Obama's foreign policy 'pivot' toward Asia is incomplete: Ian Bremmer

President Obama entered the White House six years ago promising to reorient U.S. foreign policy priorities toward Asia from Europe and the Middle East.

His administration has been criticized for failing to follow through on this “pivot,” as civil wars in the Middle East and Russia’s incursion into Ukraine commanded greater focus than a largely stable Asian continent.

Yet Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the Eurasia Group political-risk consulting firm, says Obama’s efforts in Asia – and with a rising China specifically -- have been somewhat productive, at least in terms of economic relations.

“I would argue that Obama’s Asia policy has been probably one of his more effective policies – certainly more than Russia, the Middle East and Europe,” says Bremmer in the attached video.

As one major point of progress, he singles out the president’s firm backing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement against opposition both from some Republicans and prominent members of his own party.

In the TPP, Bremmer says, “40% or world GDP joined in a massive trade deal that not only aligns those countries more tightly with the U.S., but would also show the Chinese that ‘If you don’t pick up more U.S.-led global standards, you’re going to be isolated from a trade bloc [and] that’s going to hurt your economy.’”

Of course, Obama came to push hard for the TPP only relatively recently. And even his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – “who was the architect of the TPP,” Bremmer notes – has withheld vocal support for it now that she is a presidential candidate and must please Democratic voters who fear its potential effect on American workers.

Yet on strategic military matters, Bremmer gives lower marks to Obama’s treatment of an increasingly assertive China, which has sought greater control over areas of the South China Sea and elsewhere.

[Get the Latest Market Data and News with the Yahoo Finance App]

“While China doesn’t compete militarily with the U.S. outside of Asia, it does compete within Asia” and has been “unnerving as lot of [U.S.] allies,” he argues.

“I think you’d want to see a more robust American military response” in support of Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia and other “countries we’re really engaged with -- allied with,” he says.

Bremmer’s new book, “Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World,” is a call for the next U.S. president to define a clear strategic approach to geopolitical affairs.

The three options he lays out in his book include Independent America, in which the U.S. pulls back from overseas adventures and rebuilds at home; Moneyball America, a pragmatic cost-benefit approach focused on vital national interests; or Indispensable America, in which Washington broadly and assertively promotes democratic values abroad.

When it comes to relations with an ascendant China, it’s hard to see evidence of any of these options being affirmatively pursued right now, in Bremmer’s view.