October 28, 2016

"A fascinating public debate between Kurt Campbell — the originator and architect of the US pivot to Asia — and Australian strategic thinker Hugh White makes clear that the South China Sea has become the cockpit of US-China competition for domination of Asia. The outcome of this competition may determine whose and what principles, values and 'order' will shape the future of Asia. That is why this competition is so fraught with threats to peace and stability in the region.  

According to White, 'Campbell argues that the pivot by promoting his model of an Asian Operating System for the 21st century will provide the basis for a stable US-China relationship.' Indeed, Campbell — who may serve in a Hillary Clinton administration — says the US should organize and 'conduct' a network of security and diplomatic relationships based on shared principles that will unite the region. This will be, according to US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Daniel Russel, 'the pivot’s operating system 4.0,' meaning it is the next step. Campbell assumes that China will accept US primacy because it has done so and benefited from it in the past. But times have changed and China’s current leadership is unlikely to accept US primacy in any name or form. Indeed, in China’s eyes this 'next step' sounds like US-led containment. It does not help that Hillary Clinton, the likely next US President and who publicly introduced and strongly promoted the pivot, has been quoted in leaked emails from 2013 as saying 'We’re going to ring China with missile defense…We are going to put more of our fleet in the area.'

White is not advocating US withdrawal from the region. Indeed, he argues that 'it is perfectly possible and highly desirable for the US to continue to play a major strategic role in Asia on a basis that China is willing to accept, and which therefore avoids escalating strategic rivalry and reduces the risk of war.' But this is highly unlikely. The US has no history or precedent of sharing power and it is not likely to start now. It just doesn’t seem to be in its foreign policy DNA.   "

Read more:

http://www.ippreview.com/index.php/Home/Blog/single/id/267.html