I don’t know whether the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” pushed by the United States is gradually losing its effectiveness or because it really lacks sufficient support. Recently, members of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United States have reached an agreement on this issue. Currently, the two parties in the United States are planning to launch a joint bill, prompting The U.S. government will provide more funds to the Indo-Pacific region to help relevant countries further fight against China.
▲In February this year, the Biden administration announced the "Indo-Pacific Strategy"
According to a report by the British media "Financial Times" on June 19, Democratic Amy Bella, chairman of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee Republican Congressman Steve Chabo co-submitted the "Indo-Pacific Participation Act". Chabo emphasized that " if we believe that China is the focus, then our rhetoric and budget need to match.". To simply understand, it is still the same sentence that allows the US government to increase its investment in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy". However, the strategy has not achieved a breakthrough. Is it really just because of lack of money? No, no, but there is something wrong with the strategy itself.
1. The U.S. government is frantically pursuing the "Indo-Pacific Strategy"
Compared with Trump's arrogance on the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" during the period, Biden is obviously more pragmatic and is constantly hyping and promoting strategic concepts. At the same time, there is no shortage of actual actions, and some media even describe it as using all possible means to win over other countries. For example, the "U.S.- ASEAN Special Summit" held in the United States in the middle of last month tried to draw closer relations with ASEAN countries and differentiate relations with China.
▲Russia’s “Quadrilateral Security Dialogue” was held in Tokyo not long ago
In addition, the “Quadrilateral Security Dialogue” held again in Tokyo by the United States, Japan, India, and Australia at the end of last month once again targeted China. Although in the joint statement issued after the meeting There is no direct mention of the word "China", but does not mention China everywhere, and never mentions China. For example, it mentioned "strongly opposed to any coercion, provocation and unilateral behavior", "the use of coast guard vessels and maritime militia in dangerous ways" , "will continue to respond to the 'challenges' faced by the rules-based maritime order" , including 'in the East China Sea and South China Sea region'" and so on. The essence of the above content is still to continue to implement the "Indo-Pacific Strategy."
If this is not enough to explain the madness, then the "pawn" of South Korea will jump out. During Biden's Asia trip in May, he changed the order of previous visits and visited South Korea for the first time. This move captured the "heart" of South Korea. The frequency of high-level exchanges between the two countries increased significantly. After Biden met with Yin Xiyue, in early June, the U.S. Executive Secretary of State Sherman visited South Korea and attended the meeting between the deputy foreign ministers of the United States, Japan and South Korea. Later, the defense ministers of South Korea and the United States held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue. A few days ago, South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin embarked on his first visit to the United States.
▲Yin Xiyue held a welcome ceremony for Biden’s visit
Such frequent meetings between South Korea and the United States in a short period of time, in addition to South Korea’s need for its own interests, is more about the United States’ hope to use South Korea’s help to realize the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” and realize containment of China. In one month, the U.S. government has communicated with all countries surrounding China that may be included in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" almost once. This intensity not only highlights the madness and impatience of the United States, but also highlights the "Indo-Pacific Strategy". strategy” in a desperate struggle.
Of course, when it comes to this, there will definitely be some people who argue that judging from the series of interactions between the United States, in addition to the initiative of the United States, many countries are indeed actively responding to the U.S. strategy, especially Japan and South Korea, which are the most eye-catching. However, everyone knows that behind this kind of eye-catching is entirely due to interests. Once the interests are lost, the attitude will definitely change accordingly. Moreover, we need to realize that while Japan and South Korea are showing positive performance, most countries still maintain a relatively sober attitude. It is this sobriety that determines the failure of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy".
2. The "Indo-Pacific Strategy" does not live up to its name
1. This strategy has disrupted the regional situation
In February this year, after full deliberation, the Biden administration finally announced the first "Indo-Pacific Strategy" since taking office. It is completely dissatisfied with this strategy. It can be described as high-sounding, and it is precisely because of this that it has confused many countries in a short period of time. For example, in the strategy, the United States clearly proposed five major goals, including "promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific order", "building connections within and outside the region", "promoting Indo-Pacific prosperity", "enhancing Indo-Pacific security" and so on. These goals have given many small countries in the region, especially those in the Indo-Pacific region that do not have a strong presence, whose overall strength is too weak, and whose military strength is basically non-existent, to see hope for development.
▲The US Navy's "Seawolf" class nuclear submarine "Connecticut" once docked in Japan
However, this hope is gradually disappearing with the implementation of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy". First of all, in the actual implementation process, in order to achieve the so-called "enhancing security in the Indo-Pacific," the United States has a simple and crude approach, which is to strengthen the deployment of military power in the Indo-Pacific region. According to a previous report by the U.S. Navy Times, in November last year, only two nuclear submarines were permanently stationed at the U.S. military base in Guam. However, in April this year, the number of long-term nuclear submarines had increased to five, more than doubling the number. The purpose of the increased deployment is simple, which is to continue to contain China's maritime power within the so-called "first island chain."
At the same time, in June last year, the Biden administration also decided to withdraw some US troops and military facilities from the Middle East , including multiple fighter squadrons and the "THAAD" system. These withdrawn personnel and equipment will be withdrawn in the future. Redeploy to the "Indo-Pacific" region. However, the US approach has not been of any substantial help to most countries in the region, and has been "threatened" by the United States to some extent, which has further disrupted the security situation in the Indo-Pacific.
▲ Sino-US maritime confrontations have occurred many times before
In addition, due to excessive military deployment, it has interfered with China's normal development, greatly damaged China's legitimate rights and interests , and directly or indirectly increased the risk of Sino-US confrontation, such as The frequent confrontations between the Chinese and American militaries in areas such as the South China Sea and the East China Sea are enough to prove this point. Of course, through the frequent "interactions" between the Chinese and American militaries, not only the United States but also most countries in the relevant regions have clearly seen China's determination to defend its sovereignty.
At this time, the goal of "enhancing security in the Indo-Pacific" is not only unachievable, the US move has also brought a series of negative impacts to the regional situation, and may even lead to local conflicts. In view of this, cooperating with the United States will not only not gain greater benefits and obtain a safer development environment, but may be involved in the vortex of conflict. At this time, relevant stakeholders will fully weigh the pros and cons and make decisions that are most beneficial to their own interests. choice, but this choice is by no means a positive response to the "Indo-Pacific Strategy."
2. The so-called cooperation has no sincerity
Of course, as the strategy advances, the United States seems to have realized that it is indeed difficult to impress other countries through verbal "fudge". For this reason, it needs to use cooperation as "bait" to attract other countries. However, in During the actual implementation process, more and more countries have found that these cooperations are not sincere at all.
▲The "Special US-ASEAN Summit" was huge
In May of this year, the United States held the "Special US-ASEAN Summit" in the United States with great fanfare, bringing all the heads of the ten ASEAN countries to Washington for a massive meeting. , however, this meeting can only be described as heavy thunder and small rain. At this meeting, US President Biden promised to spend 150 million US dollars to improve the infrastructure, security, epidemic prevention, etc. of ASEAN countries. Ten countries will share 150 million US dollars. On average, one country can only share 150 million US dollars. To 15 million U.S. dollars, if we continue to divide it by project, it will be even less, only a few million U.S. dollars. This small amount of money for will simply humiliate the ten ASEAN countries , let alone sincerity.
In addition, the recently concluded "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue", under the leadership of the United States, has made investment commitments to "Indo-Pacific" countries, stating that it will strive to provide approximately US$50 billion in aid and investment to the region in the next five years. This is a lot of money, it’s really a big cake. However, behind the big cake is probably just another pie painted by the United States, because it is not easy to get the money together. The four countries’ investment of US$50 billion does not seem to be much, but don’t forget that India is among them. India itself is in urgent need of outsiders. Investment, but now it is asked to use funds to participate in foreign investment. Is it realistic?
▲The "Quartet Security Dialogue" has been held many times
Secondly, although the US economy is good, it is surprisingly "stingy" in terms of investment. only plays the role of shouting slogans as much as possible, trying every means to fool other countries into taking more money . At this time, despite the fact that there are only four countries, the possibility of collecting the US$50 billion is extremely slim, and even if the US$50 billion is collected, how to divide it is still a problem. In the "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue", India, Japan, and Australia all belong to the "Indo-Pacific" scope, so these three countries are also included in the scope of investment in theory. At this time, these three countries will find ways to obtain more investment. Isn't this a typical left-handed investment? Right pocket? How much benefit can other "Indo-Pacific" countries benefit from such investment?
Faced with this "routine" of the United States, most Indo-Pacific countries have already seen through it. Faced with this kind of insincere cooperation, it seems like a daydream to have most countries obey the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" wholeheartedly.
In fact, the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" pushed by the Biden administration itself has huge flaws, and these flaws have existed as early as Obama proposed the "Asia-Pacific Rebalancing" strategy. The biggest problem is that once the United States completes After suppressing and containing China, the United States cannot replace China's role in the region with its current strength. At that time, all "Indo-Pacific" countries will face a big problem - how to protect their own interests.
Today's China is not only the driving force for economic development in the entire "Indo-Pacific" region, but also a booster for the global economy. Taking China and ASEAN, its largest trading partner, as an example, the volume of goods trade between China and ASEAN reached 8,782 billion last year. billion, a year-on-year increase of 28.1%. Looking at specific data, China's exports to ASEAN were US$483.69 billion, a year-on-year increase of 26.1%; China's imports from ASEAN were US$394.51 billion, a year-on-year increase of 30.8%; at the same time, last year, China's direct investment in the entire ASEAN industry reached US$14.35 billion. The economic data is nothing short of impressive.
In the face of this kind of economic data, does the United States have the confidence and ability to completely replace China? The answer is naturally no. At this time, out of consideration of their own national interests, most countries will not follow the United States wholeheartedly and continue to implement the absurd "Indo-Pacific Strategy". From this point of view, today's "livelihood" is just a flash in the pan, and I believe this name is not worthy of its name. China's "Indo-Pacific Strategy" will exist in name only in a short time, and the clues of this have emerged now.
