No. 185 U.S. Foreign Policy and Southeast Asia: from Manifest
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The RSIS Working Paper series presents papers in a preliminary form and serves to stimulate comment and discussion. The views expressed are entirely the author’s own and not that of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. If you have any comments, please send them to the following email address: [email protected]. Unsubscribing If you no longer want to receive RSIS Working Papers, please click on “Unsubscribe.” to be removed from the list. _____________________________________________________________________ No. 185 U.S. Foreign Policy and Southeast Asia: From Manifest Destiny to Shared Destiny Emrys Chew S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Singapore 29 October 2009 The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) was established in January 2007 as an autonomous School within the Nanyang Technological University. RSIS’ mission is to be a leading research and graduate teaching institution in strategic and international affairs in the Asia-Pacific. To accomplish this mission, RSIS will: Provide a rigorous professional graduate education in international affairs with a strong practical and area emphasis Conduct policy-relevant research in national security, defence and strategic studies, diplomacy and international relations Collaborate with like-minded schools of international affairs to form a global network of excellence Graduate Training in International Affairs RSIS offers an exacting graduate education in international affairs, taught by an international faculty of leading thinkers and practitioners. The teaching programme consists of the Master of Science (MSc) degrees in Strategic Studies, International Relations, International Political Economy and Asian Studies as well as The Nanyang MBA (International Studies) offered jointly with the Nanyang Business School. The graduate teaching is distinguished by their focus on the Asia-Pacific region, the professional practice of international affairs and the cultivation of academic depth. Over 150 students, the majority from abroad, are enrolled with the School. A small and select Ph.D. programme caters to students whose interests match those of specific faculty members. Research Research at RSIS is conducted by five constituent Institutes and Centres: the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, and the Temasek Foundation Centre for Trade and Negotiations (TFCTN). The focus of research is on issues relating to the security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region and their implications for Singapore and other countries in the region. The School has three professorships that bring distinguished scholars and practitioners to teach and do research at the School. They are the S. Rajaratnam Professorship in Strategic Studies, the Ngee Ann Kongsi Professorship in International Relations, and the NTUC Professorship in International Economic Relations. International Collaboration Collaboration with other Professional Schools of international affairs to form a global network of excellence is a RSIS priority. RSIS will initiate links with other like- minded schools so as to enrich its research and teaching activities as well as adopt the best practices of successful schools. i ABSTRACT From post-colonial state to global superpower, America’s relations with Southeast Asia—as with the rest of the world—have been driven by a peculiar sense of “manifest destiny.” Founded upon such transcendent values as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the United States as champion of those values in the world has, time and again, rightly or wrongly, made a case for American exceptionalism if not interventionism. In its quest for security and prosperity, and in little over two centuries of its existence, the United States attained a measure of global authority surpassing George Washington’s loftiest aspirations. Yet America’s global transformation into a new “empire of liberty,” with all its inherent ambiguities of power, did not deliver the freedom from fear that Washington had envisioned: from Pearl Harbor to Ground Zero, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Ironically using instruments of American-led globalization—commercial airliners, the Internet, and cell-phones—against those other symbols of U.S. global dominance, the Islamic extremist terror attacks of September 11th 2001 have shown that even “hyperpower” is vulnerable at its metropolitan core. At the “periphery” also, just as the United States has sought to refashion nations abroad in its image—from past ages of Western imperialism, world wars and decolonization, through to the Cold War and the “war on terror”—the diverse nations that constitute Southeast Asia have played their part in shaping the imperatives and dynamics of U.S. foreign policy. These cross-cultural interactions, perceptions and reactions, reveal both the extent and the limits of American power in the region. This historical study examines the distinctive phases and emphases of U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia, as well as evolving Southeast Asian perspectives on U.S. foreign policy. ****************** Emrys Chew is Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He was educated at the Anglo-Chinese School, Singapore, and St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge. From the University of Cambridge, he obtained both a BA with First Class Honours in History (1995) and a PhD (2002). His BA dissertation, ‘The Naning War, 1831-1832: Colonial Authority and Malay Resistance in the Early Period of British Expansion’, was awarded the Alan Coulson Prize for Imperial and Commonwealth History and subsequently published (Modern Asian Studies, May 1998). His doctoral thesis, entitled ‘Arming the Periphery’, traces the development and dynamics of arms trade networks in the Indian Ocean between 1780 and 1914, a critical period of Western imperial and industrial expansion as well as indigenous transformation across the frontiers of Asia and Africa. His other publications include an article about the impact of arms transfers on military culture and colonial warfare in Indian Ocean societies, particularly in light of contemporary debates about the international war against terrorism (‘Militarized Cultures in Collision’, Journal of the Royal United Services Institute, October 2003). Emrys has taught undergraduate courses on Imperialism and ii Nationalism at the University of Cambridge, examining cross-cultural interactions that have generated and shaped much of the modern world. He currently teaches postgraduate courses at RSIS on the International History of Asia and Cold War History and International Politics. iii U.S. Foreign Policy and Southeast Asia: From Manifest Destiny to Shared Destiny1 From post-colonial state to global superpower, “from sea to shining sea” and beyond, America’s relations with Southeast Asia—as with the rest of the world—have been driven by a peculiar sense of “manifest destiny.”2 Founded upon such transcendent values as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the United States as champion of those values in the world has, time and again, rightly or wrongly, made a case for American exceptionalism if not interventionism. In its quest for security and prosperity, and in little over two centuries of its existence, the United States attained a measure of global authority surpassing George Washington’s loftiest aspirations. Not since Rome (and Britain even) had any Western nation achieved such supremacy. Yet America’s global transformation into a new “empire of liberty,” with all its inherent ambiguities of power, did not thereby deliver the freedom from fear that Washington had envisioned: from Pearl Harbor to Ground Zero, from Vietnam to Afghanistan.3 Just as the United States has sought to refashion nations abroad in its image—from past ages of Western imperialism, world wars and decolonization, 1An earlier draft of this paper was presented at a workshop sponsored by the William B. Ruger Chair of National Security Economics, at the US Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island. The workshop was held on 14-15 May 2009 and its overall theme was “American Foreign Policy: Regional Perspectives.” 2First appearing in print in 1839, the term “manifest destiny” describes the historical belief that the United States is destined—even divinely pre-ordained—to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. So, too, the eagle in world mythologies was perceived as a divine and imperial symbol long before its reinvention as an emblem of liberty. Although the term fell out of usage by U.S. policymakers early in the twentieth century, some commentators note that aspects of “manifest destiny”—particularly the belief in an American “mission” to promote and defend democracy throughout the world—continue to have a pervasive influence on American political ideology. There is extensive literature on this subject: for a selection, see Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935); Edward McNall Burns, The American Idea of Mission: Concepts of National Purpose and Destiny (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1957); Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation (New York: Knopf, 1963);