By Yuan Peng

Assistant President and Director of the CICIR Institute of American Studies

The U.S. presidential election in 2012 was as boring as it was close. Mainly targeted at the neutral 10% of the voters and about ten swing states, it failed to arouse the passion of the American people or evoke any nationwide consequences. The results were largely expected over six months ago by analysts and the situation is now the same as it was during Obama’s first term in office, with the Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, and the Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. The previous state of affairs has remained the same, despite a year of intense campaign and the expending of billions of dollars.

Given the lack of change in the election and its concentration on the domestic economy and employment situation, the election will hardly have any major influence on U.S. foreign affairs. It is generally believed that during the first half of his second term,Obama will focus on domestic affairs, including restoring unity between the two parties as soon and as much as possible, trying to avoid the“fiscal cliff,”promoting a deficit reduction plan, and preserving the fruits of medical and other reforms. Nevertheless,during Obama’s second term, some subtle changes are likely to take place in U.S. foreign policy. In particular, given difficulties in making any domestic breakthroughs, it might be the best choice for Obama to seek diplomatic achievements.

First of all, there will be no fundamental changes in the general situation, and foreign affairs will continue to serve domestic affairs. With a narrow margin of victory of just 2.5% in the popular vote, Obama did not receive enough of a“mandate”from the people for his second term. Moreover, most of those who have voted for him expect him to make further progress in the economic and employment fields. As a result, it will be difficult for him to spend too much energy on foreign affairs,and he can only make vigorous expansions in areas that will benefit the economy and employment. In the first half of 2013,Obama will be shouldering the heavy burden of reappointing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the CIA chief, and the Secretary of Defense. Before getting his cabinet straight, it is unlikely that he will take any bold actions over major issues. Likewise, before the successful withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, it is hardly imaginable that he will start another war in the Middle East.

Secondly, the least controversial area during this year’s election was the U.S. strategic“rebalancing”toward the Asia-Pacific region initiated during Obama’s first term. Because of this, during his second term, he may carry this further in order to leave a diplomatic legacy. After all, the strategy has been carried out for just over a year - it is only in its infancy. It is all very well to invest more in the Asia-Pacific region, arousing no controversy and benefiting the recovery of the domestic economy. As soon as the election ended, Obama lost no time in announcing his upcoming visits to three ASEAN countries -Myanmar, Cambodia and Thailand - the visits to the first two being historic. In relation to this was the U.S.-Japanese joint revision of the“defense guidelines,”which indicates that the United States will not shift its focus on cementing ties with its allies. Such a new Asia-Pacific arrangement, featuring“focusing on key issues, seeking highlights, and evading difficulties”, is bound to be a priority at the start of Obama’s second term.Policies toward North Korea (DPRK) and Pakistan, which did not receive much attention during his first term, may also be strengthened.

Thirdly, there will be an increase in the attention paid to the Middle East, not only because Obama has been heavily criticized by the Republican Party and blamed by many for his“neglect of the Middle East,”but also because the situation in the region is deteriorating in a direction that is not welcomed by the United States. Syria, Libya and Iran are impacting U.S.strategic interests in the Middle East from three sides, and the weakening of ties with traditional allies such as Israel and Egypt will have a direct bearing on the long-term stability of the United States’Middle East scheme. In contrast to the resolute“extraction”of itself from the Middle East and strategic contraction during the first term, an American“return”to the Middle East may appear as a topic of foreign policy debates and become a Hobson’s choice during Obama’s second term. This is bound to cause more distraction from the administration’s strategic“rebalancing”toward the Asia-Pacific region.

Finally, regarding policy toward China, because the Chinarelated team from the Secretary of State downward will be overhauled and as the Chinese government’s new leadership will not be finalized until the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in March 2013, maintenance of stability during the transitional period will be emphasized so that the United States can regroup personnel. However, this period will surely be followed by a new round of assessments of U.S. policy toward China. After the dramatic ups and downs and the strategic gaming over the Asia-Pacific region during the past four years, the United States has acquired a deeper, cooler and more rational understanding of China. Because of this, in addition to China’s advocacy for the establishment of a“new type of relations between great powers,”the United States may reconsider the strategic implications of such relations. Against this background, U.S. policy toward China may be characterized by continued trade and economic frictions that are relieved by efforts to prevent them from getting out of control; deepening gaming in security accompanied by the pursuit of coexistence in the Asia-Pacific; and diplomatic efforts to achieve a new balance between policies toward allies and policies toward China. While the United States is reflecting on, assessing, and adjusting its policy toward China, China should take the initiative to step up policy-guiding and shaping efforts so that Sino-U.S. relations can develop in a stable and healthy manner.