在電話會議中，特朗普承諾美國將繼續成為印度長期可靠的能源供應國。 照片為印度總理納倫德拉·莫迪和美國總統唐納德·特朗普在白宮前的合影。 （照片：美聯社）

近來，美國政府高層頻頻發表談話，鼓吹以“印太”取代“亞太”，建立“自由開放的印太”構想。背後的潛台詞是要聯合“相同價值觀”的國家，共同牽制中國的發展。從各方情況來看，“印太”構想只是空洞的概念，沒有形成一個完整的戰略體系。

首先是“美國優先”與“印太”構想的主次之分。在特朗普語境里，“美國優先”是綱，而“印太”構想只是目。特朗普抵達亞洲之行的第一站日本後，立即發表演講聲稱，此行將尋求新的合作夥伴以及與盟友之間的合作，力爭建立一個自由開放的印太，頗有些先聲奪人之勢。

美國輿論界普遍認為，在國務卿蒂勒森和總統安全事務助理麥克馬斯特先後高調發表“印太”講話，為特朗普演講預作鋪墊之後，特朗普在出席APEC領導人非正式會議時將完整地提出一整套“印太”戰略構想，作為未來幾年美國亞洲戰略的基礎。然而，特朗普只是蜻蜓點水，與參會者分享“印太願景”和“印太夢”。而演講的大部分時間依然老調重彈，大談特談美國遭受貿易不公正待遇，被別國佔了便宜，要大幅度削減貿易逆差等等，並沒有涉及“印太”戰略以及“印太”戰略的宗旨、目標和實現的路徑。可見，“印太”只是構想，並沒有形成系統的戰略。

事實上，“美國優先”才是特朗普的最大戰略，解決貿易逆差是其執政的根本目標，儘快拿出政績，向選民有個交待是其外交的重中之重。相較於“美國優先”戰略，“印太”構想只是次要從屬的，或者帶有點綴性質，以安撫國內戰略界和輿論界的訴求，拉升國內低迷的民眾支持率。

無怪乎，參加美日印澳四方會晤的官員只是工作層級，主持人是日方官員，會後也沒有發表聯合聲明。所有這些安排都顯得十分低調。再說，四方會晤明擺着是衝著中國來的，如果大張旗鼓地搞，必然會影響中美合作和特朗普訪華，所以只能在大而空的原則之下模糊處理。

此外，作為“印太”構想的機制保障，四方會晤的前景不明朗。四方會晤以建設“自由開放的印太”為主題，涉及基於規則的亞洲秩序、自由航行、遵守國際法、互聯互通、海洋安全、朝核和反恐等七個議題。議題空泛，無實質內容，會晤也沒有形成共識。會後各國發表的聲明各不相同，有照本宣科的，有有所取捨的，透露出不同的政策取向。印度刪除了自由航行、遵守國際法、海洋安全等三項，而日本則省略了互聯互通。這決非是疏忽大意，背後有深層次的政策考量，值得深入研究。在互聯互通問題上，日本做法可以理解，因為日方已表示參與“一帶一路”倡議。美澳印聲明雖都提及互聯互通，但各方的立場又各不相同。美方強調互聯互通融資要符合國際法、國際標準、審慎融資政策；澳方剛剛發表的外交政策白皮書認同“一帶一路”倡議；印方堅持不接受“一帶一路”的立場。顯然，相同的價值觀並不等同於相同的利益取向，更不等同於相同的政策取向。四國在七個議題上是同床異夢，各有各的“小九九”，很難捏到一起去。

再者，特朗普政府說一套，做一套，令其公信力和領導力大打折扣。特朗普政府奉行貿易保護主義，退出TPP，重新談判美韓和北美自貿協定等，所有這一切都與“印太”構想格格不入。很難指望其他國家會追隨美國，參加構建“自由開放的印太”行列。

最後，中國塑造國際事務的能力已今非昔比。十年前，美日印澳四國也是在日本的遊說下，在同一地方馬尼拉舉行局長級磋商，希望在印太地區建立新的戰略對話機制。但是由於中國反對，開了一次會就不了了之。

十年之後，這四個國家都成了中國緊密的貿易夥伴，而且中國是每個國家的第一大貿易夥伴。印太地區乃至全球問題的解決都離不開中國。四國要在太平洋和印度洋區域之間搭建一個戰略弧，實現在政治、經濟、軍事等領域裡的兩洋聯動，以制約並延滯中國的發展，這是中國絕對不能接受的。十年前沒有辦到的，十年後也不會辦得到。值得注意的是，此次四方會晤如十年之前一樣，也沒敲定下次會期的日子。皮之不存毛將焉附，沒有四國會晤機制，哪兒來的“印太”構想？更談不上“印太”戰略了。

馬克吐溫說，歷史不會重演，但總會有驚人的相似。“印太”構想，只是逞一時口舌之快，成不了氣候。

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.