The US Rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific: Really Realist?
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| Author | Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang |
| DOI | 10.1177/2347797016670706 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The US Rebalance towards
the Asia-Pacific: Really
Realist?
Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang1
Abstract
The Obama administration perceives the Asia-Pacific as a vital and dynamic
region and thus prioritized it in its foreign policy agenda. Some scholars have
suggested that the Obama administration’s rebalance towards Asia has taken a
realist approach to engagement with the Asia-Pacific while others suggested that it
deviated significantly from realism. This article seeks to examine more closely the
question of the realist nature of the US rebalance policy towards the Asia-Pacific.
It begins with a discussion of views of the Obama administration’s rebalance
towards the Asia-Pacific before giving an overview of realism. Then, it seeks to
establish a realist model of foreign policy and examine the Obama administration’s
rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific against that model. It finds that the Obama
administration has high scores on two of the indicators of realism—the emphasis
on military capabilities and the emphasis on alliance-building—but has lower scores
on the third and the fourth—a low regard for multilateral institutions, and a low
regard for values. The Obama administration has actively engaged with regional
institutions and has strongly supported the spread of democracy and human dignity
all over the Asia-Pacific. Hence, the Obama administration’s rebalance towards the
Asia-Pacific is a realist foreign policy with certain modifications.
Keywords
Asia-Pacific, rebalance, realism, Obama administration, foreign policy
Introduction
In 2008, the Obama administration implemented a review of the US global strategy
and forces (Obama, 2008). The review found out that there was an imbalance in
the global focus of the US national power. The United States had invested much
Journal of Asian Security
and International Affairs
3(3) 291–306
2016 SAGE Publications India
Private Limited
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2347797016670706
http://aia.sagepub.com
Article
1 School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT),
Australia.
Corresponding author:
Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology (RMIT), 81 Holmes Street, Brunswick East, Melbourne, Victoria 3056, Australia.
E-mail: thuyhang032003@gmail.com
292 Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 3(3)
time and energy in Europe and the Middle East and it was necessary for Washington
to shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific. The United States wanted to maintain and
advance its position as an important power in Indo-Pacific affairs as highlighted
by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in October 2011:
[A]s the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from
Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point …. In the next ten years, we need to
be smart and systematic about where we invest … so we put ourselves in the best position
to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. (Clinton, 2011)
The US rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific has been characterized by some
scholars as a realist foreign policy. Other scholars, however, have claimed that it
is somewhat of a departure from the international relations (IR) theory of realism.
This article examines closely the question of the realist nature of the US rebalance
towards the Asia-Pacific. It begins with a discussion of views of the Obama
administration’s rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific before giving an overview of
realism. Then, it seeks to establish a realist model of foreign policy, examine the
Obama administration’s rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific against that model,
and, finally, suggest how the Obama administration’s rebalance towards the Asia-
Pacific may be best characterized.
Views of the US Rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific
Since the fall of 2011, a series of official announcements have been made about the
US rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific and a series of steps have been taken to
increase the US presence in this region (Clinton, 2011; Obama, 2011, 2014).
The Obama administration has repeatedly underlined that the United States has
vital interests in the Asia-Pacific, and that the rebalance is a continuity of the
already intensive engagement by the United States in the Asia-Pacific. Some
analysts of the Obama administration’s rebalance policy have described it as deeply
realist in orientation; for instance, Stephen M. Walt wrote, ‘there is a perfectly
sound realist justification for this strategic shift’ (Walt, 2011, pp. 2–16). Having
recognized such developments in the Asia-Pacific as China’s rise and Asia’s
economic dynamism, the United States saw the need to expand its engagement
with this key area. The realist nature of the US rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific
lies in the fact that it is in the US national interest to prevent any single power from
becoming a regional hegemon, a position that the United States has held since
1945. Thus, keeping the Asia-Pacific divided and balanced among several powerful
states is strategically important to the United States. Sean Kay also saw the realist
logic of the US rebalance: ‘The pivot to Asia reflects a return to realist thinking in
terms of America’s international goals’ (Kay, 2013, p. 1). He pointed out the
calculations behind the Obama administration’s rebalance policy:
The basis for the ‘pivot’ was founded on a realist assessment of the international envi-
ronment which shows a long-term rise of China but a generally benign international
environment that allows the United States to handover responsibility in some parts of
To continue reading
Request your trial