Trump strategy heightens tensions

After his announcement on July 30 that $113 million would be invested in the “Indo-Pacific” region to develop technology and infrastructure, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday pledged to provide nearly $300 million in new security funding for Southeast Asia. Are these moves concrete steps to implement US President Donald Trump’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy, and what will be their impact on the regional order? Three experts share their views on the issue with China Daily’s Liu Jianna. Excerpts follow:

The US’ Indo-Pacific strategy is aimed at containing China’s growing influence in the region. The Trump administration is using this strategy, which is effectively a buildup of the Barack Obama administration’s rebalancing to Asia-Pacific policy, to woo Southeast and South Asian countries, mainly India, Indonesia and Vietnam, into its fold.

The rebalancing to Asia-Pacific policy, which focuses on security and overlooks the developing countries’ need to develop their economies first, was called into question soon after being launched. Which perhaps prompted the United States to introduce its Indo-Pacific strategy, which, according to Pompeo and some other US officials, attaches much importance to the region’s economic development.

In particular, the US’ plan to invest in infrastructure is clearly aimed at checking the rising influence of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative. That the US has resorted to strategic competition with China bodes ill for

the regional order and development.

However, the fact that some countries, including India, are still hesitant to fully embrace the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy due to their respective concerns and misgivings, and given that the $113 million pledged by Pompeo for regional technology and infrastructure development is too small to fulfill the purpose make the strategy all hat and no cattle.

The slowdown, even some obstacles the Belt and Road Initiative has faced recently, for instance, the halting of four projects in Malaysia and the potential scaling back of a Chineseinvested port in Myanmar, are not beyond expectations, as differences in opinions and disagreements can arise in any kind of cooperation. But such factors will not change the initiative, as countries along the two routes need to develop and China can provide them with the muchneeded investment and expertise for infrastructure development.

Some Western officials, scholars and media have criticized and labeled accusations against the Belt and Road Initiative, the most outrageous being the claim that China is pushing the countries along the Belt and Road toward a debt crisis. The truth is, about 90 percent of the Chinese investment in the Belt and Road Initiative is commercial loans strictly in accordance with intertration national norms with only a small percentage being low-interest government loans and assistance loans. It is therefore extremely irresponsible of the West to level false charges against China, especially because Western economies in general refuse to offer loans to developing countries in the first place.

China’s national strength has noticeably increased in recent years, so has its influence in the Indo-Pacific region. In some sense, it is natural for the US to seek more allies to contain China’s rise. Thus the Indo-Pacific strategy should be seen as the US’ inevitable response to China’s growing influence.

But the US could end up splitting the region and endangering regional peace and stability if it pushes ahead with its strategic and security alliance policies to contain China, which has been identified as a major strategic competitor in last year’s US National Security Strategy report.

Generally speaking, whether the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy will achieve its desired goal depends on China’s response. The strategy would have succeeded if China wanted to replace the US as the superpower. But since China doesn’t have any such ambitions — and Southeast Asian countries don’t want great power rivalries to raise tensions in the region — the strategy will most possibly fail.

As for the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese enterprises, particularly State-owned enterprises, should slow the pace of their overseas operations and conduct in-depth research on the local situation before investing abroad. Nonetheless, guided by the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, the initiative is well designed and inclusive enough to accommodate more players. Therefore the accusations and stereotypical bias against it are mostly overstatements, and it’s high time they stopped.

That the US renamed its Pacific Command the “Indo-Pacific Command” on May 30 and Pompeo has announced funds for technology, security and infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific region demonstrates the US’ intention to dominate the Indian Ocean, as well as to check China’s growing influence. Despite its claimed focus on the economic front, the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy also reflects its geopolitical, military and security concerns and ambitions.

And to a large extent, China’s growing presence in the region thanks to the rapid yet sometimes bumpy development of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road has prompted the US adminis- to change the previous rebalancing to Asia-Pacific policy to the Indo-Pacific strategy to bring the entire Indian Ocean into its sphere of influence.

But the US, for now at least, lacks a solid foundation to build on its smug calculation. Moreover, the three other major players in the region — Japan, Australia and India — all have distinct goals and concerns, which may prevent them from taking a unified stance on regional affairs and development. For example, India pursues a relatively neutral policy compared with the other countries and has enhanced its ties with China recently. Also Japan’s relationship with China has improved while Japanese private enterprises have been allowed to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. Australia, on its part, has at times tried to counterbalance China’s influence through its hostile policies.

Equally importantly, the Southeast Asian countries will not be content by just going with the flow, and may be unwilling to choose sides between the US and China when it comes to security. In short, it is too early to conclude the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy would have a huge impact on the regional situation and order.

What’s alarming is that some in the West have repeatedly used the Belt and Road Initiative as a scapegoat for certain countries’ domestic difficulties, for instance, Sri Lanka’s and Pakistan’s debt crisis. They ignore the fact that these issues are a result of various factors, including the worsening external environment and slowdown in exports. So blaming the Belt and Road Initiative for these countries’ ills is totally irresponsible.