• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • 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 Endowment for International Peace

  • City at night
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Is Also Now a Semiconductor Problem

    The conflict is exposing the deep energy vulnerabilities of Korea’s chip industry.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Tim Sahay

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Shockwaves Across the Gulf

    The countries in the region are managing the fallout from Iranian strikes in a paradoxical way.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?

    French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for Europe

    The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with Iran

    In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.