The concept of the "Indo-Pacific region" and the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" of the USA: formation, development and Chinese views

U Yanbin Postgraduate student, Department of International Security, Moscow State University 101000, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Kravchenko, 7 yanbinwu@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The "Indo-Pacific region" was originally just a concept that has not been considered for a long time, and there is no specific policy and implementation plan in this region. After entering the XXI century, with the growth of China and India, this concept is gradually attracting attention. During the time of President Obama, American officials began to discuss this concept, but it does not clearly differ from the concept of the "Asia-Pacific region" and is often used only as a synonym for the "Asia-Pacific region". After President Trump took office, in order to distinguish it from the foreign policy of his predecessor, he adopted the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region" from countries such as Japan and Australia, and officially proposed the Indo-Pacific initiative. In general, the concept of "Indo-Pacific region" has passed through three stages of geographical concept, geopolitical concept and specific political initiatives, and has formed a specific strategic concept.

In December 2017, the Trump administration officially launched the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" in an attempt to form a "free and open Indo-Pacific region"^[34]. The Trump administration has promoted the implementation of its "Indo-Pacific Strategy" in four areas: 1. Developing relations with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region, strengthening US commitments to the region. 2. Strengthening economic cooperation with the Indo-Pacific region and supporting the private sector play a key role. 3. Deepening military cooperation with allies in the Indo-Pacific region, helping partner countries to strengthen and increase their military potential. 4. promoting the exchange of personnel and culture with Indo-Pacific countries, spreading American values and strengthening American influence. It shows that the United States tried to promote the implementation of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" through an integrated and comprehensive approach.

Although the US "Indo-Pacific Strategy" was put forward for a short time, it still requires a historical and comprehensive understanding of this strategy in order not only to see its strategic differences from previous US governments, but also to see its continuity. Not only to see the Trump administration's intentions against China, especially its military policy, will seriously affect security and stability in this region and even cause unnecessary conflicts, but also to fully understand its perception of China and its thoughts on the settlement of Sino-American relations. Only in this way can we better understand the existence and influence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and rationally consider the interaction between China and the United States in the Indo-Pacific region.

The history of the formation of the concept of "Indo-Pacific region"

The "Indo-Pacific region" was first proposed as a geographical concept, and at first there was no geopolitical or strategic significance.  In the ethnography and taxonomy of the XIX century, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean were considered a region. Since the twentieth century, the "Indo-Pacific region" has been included in the strategic texts of many scientists^[27].

The term "Indo-Pacific region" as a geopolitical concept first appeared at the beginning of the XX century: the German geopolitical scientist Karl Haushofer (E.Haushofer) used the term "Indo-Pacific region" in his book "Pacific Geopolitics" ^[20]. According to the Australian scientist Rory Medcalf, "Indo-Pacific" (Indo-Pacific) has long been an academic language in Australia. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Australian Institute of International Relations and the Australian National University held several meetings on decolonization and used this concept^[35].

However, it has always been controversial which regions the "Indo-Pacific Region" includes. The Indo-Pacific Management Research Center of the University of Adelaide believes that the Indo-Pacific region refers to the area from the western Indian Ocean along the east coast of Africa to the western Pacific Ocean, India believes that the "Indo-Pacific region" should include from the Pacific Ocean to the entire Indian Ocean, which is the concept of the Great Indian Ocean. Some US agencies, especially the Indo-Pacific Command, usually consider that the "Indo-Pacific region" includes from the west coast of the USA to the west coast of India. In general, the early "Indo-Pacific region" is just a vague geographical concept.

Due to the geographical location of the country, the Australian scientific community began to study and use the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region" very early. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Australian scientists put forward the concept of the "Indo-Pacific Ocean", believing that maintaining a strategic balance between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean would help ensure Australia's national security ^{[4, p. 141]}.

In 2005, Michael Richardson of the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies pointed out in an article that the East Asia Summit (EAS), including India, Australia and New Zealand, is a more cohesive and unified Indo-Pacific region. Secretary of Defense Smith (former Minister of Foreign Affairs), Peter Varghese, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, also used this concept very actively ^{[8, C.15]}. Rory Medcalf believes that he has now entered the "Indo-Pacific Age"^{[28, C.13]}. Dennis Rumley (D.Rumley) believes that the era of the Asia-Pacific region died in 2011 and was replaced by the era of the Indo-Pacific region.^[32].

After entering the XXI century, in addition to Australia, scientists in India, Japan and other countries began to study and use this concept.

In 2007, Indian scientist Gurpreet Khurana (G.Khurana) published an article "Safe Sea Route: Prospects for Indo-Japanese cooperation" in the journal of Strategic Analysis^[24], becoming the first Indian scientist to officially use the concept of "Indo-Pacific region".

In this article, Khurana first proposed the "Indo-Pacific region" as a strategic term for the maritime zone from the coast of East Africa and West Asia to the coast of East Asia.

Other Indian scholars, such as Shyam Saran and Raja Mohan, also often use this concept. Raja Mohan even believed that the coming of the era of the "Indo-Pacific region" was inevitable^{[29, p.4]}.

In 2013, the report "Asian Security Order" published by the Japanese Institute of International Studies indicated that a new "Security Complex in the Indo-Pacific region" is on the rise^[2].

During this period, American scientists were relatively indifferent to this concept, and only a few scientists were willing to use this concept, such as MichaelR.Auslin from the American Enterprise Institute, Walter Lohman and others.

In November 2011, the Lowy Institute for International Policy, the Traditional Foundation and the Observers of India Research Foundation jointly published a research report entitled "Common Goals and Convergent Interests: US-Australia-India cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region". It is recommended that the United States, Australia and India establish a trilateral dialogue to promote an order that will promote economic and political stability, free and open trade and democratic governance in the Indo-Pacific region^[33].

This shows that the academic circles of the USA, Australia and India have generally accepted the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region". At this stage, although the motives and definitions of scientists in different countries differ, users of this concept have at least two common features: first, concern about the rise of China and its possible influence, and secondly, a view from Japan to the Arabian Sea. The vast marine area represents the full strategic interest of the region. This provided the academic and public views of the four countries for the further use of the concept of "Indo-Pacific region" in specific policy areas.

The evolution of the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region" in the world political arena

Abe Shinzo may be the first national leader to officially propose the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean together in an official text^[15]. Back in 2006, the then Japanese Prime Minister Abe put forward the concept of strategic cooperation "Japan, the USA, Australia and India" and regarded the Pacific and Indian Oceans as one strategic object. In August 2007, Abe visited India and delivered a speech at the Indian Congress on "Merging two Oceans", stating that the Pacific and Indian Oceans are becoming free and prosperous oceans, and creating a close connection. Thanks to the cooperation between Japan and India, then including the United States and Australia, to form a huge network of cooperation across the Pacific and Indian Oceans^[16].

After the resignation of Shinzo Abe, the above plan was not implemented. In September 2012, Abe became Prime Minister again, and Japan gradually resumed a new round of negotiations on the Indo-Pacific strategy. In December 2012, Shinzo Abe published an article in which the concept of the "Asian democratic security diamond" was put forward, linking these four countries again, emphasizing that from the point of view of security and stability, the Pacific and Indian Oceans are inseparable... As the oldest maritime democratic country in Asia, Japan should protect the common interests of the above-mentioned two regions and play an important role in all regions ^[1].

On January 18, 2013, Abe Shinzo published an article explaining the importance of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and emphasizing the strategic importance of the US-Japan alliance in the region. Japan continues to strengthen comprehensive cooperation with the United States in the region and this is of unprecedented importance. At the end of February 2013, during his visit to the United States, Abe delivered the famous "Return of Japan" speech at the American Institute for Strategic and International Affairs (CSIS). He said:"The Asia-Pacific region (APR) or the Indo-Pacific Region (ITR) is flourishing now" ^[2].

Australia was the first country to include the "Indo-Pacific region" in the official strategic text. In October 2012, Australia published the document "Australia in the Asian Century" (Australia in the Asian Century), and in January 2013 published the "National Security Strategy", the National Defense white paper was published in May 2013, and they all repeatedly mentioned the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region". Some Southeast Asian countries have made similar statements. In May 2013, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa delivered a keynote speech "Indonesia's View of the Indo-Pacific Region" at the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and expressed the opinion that the countries of this region should commit themselves to building trust, peacefully resolving disputes, and promoting a common understanding of security and strive to conclude a treaty of friendship and cooperation between the Indo-Pacific region ^[8].

Indian officials have long been interested in this concept. In February 2012, the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs of India Ranjan Mathai delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on the topic "Building Integration: Deepening the strategic Partnership between India and the United States", and stressed the relationship of India's partnership with the United States is very important for creating a stable, prosperous and secure Asia-PacificThe Pacific region - or the Indo-Pacific region, as some call it" ^[25].

In December 2012, the then Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, in his speech at the India-ASEAN summit held in Delhi, stated: "Stability and security in the Indo-Pacific region are crucial for the development and prosperity of India" ^[31].

Formation and development of the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the USA

Under President Obama, there were still political figures in the United States who put forward this initiative. Hillary Clinton was the first American high-ranking official to use the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region". In October 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her speech in Hawaii, stressed the importance of the Indo-Pacific region in world trade and commerce ^[17].

A year later, Hillary Clinton wrote in the article "The Pacific Century of America" stressed the importance of the union between the United States and Australia in the Indo-Pacific region^{[18, p. 63]}. In July 2011, Hillary publicly stated that she would use India to balance China ^{[5, p.13]}.  In November 2011, Hillary published an article "The Asian Century of America" in Foreign Policy magazine, which stated that "The Asia-Pacific region from the Indian subcontinent to the west coast of the United States has become a key engine of global politics. This region covers two oceans - the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean is increasingly associated with shipping and strategy ^[19].

In April 2013, Admiral Samuel Locklear, then Commander of the Pacific Headquarters of the US Army, spoke in detail about the growing importance of the India-Asia-Pacific region in the US global strategy ^[4]. In July 2013, then US Vice President Biden visited India and Singapore, he stated that the United States considers the "Indo-Pacific region" an integral part of the future of Asia ^[4].

Generally speaking, during the Obama period, the "Indo-Pacific region" proposed by the United States and other countries was mostly a geographical concept, although it also had some political colors.

After President Trump took office, the frequency of official use of the concept of "Indo-Pacific region" by the United States has increased significantly. Before Trump visited Asia at the end of 2017, senior US officials conducted high-profile diplomatic activity around the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region". The US Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser all use this concept in different cases.  On June 3, 2017, the then US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis used this concept in his speech^[26].

In May 2018, the US Armed Forces renamed the Pacific Command to the Indo-Pacific Command^[30]. This once again shows the importance the United States attaches to the Indo-Pacific region and its intention to block the PRC. In 2019, the United States presented two major strategic reports on the Indo-Pacific region^[14][23]. After Biden came to power, the United States also did not stop its political and military measures in the Indo-Pacific region: Kurt Campbell was appointed White House coordinator for the Indo-Pacific region on the first day of the Biden administration, they continue to increase military activity in the Indo-Pacific region, especially in the South PacificThe China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and other hot spots, and continue to strengthen the mechanism of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD).

From the development of the US strategy for the Indo-Pacific region, it is clear that from the Obama administration, the Trump administration to the Biden administration, the Indo-Pacific region has become the most important strategic area for the United States, and the root of all this comes from the constant development of the power of the PRC. In the future, the strategic interaction of the two major powers in the Asia-Pacific region or the Indo-Pacific region will become an important topic for global political discussion.

Chinese views on the US Indo-Pacific Strategy

In recent years, the Chinese academic community's research on the US Indo-Pacific Strategy has mainly included the nature and intentions of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, the implementation of the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy, the limitations and impact of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, and other issues.

Although Chinese scientists describe the nature or state of the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States in different ways, most believe that this is not an established strategy. Professor Zhang Jiadong from Fudan University believes that after Trump entered the White House, the Indo-Pacific Strategy completed the transformation from a geographical concept into a political initiative, but it has not yet reached a strategic height. Currently, this is only an initiative^{[7, p. 26]}. Meng Qinlong, a researcher at the Institute of World History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States is still an evolving concept, and the Indo-Pacific Strategy is far from the basic strategy that embodies the consensus of the United States, India, Japan and Australia^{[6, p. 24]}. Professor Wei Zongyou from Fudan University believes that the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" of the Trump administration is still under research and implementation^[4]. Professor Zhu Cuiping from Yunnan University of Finance and Economics believes that the Indo-Pacific Strategy is still under development and is rather a "strategic deterrent". There is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent to which it can be implemented in the future ^{[9, p. 17]}.

Regarding the intention of the Indo-Pacific region of the United States, Chinese scientists have a high degree of consensus in their interpretation. Wei Zongyu believes that the Trump administration has put forward the concept of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, the purpose of which is to restrain and hinder the PRC in the level of economy and security, strengthen the US presence in the field of security and economy in the Indo-Pacific region and maintain its regional hegemony, change the regional order^[4]. Wang Peng, an employee from the People's University of China, understands the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific strategy as a mixture of "hedging" and "Wedge" strategies and believes that Trump applies a "hedging" strategy against China, restrains and balances China and avoids direct war to prevent modernization of China's industry, using the "wedge" strategy to push away and strengthen the contradiction between China and other Indo-Pacific powers so that the United States could maintain hegemony at a lower cost ^{[3, p. 52]}.

Through understanding the status and nature of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy and researching the interaction between the United States and relevant countries in the Indo-Pacific region, Chinese scientists generally believe that the implementation of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy will face some limitations. Zhu Cuiping believes that there is uncertainty regarding bilateral and multilateral relations within the framework of the strategic game of the great powers, the pursuit of their respective interests within the framework of the Indo-Pacific Strategy leads to a weakening of interdependence, and India's consideration of the Indo-Pacific Strategy has variability and plasticity, these are the limitations of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy acting under the leadership^{[10, C.15]}. Professor Liu Changming from Shandong University believes that the implementation of the Indo-Pacific Strategy still faces many limitations due to the lack of strategic resources available for mobilization in the United States and internal structural contradictions between the geopolitical structure and the strategic interests of partner countries^{[13, P. 86]}. Associate Professor Chen Qimin from the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China believes that due to the complexity of US domestic policy, the complex ambivalence of regional authorities, the long diplomatic front of the Trump administration, the limitations of the situation in the development of China and Sino-American relations, therefore, the impact and prospects of this strategy are uncertain ^{[12, p. 23]}.

Although most Chinese scientists believe that the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States is still at the conceptual stage and has not yet been completed, and its implementation will face many limitations, but also believes that it will have various strategic consequences. Chen Fangming, an employee of the Chinese Society for International Strategy believes that the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States will encourage all parties to accelerate the game of creating a security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region, further increase the complexity and competitiveness of Sino-American relations and turn relations between the two countries into a new round of competition, a blow to the Asia-Pacific trade Thus, free trade will become more complex and will have a negative impact on the economic and social development of the Indo-Pacific region^{[11, p.45]}. Wei Zongyu believes that the concept of the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy has had a significant negative impact on Sino-American relations and the regional order: Sino-American conflicts have escalated and Sino-American strategic competition has intensified, the regional economic order has been disrupted, the regional security environment has deteriorated, the pressure of the countries of the region on the "choice system" has increased ^[4].

As for the impact of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy on China, Zhu Cuiping believes that China will face greater pressure from the threat of hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region, which will have a "destructive" impact on China's promotion of regional economic integration. China's economic security is a threat, it has a "split" on the general concept of security of China and neighboring countries, threatening the security order of China and neighboring countries ^{[9, p.16]}. Zhang Jiadong believes that the Indo-Pacific initiative has had a complex impact on China, which has both negative and negative consequences, as well as positive and positive significance, and can at least increase the legitimacy and rationality of China's existence in the Indian Ocean region ^{[7, p. 26]}.

In 2020, the academic journal "China Review" published a series of articles by Chinese scientists about the Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States:

In his article in the journal, Hu Wexing, a scientist at the University of Macau, argues that the Indo-Pacific region is a key region where the strategic rivalry between the United States and China takes place. The US Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) is Washington's main competitive tool aimed at containing the growing power and influence of China among the countries located along the Indian and Pacific Oceans^{[21, p.127]}.  In addition, Hu Weixin also believes that Beijing did not take retaliatory actions against the Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States. Instead, China has responded to the new American challenge in a more constructive, peaceful and non-confrontational manner. Beijing's goal is to mitigate possible risks to national security by continuing to expand its international influence in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.^{[22, C.143]}.

Ye Xiaodi, associate professor at the School of International Relations at Guangdong University of Foreign Languages and Foreign Trade, believes that in response to the actions of the United States, the Chinese government adheres to the principle of renouncing the union and strengthens the strategic partnership between China and Russia to counter the security pressure exerted by the Indo-Pacific strategy. In response to the actions of peripheral countries, China uses the reassurance approach to create an incentive for cooperation for peripheral countries, especially those that have security relations with the United States ^{[36, C. 205]}.

Zhang chunman, a scientist at Fudan University, offers a new perspective for understanding China's response to the Indo-Pacific Strategy in a strategic sense, and, more importantly, a preventive response, which he calls "niche strategy". A "niche strategy" is a widely discussed marketing strategy in the business market. Inspired by the developing marketing research of the "niche strategy", Zhang Chunman tries to conceptualize the "niche strategy" as an important foreign policy strategy in international relations, as well as to understand and explain China's reaction to the Indo-Pacific Strategy. The functioning of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the developing direction of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are good examples of a Chinese "niche strategy" that can help China better respond to the pressures of the Indo-Pacific strategy. At the same time, Zhang Chunman does not determine that the conflict between China's niche strategy and the Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States will lead to war^{[37, p.239]}.

Generally speaking, in all sectors of the PRC, a more objective, accurate and comprehensive analysis of the US intentions for the "Indo-Pacific Strategy", the specific implementation and the limitations it faces was carried out.   conclusion

Thus, the US strategy in the Indo-Pacific region and military policy in the region largely inherited former Obama's policy of returning to the Asia-Pacific region.

The US Indo-Pacific Strategy shows that the United States has radically adjusted its traditional hegemonic strategy. During the Cold War, the core of the US hegemony strategy was to preserve the superiority of the Soviet bloc and the leadership of the Western camp. After the end of the cold war, the American hegemony strategy has a real chance to become a global strategy, but it does not want to pay too much.

After entering the 21st century, especially in the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the financial crisis, the strategy of US hegemony was adapted to the problem of offshore balance, trying to maintain its global superiority by maintaining a strategic balance in the main regions. But now the United States has clearly abandoned this inexpensive hegemonic strategic goal and has personally participated in the framework of the strategic balance of the Asia-Pacific region. In other words, the United States already believes that it can no longer maintain hegemony at a relatively low cost.

Summarizing the views of most Chinese scientists on the strategy of the Indo-Pacific region, it can be found that the strategy and policy of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region pursues the main goal of maintaining US hegemony, and this is also closely related to the rise of the PRC. Massive military commitments and a large number of US armed forces in the Indo-Pacific region and the growth of the military power of the PRC will become the most central contradiction in the geopolitical structural conflict between the PRC and the USA in this region. The US military policy in this region will cause discontent of the PRC and even regional conflicts, but at the same time it should be noted that due to the firm strategic determination of the PRC, the PRC's own economic development and the limitations of internal factors of the USA, the US Indo-Pacific strategy will not hinder the peaceful growth of the PRC in this region.