Policy Brief JulyJune 19, 1, 2018 Dr Thomas S. Wilkins is Australia and the “Indo Pacific” currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Japan Institute for concept – disambiguating the “idea” International Affairs in Tokyo. and the “region” from quadrilateral He is normally based as a Senior Lecturer in “strategy” International Security at the Dr Thomas S. Wilkins University of Sydney, Australia. He specializes in security Since its earlier inception about a decade ago, the term “Indo issues in the Asia Pacif Pacific” has now gained significant traction among the policy ic region and has published community in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India. It was on this subject in journals such in many ways a dominant motif at the most recent 2018 Shangri- as Review of International La Dialogue meeting of regional government and military leaders. Studies, International Certainly, the concept has attracted much greater attention among Relations of the Asia Pacific the group of US allies/strategic partners mentioned above, but Indonesia and other countries in South East Asia have also expressed and Australian Journal of more cautious interest in the concept. One country that is clearly International Affairs, among not so enamored with the Indo Pacific concept however is China. others. In March of 2018, Foreign Minister Wang Yi dismissed it as an “attention-grabbing idea” that will “dissipate like ocean foam”. By cutting through the fuzzy ideological notions of a coming “Indo Pacific Century” Beijing surmises that the this (re)discovery of the “Indo Pacific” as a regional construct – specifically by the “quad” countries noted above – portends the effective opening of a new arena of geopolitical rivalry aimed at countering or “containing” its own expanding ambitions. The increased prominence of the term is naturally reflected in the accompanying discourse among strategic analysts and academicians. However, despite this, uncertainty over its precise meaning and implications remain widespread among the strategic community. It is therefore a useful exercise to subject the holistic concept to deeper intellectual inquiry to deconstruct some of its ideational (that is: the realm of ideas and definitions) and material (concrete policies and actions) components. Recognizing this division is especially important as in much of the surrounding discourse these aspects have been frequently conflated, consequently occluding our proper understanding and application of the term. In recognition of this contestation between the ideational and 1 JulyJune 19, 1, 2018 Policy Brief material dimensions of the concept, this paper opportunity”. In this sense, the current talk is divided into two parts. In the first (ideational) of an “Indo Pacific Century” is often used to part it considerers the origins of the Indo Pacific introduce or frame government policies in a as an “idea” (typically dubbed an “Indo Pacific way analogous to Former Prime Minster Kevin Century”), and whether it can be conceived of Rudd’s earlier declamation of an “Asia Pacific as a coherent “region”. The second (material) Century” in 2009, to buttress his subsequent part goes on to see how, partly predicated “Asia Pacific community” initiative. upon these ideational bases, the government of Australia, with its allies and partners, has Well-placed advocates in Canberra have sought to formulate and implement a concrete long sought a greater policy focus upon India policy or “strategy”. As the discussion shifts and the Indian Ocean, and their success on from the ideational to the material, it will this score accounts for its new prominence become apparent that the three aspects – in re-conceptualizing Australian regional “idea”, “region”, “strategy” – are interfused diplomacy (thus dovetailing with notions of an and in some ways co-dependent (thus making “Indian Century” in New Delhi). This is was the confusion and conflation indicated above first reflected by the wholesale replacement quite understandable). Moreover, it must be of the term “Asia Pacific” with “Indo Pacific” remembered that the concept as a whole is still a in the 2012 Australia in the Asian Century “work in progress” and this short paper can only white paper, and more recently, both the 2016 offer preliminary reflections aimed at furthering Defence White Paper and 2017 Foreign Policy our understanding as it continues to evolve, and White Paper appear to have made this switch a dedicated literature begins to accumulate. permanent. Once this shift in rhetoric has While this paper approaches the concept taken hold it unsurprisingly begins to replicate nominally from an Australian perspective, much itself in the accompanying strategic and of the discussion reflects the collaborative academic discourse, thus further reinforcing nature of the enterprise with Japan, the US, and this “socialization” process. For example, the India, whilst I offer Chinese counter-points at Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and appropriate junctures. Trade (DFAT) now has an “Indo Pacific” blog section. The 2018 rebranding of America’s The Ideational side: the “Indo Pacific” as Pacific Command (PACOM) as the “Indo-Pacific an “Idea” and a “Region” Command” (INDOPACOM) represents the apogee of this dynamic. Though analysts and Grand strategic concepts often have their government interlocutors have sought to stress roots in the ideational – that is, the realm of that the “Indo-Pacific” is not just a new word “ideas” – and this one appears no exception. for the “Asia Pacific”, one could be forgiven for Such a “vision-thing” is explained by a need gaining such an impression, as various actors to attract attention and inspire actors to rally have scrambled to exchange this “old” term for behind an idea and translate it into a policy the shiny “new” one to describe the “region”. that will require scarce resources to support it. The notion of an “Indo-Pacific Century” For Canberra, the identification of the “Indo as a precursor, and accompaniment, to state Pacific” as a new “region” is motivated by ideas policy draws upon a vision that entails a new of national self-interest. Indo Pacific boosters regional focus on India and the Indian Ocean in Australia have made a strong case that the as a potential source of increased connectivity terminology used to describe its geostrategic and resultant future prosperity. Indeed, the 2017 setting needs updating to recognize new Australia Foreign Policy White Paper contains realities – the vital commercial and strategic a chapter entitled “The Indo-Pacific will create lines of communication that increasingly knit 2 June 1, 2018 JulyJune 19, 1, 2018 Policy Brief Policy Brief the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans together and geographical incoherence. It is true that – with Australia and South East Asia at their large volumes of seaborne trade transit across nexus. Since this fortuitously places Australia the Indian Ocean into the Western Pacific, at the “heart” of this new region rather than in particular energy supplies, and one of the on its “periphery” as it is/was with the Asia key foci of the Indo Pacific concept is the Pacific, its is unsurprising that Canberra has maintenance of these crucial Sea Lines of emerged as an enthusiastic proponent of the Communication (SLOCs). However, actual new nomenclature. economic ties between states in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific are weak, and most But questions remain as to the definitional Indian Ocean littoral states actually are poorly and strategic coherence of the Indo Pacific as configured to engage in increased economic a substantive (geographic) “region”. Despite integration. This fact is important, since the Indo Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s claim Pacific strategy described below, under the aura that it is a “natural region”, it is difficult to argue of a prosperous Indo Pacific Century to come, a priori that a well-defined and meaningful places significant emphasis on the economic “Indo-Pacific” region actually exists. Instead, potentialities to be found here. Second, again the appellation appears to seek to graft the partly due to its scale, though cast as a “single more-established Indian Ocean region onto strategic system”, this super region does not existing notions of the Asia-Pacific region by represent a logical “regional security complex” – way of traversing and including the East Asian in academic parlance; one in which the security heartland. There is no firm consensus on which of its components states is automatically affected states are definitively part of the descriptor, with by that of its neighbors to a significant and its African and Arabian boundaries typically often direct degree (unlike say North East Asia left vague (though some have even suggested or South East Asia, as sub-regions of the Asia the Middle East be incorporated!). Moreover, Pacific). various Australian White papers have applied different and conflicting geographical markers Lastly, a sense of “regionalism” to support to the region, further blurring its demarcation. the new Indo Pacific region is lacking and Therefore, its membership and boundaries unlikely to emerge. Though various sub- are therefore highly contested and subject to regional and minilateral organizations exist multiple interpretations. Notwithstanding, the such as The South Asian Association for result might more properly by called “Indo- Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Indian Asia-Pacific” as some interlocuters prefer, but Ocean Rim Association (IORA) Indian Ocean “Indo-Pacific” will