{
  "id": "R45396",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45396",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 587333,
      "date": "2018-10-03",
      "retrieved": "2018-11-08T03:32:42.573251",
      "title": "The Trump Administration\u2019s \u201cFree and Open Indo-Pacific\u201d: Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "The Trump Administration has outlined a goal of promoting a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), seeking to articulate U.S. strategy towards an expanded Indo-Asia-Pacific region at a time when China\u2019s presence across the region is growing. The FOIP initiative is identified through a number of statements by the President and senior Administration officials. Insight into the initiative\u2019s context and perspective is also offered by the Administration\u2019s National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. The FOIP concept represents a significant change in U.S. strategic thinking towards the region because of its explicit linkage of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region with the Asia-Pacific region. The FOIP also emphasizes maritime issues. While recent statements by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have provided a more detailed understanding of the strategy, uncertainty remains over the specifics of the initiative. \nSome critics of the initiative wonder if the United States has the vision, political will, or economic resources necessary to implement a FOIP strategy effectively. Some observers have pointed to inconsistencies with other Trump Administration initiatives toward the region, and to the lack of detail necessary to operationalize the concept. Some also argue that the economic aspects of the initiative are relatively small when compared to either China\u2019s lending, including under its Belt and Road Initiative, or the region\u2019s infrastructure investment needs. Another often-expressed concern is that the FOIP\u2019s initial emphasis on the \u201cQuad\u201d with Australia, India, and Japan raises concerns that it risks eroding U.S. influence in Southeast Asia by not sufficiently incorporating that sub-region\u2019s leading international body, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, into U.S. strategy toward the region.\nRegional perceptions of the United States\u2019 commitment to the region were shaken by the Trump Administration\u2019s decision to withdraw from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement in 2017. This decision also led to perceptions that the United States lacked an integrated regional strategy despite the region\u2019s economic importance to the United States. According to the State Department, two-way trade between the United States and the Indo-Pacific is $1.4 trillion and U.S foreign direct investment in the region is $860 billion a year. \nThe FOIP initiative may raise questions for Congress related to its oversight and appropriations roles: \nDoes the initiative fully account for the strategic and economic environment in the Indo-Pacific, including implications related to but going beyond the rise of China and its Belt and Road Initiative? \nDoes the initiative correctly identify and adequately secure U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific region? \nDoes it place proper emphasis on developing diplomatic approaches and economic institutions as well as military responses when crafting a strategic vision for the region? \nAre U.S. Indo-Pacific military forces properly deployed to secure U.S. interests?\nIs future defense procurement adequately funded to secure U.S. interests? \nIs the value to the United States of working with friends and allies in the region properly understood and are these alliance and defense relationships being properly managed in order to leverage U.S. strategic posture in the region? \nAre American values properly taken into account in developing a FOIP strategy?",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45396",
          "sha1": "cce191bf9a73db2bd36aadc71368d054dbd0de64",
          "filename": "files/20181003_R45396_cce191bf9a73db2bd36aadc71368d054dbd0de64.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45396_files&id=/0.png": "files/20181003_R45396_images_569c55210bcf828b802394340543d850a8d4759b.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45396",
          "sha1": "3b75f4bf108ab8d5ab4419b8e98d4edfc80c31ed",
          "filename": "files/20181003_R45396_3b75f4bf108ab8d5ab4419b8e98d4edfc80c31ed.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Asian Affairs",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Industry and Trade",
    "National Defense",
    "South Asian Affairs"
  ]
}