Trump's America First is not good enough for Asia

When dollars do the talking, countries will prefer China's money and ignore the west's homilies.

The Trump doctrine has claimed another casualty in international relations: the Apec summit. For the first time in the history of the summit, leaders were unable to issue a final communique - not even an anodyne, meaningless announcement with hortative language and loose wording capable of meaning almost anything.
Au contraire, the Apec summit saw further evidence of sharp rhetoric between the US and China, with other countries providing merely a side-show. Whilst the barbs exchanged by America and China portends trouble for regional stability, the Apec impasse might clarify the path for Asian nations and their citizens. Here's why.
The summit's deadlock was heralded by US Vice-President Mike Pence's speech, which channelled President Trump's language and reiterated America's resolve to continue the trade war with China.
The VP noted, the US has "taken decisive action" to redress the trade imbalance by putting "tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods and we could more than double that number," and promised to "not change course until China changes its ways."
In a surprisingly direct attack, he laid into China's signature foreign policy strategy based on meeting the infrastructure needs of developing nations: "some are offering infrastructure loans to governments across the Indo-Pacific . Yet the terms of those loans are often opaque at best.
Projects they support are often unsustainable and of poor quality . they come with strings attached and lead to staggering debt."
Pence warned, "Do not accept foreign debt that could compromise your sovereignty. Protect your interests. Preserve your independence. And, just like America, always put your country first."
He claimed that America "offers a better option" because it doesn't "drown our partners in a sea of debt," or "coerce or compromise" their independence.
Pointedly, Pence said, America "deals openly, fairly. We do not offer a constricting belt or a one-way road. When you partner with us, we partner with you, and we all prosper."
Unsurprisingly, President Xi's speech offered a contrasting view of the BRI project: "It is not an exclusive club closed to non-members, nor is it a trap as some people have labeled it."
In the end analysis, it is real dollars and cents that do the talking. And Asian countries desperately need massive investments to build infrastructure as traditionally rural populations make the transition to an urban, consumerist lifestyle. When faced with a choice between America's words about independence and China's dollars, most countries will behave in the manner of Pakistan and Sri Lanka: gladly accepting China's money and ignoring homilies from the West.
Moreover, Asian countries are not oblivious to China's substantially greater engagement in the region. In contrast, President Donald Trump signalled his intentions by skipping the Asian summits and sending his vice-president instead.
For all the talk about a pivot to Asia since the Obama presidency, the reality is that the United States' approach to the continent is characterised mostly by indifference. There has been no shortage of words - from the new characterisation of the Indo-Pacific, to the desire to create a Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the US) to balance China's rise - but concrete investments have been underwhelming.
For instance, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, announced a renewed commitment to the Indo-Pacific in July this year with a puny $113 million investment to develop digital economy, infrastructure, and energy.
In contrast, China promised $4 billion to tiny PNG alone; its investments in other Asian countries are truly staggering: the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is worth over $62 billion; the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor is budgeted at over $2 billion; in Bangladesh, China has promised about $31 billion in spending on a variety of projects; trade between Vietnam and China exceeds $100 billion per year in 2018; and BRI investments in Malaysia are about $34 billion.
The logic is obvious: it is China that matters more for most Asian nations. And Trump's nativist rhetoric reinforces the message that America is unlikely to invest heavily in the region outside the military domain to protect its strategic interests.
For Asian nations, the message is clear: America's ideals, while noble, don't meet the immediate needs of their people. Coevally, American warnings about Chinese debt traps will serve to mobilise domestic political constituencies and serve as a check on Asian governments doing deals with China.
America's indifferent posture toward Asia might have yielded an unintended benefit - prompting citizens to demand more from their supine leaders in dealings with both China and the West. Leaders in countries borrowing heavily from China know there is little chance of the West bailing them out. This reality will force them to negotiate protections.
If the resulting transparency and savvy avoids debt traps while generating necessary funding for infrastructure projects, then everyone's a winner. And like the US under Trump, countries may push-back against trade imbalances with China leveraging nationalistic ideals.
Asia-first may not be such a bad thing for a continent dogged by great power rivalries for centuries. This is already being manifested in countries such as Malaysia.
Trump's ultimate legacy might be trade wars for China in its own backyard. If that transpires, China's BRI investments might end up as follies.
Sandeep Gopalan is the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Professor of Law in Deakin Law School at Deakin University