Indo-Pacific Policy More Complex Than Only China and Russia

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — As the nation grapples with striking a balance between competing with great power challenges and preparing for the possibility of conflict, the Indo-Pacific region poses perhaps the most significant challenge, Dr. Mara Karlin believes.

Karlin, director
of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of International Studies, made
that observation as she introduced a panel of four military and civilian
government experts, each of whom plays a key role in formulating related
policies in the region. 

It stands to
reason that each panelist recognized the increasing threats posed by China and
Russia. Still, they noted that the matrix is considerably more complicated.
Eyes cannot be focused on the two large superpowers at the expense of other
friendly nations in the region. Also, while China and Russia loom as potential
adversaries, it is imperative that the U.S. and its partners work as closely
together with them on areas of common interest. 

Representing the
Coast Guard and Marine Corps, Vice Adm. Linda Fagan and Gayle Von Eckartsburg discussed
how each respective service shares a forward-deployed mission that makes their
presence essential in the Pacific. Both Fagan and Von Eckartsburg emphasized
that neither service is a “garrison force.”

“The Coast Guard
has never been more relevant,” said Fagan, the service’s Pacific Area
commander. “The demand for the signal we bring into the region has never been
higher.”

Besides watching
Chinese and Russian activities and fostering goodwill among allies, Fagan
placed equal importance in “modeling legitimate behavior,” so that “China can
see what a responsible Coast Guard looks like.” 

If the Chinese can
learn from the U.S. Coast Guard how to conduct, for example, more effective
search-and-rescue operations, so be it. 

Von Eckartsburg,
director of the Marine Corps Pacific Division office of Plans, Policy and
Operations, described a “persistent forward force.” Of the roughly 40,000
Marines now deployed around the world, the vast majority is west of the
International Dateline, she said. 

“We’re in a constant state of motion, leveraging presence to maintain readiness
at the same time,” Von Eckartsburg said. 

Joel Szabat the
Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs,
discussed the three most important “pillars” of stability in the region –
economy, governance and security. 

“We need to
remember that this is not about containing or encircling any one country,”
Szabat said. “We want to help people, regardless of who our competitors are.”

Security commitments
with U.S. allies would assure the free flow of commerce, Szabat said. The
nation faces significant related challenges in this arena, he believes. U.S.
sealift is old and needs to be recapitalized, he said. The size of the U.S.
merchant fleet, which handles much of the military’s sealift capability, is
good enough for small-to-medium operations. 

“We don’t have
enough mariners, or U.S.-flagged merchant marine,” Szabat said.  

Walter Douglas,
who heads the State Department Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, cited
an Asian Development Bank statistic that states the region needs an estimated
$1.7 trillion in investment to sustain healthy economic growth. 

“There’s nowhere
near that amount of money available in one state,” Szabat said. 

The emphasis,
then, would be to have “money centers” and corporations step in with
“transparent” investments. The government and private sectors would ensure that
such funding would not be subject to the troubles endemic to secret
deals. 

“That money gets
spent in the wrong places,” Szabat said. “We can’t have that. We need open
governance. We have to see [to it] that investment laws are transparent.”

Equally
imperative, Douglas said, is working to ensure that investments are evenly
distributed. While putting money into traditional stable partners like Japan,
Australia and Singapore would remain important, more could be done to help open
emerging economies. He said that Vietnam, for example, badly wants help
developing its infrastructure – from anywhere but China.