Seminar paper from the year 2017 in the subject Politics - Region: USA, grade: 1,0, Warsaw University (Institute of International Relations), course: Security System in the Asia-Pacific Region, language: English, abstract: Much has been said and written in the last years concerning the „Pivot to Asia”, meaning that the United States’ (US) strategy agenda has been moving away from a post-Second World War European to a recent Asian focus. In maritime patterns this change in US interests is described by the term „Pacific century”, which is said to be going to replace the Atlantic one. With the fall of the Soviet Union, US strategy towards the Asia-Pacific has been undergoing a significant transition. As Warren Christopher, Secretary of State under the first Clinton presidency, said in Hanoi in 1995: „In the old days we wanted to make Asia safe for democracy, these days we want to make it safe for American exports.”. This quote fits perfectly in the 1990ies neoliberal zeitgeist of the successful presidential campaign „The economy, stupid” of Bill Clinton, who wanted to reinvent US predominance based on an economist point of view, rather than continuing with expensive military power politics. But it would fall too short if one wants to understand the post-Cold War US’ engagement in the Asia-Pacific only by explaining the economic and trade policies of the United States. Both security and economy are at the core of US foreign policy strategy, since these two objectives being more and more intertwined in terms of globalization, digitization and other megatrends. Classical and “old-fashioned” hard power approaches are therefore questioned, as they sometimes fail to explain the rise of messy multilateralism and a total heterogeneous security landscape in this region of interest. But to what extent the US strategy in the Asia-Pacific really is a sign of a more cooperative approach based on Neoliberal-Institutionalist3 thought rather than referring to Neorealist hard power politics? And which role the US seeks to have in this complex setting?

Ongoing shifts in geopolitical power from West to East make the Asia-Pacific region more important to the United States today than ever before. The region is already an engine of the global economy, and major Asian countries are becoming global economic and political actors. Yet, as Asia's importance has grown over the last decade, Washington has often been focused elsewhere. The Obama administration needs a more active approach to the Asia-Pacific region that recognizes the new geopolitical realities and positions the United States to deal effectively with the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Such a strategy must build upon America's long-standing positive engagement in Asia and articulate a vision that can advance U.S. interests and attract support from countries in the region.

Investigating the dynamics of balancing patterns in the Asia-Pacific, this book focuses particularly on the contribution of great powers and middle powers to regional stability. Taking the US and China as great powers, and using ASEAN, Russia, Australia and South Korea as example of middle powers, the author addresses the following questions: Do middle powers influence balancing patterns in the Asia-Pacific? Are the United States and China balancing each other in the Asia-Pacific, and if so, by which means? What is the contribution of the English school to understanding balance of power dynamics? The Balance of Power in Asia-Pacific Security makes a persuasive contribution to the debate on the US-China relationship. Interviews with policy practitioners and academics in the region offer a systematic analysis of the complexities of Asia-Pacific security. Providing conceptual insights, this book gives a fresh understanding of the mechanisms necessary to maintain regional stability and explains the implications of US-China power balancing for global security. It will be an important resource for scholars and students of Asia-Pacific politics and security.

Ongoing shifts in geopolitical power from West to East make the Asia-Pacific region more important to the United States today than ever before. The region is already an engine of the global economy, and major Asian countries are becoming global economic and political actors. Yet, as Asia's importance has grown over the last decade, Washington has often been focused elsewhere. The Obama administration needs a more active approach to the Asia-Pacific region that recognizes the new geopolitical realities and positions the United States to deal effectively with the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Such a strategy must build upon America's long-standing positive engagement in Asia and articulate a vision that can advance U.S. interests and attract support from countries in the region.

This book argues that, given the existence of a discrete Malay archipelago security complex, it is a fallacy for the United States to approach this region primarily through the prism of global counter-terrorism

Contains a collection of papers produced by participants (U.S. and regional scholars and analysts) at a conference, "Asia Eyes America," held at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, in May 2006. What are the implications of Asia's longer-term transformation for U.S. interests? How might change reconfigure American security requirements in the next decade and beyond? On what basis does United States reaffirm yet redefine its enduring commitment to regional order? This volume is a collaborative effort involving prominent specialists on both sides of the Pacific. The book focuses on underlying attitudes toward American power and policy, especially as viewed by strategic analysts within the region. Various contributors describe contradictory attitudes toward American power. Most states hope to deepen ties with the United States, while avoiding comprehensive envelopment in U.S. strategy. There is a tension between the preference for continued American regional involvement, while seeking to limit possibilities of highly intrusive U.S. policy interventions. Both considerations will continue to shape regional attitudes toward American power, especially U.S. military power--Publisher's description.