Reference News Network, March 10 report: On March 6, the U.S. Foreign Policy website published an article titled "The United States Strikes Iran, Asian-Pacific Countries Should Be Extremely Concerned," authored by Chitiga Bajpai, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK. The full text is as follows:
The worldview and foreign policy of the Trump administration have always been seen as a break from the past. Indeed, Trump differs from his predecessors in many ways: he despises allies; shows no respect for global norms and institutions; and abandons value-driven foreign policy. However, the continuity of U.S. foreign policy has been greater than its changes, whether it was the neoconservatism of the George W. Bush (Bush Jr.) administration, the liberal internationalism of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, or Trump's transactional diplomacy.
Every U.S. president after the Cold War has had a common goal: to maintain dominance in the international system and arbitrarily change the rules to achieve this goal. From relying on "voluntary alliances" during the Second Iraq War, to not ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and not joining the International Criminal Court. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos this January that the U.S.-led global order is a "beautiful illusion." The most powerful country (i.e., the United States) "exempts itself when convenient," and international law "applies differently depending on the identity of the defendant or the victim."
Trump's behavior only makes these actions more blatant. He does not pretend to act according to international law, and his actions are rarely subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress or authorization by the United Nations.
Another commonality among U.S. administrations is their tendency to push for regime change. Setting aside the benefits of toppling undesirable regimes, the American "preaching" impulse is deeply rooted. Although each administration criticizes previous ones for falling into humanitarian intervention and endless wars, they still cannot avoid the same fate. Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen the reasons given by the United States for military action as: maintaining a rule-based international order (the first Gulf War to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait) or a liberal international order (humanitarian interventions in the Balkans and Somalia in the 1990s); safeguarding U.S. national security interests (the invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001); or purely for power politics (re-shaping the Middle East through the Second Iraq War in 2003 under false pretenses related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction).
Now, the reasons for the U.S. military adventurism under Trump may be harder to define (capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, killing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei), but the inclination to intervene remains unchanged.
Asian countries may feel reassured because the U.S. is preoccupied with recurring turbulence in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Ukraine, as well as the "Tang-Roosevelt Doctrine" that considers the Western Hemisphere as America's exclusive sphere of influence. These developments limit Washington's space to intervene in Asian affairs, but intervention in Asia aligns with the efforts of all U.S. administrations to "rebalance toward Asia."
It is a fallacy to believe that Asia is unaffected. During the Cold War, Asia was the focus of the longest U.S. military intervention—the Vietnam War. Why should Washington remain restrained now? After toppling regimes in Latin America and the Middle East, would Washington stop in Asia?
Recent developments should serve as a warning to Asia. Whether for power or ideological reasons, once Washington detects signs of weakness in its long-term rivals, it will launch a fierce attack. The pace of technological change also makes war a low-risk activity, as precision strikes and drone attacks do not endanger Americans.
Democratic governments and U.S. allies in Asia are also not immune. Trump's threat to Greenland proves this.
In recent years, discussions about "de-risking" from China have increased due to the severe reliance of global supply chains on China. Now, "de-risking" also refers to reducing the impact of America's fickle "might makes right" foreign policy. Given Trump's arrogance and the United States' relentless mission of "preaching" and maintaining its dominance, the Middle East today could become Asia tomorrow. (Translated by Wenyi)
Original: toutiao.com/article/7615624007269843519/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.