I read Hillary Clinton’s essay on foreign policy in Foreign Affairs. It describes the diplomatic strategy she would pursue in the event that she takes over the administration. Although she makes many references to controversial topics such as the Iraq and North Korea issues, the essay doesn’t perceive Asia comprehensively. Clinton only mentions countries such as China, India, Australia and Japan individually, and it’s hard to see an organic, integral strategy for Asia.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) and the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are greatly expanding their reach in Asia; their involvement is indispensable for Asia’s stability and prosperity. Taiwan is also enjoying a high level of freedom and democracy. Yet, her essay doesn’t pay any attention to these countries and area. Or is it her strategy to let China take care of Asia, as per her statement that “the U.S. relationship with China is the most important bilateral relationship in the world”?

Clinton speaks about the need to restore faith in the traditional values of the U.S., including freedom and democracy. As one aspect of that, she makes an appeal for reinforcing the Atlantic alliance, but her strategy for maintaining or expanding freedom and democracy in Asia remains unclear. For example, I can not figure out how she positions Japan’s role within the entire American strategy in Asia. In fact, she only makes two brief mentions of Japan in the entirety of the long paper.
Japan is a stronghold of democracy and market economy in Asia. It provides for the US a number of important air, naval, and marine bases; a guarantee for the maintenance of the status quo in Asia. What is more, Japan bears costs of 6 billion dollars annually, or two thirds of the expenses for the stationing of the American forces in these bases.

Hillary Clinton dedicates a large potion of her essay to discussing the North Korea issue, an immediate diplomatic task for the U.S. She praises China’s contribution in negotiations with North Korea. She writes, “We should build on North Korean denuclearization to establish a Northeast Asian security regime.” This logic of creating a security regime in Northeast Asia with the Six-Party Talks as its basis is a recent trend in the U.S. You can see lots of papers carrying on their discussions following this same logic.

Basically I welcome this move. We do need a stream-lined mechanism in which we can engage China in a collective discussion on security in Asia. However, if this move reflects an intention on the American part to distance itself from direct involvement in the issues in Asia, I cannot agree. And the USA will have to pay a high price, if it leaves solutions of all political conflicts to China. True, China was very helpful in North Korean issue. But its help in the Myanmar incident left much to be desired. It means that we cannot depend upon (and will not be able to depend upon for coming tens of years) Chinese contribution when it matters freedom, democracy and genuine market economy.

The less the U.S. involves itself in Asia, the more they lose their say, until one day when democratic nations with the values of freedom and real market economy become a minority in Asia, the engine of world economic growth. Rather than spending enormous resources to recover the lost footing when that should happen, isn’t it in the best interest of the U.S. to carefully maintain and expand their bases in Asia for freedom, democracy and market economy?

In the meantime, Japan ought to present alternatives, instead of persisting with the traditional system. Though there’s absolutely no need to change the Japan-U.S. alliance (upon the resurgence of Russian power, the U.S. commanders stationed in Europe have begun to propose postponing the plan to cut 40,000 U.S. troops in Europe), we need to institutionalize a collective forum for discussions, and China should be a member of such forum.

Such a forum should be geographically more comprehensive and organic than the Six-Party Talks. Southeast Asia, that is to say ASEAN, should also be taken into account. In the same vein we should realize the U.S.’s participation in any discussions such as on the building of an East Asia community. The economic development of East Asian countries depends on exports to the U.S., so we can’t endlessly be so stuck on Mahathir-like Asian supremacist policies.

(This is not an anti-Hillary intervention. I belong to the same baby-boomer generation as she does and I share the same values. I have been watching her campaign with a great sympathy. )