America's Economic Future Hinges on Its Partnership with Asia

U.S. President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up next to Vietnam's President Tran Dai Quang upon his arrival at the Presidential Palace in Hanoi, Vietnam

A positive, holistic American narrative would influence decisions across Asia, and serve U.S. interests in the bargain. 

Nearly a year into Donald Trump’s presidency, his administration has started to craft a strategic narrative for its approach to Asia. This is atypical: it took Barack Obama nearly three years to unveil his “rebalance” to the region. George W. Bush succeeded in advancing U.S. relations in Asia arguably despite never articulating an explicit narrative.

The administration’s instinct here is the right one. Given regional questions about U.S. staying power, the administration’s economic philosophy, and American will to exert leadership, it would certainly help to articulate an overarching vision for how Washington sees Asia and America’s role there. In its absence, as the North Korean threat and bilateral trade deficits absorb the president’s public focus, these two issues alone could easily emerge as America’s de facto narrative in Asia.

Yet establishing such a new Asia narrative—as sketched out by Trump’s inaugural trip to the region and in his new National Security Strategy—remains a work in progress. The administration’s emphasis on military strength is relatively clear, and will resonate with U.S. allies and partners in Asia. But the economic elements of its emerging narrative remain inadequate, and its focus on competition with China has merit but does not on its own suffice. America’s engagement with Asia should be predicated on more than zero-sum competition and economic nationalism.

Today, countries across the region are today making bets about the future contours of their geopolitical environment. A positive, holistic American narrative would influence decisions across Asia, and serve U.S. interests in the bargain. And it would counter other narratives—such as an inevitably dominant China, a distracted Washington and a more anarchic region—that will ultimately be less hospitable to U.S. interests.

Looking backward, President Obama presided over a mix of successes and failures in Asia, but his administration settled on a compelling overall narrative of American engagement. Encompassing a series of high-profile diplomatic, economic and military initiatives, the Obama narrative enabled senior U.S. leaders to clearly convey enduring American commitment to the world’s most dynamic region.

The vaunted “rebalance” to Asia brought together several strands of effort. Diplomatically, Obama pledged a shift in U.S. attention and resources from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region, and regular participation in key regional forums like the East Asia Summit. Economically, U.S. aspirations to conclude the geographically sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement provided a clear indicator of American commitment to deepen commercial linkages. Militarily, the unveiling of the Pentagon’s Air-Sea Battle Concept and the subsequent rollout of the Third Offset Strategy underscored U.S. intent to maintain a military advantage in the Asia-Pacific region over any potential rival.

The Obama administration’s narrative signaled long term intent, functioned as a source of reassurance for U.S. allies and partners, and arguably placed a floor underneath policy failures such as Beijing’s successful construction and militarization of artificial island outposts in the South China Sea. It also demonstrated the pitfalls associated with an expansionary narrative; by promising to focus disproportionately on Asia, the administration raised unmet regional expectations of American activism and generated worries about abandonment in Europe and the Middle East.

President Trump’s inaugural trip to Asia in November, together with the release of the new U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) in December, provide the clearest clues to his administration’s conceptual approach.

The most promising element of this emerging narrative is rhetorical emphasis on a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” This concept communicates a needed geographic expansion of U.S. Asia policy and could ultimately connect to a larger American vision of upholding the rules-based international order, one that has underpinned global prosperity, stability, and the expansion of democracy since the end of World War II. Yet on economic issues, during both the president’s trip to Asia and in the new NSS, the administration has remained firmly opposed to broad trade liberalization. This is hard to square with a vision of an “open” region stretching across two oceans.

The administration’s commitment to a “free” Indo-Pacific also remains uncertain. While in China, Vietnam and the Philippines, Trump refrained from publicly criticizing his hosts’ human-rights record. And though the new NSS calls for the United States to “offer encouragement to those struggling for human dignity in their societies,” in practice the administration has deprioritized the promotion of human rights.