Regions as social constructs that serve political agenda, fundamentally, are mental maps revolving around power, identity, agenda setting, and sense of belonging as a stakeholder in a shared space. But regional formation is also a process of creating new centres of influence and power. Along with inequality as building factor for regional identity, there is also an awareness of prosperous regions being afraid of losing their position. In the late twentieth century, the Asia-Pacific emerged as a new regional construct with the world’s largest ocean, the Pacific, at its heart. Previous perception of geographical barrier was instead seen through the lens of connectivity as shipping lanes and flight routes would bring the emerging economies of Asia closer to the US superpower, a situation that occurred in the context of the unipolar moment. The Indo-Pacific inherited many attributes from the Asia-Pacific with the most significant difference of the former’s inclusion of India and the Indian Ocean.
Indo-Pacific Reinvented
The Indo-Pacific map connects the economic powerhouse of East Asia to the newer dynamism of South Asia, especially along the sea lanes trading with energy. Equally important, the Indo-Pacific concept is underpinned by the main challenge of China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy with its military, The Indo-Pacific map connects the economic powerhouse of East Asia to the newer dynamism of South Asia, especially along the sea lanes trading with energy. Equally important, the Indo-Pacific concept is underpinned by the main challenge of China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy with its military,
Japan, America’s principal ally in Asia, first acknowledged the importance of engaging traditionally non-aligned country, India, to crystalize the Indo-Pacific concept as a counterbalance to China. The earlier idea of security dialogue between America, Australia, India and Japan finally revived the dormant ‘Quad’, known as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD). The primary objective was to work for free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region.
India Factor: Growing Strategic Footprint
As a rising power in the region, India has been expanding its outreach in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific exponentially. Having long cultural and civilizational links in South East Asia, and traditionally known mainly for its soft power credentials, India is also turning out to be a trustworthy security and strategic partner. India’s definition of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ stretches from the Eastern coast of Africa to the islands of the South Pacific.
The South Pacific or the Pacific Islands were increasingly becoming a theatre of great power competition with China’s signing of a security pact with the Solomon Islands, and the US trying to deter them from entering into security partnerships with Beijing. The ‘Indo-Pacificization’ of Asia is manifested through the recognition that India’s role is indispensable for Asian strategic system; second, building regional order has emanated contending visions. Instinctive India factor, has two-fold meaning – a more proactive India, as well as the merger of the Indian and Pacific Oceans into one strategic system.
Succeeding from Look East Policy, the Act East Policy is an effort by New Delhi to cultivate extensive economic and strategic ties in the Indo-Pacific. Tokyo becoming an indispensable partner in the region’s security architecture, the primary driver of Indo-Japan ties is the shared concern about the implications of China’s rise. India also expanded diplomatic, economic and security ties with South China Sea countries like Vietnam with its navy conducting bilateral exercises with various ASEAN members proving its stake in the region.
India and America believe that China’s interest in the Indian Ocean is demonstrated by its String of Pearls strategy, to build a network of military facilities and providing sea lines of communication (SLOC) for energy imports in the region, potentially encircling India and increasing its maritime influence. The network of ports and naval bases, referred as ‘pearls,’ includes Gwadar (Pakistan), Hambantota (Sri Lanka), and Kyauk Pyu (Myanmar). Irrespective of the relationship, what is important is, both China and India are important drivers in the Indo-Pacific for maintaining economic-security nexus, interlinked with energy security and naval access.
Perceiving that Indo-Pacific construct forms the basis for the continued relevance of the U.S. in the region, the inclusion of India, however, does not act as a panacea for the enlargement of U.S. containment camp. Rather, India’s Indo-Pacific strategy is largely a subset of its China policy. Since 1990s attaching itself to the dynamic economies towards the east of India and slipstreaming behind them to economic growth, it is now dominated by strategic considerations of balancing China while also attempting to reassure it.
FOIP vs BRI
The contending visions for building regional order in Indo-Pacific, is strategised through the policies of Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Given the US-China strategic competition, U.S. is driven towards offering more to legitimize its interests in the region through FOIP. At its core, FOIP promotes the rule of law, economic prosperity, connectivity in sea lanes, and peace and stability. But regional actors give their own interpretations to FOIP. Japan for instance, while emphasises on connectivity in the form of quality infrastructure through economic corridors to connect the Indian and Pacific Oceans through mainland Southeast Asia, China’s investments is completely focussed for geopolitical influence. In contrast, America’s Indo-Pacific strategy explicitly aiming at a more pronounced strategic competition with China, its FOIP emphasises more on its security alliances with heavy weight strategic partners like Japan, Australia, India and ASEAN. In this contest of visions, believing that FOIP is a game plan by USA to contain its rise, China has also developed the strategy of BRI focusing to transform its security policy for protecting its overseas investments that stretch from the Solomon Islands to Pakistan. In case of Southeast Asia, it uses BRI as a means for power projection, both materially and normatively. BRI and FOIP, interlinking the fate of the two oceans provide the framework of economic-security-diplomatic nexus, having significant diplomatic and normative repercussions.
Challenges of Indo-Pacific
The Indo-Pacific is not only India looking eastward, but also China looking westward. PRC’s East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), and its well-publicized island-construction project in the South China Sea, urged the claimants of the disputed seas to embrace status quo of Chinese advances. Resultantly, developed and developing Asia, despite relative comfort in terms of growth as well as trade openness, became vulnerable to East Asia’s maritime disputes, with adverse effects on the global value chain (GVC) connectivity in Southeast and East Asian countries. The Belt and Road Initiative added fuel to fury. Hence governments in Asia, Europe and US mobilised support for the Indo-Pacific economic architecture in which strategic and economic interests were brought closer.
However, the evolution of the Indo-Pacific economic construct aiming at containment of China is indeed a simplistic explanation. In fact, the evolution of this architecture is a preparation to face the new economic demands in the region. Structural transformation and employment generation policies in developing Asia and the Pacific started to respond to the new digital economy, as the latter affected the patterns and geographical location of industries, employment, trade, and economic growth. Jobs being replaced by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence, had an adverse impact especially for countries that are not deeply integrated in regional or global value chains. COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the need for more equitable distribution of infrastructure, capacities and investments in new centres of production, supply chains, and consumer-supplier linkages. So both geographical and digital inclusiveness have become important aspects of the Indo-Pacific architecture. Global governance of connectivity is also a new challenge, as countries contest and compete for technology providing interconnections. Hence, addressing connectivity, cooperation, and new supply chain linkages is another agendum of the Indo-Pacific economic architecture along with existing political, security and diplomatic challenges and compulsions.
Dr. Debamitra Mitra,former Director, Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
