Australian media: Why is there a problem with the Indo -Pacific strategy in the United States?

Australian "Policy Forum" website on August 24, original title: Why is there a problem with the Indo -Pacific strategy in the United States? The concept of the United States has changed from Asia -Pacific to Indo -Pacific, partly because the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are increasingly linked because of their problems. However, this process is mainly determined by the United States' anxiety about its regional military advantages and is related to China's growing strength. The United States adopts a passive, military -centric policy and methods, but does not consider the complexity of the region.

The Indian white paper compiled by the Trump and Biden government is almost concentrated in East Asia and Southeast Asia -India is an exception, because American officials believe that India is crucial to the new regional pattern. Obviously, the reason why these areas have received such attention is because they are important for the competition between the United States and China. Pay close attention to East and Southeast Asia, sacrificed the interests of other regions, and also revealed its military -centric characteristics.

The entire sub -region was crowded out by US policy makers in the Indo -Pacific pattern. For example, the Indo -Pacific Book of the United States completely ignored the South Pacific. In addition to exposing the intention of the United States, leaving such vulnerabilities in the Indo -Pacific architecture can also cause vulnerability and destroy its legitimacy. Compared with the United States, in the past 20 years, China has increased contact with countries in the region. Several countries in the South Tai District signed the "Belt and Road" initiative, while China worked hard to further strengthen the relationship through common development vision. However, it was not until China signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands that US decision makers promised to open a new embassy in the region and increase assistance.

The experience of the South Tai District shows that the United States has ignored its partners in the Indo -Pacific region until these partners become useful in the geopolitical competition in the United States and China. The competition first in the United States has ignored the hope of these countries for the future. That's why when they call for investment or make operating commitments to alleviate climate change, so many countries think that China is more willing to listen than the United States. At least, China provides them with a comprehensive development policy.

The United States has re -followed Nanda because of the security agreement of China and Solomon Islands. Such passive reactions are not only unsuitable, but further expose the improper way of doing their way. Unless the U.S. Indo -Pacific Framework involves a real trade and climate change policy, solve wider regional demand, and pursue development for its own rather than geopolitical goals, this state is unsustainable. In addition, through a pure military perspective, China ’s activities in the region do not respect the autonomy and sovereignty of the South Pacific countries that the United States wants to protect.

The security needs of most countries in the region have an inherent connection with economic development and climate change. These issues will determine their future and maximum security concerns. The current approach of the United States shows that it is likely to exaggerate the challenges brought by China, but it is possible to dilute the possibility of cooperation. In the final analysis, a Indo -Pacific policy serving the U.S. hegemony rather than solving regional issues, with its promoted purpose -contributing to "regional cooperation, stability, prosperity, development and peace" -run counter to the end. (Author Zerneer Garcia, translated by Qiao Heng)

- END -