A lesson from down under to President Obama

October 28 marked the one-year anniversary of the release of “Australia in the Asian Century” white paper – a policy document positioned by then-Australian prime minister Julia Gillard as the centrepiece of her government’s ambitious effort to re-engineer Australia to take advantage of growing opportunities as the world’s economic and political dynamism shifts to a more prosperous Asia-Pacific region.

How times have changed, with the new government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott reportedly jettisoning much of that document. A headline in The Australian succinctly declared, “Asian Century plans consigned to history”. The white paper had set 25 objectives for Australia to take advantage of economic growth in Asia, including more emphasis on Asian-language instruction in schools, but had also been criticised as lacking a larger strategic vision and any significant new funding.

And therein lies a powerful message to the US, given President Barack Obama’s own “pivot” to Asia. Rhetoric alone does not make a robust or substantive Asia policy, and neither do unfunded or poorly funded programmes, whether in the Mekong region or the South Pacific.

Several years into the US pivot to the region, and on the heels of Obama’s cancelling a trip to Southeast Asia – his third cancelled trip to Asia – it is worth asking whether the US is using every resource, as Australia once claimed it was, to maximise its re-engagement with the region.

Originally described as a “whole-of-Australia” effort involving all levels of Australian society “in a transformation as profound as any that have defined Australia”, the now jettisoned white paper outlined a plan to make the country more “Asia-literate” and “Asia-capable”. A laudable goal but few can cite any major changes that followed in foreign affairs and trade policy.

To its great credit, and white papers aside, the new Australian government has underscored a policy of economic outreach and deeper engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. After his election victory, Abbot, accompanied by top Australian business executives, travelled to Indonesia on his first overseas trip, saying he would visit capitals in Asia before traditional allies Washington and London. Obama could take a lesson from this focus on business engagement and involvement.

A 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, “Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s ‘Rebalancing’ Toward Asia” underscored the US pivot’s military dimensions, from the shifting of US Marines to Darwin, to expanded US naval visits to the region. The report also underscored that many of Obama’s initiatives are actually extensions of programmes started in previous administrations, and concluded that US efforts under the “Asia pivot” have been vastly overstated.

The reality is that Asia’s leaders don’t need a congressional report to tell them the obvious. Obama has clearly been “MIA” this past year and the pivot is increasingly seen as rhetoric with little strategy or funding behind it.

In remarks before the Australian Parliament in 2011, Obama said that the Asia-Pacific region is integral to achieving one of his administration’s critical goals: creating jobs for American people. Across Asia, many are now asking how real, sustainable or focused is the US pivot to the region in the face of China’s rise and budget battles in Washington. Beyond the rhetoric, the US would be better served by a “soft power pivot” that goes beyond defence and diplomacy to include greater business, educational and cultural engagement.

A case in point would have been a focus on achievable trade agreements. One such effort could well have been a Free Trade Agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) – something that Japan, India, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand already have done. These countries are now leveraging these agreements to further their own interests in the region, even as Washington focuses all its energies on an ambitious trans-pacific trade agreement. 

From an educational perspective, the US could take a page out of Australia’s playbook and introduce efforts to better coordinate the university and visa application processes. This would allow more of Asia’s top students to study in America’s universities and colleges, providing both income as well as added diversity to US educational institutions. Greater emphasis on study of Asian languages would also be beneficial.

A strong case also can be made for greater support for focused “cultural diplomacy” by the US, including policy changes and encouragement of public-private efforts that would increase exchange programmes and visits of US artists, experts, business leaders and entrepreneurs. This would showcase the diversity of America, as well as the core values, business and otherwise, of the US.

Even with a weakened US president and divided Congress, there’s still time to “reboot” the “rebalance”, with a substantive, bipartisan “whole-of-America” policy that encourages greater US business, educational and cultural involvement across the Asia-Pacific. Such an effort will make it all the more irrelevant whether or not the US president again cancels a visit to Asia. It would also help ensure that as elected governments change, as has happened in Australia, that the Asia-Pacific remains a critical focus for the US – something that many nations in the region would quietly welcome, in the face of the rise of new regional powers and challenges.

It’s time to add some substance to Obama’s rhetoric that “in the Asia-Pacific in the 21st century, the United States of America is all in.”

 

Curtis S Chin served as US ambassador to the Asian Development Bank (2007-2010) and is a managing director with advisory firm RiverPeak Group. Jose B Collazo is a frequent commentator on Southeast Asia and an associate of RiverPeak Group. Follow him on twitter @josebcollazo