论文部分内容阅读
Since 2008 economic crisis,there has been gradual transition of power from the West to the East.The Asia Pacific region is becoming more relevant economically,more dangerous in security aspects and China is now more relevant player with increasing ambitions.Transition of power and change in structure of international system is always dangerous precedent for which great powers are rarely prepared.United States has been shaping the region in last couple of decades primarily with hub and spoke alliance system that ensured that countries in the region can focus on economy and prosperity.This was followed with certain rules and norms for trade and navigation in order to create stable environment for peaceful coexistence.This transition of power,increase of importance of the region and relevance of China forced U.S.to refocus its strategy with the aim of preserving regional domination.
Dissertation focuses on answering the question of relevance of stability and instability in the region with hypothesis that both Obamas administration and Trumps administration are contributing to instability.United States,with their offensive strategy that has characteristic of marketing ploy,brought incoherence.This incoherent strategy confused countries and made them more aggressive in their own pursuit for survival and benefit.United States strategy is not pivot or any radical change,it is simply refocusing with different characteristics where both Obamas strategy and Trumps strategy have their own way of promoting their strategies and approaching the region.
President Barack Obama strategy to the Asia Pacific was final attempt in preserving U.S.primacy in that region.He pursued unofficial(official where it was possible and needed as in case of TPP)multilateral alliance and partnership system against China.Nevertheless,this was offensive strategy with marketing ploy to show to other countries that it is fully dedicated to the region but in fact United States is present in order to benefit itself and contribute least as possible.Obama improved alliance system,increased multilateral approach with trade and increased presence in regional institutions.Furthermore,his strategy was an offshore balancing where U.S.kept resources away from the region as much as possible,while expecting others to contribute more for the collective benefit,where it would interfere if local powers are unable.His administration did not leave sound environment and normative multilateral framework,rather confusing situation where smaller countries are not sure how to balance two giants,while countries like China and North Korea became more aggressive.
Trumps administration pursued the same aim of preserving domination in the region but with different characteristics.His administration played the card of sovereignty where countries are motivated to pursue their own destinies and interests.He is pursuing alliance system,bilateral trade agreements and involvement in institutions and multilateral initiatives only when it serves interests of U.S.and does not constrain it to act unilaterally.He is using very aggressive rhetoric of blackmailing where it is expected from countries to contribute if they want U.S.to continue with regional contribution.Trump is pursuing free and open order in the region without institutionalizing its approach that will contribute to rules and norms.His approach is very similar to Obamas in a sense that U.S.will be involved in the region as least as possible while expecting from others to contribute as much as possible for the incoherent vision.Obama created unstable environment for Trump where U.S.leadership is seen with skepticism.Nevertheless,Trump brought his business style leadership of one deal per issue and he is planning to use that in the region.This approach of taking advantage of the region as much as possible will further establish environment where every country will be for itself and that cannot have positive effect on the region.
Presidents like to have grand strategies which are usually nothing more than buzzwords.Because of already established mechanisms,political establishments that have certain ideology and engraved interests,it is very difficult for any President to radically alter strategy or vision.Both President Obama and President Trump pursued similar strategies besides having very different rhetoric.Both administrations with their offensive strategy and marketing ploy of fake dedication to the region brought confusion to other states,aggressive tendencies to China and North Korea,while U.S.is seen as unreliable actor and contributor to the regional instability.They are both pursuing strategies of different characteristics with the final aim of maintaining primacy in the region.President Obama lost opportunity to maintain U.S.leadership in the region while creating more instability.With this tendency,by the end of Trumps second term,United States will have no prospects of being extremely relevant factor in the region.
Dissertation focuses on answering the question of relevance of stability and instability in the region with hypothesis that both Obamas administration and Trumps administration are contributing to instability.United States,with their offensive strategy that has characteristic of marketing ploy,brought incoherence.This incoherent strategy confused countries and made them more aggressive in their own pursuit for survival and benefit.United States strategy is not pivot or any radical change,it is simply refocusing with different characteristics where both Obamas strategy and Trumps strategy have their own way of promoting their strategies and approaching the region.
President Barack Obama strategy to the Asia Pacific was final attempt in preserving U.S.primacy in that region.He pursued unofficial(official where it was possible and needed as in case of TPP)multilateral alliance and partnership system against China.Nevertheless,this was offensive strategy with marketing ploy to show to other countries that it is fully dedicated to the region but in fact United States is present in order to benefit itself and contribute least as possible.Obama improved alliance system,increased multilateral approach with trade and increased presence in regional institutions.Furthermore,his strategy was an offshore balancing where U.S.kept resources away from the region as much as possible,while expecting others to contribute more for the collective benefit,where it would interfere if local powers are unable.His administration did not leave sound environment and normative multilateral framework,rather confusing situation where smaller countries are not sure how to balance two giants,while countries like China and North Korea became more aggressive.
Trumps administration pursued the same aim of preserving domination in the region but with different characteristics.His administration played the card of sovereignty where countries are motivated to pursue their own destinies and interests.He is pursuing alliance system,bilateral trade agreements and involvement in institutions and multilateral initiatives only when it serves interests of U.S.and does not constrain it to act unilaterally.He is using very aggressive rhetoric of blackmailing where it is expected from countries to contribute if they want U.S.to continue with regional contribution.Trump is pursuing free and open order in the region without institutionalizing its approach that will contribute to rules and norms.His approach is very similar to Obamas in a sense that U.S.will be involved in the region as least as possible while expecting from others to contribute as much as possible for the incoherent vision.Obama created unstable environment for Trump where U.S.leadership is seen with skepticism.Nevertheless,Trump brought his business style leadership of one deal per issue and he is planning to use that in the region.This approach of taking advantage of the region as much as possible will further establish environment where every country will be for itself and that cannot have positive effect on the region.
Presidents like to have grand strategies which are usually nothing more than buzzwords.Because of already established mechanisms,political establishments that have certain ideology and engraved interests,it is very difficult for any President to radically alter strategy or vision.Both President Obama and President Trump pursued similar strategies besides having very different rhetoric.Both administrations with their offensive strategy and marketing ploy of fake dedication to the region brought confusion to other states,aggressive tendencies to China and North Korea,while U.S.is seen as unreliable actor and contributor to the regional instability.They are both pursuing strategies of different characteristics with the final aim of maintaining primacy in the region.President Obama lost opportunity to maintain U.S.leadership in the region while creating more instability.With this tendency,by the end of Trumps second term,United States will have no prospects of being extremely relevant factor in the region.