在上月的越南峴港APEC工商界領導人峰會上，特朗普總統的“美國優先”演講並沒有贏得多少掌聲。人們原本期望，這位就任十個月仍未拿出亞太政策的美國總統，能有一個深入而全面的政策考量。然而，他大談特談的卻是貿易問題，同時他希望與所有印太國家簽訂雙邊而不是多邊貿易協定。這與習近平主席誓言捍衛自由貿易，反對保護主義，加強全球治理，以及“讓更多國家搭乘中國發展的快車”形成鮮明對比。

最出人意料的是，特朗普十次提及“印太”。此前他的高級幕僚，包括國務卿雷克斯·蒂勒森和國家安全顧問H·R·麥克馬斯特，都提到過這個概念，因此它似乎也和“美國優先”一樣，成為特朗普政府的另一個口頭禪。

問題是，它的實質內容究竟是什麼？這個概念並不新鮮，日本、印度和澳大利亞領導人之前也用過，美國太平洋司令部的將軍們喜歡說他們控制着從“寶萊塢到好萊塢”的大洋。但與巴拉克•奧巴馬的由TPP支撐、承諾到2020年把美國六成海軍空軍力量轉到亞太地區的重返亞太不同，特朗普並沒有為他的戰略制定綱要，更沒有路線圖。

對特朗普這位前商人來說，要宣揚這個倡議，必須從概念性文本入手。在文本中，他需要解釋何謂“自由和開放的印度洋-太平洋”。之後他必須讓其他國家相信，美國對此可以有所貢獻，甚至可以領導這樣一個架構。他不能光喊口號。

“印太”比“亞太”大得多，囊括了多半個地球。一個重要問題是，是什麼把兩個大洋的不同國家連繫在一起呢？特朗普若打算把印度洋和太平洋搞在一塊，“美國優先”肯定不會是好的粘合劑。事實上，它把美國置於道義上的不利境地。相比之下，習近平主席把中國的“一帶一路”倡議形容為“合唱”而不是獨奏，並強調五個方面的連通：政策溝通、設施聯通、貿易暢通、資金融通、民心相通。大量的中國資金眼下正投向“一帶一路”沿線65個國家。特朗普需要說明美國準備為他的印太願景付出多少，其中包括金融投資。

最重要的問題是，這樣一個倡議怎樣才能包含而不是排斥中國。地理上，中國靠近印太的中心。經濟上，中國是該地區最大經濟體。因此是沒法繞過中國的。對中國來說，一個簡單的試金石就是問問美國是否歡迎中國參與它的印太倡議。畢竟，如果中國歡迎美國加入“一帶一路”倡議，為什麼美國不能邀請中國加入印太倡議，以證明後者不是為了對抗前者呢？

沒有哪個國家比印度更接受特朗普的倡議了。多年來，印度一直在推動“印太”這個概念。美國總統響應這種說法，給人造成的印象是，印度是美國在印度洋最重要的合作夥伴。可是，不管美國怎麼吹捧印度是最大民主國家，不管雙方怎麼聲稱在自由航行、自由貿易和反恐方面有共同的價值觀和目標，美國卻從來沒有像重視中國那樣重視過印度。自從德懷特·艾森豪威爾總統1959年訪印以來，只有六位美國總統到訪過印度，相比之下，理乍得·尼克松1972年訪華之後，歷任美國總統（共八人）都訪問過中國。印度也不會盲目追隨美國，它的外交政策深深植根於不結盟和獨立自主。儘管印度與中國有邊界糾紛，但不與北京為敵是符合印度利益的。

特朗普的印太願景是一個宏大戰略還是一個白日夢，要不了多久就會見分曉了。

President Trump's “America First” speech at the APEC CEO Summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, last month didn't win him much applause. Contrary to what people hoped for – an insightful and comprehensive policy deliberation from an American president who has yet to deliver his policy towards the Asia-Pacific after ten months in office, he talked at length about trade and his wish to make bilateral, rather than multilateral, trade agreements with any Indo-Pacific nation. This was a sharp contrast to President Xi Jinping's pledge to defend free trade, fight protectionism, strengthen global governance, and to “let more countries free-ride on the express train of China's development”.

The biggest surprise was that Trump mentioned “Indo-Pacific” ten times. Since this concept was also referenced before by his senior staff, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, it looks like this might be another of his administration's catchphrases, like “America First.”

The question is: Where's the beef? The concept is not entirely new. Leaders in Japan, India, and Australia have used it before. Generals of the US Pacific Command like to say they control oceans from “Bollywood to Hollywood”. Unlike Barack Obama's pivot towards the Asia-Pacific, which was to be buttressed by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a commitment to shift 60% of the US navy and air force to the Asia-Pacific by 2020, Trump has failed to produce an outline, let alone a road map, for his strategy.

For Trump, an ex-businessman, to advertise the initiative, he needs to start with a concept paper, in which he explains what a “free and open Indo-Pacific” would look like. Then he needs to convince other countries that the US can contribute to, or even lead, such a system. He cannot lead by slogan.

The Indo-Pacific, far larger than the Asia-Pacific, comprises more than half the globe. A big question is: What will connect the various countries across the two oceans? If Trump intends to hold the Indo-Pacific together, “America First” certainly doesn't seem like the right glue. In fact, it puts the US at a moral disadvantage. By contrast, President Xi described China's One Belt, One Road initiative as a “chorus” rather than a prima donna's performance, and stresses connectivity in five areas: policy consultation, infrastructure, free trade, free circulation of local currencies, and people-to-people relations. Huge amounts of Chinese money is being invested into 65 countries along the Belt & Road. Trump needs to say how much effort, including financial investment, the US is ready to put into his Indo-Pacific vision.

The most important question is how such an initiative can include, rather than exclude, China. Geographically, China is close to the center of the Indo-Pacific. Economically China is the largest economy in the region. Therefore there is no way China can be bypassed. A simple litmus test is for China to ask whether the US would welcome China in its Indo-Pacific initiative. After all, if China welcomes the US to join its Belt & Road initiative, why can't the US invite China to join its Indo-Pacific initiative to prove the latter isn't a counterweight to the former?

No country appears more receptive to Trump's initiative than India. India has been promoting the Indo-Pacific concept for years. Having the American president echo its words gives the impression it's the US' most important partner in the Indian Ocean. But no matter how much the U.S. touts India as the largest democracy, and both sides talk about shared values and common objectives in freedom of navigation, free trade, and counter-terrorism, the US has never placed as much importance on India as it has on China. Since President Dwight Eisenhower visited India in 1959, only six American presidents have done so. By contrast, every American president (eight in total) has visited China since Richard Nixon did in 1972. India won't blindly follow the US. India's foreign policy is deeply rooted in non-alliance and independence. Although India has border disputes with China, it's in its interests not to be seen as hostile towards Beijing.

It will soon be apparent whether Trump's “Indo-Pacific” vision is a grand strategy or just a pipe dream.