Indo-Pacific Strategy of the U.S.

Indo-Pacific Strategy of the U.S.

The U.S. President’s visit to India and the renewed focus on the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the U.S.

BACKGROUND:

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI):

• Adopted in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is intended to use China’s massive surpluses to build infrastructure in key parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
• It is intended as a mechanism to end China’s reliance upon the markets of the West and to develop new markets in other continents.
• According to estimates by Morgan Stanley, by 2027, China will spend about $1.3 trillion on the BRI.
• The U.S. government has repeatedly expressed its concerns regarding China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
• BRI has signed on more than 70 countries in the world. Even Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the U.S., has made the BRI one of the cornerstones of its Saudi Vision 2030 plan.
• The scale of Chinese investment, and the participation of a range of countries with different political identities in the BRI, is astonishing.
• The U.S. views the BRI as a Chinese attempt to increase its influence in the region.
• Despite massive U.S. expenditure through the Department of State and the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and through its U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, it will still not be able to match the amount spent by China. Given the ‘America First’ attitude, there are very fewer chances of more money being funneled towards investments in the region.
• Since 2017, the United States government has released reports and fact sheets on its new Indo-Pacific strategy.

CONCERNS:

Lack of clarity:

• Despite the increased focus on the Indo-Pacific, there is very little clarity on the U.S. intentions.
• The U.S. has repeatedly claimed that the Indo-Pacific Strategy is going to promote free, fair, and reciprocal trade despite failing to clarify what exactly the terms ‘free’, ‘fair’, and ‘reciprocal’ actually mean.
• It appears that the U.S. unable to outspend the Chinese are making rhetorical arguments by claiming more respect for transparency, human rights, and democratic values than China, which accuses of practicing repression at home and abroad.
• Important documents like the Free and Open Indo-Pacific report of November 2019 released by the U.S. seem plainly rhetorical.

Targeting China:

• The Indo-Pacific strategy of the U.S. seems more like the agenda of the U.S. government to use the three large states of Australia, India, and Japan to isolate China.
• This will create power blocs in the region which can prove to be detrimental to the region’s peace in the long run.

Military intentions of the U.S.:

• The U.S. investments will likely come with subsequent military claims.
• The U.S. has offered Nepal a grant of $500 million under its Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).
• Nepal is currently considering whether it should accept the grant given the possibility that acceptance of the grant money would mean that the Nepali government would have to allow U.S. troops and U.S. bases in the country.
• Given the fact that in the recent past, Nepal discovered a large amount of uranium in Mustang, near the Nepal-China border, there is considerable U.S. interest in Nepal’s economy. If the U.S. money comes with U.S. military presence, this will create a possible flashpoint in the Himalayas.
• In May 2018, the U.S. military’s Pacific Command has renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, a symbolic gesture that provides a military aspect to the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
• The U.S. government, despite its tall claims for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”, what it actually wants is an Indo-Pacific with fewer Chinese ships and more U.S. warships.
• The increased military presence in the region is not good for the peace and stability of the region.

Precedents:

• Given the numerous historical examples of the US’s lack of transparency in trade deals and the U.S. enabled Third World debt crisis in the 1980s, which was then used by the U.S.-driven International Monetary Fund’s Structural Adjustment Programs to strangle countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, there is very little hope for free, fair, and reciprocal trade as claimed by the U.S.
• Recently, the U.S. government has expressed its lack of interest in multilateral deals. The U.S. withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2017. The U.S. has been transactional in its interactions and can change its stance in a changed scenario.

Disinterest in the idea:

• As the military aspect of the Indo-Pacific strategy increased, both Australia and Japan edged away from full-scale adoption of the U.S. project.
• Japan has begun to use the term “Indo-Pacific” without the word “Strategy”.
• Australia has signed onto a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with China.
• At the moment apart from the U.S., only India remains loyal to the agenda set by the U.S.

Independence in Foreign policy:

• Given the historical importance given by India to independent foreign policymaking, the aligning to the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy poses a threat to this cherished ideal of India.
• It is possible that by aligning to the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy, India may remain a subordinate ally of the U.S. and may miss an opportunity to be part of a reshaped Asia.

Way forward:

• India should study the U.S. project thoroughly before becoming a part of it. It should consider both the short term and long term benefits of the proposed Indo-Pacific strategy. Long term national interest should be paramount in the considerations.

Source: The Hindu