Skip to main content

What is US Indo -Pacific Strategy?

 

Source: The Conversastion


The US President Donald Trump release a document named "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" (FOIP) in 2017 at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. The Trump administration sees "Indo-Pacific Region" as a central foreign and economic policy for dealing with China. However, there are still fewer countries who have adopted the term "Indo-Pacific", they still term the region as "Asia-Pacific". Why the US is focused on Indo-Pacific region? Is it to counter China or something else is going on? The US partners such as Japan and South Korea have been cautious in their approach. So why does the US changed the name from Asia to Indo-Pacific?

The term Indo-Pacific has enjoyed growing popularity in Japan, the US, Australia, India and France. It has become a kind of geopolitical nomenclature, which has nothing to do with term itself, rather it perceives as a US strategy to counter China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. The ever-expanding Chinese One Belt and One Road Initiative (OBOR) has forced the US to come out with a strategy even though not really investing in the region. 

The Chinese President Xi Jinping announced Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013 first in Kazakhstan and then in Indonesia. The initiative was presented as a way of connecting Asia (China) with Europe and Africa. In 2017, the BRI was enshrined in the Chinese constitution. It is a multidimensional project financed through Chinese loans and realized by mostly Chinese companies. The West sees BRI as a Chinese attempt to alter the existing global order. 

The US administration has launched the FOIP vision as an alternative to Chinese BRI. Their main aim is "containment of China" in the Indo-Pacific. 

How the term "Asia-Pacific" changed to "Indo-Pacific"?

2007: Japanese PM Shinzo Abe calls the Indian and Pacific Oceans one common space during his visit to Delhi.

2011: The US Secretary Hillary Clinton publicly spoke of the Indo-Pacific in the context of US policy of "Pivot to Asia". However, she didn't use the term officially.

2012: First official document using the term "Indo-Pacific" came into Australia's White Paper on Defense.

2015: India used the term in the document named "Securing the Seas".

2016: Shinzo Abe declares "Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy". 

2017: Trump calls the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific", the focal point of the Asian policy.

2018: The French President speaks the term.

2018: Indian PM Modi speaks Indo-Pacific during his speech at Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.

US Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)

FOIP doesn't mention whether China can be a part of Indo-Pacific or not. Initially, the FOIP document talked about mostly economic interaction between the US and Asian countries, including China. Later, the document added additional principles such as: respect for sovereignty and independence; peaceful conflict resolution and respect for international law and; freedom of air and sea transport.

What is "Free" in FOIP?

The term Free, at the global level means freedom of all states to exercise their sovereignty. At the national level, it corresponds to good governance and protection of human rights.

What "Open" implies in FOIP?

The term Open means free access to international waters, airspace and digital space. It also implies promotion of capitalism in Indo-Pacific countries. The US sees China is undermining the 'openness' in the region by building artificial island in the South China sea. 

FOIP: Security and Defense

FOIP puts more emphasis on defense and security than economic integration. It focuses on three dimensions: 1. Preparedness (modernizing US military); 2. Partnerships (South Korea, Japan and Australia); 3. Promoting a networked region.  

The Partnership dimension focuses primarily on strengthening bilateral military alliances with Japan and South Korea, and expanding closer ties with established partners such as Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Mongolia, Taiwan and Singapore. But the emphasis on bilateral ties met with heavy resistance from regional groupings such as ASEAN. 

In response to criticism from ASEAN, the FOIP included the third dimension of "Networked Region" and ASEAN was put at the center of this multilateral initiatives. 

FOIP: Economic Cooperation

FOIP mentions two initiatives to strengthen the economic cooperation between the US and Indo-Pacific countries.

The first is; Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative (IPTI) which mentions various liberal paradigms such as fright against corruption, promotion of democracy, press freedom and youth development in the region. Since 2018, the US has provided roughly $800 million for IPTI. 

The second is; trade policy. The promotion of "free, fair and reciprocal trade" (the capitalism narrative) has been cited to make Indo-Pacific a tariff free zone. However, how could the US promote free trade when they themselves have withdrawn from Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017? With Trump coming to power, the US economic policy has been changed from liberal trade to "America First". It seems the trade policy of FOIP is directed toward giving more access to American companies. 

Is FOIP a response to Chinese BRI?

Probably, yes. China's BRI initiative is currently estimated to $1 trillion operating in 87 countries. It seems FOIP is more focused on security and defense rather than economic integration. They want to build a security community in the Indo-Pacific to counter China, but without commitment to trade, the US would find very few buyers in the region. 

The US has agreed to sell F18 and F16 war planes to India. The US also has upgraded the status of India as major defense partner. The Malabar Exercise in the Indian Ocean among Japan, India and US forces might be seen as an upcoming grouping to counter Chinese militaries in the Indian Ocean. The proposal of much talked QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) consisting of India, Japan and Australia along with the US, is yet to be formalized. 

FOIP Initiatives

The US has taken some initial steps to become an alternative to the Indo-Pacific Countries looking for investments and support in other areas. These initiatives are still very nascent and whether the US is fully committed or not, yet to be seen.

Some of the important initiatives are:

1. Better Utilization of Investment Leading to Development Act (BUILD Act)

2. Asia Reassurance Act Initiative (ARIA)

3. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC): The BUILD Act proposes creation of IDFC to lend developing countries in Asia and Africa.

4. Blue Dot Network (BDN):

BDN is a trilateral initiative consisting of US, Japan and Australia for the development of high-quality infrastructure projects.

All the initiatives are directed towards the US becoming an alternative for countries currently financed by China. However, in terms of available funds, the $60 billion seems like a drop in the ocean in comparison to Chinese $1.1 trillion investments already invested in a number of countries. 

Conclusion:

From the FOIP strategy, three themes emerged:

1. Offering an alternative to Chinese BRI

2. Securing freedom of navigation

3. Trade relations: free, fair and reciprocal

However, FOIP seems a reactionary strategy accounting mostly American interests. The US doesn't want or fully committed to creation of a multilateral framework for the promotion of the Indo-Pacific countries. It is an another attempt to return of "Pax-Americana", currently in retreating mode. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is Dependency Theory of International Political Economy?

Wikipedia Commons   Like Wallerstein, Dependency Theory emerged in Latin America which argued that world trading system benefited only advanced capitalists' economies. Often the Terms of Trade favored these countries over the least developing countries (LDCs).  Terms of Trade = Export Prices / Import Prices LDC economies depend upon export of raw materials and agricultural commodities. And they import finished products from developed countries.  As the commodity prices rise slowly but manufactured product prices rise sharply, the terms of trade would deteriorate for LDCs unless their exports rise faster than the imports. The global trade is done mostly by corporate subsidiaries thus commodity prices are not exposed to market. These giant corporations often secure the deal with long term agreements, thus even though commodity prices might have rose but they would pay what was agreed in the agreement. They also have sophisticated accounting devices which enable them to avoi...

Indian Foreign Policy Evolution (1857-1947): Universal Brotherhood to Moral Nationalism

George Tanham (1992) famously argued that political elites in India showed "little evidence of having thought coherently or systematically about national strategy." This narrative is build upon the old idea of India under British rule but no doubt; it holds some merit in saying this. Indian foreign policy objectives were never clearly defined. It doesn't make sense advocating 'non-alignment' policy and securing a friendship treaty with one of the powers. Neither it makes sense having a closer ties with the US but expecting Russia to remain friend. India always has this contradictory foreign policy approach since late 19th century. Indian view on world politics still resembles the precedents rooted in the past. If we have a closer look between 1857 to 1947, we might get some clue on why India lacks a cohesive foreign policy outlook. The 19th Century India The Indian view on International Relations was shaped by three underpinning thoughts: 1. Universal Brotherhood ...

Making sense of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"

 After 27 years when Samuel P Huntington's article titled "Clash of Civilizations published in the Foreign Affairs magazine, there are people (mostly liberal) who completely refute to acknowledge any cultural clashes, and conservatives who believe in everything that is argued in the article. The truth lies in between, thus I will try to answer objectively in the question-answer format. Q. What is all about Clash of Civilization? A. The crux of Huntington's article is that future conflicts will mostly occur on the line of culture and civilization. According to Huntington, "world-politics is entering a new phase" in which "the fundamental source of conflict will "occur between nations and groups of civilizations".  Q. How many civilizations did Samuel Huntington see in the world? A. Huntington identifies eight major civilizations in the world: 1. Western  2. Confucian 3. Japanese 4. Islamic  5. Hindu 6. Orthodox  7. Latin American 8. African Q. How ...