Today, it is frequently argued by experts that the West needs a better strategy for the Indo-Pacific.[1] Both the US and the UK have recently shown considerable interest in the region. The European Union, on the other hand, published the “Cooperation Strategy in the Indo-Pacific” in 2021. This is a critical step that reflects the growing strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region. However, this document does not offer much strategic clarity either.
Since the United States shifted its focus from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific in 2017, the power struggle in the world has shifted to this region, and many EU countries have not remained indifferent to this phenomenon. Although France and Germany in particular seem to follow the US line in the Indo-Pacific, they are actually pursuing their own agendas in the context of relations with China, India and Japan. When considering their relationships with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) countries, France and Germany are able to cooperate with the US, India, Australia and Japan to ensure the navigational safety of ships in the South China Sea, Malacca Strait and Indian Ocean.
The EU is hesitant to be part of an anti-China formation in the Indo-Pacific. On the other hand, Britain’s Indo-Pacific strategy differs from both the US and European countries. In order to re-establish its hegemony in the Indo-Pacific, which consists mostly of former colonial countries, Britain attaches importance to bilateral cooperation and partnerships, unlike NATO-like formations in the region. The Netherlands, with its own colonial past in the region, follows a similar strategy. Following the release of the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy in 2017, European countries such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands have begun to develop their own Indo-Pacific strategy documents. In this context, Germany, which has minimal colonial history in the region, and France, with its limited colonial experience (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos), have a long road to achieve success in their Indo-Pacific strategy. Nonetheless, the new focus of the power struggle in the world is the Indo-Pacific.
Another example is that Canada and Japan have taken steps to expand security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.[2] It is stated that Canada needs closer partners in the Pacific. Facing a common threat from an unpredictable North Korea, Canada and Japan are working together to deepen security and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.
Today, the U.S. fight against China involves not only political, military, and economic tools but also methods such as perception management, media activities (the “CNN effect”), disinformation, manipulation, and global propaganda. In this context, world countries are affected by the US global propaganda due to the “CNN effect” and some of them act under its guidance. Many countries are now focusing on the Indo-Pacific region, which the U.S. has proposed as an alternative area of engagement against China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific, and are developing strategies related to the region. The latest example of this is Canada and Japan. In fact, both countries are neighbors to the Pacific Ocean and therefore have common security concerns regarding the Pacific. Both the U.S. and Canada are more concerned with Pacific security than with European security.
Countries such as the US and Canada now need a NATO-like formation concerned with the security of the Asia-Pacific rather than the North Atlantic.In this context, countries with coastlines in the Pacific and those closely concerned with the region’s security support the Quad formation. The failure of the US’s free and liberal Indo-Pacific policies becomes clearer every day. First of all, this failure should be interpreted as a strategic miscalculation of the United States. However, this interpretation would mean underestimating the analyses and forecasts of the hundreds of think tanks with billion-dollar budgets that have been preparing reports and scenarios on Asia and the Indo-Pacific for years. However, the truth is that the US is trying to establish itself as the sole hegemon and superpower of the liberal national order. In this regard, the US makes statements supporting liberal economy, democracy and human rights in every region of the world and in Southeast Asia. This strategy, which the White House follows in principle, may have a negative impact on anti-democratic regimes in Southeast Asia that need US support against China.
If the US wants to compete with China, it must avoid emphasizing free and liberal principles in its Indo-Pacific policies as much as possible. This applies not only to Thailand but also to Myanmar, Singapore, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Laos. Therefore, the free and liberal Indo-Pacific policies of the United States appear to have been successful in principle, but failed in practice. If the US does not develop new, country-specific strategies to act pragmatically in the region, it will not be possible to prevent China.
[1] “Europe Needs A Better Indo-Pacific Strategy”, Gulf News, https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/europe-needs-a-better-indo-pacific-strategy-1.78924763, (Date Accessed: 11.08.2024).
[2] “Canada and Japan move to expand security cooperation in Indo-Pacific”, CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-japan-garneau-china-north-korea-1.6013747, (Date Accessed: 11.08.2024).
