• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUNATO
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "David Rothkopf"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "East Asia",
    "Southeast Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The Perils of America’s Pacific Presidency

The faltering U.S. economy and an increasingly confident and powerful Asia are challenging efforts by President Obama to orient U.S. foreign policy more toward transpacific issues.

Link Copied
By David Rothkopf
Published on Nov 14, 2010

Source: Financial Times

The Perils of America’s Pacific PresidencyPresident Barack Obama hoped to find solace overseas following his “shellacking” in the US midterm elections. Instead, despite some progress, he has suffered a series of setbacks. Little meaningful was achieved at the Group of 20 leading nations summit. Trade talks with South Korea have stalled. Even his rather successful trade trip to India produced negative reaction in key parts of the region. Yet these difficulties highlight a bigger problem than his domestic or international standing. They underscore the challenges associated with perhaps the most profound transformation this change-oriented administration is trying to achieve: making this America’s first Pacific presidency.

Titillating but absurd debates about his birthplace aside, no one can dispute that a president raised in the mid-Pacific also came into office seeking a foreign policy more oriented toward transpacific issues than that of his predecessors. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush sought to rebalance policies in that direction but were largely distracted. So it has fallen to Mr Obama to usher in this era and address the challenges it brings.

Some are historical. America has had two major prior eras of foreign policy. During its first century, it turned inward. During the 20th century it ascended globally, with the core of that ascendancy built on transatlantic issues, alliances and conflicts. Over time, its relatively large economic and military size, and its cultural and linguistic ties, provided advantages over principal allies. It did not always get what it wanted but, as the 20th century progressed, there was no doubt who was first among the equals.

On this most recent trip to Asia, Mr Obama discovered just how different the next century is going to be. The US will still be the most powerful country but it is faltering economically. With the wind of history no longer at its back, others – rivals and allies alike – flex their muscles. They are doing so in ways that confounded the president’s aspirations for this visit, and are quickly derailing other important policy initiatives too.

Mr Obama’s first goal in Asia was to produce some kind of meaningful deal at the G20 meeting to control global economic imbalances. Not only did he not manage this but he also discovered that Asia’s most important power, China, felt comfortable confronting the US on the perceived hypocrisy of browbeating Beijing on undervaluing its currency while manipulating the dollar downward. The Chinese were pointed and un­swayable, and other nations – including once-loyal European allies and other emerging powers – fell into line.

Thus were revealed important elements of the nature of a Pacific century, in which power and momentum is located on the Asian side of the ocean, and the most important Asian player is also America’s most important rival. As a consequence, the president’s desire to focus on how to stimulate global growth and rein in China was rebuffed by a world coalescing around the Sino-European world view that the focus ought to be on fiscal responsibility, and that this should start with the profligate, flagging US.

Elsewhere Mr Obama sought a trade deal with South Korea. But when the US side pushed too hard on access to beef markets, the Koreans – who also have growing economic clout and are now much less US-centric in their orientation than in the past – felt comfortable walking away. His embrace of India, meanwhile, produced inevitable bristling in Pakistan. It also made the Chinese distinctly uncomfortable, illustrating again that the geopolitics of the coming era will require a degree of balance of power diplomatic finesse not demanded of the US in more than a half century.

No doubt the political climate is tough for Mr Obama at home. But after this trip and the upcoming visit to Europe that will include a focus on Afghanistan – America’s thorniest foreign policy problem – he may find returning to the dissonance and name-calling of Washington a relief. He may also realise the best way to regain momentum on his ground-breaking efforts in the Pacific will be to redouble work to engineer a breakthrough on controlling the US deficit and restoring competitiveness. As America’s first Pacific president is learning, foreign policy is always easier if you are negotiating from a position of strength.

About the Author

David Rothkopf

Former Visiting Scholar

David Rothkopf was a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment as well as the former CEO and editor in chief of the FP Group.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    How Bush, Obama, and Trump Ended Pax Americana

      David Rothkopf

  • In The Media
    A Bigger Clubhouse

      David Rothkopf

David Rothkopf
Former Visiting Scholar
David Rothkopf
Foreign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaEast AsiaSoutheast Asia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Equivocating on Turkey Is Bad Geopolitics

    Following Ursula von der Leyen’s gaffe equating Turkey to Russia and China, relations with Ankara risk deteriorating even further. Without better, more consistent diplomatic messaging, how can the EU pretend to be a geopolitical power?

      Sinan Ülgen

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is the EU Ready for Rapprochement With the UK?

    Closer EU-UK ties could help address urgent European concerns. But is the EU ready for rapprochement with the United Kingdom?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    France, Italy, and Spain Should Use Force in Lebanon

    Europe has been standing by while its Southern neighborhood is being redrawn by force. To establish a path to peace between Israel and Lebanon, it’s time for Europeans to get involved with hard power.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Fog of AI War

    In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.

      Raluca Csernatoni

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    How to Join the EU in Three Easy Steps

    Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.

      Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.