Security dynamics are changing rapidly in the Indo-Pacific region.
The region is home not only to the world’s fastest-growing economies, but also to the fastest-increasing military expenditures and naval capabilities, the fiercest competition over natural resources and the most dangerous strategic hot spots.
One might even say that it holds the key to global security.
Illustration: Yusha
The increasing use of the term “Indo-Pacific” region — which refers to all nations bordering the Indian and Pacific oceans — rather than “Asia-Pacific” region, underscores the maritime dimension of today’s tensions.
Asia’s oceans have increasingly become an arena of competition for resources and influence.
It now seems likely that future regional crises will be triggered and/or settled at sea.
The main driver of this shift has been China, which over the past five years has been working to push its borders far out into international waters, by building artificial islands in the South China Sea.
Having militarized these outposts — presented as a fait accompli to the rest of the world — it has now shifted its focus to the Indian Ocean.
Already, China has established its first overseas military base in Djibouti, which has expropriated its main port from a Dubai-based company, possibly to give it to China.
Moreover, China is planning to open a new naval base next to Pakistan’s China-controlled Gwadar port and it has leased several islands in the crisis-ridden Maldives, where it is set to build a marine observatory that would provide subsurface data supporting the deployment of nuclear-powered attack submarines and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines in the Indian Ocean.
In short, China has transformed the region’s strategic landscape in just five years.
If other powers do not step in to counter further challenges to the territorial and maritime status quo, the next five years could entrench China’s strategic advantages.
The result could be the ascendancy of a China-led illiberal hegemonic regional order, at the expense of the liberal rules-based order that most nations in the region support.
Given the region’s economic weight, this would create significant risks for global markets and international security.
To mitigate the threat, the nations of the Indo-Pacific region must confront three key challenges, beginning with the widening gap between politics and economics.
Despite a lack of political integration and the absence of a common security framework in the Indo-Pacific region, free-trade agreements are proliferating, the latest being the 11-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
China has emerged as the leading trade partner of most regional economies, but booming trade alone cannot reduce political risks. That requires a framework of shared and enforceable rules and norms.
In particular, all nations should agree to state or clarify their territorial or maritime claims on the basis of international law, and to settle any dispute by peaceful means — never through force or coercion.
Establishing a regional framework that reinforces the rule of law would require progress on overcoming the second challenge: the region’s “history problem.”
Disputes over territory, natural resources, war memorials, air defense zones and textbooks are all linked, in one way or another, with rival historical narratives. The result is competing and mutually reinforcing nationalisms that imperil the region’s future.
The past continues to cast a shadow over the relationship between South Korea and Japan — the US’ closest allies in East Asia.
China, for its part, uses history to justify its efforts to upend the territorial and maritime status quo and emulate the pre-1945 colonial depredations of its rival Japan.
All of China’s border disputes with 11 of its neighbors are based on historical claims, not international law.
This brings us to the third key challenge facing the Indo-Pacific region: changing maritime dynamics.
Amid surging maritime trade flows, regional powers are fighting for access, influence and relative advantage.
Here, the biggest threat lies in China’s unilateral attempts to alter the regional status quo.
What China achieved in the South China Sea has significantly more far-reaching and longer-term strategic implications than, say, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, as it sends the message that defiant unilateralism does not necessarily carry international costs.
Add to that new challenges — from climate change, overfishing and degradation of marine ecosystems to the emergence of maritime non-state actors, such as pirates, terrorists and criminal syndicates — and the regional security environment is becoming increasingly fraught and uncertain.
All of this raises the risks of war, whether accidental or intentional.
As a US National Security Strategy report put it: “A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region.”
Yet while the major players in the region all agree that an open, rules-based order is vastly preferable to Chinese hegemony, they have so far done too little to promote collaboration.
There is no more time to waste.
Indo-Pacific powers must take stronger action to strengthen regional stability, reiterating their commitment to shared norms, not to mention international law, and creating robust institutions.
For starters, Australia, India, Japan and the US must make progress in institutionalizing their Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, so that they can better coordinate their policies and pursue broader collaboration with other important players, such as Vietnam, Indonesia and South Korea, as well as with smaller nations.
Economically and strategically, the global center of gravity is shifting to the Indo-Pacific region.
If the region’s players do not act now to fortify an open, rules-based order, the security situation will continue to deteriorate — with consequences that are likely to reverberate worldwide.
Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and a fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US