US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was full of warm words on his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur for the Association of South-East Asian Nations Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.
“This century and the next – the story of the next 50 years will largely be written here in this region,” he said. Also in attendance were representatives of Asean Dialogue Partners, including China, Australia, Japan, Russia, Canada, South Korea, New Zealand and India. Mr Rubio later said he had “very positive engagements”, such as a “very productive meeting” with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi.
It wasn’t clear, however, that everyone shared his sentiments. For they came at a moment when American foreign policy in the Asia Pacific is looking increasingly incoherent and even counterproductive.
Within the past couple of weeks, the prime ministers of both Japan and Australia have called for their countries to be more independent and less dependent on America. This is a significant shift, given that they are the US’s strongest allies in the region, and caused consternation among those who believe these countries should always be in “lockstep” with Washington.
“We need to work to become more self-sufficient in security, energy and food, and less dependent on America,” Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told a news programme. Tokyo’s relations with Beijing have warmed since Mr Ishiba took office last October. Reciprocal ministerial visits have taken place that did not happen under his predecessor; both countries have eased visa regimes for each other’s citizens; and China has resumed importing beef from Japan after a 24-year ban.
True, Japan’s defence ministry has just issued a white paper that called China’s military a “strategic threat” and there was a close call between air force planes belonging to the two countries over the East China Sea last week. But the overall trajectory under Mr Ishiba – whom critics accuse of “cosying up to China” – is clear.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made his statement on July 5 in a speech honouring his country’s Second World War leader John Curtin. Remembering the example set by Mr Curtin, when he insisted that Australian troops should return to defend their homeland, rather than be shipped to fight the Japanese in Burma – as then-UK prime minister Winston Churchill and then-US president Franklin Roosevelt wanted – Mr Albanese stressed “above all, the confidence and determination to think and act for ourselves. To follow our own course and shape our own future”.
He talked of “a recognition that Australia’s fate would be decided in our region ... speaking for ourselves, as a sovereign nation”.
To Australian ears, it was quite clear that Mr Albanese was calling for less reliance on America and a more independent Australian foreign policy – to the fury of proponents of a “hug ’em close” relationship with the US. “The Labour Party has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give any support whatsoever to the American alliance. Albanese joins a long line of Labour leaders who are committed to selfish isolationism,” wrote an evidently heated former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer earlier this week. “We are withdrawing from our traditional support for liberal democracy and mutual reinforcement of alliances into a concept of self-defence at our borders.”
Mr Albanese would beg to differ – after all, he had said nothing of the sort. What he did underline, however, was the idea that “we can choose the way we engage with our region and deal with the world”.
Doubling down on that, the Australian Prime Minister – accompanied by an entourage of business leaders – is currently on a six-day visit to China, where he has enjoyed a private lunch with President Xi Jinping and a walk along the Great Wall. He, like Japan’s Mr Ishiba, sees the value of a constructive relationship with their biggest trading partner – which is China, in both cases.
So there could hardly be a worse time for US defence officials to be “demanding” that Japan and Australia clarify what they would do in the event of a US-China war over Taiwan, as has recently been reported. Given that the US is not officially committed to Taiwan’s defence if reunification were to be attempted, this is a hypothetical of a hypothetical, and not one that either country wants to discuss. US Under-Secretary for Defence Elbridge Colby, a well-known China-hawk who is believed to be behind the reports, also runs the risk of getting an answer he doesn’t want. One of Mr Albanese’s predecessors as prime minister, Paul Keating, has stated flatly that “Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest” and has said that it is “fundamentally a civil matter” for China.
Forced to confront this issue during his China trip, Mr Albanese didn’t go as far as Mr Keating, but he did say: “What we do is continue to support a one-China policy. We support the status quo.”
Elsewhere in the region, Malaysians are up in arms about Washington’s proposed new ambassador to Kuala Lumpur, a self-proclaimed “alpha male” called Nick Adams, who has claimed to have had a waitress dismissed for wearing a “Free Palestine” pin and who last year posted on X: “If you don’t stand with Israel, you stand with terrorists!” US President Donald Trump’s choice for ambassador to Singapore, Anjani Sinha, may be a surgeon, but going by his weak performance during a US Senate confirmation hearing last week, he may be scarcely more qualified than Mr Adams. (Senator Tammy Duckworth told him he needed to “shape up and do some homework” about the island-state.)
And of course, no one is happy about the wave of tariffs the US is due to impose on August 1. Whatever rates they are set at – it seems countries will be lucky if they are as low as 20 per cent – they will hurt.
Perhaps it’s a lack of co-ordination or surprising ignorance – in the case of Mr Adams – but while the alliances will hold, and few if any leaders will want to enter into a public spat with Mr Trump, it’s hardly a strategy to win hearts and minds. American unpredictability and caprice are already having an effect on the Asia Pacific. China’s Mr Xi must be quietly smiling to himself.
As for Mr Rubio, “the story of the next 50 years” may well be “largely written” in the region. But unless the US changes course on a number of fronts, it may not be one he would like to read.
