The notion of a significant political space called the” Indo-Pacific” has evolved over the past ten years as a key component of the royal strategizing of nations both within and outside this vast geographic area.
The word is not new, yet. In the 1970s, Australia, one of the few genuinely Indo-Pacific nations, drew inspiration from it to ink a hopeful picture of a future where it was economically and socially linked to its neighbors in the Indian and Pacific oceans.
But, since Japan ( under the command of Shinzo Abe ) first used the word in 2007 as a way of conceptualizing relations with India in the environment of” a broader Asia”, Indo-Pacific has evolved considerably.
And now it’s common to refer to the Indo-Pacific as either a place or a super-region with the onset of the AUKUS security agreement in 2021. But this oversimplifies what is, in fact, a far more sophisticated political reality.
What is a area?
The best way to describe a region as a geographically isolated difficult is. Social scientist David Lake believes that actions taken by one representative and considerable security-related developments within one member have a significant impact on others because they are” so interconnected in terms of their security.”
The Indo-Pacific, at its broadest concept, extends from the east coast of Africa to the west coast of South America, making up more than half the Earth’s surface.
Simply put, the Indo-Pacific is very large to effectively fathom of as a place or even a super-region.
Furthermore, although many a state has adopted an Indo-Pacific outlook in its strategizing, typically states ( save for greater powers ) still think of their national security in a strict regional sense.
Thus, the Indo-Pacific as a political place looks considerably different in Washington DC than it does in Jakarta, Wellington, Tokyo or Manila ( to decide but a dozen ).
This is not to suggest the Indo-Pacific strategy may be ignored. It represents a significant advancement in global security. It is true that it has experienced the most significant political change in the last ten years, and this trend is likely to continue.
The China issue
If not a place or super-region, therefore, what is the Indo-Pacific?
It might be better understood in terms of what “macrosecuritization” is defined as by foreign relations experts Barry Buzan and Old Waever as a “existential threat” to something that is deemed valuable and worthwhile and necessitates an instant and, if necessary, amazing social response to protect it.
The United States, which is still by far the most effective global actor, publicly placed the Indo-Pacific idea at the center of its strategic thinking in 2017, gave this a significant boost.
In the process, it identified China as a distinct corporate rival. This choice had urgent real-world implications.
Firstly, it helped resuscitate, after nearly a decade of impasse, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue ( Quad ) involving the US, Australia, India and Japan.
Second, it resulted in the establishment of AUKUS in 2021 and the release of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity in 2022. Joe Biden ran for president on an” America must direct once” system.
Geopolitical difficulty
Interestingly, not only the US is involved in this macrosecuritization. Australia, India, Japan and, more recently, the United Kingdom and European Union ( and particular member states, such as France ) are all involved.
Together, they are pushing for the creation of an Indo-Pacific strategy based on the recognition that China’s increase and perceived assertiveness pose a threat to the rules-based global order.
The frame of China as a” risk” rather than an “opportunity”– which dominated the previous” Asia-Pacific” construct – indicates a radically different view in the countries adopting Indo-Pacific perspectives.
This obviously matters greatly to provincial politics. But it still does not mean the Indo-Pacific has to be seen as a location or super-region.
Instead, the idea is distorting the politics of different locations – particularly East Asia, South-east Asia, South Asia and the South Pacific.
These areas have their own distinct surveillance dynamics, but they still exist. However, they are being encased in the Indo-Pacific concept, which causes the dynamics to shift more negative and anxious.
A’ New Cold War ‘
Instead of being a cluster of distinct regions, the Indo-Pacific is currently a worrying habit of being treated as a cohesive unitary geopolitical space.
This gives cred to the overarching comparison of a” New Cold War” starting in the Indo-Pacific. And it disregards the viewpoints of the smaller nations who are being drawn into this growing conflict.
It is crucial to develop more cohesive and subtle policies that adequately reflect the political complexity of the Indo-Pacific constellation by seeing it for what it really is, not as a normal geographical phenomenon but as a construct.
However, this goes against the current macrosecuritization approach.
There are many reasons why the Indo-Pacific’s recent state is unlike the Cold War’s. But the borrowing procedure is simplifying the politics, at least in belief, into something suggestive of it. The consequences may be devastating.
Nicholas Ross Smith is a senior research fellow at the National Center for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury, and Paul M. Bacon is a doctor at the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University.
The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.