Indo-Pacific Region and the United States’ presence
The term Indo-Pacific has been around since the World War era, but it has become a recent phenomenon in an attempt to include all the Asian powers and the ones expanding to the Indian ocean as well (Upadhyay). Charles Ikins defines this region “as the entire area of the combined Indian and Pacific Oceans and their littoral nation-states” (Charles). In this scenario, the rise in power in these regions developed immense economic and diplomatic influence among the vast array of countries, and the United States fit in this array. The shift in attention creates conflict among the bigger states; however, for the United States, the Indo-Pacific region has led the United States to take on a more integrated approach to the area that is gaining prominence in a global sphere. The question is how the US would maintain to hold to the status of a global hegemon is becoming the central strategy of US in the Indo-Pacific.
The US emerged as a global hegemon since the end of the Cold War. The US has consistently projected its sense of exceptionalism through its political ideology and economic presence. However, US diplomatic activity in the global sphere has been a recently reevaluated after its national spending on two wars in the Middle East over the last two decades. United States engagement with the Middle Eastern has caused a severe foreign debt where it had consumed most of its national reserves. It was not until 2011; President Obama shifted US’s focus to the Pacific where the critical regions in the East are challenging the regional leadership (Obama). Since then, the US participation and attention in the region has sharpened, where it continues to increase its military and diplomatic efforts in the Indo-Pacific.
US strategy in the Indo-Pacific region can be defined under President Obama’s strategic doctrine-a national approach to world affairs (Obama). Under this doctrine, the US refocuses its diplomatic and military efforts from the Middle East to Asia, but in a larger sphere where it includes the Indian Ocean (Obama). US objectives in this region goes “preventing Iran or China from threatening US objectives; preventing extremist groups from threatening US interests and those of its allies; employing its diplomatic relations network to achieve influence and military and trade relations; ensuring access to natural resources and markets, and ensuring the security of Sea Lines of Communication and maritime checkpoints” (Obama, Workshop). The US’s aim is maintaining the existing international order, but one which would be in favor with its interests. And to serve those interests, India plays a big role in this relationship.
India and the United States
The US has always been willing to realign its interests to suit India’s. For example, “US had imposed sanctions to limit India’s nuclear development but allowed the sharing of civilian nuclear material and technology with India” (Upadhyay). These interests were recognized to balance China’s power and US’s nuclear relationship with Pakistan (Samir). Moreover, US often displayed frustration with Indian diplomacy and tendency to be indecisive, but it recognizes its potential to become the big power in the Indo Pacific and economic value of India (Upadhyay).Yet, there is evidence where India does not want to be close to the US and its allies. India believes the US has been long focusing on China, and the recent bilateral relationship the US wants is considered dead on arrival.
China and the United States
China is another region in the Indo-Pacific where it had been a long shown its preeminence. China has taken greater initiative in expanding the Indo-Pacific region (Upadhyay). The US and China have been aware of each other’s diplomatic influence. They are more likely to co-exist, rather than India and China. India and China’s coalition is very unlikely as India has recently shown interests in the South China Sea, which may heighten friction between these two regions. But those friction aside, China has been actively possessing influence over the Indo-Pacific. It is using its economic influence to possess influence over the ASEAN members and employs many institutions to conduct economic projects across East Asia (Karl). But the struggle lies where China fails to recognize maritime influence, defense, territorial reclamations, etc. all that drives the partnership between US-India apart. The US needs to devise a plan where India and China would have to work on raising their level of mutual political trust and promote cooperation among these states. If the two sides are cooperating on a bilateral level, areas in economy, politics, non-traditional security would be reached. Not only then, they can actively participate on a regional level but possess a multilateral cooperation in South East Asia. In a positive light, both countries recognize that only through joint efforts non-traditional security issues such as terrorism can be tackled. Only these kind of economic and political cooperation can come to serve the US interests (Economist).
The United States strategies in the Indo-Pacific
The United States has done several key strategies into exerting its influence in the broader Indo-Pacific. It anticipates the US Navy would be playing an essential role in the strategy, and it is also working towards strengthening and securing basis with Indonesia, Australia, etc. as well. The US is also working on aiming new security partnerships with India and forming a joint defense production. The US is making big attempts to increase their presence in the wider Indo-Pacific by achieving economic integration with the Asian economies, along with strengthening defense alliances. The US has been embarking on multinational partnerships especially with countries in South East Asia and South Asia. It is also working on to enhance the Trans-Pacific Partnership, where it aims to move beyond the standard borders of free trade to more a more in-depth economic integration where it would secure the US market access. The efforts by the US to be apart of this region can be greatly seen (Upadhyay).
Moreover, the core strategy of Indo-Pacific and US partnership should include an adoption of a common platform where large-scale countries can converge their strategic postures and doctrine and enhance their military interoperability. Not only that, India and US can learn from China’s military strategy, such as China’s anti-cess and area denial capabilities. Furthermore, India and the US need to construct a plan where it can give alternatives to the Chinese projects. In doing so, a diplomatic and developmental approach towards the projects and provide support to new initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor and New Silk Road. In this way, the combined effort between them can create a synergistic action (Economist).
India-China-United States, the Trilateral Synergy
Additionally, India must refine its foreign policy decisions with the ASEAN members and its close neighborhood to continue to project its influence in the region. India, like the US, should offer its neighbors sustainable infrastructure projects and alternative economic incentives that can help with the development of debt-owed countries. Moreover, if the US helps along, then the co-investment in this strategy would not only make these efforts more likely to succeed, but the diplomatic relations may improve (Samir).
The rise of China and India come to prove that the United States has been the subject of increased strategic review. Policies that should be taken by the trilateral countries have been discussed, but the future threats that would constitute in the region are difficult to predict. Moreover, a formal coalition between any two of the three countries is unlikely, and the many obstacles that are lingering in the co-existence may result in a clash.
It appears that the US and India have points of interest which they could co-exist upon, as India’s autonomy in developing nuclear capabilities have become the primary source of an aspiring high power. However, China presents India with many national problems over national power, non-traditional security issues, etc. Moreover, China and India friction points also include mutual distrust and power aspirations. In this case, Brewster suggests India should project its power into the South China Sea to counter Chinese expansion into the Indian Ocean. At most, the US and India agree upon one thing—managing China’s rise (Samir).
Conclusion
Nevertheless, the US dominates in most key points of national power. However, this is tested by the decade of Middle Eastern wars that have drained US’s national finances and conflict. While it is US foreign policy to support the rise of China, reinforcing other regional alliances, suggest the otherwise. These alliances are proven by the shift in attention towards to India and the foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific. While the US does not coincide with Indian bureaucracy, it does understand the concerns of India who does not want to coexist with China (Upadhyay). A conflict with these two countries would not only place the US in an awkward position but would have to become the middleman between competing for nuclear powers or choose between a nuclear security partner and a nuclear adversary (Samir). The future is unpredictable, and the potential for clash in the Indo-Pacific is high, but each nation can do more negotiating to mitigate the risks. China fears Indian rise and US containment; India fears Chinese containment, and the US fears Chinese dominance (Samir). There is so many potential areas of conflict, and the nations of the Indo-Pacific will need to be sensitive of each other’s boundaries.
All three nations seek one common goal: economic prosperity and the security of its country. And there is one picture to draw where India and China develops and US maintains. Henry Kissinger points out, “the desire for continued economic growth is one of the key arguments against war for anything short of a direct threat to national integrity or core national interest” (Kissinger). In other words, no three countries want conflict, and so the regions in the Indo-Pacific and the US would have to commit to a mutual trust where they can at least co-exist regarding the economy in the region that is becoming increasingly significant and challenged.