What's in an Indo-Pacific Concept? Shared Visions and Varied Approaches

IF 1.3 Asia Policy Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1353/asp.2023.a903867
Alison Szalwinski
{"title":"What's in an Indo-Pacific Concept? Shared Visions and Varied Approaches","authors":"Alison Szalwinski","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"B eginning in the late 2000s, the United States, as well as two of its allies in Asia—Japan and Australia—began to articulate variations of the geopolitical concept of the “Indo-Pacific.” The idea of linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans into a broader geographic region was not entirely new, but the accompanying strategic overlay, which was introduced as part of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” concept, imbued the idea with new and significant implications for how these three countries would approach foreign policy, economic coordination, and military posture in the region and within their broader national strategies. As each of these three democracies elected new leaders over the next two decades, subsequent administrations across political parties generally reaffirmed and built on the idea of the “Indo-Pacific,” refining their visions for a free, open, prosperous, and secure two-ocean region in contrast with China’s increasingly assertive behavior. By 2022, many countries in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere—including France, Indonesia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—had announced their own version of an Indo-Pacific vision, concept, or strategy, as had both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. At present, the United States, South Korea, and France have all published official policy documents identifying an Indo-Pacific Strategy. Japan refers to its “free and open Indo-Pacific” vision or plan, while Indonesia has an Indo-Pacific concept. Perhaps most surprisingly, Australia lacks any dedicated government document or policy speech outlining an Indo-Pacific vision, instead electing to articulate its approach within its broader national security, foreign policy, and defense strategy papers. The United Kingdom similarly has outlined its thinking on an Indo-Pacific tilt within defense policy documents, while the Pacific Island countries and territories eschew “Indo-Pacific” as a defining construct but identify as a “Blue Pacific Continent” and have clarified regional security interests and priorities in the Boe Declaration on Regional Security.","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"100 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

B eginning in the late 2000s, the United States, as well as two of its allies in Asia—Japan and Australia—began to articulate variations of the geopolitical concept of the “Indo-Pacific.” The idea of linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans into a broader geographic region was not entirely new, but the accompanying strategic overlay, which was introduced as part of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” concept, imbued the idea with new and significant implications for how these three countries would approach foreign policy, economic coordination, and military posture in the region and within their broader national strategies. As each of these three democracies elected new leaders over the next two decades, subsequent administrations across political parties generally reaffirmed and built on the idea of the “Indo-Pacific,” refining their visions for a free, open, prosperous, and secure two-ocean region in contrast with China’s increasingly assertive behavior. By 2022, many countries in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere—including France, Indonesia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—had announced their own version of an Indo-Pacific vision, concept, or strategy, as had both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. At present, the United States, South Korea, and France have all published official policy documents identifying an Indo-Pacific Strategy. Japan refers to its “free and open Indo-Pacific” vision or plan, while Indonesia has an Indo-Pacific concept. Perhaps most surprisingly, Australia lacks any dedicated government document or policy speech outlining an Indo-Pacific vision, instead electing to articulate its approach within its broader national security, foreign policy, and defense strategy papers. The United Kingdom similarly has outlined its thinking on an Indo-Pacific tilt within defense policy documents, while the Pacific Island countries and territories eschew “Indo-Pacific” as a defining construct but identify as a “Blue Pacific Continent” and have clarified regional security interests and priorities in the Boe Declaration on Regional Security.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印太概念是什么?共同愿景和多样化方法
始于21世纪末,美国及其在亚洲的两个盟友——日本和澳大利亚——开始阐述“印太”地缘政治概念的变体。将太平洋和印度洋连接到一个更广阔的地理区域的想法并不完全是新的,但随之而来的战略重叠,这是作为“自由开放的印度-太平洋”概念的一部分提出的,为这三个国家如何在该地区及其更广泛的国家战略中处理外交政策、经济协调和军事态势注入了新的重要意义。在接下来的二十年里,随着这三个民主国家各自选出新的领导人,随后各政党的政府普遍重申并建立在“印太”的理念之上,完善了他们对自由、开放、繁荣和安全的两洋地区的愿景,这与中国日益自信的行为形成了鲜明对比。到2022年,印太地区和其他地区的许多国家——包括法国、印度尼西亚、韩国和英国——已经宣布了自己版本的印太愿景、概念或战略,东南亚国家联盟(东盟)和欧盟也是如此。目前,美国、韩国和法国都发布了确定印太战略的官方政策文件。日本指的是其“自由开放的印太”愿景或计划,而印度尼西亚则有印太概念。也许最令人惊讶的是,澳大利亚没有任何专门的政府文件或政策演讲来概述印太愿景,而是选择在其更广泛的国家安全、外交政策和国防战略文件中阐明其方法。同样,英国在国防政策文件中概述了其对印太倾斜的想法,而太平洋岛国和领土则避免将“印太”作为一个定义性结构,而是将其视为“蓝色太平洋大陆”,并在《Boe区域安全宣言》中阐明了地区安全利益和优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asia Policy
Asia Policy Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Asia Policy is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal presenting policy-relevant academic research on the Asia-Pacific that draws clear and concise conclusions useful to today’s policymakers.
期刊最新文献
Essence of Indecision: Understanding Indian Security Policy Choices Ambiguity and Decarbonization Pathways in Southeast Asia Gambling on India's Foreign Policy: The Importance of Implementation Introduction: Diplomacy and Ambiguity—Constructing Interests in Cooperation Ambiguity and National Interests: Foreign Policy Frames and U.S.-China Relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1