Cross Border Journal

Maritime Security and Trade in the Asia-Pacific, Introduction

In Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett's concept of the military-market nexus, he describes a pattern within globalization that can be identified in the experiences of entities of every type and size--individuals, national, organizational, corporate, etc. Understanding this nexus is important to supply chain strategists because supply chains are both comprised of these entities and impacted by these entities on a daily basis. On a regional level, understanding how this pattern has developed into the current successful and dynamic flow of trade across the Asia-Pacific allows us to project forward the necessary conditions for this to be enhanced and strengthened.

The "Ten Commandments of Globalization" are the key component to Dr. Barnett's military-market nexus concept, and describes the "seam between war and peace." They are as follows:

(1) Look for resources and ye shall find, but...

(2) No stability, no markets;

(3) No growth, no stability;

(4) No resources, no growth;

(5) No infrastructure, no resources;

(6) No money, no infrastructure;

(7) No rules, no money;

(8) No security, no rules;

(9) No Leviathan, no security; and

(10) No (American) will, no Leviathan.

These commandments possess an essence of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the theory that aims to describe human nature, in the sense that there is a pattern describing evolutionary progress from one state of existence (no will) to another (established markets).

When delving further into each commandment in the context of maritime security and trade in the Asia-Pacific, it is best to resort to the "who, what, when, why, where and how" questioning approach. What we will find is that there are multiple actors involved in the evolution of globalization in the Asia-Pacific and that the quality of interaction, collaboration and coordination amongst these actors directly impacts the quality of the globalization process, and as a component of this process, the quality of supply chains.

A simple example to explain this would be the occurrence of "sweat shops," where breakdowns or insufficiencies in security of the population results in a breakdown or insufficiency in rules and so on. If you understand, as a supply chain strategist, where these breakdowns in following the commandments are most likely to occur in respect to the supply chains you manage, you can reasonably project forward into the future a number of scenarios which you may have to address. This analysis integrates with gathering supply chain intelligence to build a foundation for rigorous alternative scenario planning.

In this series of posts starting with this introduction, I will do the following:

1. Explain Dr. Barnett's "Ten Commandments of Globalization" in the context of Asia-Pacific maritime security and trade
2. Describe the current, key concerns supply chain managers have in regards to maritime security in the Asia-Pacific
3. Summarize the potential "flashpoints" that would threaten maritime security and their potential impact on key supply chain nodes in the Asia-Pacific
4. Comment on the role of security in existing cross-border, government-level discussions of logistics integration in Northeast Asia (China, Korea, and Japan).
5. Speculate on the possibility of a formal, comprehensive maritime security regime coming to fruition in the Asia-Pacific

Despite the fact that I have no experience in the military, the military-market nexus is intriguing and of strong interest to me in the development of my supply chain knowledge. As a result, I look forward to the process of writing on these topics.

The Stimulus Impact on Supply Chains: Defense Provision

The Defense provision equates to a total of $4,555,000,000, or .6% of the $787 billion total. There are only 4 items in this provision as there is another section for military provisions.

Below is the scale against which to judge the expected boost this provision will have on private sector supply chains. Based on my review of the line items in this provision, it is scored as a 2--NOTICEABLE BOOST.

5: 81-100% dramatic and immediate boost

4: 61-80% significant boost

3: 41-60% moderate boost

2: 21-40% noticeable boost

1: 1-20% slight boost

0: 0-1% negligible boost 

Of the total appropriated funds, I estimate that $1.1 billion, or 23.35%, will have a direct and positive impact on the private economy when the funds are spent. At the moment, I don't have any concrete timeline on the spending, but since much of the funds that would be directed to the private sector is renovation and construction oriented, I expect less than half to be spent in 2009.

Next up will be the Environment & Energy provision, which represents $50,825,000,000, or 6.5% of the $787 billion total. As we can see so far, the trend is that essentially 80% of funds will be directed to government spending or overhead to administer money directed to the private sector. I imagine this will be fairly consistent until tax breaks are factored in.

Note: I will provide the spreadsheet after all the posts are done--I don't think the screenshot image comes out well. Also, please see the previous posts as the numbers were updated due to a miscalculation.

"Great Powers" with Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett and Hugh Hewitt, Part 2 & 3

Dr. Barnett's conversation with Hugh Hewitt continues with transcripts for parts 2 and 3 posted for reading. Part 2 is my favorite so far because it puts globalization into perspective with a nicely done backdrop conversation of history. But I like this description of U.S. innovation by Dr. Barnett in Part 3:

"We blend the best and discard the rest."

Another part of the Part 3 conversation reminds me of something I wrote a couple years ago (based on my experience in a domestic, family logistics firm in Japan) about how domestic firms must execute with a global conscience, as if they are competing in a global market, since the reality is they are being impacted by the global market every day. The key graph:

"...So just like what Grameen does, the bank out of Bangladesh which won the Nobel Prize a few years back, this is connecting to individuals in the advanced world a sense of their accomplishment. And you see this kind of interesting aid from farmers, you know, in Minnesota who adopt a similar kind of farming community in Africa, almost like a sister city, but it’s like a sister farm city. And you see direct aid between these farmers and their counterparts in Africa. And it’s just a wonderful way of connecting, and it fits my sort of super-empowered argument in the book which is you know, in effect, everybody should have a foreign policy in America. You shouldn’t wait on the government to do these things for you. If you have a strong feeling about making some part of the world better, there are way to directly connect to it, feel empowered by it, and put your money against very specific things that you can track. So we have it on the site."

It may seem like an obvious question, but how will each one of us interact in this globalized environment? Will you try to isolate yourself, ignore it, or reject it? Or will you try to understand it, integrate with it, and adapt? The problem is that if we limit our focus to the local environment around us, neglecting the impact the globalized world is having on our lives, activities, organizations and businesses, then we are bound to be upended at some point, assuming existing barriers dissolve further and further. To preempt this, we must lead our own transformative change (versus iterative change), which is of course difficult to pull off when the existing situation of many domestic firms/locals today has been built on a more iterative change process due to artificial (i.e. policy, etc) and natural (i.e. geography, etc) protections.

Speculation on Obama's Grand Strategy for the Asia-Pacific: Part VI

Around the world, many are taking stock of SoS Clinton's trip to Asia, particularly with regards to Japan, China and South Korea. (For the moment, I would like to put Indonesia aside). To guage the trip from an Asia-Pacific perspective, I went through and pulled some excerpts from the English-language media editorials from Northeast Asia (highlights mine):

Japan Times

"Ms. Clinton apparently chose Japan as the first stopover in her first overseas trip as secretary of state to reassure Japan that the United States is not giving priority to its ties with China. But the U.S. regards Japan-U.S. ties as part of its large strategy toward the Asia-Pacific region. Japan needs to carefully study the Obama administration's strategy. The U.S. may call for more Japanese contributions to the stabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Japan should develop its own approaches to the issue based on its own principles and clearly present them to the U.S. before being told by Washington to do something...

"...The top diplomats of Japan and the U.S. signed a new pact under which the Japanese government will make direct contributions of up to $2.8 billion for relocating some 8,000 U.S. marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. Japan should make sure that the money is used solely for reasonable related projects. The pact says the marines' transfer depends on the move of Futenma Air Station from Ginowan to Nago. The government should solve the Futenma issue as soon as possible by striking a feasible compromise with the Okinawan prefectural government."

Daily Yomiuri (Japan)

In a forum at the Keizai Koho Center Symposium, Koji Murata, professor of political science at Doshisha University's Faculty of Law, had this to say, which I feel is quite true:

"In summing up the three-hour conference, Murata said, "sometimes the Japanese people tend to think only in a bilateral perspective about this particular relationship [with the United States]. However, whether you like it or not, our bilateral relationship is becoming global in nature. So, relatively speaking, it is not that our bilateral relationship is becoming less important, but out bilateral relationship is becoming increasingly intertwined into the global picture and the global relationship.""

Korea Times

"On Friday, Yu and Clinton agreed to closely cooperate in tackling the North Korea issue to foil any reckless attempt by the North to keep South Korea and the United States apart. It is imperative that the traditional allies work together to prove that it is futile for the North to resort to its anachronistic policy of having direct talks with the United States while marginalizing the South.

"In this regard, we welcome the agreement between the top diplomats that they will push for the "complete and verifiable'' dismantlement of the North's nuclear programs through the six-nation talks. It is urgent that Seoul and Washington translate the accord into action to prod the world's last Stalinist country to return to the table and make good on its commitments to deunclearization."

Korea Herald

"Although the Unification Ministry said that Kim Jong-il was firmly in power in the North, the government must prepare for all eventualities, including succession in the North. As Clinton said, both Washington and Seoul must come up with a strategy that is "effective in influencing the behavior of the North Koreans at a time when the whole leadership situation is somewhat unclear.""

Xinhua (China)

"At present, further developing Chinese-U.S. ties is more essential than ever before, and both sides need to seize the opportunity and meet the challenges together to push forward their relationship, which is the most important of bilateral relationships globally in this century.

"The global financial crisis has provided a chance for China and the United States to reinforce mutual trust and cooperation. The two countries should join hands to tackle the crisis and pull the world economy out of the quagmire at an early date.

"During U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's just-concluded visit to China, both sides agreed to increase communication and coordination in the face of the financial crisis and work together to lead the Group of 20 summit in London in April to tangible results.

"It is therefore imperative that China and the United States improve and give full play to their bilateral mechanisms, strengthen consultation and coordination in multilateral frameworks, oppose trade and investment protectionism in all forms and take measures to tide over the current economic difficulties."

*************************************************************************************************************************

I think SoS Clinton essentially had a very decent trip and accomplished the following:

• Reassured Japan that the U.S. still views their relationship as key to success in the Asia-Pacific, on both economic and security issues;
• Reassured South Korea that they would not be sidelined in any future deliberations and activity on the North Korea issues
• Reassured China that the global economy is currently top priority, but that there is an expectation of progress on other issues in relation to the Chinese economy

As I have been emphasizing in this series and as others, such as Rich at All Roads, recommend, the Obama Administration must take all these pieces and work them into an integrated strategy where all the interdependencies are well understood and leveraged for success in the region.

SoS Clinton is obviously a powerhouse on the national stage, but as I have mentioned before in Part III, she is just one of the "three legs" upon which President Obama's administration will stand. So far, it looks like the disappointing leg is SoT Geithner, as he is mired in having to support the horrible, so-called "stimulus" package passed by Congress and now tasked to add even more debt to the U.S. government. Let us hope that early successes in foreign policy are not undermined by mistakes made at home.

 

 

The Stimulus Impact on Supply Chains: Commerce, Science & Justice

UPDATE: I had to revise my numbers below and the score as I made an unnecessary division in my calculation that understated the impacts.

The Commerce, Science & Justice (hey, what a combo!) provisions in the stimulus package equate to a total of $15,920,000,000, or 2.0% of the $787 billion total.

Below is the scale against which to judge the expected boost this provision will have on private sector supply chains. Based on my review of the line items in this provision, it is scored as a high 1--SLIGHT BOOST.

5: 81-100% dramatic and immediate boost

4: 61-80% significant boost

3: 41-60% moderate boost

2: 21-40% noticeable boost

1: 1-20% slight boost

0: 0-1% negligible boost 

Of the total appropriated funds, I estimate that $2.65 billion, or 16.64%, will have a direct and positive impact on the private economy when the funds are spent. Unfortunately, based on the spending timeline, most of this will be spent in 2010. Thus, expect very little of this provision to have any immediate impact on the economy as it is today.

What is particularly exasperating is how much money is allocated to spending oversight--that's right, money to manage the money! In this provision, it totals $10 million dollars. The Farming & Food provision had $25.5 million allocated.

Next up will be the Defense provision, which represents $4,555,000,000, or .6% of the $787 billion total.

Note: I will provide the spreadsheet after all the posts are done--I don't think the screenshot image comes out well.

The Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic Relationships: Not a Zero-Sum Game

One of the reasons I have advocated the Obama Administration placing priority on the Asia-Pacific in terms of establishing a grand strategy of poltical, economic and security initiatives has less to do with de-emphasizing Europe, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia and more to do with recognizing just how integrated the world has become in the past 20 years.

Supply chain managers will understand this because the companies we work for have evolved to match this new reality. Less and less do companies and organisations develop strategies for a specific country; it is now paramount to develop regional strategies that tie into an overall global strategy. In fact, as companies shape themselves in this way, we as individuals are also feeling pressure to do the same. This is clearly exemplified in how so many people with very local and domestic jobs are feeling the impact of today's global financial crisis, the shock of which is forcing many to wake up to this new paradigm and thus causing a backlash against globalization in several quarters.

This realisation must also be reflected in the political, economic and security strategy of governments. In doing so, it will be understood that prioritizing a particular region within the context of global strategy is no longer a detriment to other regions--it is not a zero-sum game.

A great example of this is my own experience. Eventhough I was based in Tokyo for Manhattan Associates my first two years, I was sourced to work on one project in South Africa via management in the U.K. In another instance, I was placed on a project in Russia via our partner in South Korea.

Through the end of 2007, the EU was China's largest trading partner and China was the EU's second largest trading partner (2008 data is unavailable yet, but likely to be significantly down as a total). In this context, the stability and security in the Asia-Pacific is likely to be front and center on the EU agenda. As a result, the efforts by the Obama Administration to prioritize their high-level diplomacy (envoys including VP Biden have already visited Europe) with the Trans-Pacific over the Trans-Atlantic should be scene as mutually beneficial.

Central Asia and the Middle East is going to quickly eat up the attention of the Obama Administration and they definitely don't want a lack of assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific to trigger unnecessary distractions; particularly, any direct antagonism towards, or lack of allied support for, the administration's eventual strategy for the Middle East and Central Asia. Thus, so far, I think we are seeing the correct deployment of administration resources.

Time will tell if their execution is up to par, and I encourage my blogging counterparts at the Atlantic Review to contribute their own opinion.

Political Risk Assessments in Supply Chain Management

Lately, I have been covering a great deal of trade and political news in relation to the Asia-Pacific. This compares to my more logistics-focused posts of the past. Why the recent shift? The major reason is that with a change in U.S. presidency, it is a great time to step back and assess the competitive landscape within which we must manage and develop high-performance supply chains. Country and political risk is an important aspect of this competitive landscape, especially when so many supply chains are extended across borders, often integrating the goods and services of multiple countries in a highly complex network of supply chain partners.

From a PowerPoint by Llewellyn D. Howell, political risk can be expressed as:

“...the probability that an investor or investors will lose money due to factors in a society, a government, or its international environment.  Risk will vary according to the theory applied to projection and measurement (assessment). Risk also varies at different investor levels, i.e. for all foreign investors, for a particular industry, for a particular firm, or for a specific project."

In the same PowerPoint, Dr. Howell mentions the key political risks on the minds of many global managers today:

• Terrorist acts
• Sea Piracy
• Kidnapping, Rescue, Evacuation
• Civil Strife (esp. ethnic)

There is no doubt that a change in administration in Washington, D.C., can affect the political risk, for better or for worse, in relation to the regions within which supply chain managers do business and execute their supply chain functions. Thus, when writing specifically on the Asia-Pacific at such a high level, my hope is to begin to outline just how political risks will change, if at all.

Eventually, I look forward to dropping back down into more detail around ground-level logistics and supply chain trends.

Speculation on Obama's Grand Strategy for the Asia-Pacific, Part V

Probably having already arrived in Japan at this time, I want to comment on SoS Clinton's public comments leading up to this trip, including those while in the air over the Pacific.

First, I want to highlight comments from a speech she made to the Asia Society that I feel hint at both her approach and the coming strategy to be adopted by the Obama Administration in regards to the Asia-Pacific.

Following her introduction, she starts with this line:

"Today, it is tempting to focus our attention on the tensions and perils of our interdependence, but I prefer to view our connectedness as an opportunity for dynamic and productive partnerships that can address both the challenge and the promise of this new century."

After this, she mentions "smart power," but I think this is a dumb phrase--I suggest "grand strategy" instead:

"At the same time, given the realities of today’s world, we can no longer approach our foreign policy solely country by country, or simply by carving the world into separate regions. With smart power, we will seek to build partnerships that transcend geographic and political boundaries."

This is a concept I have been trying to live and advocate while in the Asia-Pacific, becoming a student of the multiple countries and cultures in Northeast Asia rather than an expert of just one. SoS Clinton goes on to highlight how some of the major issues today fit into this approach:

"The global financial crisis requires every nation to look inward for solutions, but none of us can afford to become so introspective that we overlook the critical role that international partnerships must play in stabilizing the world’s economy and putting all of us back on the path to prosperity. And we cannot respond with a race to erect trade and other barriers. We must remain committed to a system of open and fair trade."

Notice how she said "fair" trade? That is a signal from her that she will be looking to strengthen the role of labor, humanitarian and environmental standards in free trade agreements and/or discussions. I am not suggesting this is a bad thing, but countries less developed than the U.S. tend to feel intimidated by these restrictions. So it is important that we encourage the development of higher standards in the context of each country's stage of development.

Next is the underlying security in the region:

"Like the financial crisis, other issues also require bilateral as well as regional and global approaches. The United States is committed to maintaining our historic security alliances in Asia and building on those relationships to counter the complex global threats we face. I’m very pleased that Japan and South Korea this week agreed to joint assistance for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and that both countries continue to work with us on global security, especially in combating piracy off the Horn of Africa.

"We will need to work together to address the most acute challenge to stability in Northeast Asia, North Korea’s nuclear program. The Obama Administration is committed to working through the Six-Party Talks, and I will discuss with South Korea, Japan, and China how best to get the negotiations back on track. We believe we have an opportunity to move these discussions forward, but it is incumbent upon North Korea to avoid any provocative action and unhelpful rhetoric toward South Korea."

Unfortunately, unhelpful rhetoric is all North Korea knows--try reading some of the NK news links to the left of this post. Anyway, nothing really knew or unexpected here; hopefully, this develops into a path towards a maritime security framework for the region.

Next, to my dismay, is climate change:

"Global solutions are essential to addressing climate change and the need for clean sources of energy. Now, climate change is not just an environmental nor an energy issue, it also has implications for our health and our economies and our security, all wrapped up in one.

"The rapid appointment that the President and I made of a United States Special Envoy for Climate Change reflects the seriousness we feel about dealing with this urgent threat. And I will be taking Special Envoy Todd Stern with me to Asia next week to begin the discussions that we hope will create the opportunities for cooperation."

My hope is that the government would push advancements in green technology decoupled from the climate change hysteria, but I won't digress in this post. Moving on, I think she next covers a much more important topic:

"Now, you may have heard me describe the portfolio of the State Department as including two of national security’s three Ds: defense, diplomacy, and development. Each is essential to advancing our interests and our security. Yet too often, development is regarded as peripheral to our larger foreign policy objectives. This will not be the case in the Obama Administration. We will energetically promote development around the world to expand opportunities that enable citizens, particularly on the margins, and particularly women and children, to fulfill their God-given potential, which we happen to believe will advance our shared security interests. That much of Asia enjoys peace and prosperity today is due in no small part to American efforts over the last half century to support political, economic, security, and educational alliances with Asian nations."

The above is certainly key, especially when considering post-disaster areas such as those hit by the Tsunami of 2004 and post-conflict areas such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on the African continent.

In the question and answer session, SoS Clinton answers "Why Asia first?":

"Well, I believe it demonstrates clearly that our new Administration wants to focus a lot of time and energy in working with Asian partners and all the nations in the Pacific region because we know that so much of our future depends upon our relationships there. And we equally know that our capacity to solve a lot of the global challenges that we’re confronting depends upon decisions that are made there. So it was an easy choice for me to make. Obviously, we are focused on the many problems that exist today that we’re confronting."

On the plane to Japan, SoS Clinton had this to say about China, which are in my opinion nice to see from somone who is hoping the Obama Administration tackles APAC with a grand strategy, rather than piecemeal by country or by issues:

"I have had a long conversation with Secretary Geithner. We believe that we have to have a comprehensive approach to our dialogues with China, which we did have, but they were divided between the Strategic Economic Dialogue and the Senior Dialogues. And we want a more comprehensive, unified approach to the discussions that we will be engaged in with the Chinese. But we're going to discuss the best way forward with the Chinese, because, clearly, you know, they have a lot of equities within their own government in trying to determine how best to engage with us."

**********************************************************************************************************************

In summary, I like a great deal of the approach and developing strategy SoS Clinton is espousing above. I only take issue with so much focus on the impacts of climate change (the new phrase for anthropogenic global warming), which, contrary to what we are often fed by the mainstream media, politicians and activist groups, is not settled science. She will find receptive audiences in Japan and Australia on this topic because they are invested much more deeply financially and emotionally in climate change myths, but not in China or a few of the Southeast Asian nations. Again, I would love to see more focus on green technologies that improve our immediate and tangible surrounding environment rather than those that focus on CO2 reduction, especially when CO2 is not a pollutant.

The Stimulus Impact on Supply Chains: Farming & Food Provisions

UPDATE: I had to revise my numbers below and the score as I made an unnecessary division in my calculation that understated the impacts.

As I mentioned in my introduction, the Farming & Food provisions in the stimulus package equate to a total of $26,466,000,000, or 3.4% of the $787 billion total.

Below is the scale against which to judge the expected boost this provision will have on private sector supply chains. Based on my review of the line items in this provision, it is scored as a low 2--NOTICEABLE BOOST.

5: 81-100% dramatic and immediate boost

4: 61-80% significant boost

3: 41-60% moderate boost

2: 21-40% noticeable boost

1: 1-20% slight boost

0: 0-1% negligible boost 

Of the total appropriated funds, I estimate that $10.2 billion, or 24.00%, will have a direct and positive impact on the economy when the funds are spent. Unfortunately, based on the spending timeline, only approximately 35-40% of this will be spent in 2009. Thus, expect this provision to have only a small, immediate impact on the economy as it is today.

Obviously, this spending will benefit some people, but agriculture and rural businesses are a relatively small portion these days of the U.S. total GDP. So, when thinking of the economy as a whole, this provision would do very little in the grander scheme of things. Even though I gave some of the provisions the benefit of the doubt in terms of private sector contribution, it is pretty schocking how little impact this spend of $26 billion will have.

I invite any comments that disagree with this review. My next post on the stimulus will be regarding provisions for Commerce, Science & Justice. These provisions total $15,920,000,000, or approximately 2% of the $787 billion.

Speculation on Obama's Grand Strategy for the Asia-Pacific, Part IV

With Hillary Clinton's first trip to the Asia-Pacific drawing near, there has been an increasing flurry of articles and press releases, in addition to SoS Clinton's own comments. It is now known that her trip will not only consist of visiting Japan, but also South Korea, China and Indonesia. Below are the pieces from the State Department press release on her trip, from February 5th, starting with the schedule:

"In her first trip abroad since taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Asia, departing Washington, DC on February 15. Secretary Clinton will visit Japan (February 16-18), Indonesia (February 18-19), the Republic of Korea (February 19-20), and China (February 20-22)."

Indonesia is an odd choice, but it may have something to do with President Obama's past connections with the country and the need to stop somewhere in Southeast Asia; sticking it between Japan and South Korea could just be a simple scheduling issue in terms of when her counterparts are available. But I think China placed last is deliberate, and I don't think it is a 'diss' on China as some have written. Rather, I believe it allows some groundwork to be done with our traditional allies in preparation for any statements made with China to the press. By placing China last, I am hoping SoS Clinton uses the opportunity to put U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific in larger perspective, stressing that while our traditional allied relationships will continue to be important, much of what needs to be accomplished going forward depends on a stable and functioning relationship with China on multiple issues; primarily, regional security, trade and economics in the short-term.

As for the content of her upcoming talks, prior to this press release, I speculated as follows in February 1st:

"I believe what can be inferred here is that SoS Clinton would like to tie a regular dialogue to other issues such as labor standards, human rights, environmental policy, etc. A description of SoS Clinton's various positions is outlined here by the Council on Foreign Relations. I won't go into every detail of her positions, but it is fair to say that she is a China 'skeptic' in the context of a general support for free trade. It is also I think fair to say that she prefers trade agreements conditional upon concessions in the other areas of policy mentioned above. Asian countries are sure to have a long file on SoS Clinton and a team of people that have worked with her and her husband in the past. The key to success will be whether SoS Clinton approaches the Asia-Pacific under a well-crafted grand strategy, in which policy is defined against the deeply rooted interconnectivity in the region, or takes the stance of trying to isolate and score points on individual issues."

The press release essentially confirms my suspicions (highlights mine):

"In all capitals, Secretary Clinton will be discussing common approaches to the challenges facing the international community, including the financial markets turmoil, humanitarian issues, security and climate change."

What follows are some general themes to the talks with each country:

"In Tokyo, Secretary Clinton will meet with senior Japanese officials for discussions on the strategic bilateral alliance and cooperation with Japan on regional and global issues. The Secretary then will travel to Jakarta to hold consultations will senior Indonesian officials to discuss the close and growing partnership with Indonesia and perspectives on common interests in Southeast Asia.

 

"In Seoul, Secretary Clinton will meet with senior leaders to discuss our expanding global cooperative partnership with our ally, the Republic of Korea.

 

"The Secretary will conclude her trip in China where she will meet with senior officials in Beijing to further develop a positive, cooperative relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China."

Nothing sticks out in this at the moment, since it is all diplomatically vague language. We will need to observe the outcomes of each visit in the individual press conferences. Some will notice my current home of Australia is absent, and although I don't think this reflects negatively on Australia, I do believe the Australian leadership will need to assert itself in being an active player in Asia-Pacific dialogues.

 

At the East Asia Forum, William Tow discusses the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue (TSD) in the context of Obama Administration's foreign policy for the Asia-Pacific:

"The Australia-Japan-United States Trilateral Strategic Dialogue (TSD) was announced in 2005 as a means for channeling their growing role as independent regional and international security players into a more cohesive policy mechanism. This mechanism sought to facilitate Australia’s and Japan’s dialogue and policy planning with their American ally... 

 

"...The core rationales underlying the Dialogue’s founding were to:

(1) act as a catalyst for gradually integrating the traditional bilateral security politics of containment into more cooperative multilateral security diplomacy;

(2) build on successful episodes of non-traditional security politics (e.g. peace-building and disaster relief) to coordinate future responses to emerging non-military threats;

(3) encourage Japan to pursue its own national security agendas as a moderate and self-confident regional power; and

(4) coordinate allied policy input and, where appropriate, political support for U.S. global security initiatives.

A key task for the Obama Administration will be to find a way to build on these multiple bilateral, trilateral, and multi-lateral dialogues created and/or strengthened during the Bush Administration towards a larger, Asia-Pacific grand strategy and framework. The Wall Street Journal, in the article "Clinton's Overseas Trip Asserts Asia as Priority," suggests SoS Clinton understands that success in the region, in fact success globally, pivots on the quality of our relations with China (highlights mine):

"During Hillary Clinton's failed presidential run, she cited the China relationship as Washington's most important.

"As secretary of state, she is moving to establish China as a priority, making her first trip abroad to China and three other Asian nations. It's a break with the tradition among secretaries of state of visiting Europe first.

"In Beijing, Mrs. Clinton is expected to discuss a gamut of economic, security and environmental issues with her hosts, including China's response to the global financial crisis and its role in curbing North Korea's nuclear program.

 

"While officials in Washington don't plan dramatic shifts in Asia policy, Asia experts see opportunities for advancing U.S.-China relations during Mrs. Clinton's Beijing trip. Among them is resuming military-to-military talks frozen by Beijing last year after the Bush administration approved new arms sales to Taiwan.

"The U.S. and China are also expected to outline a joint strategy to address global warming and other environmental issues. Mrs. Clinton may announce U.S. funding of green projects in China, such as environmentally friendly buildings, according to people familiar with the discussions.

"Mrs. Clinton is expected to build on the Bush administration's foundations in dealing with China. Under President Bush, the U.S. established two formal engagement channels with Beijing -- the "senior dialogue" focused on security issues and a "strategic economic dialogue" led by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson."

At the same time, The Christian Science Monitor discusses the balance SoS Clinton will have to strike in her first trip to the Asia-Pacific, and specifically China. I phrase this as approaching the region with confidence rather than arrogance:

"The tricky part for Clinton is that she will be seeking to broaden the discussion with a rising global power into areas it is reluctant to address – human rights and greenhouse gases. And this comes at a time when the US needs China's cooperation in the financial crisis...

"..."Historians will judge this administration and our generation on how we managed the rise of the East," says Michael Green, who was senior director of Asian affairs in the Bush National Security Council and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. They will "look back at this [trip] as an important signal to the region.""

CSM also quotes Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, who is all over the place these days promoting his new book, Great Powers:

"...some big-picture security experts say the secretary of State has to be pragmatic, especially in the midst of a global financial crisis and when the US needs Beijing's cooperation on issues like Iran and North Korea.

""If Clinton thinks, 'I'm going to push the democracy agenda on China no matter what,' she's going to get a quick education," says Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of the recent book "Great Powers: America and the World After Bush." China continues to hold 70 percent of its foreign reserves in dollars, he says, but if miffed Chinese leaders "shift just 10 percent of what they hold to another currency, believe me, we are going to notice."

"Indeed, observers like Green of CSIS predict that Clinton will greet her Asian hosts "with a large dose of humility" – in part because she will arrive representing an economically weakened and chastened America. "This is not like the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, when the US was up and Asia was down," he says. "This time, the crisis started in the US market, and I think it's appropriate for our officials – and I think this is the tone the secretary will set – to make it clear we have problems we have to fix.""

***********************************************************************************************************************

How does this all piece together into a grand strategy? As I mentioned before, much will depend on the Obama Administration's overall approach--will they try to score points on individual issues, or lead the game with a coordinated, regional effort that recognizes the complex and multiple interdependencies in the region. On the former approach, this is the basic "missing the forest for the trees" scenario. I can especially see trouble ahead if the Obama Administration evaluates success in the region based primarily on progress with North Korea; this would be similar to the current problem of tieing success in the Middle East primarily to peace between Israel and Palestinian territory. It would only stunt progress on other fronts, unnecessarily.

Of course, the North Korea problem is a critical security and economic issue for the region, but we shouldn't give the North Koreans the leverage to destabilize and fracture the positive working relationships with the rest of Northeast Asia.

As a follow-up to this already lengthy post, I will later look at an article from the Far Eastern Economic Review, as well as a SoS Clinton press conference and speech at the Asia Society.