As President Biden attends his first in-person meetings in Asia, who he’s visiting and their respective agendas can inform our observations on what the U.S. strategy will be in dealing with China’s neighbors.

Lacking concrete detail, the framework is burdened by great uncertainty. Moreover, the United States seems to be sending a decoupling signal to China — a questionable strategy. If the U.S. continues along this line, it will be hard to win confidence and cooperation from countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

The IPEF as yet has no real content, so people are understandably mystified. America wants to drive a wedge between regional countries and China. But this won’t work, as China is already embedded. Supply chains will not be altered on a whim.

America finally issued a broad statement on its Indo-Pacific strategy, predictably addressing concerns about China’s influence and spelling out its intention to play into its allies' favor. Meanwhile, ASEAN must respond to the latest development to retain their own autonomy and stability in what many are sure to see as rising tensions.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework proposed by the United States should blend with existing regional free trade arrangements, which are already well-developed. A quick look at the numbers shows there’s no advantage to leaving out Asia’s trade behemoth.

Washington intends to shed its reliance on multilateral mechanisms and form a new economic framework based on bilateral consultations. The IPEF is more of a contract aimed at solving particular issues than an agreement to ratchet up economic integration. And, of course, it aims to dent China’s influence.

In applying for membership, China has made a clear choice to adhere to high standards. Its market is huge, so others should evaluate carefully. If any member state, or the United States, blocks the way forward, an important opportunity for Asia-Pacific prosperity will be lost.

Humans, according to German sociologist Friedrich Ratzel, seek prosperity on two tracks: economic and political. The former is negotiated, while the latter — the U.S. model — is often forced. This is why China is likely to prevail.

The creation of AUKUS is being criticized by many as an instigation on the part of the U.S. and the U.K., with third parties in Asia as well as Europe deeply troubled by its announcement.

It is natural for Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, to provide leadership in global economic governance. But preventing a repeat of its failure with the Kyoto Protocol requires it to abandon its U.S.-centrism and its fealty to certain myths of the CPTPP.