thyroid medication

China Not Impressed with Obama’s Asia Pivot


China Not Impressed with Obama’s Asia Pivot

Pete SouzaPete Souza

By Marc Moussalli for Global Risk Insights

America’s pivot to Asia has been discussed widely since the strategy was unveiled in President Obama’s speech to the Australian Parliament in 2011. Although many other global strategic issues needed to be addressed since then, it is interesting to revisit the rebalancing because Obama’s rhetoric can be used as a prism through which his idea of America’s priorities will become clear.

Against the backdrop of China’s launch of the AIIB, it is an appropriate time to recall how the 44th President interprets America’s interests, how the pivot has been perceived by China and what it means for the business climate in the region.

Obama’s foreign policy has promoted America’s interests through hard and soft power. However, perhaps surprisingly, the former is emphasised over the latter. To Obama, commercial considerations are important, but mainly as the foundation of military prowess. His view of US interests presupposes continued American supremacy in the Western hemisphere and the deterrence of a regional hegemon in Asia. Essentially, what Obama said in 2011 was a thinly veiled warning to China.

Obama’s pivot a shift toward authoritative foreign policy

Obama’s authoritative language stands out. By highlighting that, “as President, I have, therefore, made a deliberate and strategic decision” to rebalance to Asia-Pacific, Obama wanted to demonstrate leadership. Furthermore, by saying “we are here to stay” he emphasised that the pivot is a strategic project which will not be averted.

He also expressed the American ability to harness new beginnings. Obama admitted that the focus on Asia-Pacific is no small step but “reflects a broader shift” for America away from the Middle East, and pronounced the past decade of fighting over by declaring “the tide of war is receding and America is looking forward to the future.”

The president likened the pivot to a contest, explaining that “America competes aggressively in Asian markets” but is also bound by rules. He expected other nations to respect fair play. Obama also emphasized that America is a leading investor, and not merely an extractor of resources, clearly a stab at Beijing.

Besides, he maintained that economic growth has to incorporate the will of the people and cannot be imposed. Ironically, China, by far Asia’s economic powerhouse, was and is not part of negotiations involving the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), intended to integrate Asia-Pacific’s economies into a single trading community.

Obama’s speech displayed a decisively hawkish feel. Surely, Obama’s trust in military power must be one of the more under-appreciated aspects of his presidency. Obama assertively spoke as the Commander-in-Chief when he stressed America’s “strong military presence in this region” and its “unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace.”

The speech was full of implicit and indirect insinuations: Obama not only stressed that America will maintain strong armed forces but that it will improve them and geographically distribute them more broadly. Furthermore, the president reaffirmed treaty obligations to regional allies, including Taiwan and South Korea.

Touching on liberal issues, he opined that ‘prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty’ and emphasised the universality of human values. The importance of workers’ rights, the necessity for market-driven currencies and a broader distribution of wealth, all contentious elements in the US-Chinese relationship, were also referred to.

Obama pointed out that “history is on the side of the free” and that democracy is “the greatest form of government ever known to man.” The president argued that other models of governance, particularly communism or rule by committee, ignore the will of the people and thus lack legitimacy.

Given all this, it is not only interesting to note what Obama said about America’s national interest and how he choose to do so but also at whom he aimed his remarks. Ever the statesman, all of his condemnations were purely implicit and Obama did not refer directly to a specific country – in fact, the administration clearly stressed that the pivot is “not about any single country,” which seems to suggest that, implicitly, the recipient is evident and Obama’s critique is nuanced.

Obama was letting Beijing know that the US will not tolerate a Chinese challenge to America’s military and economic supremacy in Asia-Pacific.

China is not overly impressed with the new assessment

Fast forward to 2015 and it would appear that China has not been overly impressed. Since 2011, Beijing has engaged in saber-rattling by declaring an extended air defence identification zone around disputed territories in the South China Sea in 2013. It has vetoed initiatives in the UN Security Council preventing resolutions on the war in Syria.

And recently, Beijing has displayed its skilled foreign policy and international clout by establishing the 50 billion USD Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) against US opposition. The Bank, mostly funded by China and supported by many traditional US allies in Europe and Asia, will finance major infrastructure projects in the region and will undoubtedly advance China’s soft power and regional influence.

It shows that China is interested in engaging with global business, albeit on its own terms. It also shows that Obama’s pivot and his view of national priorities have so far proved of limited effectiveness.

America’s predominance in Asia-Pacific is being openly challenged, for now primarily in the economic realm: Whether America likes it or not, China will increasingly dictate regional terms of business, trade and finance, and the world will listen. This is not likely to change during Obama’s remaining time in office, or after that.

one comment

 IS HOLLYWOOD PART of the (TPP Treaty) PROCESS, or, OUT-of-the LOOP, too?

It may regrettable that the simplest & most basic information & questions that can lead to a much more secure & profitable relationship between the potential signatories of the TPP & China, et al, has not been shared with Defense Secretary Carter for his humble consideration. Perhaps, he may consider answering some of the enclosed questions in order for us to get a better idea of what his understanding is of  how the TPP & other Global Treaties can be vastly improved inclusively & thereby, minimize, &/or, eliminate the dangerous problems below that have led some to understand that

'What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century (ie. provided the basis for World War II) PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st'. 

Unless, of course, the long term economic destabilization and subsequent (secret) military weapons development & appropriations are the intent of DefSec Carter, et al, in the secret (Death-Star-Chamber) 'arrangements' of the TPP & the Global Corporate Treaties/Agreements.


But, how many 'savvy' Americans  (Hollywood actors, producers, union members & fans) & their global corporate associates are 'poised' to make windfall profits from their international cross investments, 'nest-feathered' lawsuits & pre-planned treaty 'arrangements' at the direct expense of the harmless non shareholders, ie. 95% - 99% of America , et al? 


While the good sales folks of Wall St. may prefer to tell their 'Enron-able' customers who were also the victims of 'The Preliminary Foray of The Wall St. Meltdown', et al, that it's just some Unions that are fighting back, how much of the Fighting Back of Unions against the Secret, Unethical & Anti-Democratic Arrangements of The Global Treaties' 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunals, can be understood in the context of the harmless NON Shareholders, including Union members, fighting to Survive (not 'thrive') Against the Uncaring, 'Profits at Any (body else's) Costs', SHAREHOLDERS & their Colluding, Global Corporate Leaders? 


Gain a political 'Smidge', Lose ('Hidden' & Secret Costs) a Lot; The NET EFFECT. There goes Our Retirement Date & Much more... 

'Fast Tracking', TPP corp. 'U.S.'s' Feeble Attempt to Avoid Court; SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders Await Supreme Court's Findings to Proceed. 'But, I didn't know that that I'd have to pay for it (& somebody else doesn't)!'

Global Corporate Economy Conniving to Get Harmless NON Shareholders to Pay Trillion$ in Court Costs, Punitive 'Penalties', etc.? 

No Treaties = Corporations/SHAREHOLDERS pay for Their Own 'Mistakes'.

How Many  Preferred Shares of TPP, C-CIT, TTIP,  CETA, et al, Generated Enterprises are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for? 'New' Shareholders Can Say 'NO' to & Over-Rule TPP, CETA, TTIP, et al, Plans?

Will corp.'USA'  et al, & Feds to Prepay $Billions for All 'Trade' Treaty/'Arrangements', et al, Secret ('Death-Star-Chamber) Tribunals' Punitive Damages  to Protect Home State's Taxpayers? Other States, Municipalities, et al, "...(we) need to control corp. USAs 'Contributions' “.

But, If Not PUTIN; 'The WHITE KNIGHT', then Who Do YOU Want to Bankroll the Saving of the harmless NON shareholders of the World from Fast Tracking  TPP's, CETA's (TTIP) Secret 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunal Penalties?  

Will China, Iran, the Muslim World, et al, Support Putin in Suits?

How about Warren Buffett, &/or, the 'coveted' Hong Kong investor, et al?

And, while President Putin's potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments' signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”, 

and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 - 40 years & beyond,

are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:

1) The Submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:

"The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, Australia, Canada, et al


the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al"?

(see; Google


FULL Article, see; Google***

Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others... 

  • Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images
    Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images

    What Do Syrians Want? The Syrian Freedom Charter

  • Pete Souza
    Pete Souza

    Doing the Nuclear Dance: The Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

  • Flash90

    Bibi Should Take the Deal

  • John Kerry

    Manufacturing a ‘Good Adversary’ in Tehran

  • Kuwait

    The Lies still Killing Gulf War Vets

  • via Twitter
    via Twitter

    An Afghan-American Perspective on the Killing of Farkhunda