Why US’ anti-China Indo-Pacific Strategy is dangerous, deluded and doomed to fail

The document reads like a committee-produced mishmash of delusions, false assumptions, wishful thinking and contradictions
Most of the region’s governments do not actually share US democratic values, even the so-called democracies in Malaysia and Indonesia, making it a hard sell

Mark J. Valencia

Published: 3:30am, 19 Feb 2022

Why you can trust SCMP

The United States has finally released its long-awaited Indo-Pacific Strategy document. Southeast Asia and its regional organisation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, figure prominently. But its agenda for these countries and Asean is based on false assumptions and ignores fundamental differences.

The strategy prioritises Asean’s aspiration of centrality in regional security. It says, “We endorse Asean centrality and support Asean in its efforts to deliver sustainable solutions to the region’s most pressing challenges.” The US intends to contribute “to an empowered and unified Asean”.

These words hits the right notes. However, the next stated means of accomplishing the strategy’s goals are to “support India’s continued rise and regional leadership” and “deliver on the Quad”.

These objectives are contradictory. The US needs to explain in detail to Asean and convince its members – particularly its de facto leader Indonesia – how it intends to do this simultaneously without favouring one nation or grouping over another.

Another significant problem is that Asean and the US have fundamentally different visions for the region. The US vision of an implicitly anti-China, security-oriented free and open Indo-Pacific contrasts with Asean’s Outlook on the Indo-Pacific.

06:24

Explained: the history of China’s territorial disputes

The Indo-Pacific Strategy says China is “combining its economic, diplomatic, military and technological might as it pursues a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world’s most influential power”. The strategy is meant to help prevent this.

US-driven actions in the region tell the real story, though. Contrary to supporting Asean centrality in security affairs, the US and its partners have undertaken militaristic actions in part because they perceive Asean as ineffective in dealing with regional security issues such as the South China Sea dispute.

The US’ strategy highlights the Quad and the Aukus agreement as examples of its implementation. The Quad – or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue – is a security forum of Australia, India, Japan and the US that has the stated goal of maintaining a “free and open Indo-Pacific”. The Quad countries have already undertaken several joint naval exercises.

Despite its denials, the US appears to want the Quad to become an anti-China security partnership and is pushing it in that direction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy does state that, “We will strengthen the Quad as a premier regional grouping.”

Aukus is an agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the US for the Americans and British to supply nuclear-powered submarines and underwater drone technology to Australia. These assets are expected to be used to help maintain the balance of power in the South China Sea.

Some Southeast Asian states – including those the US considers allies and partners – are yet to be convinced that Aukus will benefit them and the region. Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said it is reasonable for Southeast Asia to call for external powers to engage the region on “our own merits rather than be seen purely through the lens of the US-China competition”.

03:51

US, UK, Australia announce ‘historic’ military partnership in Pacific

Nguyen Hung Son, vice-president of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, said in response to Aukus that, “One should ask what is the relevance of … Asean and whether the centrality that Asean and its partners talk about is just lip service.”

The US Indo-Pacific Strategy says, “Our objective is not to change [China] but to shape the strategic environment in which it operates, building a balance of influence in the world that is maximally favourable to the United States, our allies and partners, and the interests and values we share.”

But just what values does the US share with autocratic Asean regimes such as Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam? The only Southeast Asian countries invited to the Summit for Democracy were Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and East Timor, underscoring that most of the region’s governments do not actually share US democratic values.

Behind the rhetoric, the strategy indicates that the US-Southeast Asia commonality is fear of China. This is exemplified by the interest in making Vietnam a partner in this effort. However, some Southeast Asian states such as Cambodia and Laos have welcomed China and do not fear it.

Even the so-called democracies of Malaysia and Indonesia do not share common values with the US. The strategy says the US “will be a partner in strengthening democratic institutions, the rule of law and accountable democratic governance”. This will be accomplished through “investments in democratic institutions, a free press and a vibrant civil society”.

Why Asean is wary about stronger ties with China

This is interference in other countries’ internal affairs – something that violates basic Asean principles and will not be welcomed by even Southeast Asia’s so-called democracies. US attempts to convene more Asean-US summits and throw more money Asean’s way will not bridge the values gap.

If US policymakers really believe that America shares fundamental values with these countries, they are setting themselves up for yet another foreign policy failure.

The US even deludes itself on the history of its relationship with the Indo-Pacific. Its strategy says, “For 75 years, the United States has maintained a strong and consistent defence presence to support regional peace, security, stability and prosperity.”

This ignores the US role in suppressing Vietnam’s liberation movement and its support of human rights violators in Indonesia (Suharto), the Philippines (Marcos) and Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek).

With regard to Southeast Asia and Asean, the Indo-Pacific Strategy reads like a committee-produced mishmash of delusions, false assumptions, wishful thinking and contradictions. It will be a hard sell to Asean members individually and as a whole.

Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct senior scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China