By Rana Danish Nisar
Frankly, the rules of the game of global politics are quite strict and cruel. Because of the anarchic international structure, every state lives in insecurity, fearing to lose its sovereignty.
In this system, according to the rules of the game of politics, weaker entities make continuous efforts for survival, security and existence. Realistically, due to the lack of a central authority, the international system is anarchic in nature, where powerful entities are always right in their strategies, gestures, course of action and looms, following the famous proverb “Might is right”.
They always strive not for survival but to dominate other (weaker) states and adopt strategies and tactics to make their own power prevail. Moreover, it is truly shameful, but the hard truth of global politics that authoritarian and powerful states relish the dominator’s circle, and weaker states fall in line because they have no other choice.
Realism and its notions have explicitly argued that the ‘lust for power’ is embedded in the DNA of the state and in the game of global politics or inter-entity relations. The main motive of domination is to gain more power and put an end to the enemy. Moving on explaining the mantra of “Indo-Pacific”, it entirely seems to have been a more active and driven strategy by former President Trump, with the aim of upholding the notion of American unilateralism and US hegemony, along with saving the US’ dwindling power over the world. Strategic specialists argued that the real motive for adopting the “Indo-Pacific” strategy was to support America’s position in the broader Asian Ocean policy and guarantee American interests.
Apparently, externally the reflection of the “Indo-Pacific” strategy seems to increase integration between member countries in the economic context and promote “soft power”, but the real trick and ploy is to build a system of hard-power (military) alliances against any kind of anti-American forces. With the growth of economic needs, the cunning of globalization and the largest Asian market, and the ever-changing dynamics of international relations and global politics, the two larger regions referred to as the “Indian Ocean” and the western part of the “Ocean Pacific “were joined by the Whitehouse and give it the title “Indo-Pacific “.
Due to the geographical proximity of the western Pacific coasts to those of East Africa, the strategic importance of this entire region has been increased in contemporary global politics and particularly in ocean politics. Furthermore, it can be said very easily that Indo Pacific is the confluence of both politics and economics. More frankly, now the Indo-Pacific has become the decisive Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) of the world and is playing its significant role in world politics and global economy.
The US Department of Defense said that seven out of ten of the world’s most powerful military (naval) forces are engaged in this region, and the most dangerous fact is that six out of seven have nuclear weapons / ammunition.
In addition, nine out of ten major seaports are a significant part of this SLOCs, and the nautical economic routes are engaged in handling 60% of maritime trade. In short, the Indo-Pacific is a blend of American defence and security tactics to assert and sustain its power in the wider blue oceans, and secure its maritime trade routes.
“Gurpeet Khurana” is credited with introducing this “Indo-Pacific” concept for the first time in 2007 in his piece of writing entitled “Security of Sea Lanes: Prospects for India-Japan Cooperation”. But this concept gained more attention globally when US President Trump paid his visit to Vietnam in 2017 with the aim of attending the “APEC” meeting and shedding light on this Indo-Pacific strategy. According to strategic experts, Trump’s view of the Indo-Pacific region, the importance of the maritime region is the blend of Obama’s former “Pivot to Asia”, “rebalancing” and “TTP” strategy. Yes, the purpose of all these strategies is to support American hegemony and unilateralism or unilateralism. The rationale behind TTP’s formation in 2016 was to integrate multiple countries into one platform with the goal of economic integration and prosperity. But after Obama’s departure and Trump’s arrival in the Oval Office, the United States withdrew from TTP under Trump’s leadership.
More concisely, the Indo-Pacific strategy has three main pillars from the American point of view. Indeed, the American interests and goals associated with the Indo-Pacific strategy can be analyzed primarily with three domains. The first is the “national security” of the United States. In essence, the United States of America sees itself as the most powerful and largest inhabitant of the Pacific. As already mentioned, nine out of ten seaports are located in this region and according to statistics the volume of America’s trade with “APEC” states is more than 2 billion US dollars, and American foreign direct investments (FDI) account for more than $ 1 trillion in this region. This explains the cause of the concerns about the safety and security of the economy and trade: America needs a “free and open” Indo-Pacific, and that was Trump’s slogan.
Second, under the Indo-Pacific umbrella, the American concept of “deterrence” can be analyzed in a broader sense. Currently, the United States sees China as the biggest challenge to its primacy in the Asian region and beyond. To face China, following the concept of the alliances of offensive realism, the United States is promoting its ties with the countries of the Indo-Pacific region, for example India, the Philippines, Vietnam and others, and increasing alliances with them through mutual defense and military juxtaposition. With the aim of countering the China-based BRI (Belt and Road Initiative), the United States has announced the BDN (Blue Dot Network). Frankly, unscrupulously, the United States does not want to lose its mighty lead in the wider Asian region. Therefore, APEC, TTP “Pivot to Asia”, Rebalancing “and Indo-pacific” are all US efforts to bolster its position in Asia. Recently, under the leadership of the United States, the group of members of the QUAD – India-Japan-Australia-USA – was also established with the intention of countering the rise of China.
The third reason is resources (natural resources). In other words, it can be said that the Indo-Pacific region is like a heart in the human body and the SLOCs are the veins of the body. The region is very rich in natural resources, for example fishing, other seafood, oil and forests which are increasing the value of this region, becoming a basis of competition and rivalry between the major powers.
In summary, after Trump’s departure, the Oval Office is now under the control of Biden, who will have to decide whether his administration will follow Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy or take up the old “Pivot to Asia” strategy. World strategic experts are waiting for the US national security strategy under the Biden administration.
Rana Danish Nisar The author is a PhD (International Relations) Student at the School of Politics and International Studies (SPIS). He holds Mphil in (International Relations), Masters in (Pakistan Studies), and Masters in (International Relations) degrees. He won acceptance Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations HPAIR (USA), 2017. His research interests are broadly in South Asian Affairs, South Asia Geo-Politics, India-Pakistan Relations, South Asian Nuclear Politics, US and South Asia, Indian Ocean, Security studies, South Asian developments studies.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy or views of World Geostrategic Insights).