Funabashi’s starting point is:

U.S. relations with China…. have improved considerably under Bush. Things did not start out well: during the presidential campaign of 2000, Bush called China a ‘strategic competitor’ in the Asia-Pacific region. But partly thanks to the new opportunities for strategic cooperation that arose out of 9/11 and the continuing North Korean nuclear crisis, the past eight years have witnessed the solidification of a healthy working rapport between the United States and China — Bush’s unwavering commitment to attending the Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony this summer being a prime illustration of this. Perhaps most important, at least to the stability of Asia, under Bush, Washington has succeeded in promoting sound relationships with Beijing and Tokyo simultaneously.

To capitalize on the positive aspects of this legacy, the next U.S. president must continue to pursue dialogues with both China and Japan and make them key elements of the United States’ Asia-Pacific policy. Additionally, Washington must deepen its commitment to multilateral institution building in Asia, as well as make earnest strides toward boosting American ‘soft power’ there through innovative approaches to pressing challenges such as climate change and the backlash against globalization.

Funabashi has a raft of good suggestions about what this might require, including re-invigoration of American participation in APEC and other regional arrangements. Among other things, he warns:

(That) to restore the United States’ soft power, the next U.S. administration should be sparing in its use of the D-word. Phrases such as ‘democracy promotion’ ring hollow in the post-Iraq era. Washington would be better received if it talked simply of transparency, the rule of law, and good governance. In the last half of the twentieth century, the United States played a critical role in building democratic foundations in Asia by opening up its markets to the region and serving as a stabilizer. It should continue to do so. That would mean, among other things, striving to present a cohesive front in Washington and getting past the disruptive divisions between ideologues and pragmatists, traditionalists and neoconservatives that have characterized the Bush administration.

He concludes that Asia is ‘still US territory’ and that America is critical to US success but that:

At the same time, Asia is now far more than a bystander. It is no longer waiting to be led; it is an able and willing partner and expects to be treated as such. On matters of economic growth and development, nation building, antiterrorism, and global warming alike, valuable ideas and resources have come and will continue to come out of the region. Asia has a complementary role to play with the United States, and this is a fact that Washington cannot afford to overlook, especially as the balance of global power continues to shift eastward. Whether Democratic or Republican, the next U.S. president would be well advised to renew the United States’ commitment to Asia and devote due attention to the concerns and interests of its Asian friends and allies.

That is the crunch in Funabashi’s argument and the headline of his paper. America may think that it has time to focus on extrication from the Middle East. But Asia is there, it won’t be waiting that long, not even four years, and it will have to be dealt with. And I reckon he’s probably right.

—

See also:
Japan assesses the next US presidency
Obama and Asia
What Obama means for Asia
Managing the Japan-US alliance
More on Japan, America and the bomb
China, Japanese security and the bomb!
Obama and Japan’s security policies