Foreign Policy: Asia after the liberal international order

July 20, 2018

Foreign Policy: Asia after the liberal international order

Image result for Cambodia and China as Strategic Partners

by Amitav Acharya, American University, Washington DC

With the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the West suddenly woke up with an acute anxiety about the fate of the US-led liberal international order. Until then, the liberal establishment in the United States had assumed that Hillary Clinton would succeed Barack Obama as President and ensure continuity in the liberal order. They ignored or dismissed warnings about the order’s crisis and decline. The belief in the resilience of the liberal order changed dramatically on 6 November 2016.

Image result for Trump and Asia

 What is the liberal order? It is an international system created and managed by the United States after World War II to promote capitalism and democracy through building alliances and multilateral institutions. Its supporters portray the liberal order as an open, rules-based and multilateral system that operates through consent rather than coercion.

This is a fundamentally self-serving and distorted view. In reality, the liberal order is a club of the West. To other countries, its benefits—such as market access, aid and investment, and the provision of a security umbrella—were offered selectively and conditionally. Leading nations of the developing world, including China and India, were either outside of the system or connected at the margins. Some developing countries were summarily excluded.

The order often operated more through coercion than consent. It was hardly ‘orderly’ for the Third World, where local conflicts were magnified by capricious great power intervention, including by the United States and its Western allies.

Related image

China’s Xi Jinping’s is Asia’s Big Brother

Trump’s rise proves that the challenge to the liberal order is as much from within the United States as from outside. Trump is not the cause of the crisis of the liberal order, but rather its consequence. The liberal order had begun to fray and fragment well before the Trump presidency due to irreversible structural changes in the global economy, especially the rise of China and other non-Western powers. Growth in world trade had slowed and the World Trade Organization had been moribund for some time. A sizable section of the US electorate was already disillusioned with free markets and free trade. While Trump was able to stoke and exploit these sentiments, their origins predate his political rise.

Trump’s policies are pushing the liberal order closer to the precipice. He is severely weakening the US commitment to free trade and multilateralism, and his elevation to US Pesidency is encouraging populist and authoritarian rulers around the world. Trump shows more interest in engaging Putin and  North Korea’s Kim than Merkel and May.

Image result for Trump and Asia

Trump is all over Moon

Asia was a grey zone of the liberal order for much of the post-World War II period. Some countries of the region, especially the so-called ‘East Asian tigers’, benefited from export-led growth strategies and access to the US market that the liberal order facilitated. But East Asian capitalism was mediated by the strong hand of the state. Democracy in the region was scarce and illiberal, marked by one-party rule, sham elections and scant provision of civil liberties.

Image result for Trump and ASEAN

Trump grimaces through ASEAN handshake in Manila, Philippines, this may be the most awkward presidential handshake ever. The US President does not take ASEAN seriously. He has deliberately discouraged the development of regional multilateral institutions in Asia in favour of a hub-and-spoke system of bilateral alliances. 

The United States discouraged the development of regional multilateral institutions in Asia in favour of a hub-and-spoke system of bilateral alliances. ASEAN—the most successful regional multilateral institution in Asia—was established with no help from the US. It came about despite the liberal order, rather than because of it.

 Trump’s effect on the liberal order might not be known for some time. At this point, we do not know how long his Presidency might last, whether he will face impeachment or seek re-election—and if he does, whether he would win a second term.

His approach to foreign policy is so inconsistent (such as his reversals on the Trans-Pacific Partnership), that one must exercise extreme caution in making any predictions about how his Presidency might eventually affect the world order.

The vagaries of the Trump Presidency notwithstanding, the liberal order is facing an existential challenge. Elements of the liberal order will survive but it will not enjoy the dominance it once claimed for itself. The era of liberal hegemony is past. The rise of the rest is real.

Asia has come a long way since the Cold War. China and India, the region’s leading powers, have embraced economic openness. There is now a range of multilateral institutions in the region, centered around ASEAN. But the great powers of Asia will not be the saviors of the liberal order, as some hope.

While China has pledged to support the liberal order, this is likely only in reference to some of its economic and institutional aspects, especially the flow of trade and investment. China will not support the political foundations of the liberal order, such as democracy and human rights. Even in the economic arena, China’s policies—such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative—will alter global trade, investment and development patterns even if they are only partially successful. In the longer term, they will create a Chinese-led international order over Eurasia and beyond.

Instead of helping the West to resurrect the liberal order, Asia will lead the transition to a different type of world order. The remnants of the liberal order will have to come to terms with a Chinese-led order and other regional orders around the world in what I call a decentered and post-hegemonic ‘multiplex world’.

Such a world will not be free of conflict. But conflict will be tempered by both older and newer forms of interdependence and institutions across regional orders, including those responding to shared transnational challenges such as climate change, pandemics and terrorism. This outlook is more plausible than the doomsday scenarios of disarray and collapse that many liberal pundits in the West have imagined as a result of the end of the US-led order. They were wrong before and are likely to be wrong again.

Amitav Acharya is Distinguished Professor of International Relations, American University, Washington, DC. This article is based on ideas from his book, The End of American World Order, 2nd edition, Polity Press, 2018. Follow him on Twitter: @AmitavAcharya.

This article appeared in the most recent edition of East Asia Forum Quarterly, ‘Trade wars and Asia’.

2 thoughts on “Foreign Policy: Asia after the liberal international order

  1. Amitav Acharya is one of the most perceptive political scientists Ive known so far. He also knows where Trump is going, and how the system created Trump, not vice versa. The American establishment’s version of the so-called liberal order has not been, as the writer implied, liberal for Asia nor conducive to the welfare of the American people. The creation of SEATO, then its dismantlement, followed by globalization and the “pivot” shows the unstable nature of WW2’s Pax Americana. The trend is towards a multipolar world, and if Trump could control the military-industrial complex – a questionable enterprise as it tries to control Trump – the US will be more inward-looking, dropping Empire to becoming first among equals. A lot of rumblings, if not actual conflicts, will occur before this new US finally takes shape. It’s not a new idea: the withdrawal of Anglo-Saxon military forces, including that of the US, to strategic points of the world instead of spreading them everywhere had been discussed nearly half a century ago by Britain’s Lord Montgomery. Giving up Empire will ultimately benefit the American people. As Hannah Arendt pointed out, Empire abroad often results in tyranny at home. For Asia, Dr Mahathir’s vision of a regional common market with the inclusion of China, Korea, and Japan, and now India, will make it the most dynamic political-economic grouping in the world. It will not exclude collaboration with the rest of the world: at the same time, it will not let others control this vast, ancient landmass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.