JIIA Forum Presentation Summary
December 11, 2009
Venue: Japan Institute of International Affairs

Amy Searight
Adjunct Professor, Eliot School of International Affairs, George Washington
University
Adjunct Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

US in Asia: On the Outside Looking In?
The US’ post-WWII posture towards East Asia can be seen as a consistent one of reactive
regionalism. The US initially sought to adopt a multilateral approach in Asia andreintegrate Japan into the region, but opposition from some of the countries concerned
ultimately led the US to develop a hub-and-spoke system of bilateral agreements in therealm of security. Subsequent US strategy toward Asia has generally been put together
around bilateral structures. In the economic arena, the US has utilized both bilateralrelations and multilateral frameworks such as GATT and the IMF.
When Australia put forth a proposal in 1989 on regional economic integration sans the US,
Secretary of State Baker declared that the US should be included in any effort toward
regional integration in the Asia-Pacific region; this led to US participation in APEC. Prime
Minister Mahathir’s advocacy of an EAEG concept that did not include the US met withsharp opposition from Secretary of State Baker, who thereafter placed a greater emphasison APEC. This said, however, the failure of APEC and ARF to produce practical results
diminished the US’ interest and involvement, and the US’ role remains a sporadic andpassive one.
With the inauguration of the Obama administration, expectations have risen that the US
might become more involved in the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, it appears that theObama administration has taken a positive stance toward regional multilateralism, joining
TAC and participating in its first summit meeting with the ASEAN 10. The recent speechin Tokyo made clear the US’ intent to become more actively involved in the East Asia
Summit in seeking to address current issues as a member of the Asia-Pacific region.
Among the trade policy issues inherited by the Obama administration from the Bushadministration are the South Korea-US FTA (KORUS) and the Trans-Pacific Strategic
Economic Partnership Agreement (Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP). During his visit toSouth Korea, President Obama announced that the US would be working in 2010 to moveahead on KORUS and to overcome any obstacles to that end. His Tokyo speech also
touched on TPP, expressing hopes of realizing a regional agreement with a broad range ofmember states, including Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, and Brunei. Should the US
ratify KORUS and begin TPP negotiations, trade cooperation relations in the Asia-Pacificregion will undoubtedly undergo significant change.
APEC is scheduled to meet in Japan next year and in the US the year after that, both
wonderful opportunities to revitalize APEC that will focus attention on (1) how highlymotivated Japan and the US are and (2) what agenda items will be pursued and how far
and what level of policies will be sought. APEC has thus far functioned well for thehigher-dimension policy of articulating a vision to promote free trade and thelower-dimension policy of devising measures to encourage trade. Future cooperation at
the intermediate level will be necessary. For example, to augment mediation proceduresfor economic disputes and encourage the liberalization of trade and investment to give
APEC’s activities more binding force, the trade barriers in individual countries could likely
be made more transparent. What should be avoided above all is a “Christmas tree”
approach that puts every issue – infectious diseases, climate change, etc. – on theagenda. It is not known at present whether officials at the highest levels of the Obamaadministration have actually begun committing to APEC but, because setting an ambitious
agenda takes time, the US should commit itself as soon as possible.
The manner in which the East Asian Community Concept advocated by certain politicalleaders in the Hatoyama administration and some scholars – i.e., as part of a “zero-sum”
policy in which Japan seeks to draw closer to Asia while distancing itself somewhat fromthe US – has proven problematic and generated concern in the US. It is possible forJapan to build closer relations with East Asia while maintaining cooperative Japan-US ties,
so “zero-sum” thinking is an unnecessary and indeed incorrect choice. The fact is thatthe Hatoyama administration’s East Asian Community Concept is also a plus for the US.
As indicated in the Tokyo speech, the Obama administration is pursuing more activeparticipation and involvement in the Asia-Pacific region. The US believes that an East
Asian Community without the US would likely be dominated by China and that it would not
be founded on transparency, the rule of law, economic liberalism, and democratic norms.
Marshalling their respective soft power, economic expertise and hard power, the US andJapan need to cooperate in forming a Community based on shared rules and norms.