Recent media reports suggest Washington wants Britain and other European nations to focus on Russia and stay out of the Indo-Pacific
Reports that a senior Pentagon official has been telling America’s European allies to stay away from the Indo-Pacific may be a sign that Washington will ask its Asian allies to shoulder more responsibility for countering China, according to some analysts.
On Tuesday, Politico reported that defence undersecretary for policy Elbridge Colby had tried and failed to stop Britain from sending an aircraft carrier to the Indo-Pacific.
The report cited sources who interpreted the Pentagon’s No 3 as “basically saying ‘You have no business being in the Indo-Pacific’”. They added that he thought the United States does not “need the Europeans to be doing anything” in the region.
Liselotte Odgaard, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, said this might increase the pressure on US allies in the region to do more to help contain China.
“Asking Europe to leave doesn’t mean they [the European countries] should not be tough on China. The US asks them to be much tougher in Europe on China with regards to export controls, their cooperation with Russia in the Arctic et cetera,” Odgaard said.
“But when it comes to [China]... the US doesn’t want Europe to mess up its defence cooperation with its Indo-Pacific allies and its plans for military deterrence of China. There is a risk that Europe and Indo-Pacific allies join forces in resisting some US defence policies.”
The White House has been pushing its allies to spend 5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence.
According to Politico, Colby, who said in March that Japan should spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence, had angered Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba with his stance.
“The Japanese were very frustrated,” one source told the media outlet. “They thought that they were agreeing to at least negotiate on the basis of 3 or 3.5 per cent. Then Colby, all of a sudden, got [the Pentagon] to say five, and the Japanese got angry, because that’s not what they just agreed to.”
Over the weekend, the Financial Times reported that Colby had also been putting pressure on Japan and Australia to clarify what role they would play if Washington and Beijing went to war over Taiwan.
Beijing regards the island as part of its territory and has never renounced the use of force to bring it under its control. The US, Japan and Australia, in common with most countries, do not recognise Taiwan as independent but would oppose any attempt to seize it by force.
Colby reacted to the report with a social media post that said the Pentagon was focused on the “America first, common sense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength”, which includes urging the allies to “step up their defence spending and other efforts”.
“Of course, some among our allies might not welcome frank conversations. But many, now led by Nato after the historic Hague Summit, are seeing the urgent need to step up and are doing so” Colby wrote, alluding to the recent commitment to the 5 per cent target by members of the alliance.
Ramon Pacheco Pardo, a professor of international relations at King’s College London, said the effort to dissuade the British from sending the carrier was part of Washington’s efforts to tell European countries to “focus on the deterrence of Russia and stay away from Asia and the Indo-Pacific”.
He said: “In their view, European assets bring little to the Indo-Pacific table, and the US doesn’t want to focus on Russia and prefers to have Europe focus on it.”
Pacheco Pardo added the “clear” message that US allies should increase defence spending was “primarily so that the US can concentrate on dealing with China, including in case of war, and also so that these allies can support the US if there is a conflict with China”.
John Bradford, executive director of the Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies, said Washington thought “allied resources are best preserved with allies acting locally, building on their strengths, and avoiding long-range deployment costs”.
He added: “The argument would be that the security situation in Europe and the Middle East is sufficiently tough to warrant UK focus on that side of the globe.”
According to Bradford, US policymakers increasingly think that the Chinese threat has “grown to the extent that deterrence will require a massive build-up of allied power,” which would increase pressure on all allies to do more.
Colby has signalled that the US might reassess the role of its troops in the Indo-Pacific, most notably in South Korea. He has said Seoul should concentrate on countering its northern neighbour and free up the more than 28,000 US troops in the country to focus on containing Beijing.
“The US-Japan and US-ROK [Republic of Korea] alliances are different in that the forces in Japan are treaty-designated as being there to provide regional security whereas US forces in Korea are dedicated to the defence of South Korea,” Bradford said.
“Today, it is generally believed that South Korea has sufficient strength to pretty much handle North Korean conventional forces on its own.
“Therefore, American policymakers increasingly want to make the forces currently in South Korea available for a conflict with China by either redefining the arrangements in place with the South Korean government or moving them to new basing locations.”
Bradford added that US regional partners should recognise that such views were gaining currency in Washington and could not be attributed to one “rogue official”.
“New elites are bringing new thinking while the strategic realities of the Indo-Pacific area are also rapidly changing,” he said.
President Donald Trump told a recent cabinet meeting that South Korea paid “very little” for America’s military support and should significantly increase its defence budget, although he also falsely claimed there were 45,000 US troops in the country.
He also insisted Seoul should pay up to US$10 billion to Washington – an increase from US$1.11 billion agreed between the two countries to be paid from next year.
A report published last week by the think tank Defence Priorities made a similar argument, saying US troop numbers in South Korea should be cut to 10,000.
It cited Colby’s arguments that South Korea’s military could respond to the North but argued the US could not deal with Pyongyang and China at the same time.
The report, co-written by Dan Caldwell, a former senior adviser to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, also said US forces in Okinawa should be cut from 26,000 down to 14,000, saying they were vulnerable and relocating them to Guam could increase “US resilience and the ability to respond in a crisis.”
Pacheco Pardo said South Korea was one of the US allies that was going to be “pressed” to boost its defence spending.
He said Washington’s decision to maintain, reduce or increase its troop presence in South Korea and other countries would depend on the “role that these allies can play in case of a conflict with China”.
Odgaard said “repurposing” troops was not the same as scaling back”.
She added: “The US and Indo-Pacific [allies’] agreement on China as a threat will ensure that alliance relations will remain strong with Japan and South Korea. Friction should not be exaggerated and does not indicate a breakdown in relations. The US defence forces are needed by their Indo-Pacific allies.”
