Prediction is always difficult, but doubly so in the case of the US president-elect. Donald Trump not only speaks loosely and changes his positions often; he al

Despite his unpredictability, Donald Trump seems committed to the current strategic trajectory. But China has gained a deeper understanding and accumulated significant experience. It will likely approach America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy with greater confidence and composure in Trump’s second term.

The United States talks the talk but fails to walk the walk. It is angling to create a mini NATO parallel organization in the Asia-Pacific region by enlisting the Philippines and Japan. Its Cold War thinking only creates conflict and confrontation — hyping security threats and sabotaging peace and stability.

The United States has intensified its efforts to assert or reclaim American Primacy in Asia. Assert if one holds the view that it still holds military preponderance; reclaim if one believes that it doesn’t. Through a series of so-called mini-lateral arrangements, the US has in recent years sought to enlist its Asia Pacific client states, former colonies and subimperial allies to anchor a 21st Century bulwark on the western edge of America’s Lake. The Quad, AUKUS and now the trilateral involving Japan and the Philippines form part of a lattice-like network, in all practical intents and purposes, aimed squarely at the containment of China.

Renewed talks between the U.S. and China have led to a flurry of speculation on what the near future holds, but perhaps no one is watching as closely as China’s neighbors who would prefer de-escalated tensions sooner than later, especially if it means avoiding crossfire between the two rivals.

The Biden administration recently wrapped up two important state visits with President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea and President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. The meetings signify that Biden is on a trek to improve and affirm ties with key Indo-Pacific countries, but it must continue this trend if the U.S. wishes to remain relevant in the region.

Success or failure is closely linked to China’s ability to influence its own neighborhood, as America’s real purpose is the creation of a NATO-style regional alliance. For the U.S., much depends on whether it can accommodate the concerns of countries that don’t want to take sides.

The shift of the US policy from engaging China to containing China can be traced back to the Obama administration and his pivot to Asia strategy in 2009.

The U.S. and China’s growing rivalry was bound to affect global relationships on multiple levels. Already having established the AUKUS program, the U.S. is also pursuing an adjacent Japan-Philippine-U.S. alliance which will add another security barrier in the Pacific, a difficult fence to raise in a region where many countries rely heavily on China for trade.

The strategy is based on 20th century thinking in a 21st century environment. It will therefore inevitably run into problems. This design flaw is its Achilles heel: It has improper strategic goals, an imaginary competitor and an ineffective and misguided approach.