Pivot to Asia Strategy: Rise of China and US Asian Strategy

Document Type : Science - Research (International Relation)

Authors

1 Faculty member of Tehran University

2 Ph.D. in North America Studies at Islamic Azad University

Abstract

Despite the fact that the US has been always present in the Pacific and has guaranteed peace and security as the regional hegemon since the end of the WWII, in late 2011 it formally announced the Pivot to Asia strategy and declared that thAsia- Pacific has turned to its number 1 priority in foreign policy and national security. This attitude toward Asia has been kept in Trump administration too. Despite the fact that the US has been always present in the Pacific and has guaranteed peace and security as the regional hegemon since the end of the WWII, in late 2011 it formally announced the Pivot to Asia strategy and declared that thAsia- Pacific has turned to its number 1 priority in foreign policy and national security. This attitude toward Asia has been kept in Trump administration too. The question that raises to mind is that what made policy makers to consider Asia-Pacific region as the first priority in national security among other regions? In order to answer to this question, we have monitored the process of US relative power changes in the international system. We have drawn the power cycle of the US and other major powers of the international system including China in order to evaluate their power changes. The question that raises to mind is that what made policy makers to consider Asia-Pacific region as the first priority in national security among other regions? In order to answer to this question, we have monitored the process of US relative power changes in the international system. We have drawn the power cycle of the US and other major powers of the international system including China in order to evaluate their power changes. The findings show that the accelerating decline of US relative power simultaneous with the accelerating rise of China’s relative power is the main reason that has turned Asia-Pacific into the first priority of the US foreign policy and Pivot to Asia is an attempt to bring back equilibrium into the system and narrow the power-role gaps.

Keywords

Main Subjects

افتخاری، اصغر (1394). «منظومه مفهومی خرد امنیت اجتماعی شده در سیره پیامبر اکرم (صلی‌الله‌علیه‌وآله)»، دانش سیاسی. 11(1)، 44-5.
امیدی، علی و رشید، معصومه (۱۳۹۴). «جابه‌جایی قدرت‌های بزرگ تا سال ۲۰۲۵ و پیامدهای سیاسی ـ امنیتی آن برای ایران»، فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی جهانی شدن. ۶(۱۵)، 157-۱۲۵.
سیدامامی، کاووس (۱۳۹۰). پژوهش در علوم سیاسی: رویکردهای اثبات‌گرا، تفسیری و انتقادی. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
موسوی شفایی، سیدمسعود و نقدی، فرزانه (۱۳۹۴). «قدرت‌های منطقه‌ای و نظم جهانی پس از جنگ سرد»، فصلنامه بین‌المللی ژئوپلیتیک. ۱۱(۱۴)، 176-۱۴۸.
 
Campbell, Kurt (2016). The pivot: The future of American statecraft in Asia. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Campbell, Kurt and Ratner, Ely (2014). "Far Eastern Promises: Why Washington Should Focus on Asia", Foreign Affairs. 93(3), 106-116.
Clinton. Hillary (2011). "America’s Pacific Century", Retrieved from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
Doran, Charles (1999). "Why Forecasts Fail: The Limits and Potential of Forecasting in International Relations and Economics". International Studies Review.1(2), 11-4.
Doran, Charles (2003). "Economics, Philosophy of History, and the Single Dynamic of Power Cycle Theory: Expectations, Competition and Statecraft", International Political Science Review. 24(1), 13-49.
Doran, Charles and Parsons, Wes (1980)."War and the Cycle of Relative Power", The American Political Science Review. 74(4), 947-965.
Gunzinger, Mark: Tol, Jan: Krepinevich, Andrew: and Thomas, Jim (2010). "AirSea Battler: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept", Retrieved from: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf
Hebron, Lui; James,Patrick and Rudy, Michael (2007). "Testing Dynamic Theories of Conflict: Power Cycles, Power Transitions, Foreign Policy Crises and Militarized Interstate Disputes", International Interactions. 33(1), 1-29.
Kohout, Franz (2003). "Cyclical, Hegemonic, and Pluralistic Theories of International Relations: Some Comparative Reflections on War Causation", International political science review. 24(1), 51-66.
Kumar, Sushil (2003). "Power Cycle Analysis of India, China, and Pakistan in Regional and Global Politics", International Political Science Review. 24(1),113–122.
Manyin, Mark: Daggett, Stepgan: Dolven, Ben: Lawrence, Susan:Martin, Michael and et.al (2013). "Pivot to The Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “rebalancing” Toward Asia", Retrieved from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42448.pdf
McBride, James and Chatzky,Andrew (2019). "What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP)?", Retrieved from: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ what-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp
Medeiros, Evan (2004). "The US global Defense Posture Review and the Implications for the Security Architecture in the Asia –Pacific Region", Retrieved from: https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/ products/ projekt_papiere/Medeiros_US_Global_Defense_Posture_Review_ks.pdf
Parasiliti, Andrew (2003)."The Causes and Timing of Iraq’s Wars: A PowerCycle Assessment", International Political Science Review. 24(1), 151-165.
Shambough, David (2014). Internation aL Relations of Asia (Asia in the World Politics). NewYork: Rowman & Littlefeild Pub.
Silove. Nina (2016). "The Pivot before the Pivot: U.S. Strategy to Preserve the Power Balance in Asia", International Security. 40(4), 45-88.
Tessman, Brock and Chan, Chan (2004). "Power Cycles, Risk Propensity, and Great-Power Deterrence", Journal of Conflict Resolution. 48(2), 131-153.
The White House (2010). "National Security Strategy", Retrieved from: http://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/public/docs/USA_NSS_2010.pdf
The White House (2017). "National Security Strategy of the United States of America", Retrieved from: http://WhiteHouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905. pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2001). "Quadrennial Defense Review Report", Retrieved from: https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/qdr2001.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2006). "Quadrennial Defense Review Report", Retrieved from: https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/QDR20060203.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2012). "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities For 21st Century Defense", Retrieved from: https://archive.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2013). "Air-Sea Battle: Service collaboration to Address Anti-Access and Area Denial Challenges", Retrieved from: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/ASB-ConceptImplementation-Summary-May-2013.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2014). "Quadrennial Defense Review Report", Retrieved from: https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_ Defense_Review.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2015). "Asia-Pacific maritime Strategy", Retrieved from: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/ NDAA%20A-P_Maritime_SecuritY_Strategy-08142015-1300-FINALFORMAT.PDF
The White House (2017) . "National Security Strategy of the United States of America" Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (2018). "Summary Of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States: Sharping the American military’s competitive edge", Retrieved from:
U.S. Department of Defense. (2019). "Indo-Pacific Strategy Report", Retrieved from: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/01/2002152311/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-INDO-PACIFIC-STRATEGY-REPORT-2019.PDF
Volume 16, Issue 1 - Serial Number 31
ESSAY
April 2020
Pages 91-116
  • Receive Date: 03 December 2019
  • Revise Date: 05 February 2020
  • Accept Date: 28 January 2020