By Lee Jong-eun
Lee Jong-eun
During the start of the Cold War, the U.S. Republican Party experienced internal debates over which regions of the world the U.S. should prioritize. The Trans-Atlanticist Republicans, such as Senator Arthur Vandenberg, favored prioritizing Europe’s security from Soviet expansion. They supported the Truman Administration’s Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and establish the NATO Alliance. The “Asia First” Republicans, such as Senator Bob Taft, advocated for the U.S. to focus on confronting communism in Asia. These Republicans criticized President Truman for excessive involvement in Europe while allowing the fall of China to communism. Many also criticized Truman’s handling of the Korean War as too cautious and were supportive of General MacArthur’s advocacy for a more aggressive confrontation against communist China.
In the 1952 U.S. presidential election, Dwight Eisenhower, supported by Trans-Atlanticist Republicans, defeated Senator Taft to become the Republican presidential nominee. After being elected President, Eisenhower ended the Korean War with an armistice, avoided intervention in the French-Indochina War, and maintained its security commitment in Europe. Since then, the Trans-Atlanticist foreign policy was supported by the U.S. Republican Party and its presidents.
In recent years, however, the foreign policy consensus within the Republican Party has changed. There is growing skepticism toward the U.S.' security commitment in Europe, while advocacy for confronting China in the Asia-Pacific region has become prevalent. The U.S. Republicans are increasingly supportive of policies that risk conflicts with China, such as providing military aid to Taiwan, sanctioning China’s domestic human rights abuses, and even loosening adherence to the “One China Policy” on Taiwan’s political status. In contrast, Republicans have become critical of providing aid to Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War. Many Republicans have ignored or expressed some sympathy toward Trump’s recent comments suggesting the abandoning of the security commitment to NATO member states. Even if Trump is not reelected as president, the Republican Party and many of its prominent political figures will likely continue to advocate changing U.S. foreign policy priorities from Europe to Asia.
The two factors have contributed to the significant shift in the foreign policy perspective of the contemporary Republican Party. The first factor is the increased geopolitical importance of the Asia-Pacific region. With economic and technological advancements among multiple countries in the region, the U.S. Republicans (and Democrats) have become more strategically motivated to prevent China from achieving regional hegemony. For example, the sea lanes in Southeast Asia are perceived as vital to U.S. strategic interests due to the semiconductor industries in both South Korea and Taiwan.
The second factor is that today’s Republicans perceive fewer security threats from Europe than Asia. Many Republicans evaluate today’s Russia as lacking the military or economic capacity to threaten the U.S. or Europe’s security seriously. Paradoxically, the Russia-Ukraine War’s attrition has reinforced Republicans’ prediction that Russia is too weak even to defeat the much smaller Ukraine. To some extent, many Republicans view the Russia-Ukraine War as similar to protracted wars in the Middle East that are unlikely to alter the global geopolitical balance significantly. Subsequently, Republicans are increasingly advocating that Europe can deter a weakened Russia by increasing its own defense budget, reducing the necessity of direct U.S. security intervention.
In contrast, Republicans view today’s China as more capable than Russia of “raping our country,” to use Trump’s expression. Republicans express fear that China is capable of inflicting severe economic losses to the U.S. domestic economy, surpassing U.S. technological and military capacity, and threatening the privacy of U.S. citizens. As Republicans perceive China, not Russia, as the greatest adversary in the “New Cold War,” they have advocated prioritizing U.S. economic and military resources to counter the “China Threat.” Some conservative commentators such as Tucker Carlson have even suggested that the U.S. should consider aligning with Russia to contain China, similar to how Nixon pursued diplomacy with communist China to pressure the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Should Republicans, whether through Trump’s reelection or a different Republican President, change U.S. foreign policy to become more Asia-focused, how should U.S. allies respond? First, there may be opportunities to convince future U.S. administrations to counter China more effectively by strengthening U.S. alliances in the Asia-Pacific. Paradoxically, the greater the perception of the “China Threat,” the more U.S. policymakers might welcome cooperation from regional actors. Even Trump, during his first presidential term, supported security partnerships with Japan, Australia and India through the Quad framework. Though there are U.S. allies who prefer to avoid entanglement in the U.S.-China geopolitical conflict, the next alternative strategy might be for allies to restrain the United States from becoming too unilateral by emphasizing their contributions to the U.S. Asia-First strategy.
Second, U.S. allies should work together to ensure the Asia-First U.S. strategy includes a “Europe-Second” component. During WWII, the “Europe-First” war strategy included defensive operations in the Pacific Theater. During the Cold War, the Trans-Atlanticist strategy was complemented by U.S. bilateral alliances with South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Similarly, even if Asia-Pacific is becoming the prioritized geostrategic region for aggressive U.S. foreign policy strategy, Asian allies need to persuade the United States also to maintain a limited security commitment in Europe, as Europe’s geopolitical stability benefits the United States to focus more attentively on the Asia-Pacific.
The geopolitical reality is that world regions are not equally vital to U.S. geostrategic interests. As U.S. priority shifts, some allies might benefit more while others fear abandonment. After seventy years, will the U.S. strategic priority shift from Europe to Asia? If it does, hopefully, U.S. policymakers will maintain the appropriate level of security commitment for the regions of secondary strategic importance. And if the U.S. hesitates, hopefully, the allies from the different regions will show foresight to advocate for each other, “as the first can become the second and vice versa.”
Lee Jong-eun is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University.
After 70 years, will the 'Asia First' Republicans reshape US foreign policy?
26
0
22.02.2024
By Lee Jong-eun Lee Jong-eun
During the start of the Cold War, the U.S. Republican Party experienced internal debates over which regions of the world the U.S. should prioritize. The Trans-Atlanticist Republicans, such as Senator Arthur Vandenberg, favored prioritizing Europe’s security from Soviet expansion. They supported the Truman Administration’s Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and establish the NATO Alliance. The “Asia First” Republicans, such as Senator Bob Taft, advocated for the U.S. to focus on confronting communism in Asia. These Republicans criticized President Truman for excessive involvement in Europe while allowing the fall of China to communism. Many also criticized Truman’s handling of the Korean War as too cautious and were supportive of General MacArthur’s advocacy for a more aggressive confrontation against communist China.
In the 1952 U.S. presidential election, Dwight Eisenhower, supported by Trans-Atlanticist Republicans, defeated Senator Taft to become the Republican presidential nominee. After being elected President, Eisenhower ended the Korean War with an armistice, avoided intervention in the French-Indochina War, and maintained its security commitment in Europe. Since then, the Trans-Atlanticist foreign policy was supported by the U.S. Republican Party and its presidents.
In recent years, however, the foreign policy consensus within the Republican Party has changed. There is growing skepticism toward the U.S.' security commitment in Europe, while advocacy for confronting China in the Asia-Pacific region has become prevalent. The U.S. Republicans are increasingly supportive of policies that risk conflicts with China, such as........
© The Korea Times
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Abbas Juma
Michael Kwet
