MADRID
– The Pacific or the Middle East? For the United States, that is now
the primary strategic question. The violence in Gaza, coming as
President Barack Obama was meeting Asia’s leaders in Phnom Penh,
perfectly encapsulates America’s dilemma. Instead of being able to focus
on US foreign policy’s “pivot” to Asia, Obama was forced to spend many
hours in conversation with the leaders of Egypt and Israel, and to
dispatch Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Asia, in order to
facilitate a cease-fire in Gaza.
CommentsOf
the two geopolitical focal points demanding America’s attention, one
represents the future and the other the past. Whereas Asia played an
important role in a US presidential election campaign that was marked by
often-heated references to China’s rise, the Middle East has kept the
US bogged down for decades. In addition to the eternal Israel-Palestine
conflict, Iraq’s instability, the Arab Spring, Syria’s civil war, and
the ongoing nuclear standoff with Iran all demand America’s attention.
CommentsIf
the Iran crisis were to boil over, the pivot to Asia would no longer be
America’s main foreign-policy priority. But if the dispute with Iran is
resolved diplomatically, the Middle East might, perhaps, be relegated
to a position of lesser importance, as Obama clearly desires. The
question, therefore, is whether the US will find itself drawn into
another war in a region on which it depends less and less for energy.
CommentsIndeed, the revolution in non-conventional hydrocarbons, particularly shale gas and oil, which the International Energy Agency recently predicted
would make the US the world’s largest oil producer by 2020, and the top
energy producer overall by 2030, will have enormous global
repercussions. For the US, energy self-sufficiency is the perfect excuse
for a phased withdrawal from the Middle East; freed from energy
dependency, America should be able to concentrate on the Pacific.
CommentsAlthough
maintaining stable global energy prices and its alliance with Israel
means that the US cannot cut itself off completely from the Middle
East’s troubles, the shift in focus to Asia began early in Obama’s first
administration, with Clinton announcing America’s strategic
reorientation even before US troops began withdrawing from Iraq.
Following his re-election, Obama’s first foreign visit was to Myanmar,
Thailand, and Cambodia – a choice that cannot have pleased China, as all
three are ASEAN members, while Myanmar was, until it began its
democratic transition, a close Chinese ally.
CommentsAsia
is, of course, experiencing rapid economic growth, but managing the
region’s strong nationalist tensions calls for the creation of regional
security structures, together with closer economic integration.
Complicating matters even more is what US scholar Kenneth Lieberthal and
Wang Jisi, the dean of international studies at Peking University,
called in a recent paper for the Brookings Institution “strategic distrust.”
CommentsCultivating
strategic trust between the twenty-first century’s leading powers will
be fundamental to the international system’s harmonious functioning. But
how can this be achieved? As China will be importing three-quarters of
its oil from the Middle East by 2020, one step forward would be China’s
cooperation in finding solutions to the region’s problems.
CommentsAfter
the January 2013 Israeli elections, Iran will again move to the top of
Obama’s foreign-policy agenda. Military intervention in Iran – which
itself will be holding a presidential election in June – would incite
not only regional, but global, instability. The Arab world, Russia, and
China would be forced to take sides, straining global relations between
the different poles of power and raising tensions in the Pacific. So
China has a large strategic interest in working with the US to avoid a
showdown.
CommentsBeyond
Iran, the volatile situation throughout the Middle East urgently
demands solutions. The latest eruption of violent conflict between Hamas
and Israel underscores the importance of reviving the peace process.
Syria’s civil war, in which a growing number of regional players have
become involved, is beginning to look increasingly like a trial run for
all-out war between Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf
States, Turkey, and Egypt) and Shia Muslims (Iran and Hezbollah) for
regional dominance.
CommentsIran’s
leaders appear to believe that the US, having incurred extremely high
economic and human costs from more than a decade of war, would rather
avoid another military intervention. US public opinion seems to confirm
this. A recent survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
indicated that 67% of Americans believe that the Iraq war was not
worthwhile. Moreover, 69% do not believe that the US is safer from
terrorism since the war in Afghanistan, and 71% say that the experience
in Iraq shows that the US should take greater care in how it uses force.
CommentsBut,
if Americans seem unlikely to be willing to invest billions of dollars
in another dead-end foreign adventure, Iran’s leaders, for their part,
are increasingly hemmed in by international sanctions, which are
beginning to wreak havoc on the country’s economy. Both sides may
believe that their best option – at least for now – is to negotiate.
CommentsPeaceful
resolution of the Iranian question would help the US to complete its
shift toward Asia. China may not wish for that outcome, but its own
vital interest in the security of Middle East energy supplies should
compel it to cooperate. After all, another Middle East conflict would
poison and distort relations in the region for decades, which would be
the worst of all possible consequences – for the US and China alike.
Reprinting material from this Web site without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact us.
