 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Veto Politics and Resource Limits: Why Obama’s Pivot to Asia Fell Short
Ronghao Xu
Full-Text PDF
XML 85 Views
DOI:10.17265/1548-6591/2025.02.003
University of London, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, London, UK
This paper evaluates the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy, focusing on its economic and military dimensions. Announced in 2011 as a comprehensive rebalancing of U.S. foreign policy, the pivot sought to reinforce American leadership in the Asia‑Pacific through diplomacy, trade, and defense posture. While the initiative succeeded in elevating Asia’s strategic importance and strengthening alliances, its core pillars fell short of expectations. Economically, the Trans‑Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended to anchor U.S. influence in regional trade governance, yet domestic veto politics in the 114th Congress prevented ratification, leaving the economic component largely symbolic. Militarily, the administration pledged to shift 60 percent of naval assets to the Pacific and expand rotational deployments, but sequestration under the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) constrained defense spending and limited force projection. Simultaneously, global crises in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and Russia’s actions in Ukraine diverted attention and resources. The analysis concludes that the pivot was more a rhetorical reorientation than a fully institutionalized grand strategy, undermined by domestic political opposition and resource limitations.
Obama administration, Pivot to Asia, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), U.S. foreign policy, veto politics, military budget constraints, Asia-Pacific strategy
Ronghao Xu.Veto Politics and Resource Limits: Why Obama’s Pivot to Asia Fell Short.Journal of US-China Public Administration, September 2025, Vol. 22, No. 2, 85-91
Byman, D., & Moller, S. B. (2016). The United States and the Middle East: Interests, risks, and costs. In J. Suri and B. Valentino, Sustainable security: Rethinking American national security strategy (pp. 263-309). Cambridge: The Tobin Project.
Campbell, K. M., & Ratner, E. (2014). Far eastern promises: Why Washington should focus on Asia. Foreign Aff., 93, 106-112.
Chodor, T. (2019). The rise and fall and rise of the trans-pacific partnership: 21st century trade politics through a new constitutionalist lens. Review of International Political Economy, 26(2), 232-255. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0969
2290.2018.1543720
Clinton, H. (2011). America’s Pacific century. Foreign Policy, 189, 56-63.
Daggett, S., & Towell, P. (2012). FY2013 defense budget request: Overview and context (CRS Report R42489). Congressional Research Service.
Horowitz, M. C. (2012). How defense austerity will test U.S. strategy in Asia. National Bureau of Asian Research Commentary.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Retrieved from https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5793007&publisher=FZO137
Katada, S. N., Lim, J. H., & Wan, M. (2023). Reshoring from China: Comparing the economic statecraft of Japan and South Korea. The Pacific Review, 36(5), 1005-1034. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2023.2200025
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2003). The tragedy of great power politics (updated edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Medeiros, E. S. (2019). The changing fundamentals of US-China relations. The Washington Quarterly, 42(3), 93-119. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1666355
Nye, J. S., Jr. (2015). Is the American century over? Political Science Quarterly, 130(3), 393-400. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12394
Schott, J. J. (2016). Understanding the trans-pacific partnership: An overview. In Trans-Pacific partnership: An assessment (pp. 9-21). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.