Much has been said and written in the last years concerning the „Pivot to Asia”, meaning that the United States’ (US) strategy agenda has been moving away from a post-Second World War European to a recent Asian focus. In maritime patterns this change in US interests is described by the term „Pacific century”, which is said to be going to replace the Atlantic one. With the fall of the Soviet Union, US strategy towards the Asia-Pacific has been undergoing a significant transition. As Warren Christopher, Secretary of State under the first Clinton presidency, said in Hanoi in 1995: „In the old days we wanted to make Asia safe for democracy, these days we want to make it safe for American exports.”.
This quote fits perfectly in the 1990ies neoliberal zeitgeist of the successful presidential campaign „The economy, stupid” of Bill Clinton, who wanted to reinvent US predominance based on an economist point of view, rather than continuing with expensive military power politics. But it would fall too short if one wants to understand the post-Cold War US’ engagement in the Asia-Pacific only by explaining the economic and trade policies of the United States. Both security and economy are at the core of US foreign policy strategy, since these two objectives being more and more intertwined in terms of globalization, digitization and other megatrends.
Classical and “old-fashioned” hard power approaches are therefore questioned, as they sometimes fail to explain the rise of messy multilateralism and a total heterogeneous security landscape in this region of interest. But to what extent the US strategy in the Asia-Pacific really is a sign of a more cooperative approach based on Neoliberal-Institutionalist3 thought rather than referring to Neorealist hard power politics? And which role the US seeks to have in this complex setting?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theory and Methodology
3. Analysis
4. Conclusion
Research Objective and Topics
This paper examines the United States' security strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, evaluating the extent to which U.S. policy reflects a transition from Neorealist hard power politics toward a more cooperative, Neoliberal-Institutionalist approach, often encapsulated by the concept of "smart power."
- Historical evolution of U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific.
- Theoretical application of Neorealism and Neoliberal Institutionalism.
- Analysis of the "smart power" paradigm in U.S. foreign policy.
- Examination of the U.S.-China relationship and regional alliance structures.
- Impact of domestic shifts and new administrations on security strategy.
Excerpt from the Book
Introduction
Much has been said and written in the last years concerning the „Pivot to Asia” (see Glaser 2012), meaning that the United States’ (US) strategy agenda has been moving away from a post-Second World War European to a recent Asian focus. In maritime patterns this change in US interests is described by the term „Pacific century”, which is said to be going to replace the Atlantic one. But the Asia-Pacific has been of strategic interest for the United States long before it was en vogue to take it as a matter of course. The Treaty of Wanghia, established in 1844 to fix US’ trade relations in Chinese ports, marks the first significant rule-based engagement of America in the region (Connors et.al. 2004, p.17). In the 44-page „Chinese Memorandum” the legendary and somewhat controversial US General Douglas MacArthur foresaw American future in Asia and the Pacific Ocean in 1884. As Arthur Herman says, the General campaigned for a „trans-Pacific commercial network” and the expansion of US Manifest Destiny across the Pacific (Sempa et.al. 2016, p.271; Herman 2016). So one can certainly say that the idea of the US being a major power in the Asia-Pacific already was given birth in the 19th century.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the historical context of U.S. involvement in the Asia-Pacific and introduces the research focus on contemporary shifts in strategic engagement.
2. Theory and Methodology: This section defines key political science concepts such as power, hard power, soft power, and smart power, while establishing a theoretical framework based on Neorealism and Neoliberal Institutionalism.
3. Analysis: This chapter investigates current U.S. security objectives, alliance dynamics, and the complexities of the Asia-Pacific regional order, including the rising influence of China.
4. Conclusion: The final section synthesizes the findings, arguing that U.S. strategy remains a pragmatic, evolving mixture of traditional power politics and multilateral engagement.
Keywords
United States, Asia-Pacific, Smart Power, Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, Foreign Policy, Security Strategy, Bilateralism, Multilateralism, China, Manifest Destiny, Regional Hegemony, Global Politics, Diplomacy, Power Dynamics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on analyzing the evolution of U.S. security strategy within the Asia-Pacific region, specifically examining how the U.S. balances hard power interests with cooperative multilateral approaches.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The study covers international relations theory, the history of U.S. regional involvement, the influence of economic policies on security, and the impact of the rise of China on regional stability.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine whether recent U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific signifies a genuine transition toward Neoliberal-Institutionalist cooperation or if it remains firmly rooted in Neorealist power politics.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a secondary content analysis of selected articles and studies, inspired by the methodology of Philipp Mayring.
What topics are discussed in the main analysis?
The main analysis covers the definition of the Asia-Pacific, the role of U.S. alliances, the impact of "smart power," and the challenges posed by an increasingly assertive China.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
The study is characterized by terms like Asia-Pacific, U.S. Foreign Policy, Smart Power, Neorealism, and Regional Hegemony.
How does the author define "smart power"?
The author, referencing Joseph Nye, defines smart power as the effective balance between hard power (coercion) and soft power (attraction) to achieve national objectives.
What role does the U.S.-Japan alliance play in the regional security system?
The U.S.-Japan alliance is described as the cornerstone of American strategy, serving as a pillar for regional stability and a primary mechanism for managing maritime security.
How does the paper assess the shift toward the "rebalancing" strategy?
The rebalance strategy is interpreted as both a sign of continuity in maintaining U.S. influence and an attempt to adapt to a more complex, volatile security environment through increased multilateralism.
What conclusion is drawn regarding the incoming Trump administration?
The author concludes that early signals from the new administration suggested a return to a more aggressive Neorealist "zero-sum" mentality, which could undermine U.S. credibility and provoke tensions with regional powers like China.
- Quote paper
- B.A. Benjamin Weiser (Author), 2017, The United States' Security Strategy in the Asia-Pacific and the Question of Smart Power, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/353756
