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.

Consultations with island authorities on trade shows American double-dealing. The visit undermined core Chinese interests and had a negative effect. It will do harm but no good in China-U.S. relations and will only undermine U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s Beijing visit.

ASEAN toes a delicate balancing act between China and the United States, and the latest ASEAN Summit demonstrates the complexities involved in steering clear of unnecessary tensions.

Three primary U.S. goals have their limitations. While it currently enjoys an internal bipartisan consensus on China, diplomatic and security problems, loopholes and contradictions exist for many countries in the region. The U.S. seeks to adjust the system to its advantage.

Washington’s initiatives are being pitched as an “alternative to China,” as they divide developing countries and solidify U.S. control. The IPEF may compete with ASEAN, raising questions about the bloc’s centrality.

IPEF negotiations are underway and four joining statements were recently released at the first in-person IPEF ministerial meeting. But Washington’s motives and the direction they lead negotiations remains to be seen, as they seek to build allyship in the Pacific and increase competition with China.

Removing import tariffs on Chinese goods could lower consumer prices in the U.S. amid inflation, dissipate the U.S.-China trade war, and support the administration’s overall strategy to strengthen its presence and influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Is the U.S. ready to meaningfully engage with the Asia-Pacific region? Their latest offering comes in the form of the IPEF, and the differences between the U.S.-led trade pact and competing ones led by Asian powers will show whether American leadership has brought enough to the table.

The IPEF - a U.S.-initiated trade and development partnership - is poised to bring in enthusiastic participation from several nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Notably, Southeast Asian states are well represented among members, giving the U.S. considerable influence right in China’s backyard.

Six factors suggest that the IPEF will not succeed: meager benefits for developing economies, new and unpopular commitments, disproportionate benefits for the U.S., vague negotiating plans, uncertainty of the framework’s survival under a new American administration and skepticism by U.S. allies.