The EU, the Indo-Pacific and the US-led IPEF: Which Way Forward?
The paper provides a European Union (EU) perspective on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF).
First, the recent progress made by the IPEF has given new momentum to the EU’s engagement with the Indo-Pacific (IP) partners and to its recently launched Indo-Pacific strategy.
In terms of substance, two issues appear to be at the forefront of the IPEF as well as of the EU’s Indo-Pacific strategy, namely supply chain resilience enhancement and various aspects of the digital economy.
There is probably scope for convergence and cooperation between the EU and the IPEF countries on the former issue, which is addressed indirectly in different EU’s digital partnerships, while it is the area where the IPEF has made most substantial progress.
However, the differences between the EU’s and the United States’ (US) approaches to some aspects of the digital economy may act as stumbling blocks and give rise potentially to some form of competition in the IP region, making cooperation on data-based efforts to enhance supply-chain resilience rather complicated.
> Read the whole chapter on the website of the Konrad Adenauer Shiftung.
Available in:
Regions and themes
Share
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
China’s Climate Leadership after Hormuz: How Should Europe Adjust?
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 offered an unplanned stress test of China’s approach to energy security, and China passed it far better than most expected. The episode demonstrated that the underlying risk of supply disruption is real, while validating a preference for resilience and resource security that has long underpinned Chinese energy and climate policy and has now been reinforced under the banner of building an “energy powerhouse.”
China as an ambivalent supporter of the WTO and the multilateral trading system
Amid rising trade tensions between Europe and China and broader uncertainty in the international rules-based trade regime, Beijing has worked to preserve and bolster the multilateral trading system while at the same time failing to reform the domestic policies that have served to undermine that same system.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.