Welcoming the US into the Indo-Asia-Pacific
Published in Sohu
(China) on 19 March 2013
by Kui Jing (link to original)
(China) on 19 March 2013
by Kui Jing (link to original)
Translated from
by kim wang.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Recently, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, current commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, defined in testimony before Congress a new geopolitical term describing the traditional Asia-Pacific region: the Indo-Asia-Pacific, referring to the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and Asia. This definition strengthens the significance of the Indian Ocean in the region. The terminology is so new that Locklear occasionally forgets it himself, mistakenly using the traditional “Asia-Pacific” term but quickly stressing afterward that it should instead be “Indo-Asia-Pacific.”
The U.S. Pacific Command has been one of the most important departments of the U.S. government and military in terms of Chinese and Asian policy for decades, covering a region known as the “Asia-Pacific.” Considering the tendency for the U.S. military to be traditional, one may question why they suddenly would want to change terminology that has been used globally for years.
The Indo-Pacific Governance Research Center at the University of Adelaide published a research report last year that indicates that this represents a strategy based on the use of traditional security measures and hard power to deal with individual countries, be it openly or covertly, in this instance against China. Lt. Theresa Donnelly, media officer of the U.S. Pacific Command, firmly denied that the U.S. military had developed a new term that was intended specifically to exclude China. She claimed that the new terminology was intended to highlight the fact that the region includes the Indian Ocean in addition to the Pacific Ocean.
Whether the public believes that explanation or not, the most important thing is that the U.S. will station troops in the Indian Ocean region, which represents an important U.S. strategic shift toward Asia. The renaming of the Asia-Pacific region follows a series of U.S. actions shifting focus toward the Indian Ocean, including increasing business relations with India, improving relations with Myanmar and increasing military presence in Australia, which all symbolize reasons for the historic new naming. Some observers predict that the U.S. has opened the doors to an “Indo-Pacific era.”
In considering the Chinese point of view about the current U.S. “pace of progress” in Asia, it is easy to for us to come to the conclusion that the United States is attempting to squeeze China out strategically and limit its development, which leads to dissatisfaction and suspicion of the U.S. However, since the U.S. has already invested so many of its resources in Asia, some Asian countries have dedicated a lot of time attempting to lobby the U.S. into a permanent mission in the Indo-Pacific, firmly believing that U.S. presence must be sustained in the Indian Ocean. This tragic “victim” mentality leads to controversial relations; China then feels pressured to balance power relations as if it were doing tai chi, welcoming the United States in a high-profile way as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Asia-Pacific and designating the Indian Ocean as an example of effective Sino-U.S. cooperation.
Whether it is for protecting energy resources, securing sea lanes or protecting the personal safety of the growing number of Chinese citizens near the Indian Ocean countries, it is clear that China has indisputably important economic and security interests in the Indian Ocean. The People's Liberation Army Navy continues its fifth year of escorting Chinese shipping in the Gulf of Aden, demonstrating that China already has the experience and the proven ability to take on more responsibility in the Indian Ocean. If the U.S. military truly had “no intention” of excluding China and is merely “looking for opportunities to increase military cooperation,” then there would be no reason to ignore Chinese presence and interests in the Indian Ocean.
Compared to the current tensions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, the tension between the U.S. and China is much more subtle. “Demilitarized” common challenges between the U.S. and China, such as the need for more humanitarian relief and the mutual desire to combat Somalian piracy, can improve security cooperation between China, India, Australia and other regions. If this cooperation is successful, China would not only be able to break the so-called “conservative” attempt to exclude China, but also would become the new model for security in Asia, as well as prove itself in its ability to put an end to suspicions and accusations that have put Sino-U.S. relations in a vicious cycle. In the end, this would increase exchanges between the two countries so that they can actively cooperate and work together to bring about mutual benefit.
Currently, supporters from India and Australia are actively advocating for the establishment of the United States as the main voice in the Indian Ocean, but these supporters in these two countries may have selfish ulterior motives. However, because they are the two main countries around the rim of the Indian Ocean, they should also consider the possibility of whether or not to defer the United States into becoming simply an adjutant for the Indian Ocean region problems instead of actively inviting them.
The U.S. Pacific Command has been one of the most important departments of the U.S. government and military in terms of Chinese and Asian policy for decades, covering a region known as the “Asia-Pacific.” Considering the tendency for the U.S. military to be traditional, one may question why they suddenly would want to change terminology that has been used globally for years.
The Indo-Pacific Governance Research Center at the University of Adelaide published a research report last year that indicates that this represents a strategy based on the use of traditional security measures and hard power to deal with individual countries, be it openly or covertly, in this instance against China. Lt. Theresa Donnelly, media officer of the U.S. Pacific Command, firmly denied that the U.S. military had developed a new term that was intended specifically to exclude China. She claimed that the new terminology was intended to highlight the fact that the region includes the Indian Ocean in addition to the Pacific Ocean.
Whether the public believes that explanation or not, the most important thing is that the U.S. will station troops in the Indian Ocean region, which represents an important U.S. strategic shift toward Asia. The renaming of the Asia-Pacific region follows a series of U.S. actions shifting focus toward the Indian Ocean, including increasing business relations with India, improving relations with Myanmar and increasing military presence in Australia, which all symbolize reasons for the historic new naming. Some observers predict that the U.S. has opened the doors to an “Indo-Pacific era.”
In considering the Chinese point of view about the current U.S. “pace of progress” in Asia, it is easy to for us to come to the conclusion that the United States is attempting to squeeze China out strategically and limit its development, which leads to dissatisfaction and suspicion of the U.S. However, since the U.S. has already invested so many of its resources in Asia, some Asian countries have dedicated a lot of time attempting to lobby the U.S. into a permanent mission in the Indo-Pacific, firmly believing that U.S. presence must be sustained in the Indian Ocean. This tragic “victim” mentality leads to controversial relations; China then feels pressured to balance power relations as if it were doing tai chi, welcoming the United States in a high-profile way as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Asia-Pacific and designating the Indian Ocean as an example of effective Sino-U.S. cooperation.
Whether it is for protecting energy resources, securing sea lanes or protecting the personal safety of the growing number of Chinese citizens near the Indian Ocean countries, it is clear that China has indisputably important economic and security interests in the Indian Ocean. The People's Liberation Army Navy continues its fifth year of escorting Chinese shipping in the Gulf of Aden, demonstrating that China already has the experience and the proven ability to take on more responsibility in the Indian Ocean. If the U.S. military truly had “no intention” of excluding China and is merely “looking for opportunities to increase military cooperation,” then there would be no reason to ignore Chinese presence and interests in the Indian Ocean.
Compared to the current tensions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, the tension between the U.S. and China is much more subtle. “Demilitarized” common challenges between the U.S. and China, such as the need for more humanitarian relief and the mutual desire to combat Somalian piracy, can improve security cooperation between China, India, Australia and other regions. If this cooperation is successful, China would not only be able to break the so-called “conservative” attempt to exclude China, but also would become the new model for security in Asia, as well as prove itself in its ability to put an end to suspicions and accusations that have put Sino-U.S. relations in a vicious cycle. In the end, this would increase exchanges between the two countries so that they can actively cooperate and work together to bring about mutual benefit.
Currently, supporters from India and Australia are actively advocating for the establishment of the United States as the main voice in the Indian Ocean, but these supporters in these two countries may have selfish ulterior motives. However, because they are the two main countries around the rim of the Indian Ocean, they should also consider the possibility of whether or not to defer the United States into becoming simply an adjutant for the Indian Ocean region problems instead of actively inviting them.