I now come the final two principles of US policy in Asia as elucidated by Kurt Campbell in his book "The Pivot". I did mention this in Part A of the note that having this 8 point framework is extremely useful as it provides great clarity on understanding America's actions or the lack thereof in the Asian region. So I would thank Kurt once again for distilling these points for us.
Understaffed & under resourced
Kurt is unapologetic when he argues that America's engagement with Asia has been episodic which also means resources and staffing has been inadequate. Due to constant surges and retreats towards Asia, the State Department has not been able to develop a large and strong contingent of professionals that understand and appreciate Asia. This has meant that when trouble has arisen in Asia, the US' initial response has been weak and ineffective.
Numerous examples of this phenomenon have been citied including America's misread of Imperial Japan and following Pearl Harbour a string of defeats ensued for the US. It was only many months into the war that America finally got its act together and was able to defeat Japan. Yet post the war, America could not sustain the peace in Asia. The same outcome transpired in Korea where a short staffed, under equipped America both politically and militarily lost the initial face off with North Korea. That resulted in a surge by America to recover lost ground but the surge was not sustained and America disengaged once again from the region after the ceasefire. The Korean peninsula has remained partitioned till today and is considered one of the global flash points.
Who lost China? This had far reaching consequences for American diplomacy & the State Department.
As we saw in the earlier note, after cessation of WW2 hostilities, civil war in China resumed and the communists finally prevailed over the KMT. America's support for the KMT was extremely limited which turned the tide in favour of the communists. Same was the case with South Korea where America's initial support and attention was limited. Further compounding the issue was the Alger Hiss conviction where a US State Department diplomat was found to be a communist spy and was convicted for his activities.
This gave rise to Senator Joseph McCarthy (JC) and his witch hunt. JC argued that China and Korea were lost because the US State Department had communist spies and sympathisers. Despite showing little or no evidence, JC was able to breathe fire down the US State Department. As a result, a number of professionals were purged that weakened the State Department considerably.
This had long term impacts when it came to professionals capable of understanding Asia leading to America misreading the situation in Asia more than once.
This phenomenon has continued. Kurt argues that even today, the number of State Department professionals who have European or Middle Eastern expertise is far greater than those who boast of Asian expertise. This will have far reaching consequences, for an effective pivot by America towards Asia requires a large bench of seasoned professionals & diplomats who have mastered the vast nuances & challenges of Asia.
Spread & Encouragement of Democracy
Many countries in Asia have established democratic forms of government due to the backing, assistance, encouragement and even at times a hard push by the US.
Whilst the Philippines laboured under US rule for a number of years, upon securing independence the country embraced democracy. Democracy was suspended under Marcos but since his departure democratic roots have firmly taken place in the Philippines.
Japan's democracy is a case of direct intervention by America. After Japan's defeat in WW2, the new constitution of Japan was written by America and that required implementation of democratic, liberal values in Japan and curtailment of the role of the Emperor. Japan today is a vibrant and matured democracy and the Emperor is reduced to a symbolic head.
South Korean democracy came much later than Japan's. Under the strong support of the US, the South Koreans first enhanced and industrialised their economy. However, by the 80s there was a strong push for democracy in South Korea and the US pushed the country to adopt this form of governance. Since then South Korea like Japan is a vibrant democracy.
Taiwan is not too dissimilar from South Korea. After the KMT decamped to Taiwan post the defeat in the civil war, Taiwan developed economically but politically was not a democracy. Eventually under US encouragement & promotion, democracy took roots in Taiwan as well. Today Taiwan is an engaged democracy and stands as a clear proof that Chinese people and civilisation can be compatible with democratic ideals; something the CCP argues against.
Looking at the experience of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, Indonesia too embraced multi party democracy after bouts with the military and dictatorship.
On the other hand, the US has had issues when either democracy has been jeopardised or prevented from flourishing. China of course is the prime example on this issue and the US has been repeatedly arguing and hoping for democracy to flourish on the mainland. The US also sanctioned Burma for its failure to adopt democracy and likewise Fiji was admonished after a military coup.
There have been times especially during the cold war when the US adopted a more pragmatic approach preferring to ally with single party ruling countries or dictatorships in Asia as long as they were opposed to communism. However, in general the US has been a strong supporter for democratic values and rules based institutions in Asia for a long while.
No comments:
Post a Comment