South China Morning Post
Advertisement
Advertisement
Asean
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
A US flag flutters in front of a portrait of the late Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong during a visit by US President Donald Trump to Beijing, China, in 2017. Photo: Reuters
AsiaDiplomacy

What’s the difference between Indo Pacific and Asia-Pacific? Regional control for the US or China

  • The ongoing debate over how the region should style itself has come into sharp focus as Asean adopted the US-style “Indo Pacific” at its summit
  • Beijing and Washington’s quests for a foothold in the region came to the fore at a round table in Kuala Lumpur
Asean
Tashny Sukumaran
Tashny Sukumaran
Why you can trust SCMP

Indo Pacific? Asia-Pacific? Asean Indo Pacific?

The ongoing debate on diplomatic nomenclature was in sharp focus on Monday as leading geopolitical researchers waded into the debate on how the region should style itself.

The topic has been hotly discussed amid America’s push to call it the “Indo Pacific” – a move some have said is a means to entrench the so-called quadrilateral security dialogue consisting of the United States, Japan, Australia and India to counter China’s rise.

The four democracies have not formally convened as a group for a decade, and the bloc is viewed by Beijing with a degree of suspicion, due to perceptions that it is a check on China’s increasing influence in the region.

Asean found its voice with Indo-Pacific concept. It should keep using it

Last weekend, at the 34th Asean summit, the association finally weighed in on its vision for the region by releasing a document on the Asean outlook for the Indo Pacific, led by Indonesia and aimed at “enhancing Asean’s community building process”.
The document’s use of the term “Indo Pacific” rather than “Asia-Pacific” was highlighted at the 33rd Asia-Pacific round table in Kuala Lumpur. The three-day event, which kicked off on Monday, is organised by Malaysia’s Institute of Strategic and International Studies.

Regional “descriptions” are not set in stone, said C. Raja Mohan of Singapore’s Institute of South Asian Studies at a panel on the rationale and implications of the term “Indo Pacific”.

Asean leaders pose for a group photo during the opening ceremony of the bloc’s summit in Bangkok, Thailand, on June 23. Photo: Xinhua

However, Asean’s decision to address the issue is seen an indicator of tacit acceptance that the term will persist, and that the bloc will have to adapt to it.

National visions, such as Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) vision, could also be viewed as not trying to contain China but as compatible with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, allowing for “greater Japan-China cooperation”, said Akio Takahara of the University of Tokyo’s school of public policy.
Differences in strategic concerns and aims, he said, “are not reason not to cooperate”. “If Xi Jinping can … mention the FOIP when he is in Japan next, that will be a very important message that is sent to the region and the world that Japan and China can cooperate.”

Too little, too late for US around the Mekong? China’s already there

The Asean bloc, meanwhile, is the “linchpin” on which FOIP will hinge – although, said China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies president Wu Shicun, the “prejudiced” approach of the US towards China in the South China Sea is actively disrupting efforts between Asean and China to develop and uphold order.

China will then, Wu said, be more inclined to explore an Asean-centric Indo Pacific strategy that can bridge Japanese and American approaches with the belt and road plan.

Elbridge Colby of the Washington-based Centre for a New American Security, however, maintained that the US was not asking Southeast Asian nations to choose sides but was willing to help anyone who “wants to defend their sovereignty” from Chinese economic coercion.

Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Post