In the dynamic landscape of geopolitical rivalry, the United States faces a mammoth task in refocusing its strategic priorities. As tensions escalate, the U.S. military must maintain the delicate balance of power, especially concerning the potent threats emerging from the east. Great power competition and conflict, featuring China and Russia, necessitates a strategic realignment toward the Indo-Pacific region, marked notably by the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI).
Billed as the United States’s strategic counterweight to China’s burgeoning military might, the PDI reflects America’s resolve to uphold peace in the Indo-Pacific. As outlined in the Department of Defense’s fiscal 2024 budget request, the PDI accounts for a “$9.1 billion subset” of defense expenditures, dedicated primarily to countering threats west of the international date line.
While the intent behind the PDI is clear and its strategic relevance undeniable, there are significant concerns regarding its execution. The overarching critique revolves around the fact that the PDI isn’t a separate fund but a subset of the existing Department of Defense budget. This approach might restrict its effectiveness in curbing the aggressive strategic posturing by China, as it seemingly repackages existing programs without extending new, dedicated funding toward the challenge at hand.
Contrast this with the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) created in 2014 to counter threats from Russian. It operates on an entirely different principle, with separate funding provided on top of the current Defense budget, demonstrating a more pronounced commitment. This disparity raises questions about the U.S.’s strategic priorities. To deter a power like China, shouldn’t America mirror — if not surpass — the level of commitment shown in Europe?
China is not just another regional threat. Its global ambitions, coupled with its economic prowess and military might, make it a unique challenge that requires an equally unique response. While a potent threat, Russia has merely regional aspirations compared to China’s global, revisionist ambitions. The PDI, therefore, must represent more than a mere budgetary reallocation. It should signify a deep, committed strategic pivot.
The $9.1 billion allocated under the PDI for the fiscal 2024 budget may seem significant, but let’s remember that this figure doesn’t represent new funds. Additionally, this budget is dwarfed when compared to the funding allocated to counter threats during the Global War on Terror, which, although insidious, did not pose an existential threat to the U.S. like China did.
Furthermore, the 2024 PDI request highlights several categories, including infrastructure improvements, defense capabilities of allies and partners, and improved capabilities for United States Indo-Pacific Command, which are vital components of our strategic defense. These must be backed up by genuinely new and robust funding to achieve the desired impact.
The crux of the issue is not the amount of money allocated under PDI; rather, it is how it is perceived, managed and spent. As it stands, the initiative is simply a budgetary strategy, not a policy strategy. To effectively counter China’s aggressive posturing, the PDI should involve a new, separate fund, with additional appropriations specifically aimed at deterring China in the Indo-Pacific region.
As the U.S. navigates this challenging geopolitical landscape, it’s clear that maintaining a delicate peace requires more than financial reshuffling. It requires a dedicated, comprehensive and well-resourced strategy that rises to the gravity of the threat. Consequently, the PDI should be modeled on the EDI’s approach: a separate budget line dedicated to deterring specific regional threats.
The PDI represents an essential part of America’s response to the challenge posed by China. However, it must be backed by robust financial commitment and strategic forethought to ensure its success. A dedicated PDI fund would represent a more tangible U.S. commitment to Indo-Pacific security, ultimately contributing to a safer and more peaceful world. The future of peace may depend on it.
Daniel J. Kurtenbach is the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy’s chief growth officer and a Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies doctoral student. He is a former Army Special Forces officer, White House fellow, and technology executive.