Boris Volkhonsky
The "strategic pivot" announced by the US administration about a year ago was meant to shift Washington's attention to the vast Asia Pacific region. Of course, no one – a year ago or now – can easily assume that the pivot means abandoning the Middle East – too much vested interest the US has in that region. But in any case, the "pivot" might (and was supposed to) mean an increase in US' attention to the field that for decades have been marginal to its policies.
The need for it is obvious – the growing Chinese influence in the region which is threatening metastases far beyond, and therefore has to be contained.
To further underline the importance of Asia Pacific for US strategy, President Barack Obama's first foreign tour after his re-election was directed towards South East Asia. It included the first ever visit of a US President to Myanmar as a gesture of goodwill towards the half-opened former military regime in that country. Barack Obama went as far as calling the country by its official name Myanmar imposed on it by the military regime and for long tabooed in the Western media and political discourse.
Another crucial part of Barack Obama's tour was participation in the East Asia and ASEAN summits in Cambodia, which not only indicated the US' intention to improve ties with yet another South East Asian country regarded as one in the "Chinese range", but also meant a direct US involvement in the territorial dispute between China and its neighbors in the South China Sea.
Barack Obama tried hard to present himself as a dove of peace urging all sides to ease tensions and never let them escalate to a degree of an open military confrontation. But this appeal to the littoral countries may be explained easily – the US is not ready to upgrade its involvement in the issue until it has not disentangled itself from the current mess in the Middle East.
And the Middle East has reminded Barack Obama that it won't be too easy for him to shift the focus of strategic attention to any region outside Western Asia and Northern Africa. The intensification of Israel's attacks on Gaza strip forced the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was accompanying President Obama throughout the South East Asia tour to desert her patron and rush to Israel and Palestine in an attempt to impose peace on both sides.
It should be remembered that Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu throughout the US presidential campaign was a staunch opponent of candidate Obama and up to the last minute supported his rival Mitt Romney. While most observers note that the offensive against Gaza was undertaken in order to increase Netanyahu's popularity inside his own country on the eve of general elections scheduled for early 2013, a few observers point out that it is also a gesture aimed if not at revenge against Obama's victory, but at least at convincing the US President that it is too early to shift attention from the Middle East to elsewhere.
In any case, the situation in the Middle East has seriously marred the impression of Barack Obama's "historic" trip to South East Asia.
As a result, as Reuters commentators Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason write, Obama's three-day tour… seemed to be more symbolism than substance.
More so, even if the US intention to contain China in East Asia and beyond may be its utmost priority, at the moment Barack Obama was too shy (or, apprehensive) to antagonize China at the time of leadership change. In a meeting with outgoing Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Cambodian capital Phnom Penh, Obama praised the relationship between the two countries as "cooperative and constructive".
The conclusion that can be drawn from the mess Obama has found himself in is the following. It may well be Washington's intention to shift its strategic focus to containing China, but too many forces – both in the US and outside, are not interested in the prospects of US limiting its attention to the Middle East. And in any case, the US, neck deep in the messes from Libya to Afghanistan, is not ready and won’t be able to wage a strategic standoff on two fronts.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
This story first appeared on Voice of Russia & is reposted here with permission.