US Indo-Pacific strategy

Every year, the executive branch of the US government is supposed to submit a National Security Strategy (NSS) report to the US Congress, outlining the administration’s goals, objectives, worldwide interests and policies that impact the security of their nation. Many administrations however have not been submitting these reports on time, or worse, have not made any at all. President Barack Obama for instance submitted the NSS only twice during his eight-year tenure – specifically in 2010 and 2015.

Last December, the administration of President Donald Trump released its NSS report and as expected, it generated – continues to generate, actually – varied opinions and disparate comments on several issues. One of the most widely discussed however is the prominence given to the Indo-Pacific region, described in the document as stretching from the west coast of India to the Western shores of the United States representing “the most populous and economically dynamic part of the world,” and where “a geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place,” the NSS report goes.

It was actually Hillary Clinton – during her stint as State Secretary – who highlighted the term “IndoPacific” and its importance to global trade and commerce during a speech in Hawaii in 2010. Over the years, the term “Indo-Pacific has become increasingly used in diplomatic and security circles to indicate a wider area encompassing Australia, Japan and India as a counterpoint to “Asia-Pacific” where China is perceived to be predominant.

“Although the United States seeks to continue to cooperate with China, China is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda… Its efforts to build and militarize outposts in the South China Sea endanger the free flow of trade, threaten the sovereignty of other nations, and undermine regional stability,” the report said, which also accused China of seeking to “displace the US in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reach of its state-driven economic model and reorder the region in its favor.”

Not surprisingly, China reacted strongly, saying in a statement that, “It is completely egotistical for any nation to put its interests above the common interests of other nations and the international community. It will lead to a path of self-isolation,” adding that the US is being contradictory as it says on one hand that it wants to develop a partnership with China but on the other, “takes an oppositional stance.”

The fact is, US allies like Australia and Japan are increasingly using the term “Indo-Pacific” in their policy papers and in discussing security strategies. As early as 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe – who is advocating a “free and open Indo-Pacific” – has been urging India to work with Japan in promoting freedom and prosperity in the “broader Asia” where linkages between the US, Australia and other Pacific nations would result in a vast network that would allow the free-flow of goods and people.

PM Abe’s strategy calls for a “democratic security diamond” involving Japan, Australia, the US and India. Senior diplomats of these nations met in Manila last November and agreed to uphold a rules-based, free and open international order in the Indo-Pacific region.

I met with Matt Pottinger, the US National Security Council’s senior director for East Asia and adviser to National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster at the White House, where we briefly discussed the Indo-Pacific strategy. Malaysian Ambassador Tan Sri Zulhasnan Rafique also hosted another meeting with NSA Director Pottinger and the other ASEAN ambassadors, where the underpinnings of the US strategy in Asia was discussed, along with the common challenges that nations face such as rogue regimes and terrorism, and how nations can strengthen alliances to defeat these threats.

In any case, there is no doubt that India is pleased with President Trump’s national security strategy that “welcome(s) India’s emergence as a leading global power and stronger strategic partner.”

Interestingly, the first foreign trip of President Rodrigo Duterte this year will be to India for the IndiaASEAN summit, underscoring the great importance that the Philippine government places on its relationship with India. In November last year, the two nations inked four agreements to boost bilateral relations most especially on defense. Last December, members of the Indian and Philippine coast guards also conducted bilateral maritime exercises in Manila Bay.

Not many are aware that India reached out to the Philippines following the siege of Marawi City, offering $500,000 financial assistance to help fight the ISISaffiliated terrorist groups that attacked the city. What is doubly significant is that it was the first time India extended aid to another nation to fight terrorists – also underscoring the growing role of the Indian government in Southeast Asia.

In my view, President Duterte’s upcoming visit to India clearly demonstrates the wisdom of the president’s pragmatic foreign policy approach, proving that our self-interest is paramount in establishing warm relations with rival countries like India and China.

In his message preceding the contents of the 55page NSS report, President Trump said he envisions “a world of strong, sovereign and independent nations, each with its own cultures and dreams, striving sideby-side in prosperity, freedom, and peace – throughout the upcoming year.”

It is clear that if leaders uphold cooperation, respect the dignity and sovereignty of each and every nation and develop an effective mechanism to settle disputes through dialogue – this vision of peaceful coexistence might just be realized soon, not only throughout this year, but for many years to come.

* * *