"The administration may claim otherwise, but in prioritizing the Vietnam visit, it is doubling down on its efforts to build a nation-by-nation Cold War-style security bloc to counter China and avoiding working with regional groups — such as ASEAN — likely to decide the Indo-Pacific region’s future. In an increasingly multipolar world, Washington needs to become more effective at navigating fluid and flexible coalitions, not rerun an old playbook.
....
According to our interviews, Washington has publicly and privately pressured ASEAN members to turn down China’s global infrastructure projects, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, reduce their economic and technological dependence on Beijing and cancel their military partnerships with the People’s Liberation Army. What the administration heralds as “putting really big, important strategic points on the board” — for example, gaining additional access to the Philippines’ military bases and holding the largest-ever military exercise with Indonesia — many in the region view as thinly disguised attempts to form a new U.S. security bloc. Upgrading the relationship with Vietnam is just the latest example.

Worse, U.S. efforts to build its network of security partnerships are harming, not improving, ASEAN security concerns. For example, a trilateral initiative (known as AUKUS), in which the U.S. and the United Kingdom plan to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, alarms some ASEAN states because it puts them geographically in the center of a dangerous U.S.-China tug of war.

Washington’s limited approach to ASEAN as a collective has done little to allay those fears.
....
In the end, Washington’s drive for exclusive partnerships could leave it isolated. No amount of U.S. effort will consolidate ASEAN members as an anti-China bloc because these countries depend on China economically and politically. That long-standing position is unlikely to change, a former Singaporean defense official told us."

(Kelly A. Grieco is a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, an adjunct associate professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a nonresident fellow at the Brute Krulak Center of Marine Corps University. Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow with the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University. )
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-09-01/joe-biden-asean-vietnam-trans-pacific-partnership

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "The administration may claim otherwise, but in prioritizing the Vietnam visit, it is doubling down on its efforts to build a nation-by-nation Cold War-style security bloc to counter China and avoiding working with regional groups — such as ASEAN — likely to decide the Indo-Pacific region’s future. In an increasingly multipolar world, Washington needs to become more effective at navigating fluid and flexible coalitions, not rerun an old playbook.
> ...
> According to our interviews, Washington has publicly and privately pressured ASEAN members to turn down China’s global infrastructure projects, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, reduce their economic and technological dependence on Beijing and cancel their military partnerships with the People’s Liberation Army. What the administration heralds as “putting really big, important strategic points on the board” — for example, gaining additional access to the Philippines’ military bases and holding the largest-ever military exercise with Indonesia — many in the region view as thinly disguised attempts to form a new U.S. security bloc. Upgrading the relationship with Vietnam is just the latest example.
>
> Worse, U.S. efforts to build its network of security partnerships are harming, not improving, ASEAN security concerns. For example, a trilateral initiative (known as AUKUS), in which the U.S. and the United Kingdom plan to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, alarms some ASEAN states because it puts them geographically in the center of a dangerous U.S.-China tug of war.
>
> Washington’s limited approach to ASEAN as a collective has done little to allay those fears.
> ...
> In the end, Washington’s drive for exclusive partnerships could leave it isolated. No amount of U.S. effort will consolidate ASEAN members as an anti-China bloc because these countries depend on China economically and politically. That long-standing position is unlikely to change, a former Singaporean defense official told us."
>
> (Kelly A. Grieco is a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, an adjunct associate professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a nonresident fellow at the Brute Krulak Center of Marine Corps University. Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow with the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University. )
> https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-09-01/joe-biden-asean-vietnam-trans-pacific-partnership
Global Times Editorial on the same topic:
"我们认为，拜登政府决不是有意冷落印尼和东盟，相反它其实是很“重视”的；但重视印尼和东盟的真实原因并不光明正大，也与东盟的实际利益和意愿不相符，甚至背道而驰。华盛顿对东盟峰会侧重经济贸易合作的主题缺乏兴趣是确定无疑的。
即使拜登出席，可以想见，他带到东盟峰会会场的也都是些地缘政治和安全的老调重弹，比如说所谓“南海航行自由”或“南海岛礁争议”等，在多边场合搞分化分裂、挑拨离间，与会议团结与合作的大气氛格格不入。这些话改由从哈里斯口中说出来，负面影响或许还相对小一点。因此，拜登不来，并非东盟峰会的遗憾，更谈不上损失。
为什么拜登去越南不去印尼？这同样有迹可循。华盛顿对东盟做工作的效果不好，于是开始在东盟内部“各个击破”。加上这次去越南，拜登和哈里斯过去一年绕着中国快跑满一圈了，醉翁之意再明显不过。美国在双边场合搞单边行径，肯定要比在多边场合方便一些。但对已被美国盯上的东盟成员国来说，就必须多留一个心眼了。
美国《洛杉矶时报》最近的一篇文章把华盛顿的老底兜出来了。文章说，拜登政府坚称不强迫各国在中美之间做出选择，但据该报的采访，华盛顿公开和私下向东盟成员国施压，要求其拒绝中国提出的“一带一路”倡议，减少对北京的经济和技术依赖，并取消与中国的军事伙伴关系。这不是压人“选边站队”是什么？连美国媒体都承认，华盛顿拉拢小圈子正在损害而不是改善东盟的安全关切。
直白地说，美国是当前让东盟最为难的国家，它出现在该地区的身影越来越频繁，但带来的实际利好和发展合作机会越来越少，风险却越来越大越来越多。而东盟的每一次会议，实际上都是真假多边主义的试验场，谁带着合作共赢的真心而来，谁又抱着柴火和汽油过来，这些并不难分辨，东盟国家心里也跟明镜似的。华盛顿的方向如果搞错了，它用力越猛，杵到手的概率就越大，挫败感也会越强。"
https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/4EPJCbFB912

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "The administration may claim otherwise, but in prioritizing the Vietnam visit, it is doubling down on its efforts to build a nation-by-nation Cold War-style security bloc to counter China and avoiding working with regional groups — such as ASEAN — likely to decide the Indo-Pacific region’s future. In an increasingly multipolar world, Washington needs to become more effective at navigating fluid and flexible coalitions, not rerun an old playbook.
> ...
> According to our interviews, Washington has publicly and privately pressured ASEAN members to turn down China’s global infrastructure projects, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, reduce their economic and technological dependence on Beijing and cancel their military partnerships with the People’s Liberation Army. What the administration heralds as “putting really big, important strategic points on the board” — for example, gaining additional access to the Philippines’ military bases and holding the largest-ever military exercise with Indonesia — many in the region view as thinly disguised attempts to form a new U.S. security bloc. Upgrading the relationship with Vietnam is just the latest example.
>
> Worse, U.S. efforts to build its network of security partnerships are harming, not improving, ASEAN security concerns. For example, a trilateral initiative (known as AUKUS), in which the U.S. and the United Kingdom plan to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, alarms some ASEAN states because it puts them geographically in the center of a dangerous U.S.-China tug of war.
>
> Washington’s limited approach to ASEAN as a collective has done little to allay those fears.
> ...
> In the end, Washington’s drive for exclusive partnerships could leave it isolated. No amount of U.S. effort will consolidate ASEAN members as an anti-China bloc because these countries depend on China economically and politically. That long-standing position is unlikely to change, a former Singaporean defense official told us."
>
> (Kelly A. Grieco is a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, an adjunct associate professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a nonresident fellow at the Brute Krulak Center of Marine Corps University. Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow with the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University. )
> https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-09-01/joe-biden-asean-vietnam-trans-pacific-partnership

The Economist's article "Joe Biden’s visit to Hanoi is a signal to China: America and Vietnam have a shared interest in
reining in aggression at sea" defends Biden's Hanoi visit:
https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/09/07/joe-bidens-visit-to-hanoi-is-a-signal-to-china

"SKIPPING AN ASEAN talkfest in Jakarta and hot on the heels of the G20 meeting in Delhi, Joe Biden is set to make
a state visit to Vietnam on September 10th.
....
Campaigners at home will accuse Mr Biden of cosying up to a regime with an appalling human-rights record. But he
is bent on countering Chinese sway in the Indo-Pacific region. The trip is part of a strategy in which overlapping
security initiatives create a spreading latticework on China’s periphery. Vietnam’s biggest security worry is Chinese
encroachment in the South China Sea and harassment of fishing boats and oil-and-gas exploration vessels in Vietnamese
waters. America lifted a ban on arms sales to Vietnam in 2016 and has since sold it two coastguard cutters. More defence
initiatives may come out of this trip. After also strengthening its military relationship with the Philippines, America may be
planning to challenge China more robustly in the South China Sea."

One, however, to ask: How to measure aggression or aggressive intention?
Chinese naval ships showing up in the SCS, or US naval ships thousands of miles to travel to show themselves in the SCS?

China naval ships in the SCS is inevitable because the SCS is China's front door. In contrast, the US INTENTIONALLY send
its naval ships to the SCS to challenge China. They come with aggressive intention.

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:32:58 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "The administration may claim otherwise, but in prioritizing the Vietnam visit, it is doubling down on its efforts to build a nation-by-nation Cold War-style security bloc to
> counter China and avoiding working with regional groups — such as ASEAN — likely to decide the Indo-Pacific region’s future. In an increasingly multipolar world,
> Washington needs to become more effective at navigating fluid and flexible coalitions, not rerun an old playbook.

Peggy Nanoon had a piece several days ago in the WSJ entitled "Biden’s Fibs Are a 20th-Century Throwback."

"What these stories have in common is that they are cinematic. They’re pictures—the glistening scholar, the rumble.
....
Mr. Biden has always taken it too far, and here is a small theory on why he tells lies. It is not only that, in terms of his
nature and personality, he likes to make up stories and to be at the center of them.
....
Mr. Biden became a pol before everything was on tape, so you could make up pretty much anything and not get caught.
This was true of others in his political generation. Hillary Clinton got in trouble in 2008 for claiming she’d come under fire
in a diplomatic visit to Bosnia. She didn’t; there was videotape. But she started out before videotape was accessible and
ubiquitous.

What is peculiar is that they don’t change when times change, and they get caught. This is testimony to the power of habit,
but also connects to the old world of politics as a school of entertainment. Fifty and 100 years ago politicians were
supposed to entertain you. One way to do it was through rousing and sentimental stories."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-fibs-are-a-20th-century-throwback-corn-pop-foer-unions-2024-e29a484a?page=1

Nanoon's piece does raise questions.
" Fifty and 100 years ago politicians were supposed to entertain you. One way to do it was through rousing and sentimental stories."
Biden does tell a rousing and sentimental story of good democracy like the US versus evil autocracy like China. But is the reality?
Nanoon found Biden and Hillary don't change when times change. Is Biden not also bringing his old time Cold War mentality into
the 21 century?

> ...
> According to our interviews, Washington has publicly and privately pressured ASEAN members to turn down China’s global infrastructure projects, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, reduce their economic and technological dependence on Beijing and cancel their military partnerships with the People’s Liberation Army. What the administration heralds as “putting really big, important strategic points on the board” — for example, gaining additional access to the Philippines’ military bases and holding the largest-ever military exercise with Indonesia — many in the region view as thinly disguised attempts to form a new U.S. security bloc. Upgrading the relationship with Vietnam is just the latest example.
>
> Worse, U.S. efforts to build its network of security partnerships are harming, not improving, ASEAN security concerns. For example, a trilateral initiative (known as AUKUS), in which the U.S. and the United Kingdom plan to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, alarms some ASEAN states because it puts them geographically in the center of a dangerous U.S.-China tug of war.
>
> Washington’s limited approach to ASEAN as a collective has done little to allay those fears.
> ...
> In the end, Washington’s drive for exclusive partnerships could leave it isolated. No amount of U.S. effort will consolidate ASEAN members as an anti-China bloc because these countries depend on China economically and politically. That long-standing position is unlikely to change, a former Singaporean defense official told us."
>
> (Kelly A. Grieco is a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, an adjunct associate professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a nonresident fellow at the Brute Krulak Center of Marine Corps University. Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow with the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University. )
> https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-09-01/joe-biden-asean-vietnam-trans-pacific-partnership