Indo-Pacific is more than a region, pushing politics in a ‘pessimistic and paranoid’ direction

Credit: Nick Wehrli from Pexels
Over the past decade, the idea of a critical geopolitical space called the “Indo-Pacific” has become integral to the large-scale strategizing of countries within and outside this vast geographic area.
However, this term is not new. Australia, one of the few truly Indo-Pacific countries, used the system in the 1970s to envision an optimistic future of economic and political ties with its Indian and Pacific neighbors.
However, the Indo-Pacific has evolved significantly since Japan (under the leadership of Shinzo Abe) first used the term in 2007 as a way to conceptualize its relationship with India in the context of “broader Asia.”
And with the advent of the 2021 AUKUS security agreement, it is now common to refer to the Indo-Pacific as a region or super-region. But this oversimplifies what is actually a far more complex geopolitical reality.
What is a region?
A region is best thought of as a geographically enclosed complex. According to political scientist David Lake, the regions are “interrelated in terms of security, meaning that actions by any member state or important security-related developments within one member state may affect the other’s security.” “It will have a major impact on the region.”
The problem with thinking of the Indo-Pacific as a region or a superregion is that, in its broadest definition, it stretches from the east coast of Africa to the west coast of South America and occupies more than half of the Indo-Pacific’s surface geographic space. Earth.
Simply put, the Indo-Pacific is too large to be considered a meaningful region, or even a super-region.
Moreover, although many countries have adopted an Indo-Pacific perspective when formulating their strategies, they (with the exception of the great powers) still think of national security in strictly regional terms.
So the Indo-Pacific as a geopolitical space looks very different in Washington, DC than it does in Jakarta, Wellington, Tokyo, or Manila (to name a few).
This is not to say that the Indo-Pacific concept should be ignored. This represents an important development in international security. In fact, the country is experiencing its biggest geopolitical change in the past decade or so, and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
china factor
So what is the Indo-Pacific if not a region or a super region?
Perhaps it is better to think of this in terms of what international relations experts Barry Buzan and Ole Weber call “macro-securitization.” This means that “existential threats” to what is considered precious and worth protecting are identified and require immediate and, if necessary, extraordinary collective responses. To protect it.
This idea received a major boost in 2017 when the United States, still the most powerful actor globally, formally adopted the Indo-Pacific concept at the center of its strategic thinking.
In the process, it identified China as a clear strategic competitor. This decision had immediate real-world consequences.
First, he contributed to the revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which includes the United States, Australia, India, and Japan, and which had been stalled for nearly a decade.
Second, after Joe Biden ran for president on a foreign policy platform that says “America must lead again,” he has announced plans for the establishment of AUKUS in 2021 and the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity in 2022. Connected.
geopolitical complexity
Importantly, the United States is not alone in this macro-securitization. Australia, India, Japan, and more recently the United Kingdom and the European Union (and certain member states such as France) have all been involved.
Together, they are advancing an Indo-Pacific vision built on the recognition that the rules-based international order is under existential threat from China’s rise and perceived assertiveness.
Viewing China as a “threat” rather than an “opportunity” that dominated the previous concept of “Asia-Pacific” means a fundamentally different perspective for countries adopting an Indo-Pacific outlook.
This is clearly of great importance for regional geopolitics. However, that still does not mean that the Indo-Pacific must be viewed as a region or a super-region.
Rather, this concept distorts the geopolitics of various regions, particularly East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the South Pacific.
These remain real regions with their own security dynamics. But Indo-Pacific thinking is engulfing them, shifting power relations in a more pessimistic and paranoid direction.
“New Cold War”
There is currently an alarming habit of treating the Indo-Pacific as a single coherent geopolitical space rather than a collection of distinct regions.
This lends credence to the simple analogy that the Indo-Pacific will become ground zero of a “new Cold War.” And it ignores the perspective of smaller countries caught up in this growing competition.
Viewing the Indo-Pacific for what it is, as a constructed rather than a natural geographical phenomenon, provides a framework for developing more coherent and nuanced policies that adequately capture the region’s geopolitical complexity. It’s an important step.
However, this runs counter to the macro-securitization process that is already in place.
There are many reasons why the current situation in the Indo-Pacific region is not like the original Cold War. But the process of securitization is simplifying geopolitics into something more reminiscent of it, at least in perception. The effects can be devastating.
Provided by The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Quote: Indo-Pacific is more than a region, pushing politics in a ‘pessimistic and paranoid’ direction (November 10, 2024) from https://phys.org/news/2024-11 Retrieved November 10, 2024-indo-pacific-idea-region-politics.html
This document is subject to copyright. No part may be reproduced without written permission, except in fair dealing for personal study or research purposes. Content is provided for informational purposes only.