YAN XUE/FOR CHINA DAILY

Global Times-On Sunday, Japanese media outlet Nikkei Asia published an interview with Mignon Houston, deputy spokesperson for the US State Department. In the interview, the US official warned that Indo-Pacific countries should "be mindful and responsible when making decisions" on working with China. Although she acknowledged China's major role in the region, she simultaneously made groundless accusations that China was "fostering economic coercion, manipulation, dependency." She also encouraged countries to see the US as "an alternative for economic cooperation," claiming that it was important that "ASEAN countries are not dependent on one economy, not dependent on only one source."

What the US refers to as the "Indo-Pacific" is essentially what people commonly call the "Asia-Pacific." Houston's remarks, devoid of any real substance, plainly reveal the US intention to maintain its strategic monopoly in the Asia-Pacific region. By exaggerating China's regional influence, she is in fact interfering with the legitimate right of China and Asia-Pacific countries to cooperate. Her narrative of the US as a mere "alternative" or "backup" partner to ASEAN is, in essence, a thinly veiled expression of Washington's desire to uphold its dominance in the region. The US implicitly coerces Asia-Pacific countries to take sides between the US and China, while using grandiose terms like "mindful" and "responsible" to disguise its intention to disrupt the region's established order, seeking justification for its so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategy."

Houston's accusations against China have seriously distorted the reality of China's cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries. As a US scholar once noted, some Lao passengers removed their shoes and left them on the platform before boarding the China-Laos Railway train - a customary practice before entering one's home in Laos - indicating Laotians clearly felt comfortable with the Chinese-funded and Chinese-built railway. Over the years, China's economic and trade cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries has significantly contributed to regional development and shared prosperity, while also playing a constructive role in safeguarding peace and stability - facts that are widely recognized. In contrast, while regional countries are eager for options like free trade agreements and people-to-people exchanges, Washington unfortunately presents a policy prescription of conflict and confrontation.

While US officials repeatedly stress the need to avoid reliance on "only one source," what they are actually offering Asia-Pacific countries is a zero-sum single-answer question. Yet most countries in the region are unwilling to take sides. The prevailing sentiment is a desire for harmonious relations among nations and win-win cooperation. Two recent issues are indicative. First, the Pew Research Center in the US and the East Asia Forum in Australia both released research reports showing that the share of people with a favorable view of China in the Asia-Pacific region has increased, while the share with a favorable view of the US has declined. Second, during the NATO summit held in The Hague, Netherlands, from June 24 to 25, the leaders of Japan, South Korea, and Australia were all absent. This proves that the US so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategy," characterized by economic decoupling, high-tech restrictions, military provocations and containment, with the core goal of countering China's growing influence, is not welcomed in the region.

The Asia-Pacific region is currently a major driving force supporting the global economic growth, with economic growth in the region consistently leading the world. The region's "spaghetti-bowl" of trade agreements - referring to the intricate overlap of multiple trade pacts - has grown to over 370 separate agreements. Stability, cooperation, development, and prosperity are the key priorities pursued by the vast majority of countries in the region. In recent years, the US so-called "de-risking" strategy of "excluding" China from supply chains has forcibly cut the interconnected economic networks that countries in the Asia-Pacific have formed over many years, disrupting a pattern that benefits all parties involved. Regional countries all share a common preference for strategic autonomy, diplomatic diversification, and economic mutual benefit. What they least want to do is face the single-answer question that Washington imposes on them.

No matter what packaging is used or what guise is adopted, the so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategy" is essentially a strategy that creates division, incites confrontation, and undermines peace; ultimately, this strategy is destined to fail. In recent years, the US has continued to use individual Asia-Pacific countries as pawns to contain China, which, while causing some disruption to China, has also disrupted the rhythm of regional stability and development. However, one thing is clear: In the Asia-Pacific region, the appeal of accelerating the promotion of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area 3.0 and the high-quality implementation of RCEP for regional integration cooperation far exceeds that of arrangements like AUKUS and the Quad mechanism, which are filled with Cold War thinking, formed by Washington and its individual allies.

The outdated Cold War script should not be replayed in the Asia-Pacific. The Asia-Pacific region, which encompasses several major global economies, is the main engine of global economic growth and should continue to inject strong momentum into the resilience and innovation of global supply chains, rather than being pushed to the "crossroads" of camp confrontation, adding turbulence and crises to the world. Hopefully Washington will break free from the cognitive trap of zero-sum games as soon as possible, and work with China to add stability and development in the region, rather than pursuing decoupling which only harms others and itself.