{"id":29615,"date":"2016-11-21T06:00:07","date_gmt":"2016-11-20T19:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=29615"},"modified":"2016-11-20T11:01:33","modified_gmt":"2016-11-20T00:01:33","slug":"from-pivot-to-hammer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/from-pivot-to-hammer\/","title":{"rendered":"From Pivot to hammer"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
\u2018If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n As the Pivot passes, Asia confronts a new President who seems to think all the US needs is a bigger and better hammer. The law of the instrument<\/a> posits too much reliance on a familiar tool.<\/p>\n For Asia, Amexit<\/a> looms. Following the Brexit model, this is a US that no longer wants to bother with the systems and institutions Asia needs; an America tired of trying to write the rules and make the diplomatic weather.<\/p>\n As Rod Lyon judges<\/a>, it\u2019s \u2018likely that the US will be absorbed in an agenda of \u201cAmerica First\u201d while large-scale strategic transformation plays out in Asia’.\u00a0Trumpists such as Rudy Guiliani predict a \u2018gigantic\u2019<\/a> build-up of US military forces to thwart China\u2019s ambitions. This plays to the Rod Lyon view that Trump has \u2018already signalled a preference for using force massively or not at all\u2019.<\/p>\n Trump may build a bigger hammer while all the other instruments the US needs in Asia are ditched. The Pivot logic was that the US hammer was necessary but not sufficient for Asia. Indeed, the argument from the White House, State Department and Pentagon was that the hammer dimension of the Pivot was subservient to other more important elements: economic and trade interests, diplomacy and institution building, and the service of American values. Don\u2019t expect too much care for those other elements from the new US Caudillo-in-Chief<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Pivot, for all its problems, attempted to grapple with the complexities of the Asian century as an extraordinarily powerful yet hopeful phenomenon. Take Trump at his word. He doesn\u2019t do complexity. He does deals.<\/p>\n Kurt Campbell\u2019s The Pivot<\/a><\/em> is a 400 page argument about what the Pivot should have done next. While now serving as extended epitaph, Campbell offers an understanding of what will be lost by Amexit. He riffs on the power of balance in serving the balance of power.<\/p>\n The power of balance aligns all the US tools, \u2018high level political engagement and consultations, military options, trade promotion or sanctions, and human rights demarches… When the US approach places one element of our strategy out of balance with the others, the equilibrium and effectiveness of the overall strategy suffers\u2019.<\/p>\n Campbell\u2019s balance aim\u2014\u2018to strengthen Asia\u2019s operating system\u2019\u2014is about to get a hammer test. America, he writes, needs \u2018to break the habit of occasional absence, hesitancy and inattentiveness\u2019. The Amexit I\u2019m describing will be another of Campbell\u2019s \u2018costly periods of withdrawal and neglect…This cycle of intense focus and relative strategic neglect has blighted American efforts in Asia for decades\u2019. Blight looms.<\/p>\n The Pivot was a work in progress that hadn\u2019t made that much progress in its five years<\/a>. The problem wasn’t the lack of US ambition, but the size of Asia\u2019s changes. That five year history gets a fine workout in the latest edition of Security Challenges<\/a>.<\/p>\n The overview piece is classic Allan Behm<\/a>, both magisterial and muscular; think Monty Python\u2019s Piranha brothers sketch<\/a>\u2014one brother nailed people to tables (\u2018He was cruel but he was fair.\u2019) while the other brother used sarcasm (\u2018He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.\u2019).<\/p>\n Allan describes the Pivot as a 20th Century solution to a 21st Century problem, viewing the region through the lens of US strategic primacy, and \u2018neither clear nor robust enough to guide US policy through the difficult strategic tides that will characterise the next decade or so\u2019.<\/p>\n Both cruel and fair, yet we’re going to miss the Pivot for all its shortfalls.<\/p>\n Asia confronts a moment akin to a NATO meeting described by Kurt Campbell, in which the Europeans were lamenting the ignorant, arrogant, graceless Americans, drawing this response from Britain\u2019s Lord Carington: \u2018Ah, but alas\u2014they are the only Americans we have\u2019.<\/p>\n The Pivot did alter things, especially the responses it produced in Japan and China. The lasting impact may be in Beijing and Tokyo, not Washington.<\/p>\n