Op-ed: Asia needs a rebalance that is focused on stability and economic development

An aerial photo taken on Sept. 25, 2015 from a seaplane of Hainan Maritime Safety Administration shows cruise vessel Haixun 1103 heading to the Yacheng 13-1 drilling rig during a patrol insouth China Sea. (Xinhua/Zhao Yingquan)

What is America’s national interest? On November 3, 2016, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel discussed U.S. policy throughout the Asia-Pacific region. In his talk, Russel discussed the logic that drives the rebalance: “[It] has always been rooted in a clear-eyed assessment of America’s national interest,” he said. To understand the logic of the rebalance, we need to understand America’s national interest. The problem is that America’s national interest is incoherent. The only constant is the belief that America must lead a system based on American values. If that is the case, then the logic driving the rebalance could be destructive.

In 2000, Condoleezza Rice published an essay in Foreign Affairs entitled, “Promoting the National Interest.” In the post-Cold War era, she said, the U.S. has found it difficult to define its national interest. Rice called for the articulation of a clear foreign policy that recognized the U.S. position. In June 2008, the former Secretary of State wrote another essay on what she called “American realism.” American realism is a foreign policy based on the power of American values: “freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law,” said Rice. America sought to shape the world in its image, and democracy building played a central role in that strategy.

A more cooperative foreign policy was implemented under the Obama administration. President Barack Obama turned the national security strategy away from democratic state building and turned it to building America’s economic strength. In his 2015 “National Security Strategy,” President Obama called America’s economic strength the foundation of America’s national security. The U.S. needed “a smart national security strategy,” he said; in other words, a strategy with both hard and soft power components. Military power would remain important, but the national interest was to be guaranteed by relying on U.S.-led collective action.

There is no single authoritative source that can be used to define America’s national interest. But regardless of who becomes the next President, America’s national interest is not going to change, at least according to Russel. At the basic level, he is right. Though America’s grand strategy changes over time, at least two key factors remain constant in foreign policy: (1) the belief that America must lead; and (2) the belief that the international order should be based on American values. If America’s national interest is defined as sustaining U.S. global leadership and promoting American values, and if the rebalance is “rooted in a clear-eyed assessment of America’s national interest,” then it stands to reason that the rebalance has always been about shoring up American power.

The Asia-Pacific region is dynamic and growing, and the rebalance is inexorably linked to the future of American strength, as Russel noted. Therefore, a peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific is in America’s national interest. But the U.S. is sending mixed signals, perhaps an unintended result of its incoherent national interest. On the one hand, the U.S. has welcomed China’s rise, and economic cooperation between the two sides is high. On the other hand, the U.S. is keeping up the tension; for example, by flexing military muscle in South China Sea and create disturbances. The U.S. should clearly define its role in the new order.

As a superpower, the U.S. has an important role to play in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the U.S. should also realize that the unipolar moment has ended, and update its mentality. The recent bilateral agreement between China and the Philippines shows that China can manage its own sphere of influence. Under the agreement, the Philippines can fish near the island, and China did not have to give up its claims or withdraw its coastguard. For peace, cooperation, and shared progress, the rebalance needs to be more focused on what Asia needs: stability and economic development, and less focused on what America desires: the impossible goal of global hegemony.