-
汤姆·福迪:“印太经济框架”动静很大,实质很虚
The US Indo-Pacific Framework Doesn't Really Offer Anything
By Tom Fowdy
The United States is preparing to imminently launch a program for Asian countries which it calls the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework”. According to the White House, this framework will seek to “set the rules of economic engagement” in the region, particularly concerning investment, technology and supply chains. It comes amidst pressure upon the United States to up its economic presence in Asia, having excluded itself from the two major trading blocs of the region, the RCEP and the CPTPP due to its protectionist policies on commerce.
However, there is no actual substance on what the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework” actually represents in real terms, other than being an actual slogan which facilitates the bizarre rendering of a country which is not based in Asia or physically present in the regional economy, attempting to dictate the “rules” of how the game ought to be played, all whilst attempting to act as if the largest economy and centre of trade in that region doesn’t matter. At best, the Indo-Pacific economic framework is a slogan, and one which in substance offers nothing at all.
China is the regional nexus and hub of trade in the Asia-Pacific region. This is not a product of politics; it is a product of geography. As the largest and most populated country, China naturally possesses the largest import and export market in Asia, making China the biggest bilateral trading partner of every country around it include those aligned with the United States. Such heavily overlapping forms of trade subsequently create legal pressures for standards and regulations to be harmonized between countries, which drives the process of what is known as “regional integration”- that is when countries pool and coordinate aspects of governance together on matters of mutual interest.
This process of regional integration is what has driven the RCEP free trade agreement, as well as China’s bilateral free trade agreements with most countries in the region. As of present, China is also negotiating entry to the CPTPP free trade agreement, as well as a digital trade agreement with the region. Other countries in the region see obtaining such agreements with China as critical to securing their economic and regulatory interests. Meanwhile, the United States is currently not present in any major trading blocs with the Asia-Pacific region, particularly because its policy is focused on “America First” principles which espouses opposition to free trade on the premise that such erodes American manufacturing competitiveness and jobs.
Despite this, the United States is obsessed with bringing a regional ideological competition to Asia at all costs in the name of containing China, seeking to divide the region into competing blocs. As a result, the United States believes that it should economically dominate the region and not China, and that it, as opposed to Beijing, ought to have the greatest say in its future. As a result, the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework” is an effort by the US to try and set the rules of region whilst not actually being economically integrated with it at all. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is not a free trade agreement, not a treaty, not an institution or multilateral body or anything substantial, it is merely a set of rules and principles which the US thinks it can utilize to isolate China.
In formulating the “Indo-Pacific economic framework”, the United States is likely to make an appeal to its primary partners in the region, including South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Whilst ASEAN is the primary focus which the US seeks to dominate, ultimately none of these countries will be prepared compromise their economic ties with China which they see as critical to their own growth strategies. It is not surprising of course that, South Korea already, under its new pro-US president Yoon Seok Yeol, has announced it would “join” the framework. Whilst this may seem significant given its role in the global semiconductor supply chain, something the United States is keen to isolate Beijing from, in practice Seoul continues to rely overwhelmingly on China as its largest bilateral trading partner, including too in semiconductors, and cannot afford the price of increased confrontation. Last year, the US attempted to block the expansion of South Korean foundry Hynix in China. The move was unsuccessful.
Japan is likely to be a more prominent partner for the US in pushing the “Indo-Pacific framework” than Seoul, but again one must question is it truly prepared to make serious compromises to its heavily integrated commercial relationship with China? Tokyo is constantly touted to represent an alternative source of trade, finance and infrastructure investment to other countries in Asia than China, and there have been some obvious initiatives to try and push this in recent years. One might note for example how it is building a metro system in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, whilst it has competed with China for High-Speed-Rail projects in Indonesia too. However, this is far from a bid to “set the rules” of the entire region because in reality, China’s GDP is ultimately far larger than Japan’s, an economy which is in practice stagnant. Even Tokyo cannot divorce itself from reality. The same rule applies for both New Zealand and Australia. Whilst the latter is overwhelmingly loyal to the United States, Wellington has taken a pragmatic and realistic view to economic integration with China on the back of the record trade surplus it receives from exports there.
Finally, India might be perceived as the biggest potential rival to China in the broader “Indo-Pacific” region primarily because of its almost equal population size and market potential. The United States and its allies have never hidden the fact they see New Delhi as the key strategic, military and economic counterweight to China’s rise, and it is absolutely logical. However, on an economic level, how can India facilitate the “Indo-Pacific economic framework?” A big problem lies in India’s steadfast economic protectionist policies which has shunned integration with intra-regional trade at large. India withdrew from the regional comprehensive economic partnership, putting it at a distinct disadvantage and making it impossible for New Delhi to set the “rules” of the game. However, the US and its allies will almost certainly look to attempt to consolidate strategic supply chains in a rising India. However, insufficient infrastructure, large scale unemployment, a huge level of poverty and a majority agrarian population, all stand as long-term obstacles to India’s ability to compete with China.
Therefore, in conclusion, the Indo-Pacific economic framework remains ultimately nonsensical because it is ignoring the realities of both geography and economics and is based solely upon ideology, if not wishful thinking. The US thinks that it can have greater weight over the future of the region than the actual biggest economy and trading nation in that specific area, making it illogical and for many reasons, a non-starter. As a result, the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework” not only offers little, but ultimately means little too, and it is for this reason that such a slogan driven policy is almost undoubtedly going to be a failure. The United States believe they can dictate the future of a region whilst exempting themselves from making serious economic commitments to it in the name of self-interest, that’s not how things work, and there is no scenario whatsoever whereby the nations of greater Asia can envision an economic future for themselves which does not include a robust partnership with China.
本文系观察者网独家稿件,文章内容纯属作者个人观点,不代表平台观点,未经授权,不得转载,否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn,每日阅读趣味文章。
-
本文仅代表作者个人观点。
- 责任编辑: 谌海滨 
-
美国新增确诊83994例,死亡176例
2022-05-24 07:19 美国一梦 -
CNN中伤称泽连斯基演讲结束时中方未起立鼓掌?中方驳斥
2022-05-24 07:16 -
阿富汗临时政府:印度应断绝与阿前政府的联系
2022-05-24 07:09 -
因数据泄露被剑桥分析利用,扎克伯格被起诉
2022-05-24 07:07 -
美国“奶粉荒”持续:用军机运欧洲奶粉,纽约进入紧急状态
2022-05-23 23:32 美国一梦 -
IMF总裁:灾难汇合,全球经济面临二战以来最大考验
2022-05-23 23:09 -
“为了让莫迪出席,美国把正式声明改了”
2022-05-23 22:41 美国政治 -
外交部:日本在台湾问题上对中国人民负有历史罪责,更应谨言慎行
2022-05-23 22:29 中国外交 -
日媒问中方会反对日本加入安理会吗?汪文斌回应
2022-05-23 22:11 中国外交 -
日美领导人发表涉华消极言论,我驻日使馆驳斥
2022-05-23 22:11 日本 -
拜登支持日本“入常”,中韩表态
2022-05-23 22:02 -
“听到这话,在场美国官员惊了”
2022-05-23 21:41 中美关系 -
乌克兰首次以“战争罪”对俄军士兵判刑
2022-05-23 21:36 乌克兰之殇 -
驻旧金山总领馆:一中国留学生在美西部城市失联
2022-05-23 20:13 -
“韩国与美国同盟,但也会同步推进对华合作”
2022-05-23 19:24 三八线之南 -
亚速营成员记录钢铁厂的最后一天
2022-05-23 19:22 乌克兰之殇 -
“即使在冷战时期,国际象棋世界也没这样分裂”
2022-05-23 18:41 -
拜登正式宣布启动“印太经济框架”,13国加入
2022-05-23 17:59 美国政治 -
世卫大会拒绝台湾以观察员身份与会,外交部:以疫谋独绝无出路
2022-05-23 17:46 中国外交 -
日本两艘舰艇意外相撞,“神通”号受损
2022-05-23 17:32
相关推荐 -
最后通牒?以色列放话“要么签,要么打” 评论 36“这把火怎么点着的?” 评论 369布林肯来华谈的怎么样?是否不虚此行? 评论 269“看看,这就是美国的警察” 评论 418习近平会见布林肯:中美应彼此成就,而不是互相伤害 评论 145最新闻 Hot