Global Times article: Why the Indo-Pacific geo-political concept will fail

1242
U.S. President Donald Trump and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe shake hands at the end of a news conference at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, Japan, November 6, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The “Indo-Pacific” concept is the Trump administration’s new strategy to replace his predecessor’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific when it comes to dealing with China. But it will fail, according to an article in the Global Times.

The term has often been mentioned by senior US officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and it was brought up when US President Donald Trump met  Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently.

It is not new, said Long Xingxhun, a senior research fellow at The Charhar Institute and director of the Centre for Indian Studies at China West Normal University.

“In the 1960s, Australian scholars started using it in regional security. Since 2010, scholars in Australian, Indian, Japanese and US think tanks have used it as a geopolitical concept. As the Barack Obama administration was pushing forward its rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, the Indo-Pacific idea was sidelined, only being mentioned by then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

‘“The core of the Indo-Pacific concept is to establish an ‘Asian NATO’ centered on an alliance between the US, Japan, India and Australia that aims to counter China’s rise and its increasing presence in the Indian Ocean.”

Long cited four reasons why the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific failed: “First, it wrongly hypothesised that China’s rise was a threat. Second, it exaggerated the possible confrontations between China and the US while overlooking common interests. Third, the US needs to pay an enormous economic price to draw nations in the region to its side, which will backfire domestically. Last, the US’ move to divide Asia and to produce confrontations didn’t serve the interests of regional countries.”

In fact, the US only wants to use India as a pawn to balance China without giving it actual benefits. If the US just changes the name of its strategy but pursues the same strategic goals, it will fail, just as its predecessor did.

Long suggested: “It will better serve common interests if industries are transferred from East Asia to the Indian Ocean, and nations like China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore enhance their investment in countries along the Indian Ocean to build a free and open Indo-Pacific region that is not exclusive.”

Geographically, Australia is both a Pacific and Indian Ocean country, but most of its population and economy are in the southeast. Taking the Pacific and Indian Oceans as a whole will facilitate development of its western area and raise its status in the Indo-Pacific.

In coastal regions of the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and Arctic oceans, Indian Ocean countries are the least developed. So in the 1990s, India came up with a “look east policy,” which Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi modified into the “act east policy”. Obviously, the Indo-Pacific idea can help India get a free ride on the rapid economic growth in East Asia.

In terms of building the economic Indo-Pacific, Long offered two options – turning the East Asia Summit (10+8) into the Indo-Pacific, or bringing East Indian Ocean countries into APEC to form a larger Indo-Pacific bloc.

“I will make bilateral trade agreements with any Indo-Pacific nation that wants to be our partner and that will abide by the principles of fair and reciprocal trade,” Long quoted Trump in his address to the APEC meeting on November 10.

The Chinese research fellow concluded: “The Indo-Pacific Trump refers to is more likely to work in a geo-economic sense rather than a geopolitical one. Trump wants an Indo-Pacific which he can earn money from, not the other way around.”

6 COMMENTS

  1. Stupid PRC analyst….
    < “First, it wrongly hypothesised that China’s rise was a threat.>
    *****
    Fr claiming SKrean’s share of Yellow Sea to threatening Taiwan to annexing SCS, saying PRC is not a threat is like saying Hitler was a pacifist.


    ****
    US wants to remain #01 while PRC wants to be there; common interests?

    < Third, the US needs to pay an enormous economic price to draw nations in the region to its side, which will backfire domestically.>
    *****
    US dun need to bribe like what PRC did with billions to countries such as Cambodia.


    ****
    PRC is doing great in that dept….

Comments are closed.