The State Department recently released a report on how it is working with allies and partners to implement a shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific that focuses on containing the “repressive visions of the future international order” pushed by certain global powers.
The report, released on Nov. 4, says that the countries in the Indo-Pacific unlike ever before are facing a threat to their “sovereignty, prosperity, and peace.”
“The U.S. National Security Strategy, released in December 2017, recognizes that the most consequential challenge to U.S. and partner interests is the growing competition between free and repressive visions of the future international order,” it reads. “Authoritarian revisionist powers seek to advance their parochial interests at others expense.”
National and regional policy analysts say that “authoritarian revisionist powers” is a direct hint at a few global powers, particularly China.
“I think this is a clear reference to China, and also potentially Russia,” Zack Cooper, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, told The Epoch Times in an email.
Cooper, who studies U.S. alliances and partnerships in Asia, U.S.-China strategic competition, and Chinese economic statecraft and coercion, said that some in the U.S. administration “see the United States and most of its allies and partners as competing with China and Russia to determine the future international order.”
Regional expert Rukmini Gupta told The Epoch Times that the statement about “authoritarian revisionist powers” is not unique.
“The U.S. has always couched its foreign policy in terms of universal values namely—human rights, democracy. It can be viewed as implying that the U.S. vision of the international order is inclusive and consensus-based, therefore preferable,” said Gupta who is based in New Delhi and studies Defense and Security.
“No one state is mentioned in the statement, but all those countries that are criticized as being undemocratic and challenging U.S. leadership in the prevailing global order can be inferred to be authoritarian revisionist powers for instance—Russia, North Korea, China, Iran,” she said.
Indo-Pacific a Top Priority
In an introductory message to the Nov. 4 report, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that President Donald Trump “has made U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific region a top priority of his Administration.”
“In November 2017 in Vietnam, he outlined a vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific in which all countries prosper side by side as sovereign, independent states,” said Pompeo adding that this vision is shared by billions in more than 35 countries.
He defined this vision as the “wish to prosper in a free and open future” that includes “free, fair, and reciprocal trade, open investment environments, good governance, and freedom of the seas.”
W. Alejandro Sanchez, a geopolitical expert based in Washington, told The Epoch Times that the Trump administrations policy and its vision about a free and open Indo-Pacific “does not differ much from previous ones,” but added that there is something more “under the hood” of these statements and the strategic objectives are focused on a “couple of actors,” namely China and North Korea.
An analysis published early this year by the Brookings Institute mentions that the United States is noticing the growing influence of Chinas “global role and increasingly hardline policies” on developing countries.
“The implications of Chinas growing investments linked to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), its ambitious global infrastructure and connectivity program, are increasingly debated,” wrote David Shullman, Senior Adviser at the International Republican Institute and Adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). “So, too, are the nature of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) efforts to popularize its authoritarian model and undermine developing democracies around the world, whether intentionally or indirectly,” said Shullman.
He mentioned that Vice President Mike Pence in November last year had directly outlined that the Trump administration, “through its Indo-Pacific strategy, intends to bolster the rule of law and human rights in regional countries facing growing influence from China.”
Shullman, in his analysis, mentioned that the Chinese approach increases corruption and undermines political and financial independence.
“China, in part to defend its economic interests, also interferes in the political systems of developing countries around the world, tipping the scales towards China-friendly politicians and policies,” said Shullman.
Freedom vs Oppression
The State Department in its Nov. 4 document said that Americans “believe in fundamental freedom of conscience, religion, speech, and assembly” and that the Chinese regime “is intolerant of dissent, aggressively controls media and civil society, and brutally suppresses ethnic and religious minorities” and that it exports this approach to developing countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
“Such practices, which Beijing exports to other countries through its political and economic influence, undermine the conditions that have promoted stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific for decades,” said the State Department in its chapter on “Championing Good Governance.” This is the only place in the report where the State Department took a direct shot at the Chinese regime.
Shullman had expressed the same analysis about the Chinese regimes modus operandi when he said it tries to bolster its sense of legitimacy and gain influence over the developing world “by manipulating the information space to Chinas advantage, a practice now commonly termed sharp power. Beijing wants to protect its growing investments, ensure party control over ideology and information that might enter China, and legitimize Chinas authoritarian development model abroad.”
He said the Chinese regime controls media abroad by entering into media agreements with other nations through its Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI) and “advances information sharing intended to influence foreign journalists covering the BRI, including through conferences sponsored by the state-affiliated All-China Journalists Association.”
Shullman said that the “state-sponsored ideological conformity” that the Chinese regime adopts for its lasting “authoritarian Party rule” also gets extended to “ideological control abroad.”
Sanchez said that an analysis of how the Indo-Pacific has largely evolved, in his opinion, would mean how the Sino-America relationship evolved “from a potential partner or a country that the U.S. could work with, to more of an outright competitor” in every sphere, including ideological influence.
“The ongoing trade war between Beijing and Washington, Chinas aggressive attitude towards Taiwan (including utilizing dollar diplomacy to buy the recognition of Taipeis remaining allies), the growing Chinese military presence in the South China Sea, and how this concerns Washingtons allies in the region, have all brought about this new security scenario,” he said.
State Department Defines India as a Strategic Partner
The introductory message by Pompeo to the Nov. 4 report defines India as a strategic partner while it doesnt specifically mention any other individual nation.
“We are increasing the tempo and scope of our work with allies, partners, and regional institutions such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Mekong states, the Pacific Island countries, and our strategic partner India to address shared challenges and advance a shared vision,” said Pompeo.
State Department states in the report that the U.S. strategic partnership with India is strengthening.
“Our strategic partnership with India, a fellow democracy of 1.3 billion people that shares our vision for the Indo-Pacific, is reaching new heights,” said the report.
Gupta said the strategic partnership shows the United States and India have a shared vision that they are willing to work closely together on, but doesnt mean anything has been hashed out yet.
“No specific policy steps or actions define a strategic partnership. Both India and the U.S. have designated a multitude of countries strategic partners,” she said.
Cooper, however, gives a different analysis of this partnership and says that not all allies “need to have the same vision.”
“Unlike NATO, each alliance in Asia is separate and was formed for different reasons, and often focused on different threats. Therefore, the question is whether the United States can get each ally to focus on what they do best to manage regional challenges.”
Cooper gave examples, saying that South Korea needs to focus on the peninsula, the Philippines is focused on its own territory and the surrounding waters, and Thailand is struggling with internal problems.
“So it is really on Japan and Australia [to play] a central role in supporting the Indo-Pacific concept. That is not ideal,” he said. “For this reason, adding in other countries that worry about how the Indo-Pacific region is changing—like India and Vietnam—is just as important as getting U.S. treaty allies to sign on to the approach,” he said.
Cooper said this is why he expects Washington to look for cooperation with “foreign leaders that worry about Chinas rise, regardless of whether they are treaty allies of the United States.”
Sanchez highlighted the same concerns, saying its difficult for the Trump administration “to keep a united front.”
“These governments generally see China as a security concern, and want a denuclearized North Korea, but of course this does not mean that these nations get along with each other,” he said. “South Korea-Japan tensions are an obvious example.”
He also said theyre likely less willing to enRead More – Source