The US Rebalance Policy and the Management of Power Politics in Asia Pacific

Abstract

The policy was introduced by the U.S. President Barack Obama early in his first administration in 2010, marked specific changing to the U.S. foreign policy like never before. The U.S. continuously views South and South East Asia, including the Indian Ocean, as a crucial driver for America’s economic growth and prosperity throughout the 21st century. Numerous numbers of cooperation and partnership have been done to enhance the ties between the U.S. and the regions. The U.S. presence and involvement in most essential regional meetings and summits can also be seen as an effort to seek opportunities, politically, economically, as well as security. This article tries to analyze how the U.S. rebalance towards Asia policy, a term used for the U.S.' foreign policy influenced the regional stability in Asia-Pacific region.

Asia-Pacific under Obama’s Rebalance Strategy: Regional Responses

“…Potential partners in such a U.S. scheme, like India or even Australia, other than Japan, have minimal funds to provide an alternative BRI" (Brzezinski, 2016)This is also clear that U.S. companies and other major multinational corporations see opportunities emerging from the BRI, especially in the transportation, logistics, construction and finance industries. They might not be prepared to work with any project framed as a straightforward alternative to BRI (Perwita, 2014).…”

“…In 2014, China's US ambassador criticized the military dimension, saying: "The problem with this rebalancing is that it isn't balanced. Too much emphasis has been put on the military and security dimension, emphasizing conventional alliances without adequately addressing the regional countries' specific needs and concerns for economic growth and sustainable development" (Perwita, 2014) Other critiques centered in particular on the issue of the South China Sea: in May 2016, China's ASEAN envoy claimed that the implementation of the Rebalance Strategy was "the culmination of the issue of the South China Sea and that the United States was the key driving force" behind tensions there; in 2016, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed multiple times that the region was calm and stable before the Americans came along with the rebalancing stuff" (Feng, 2018)In 2015, a spokesperson said the U.S. used territorial disputes as a reason to follow the policy of rebalancing. Apart from official statements, many in China seem to have deeply cynical and pessimistic perceptions of the Rebalance.…”

https://plhr.org.pk/article/asia-pacific-under-obamas-rebalance-strategy-and-regional-responses

“…Potential partners in such a U.S. scheme, like India or even Australia, other than Japan, have minimal funds to provide an alternative BRI" (Brzezinski, 2016)This is also clear that U.S. companies and other major multinational corporations see opportunities emerging from the BRI, especially in the transportation, logistics, construction and finance industries. They might not be prepared to work with any project framed as a straightforward alternative to BRI (Perwita, 2014).…”

“…In 2014, China's US ambassador criticized the military dimension, saying: "The problem with this rebalancing is that it isn't balanced. Too much emphasis has been put on the military and security dimension, emphasizing conventional alliances without adequately addressing the regional countries' specific needs and concerns for economic growth and sustainable development" (Perwita, 2014) Other critiques centered in particular on the issue of the South China Sea: in May 2016, China's ASEAN envoy claimed that the implementation of the Rebalance Strategy was "the culmination of the issue of the South China Sea and that the United States was the key driving force" behind tensions there; in 2016, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed multiple times that the region was calm and stable before the Americans came along with the rebalancing stuff" (Feng, 2018)In 2015, a spokesperson said the U.S. used territorial disputes as a reason to follow the policy of rebalancing. Apart from official statements, many in China seem to have deeply cynical and pessimistic perceptions of the Rebalance.…”