Two former US diplomats, joined by a senior Singapore diplomat and an academic, discussed America's enduring resilience and capacity for renewal, amid change in US foreign policy under the Trump presidency. Yet, their reassurances were tempered by lingering ambiguities, leaving many questions unresolved.
“Where is the United States going and has America changed forever?”
That was the provocative question posed by Chan Heng Chee, Ambassador-at-Large and Professor, Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities at the panel discussion, Strategy and Statecraft - Implications for Global Stability and Commerce held at The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and directed at speakers Dr Kurt Campbell, Chairman and Co-founder of The Asia Group, Mr Matt Pottinger, CEO of Garnaut Global LLC and Joseph Liow Chin Yong, Dean, College of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Professor, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University.
The question was in context of what Professor Chan called a “more dangerous” world, referring to the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, India/Pakistan, and Israel/Iran, as well as “great disruption” both within the United States and to the international trading system thanks to US President Trump’s tariff wars.
Dr Campbell, who served as US Deputy Secretary of State and National Security Council coordinator for the Indo-Pacific from 2021 to 2024 said the United States, “has gone through extraordinary, difficult, challenging periods in which we had withdrawn or had a very different vision of our role in global politics.” He referenced times of tremendous domestic turmoil such as the 1930s and the first decade of the Cold War but harkened to the belief of former US President Obama that, “ultimately, despite our challenges, the arc of history for the United States will bend in a positive direction, even though we will face enormous domestic challenges.”
He said he was reassured by the fact that the history of the United States is one of enormous difficulty and struggle, “and yet we have gotten through those periods”, and his hope is that the US will be able to do the same now.
Mr Matt Pottinger, who served four years at the White House in senior roles on the National Security Council staff, including as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2019 to 2021, echoed that view. “The United States has a capacity to adapt and reinvent itself, sometimes extremely painfully, but it is the most adaptive system of government.” He said the US would make it through its “midlife crisis”.
Professor Liow agreed the US has a reservoir of resolve and capacity and will eventually find a new equilibrium but asked both Americans, “What happens between now and then?” He added, “because the world has to move on while you find yourself.”
In a sense, the exchange encapsulated the dynamic of the discussion. The two former US diplomats added context and nuance, but little to assuage the concerns and anxieties of the Southeast Asian perspective.
Rethinking China
On China, Mr Pottinger described America as reacting to its earlier failed policy. “We all had very high hopes that by bringing China to the World Trade Organisation…would help further liberalise China's economy”, he said, adding that there was even the hope of liberalising its politics, “we just happened to be wrong.”
He argued that the 30-year grand strategy has made the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) richer in ways that made it more truculent and combative. He had previously written that “Washington should seek to weaken the sources of CCP imperialism and hold out for a Chinese leader who behaves less like an unrelenting foe.” He said this does not mean regime change, but that a détente policy would be a mistake. Instead, he supports a harder-edged US policy that imposes costs on Beijing for playing a “destabilising role” and “fomenting chaos” by supporting Russia and Iran.
Dr Campbell agreed the Russia/China relationship was frustrating. He recounted his personal involvement with engaging China before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and how China did not believe US claims of a possible invasion or how destabilising it would be. “The birth of American strategic purpose was in Europe in the 1940s”, said Dr Campbell, referring to the US’ role on the international stage and the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). “The fact that China has aided in a conflict that is designed to actually shift the borders and territorial integrity in Europe…is going at the core of our strategic fundamental interests in the maintenance of peace and stability in Europe.”
Dr Campbell also warned that China was reticent to engage in mechanisms and capacities designed to deal with inadvertence and miscalculation, such as the type of hotline the US maintained with the Soviet Union during the cold war.
Professor Chan pointed out that the Europeans also didn’t believe the Russians would invade Ukraine and offered that China’s support was more restrained than it could have been, given that Russia has been its long-time ally. She and Professor Liow agreed that Southeast Asians are concerned with the lack of trust between the US and China and would like to see better communication and more guardrails.
On whether the US and China economies would decouple, the consensus was that wholesale decoupling is impossible, but that “de-risking” will continue despite the inherent difficulties.
Middle East quagmire
Professor Chan noted that efforts by the United States to pivot its focus toward Asia are repeatedly disrupted by developments in the Middle East. She questioned how the US plans to reassure its Asian partners, especially given the ongoing conflicts involving Israel, Iran, and Gaza, which are likely to have lasting consequences and continue drawing American attention.
Regarding the recent US bombing of Iran, Mr Pottinger offered a justification rather than reassurance. He said the Trump administration had “no choice” given that Iran had broken previous agreements and was building a new nuclear facility. He admitted it was frustrating how the Middle East frequently “sucks us back in”, but downplayed the overall security implications saying, “those aircraft carriers of the US that are in the Persian Gulf are only six days sail from Taiwan.”
Dr Campbell was more circumspect, saying it was not just about aircraft carriers. “The challenges that we face require the United States to completely reconceptualise how we engage.” He said America can no longer have paternalistic partnerships with countries like Japan or South Korea and should embrace them as truly equal partners. “That means working in technology and military intelligence and shared strategic assessments to grapple with the challenges on the global stage, particularly in the Indo Pacific, that we will not be able to handle on our own.”
Trade concerns
Many questions from the audience reflected concern about the breakdown of global trade, especially as Southeast Asia is made up of developing economies that depend on giants like the US.
The ex-diplomats both explained that, despite being the world’s largest economy, there were large swaths of America where the population had lost confidence in global trade. They pointed to deindustrialisation, the opioid crisis, and loss of intellectual property as reasons why the US needs to recraft the consensus on trade.
That said, they argued that the US was not in decline and there are many opportunities for areas of cooperation in the digital economy among the US and Indo Pacific nations.
Asia’s time to engage
If there was one message that Mr Pottinger and Dr Campbell hoped to convey to countries such as Singapore and others in the Indo Pacific it was: avoid the temptation to take cover and wait out the current period of uncertainty. “That's not the right approach now”, said Dr Campbell, “It makes sense for a country like Singapore that punches so far above its weight to engage, to make arguments about what's necessary in the United States and China, Japan, and India, and that's what we're here to encourage.”