Monday, November 10, 2014

Obama's Trip to the Asia-Pacific

Although Obama is facing set back at home due to the loss of the majority in the Senate, he is promoting our world presence and attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). David Nakamura of the Washington Post, published an article discussing how Obama went on a week-long trip to the Asia-Pacific in order to promote America’s growing economy to regional nations.  Obama took this opportunity to discuss with the regional nations that he wants to establish “deeper economic partnerships” and is looking to organize a free-trade pact with the United States. It is clear that Obama is trying to have America have a stronger latent power amongst other nations, specifically in the Asia-Pacific. China is the powerhouse of the Asia-Pacific when it comes to trading and economics, but America is trying to make more of presence and show that it is still a world power.
                Obama’s trip to the Asia-Pacific was to reassure that America is not falling behind and is continuing to move forward. Obama has some serious competition though. With losing the majority in the Senate, nations are raising concerns about the United States’; power, and China’s President, Xi Jinping, presented “a rising China as an alternative power”. This is proof that “politics matter” when it comes to the international political economy.  Although Obama stated, “the United States welcomes the rise of a prosperous peaceful, and stable China,” there is an undertone of discomfort among the American people that China will rise above the United States, and that this is the proof of it starting to happen. Obama is trying to organize a 12-member Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade pact, which is provide a new market access for goods and services made in America. In essence, this trade to try to make sure we do not fall behind our competition in that area, mostly meaning China.
Realists may argue this interdependence makes the United States vulnerable because the US is depending on other countries to support our economy too much. Liberals may argue that cooperating is possible and can be beneficial but is not always easy to organize and facilitate. Regardless of liberal and realists views, it is arguable that America has to “step up its game” in order to keep competing with China, or else America may find itself losing its credibility as a major power.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-beijing-obama-renews-push-for-trade-pact-he-says-could-be-historic-agreement/2014/11/10/8939a2e2-68a0-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

3 comments:

  1. do you think there is any sort of benefit that would come from being number 2 instead of #1? do you think maybe terrorist attacks (or fear of) would lower? do you think the US would move the focus to its individual people instead of always focusing on trying to stay #1? food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the U.S. benefits greatly from China's production and affluence, seeing that so many of our goods are imported from there. But, I don't think China would be as interested in anything the U.S. has to offer. I'm not sure that China would be receptive of a free-trade agreement, and I doubt it would change China's perception of the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that it would send panic to American's if we were number two instead of one, but it may be a good thing. There may not be as much pressure on the US to police the world and they may not be as much of a target for terrorist attacks since we are not the number one. Although that is a theory, I also believe that terrorists attack the US not because we are number one, but because of our foreign policies and interventions so being number two may not lower attacks.

    ReplyDelete