As US President Donald Trump’s wraps up his 13-day Asia tour, questions are already being asked why he repeatedly used the term “Indo-Pacific,” rather than the more conventional “Asia-Pacific”, in his public comments.
America’s leader used the term several times in Japan and South Korea, and in Vietnam said he was honored to be visiting the “heart of the Indo-Pacific.”
The answer lies in what happened shortly after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Manila on Sunday. On the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit, senior officials from America, Japan, India and Australia met for quadrilateral talks, indication that the disbanded Quadrilateral Security Dialogue may be resurrected.
India’s External Affairs Ministry said in a statement afterwards that the four nations “agreed that a free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region serves the long-term interests of all countries in the region and of the world at large.”
The “Indo-Pacific” is a pithy slogan to describe the vision of what policymakers once called the “Quadrilateral,” or “Quad”, an alliance between the four democracies designed to build a free, open and peaceful region.
A statement by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs said that at the meeting officials discussed “upholding the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific and respect for international law, freedom of navigation and overflight.”
Although the statement didn’t mention China specifically, most analysts interpreted this as coded language against Beijing’s expansionism in the South China Sea.
Shinzo Abe, during his first term as Japan’s Prime Minister, delivered a speech in 2007 to India’s Parliament entitled the “Confluence of the Two Seas.” He called for a “dynamic coupling” of the Indian and Pacific Oceans that would lead to an “arc of freedom and prosperity” for “broader Asia.”
That same year, the informal Quadrilateral Security Dialogue was held between the four nations. But it was disbanded in 2008 when Australia’s new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, pulled out reportedly under Chinese pressure.
Ever since, analysts note that the four nations have strengthened ties with one another, while refraining from any formal alliance. This week’s meeting, however, might be a turning point.
Significantly, the concept of an ‘Indo-Pacific’ alliance is not a policy designed in Washington. Indeed, unlike Obama’s “pivot” to Asia, Trump now appears to be following the guidance of America’s Asian partners rather than setting the agenda himself.
Japanese leader Abe has been the Quad’s leading proponent. When he returned as prime minister in 2012, on his second day in office he penned an article calling for the development of “Asia’s democratic security diamond.”
Trump’s repetition of “Indo-Pacific” might indicate the White House is now behind Abe’s goal. Analysts agree that it denotes three important contrasts to the more conventional “Asia-Pacific.”
First, by referring to the two oceans it prioritizes maritime concerns, including China’s expansionism in the South China Sea. The four nations have long opposed China’s militarization of the contested maritime area, calling for Beijing to respect a rule-based order, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and allow for full freedom of navigation.
But the Indo-Pacific also highlights China’s naval expansion in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese navy engaged in a live-fire military exercise there in August to prepare for the possibility their ships are blockaded in the region. The US and India also hold annual naval drills in the Indian Ocean, known as Exercise Malabar, which Japan joined in 2015.
Second, Chinese President Xi Jinping has often spoken of an “Asia for Asians,” an ostensible rebuke of America’s role in regional affairs. The subtle reformation from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific” is clearly designed to curtail China’s self-styled hegemony over the continent.
Indeed, some described the original Quadrilateral as the “Asian NATO.” Others saw it as a counterbalance to the China-backed Shanghai Cooperation Organization, now an eight-member Eurasian political and security bloc.
Lastly, the use of Indo-Pacific seeks to affirm India as a major pillar of regional security. In the past, the subcontinent was viewed as an outlier in the Asia-Pacific, with the Indian Ocean a dividing line between South and East Asian affairs.
India’s ascendancy to a major regional player is clearly supported by Trump’s White House. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke of building a new century “strategic partnership” with India during a speech last month in Washington.
“Indians and Americans don’t just share an affinity for democracy. We share a vision of the future,” he said, before confirming the Indo-Pacific’s specific anti-China focus.
“China, while rising alongside India, has done so less responsibly, at times undermining the international, rules-based order,” Tillerson said. “China’s provocative actions in the South China Sea directly challenge the international law and norms that the United States and India both stand for.”
When quadrilateral talks first began in 2007, there were claims New Delhi wasn’t entirely behind the notion, concerned about overreaching itself geopolitically. Today, however, India appears more willing to take a forceful stance against Chinese expansionism.
New Delhi’s relations with Tokyo have also improved in recent years, while a major security agreement was signed last year with Canberra. Those strengthening ties strike a sharp contrast with India’s skirmish with China earlier this year on the Doklam plateau, which lies on the border between China and Bhutan.
The two sides eventually agreed to an “expeditious disengagement” of their troops in August. The two sides last fought a border war in the Himalayas in 1962, a conflict China resoundingly won. The two sides have since adopted an “agree-to-disagree” policy along their shared 3,500-kilometer border, parts of which each nation contests.
Geopolitics, however, have raised the stakes. China is now a major financial and political backer of India’s historic foe, Pakistan. New Delhi is also concerned that its amiable neighbors, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, are now becoming drawn into China’s orbit through its One Belt One Road initiative.
So how will the counterbalancing Quadrilateral move forward? This week’s talks at Asean represent a starting point, though there is not yet any public commitment to creating a formal organization.
Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that “the participants committed to continuing quadrilateral discussions and deepening co-operation on the basis of shared values and principles.” Some see that as paving the way for the four nations to organize regular leaders’ summits, or move forward in developing four-way military exercises.
There are risks, however. Compared to 2007, when the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue was first held, China is now far more economically, militarily and geopolitically powerful.
“Beijing is in a better position today to undermine the Indo-Pacific vision than it has ever been,” wrote Rohan Mukherjee, assistant professor of political science at Yale-NUS College in Singapore.
Mukherjee went on to write that both Japan and Australia rely on China for about 20% of their trade, which might prevent them from taking a firm anti-China position in the strategic realm, particularly if Beijing threatened retaliatory trade measures.
Analysts also note that there is no cross-party support for quadrilateral cooperation among Australia’s squabbling political parties, which might once again jeopardize talks.
Another concern is how committed the Trump White House is to the quadrilateral vision. His visit to Beijing this month reaffirmed his relationship with President Xi Jinping is close, a potential stumbling point in realizing any Indo-Pacific vision.
Moreover, Trump’s preference for bilateral arrangements is well-known, though his defense and diplomatic officials are certainly more open to multilateral tracks. His withdrawal in January from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact has raised questions about America’s future economic role in the region.
For the Indo-Pacific vision to evolve into an effective counterweight to China’s recent regional rise, it will require a committed and engaged America. So far Trump’s use of ‘Indo-Pacific’ over ‘Asia-Pacific’ is just another buzzword in his often contradictory messaging towards Asia.
Small man Abe is the plotter of this narrow minded vision. Typical of this small man.
I think some "Asian" nations are going to be pissed off they will be sidelined at the expense of India, Japan and Australia. I am waiting to see if China squeezes a little the gonads. Australia used to pride themselves as part of Asia, now it will be part of "India/Indonesia"?
I’m amazed about the presence of Australia in this gang
First: Australia doesn’t have a single personal interest in being against China
Second: 33% of their exports are bought by China
Third: 25% of their imports are from China
The Chinese wellbeing is essential for the Australian wellbeing. Those foolish politicians don’t realize that it’s not in the Australian benefit to pick on China.
It is slightly the same story also with Japan. It is not in japan’s benefit to upset their biggest customer.
I don’t know for the future, maybe with the Indian growth India could replace China in some aspects, but in the present the Chinese market is like a Holy Grail for the industries from the surrounding countries.
They better play smart, like Philippines or Vietnam, and not stupid.
This grand scheme by the shrew Abe will fail———Abe fails to realize the one salient point about the Middle Kingdom———-they will not be stopped by such a small, foolish man like Abe———-who is standing in front of a bullet train as it hurls down the tracks————the Middle Kingdom will march forward and I say the stupid Australian leadership will wake up from the fog they wrapped themselves around and join the rest of Asia in the quest to make ASIA the engine of the world’s prosperity into the 22 Century——–the losers like Japan and India will figure things out in the end———–before the bullet train leaves the station!!
vocabulary like AL-QUEDA, ISIS are inventions to strike a new bargaining point at each turn to keep tension alive with this not so kind peace talking countries. Add to this game comes the new name of INDO PACIFIC, at the doorsteps of APEC & ASEAN meetings. Future tensions in Asia revolves around this sinister design, so be aware and keep watching.
Looks like the US is abandoning the regional nuclear super power Pakistan, when Pakistan urgently need assistance. Will the Arab Gulf countries or China assist Pakistan?
Bruce O. Riedel an American expert on U.S. security, in Asia, a former Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Riedel say there is an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, on supply of nukes to Saudi Arabia if needed. US seem to take a lot of U-turns under President Trump.
Bow! Trolls and surrogates of communist China are well paid and. Kicking and well!
Australia will be part of whatever Uncle Samstein says, to serve his interests.
The Samurai Spirit only respects strength. Nuke them and they will be your vassal.
Jo Kang In 21st century terms, start an economic war. Only a marked decline of the Japanese economy relative to China will change their mindset.
A wholesale decrease in Japanese good consumption throughout Chinese speaking areas is what’s needed. I buy *zero* Japanese products myself.
Flavour of the month, leaving, eventually to most, a bitter aftertaste… but never for US.
Lol. Licking us backside will get what you deserve: Balkanization!
I suggest that people with no understanding or background in regional history and whose knowledge of geopolitics is limited to today’s propaganda news should first step back and widen and deepen their knowledge first. You do not have to go to University to do so – just Google it! Do it piece by piece. Read about how Japan invaded China and committed gross actrocities. Read about how the U.S. and Australia barred Chinese from their countries and were racist towards the Chinese. Read about how the British compelled China by military force to trade but in return made trade payment by way of opium. Yes! Like the Mafia they were! Read how the European powers and U.S. and Japan tried to colonise China. Read how the U.S. had been defeated by the Chinese indirectly twice, once in Korea and then again in Vietnam, because they wanted to contain China (for being Chinese and not Western minded) in the past. Read how until the Bristish conquered the Indian sub-continent there was no one nation called India, (unlike culturally and atheistically and written language-wise homogenous China being united since the 1st Emperor). It was pre-British Empire, a collage of 30 or more culturally different independent ‘kingdoms’, different nationalities speaking and writing different languages and divided on religious grounds. Read how the British unilaterally drew up the border between British India and China – called the MacMahon Line – without negotiating or consulting with China. Now independent India’ is claiming the same illegitimate border, that of their oppressive colonial masters that they fought for freedom against! Is India really Indians or are they just colonial ‘coconuts’ playing cricket and speaking English as their ‘national’ language. Truly what or who really is an Indian? The Chinese in contrast know they are Chinese since antiquity. China has no territorial interest in the Indian Ocean nor should India have any in the Pacific. The expression ‘Asia Pacific’ relates to the Western seaboard of the Pacific. Neither ‘Indo-Pacific or ‘Quadrilateral’ makes any sense geographically or territorially. Just because on a ‘one to one’ basis none of the so called Quadrilateral can contend with China, the ganging up of Japan (which pretends it is ‘white’) and India (which is but a ‘coconut’) and U.S. which is the single main cause of all the current major wars and conflicts globally (playing World Sheriff when it no longer can sharpshoot) and Australia (which still has the fear of being swarmed by ‘non-white’ people and thus require the protection of the ‘Ku Klux Klan’ World Sheriff) is no guarantee that they can bully the innocent ‘victim’ that is China. A China that wants to preserve what it is and has always been. China has no interest in lands or people that are not Chinese and part of the Middle Kingdom of antiquity! For Heaven will be on the side of the righteous! And China as a continuing living antiquity of a people civilisation of 5000+ years will withstand any foreign aggression as it had in its past.
George Silversurfer "Uncle Samstein". Now what might this mean?
Jeez, you are such a simple-minded person. You are easily swayed to one side but you dislike it when others do not follow you.Likewise, shall I label you as a western paid agent?
India has no choice. This is its last chance to avoid being subjugated by China. If India does not get going quickly a very strong alliance with the USA and Japan the country literally has no future. Its sea lanes will be controlled by China soon if the Indian Navy does to ally with the US Navy. China can cut India off from its oil supplies. If India remains uncommitted the US and Japan will lose interest in it and make terms with China. The Japanese will do a deal with China to secure their oil supplies and economic communications and investments. The USA will abandon Asia. India will be on its own and will be broken up by China. Parts of India will be given by China to Pakistan and the rest will be colonies run by Chinese puppets.This is the future of India if it does not want an intensive alliance with the USA and Japan and fails to act on that fast.
China only refrains from bullying neighbours who are firm and full allies of America, like Japan. China stopped threatening India with dire death over Doklam only when it realised the USA was going to help India and China’s own economic links with the USA would be affected if India was attacked. The stronger India allies with America, the more China will be forced to respect it. Sitting on the fence only leaves India vulnerable to Chinese bullying.
It’s a gang, for sure. China never goes in for associating with such discreditable gangsters. Chinese allies are highly moral states like Pakistan and North Korea.
The more dashing the start is the fast they will loose steam. The main threat to this idea is the indispensable dependency on china on trade. But that is the very reason why this idea should succeed . How much ever the concentration is on strategic alliance the economics will beat it. Because of the dominance of economics over the strategic reasons, This should be taken gradually but assertively . these four countries should ,Slowly corrode into the economic dependency which will take a decade if there is focus . How much ever impossible it may sound that is the very threat other countries are facing from china . Because when they rule the world it will be ruthless to that extent ruthlessness of US would fade to have been just.
Is this not obvious? Jewish interests have always exerted undue influence on US politics.
The clever trumpeter will have another handy tool in his deal making toolkits.
What this writer forgets is that this is today more and more one world, with shrinking space in terms of speed of communication. To look at things in terms of regions is now outdated. We are all in one region. What happens in Asia matters to the USA just as what happens in Europe or Africa matters to China. America is making an alliance with a fellow democracy, India, in Asia, and there is no reason why America and India and Japan together cannot protect their interests and flourish, China or no China.
If China makes too much trouble, the Indians will nuke it. They are a tough bunch and ready to accept annihilation in return.
So just relax and enjoy the ride and give India more excellent weapons, America !
USA is very complex in its geopolitical strategy and ideology. On one hand, her sabre rattling against China is only for show only as she needs to thump her Chest occasionally but on the other hand, USA and China are economically intertwined with each other. One will collapse without the other. If you as much believe that your alliance with Japan and USA to hurt China is going to bear fruit, think again. Let me tell one thing, USA is in decline and she is not going down without a fight. India will not escape unscathed if you decide to gang up against China out of spite and not thinking wisely. USA has always been an instigator and has had left a trail of wrecks behind them.
It was very obvious, was it not? I have been a witness to a trail of typical reactions coming from you lot.
What a silly disregard to reality. Minus one point for you.