“Concept of Indo-Pacific and its Implication in Southeast Asia: India, Australia and Japan are profound speaking of such a geostrategic terminology instead of Asia-Pacific”

Introduction

Indo-Pacific was originally a concept of geography that links two regions of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The term ‘Indo-Pacific’ explains, recently in modern world, a vital and contiguous strategic arena linking the eastern India and Western Pacific oceans. Accompanying the concept is the notion of a revived partnership: the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the United States, Australia, India and Japan (Quad).

Unlike the other Quad powers, India’s maritime interests and strategy sit uneasily with those Quad members. India’s power is an Indian Ocean vision, rather than an Indo-Pacific vision. In the short term, bound by the strategic primacy of the Indian Ocean and by the constraints with its sea-power projection, India’s involvement with the Indo-Pacific framework will remain enormously diplomatic, economic and rhetorical. Strategically, India focuses significantly on the west of the Strait of Malacca (Chaudhury & Sullivan de Estrada, 2018). The Straits of Malacca is one of the most important sea lanes in the world due to its geopolitical location. To the west, “the Indian Ocean Region has definitively reached the forefront of world geopolitics and is considered as an area of crucial geostrategic importance” (Bouchard & William Crumplin, 2010). The strategic importance of the Straits of Malacca for world trade and ASEAN security could hardly be over-emphasized (Gerke & Evers, 2008). The Indian Ocean region and India itself have steadily increased in geopolitical importance. “India’s total trade volume with East Asian economies n ow goes through the Malacca and Singapore Straits”. India has exported 40% of its goods to South East Asia and East Asia countries through the Straits of Malacca (UMANA, 2012). The development of Indian Economy had linked with the trade activities, using maritime route.

It is often raised that the ‘Indo-Pacific region is too broad to be a coherent strategic system. It, however, in the last few years, has come to be associated as the region where global base of power is changing. After the cold-war, it has been experiencing a shift in prosperity and power towards Asia. In modern history for the first time, in 2012, Asian countries spent more than European countries to strengthen their military powers (Upadhyay, 2014)

Eighty-five percent of global energy consumption is presumed to derive from the region extending from the Eastern Coast of Africa through Indian Ocean and western and Central Pacific Ocean (Rehman, 2014).

The concept has expanded enormously among the current foreign policy scholars, security analysts and government officials, especially from the Australia, the United States, Japan and even India. In essence, it is the Australian strategic community that has simply used the concept widely to define the Asia’s evolving strategic geography (Defence White Paper , 2013). The Australian Defence White Paper of 2013 officially terms ‘Indo-Pacific’ as a new region: a strategic arc linking the Indian and the Pacific Oceans through Southeast Asia (Defence White Paper , 2013).

The term Indo Pacific, has not been newly created. This article aims to analyze a few questions. How is Indo-Pacific different from the earlier concept of Asia-Pacific? Why does the U.S. need this new geo-political construct? How should India define its role in the region so that it serves national interest? What are the role of Australia and Japan in the Indo-Pacific Strategy?

Understanding the Concept of Indo-Pacific

There has been abundant amount of literature review on the given topic. A number of scholars have written about the concept of Indo-Pacific with reference to the Indo-Pacific Strategy among the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the United States, Australia, India and Japan (Quad).

It has been a common phenomenon to accept terminologies according to geo-political growth. After the cold war, it revealed the growth of the ‘Asia-Pacific’ construct. In the contemporary geopolitical developments Asia-Pacific is, however, considered too narrow as it focuses on the US, China and Japan while ignoring Southeast Asia. There has been rise of Asian powers in the current arena and Indian Ocean is fast emerging as a large economic and potential of human resources. It is a significant transport lane between the Middle East and North Africa’s grand oil and gas supplies. The region of Indo-Pacific faces critical challenges: climate change and extremist policies. Indo-Pacific is, in the world, most militarized region with seven of the world’s ten largest standing armies, the world’s largest and most complicated navy and five of the world’s declared nuclear nations (Yoshihara, 2013). The security challenges cause from the disputes of South China Sea, Korean Peninsular, border clashes, Taiwan issue, the Somali pirate threats and so forth that impact a grand part of the Ocean.

There is also a struggle for power between China and India. China plans to establish its first island chain and green water navy for 2010-2020 by drawing attention on surface navy ships, nuclear submarines and fighter aircraft (Bakrie, 2013).  

The term Indo-Pacific has recently found it place in white papers of four of the world’s largest democracies, such as Australia, Japan, India, and the United States. This explains the significance of the area in the foreign policy pronouncements of these four countries repeatedly mentioned the terminology of Indo-Pacific and highlighted the need to proactively secure this area for the peace, development, and stability of Asia. It, however, becomes pertinent to discern how each of these countries has defined the Indo-Pacific construct in their official documents. The “approach toward defining” a particular area can assist to give clarity regarding each country’s recognition of threat perception and opportunities [Bhatt, 2018].

The U.S. approach of the new geopolitical strategic formation (Indo-Pacific)

Indo-Pacific, for the U.S., becomes strategic as it gives more integrated means to the region that is fast enhancing potential on the world map. The significant part of the US grand strategy is to maintain its influence in the Indo-Pacific. Every country’s grand strategy is protection of its national interest [Tellis A. , 2012]. However, US grand strategy has more. Firstly, it involves preventing external hegemonic domain over challenged geopolitical areas of the world and prevent the rise of other threats to the global commons. The second goal is to expand, internationally, the liberal political order. The third goal is to sustain an open economic regime (Tellis & Tanner, 2012). The Future Directions International (2011) has considered the grand strategy with regard to the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. stays focused on preventing the rise of other powers that can dominate the critical geopolitical areas of the world. Washington wants the region to have a multilateral structure erect on the web of understandings, agreements and alliances. It is working on building relationship with counties in the region to give shape to a regional architecture in order to manage the Indo-Pacific (Cronin, 2013).

Obama also talked about Indo-Pacific, during his trip to Australia in November 2011, as he mentioned “new opportunities to train with other allies and partners, from the Pacific to Indian Ocean.” Therefore, there has been an American acknowledgement about Indian and Pacific Oceans constituting an inter-linked geopolitical space, not only because it is important to “global trade and commerce” but also because they impact on strategy (Upadhyay, 2014).

The US is working towards strengthening traditional alliances with Japan and Australia and is aiming new security partnerships with India. From joint defense establishment with Japan and India, to securing bases and improving rotation presence with Australia, Singapore, Indonesia etc, attempts are being made for a developed US presence in the wider Indo-Pacific (Marcus, 2012).

It is proposed that by 2020 about 60 per cent of the American naval forces – including six aircraft carrier battle groups as well as a majority of the navy’s cruises, destroyers, Littoral Combat ships and submarines will be stationed in the region (BBC, 2012). Washington has also reached out to the ASEAN to build an Indo-Pacific region. ASEAN till now has, however, taken conflicting position regarding the construct and I not able to present a united front in this issue. China has expressed its concerns over this new construct. Beijing has had difficulty in accepting the “Asia-Pacific” label which draws the US into Asia, and now the “Indo-Pacific” which creates a triumvirate of regional powers by including India (Medcalf, 2014).

India’s role in Indo-Pacific

India has always been a country with great national ambitions and is one of the most important advocates of the concept of " Indo-Pacific Strategy”. India can take this opportunity to promote the justification and rationalization of its interests in Southeast Asia; expand its presence in East Asia, strengthen its political, economic and military cooperation with the United States and its allies, and comprehensively increase India’s influence in international affairs.

India’s inclusion in the Indo-Pacific has enorumously been promoted by a vast newtowrk of Australian and American think tanks. Promoter of the terminology talk about how countries in the region should take a leading role in shaping the economic and security architecture of the Indo-Pacific’and seek to tie India more closely with the US, Australia and Japan (Singh & Iderfurth, 2011). The US has talked about India’s desired role as “net security provider” to maintain maritime transportation routes and global commons in the Indian Ocean (Scott, 2012).

It is believed that the Indo-Pacific construct seeks to develop a plural, inclusive and open security architecture. This allows India to create a wek of cooperative relations with all the stakeholders based on mutural interest and benefit (Geraghty, 2012).

Moreover, the Mekong-Ganga initiative, started in 2000 including India, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam has currently expanded its ambition to include trade, investment, energy, food, health and highway connectivity (Chako, 2012).

Japan’s Role in Indo-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific terminology was initially used by Japan in its official documents. Precisely, in early April 2017, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) published its white paper which it clearly promoted in a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy” as a part of its foreign policy aimed at proactively “securing the peace, stability and prosperity of the international community” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017). One of the pillars in Japan’s vision of developing an environment for international peace, stability and sharing universal values is to improve the interconnectivity in the Indo-Pacific (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017). This white paper recognize the improving confidence of the Asian countries and their braveness to make the assumption leadership and responsible roles in the several domains based on the rule of law, democracy, and market economy within East, South, and Southeast Asian countries. Moreover, it sees Africa as a demographically magnificent and abundant of natural resources. It is full of potential and significant market. Japan views a role in associating these two continents through infrastructure development projects and developing business environments via indispensable technological and similar investments that can lead to development and prosperity in the whole region. Japan constructs the Indo-Pacific by combining not just the two large oceans but also the two continents of Asia and Africa. Japan clearly defines the Indo-Pacific as a key area for development in its 2017 white paper [Bhatt, 2018].

Australia’s Role in Indo-Pacific

Australia considers itself, with crucial strategic and commercial benefits in the region, as an Indian Ocean nation and has been engaged with the Indian Ocean Rim Association regional institution since 1997 to foster economic cooperation. [Gareth, 1995] The country commenced its terminology toward the Indo-Pacific as an extended neighborhood in its 2009 defense white paper [Defence White Paper, 2009]. Titled Defending Australia in the Asia-Pacific Century: Force 2030, the document precisely addressed that a stable and secure Southeast Asia is a wise strategic interest for Australia. The paper was in predicting that the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean zone will converge as a magnificent maritime zone and world sea rout for energy supplies. Therefore, several great naval powers are competing for strategic interest in the area by the year 2030 [Defence White Paper, 2009].

Australia also strengthens a willingness to lead military coalitions and make tailored contributions to other military alliance with the countries that shared strategic interests in the region [Defence White Paper , 2013]. In addition, the Australian Defense White Paper 2013 became widely known in its terminology of the global swing and highlighted that “China’s continued rise as a global power, the growing economic and strategic weight of East Asia and emergence over time of India as a world power are important trends influencing the Indian Ocean’s development as a region of increasing strategic significance [Defence White Paper, 2013]. As the result, these trends are shaping the emergence of the Indo-Pacific as a single strategic arc”.

The term Indo-Pacific was further shaped and defined in the 2016 Defense White Paper and 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper, the former of which addressed that “a stable rules-based regional order is crucial to ensuring Australia’s relation to an open, free and secure trading system and reducing the risk of assertiveness and instability that would directly impact the Australia’s interests,” representing Australia’s magnificent strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific concept [Defence White Paper, 2016]. Moreover, Australia regards Southeast Asia as the significant battlefield for completion between China and the U.S. In the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper emphasizes: “Southeast Asia sits at a nexus of strategic completion in the Indo-Pacific.” “In parts of the Indo-Pacific, including in Southeast Asia, China’s power and influence are growing to match, and in some cases exceed, that of the United States (Foreign Policy White Paper , 2017).

Enormous literature has been written on Indo Pacific with reference to the roles of the Quad’s member states and how they are going to implement the Indo-Pacific strategy in the global changes. Indeed, political affairs of the Indo-Pacific was also not explored though it has mountain of resources and capability in the form of Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad. The research would be mainly on political and security aspects of the Indo-Pacific region.

The study would also show the contradiction and differences between Indo-Pacific countries and how this impacts each of the Indo-Pacific region. Thus, the proposed study is an attempt to understand and analyze the above issues in a holistic way.

Conclusion and Discussion

Indo-Pacific is still finding its move in the practice of global politics. As for the US policy makers, Indo-Pacific seems to be an intention to emerge India in an Asian architecture that seeks to maintain American interests (Upadhyay, 2014). As the other stakeholder in the peace, security, and development in the Indo-Pacific region, the United States and Australia joined the ranks currently to start the regional-level maritime dialogue. However, the term still uncertain for many reasons, commencing with the conceptualization of the terminology and further from a lack of finding common grounds to make an organized regional institution to identify security concerns (Bhatt, 2018). India can create foreign policy that beneficial to the national interests. Furthermore, India has chosen for joint ties with the United States on the issue of ‘unhindered freedom of navigation in internal waters’ and has participated in defence dialogues with Washington and Tokyo.

Alongside it has called for ‘real joint of Asian Power’ that include China and the United States to insure maritime security in the Indian Ocean and the need to create more balanced security architecture in the region.

There will be several development and challenges of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Firstly, the Indo-Pacific strategy make China concern about their sea lanes security risk due to its wording of strategic and trade passages as China’s foreign trade depends  up to 85% on maritime transportation of which 75% is crude oil going through the Indian Ocean and  Strait of Malacca. Above all, the Indian Ocean and Strait of Malacca are a lifeline for China while the U.S. has 7 major military bases in both the Pacific and Indian Oceans [W. Simon, 2011]. Another one, the Indo-Pacific strategy discusses regional infrastructure projects and might not be able to compete with China’s BRI in the short term. Nonetheless, it might still put high pressure on China since more and more countries are concerned about China’s assertive behavior [Kuo].

Moreover, the Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad will allow Japan to hedge the risk from its alliance dilemma and be in line with Japan’s own security policy and public opinion in supporting the U.S.-Japan alliance. The Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad approach also formally identify the weakness of the U.S. leadership and the termination of the U.S. single-domination in the region.

The Quad should emerge Taiwan and Vietnam as additional members in order to cope with security matters in the region. However, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia might be reluctant to participate in the Quad because they rely heavily on China in terms of economics [Kuo].

It is, therefore, shown that within the Indo-Pacific and QUAD members, they still have the internal issues. Each member has no common consensus to cope with the regional issues. For example, India has always refused allowing Australia to join the Malabar naval exercises over the years [Economic Times, 2018].  Moreover, all the members of the Quad still defined the Indo-Pacific in their own perspectives according to their maritime interests, rights, and threat perceptions. They do not want to become a hostage in the region. The United States under Trump administration for the Indo-Pacific strategy aims to create mini-lateral relations and globally avoid existing multilateral institutions such as ASEAN. The U.S. wishes to make mini-lateral relations with a few particular nations to avoid China’s influence within these multilateral institutions. This might, nevertheless, raise caution in ASEAN nations who worry that Southeast Asia will become the major battlefield for a major power struggle, probably [Kuo].   

References

Bakrie, C. (2013). US Pivot: The Future of Indo-Pacific Region . The Jakarta Post .

Bhatt, P. (2018). Evolving Dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs.

Bouchard, C., & William Crumplin. (2010). Neglected no longer: The Indian Ocean at the forefront of world geopolitics and global strategy. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region , 26-51.

Chaudhury, R., & Sullivan de Estrada, K. (2018). India, the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. Survival Global Politics and Strategy.

Cronin, M. (2013). Translation and Globalization . London : Routledge .

Defence White Paper . (2013).

Defence White Paper . (2013).

Defence White Paper. (2009).

Defence White Paper. (2013).

(2016). Defence White Paper.

Economic Times. (2018). Press Trust of India, " India, US Explore Ways to Boost Cooperation in Indo-Pacific Region".

Estrada, R. R.-C. (2018). India, the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. Survival Global Politics and Strategy .

Foreign Policy White Paper . (2017). Foreign Policy White Paper .

Gareth, E. (1995). "The Indian Ocean Region: An Australian Perspective".

Gerke , S., & Evers, H. (2008). The Strategic Importance of the Straits of Malacca.

Kuo, Y. (n.d.). Japan's Role in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Prospect Journal .

Marcus, J. (2012). Leon Panettha: US to deploy 60% of Navy Fleet to Pacific. BBC.

Medcalf, R. (2014). In defence of the Indo-Pacific: Australia's new strategic map. Australia Journal of International Affairs.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan White Paper .

Rehman, I. (2014). Indo-Pacific. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Tellis, A. (2012). Indian Ocean and the US Grand Strategy.

Tellis, A., & Tanner, T. (2012). Strategic Asia 2012-13: China's Military Challenge . National Bureau of Asian Research .

UMANA, F. (2012). Threats in the Straits of Malacca. The Fund for Peace.

Upadhyay, S. ( 2014). THE INDO-PACIFIC & THE INDO-US RELATIONS: GEOPOLITICS OF COOPERATION. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 256.

W. Simon, S. (2011). Safety and Security in the Malacca Straits: The Limits of Collaboration. Asian Security, 27-43.

Yoshihara, T. (2013). The US Navy's Indo-Pacific challenge. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region , 90-103.

About the author: 

            Thoeun Vongdy has been currently working in Japan International Cooperation Agency in Social Development & Governance Sections. He also serves as a lecturer in various universities in the Discipline of International Relations, Educational Psychology, Global Studies, etc. He also used to work for the foreign mission including Embassy of India in Cambodia. He obtained Master Degree of Politics, Specialization in International Relations from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), India. He has been pursuing Ph.D. of International Relations at University of Cambodia (UC). His interest papers in world politics, India-Cambodia, China-Cambodia as well security issues in world affairs.