U.S. President Joe Biden says that America's greatest long-term challenge overseas comes from China. Confronting Beijing is the work of generations, he argues. However, the U.S. lacks a credible economic and trade agenda to attract like-minded Asian allies and partners. The economy, after all, is the battleground for competition with China and the area of greatest concern to its Asian allies and partners. To this end, the Biden administration proposed and plans to release the "Indo-Pacific Economic Framework" to compete with China by the end of March.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework covers six topics on which the United States seeks agreements with Asian countries, including digital technology, supply chains, climate, infrastructure, labor standards, and trade facilitation. Laura Rosenberger, White House senior director for China, spoke at the National Bureau of Asian Research think tank event that the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework aims to establish "common goals" for economic cooperation with Indo-Pacific countries, which include "trade facilitation, digital economy standards (including data localization, cross-border data flow, cyber security, technology standards, and privacy issues), supply chain resiliency (including semiconductors), labor rules (more worker-friendly terms, automation, and offshoring of jobs), infrastructure, decarbonization and clean energy/environment and climate change rules, export controls, taxation, anti-corruption, and coordination of Asian investments".

Any U.S. approach to the Indo-Pacific region starts not with Mainland China but with its neighbors. By making alliances in the region, it seeks to influence Mainland China from the outside. Under the reasoning that it should "shape the environment around China", the White House attempts to build alliances based on areas of common interest. Todd Tucker, director of governance studies at the Roosevelt Institute, said the framework represents a nod to political reality, which is to find sectors where the U.S.' allies want to work together, including signing up Japan and others to join a U.S.-European Union deal to put tariffs on steel made in a carbon-intensive fashion.

The framework is thought to propose specific policies that could be implemented, i.e., funding for renewable energy projects, deploying technology to inject atmospheric carbon dioxide into concrete, tariffs on imported goods made through carbon-intensive processes, and improving labor standards. Such policies are certainly aimed at Mainland China, but they could also hurt potential U.S. allies such as Indonesia, Vietnam, and perhaps Malaysia. The working conditions of workers in these countries still fall short of what has been advocated by the United States, and they do not have the ability to meet the standards in a short period of time. In addition, these countries are also unable to meet their environmental commitments.

According to the talking points put together around the time of the framework's announcement, the U.S. planned to pitch the proposal initially to eight nations, which are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam, conspicuously leaving out China.

In promoting the framework, the Biden administration stressed that it is not a free-trade deal and it would not give these nations broader access to U.S. markets through tariff cuts or other concessions. In this way, the framework would not need to be approved by Congress, because the administration does not make any changes to U.S. law. This is the most questionable aspect of the policy actions advocated by the framework, namely that the U.S. expects Asian countries to make every concession and play by the rules it sets. That also means their relationship with Mainland China will be affected. At the same time, the U.S. will not make any concessions that jeopardize its interests.

The problem is that Mainland China is the largest trading partner for most Asian countries and no country wants to choose sides between Washington and Beijing. With the example of Australia and Lithuania, these countries will not take sides unless they see the U.S. offering enough advantages to overcome Chinese countermeasures. The U.S. has the advantage of being the world's largest market. If a country can recoup from the U.S. what it has lost by choosing the American side, it will probably opt for it. Conversely, if the U.S. continues to restrict or buy less products from these countries, no matter how big the American market is, these countries will not benefit from it.

Biden cannot afford to make concessions when it deals with China. The attitude of the U.S. Congress, including Democrats, toward free trade agreements, as well as the hostility of labor unions, Rust Belt companies, and ordinary people toward free trade, have made tariff cuts or other preferences off-limits to Biden. In addition, the congressional elections are just nine months away. Biden's narrow victory in the Rust Belt reminds him not to break his electoral promise to protect jobs. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will lose badly in November's election.

The relevant Indo-Pacific countries are still ambiguous about joining the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. If the Biden administration doesn't make a compelling offer, those countries probably will not take sides and let the U.S. and China compete with each other. So, it is expected that Biden's Indo-Pacific Economic Framework will achieve limited results. Of course, this is unless he agrees to cut tariffs, import more Indo-Pacific goods, and get approval from the U.S. Congress. Although the U.S. is the world's major power, it is not easy for it to maintain this status. Biden still has plenty to worry about.

Reference:

Davis,B.(2022).Biden Promised to Confront China.First He Has to Confront America's Bizarre Trade Politics.POLITICO.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/31/biden-china-trade-politics-00003379

Garver,R.(2022).US Moves Toward New'Framework'for Trade with Indo-Pacific Region.VOA.
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-moves-toward-new-framework-for-trade-with-indo-pacific-region/6432021.html

Martina,M,&Brunnstrom,D.(2022).U.S.to set'common goals'on Indo-Pacific economic cooperation in early 2022.Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-set-common-goals-indo-pacific-economic-cooperation-early-2022-2022-01-19/

Assessment: This article was written on the basis of Biden's Asia-Pacific economic strategy. The author has certain objectivity, hence it can be used as a basis for the assessment of the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy.

The Indo-Pacific strategy of U.S. President Joe Biden is consistent with that of Barack Obama, both of which are formulated by the expert team of the U.S. President. Their approach and paradigm are a long-standing geopolitical method, though it has obvious problems and defects. This is because their paradigm and method are limited to responding to the actions of the other side. "If China proposes a framework, we should propose another to replace it and persuade everyone to accept the new framework". This stimulus-response model is actually outdated and archaic. Although it is still recommended by American universities, such approach can no longer cope with today's chaotic landscape.

The ideal approach is to establish a structural paradigm based on the relationship between China's economic development and the world economic environment, proposing its own strategy, sorting out structural relations on the basis of deep structural analysis of society and industry, observing changes, building a structural model, and then embedding antagonistic factors in this structural model to create structural changes and subversions, thus achieving geopolitical goals. This is the new paradigm of modern geopolitical strategic thinking. This is not a simple "stimulus-response" approach, nor a "goal-oriented retrospective" one, but a new model based on structural principles. Of course, the same principle is perfectly valid for dealing with America's geopolitical ambitions. Because it is simply a scientific method developed in the service of geopolitics, just like other academic disciplines such as mathematics and physics, it can be used by anyone, and is not a conspiracy.

Of course, doing so requires a thorough understanding of the current situation in China (and in turn, the current situation in the U.S. itself), which I think is most lacking in the United States. That, being the reason why old methods are still used to solve real challenges.