Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Indo-Pacific

101. US land power in the Indo-Pacific: opportunities for the Australian army

Author:
Marcus Schultz
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
The US Army is undergoing its most consequential period of transformation since the end of the Cold War. The re-emergence of great power competition and a deteriorating strategic environment is forcing the US Army to rethink not just its approach to land warfare but also its future role alongside the US Marine Corps in key regions around the globe. In the Indo-Pacific, this doctrinal and structural transformation is informing a new approach to joint exercises and 'no gaps' defence collaboration to deter Chinese aggression. These developments hold important insights for key US allies and partners, including Australia and Japan. Australia’s new unifying strategic approach to national defence and the high degree of convergence this has with US defence strategy offers a timely window of opportunity for the Australian Army to explore the combined use of land power in a heighten threat environment. This work should be mutually reinforcing and constitute part of Australia’s approach to managing risk and threats and balancing its contributions to deterrence. This report aims to provide the Australian defence establishment and military leaders with well-considered options for engaging the US on matters of mutual interest. The report provides an overview of the US Army’s changing force posture and approach to land warfare, followed by a brief analysis of its evolving role as an essential enabler of joint force operations in a maritime environment. The report then explores the US Army’s ‘campaigning’ activities in the region and its efforts to increase allied and partner capacity for high-end military contingencies in all domains. Finally, the report highlights opportunities for the Australian Army to enhance interoperability with US land forces in a deepening US-Australia alliance.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Australia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

102. Making Collective Deterrence and Defense Work in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
David Santoro and Brad Glosserman
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The Indo-Pacific security architecture is undergoing fundamental transformation to address rising challenges, most notably those posed by an increasingly confident, assertive, and capable China. Pacific Forum has started a multi-year unofficial dialogue with experts and officials from the United States and key allies and partners to share views of this evolving regional security environment and identify common interests and concerns as well as areas of divergence. The inaugural Pacific Forum Defense and Deterrence Dialogue, which included participants from the United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, took place in Tokyo on February 2-3, 2023. It was run at the Track 2 level, although diplomatic officials and military officers from each country also attended as observers. Pacific Forum’s goal is to identify ways to shape this evolution to ensure that it meets U.S. national security needs, particularly integrated deterrence of, and defense against, regional adversaries—with China as the foremost concern. Responses to these changes have taken several forms. Bilateral alliances are being modernized. Other security relationships are being strengthened, such as those between Japan and Australia and Japan and the United Kingdom. There is also talk of new coordination among Five Eyes and other partners. In other cases, new initiatives have been launched, such as the Australia-United Kingdom-United States “enhanced trilateral security partnership” (AUKUS) or the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Recent developments, such as the election of conservative Yoon Yuk-soul as president in South Korea, are hopeful signs of the revitalization of currently moribund defense and security arrangements, notably U.S.-Japan-South Korea cooperation. There is also reportedly talk of renewed interest in the Trilateral Security Dialogue that includes the United States, Australia, and Japan. All these initiatives are designed to better compete with, deter, and, if necessary, defend against adversaries determined to rewrite the regional order in ways that align with their interests. While the notion of an Asian equivalent to NATO is out of sync with regional needs (and there is broad recognition of that fact among key allies), current momentum could herald the emergence of an Indo-Pacific defense community reminiscent of the one created by trans-Atlantic nations after the Second World War. That community was forged to defend against the Soviet Union. Today, the nascent group in the Indo-Pacific is focused on China, although it is not the only threat. Understanding how regional governments see and rank those diverse threats is a critical step in ensuring that the new arrangements are most effective. One thing is certain: the current situation—in which there is no coordination mechanism among the existing and emerging arrangements—is not tenable in view of the mounting China challenge. To succeed, this process must be nurtured. The United States must better understand the forces at play and the views driving national action, and it must work to ensure that those changes are effective to counter China and other challenges. Work is needed to understand how all these pieces fit together in a coherent regional deterrence and defense architecture, particularly to deal with strategic conflict. This is not easy. The above- mentioned initiatives and relationships are new and evolving. It is difficult to appreciate each on its own, much less the overlap between them, and their convergences and divergences. Plus, in some cases, governments are also focused on other ways to deter. DTRA’s chief concern is the warfighter, who must be prepared to address a range of threats that extends from “strategic” military problems (including those related to nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons, and other domains) to gray zone issues, but some regional initiatives also address other issues, notably climate change, vaccine diplomacy, and emerging technologies. It is critical that the United States understand how allies and partners see this menu of items and their goals and priorities, even as the focus of our proposed effort is strengthening regional deterrence and defense. Plainly, a cumulative, comparative assessment is critical because effective deterrence and defense demand a comprehensive analysis and there needs to be shared understanding of how these mechanisms can be coordinated to ensure that needs are met and that participating governments maximize and make the most efficient contributions. From a U.S. perspective, building a collective deterrence and defense architecture in the Indo-Pacific is urgent and the only realistic way to compete effectively against China. As a landmark report from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney has found, “a strategy of collective defence is fast becoming necessary as a way of offsetting shortfalls in America’s regional military power and holding the line against rising Chinese strength.”1 Failure to build an effective Indo-Pacific deterrence and defense architecture would shift the regional balance of forces to the detriment of the United States as it addresses the China challenge.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Deterrence, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

103. Charting a roadmap for multiparty confidence and security building measures, risk reduction, and arms control in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
David Santoro and Miles Pomper
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The practice of strategic dialogue, confidence-building measures (CBMs), risk reduction, and arms control has its roots in the nuclear revolution and the Cold War. It thus developed in the Euro-Atlantic because of the realities of the US-dominated, Eurocentric security environment of the time; recall that the United States had just fought the Second World War with a Europe-first strategy. That practice developed primarily in two directions: between the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two superpower enemies. The goal of strategic dialogue between the United States and NATO, still in place today, has been to build deterrence of adversaries and defense of the “free world,” and an important by-product has been reassurance of weaker NATO allies by the much stronger United States. To do so, Washington and allied capitals have engaged at many levels, including in the strategic nuclear domain, where they have established shared roles and responsibilities over forward-deployed US nuclear weapons.1 Strategic dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia, meanwhile, developed in the context of bilateral arms control discussions. After they built the nuclear capabilities to assure their mutual destruction, and after the Berlin and Cuban crises of 1961 and 1962 when they flirted with nuclear confrontation, the United States and the Soviet Union sought to stabilize their relationship by preserving mutual deterrence. This was achieved through negotiations, which began in the early 1960s and first culminated in a hotline agreement in 1963. This agreement created a direct communication link between Washington and Moscow for use in time of emergency. It was followed by several rounds of talks that led to agreements imposing limits and, later, reductions on US-Soviet/Russian nuclear arsenals. In the late 1990s, US-Russia arms control discussions expanded into the NATO context. Under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Council, at least until the 2010s, the United States, other NATO allies, and Russia explored the requirements of strategic stability in an ongoing dialogue and worked to improve the relationship between the West and Russia.
Topic:
NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Dialogue, Confidence Building Measures, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
United States of America and Indo-Pacific

104. Friend-shoring in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Akhil Ramesh and Rob York
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlight the challenges of increased economic interconnectedness with adversarial states. The shortages in critical sectors such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other industries significant for technological advancement in the fourth industrial revolution have revealed the importance of select supply chains to the American public and the broader global community. As the strategic competition between the US and China accelerates, understanding of their importance will only grow. The Biden administration, to its credit, realized early on the importance of four critical sectors for the future of US supply chain security: pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, large-scale batteries, and semiconductors. Alarmingly, through the research presented here by Akhil Ramesh and myself, we see that the People’s Republic of China has deeply embedded itself in three of these four sectors, and still seeks to strengthen its position in the fourth (semiconductors). Also, one of the recurring problems highlighted in this research is the tendency of the administration to consider the job done once it sources a critical technology from somewhere other than China—not realizing that the PRC serves as a source for that country elsewhere in the supply chain.
Topic:
Pharmaceuticals, Supply Chains, Semiconductors, Batteries, and Critical Minerals
Political Geography:
United States of America and Indo-Pacific

105. Regional Overview: Building Partnerships Amidst Major Power Competition

Author:
Ralph A. Cossa and Brad Glosserman
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
Major power competition was the primary topic du jure at virtually all of this trimester’s major multilateral gatherings, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continuing to serve as a litmus test—a test many participants struggled to avoid taking. It was clear which side of the fence the G7 leaders stood on; Putin’s invasion was soundly condemned and Sino-centric warning bells were again gently sounded. At the BRICS Summit and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (sans the US), those alarms were clearly muted, as they were at the ASEAN Regional Forum, at which foreign ministers from all three were present. Headlines from the IISS Shangri-la Dialogue focused on the meeting that did not occur, as China’s defense minister pointedly refused to meet with his US counterpart. At the ASEAN-ISIS’ Asia-Pacific Roundtable, participants lamented the impact of major power tensions on ASEAN unity, even though ASEAN’s main challenges are internal ones that predate the downturn in China-US relations. Meanwhile, Beijing and Washington both expended considerable effort at these and other events throughout the reporting period fortifying and expanding their partnerships, even as many neighbors struggled not to choose sides or to keep a foot in both camps.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Partnerships, Strategic Competition, ASEAN, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

106. Reinforcing a Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Diplomacy and Deterrence in the Pivotal Year of 2022

Author:
James J Przystup
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
On February 24, 2022, Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine presented the world with a dramatic challenge to the rules-based international order. Ukraine’s fierce and continuing resistance has earned the backing of Western democracies. Under the leadership of the United States, democracies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific have rallied to provide political, diplomatic, and military support to Ukraine. As of this writing, despite difficult coordination on sensitive military issues, that unity remains intact. In the Indo-Pacific, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought preexisting security challenges into sharper relief. Across the region, security concerns were heightened and acquired greater definition in the Taiwan Strait and on the Korean Peninsula. More broadly, Russia’s aggression called into question the staying power of the rules-based international order and, at the same time, raised recognition of the inseparable nature of that order. As the United Kingdom’s former Foreign Secretary Liz Truss told the Atlantic Council on March 10, “conflict anywhere threatens security everywhere. Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security are indivisible.”1 This study begins with a consideration of the Indo-Pacific security environment as it evolved during 2022. It goes on to consider the measures by key regional actors—primarily but not exclusively the United States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, and India—that strengthened deterrence in the face of an increasingly challenging environment. Expanding diplomatic coordination and security cooperation reflects a strategic commitment by the region’s democracies to support a rules-based order and advance a shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. At the same time, European democracies have continued to expand diplomatic and security engagement with Indo-Pacific partners. The policy challenge for the United States and Western democracies has been to resist Russia’s aggression in Europe in support of the rules-based international order and, at the same time in the Indo-Pacific, to strengthen deterrence against the use of force or coercion to change the status quo.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Deterrence, International Order, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

107. EU-Pacific Talks: Taiwan and security dimension – lessons learned, Indo-Pacific containment

Author:
Adam Horry
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Europeum Institute for European Policy
Abstract:
During the first debate of the third edition of the EU-Pacific Talks, organised by EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy, participants engaged in a lively debate covering various aspects of Taiwan's status. They discussed the economic, military and value drivers behind Taiwan's importance, addressing concerns about China's approach and lessons from other global conflicts such as the war in Ukraine. Read what our guests debated in this report by Adam Horry.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Deterrence, Armed Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Taiwan, and Indo-Pacific

108. The Trilateral Security Dialogue, Defence Cooperation, & Artificial Intelligence

Author:
Aiden Warren, Charles T. Hunt, and Matthew Warren
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
This report investigates the prospects and difficulties of enhancing AI cooperation among Australia, Japan, and the United States under the Trilateral Security Dialogue (TSD) framework. Significant overlap in national AI objectives and vision, along with shared understandings of global AI competition and the security implications of AI development, exist among the TSD members. Insights from consultations and workshops with various stakeholders in Washington D.C. reveal a strong appetite for further cross-border collaboration in AI. However, several challenges persist across common standards, interoperability, trust, awareness, export control regimes, and data governance. The report, the first in a series, outlines key areas for building a robust and resilient AI partnership that can address the security challenges and opportunities in the Indo-Pacific region.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and Security Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, Australia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

109. India in the Indo-Pacific: Pursuing Prosperity and Security

Author:
Christopher Conte
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations
Abstract:
Research Papers in this compendium include: India, the Blue Economy and the Indo-Pacific’s Future (Amb. Rajiv Bhatia); Green Hydrogen: Securing the Energy Supply Chain in the Indo-Pacific (Amit Bhandari); Enhancing Regional Financial Intermediation in the Indo-Pacific (David Rasquinha); India’s Diaspora: Soft Power in the Indo-Pacific Countries (Sifra Lentin); India in the Resilient Supply Chain Initiative: Opportunities, Challenges & Possible Collaborations (Roger C. Liu); India’s Indispensable Role in Human and Economic Security in the Indo-Pacific (Cleo Paskal); Extending India’s Maritime Security Strategy in the Indo-Pacific (Cdr. Amrut Godbole); India’s Current and Potential Contribution to Cyber Resilience in the Indo-Pacific (Sameer Patil); Digital Public Goods for the Indo-Pacific: A Techno-legal Approach to Data Empowerment & Protection (Sanjay Anandaram & Manjeet Kripalani); India’s Role in Equipping Earth Observation Satellites for the Indo-Pacific (Dr. Chaitanya Giri).
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Economy, Maritime, Prosperity, Supply Chains, Hydrogen, and Satellite
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Indo-Pacific

110. NATO Should Defend Europe, Not Pivot to Asia

Author:
Jan Gerber
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
In 2021, the U.K., France, and Germany deployed 21 naval ships to the Indo-Pacific with a stated aim of helping the U.S. shoulder the burden of collective security and sustaining the “rules-based international order.” Naval deployments by the U.K., France, and Germany are symbolic and unlikely to affect the balance of power in Asia. A European pivot to the Indo-Pacific draws scarce attention and resources away from defense issues in Europe. Instead of encouraging Asian forays, the U.S. should encourage its European allies to assume primary responsibility for European security, freeing the United States to focus on the Pacific, if needed.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and NATO
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, France, Germany, and Indo-Pacific