The next U.S. administration needs a clear strategic vision for Asia befitting the region’s status as the new global “center of gravity.” In a new policy brief, Asia—Shaping The Future, Carnegie China Program Director Douglas H. Paal presents key steps the United States should take to advance its interests in “rising Asia.”
Link Copied
Published on Jun 26, 2008
WASHINGTON, June 26—The next U.S. administration needs a clear strategic vision for Asia befitting the region’s status as the new global “center of gravity.”In a new policy brief, Asia—Shaping The FutureCarnegie China Program Director Douglas H. Paal presents key steps the United States should take to advance its interests in "rising Asia."
Recommendations for the Next U.S. President:
Decide early on clear U.S. strategic objectives in the region, and signal to China where constructive cooperation will lead.
Appoint a high-level advocate for Asia, a clear signal to the region of its importance.
Prioritize the bewildering alphabet of organizations and venues to achieve those objectives. Consider inviting China and India to join the G8.
Anticipate greater Chinese and Indian military and trade capabilities by developing new multilateral security and economic arrangements in the region.
Avoid coalitions based on common values or democracy. Asia is too diverse and complicated for them to succeed.
Ditch the “war on terror” rhetoric, which has proved divisive and counterproductive.
Paal concludes:
"In sum, the new American administration should prepare before taking office and in the immediate aftermath to address this discrete set of issues involving the Asia-Pacific region, some big and bold, others small but telling policy adjustments. Experience has shown that it would not be wise to repeat the Clinton and George W. Bush mistakes of supporting any policy but their predecessors’. Clinton’s “anything but Bush” approach to China and Bush’s “anything but Clinton” approach to North Korea have both been costly. Whether it wins one term or two, the life of any new administration will be short in retrospect. And the time for creativity and policy innovation is much shorter yet.”
Douglas H. Paal is the director of the Carnegie China Program based in Washington and Beijing. He served as the director of the American Institute in Taiwan from April 2002 to January. Paal was the special assistant to President George H. W. Bush for National Security Affairs and senior director for Asian Affairs on the National Security Council, where he had also served during the Reagan administration.
The Carnegie China Programin Beijing and Washington provides policy makers in both countries with a better understanding of the dynamics within China and between the United States and China. In addition to books, policy briefs, papers, and other publications, the Program produces Carnegie China Insight Monthly, a Chinese-language e-newsletter, and hosts the Hong Kong Journal, an online quarterly covering political, economic, and social issues on Hong Kong and its relations with mainland China, the United States, and other governments and international organizations.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. Founded in 1910, its work is nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results. The Endowment—currently pioneering the first global think tank—has operations in China, the Middle East, Russia, Europe, and the United States. These five locations include the two centers of world governance and the three places whose political evolution and international policies will most determine the near-term possibilities for international peace and economic advance.
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 Endowment for International Peace
Resetting relations with the EU is a central plank of the UK’s current foreign policy. Is Andy Burnham being bold enough or is he falling into the same trap as his predecessors, misreading the power dynamic?
