I finally got around to reading Gideon Rachman’s essay in the Life & Arts section of the Financial Times. I know, it was last weekend’s Life & Arts section. But the ponderous title, “War and peace in Asia,” gave me pause.
In fairness, Rachman is a graceful writer. He marches briskly through “5,000 years of Chinese civilization,” Europe’s rise and fall and America’s emergence and decline as the world’s preeminent superpower, arriving finally at what he sees as the paradox of US foreign policy during the Obama years:
The US has deliberately hung back from deeper involvement in the Middle East, partly because it is attempting to preserve its power and resources for a struggle with a rising China. Yet power is also a matter of perceptions. So the vision of America that is less committed to playing the role of global policeman in Europe and the Middle East has–ironically–also sown doubts about the durability of US power within Asia itself.
Rachman believes that, if Hilary Clinton triumphs in the U.S. presidential election, she will remain committed to the twin pillars of U.S. foreign policy since 1945: maintenance of open global markets and the U.S. alliance system. But Rachman says the stability of those pillars is being steadily undermined by the “easternization” of global economic and political power.