Who speaks for U.S. on Asia policy?

By Edward Neilan

State, Treasury, Defense take turns but lack of single voice heard from Washington during financial crisis sows confusion.

TOKYO (JP): The United States' failure to speak with a single authoritative voice to articulate its policy in Asia at a time of severe financial crisis is damaging America's image in the region.

The mixed, confusing messages coming through have given Asians reasons to question American motives and leadership. The communications mishmash has deepened suspicions that the U.S.was somehow behind the currency and banking collapse, and will benefit unduly from the recovery.

And there is a new round of anti-American demonstrations in newspaper editorials and, in some cases, in the streets.

Who speaks for U.S. policy in Asia?

Not the White House, which is consumed with efforts to deflect effects of the current hints of scandal and other damage control activitivies. The world is fortunate that none of President Bill Clinton's favored interns turned out to be a Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Thai, Indonesian, Taiwan, Russian, Iraqi, or Israeli spy. A national security dimension to the current fuss would have been too much to bear.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright is too preoccupied with the Middle East, including Iraq, to give Asia a tumble.

Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin at first acted as if he didn't know where Thailand was, then began behaving like Henry Kissinger, issuing cryptic instructions on survival to Indonesia and South Korea.

Madame Albright called a joint press conference to insist there was no turf warfare which was a dead giveaway that such was the case, that she was bothered by Rubin's encroachment in the diplomacy arena.

Clinton has said privately he didn't want a strong Secretary of State to steal his own thunder as a foreign policymaker. He gained a page in the history books by naming the first woman to the post but if he becomes a hermit in the White House because of the heat of scandal he may need a strong Secretary of State.

It is interesting that Clinton's two top defenders at home (wife Hillary) and in the cabinet (Albright) are women.

If Clinton continues to display shyness in foreign affairs, particularly]y Asian affairs, what will be his reception in China in the fall and will the trip go ahead or be canceled? An image of stability is at stake on that call.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen made a strong visit to the region and told Asians, in effect, that the U.S. would stand by them through thick and thin. Trouble is, the Cold War is over, and the region is more interested in bailouts than bombers and in loan-rollovers than Theater Missile Defense. Cohen's visit to a previously top secret Chinese battle control center may have helped Washington-Beijing ties but it didn't improve the bottom line in Bangkok or credit ratings in Taipei.

In Tokyo, Cohen and new U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Foley apologized for keeping residents awake with unannounced night preparations for the carrier U.S.S. Independence heading for the Middle East. But they glossed over the issue of an Okinawan heliport which threatens the Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto government.

Rubin, his deputy Lawrence Summers and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky persist in telling the Japanese to spur domestic demand, speaking from rostrums in Davos, Switzerland, instead of in Asia.

Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs Stuart Eisenstadt said in Davos "We are still testing the waters."

Presumably, he was talking about the search for solutions to the Asian financial crisis and not about U.S. Asian policy.

Adding to the gaggle of American voices, some of them contradictory, are officials from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, both essentially American-directed institutions in the eyes of most Asians.

Does the name Stanley Roth ring a bell? He is the assistant secretary of state for Asia and Pacific but he is the loneliest man in Washington because he can't get a word in edgeways on Asian affairs. He is said to be waiting for his telephone to ring.

The spectacle is reminiscent of the first Clinton administration when then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher logged some 30 stopovers in Damascus on Middle East diplomacy but was a stranger in Asia.

Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and Pacific Winston Lord, former ambassador to China, went public with a memo to Christopher saying, in effect, "Where are we?" and "What is our policy in Asia?" Some improvement was noted thereafter.

Perhaps the Lord memo needs to be dusted off and reissued.