Douglas H. Paal
{
"authors": [
"Douglas H. Paal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie China"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"China",
"East Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Security"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Rice's ASEAN "Gardening"
Yesterday U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropped in on an important Asian political conference she has missed in recent years. Ms. Rice's decision to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Regional Forum in Singapore this week is a welcome if belated sign that the Bush administration has begun to give Asia its due as the new global center of gravity.
Source: The Wall Street Journal Asia

However late in the game Ms. Rice's trip comes, it means a lot in a region too often neglected by Washington. In late 1991, President George H.W. Bush planned an extensive trip through Asia to make good on past promises for visits the Gulf War had postponed. With the departure date closing in, pollster Bob Teeter told Mr. Bush the public thought he was paying too much attention overseas and not enough at home. The administration scrapped the trip, and announced its decision to the White House press corps before informing ambassadors or foreign capitals. It was not that Mr. Bush's most sensitive moment.
But it was part of a broader pattern on the U.S. side of shortchanging Asia. Because of the distances involved, both geographical and cultural, American leaders traditionally have visited Asia less than Europe. Yet as Asia rises in the global economy and international relations, we cannot afford to continue that pattern.
Whatever its party, the next U.S. administration will find itself facing the challenge of organizing coalitions in Asia that manage both to involve many of the relevant actors and to advance American interests. U.S. leaders have long complained that Asia presents too many international fora doing too little besides talking. The time is ripe for proposing constructive alternatives.
Consider the current panoply of ineffective groups and meetings. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings assemble the right heads of state to discuss security -- but are confined by the group's charter to economic talks. Asean organizes many ministerial and lower-level meetings, but has rarely been able to leverage that attendance into anything more than symbolism. The six-party talks on North Korea could offer new advances on security cooperation, but no one knows yet whether that group will even be effective in its current mission, let alone any expanded functions.
To constructively engage the region by building an effective organization, the U.S. could try to build on one or more of the existing groups, but it would probably have to press for either additions to, or subtractions from, the membership. Or it could propose something new, which would include the right people to address important issues like humanitarian assistance, pandemics, environmental challenges, finance, trade and eventually security.
The important thing will be for U.S. leaders to develop a clear idea of American objectives, and also of the best way to achieve those goals. The U.S. also must show Asian countries, regularly and publicly, that their concerns are being considered at the highest levels of American government.
In Asian countries, where one is always expected to respect "face," canceling participation in a meeting or simply failing to attend causes needless ill will. As secretary of state, George Shultz set a high standard in dealing with the region. Despite the many pressures on his schedule, he regularly made the Asia-Pacific rounds, stopping sometimes in lesser capitals to advance the American agenda. He referred to the practice as "gardening."
The U.S. hasn't been out to the garden often enough in recent years, and the next administration will likely be called upon to pay more attention to it. Showing up is a good start.
The article first appeared on the Wall Street Journal Asia
About the Author
Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program
Paal previously served as vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase International and as unofficial U.S. representative to Taiwan as director of the American Institute in Taiwan.
- America’s Future in a Dynamic AsiaPaper
- U.S.-China Relations at the Forty-Year MarkQ&A
- +1
Douglas H. Paal, Tong Zhao, Chen Qi, …
Recent Work
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil CrisisCommentary
There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.
Gita Wirjawan
- Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in IndonesiaCommentary
As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.
Sana Jaffrey
- Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good ReasonsCommentary
The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.
Marc Pierini
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- What GDP Means in a Soft Budget Economy Like ChinaCommentary
The GDP measure is an attempt to measure value creation in an economy. This measure, however, can vary greatly between economies that have disciplinary mechanisms that force them to recognize investment losses quickly and economies that don’t, and can postpone this recognition for many years.
Michael Pettis