Mixed signals from the Trump administration

The US Under-Secretary for Defence, Elbridge Colby, stated in a tweet on 14 August, while referring to the 80th anniversary of the surrender of Japan, "That is the policy we are carrying to our allies in the Asia-Pacific." Why the switch from 'Indo-Pacific' to 'Asia-Pacific'? This was not corrected even after being questioned, which implied it was intended.

- HARSHA KAKAR

The US Under-Secretary for Defence, Elbridge Colby, stated in a tweet on 14 August, while referring to the 80th anniversary of the surrender of Japan, "That is the policy we are carrying to our allies in the Asia-Pacific." Why the switch from 'Indo-Pacific' to 'Asia-Pacific'? This was not corrected even after being questioned, which implied it was intended. After all, it was Trump himself who coined the phrase in his earlier term as President. It could be argued that this message was aimed at Southeast Asian nations. The logic does not hold ground, as Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defence, addressing a similar audience at the Shangri La dialogue in Singapore in May this year mentioned, "It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific."

Something changed between May and now. Could it be deterioration in Indo-US ties or is it a signal of the US cozying up to Pakistan? Currently, Pakistan and China continue to refer to the region as 'Asia-Pacific'. Trump's imposition of tariffs, including additional ones for procuring Russian oil, was termed as sanctions by the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Simultaneously, Trump placed trade talks on hold. Trump's anger towards India increased after PM Modi rejected his statement of having brokered peace with Pakistan and refused his offer to visit the White House post the G7 summit, when he hosted Asim Munir for lunch.

Most of Trump's former advisors have cautioned him against targeting India, which they claim is essential to keep China at bay. Nikki Haley mentioned, "It would serve America's interests to help India stand up to China." She subsequently changed her stance and mentioned that India should consider the US demand on Russian oil seriously and work to resolve the trade dispute. Was this on a suggestion by the administration?