In February 2022, the White House released the new US Indo-Pacific strategy document through which a new push towards Asia was declared. “The United States is determined to strengthen our long-term position and commitment to the Indo-Pacific. We will focus on every corner of the region, from Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, to South Asia and Oceania, including the Pacific islands.” With the strategy contained in the report, while attempting to give a new vision of the relationship with Asia, over time, the reality of the facts has shown that there has been no disengagement from the intangibility of previous administrations; and above all, that US foreign policy continues to be closely dependent from domestic logic. Indeed, commitments made at the regional level do not always seem to be enough, such as the pledge of 150 billion to ASEAN countries, nor they are created with the specificities of a vast region in mind, as in the case of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. Then in February 2022 with the war in Ukraine, on the one hand the US is supporting Kiev, on the other hand they are working to rebuild ties with NATO allies after the Trump years. As a result, the role of the lion is left to the People’s Republic of China, which, following its stoic pragmatism, is building a system around itself.
This paper seeks to highlight certain grey spaces in the American strategy to Indo-Pacific, while attempting to point out how these spaces are being occupied by precisely who is referred to be a strategic competitor.
As a matter of facts, president Biden does not seem to have detached himself from the imprint left by previous administrations. What has been noted is that there has been a nominal broadening of the Asian vision, with a shift from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific. At the root of this, we may notice the recognition of this vast area of the world as the main driver of global economic growth in the near future and centre of future power plays. The US has thus officially recognised that Asia is a continent undergoing tremendous change. And in the move to refer to the Indo-Pacific there are clearly logics of counterbalancing and containing China’s economic and political activism. Moreover, since President Biden arrived at the White House, he has made clear that the US wants to play a leading role in Asia again, because the main international competitor is China.
However, the US promises and intentions are proving not too consistent for the Asian partners. On 18 November 2022, Vice President Kamala Harris was sent to replace President Biden at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. This Summit was a major gathering because 20 countries including China, Russia, Japan and South Korea were present, and most importantly, it took place two days after the closing of the G20 in Bali. In her speech, the Vice President reiterated that “The United States is here to stay (..) the United States is a reliable economic partner that cares about prosperity in the region (..) the United States is a proud Pacific power and has a vital interest in supporting a region that is open, interconnected, prosperous, secure and efficient.”
Although the Vice President’s speech was reassuring, from an Asian perspective at one of Asia’s most important summits, considering the very sensitive historical moment, the formal appointment, as well as the etiquette, the President’s presence would have sent a stronger message. Moreover, it would not have left so much room for China. President Xi Jingping was in fact present in person and met all the leaders. He did not read his speech, but sent it in writing and in the document he responded to US promises with traditional Chinese pragmatism. No to Cold War logic in Asia because it is nobody’s backyard and therefore there should be no competition there. Furthermore, the document reiterated the cornerstone of Beijing’s international strategy ‘a more just international order’. That is, a world order in which China is no longer a minority partner of the US.
In addition to APEC, the region also includes the older Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In May 2022, President Biden hosted ASEAN leaders in Washington for a special summit where a sum of USD 150 million was announced for new projects in the region. A sum considered by Bloomberg to be just enough to build 1.5 km of the Jakarta metro; already financed by Japan.
And again we see the fundamental trait of American foreign policy, that is, to make their foreign policy always looking at their own domestic policy and the impact on it.
It is no coincidence that when the President presented the Indo-Pacific Framework in the US, he said it was “a set of rules to ensure that American workers, small businesses and farmers could compete in the Indo-Pacific.”
In March 2022, President Biden travelled in person to Tokyo to launch the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. The plan was addressed to 14 states that together account for 40% of the world’s GDP to convince them to deal less with China and more with the United States. But Washington asks for drastic changes in trade policy without offering anything concrete. The agreement is a declaration of intent that so far is careful not to set parameters and modalities, and there is a gap that the Asian partners have pointed out. The plan lacks tariff exemptions with the United States, i.e. the tax incentive to boost exports, something that China offered immediately with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) instead. A 2020 agreement that Beijing signed with the same states of the Indo Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperitiy, except for the US, Fiji and India; and it came into operation in January 2022.
Besides, the American dialectic of recent times creates quite a few problems for the Asian partners. Indeed, dividing the international community into two groups of liberal democracies and authoritarian states only creates uncertainty and discontent. This clear-cut distinction does not please Asian countries, even those most concerned about Chinese expansion. Certainly, these have a pragmatic view. They know that nobody in Asia today can renounce doing business with China, and nobody can make an anti-Chinese crusade based on American values.
Yet the tendency of the two superpowers in recent years seems to be that they can no longer find the words to understand each other. Diplomacy is also based on human empathy. And there were golden times, diplomatically speaking, between China and the US, because the officials dealing with China had lived many years in the country, and also had academic interests. That era seems to be over. For example, when US Treasury Chief Janet Yellen said on 12 November 2022 that she had no idea who the new economic counterparts were after the 20th Communist Party Congress, the problem was evidently with the diplomats in charge of informing her.
Ever since they resumed diplomatic relations in the 1970s thanks to Kissinger’s diplomacy, the economies of China and the US have been travelling together. And precisely to stimulate American investment in China, Beijing had created Special Economic Zones (SEZs) where many US companies had set up factories to produce items for review in Western markets. And this is where the myth of the world factory was born. A huge workforce with Chinese characteristics.
In 2001, after a long journey, China officially enters the WTO and from there the US invests in sectors that were previously barred to it, China gains in terms of lowering export tariffs. In 20 years, however, things change. The big bet of the 2000s, especially that of former President Bill Clinton was: China enters the WTO, grows, gets rich and becomes democratic. Everything went according to plan except the last one. The Communist Party is still there, so for the US administration the question has become how to contain China in Asia by bringing more countries to its side, and keeping growing and dynamic markets to do business.
But it would have to be understood whether acting in the current way works.
In conclusion, what seems to emerge is that the US promises and strategy for the Indo-Pacific are in danger of being misguided. While recognising that the Indo-Pacific is in motion and cannot be ignored, the US is stuck on assumptions and conditioned by elements that no longer fit the modern environment, and it becomes evident that there is a difference between what they observe, pledge and what they do. From an Asian perspective, the US should move away from old logics and get more into the state of affairs. It should go back to those diplomats who knew their place so well that they could make proposals that their counterparts could take seriously. And without having to divide the world into good and bad by increasing tensions unnecessarily.
1. Vice President Harris Delivers Remarks at the APEC CEO Summit – The White House -YouTube channel
2. President Xi Jinping Delivered a Written Speech at the APEC CEO Summit, Underscoring China’s Commitment to Building an Asia-Pacific Community with a Shared Future
3. Tian, Nan; Fleurant, Aude; Kuimova, Alexandra; Wezeman, Pieter D.; Wezeman, Siemon T. (24 April 2022). “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2021” (PDF). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2022. Retrieved 25 April 2022.
4. President Biden pledges 150 millions for ASEAN- Bloomberg. com
5. President Biden launches the Indo-Pacific Framework for Prosperity- The White House – YouYube channel
6. U.S.-Indo-Pacific-Strategy, pag. 4, Executive office of the President, NSC, Washington DC, February 2022
7. Japan wins metro contract – https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/metros/japanese-indonesian-jv-wins-jakarta-mrt-metro-contract/
8. Yellen Unfamiliar with new China economy heads policy direction- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-12/yellen-unfamiliar-with-new-china-economy-heads-policy-direction
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
