’s part.
4. Economic liberalization (euphemism for freer world trade) has brought massive US trade deficits and Chinese trade surpluses and will promote even more of the same with no end in sight until dollar crashes.
5. General Petraeus’ strategy of mollycoddling Pakistan’s Kayani has foreclosed any possibility of winning in Afghanistan for US military.
6. China is not running away from its value of absolute Communist Party dictatorship. US ran away from its values long time ago when Nixon embraced China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 when Mao’s cultural revolution was in full swing killing millions of innocent Chinese.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the far sightedness of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks was a fitting monument to Reagan embracing Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

 

GRANT

2:09 AM ET

January 6, 2011

In response to each argument

In response to each argument in order of posting:

1. There may be effectively little we can do to neutralize problems like anti-ship missiles or boats loaded with explosives. We do have the advantage that missiles and boats cannot hold territory but we also have to admit that a skirmish we China could be a bloody one. Also this ignores that many Asian states seem to be more worried about a Chinese/American arms race that they could get caught in.

2. I will applaud this article for mentioning working with Russia, but I question the logic of prodding Japan on anything. Japan is currently dealing with political weakness, corruption, visibly declining demographics, an inability to even consider encouraging immigration and a national debt that makes the American one minuscule in comparison.

3. Why should we consider 'uniting' democracies? We are hardly dealing with a fully realized Soviet Union and there are many undemocratic states that could be useful, not to mention the fact that those democracies may all be interested in security alliances.

4. Only if we're willing to push through a horde of corporate and farming interests that hampers our economic deals right this moment.

5. The definition of victory in Afghanistan seems more than a little unrealistic and even if we lose in Afghanistan I don't believe it would lead to disaster for the U.S in all of Central Asia (unless all of our actions are built around Afghanistan which seems rather foolish to me).

6. Exactly what values are those? Are those the same values that George W. Bush had in mind when he pressed Egypt (unsuccessfully) on democracy and made many authoritarian leaders think that China was more trustworthy? It's one thing to constantly keep our values at home and another to attempt to push them on another state except at moments with a strong chance of success.

 

NICOLAS19

1:27 PM ET

January 7, 2011

let me add a seventh

7. Find the elixir of life: "Mr. President, all you have to do is pull it out of your magic hat and suddenly all the world will love America!" - the other suggestions are just as ridiculous. I especially like the "uniting the democracies" and "winning in Afghanistan" parts. You and the Obama administration share one thing with the Bourbons: you do not forget the past, nor do you learn anything from it.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More