Beijing interprets Washington’s Indo-Pacific recalibration as constraint-driven retrenchment rather than retreat, creating strategic space for expanded Chinese economic, diplomatic, and selective military influence
Over the past two decades, US policy towards Asia has gradually shifted, at least at the level of rhetoric, towards recognising the region’s growing strategic importance. Following the presidency of George W. Bush, which was largely shaped by conflicts in Iraq and the wider Middle East, the Obama administration in 2011 announced the “Pivot to Asia” as a strategic reorientation. This policy identified Asia as a central arena of economic growth and geopolitical competition, requiring a recalibration of Washington’s diplomatic, economic, and security engagement.
The pivot sought to shift US attention from the Middle East and Europe towards East Asia, with an emphasis on strengthening diplomatic, economic, and military ties to both reinforce regional stability and counter China’s rising influence. Engagement with regional institutions such as ASEAN, alongside the consolidation of longstanding alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, formed key pillars of this approach.
Its economic dimension was anchored in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which, if realised, had the potential to establish a major regional trade framework, shape Indo-Pacific economic rules, and provide a counterweight to China’s expanding influence in the wider Asia-Pacific.
However, the TPP did not succeed following the US withdrawal, while shifting priorities in Washington—particularly during the Trump administration—raised questions about the US’s ability to sustain a strategic focus on Asia. The 2017 National Security Strategy described China as a “revisionist power” seeking to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific and reorder the region. Despite disruptions during the Trump administration, this broader strategic approach also contributed to the revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), uniting the United States, India, Japan, and Australia. The Biden administration has retained this framework, expanding defence cooperation with partners such as the Philippines and reiterating commitments, including to Taiwan’s defence against a potential Chinese invasion.
Under Trump 2.0, a pronounced rupture in bipartisan consensus appears to have emerged. The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) elevates the importance of the Western Hemisphere through a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, while devoting comparatively limited attention to the Indo-Pacific. China is acknowledged as a major power but framed less as a ‘systemic threat’ and more as a near-peer competitor, with emphasis placed primarily on rebalancing economic ties towards ‘mutually advantageous’ relations rather than ideological confrontation.
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) elevates the importance of the Western Hemisphere through a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, while devoting comparatively limited attention to the Indo-Pacific.
The 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) reflects a similar orientation, identifying homeland defence and the Western Hemisphere as top priorities, with deterring China in the Indo-Pacific positioned as a secondary objective. It describes China as “the second most powerful country in the world” in relatively neutral, value-free terms, avoiding references to coercive or predatory practices highlighted in earlier strategies. Notably, it does not explicitly mention Taiwan or other specific flashpoints; instead, it emphasises a “strong denial of defence along the First Island Chain” aimed at preventing China from achieving regional dominance. While this formulation implies denial capabilities across areas such as the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, and the Senkaku Islands, the omission of Taiwan has raised questions about the clarity of US commitments.
From Beijing’s perspective, these documents reflect US resource constraints, domestic priorities such as immigration and homeland security, and a retreat from overextension rather than a full abandonment of competition. Chinese analysts interpret the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) as a transitional document, signalling a shift from liberal internationalism to conservative nationalism, with foreign policy recentred on narrowly defined national interests and economic security. This approach moves away from expansive global commitments and alliances as central pillars, instead emphasising sovereignty, cost efficiency, and results-oriented outcomes. Beijing sees this as validating its long-term strategy of patient, steady engagement, at a time when Washington appears distracted and unpredictable.
Recent actions reinforce perceptions of US distraction in the region. Reports indicate the partial redeployment of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system—primarily deployed in South Korea to counter North Korean ballistic missile threats—to the Middle East amid escalating tensions. This includes components moved to support US forces in Operation Epic Fury, a campaign launched in early 2026 to degrade Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, naval assets, and proxy networks, and to prevent nuclear escalation. Even if temporary, this redeployment—reportedly opposed by Seoul—signals crisis management without broader strategic calibration, potentially eroding confidence in US reliability. Washington continues to assert that it remains “laser focused” on the Indo-Pacific and the First Island Chain; however, these actions suggest constrained bandwidth amid ongoing tensions in West Asia and the continued demands of the Russia–Ukraine conflict into 2026.
Beijing views Trump’s scepticism towards multilateralism—reflected in withdrawals from international organisations and economic pressure on allies—as further evidence of unpredictability. Allies and partners face increasing demands for greater burden-sharing, with the 2025 NSS and 2026 NDS calling on Indo-Pacific partners, particularly on the Korean Peninsula, to assume a larger role, potentially enabling greater US flexibility for other contingencies. This more transactional approach risks straining partnerships and may signal a degree of strategic retrenchment.
From Beijing’s perspective, these documents reflect US resource constraints, domestic priorities such as immigration and homeland security, and a retreat from overextension rather than a full abandonment of competition.
For China, this environment creates exploitable space. Scholars indicate that when the US appears preoccupied or ‘distracted’ with external conflicts or domestic constraints, regional diplomatic networks tend to tilt towards greater Chinese engagement. States perceiving reduced US commitment often diversify their external alignments to hedge against uncertainty, enabling Beijing to position itself as a comparatively more predictable partner in economic and diplomatic terms.
Beijing’s Indo-Pacific strategy is likely to involve multifaceted outreach:
Without relying on coercion, China seeks to deepen regional integration through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and other trade frameworks. It positions itself as a defender of multilateralism, in contrast to Washington’s more transactional alliances and protectionist approach. Chinese analysts also note potential opportunities to draw ASEAN economies closer if US attention to the Western Hemisphere remains sustained.
Increased patrolling in contested areas such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, alongside strengthened ties with fragile or non-aligned states amid regional political instability. This allows Beijing to deepen engagement with partners that are less constrained by formal US alliances or democratic alignment pressures.
As Japan, South Korea, and India deepen self-reliance and expand minilateral cooperation, such as the Quad—though with only rhetorical emphasis under Trump 2.0—Southeast Asian and South Asian states may move closer to China in economic or diplomatic terms. Perceptions of US strategic drift encourage middle powers to stabilise the regional order independently, expanding security coordination among Japan, India, Australia, South Korea, and European partners.
Chinese strategists remain cautious, viewing the shift as making US primacy leaner and more sustainable rather than signalling decline. The NSS and NDS continue to emphasise deterrence along the First Island Chain, economic competition in technology and supply chains, and greater burden-sharing among allies. No full retreat is evident; competition persists, while Beijing avoids actions that could trigger escalation. However, China’s territorial assertiveness and asymmetric regional relationships continue to limit full trust in a China-centric order.
The Indo-Pacific, home to nearly half of global GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, remains the decisive theatre for 21st-century international relations. Beijing perceives Washington’s drift from the Pivot to Asia—towards greater focus on the Western Hemisphere, continued Middle East entanglements such as Operation Epic Fury, and more restrained rhetoric—as creating openings for expanded influence.
From Beijing’s vantage point, the apparent US retrenchment under Trump 2.0—as reflected in the 2025 NSS’s hemispheric prioritisation, the 2026 NDS’s neutral framing of China and omission of Taiwan, THAAD redeployments amid Operation Epic Fury, and more transactional alliance expectations—signals opportunity rather than a reduction in strategic competition. This reinforces China’s positioning as a relatively steady, multilateral partner in contrast to an increasingly unpredictable Washington. Beijing is likely to accelerate multifaceted engagement, including economic deepening through the BRI and RCEP, selective military presence, and diplomatic outreach aimed at exploiting hedging behaviour among regional states.
While US deterrence along the First Island Chain and ongoing economic frictions persist, limiting prospects for full Chinese regional dominance, sustained perceptions of American distraction could nonetheless accelerate China’s influence in the region.
While US deterrence along the First Island Chain and ongoing economic frictions persist, limiting prospects for full Chinese regional dominance, sustained perceptions of American distraction could nonetheless accelerate China’s influence in the region. Re-establishing US credibility as a reliable partner—through consistent deterrence, greater investment in minilateral frameworks, and clearer strategic signalling—is therefore essential to counterbalance Beijing’s gains in this pivotal region. Otherwise, continued US strategic drift risks becoming self-reinforcing, gradually reshaping Indo-Pacific dynamics in China’s favour.
Dr Sriparna Pathak is Professor of China Studies and the founding Director of the Centre for Northeast Asian Studies at O.P. Jindal Global University.
Upamanyu Basu is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr Sriparna Pathak is Professor of China Studies and the founding Director of the Centre for Northeast Asian Studies at O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU), ...
Read More +
Upamanyu Basu is an Assistant Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies. He is currently pursuing ...
Read More +
PREV
