在电话会议中，特朗普承诺美国将继续成为印度长期可靠的能源供应国。 照片为印度总理纳伦德拉·莫迪和美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在白宫前的合影。 （照片：美联社）

近来，美国政府高层频频发表谈话，鼓吹以“印太”取代“亚太”，建立“自由开放的印太”构想。背后的潜台词是要联合“相同价值观”的国家，共同牵制中国的发展。从各方情况来看，“印太”构想只是空洞的概念，没有形成一个完整的战略体系。

首先是“美国优先”与“印太”构想的主次之分。在特朗普语境里，“美国优先”是纲，而“印太”构想只是目。特朗普抵达亚洲之行的第一站日本后，立即发表演讲声称，此行将寻求新的合作伙伴以及与盟友之间的合作，力争建立一个自由开放的印太，颇有些先声夺人之势。

美国舆论界普遍认为，在国务卿蒂勒森和总统安全事务助理麦克马斯特先后高调发表“印太”讲话，为特朗普演讲预作铺垫之后，特朗普在出席APEC领导人非正式会议时将完整地提出一整套“印太”战略构想，作为未来几年美国亚洲战略的基础。然而，特朗普只是蜻蜓点水，与参会者分享“印太愿景”和“印太梦”。而演讲的大部分时间依然老调重弹，大谈特谈美国遭受贸易不公正待遇，被别国占了便宜，要大幅度削减贸易逆差等等，并没有涉及“印太”战略以及“印太”战略的宗旨、目标和实现的路径。可见，“印太”只是构想，并没有形成系统的战略。

事实上，“美国优先”才是特朗普的最大战略，解决贸易逆差是其执政的根本目标，尽快拿出政绩，向选民有个交待是其外交的重中之重。相较于“美国优先”战略，“印太”构想只是次要从属的，或者带有点缀性质，以安抚国内战略界和舆论界的诉求，拉升国内低迷的民众支持率。

无怪乎，参加美日印澳四方会晤的官员只是工作层级，主持人是日方官员，会后也没有发表联合声明。所有这些安排都显得十分低调。再说，四方会晤明摆着是冲着中国来的，如果大张旗鼓地搞，必然会影响中美合作和特朗普访华，所以只能在大而空的原则之下模糊处理。

此外，作为“印太”构想的机制保障，四方会晤的前景不明朗。四方会晤以建设“自由开放的印太”为主题，涉及基于规则的亚洲秩序、自由航行、遵守国际法、互联互通、海洋安全、朝核和反恐等七个议题。议题空泛，无实质内容，会晤也没有形成共识。会后各国发表的声明各不相同，有照本宣科的，有有所取舍的，透露出不同的政策取向。印度删除了自由航行、遵守国际法、海洋安全等三项，而日本则省略了互联互通。这决非是疏忽大意，背后有深层次的政策考量，值得深入研究。在互联互通问题上，日本做法可以理解，因为日方已表示参与“一带一路”倡议。美澳印声明虽都提及互联互通，但各方的立场又各不相同。美方强调互联互通融资要符合国际法、国际标准、审慎融资政策；澳方刚刚发表的外交政策白皮书认同“一带一路”倡议；印方坚持不接受“一带一路”的立场。显然，相同的价值观并不等同于相同的利益取向，更不等同于相同的政策取向。四国在七个议题上是同床异梦，各有各的“小九九”，很难捏到一起去。

再者，特朗普政府说一套，做一套，令其公信力和领导力大打折扣。特朗普政府奉行贸易保护主义，退出TPP，重新谈判美韩和北美自贸协定等，所有这一切都与“印太”构想格格不入。很难指望其他国家会追随美国，参加构建“自由开放的印太”行列。

最后，中国塑造国际事务的能力已今非昔比。十年前，美日印澳四国也是在日本的游说下，在同一地方马尼拉举行局长级磋商，希望在印太地区建立新的战略对话机制。但是由于中国反对，开了一次会就不了了之。

十年之后，这四个国家都成了中国紧密的贸易伙伴，而且中国是每个国家的第一大贸易伙伴。印太地区乃至全球问题的解决都离不开中国。四国要在太平洋和印度洋区域之间搭建一个战略弧，实现在政治、经济、军事等领域里的两洋联动，以制约并延滞中国的发展，这是中国绝对不能接受的。十年前没有办到的，十年后也不会办得到。值得注意的是，此次四方会晤如十年之前一样，也没敲定下次会期的日子。皮之不存毛将焉附，没有四国会晤机制，哪儿来的“印太”构想？更谈不上“印太”战略了。

马克吐温说，历史不会重演，但总会有惊人的相似。“印太”构想，只是逞一时口舌之快，成不了气候。

During the call, Trump pledged that the US would continue to be a reliable and long-term supplier of energy to India. File image of PM Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump at the White House. (Photo: AP)

The Trump administration has recently touted the idea of a free and open “Indo-Pacific”. The purpose of this is to rally countries with the same values around the United States to contain China's rise and development. However, this concept is underdeveloped.

“America First” is President Donald Trump's overarching policy guide, while “Indo-Pacific” is a specific goal. Trump said he wanted to seek new partnerships and cooperation with allies during this Asian tour, in a bid to build an open and free Indo-Pacific. The message reverberated across the region.

When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster spoke on the Indo-Pacific, people in the U.S. expected President Trump to elaborate on the concept at the APEC leaders' meeting, and shed a light on America's Asian strategy in the coming years. However, President Trump merely scratched the surface at the APEC summit, devoting much of his time to how the U.S. was mistreated and taken advantage of in international trade. It remains unclear how the Indo-Pacific concept will be realized, and what the purpose of invoking it is. In short, there is no systemic thinking behind the concept.

As a matter of fact, “America First” is Trump's one and only strategy, with addressing the trade deficit as its ultimate goal. The “Indo-Pacific” is a secondary priority, and the concept was proposed to help boost President Trump's low approval rating.

It is not surprising that the quartet meeting between the United States, Japan, India and Australia resulted in no statement of any kind after the meeting. The tone was modest and low-key, probably to avoid provoking President Trump's next host — China.

The meeting discussed a “free and open Indo-Pacific”, and a rule-based order in Asia, including freedom of navigation, compliance with international laws, interconnectivity, and maritime security, the North Korean nuclear issue and terrorism. The discussions had not much substance and produced little consensus. Participating countries agreed to differ, and issued separate statements after the meeting. India removed freedom of navigation, compliance with international laws, and maritime security from its statement. Japan left out interconnectivity. What are the considerations behind these omissions? Japan's stance is straightforward, because it is already on board with China's Belt and Road initiative. Divergences exist within the group on the Belt and Road. The U.S. emphasized that financing must be consistent with international laws, international standards, and principles of prudential financing. Australia endorsed the Belt and Road initiative in its recent foreign policy white paper. India persists in resisting the initiative. Though the group shares largely the same set of values, their interests and policy goals still diverge. Strange bedfellows may find a common goal elusive.

The credibility of the Trump administration is also in doubt. He talked the talk, but walked a different walk. Trump's main agenda, including trade protectionism, withdrawal from the TPP, renegotiation of the U.S.-ROK trade agreement and NAFTA, is at odds with the “Indo-Pacific” proposition. Therefore, it remains a challenge to rally other countries behind the endeavor to build “a free and open Asia”.

China's ability to influence international affairs has grown significantly. Ten years ago, it was under the lobby of Japan that the four countries held Director-General level consultations in Manila, with the goal of setting up a new strategic dialogue mechanism. But the attempt came to naught, with only one meeting held, primarily due to opposition from China.

Ten years later, the four countries found that China was their largest trading partner. China plays an essential role in almost every major issue in the region and the world at large, and it is simply unacceptable for the four countries to create a strategic arc to advance political, economic and military cooperation across the Pacific without China, or even to contain China. It didn't happen 10 years ago, and it will not happen now. In the absence of a feasible mechanism, the “Indo-Pacific” will remain a paper concept, without strategies to back it up.

Mark Twain famously said that history never repeats itself, but it sometimes rhymes. Likewise, “Indo-Pacific” will be a flash in the pan, and is doomed to fade out over time.