America's loss could be China's gain
Perhaps it is too soon to render final judgment, but I well recall that Australian Prime Minister John Howard and former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad could not agree on the wisdom of the US invasion of Iraq.
Their perspectives were sharply drawn. The plain-spoken Mr Howard would always insist that the need to maintain international security justified US President George W. Bush's decision to go to war more or less unilaterally.
For his part, the outspoken Dr Mahathir argued that, while the invading US military would prevail, occupying a far-off country - especially an Arab and Muslim one - would be difficult, and so in all probability Mr Bush would lose the peace. It looks as if history will judge Dr Mahathir to have been the wiser of the two owls.
The US military is enmeshed in a vicious insurgency and there may be no way out - except to get out, outright. What's more, the American public increasingly appears to agree. Mr Bush cannot stand for re-election, and his Republican Party is facing the huge biennial congressional election next autumn: every seat in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. Many of his party faithful are losing faith in his war stewardship.
Washington will either have to increase troop strength on the ground dramatically or commence withdrawal next year, if the Bush administration is to minimise the possibility of a voter revolt against Republican candidates. Ultimately, in America, domestic politics usually takes precedence over international concerns, so my guess is that by early next year troops will start to return.
In Asia the reaction will, on the whole, be one of relief. The Japanese, South Koreans and Australians all committed troops to Iraq, but domestic public opinion there was never enthusiastic. Asia's two giants - China and India - remained aloof, if not quietly critical. Singaporean leaders supported the war, but primarily, it seemed to me, from the broader vantage point of the 'war on terror'. Looking back, that link seems to have been thin at best.
Thus, America's post-Iraq standing in Asia will erode further. The financing of the war was in great measure supported by Asia's willingness to buy US dollars, so America's indebtedness abroad will continue to be no small matter.
Another possible consequence is that China could gain considerable diplomatic ground and status in Asia. China stood to the side while the US blundered into Iraq and watched quietly - and knowingly - with other Asians as American hubris shriveled in the Mesopotamian heat and dust. In order to pursue its war aims, Washington had to avoid serious bumps with Beijing, a heavy investor in US government securities, and cool the rhetoric about Tokyo emerging as the 'Asian US deputy sheriff'.
'As it turns out, by getting bogged down in the Iraq quagmire, the Bush administration has been forced to deepen rather than abandon its constructive engagement with China,' wrote Johns Hopkins University sociologist Giovanni Arrighi recently.
China, to be sure, still has many problems of its own, including an inelastic political system, a daunting rich-poor gap, the Taiwan issue, corruption problems and tensions with Japan.
For its part, the US will remain the world's dominant military and economic power for the foreseeable future. So it is far too early to label the 21st century the 'Chinese century'. However, it is premature to proclaim that a second 'American century' in a row will unfold as effortlessly as its promoters had so optimistically envisioned. Iraq has really hurt.
Tom Plate, a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, is the founder of the Asia-Pacific Media Network
Distributed by the UCLA Media Centre
