Was that the president of the United States, sailing across the Pacific Ocean, rallying allies — old, new and potential ones — and declaring this nation will remain a global power for many decades to come?
Anyone who was paying close attention to President Barack Obama’s November trip to Asia and other points in the Pacific had to admit the performance was something to behold. The president has never lacked in self-confidence. In the past, however, his plans to co-opt and cajole on the global stage have often fallen flat. This time, the president and his foreign policy team put on a display of planning, along with tactical and strategic thinking that sent a clear message and backed it up with action.
In a matter of a few days Washington pushed back against China with such a calibrated series of moves that it’s fair to say they transformed the psychology of the region. Beijing, Washington’s principal rival of the future, looked a little dumbfounded.
Beijing won’t stay that way for long. The next move is China’s. But the opening play in a 21st century global chess game went to team USA.
Still, the game is just starting.
Even before Obama set off for the first stop of his tour, a gathering of APEC — the 21-member Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group — the administration had started laying out the agenda with an article by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Foreign Policy magazine. The telling headline: America’s Pacific Century.
Clinton announced that the United States is “pivoting” from the Middle East. The future, she said, will unfold in the Asia-Pacific region. America will “remain engaged and lead.” And to anyone wondering whether the United States will take action to back that vow, she responded unequivocally. “We can, and we will.”
There’s a good chance the Middle East will not cooperate. That region has a habit of becoming the center of attention. The secretary of state and her boss know they will not have the luxury of ignoring it. Still, the message was plainly stated. Washington will focus more closely on what you might call China’s neighborhood. After all, while Washington poured attention and resources into Iraq, Afghanistan and other points in the Greater Middle East, China moved aggressively to establish itself as a growing, sometimes bullying, power in the Pacific, particularly in East Asia.
On the first stop of his trip, in Hawaii, Obama reiterated Washington’s wishes to cooperate with China, but it was clear it plans to challenge China diplomatically, economically, and strategically. He started wading into a dispute that has created great anxiety among China’s neighbors over control of navigation and resources in the South China Seas. Washington demanded that the disagreements be resolved in a multiparty forum, rather than in country-to-country meetings, where China’s might is much harder to overcome.
Secretary Clinton reinforced the U.S. involvement with a carefully timed visit to the Philippines, where she spoke about “disputes ... in the West Philippine Sea.” That’s the name people in the Philippines give to the South China Sea. Ouch.
In Australia, Obama announced the deployment of 2,500 U.S. Marines in that country. You could see the Washington-Sydney team doing a little muscle-rippling maneuver, as Prime Minister Julia Gillard said American forces will gain access to Australia’s air bases as the U.S. Marine task force rolls ashore.
Throughout the trip, Obama and his team reinforced old alliances, peeked in the gaps between China and its friends and laid the groundwork for a renewal of American influence in the region. It was a far cry from the much less assertive displays we saw in the early days of the Obama administration.
The final touch was the announcement that Clinton would travel to Burma (also known as Myanmar) after direct communications between Obama and the iconic Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Clinton’s arrival in Burma on Wednesday marks the first visit by a U.S. secretary of state in half a century, and it is surprising on many levels.
First, it suggests the encouraging prospect that human rights may, just may, at last improve for the long-suffering people of that despotically ruled country. But it also shows that Washington may be successfully peeling away from China one of the regimes that has stood by its side.
As the United States prepares for a presidential election, the emerging rivalry with China will become an important subject of discussion. It’s not a war. It’s not even a cold war. It’s the route that great powers travel as they move through history. And in the history of what will become a great rivalry, the last few weeks saw Obama and Clinton carry the day.
• Ghitis writes about global affairs for The Miami Herald.





Comments (11)
Add commentWell, Chrissy Matthews was
Well, Chrissy Matthews was gushing the other night that Obama's smile is "worth a million bucks". Ick...
What exactly was Obama doing on that Asian trip anyway? It's always watch what the other hand is doing with this bunch.
He's got the Middle East stirred up into a frenzy so now it's time to step away and wash his hands of that region as we watch the place go up in flames. Nothing is ever his fault, we all know.
Time to move along and "community organize" another area of the globe.
@calypso
What was Obama doing on that Asian trip you ask? It's called foreign policy, something Bush avoided like he'd avoid a homosexual or tax increases on oil.
Obama's not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above what we had for the previous eight years.
God, I miss Bill Clinton and 90 cent/gallon gas, and all the peace and prosperity of those times.
What was done?
What did Obama do? He visited a few small countries and told them he'd give them money and help protect them from China. He promised the Aussies a military base and all the spending that goes with it. This is nothing more than the visits to college campuses and telling the students they won't have to repay student loans, what a hero! But...he did help sell some Boeing airplanes. After the solar panel and windmill fiascos, he redeems himself by selling petroleum burning aircraft. I like it.
Indeed. Because Obama is the
Indeed. Because Obama is the socialist, quasi-dictator of a small South American country whose economy is almost entirely dependent on petroleum.
I can see the resemblance.
Huevos Grandes!
Pickin' a fight with the banker!
Obama NEVER told the kids they don't have to repay student loans
Don't lie, righties.
And the Middle East stirred ITSELF up. It's not like we should have wanted the old tyrants to stay in power, for cryin' out loud.
Why do you assume that people never try to change things on their own, from below? That's actually how MOST change happens.
The antislavery movement was started by slaves themselves. The civil rights movement was started by victims of Jim Crow themselves.
The counterculture in the Sixties was started by young people BY THEMSELVES.
Nobody who's oppressed has to be told by "outside agitators" that they shouldn't accept oppression. They already know it. There is no such thing as "subversion", and no American should identify with people who hold other people down.
We're supposed to be about freedom, which includes freedom from want and freedom from fear.
I think the problem is
I think the problem is certain people have never thought for themselves, so when they see other people doing just that, they assume George Soros/Warren Buffet/Obama/Satan is really behind the movement.
Red Ken, just were in our
Red Ken,
just were in our constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Federalist papers is this so-called " freedom from want and freedom from fear."? Wishing it to be so, does NOT make it so.
PP-Did not BO call for Mubarak to step down, creating the power vacuum that the Islamist are now attempting to fill?
Or did you forget that?
The people of Egypt would have forced Mubarak out anyway
Obama was only reacting to events. You don't seriously think that Mubarak could have stayed in power at that point, or that anything positive would have come of keeping him in power, do you?
Would you have preferred that Obama gas up the B-52's and do unto Egypt as Kissinger did unto Cambodia? Nothing short of carpet-bombing could have kept Mubarak in power even if keeping him there was a good thing at all. It's not as if he'd still be running Egypt if only Obama had said the U.S. still supported him.
The Arab Spring is driven by the Arab people-not by Barack Obama. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stood for if our government were to have tried to prop up Mubarak and the other tyrants. They were all doomed to fall at that point.
You can't hold people down forever, and you can't build a stable world order through alliances with tyrants.
I didn't say that freedom from want and fear
were in the Constitution or the Declaration-but neither of those were the last word on freedom. Neither, for example, banned the practice of slavery or gave the vote to all adult Americans.
I assume you would agree that we needed to change the "original intent" on those two points, since countries with slavery and without universal adult suffrage are not, in any sense, free.
Freedom was gained from below by generations of continuous struggle.
We would not BE a free country if we'd stayed strictly with "original intent"-since the original intention wasn't to create freedom at all, but simply to free the wealthy from taxation by the Crown.
Freedom must always grow, and the definition must change from generation to generation. Most Americans accept this.