Page 34 - IB April 2022

Opinion Opinion

THE U.S. INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY

TOO ANODYNE TO BE UTILITARIAN

Photo: The White House

By Kaliopate Tavola merely to inform leaders about the agenda. There was no
consultation regardless.
Early this year, the White House released America’s Indo- Australia could have taken the opportunity to consult its
Pacific Strategy. It is dated February 2022. U.S. President Joe fellow PIF members when it launched AUKUS, an Indo-Pacific
Biden had referred to it earlier, at the 24 September 2021 appendage in 2021. Obviously, this was too much to hope for.
QUAD Leaders’ Summit, saying: “The future of each of our Goldstein’s appraisal of the U.S. strategy as anodyne is
nations – and indeed the world – depends on a free and open interesting. It may have been intended. The strategy is es-
Indo-Pacific enduring and flourishing in the decades ahead.” sentially for the U.S. alone: not for the whole Indo-Pacific
That is top-notch praise and self-assurance from President membership. It raises the question whether we should expect
Biden. However, it does not meet the critical standards of subsequent national strategies from each of the other mem-
others. Lyle Goldstein of DefenseNews.Com, for example, bers. Time will tell.
wrote last February: “Acute issues ranging from the Sino-Indi- On the other hand, was it a misprint? The country-specific
an border to the reefs of the South China sea to the ultimate formulation of the strategy’s title is clear. As such, its ano-
flashpoint of Taiwan are simply glossed over with anodyne dyne slant may have been aimed for wider acceptance by the
references to ‘rules-based approaches’ and ‘integrated deter- membership through its blandness. In international diplomacy,
rence.’ it is often politic to err on nebulousness rather than on preci-
As this article will explore, the anodyne description offered sion.
above is more wide-ranging than meets the eyes. The strategy is preceded by ‘The Indo-Pacific’s Promise.’ Its
Some Pacific Islands leaders have castigated it from the rationale is clear when you delve into the text which states:
perspective that there were no consultations with them in “This intensifying American focus is due in part to the fact
formulating the Strategy. That, however, is nothing new. The that the Indo-Pacific faces mounting challenges, particularly
QUAD members did not consult the Pacific Island Countries from the PRC.” It is obvious then to anyone that global geopo-
(PICs) when they formed their Indo-Pacific agenda in 2018. litical considerations are the principal driver of this initiative.
This is disgraceful when you consider that all QUAD members: As such, its precious humanistic elements can easily be lost,
Australia, India, Japan, and U.S. are current Dialogue Partners or downplayed, in the turmoil of contradictions that often ac-
for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and in Australia’s case, a company the execution of these considerations.
full and foundation member. Credit to Japan, however. It took The strategy itself has five elements/sections. The first
the opportunity of its 2018 Pacific Leaders Meeting (PALM) is: ‘Advance a free and open Indo-Pacific.’ I can recall when

34 Islands Business, April 2022