He might be one of the most important foreign policy figures in the incoming Biden administration, but you’ve probably never heard of him.
Kurt Campbell, a career diplomat who led Barack Obama’s Asia policy, has been tapped as Joe Biden’s co-ordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs on the National Security Council. It’s a job more colloquially described as the president-elect’s “Asia tsar”.
Campbell’s appointment is crucial because it could be a sign of the United States taking a more consistently hawkish approach to China, which could in turn have big consequences for Australian foreign relations.
Who he is
Campbell has the textbook background of a career foreign policy wonk. He’s got a doctorate from Oxford, done his time as a US Navy officer, and had a stint as an associate professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He’s written six books, all with titles like Hard Power and Difficult Transitions. After leaving the White House, he went on to create a think tank called the Center for a New American Security. His wife Lael Brainard is a Federal Reserve governor who almost became Biden’s treasury secretary. You get the picture.
Initially a Russia specialist in the final days of the Cold War, Campbell pivoted to Asia. And years later, as an official in the Obama administration, Campbell would urge the United States to do the same. Campbell is considered one of the driving forces behind Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, a concerted effort to draw foreign policy resources away from the forever wars in the Middle East toward the Asia-Pacific, in part to counter the rise of China.
A decade on, the pivot seems like a bit of a flop. China’s power in the region has only grown. Given that, it’s little wonder Campbell was brought in to help focus the Biden administration’s foreign policy, and send a message that the new president would be taking the region seriously.
What he believes in
In 2018, Campbell was appointed Kissinger fellow at the McCain Institute for International Leadership, which should say a lot about his approach to international relations. He’s generally thought of as pretty hawkish, in favour of a tough line on China.
Campbell believes American foreign policy has historically gotten China wrong, by operating under the assumption that economic liberalisation would bring democracy to the Middle Kingdom. More recently, he’s argued that “rising to the China challenge” will help the United States arrest its own decline.
“The arrival of an external competitor has often pushed the United States to become its best self; handled judiciously, it can once again,” Campbell wrote.
“During the Cold War, US politicians endeavoured to leave foreign policy differences at ‘at the water’s edge’. In this time of partisan gridlock, domestic consensus may once again begin beyond America’s shores.”
What it means for Australia and the region
Writing in Foreign Policy, Bush-era national security official Michael Green said Campbell’s appointment would “supercharge the incoming administration’s standing in Asia”.
Campbell’s appointment seems to have been met positively in Australia. Former foreign minister Julie Bishop and ex-US ambassador Kim Beazley both spoke highly of him to The Australian. Campbell’s approach to the Asia-Pacific, which involves deepening alliances with regional allies like Australia and Japan, would probably please many in Canberra, given our current tense relationship with China.
Australia’s own increasingly hawkish stance on China can be linked in part back to fears among Canberra’s national security community during the early days of the Trump administration that the United States would abandon the region. While Trump became more assertive on China as his time in the Oval Office progressed, there was still an unsettling volatility and a tendency to leave regional allies feeling left out in the cold.
A recent leak of the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy suggests despite the president’s at times incoherent ramblings, the national security apparatus had a relatively cohesive commitment to keeping China in check, and maintaining American hegemony in the region.
Campbell’s appointment reflects a desire for that to continue.
Thank you Kushiro, a good summary. As to hubris, try this and then think through how it has to be achieved. “ the national security apparatus had a relatively cohesive commitment to keeping China in check, and maintaining American hegemony in the region.
Campbell’s appointment reflects a desire for that to continue.”
Wars take time to organise and America’s military capacity is its remaining dominant power and if not used will fade away as the economy to support it fades. Vide the UK from Imperial power to Brexit Britain.
My apologies Kishor, my proof reading failed.
“Australia’s own increasingly hawkish stance on China can be linked in part back to fears among Canberra’s national security community during the early days of the Trump administration that the United States would abandon the region.”
I’m sorry, you’re saying that Australia was worried about being abandoned by the USA so decided it was the right time to pick a fight with China? Its not even logical.
Perhaps a better way to describe this is that Australia picked a fight with China to curry favour with the USA
in which its “national security apparatus had a relatively cohesive commitment to keeping China in check”.
i.e. despite Trump nothing really changed at the National Security agency level, our agencies are still willing to put the USA ahead of our own national interest. We seem to have learnt nothing from the WMD debacle and jumped right into the Huawei sillyness at the behest of our US friends.
To my understanding there was/is serious purpose to the Huawei bans Geoff, though not for the reason given. By virtue of an excellent product Huawei is/was going to dominate the next generation digital bandwidth, 5G. As the dominant player it would mean that Huawei/China would set the protocols and rules of the game, a privilege that the US had/has previously reserved to itself. Having to resort to bans and arm twisting as it’s only means to protect prior privilege reflects technological weakness and will be recognised as such by others.
One the one hand it is more than disappointing to have to introduce Kurt Campbell to any audience but (hey) you do know the subscribers much better than do I.
What you MIGHT have pointed out was that Campbell is about 179 degrees to (optimist extraordinaire – end of history man) Francis Fukuyama.
Campbell is rational as to future relations with China and, I conjecture, the PRC will regard the appointment of Campbell as a step in the ‘right’ direction. However, as to the Asian Pivot do take a look at The Japan Times (23Jan17) for the heading ” Obama’s biggest mistake”. That – take note – from Japan when relations with the PRC were not at their zenith! I will provide a tutorial upon request.
As to John, we will see where the South China Sea, Tibet, Taiwan and the Silk/Belt stuff go. Campbell is a moderate so your backside might not heat-up after all. I would have put the chance at about 15-25% with another term of Trump.
Re Campbell I noted similarities with Esper with Airborne being substituted for Navy. Both having Academic qualifications beyond the basic. Re Japan I judged a subtle shift in policy following Abe’s resignation. Record Japanese investment in China along with Govt to Govt Accords as evidence. Abe had family historical destiny as well as National Policy goals, I had wondered whether family history was getting in the way of necessary National policy. Whatever Japan is balancing a deal better than Oz.
The current Japanese PM is a brave man because the job and drinking mug contains, if not hemlock, vinegar at best.
Happy to engage in a PRC-Japan discussion but I anticipate no major changes. The game would change for Japan should Xi insist on the unification of Korea.
Do you have to ask about the ‘improved’ balancing of Japan? The difference is that the Diet actually KNOWS what is going on whereas our motley side hasn’t a f.ing clue – as I have explained at length elsewhere.
For the nth time, the options are either cooperative diplomatic and trade relationships or we, with uncle Sam, go our own way – no research or technical innovation – – nuttn from a relationship with the USA.
Dabbling in the South China Sea or Taiwan or anything else that the PRC has ALREADY defined as CORE will earn a blood nose.
Guaranteed to fail. But what warmonger has ever cared?