East Asia

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 117–132 | Cite as

Chinese Expanded Perceptions of the Region and Its Changing Attitudes Toward the Indo-Pacific: a Hybrid Vision of the Institutionalization of the Indo-Pacific

  • Baogang HeEmail author


The existing literature on the Indo-Pacific has largely focused on how and why the USA, Japan, Australia, India, and Indonesia have promoted the strategic concept of the Indo-Pacific, and how China has rejected it in the domain of maritime security. What has been overlooked, however, are dramatically expanded Chinese perceptions of the region and changing and complex Chinese attitudes and responses toward the Indo-Pacific. This essay aims to fill this gap by demonstrating how China has coopted certain components of the Indo-Pacific in its geoeconomic hegemonic project. This can be partially explained by unfolding and expanding Chinese perceptions of the region, characterized by geoeconomics and maritime/continental hybridity. This paper brings a missing perspective to the debate by highlighting China’s evolving, complex, and multifaceted approaches regarding the Indo-Pacific. It also offers a conceptual tool of a hybrid vision of the institutionalization of the Indo-Pacific for the enterprise of regional cooperation.


The Indo-Pacific The Quad Belt and Road Initiative Chinese perceptions of the region Shanghai Cooperation Organization China-CEE cooperation 



The author would like thank Professors Chengxin Pan, Mark Beeson and Kai He for their constructive comments and suggestions; Matt Hood and Tom Barber for their research assistance, and the participants for their critical questions on my keynote speech at PHISO International Conference, March 22–24, 2018, Davao City, Philippines.


  1. 1.
    Abe, S. (2007). Confluence of the Two Seas, Speech at the Parliament of the Republic of India, speech presented at the Parliament of the Republic of India. Retrieved from
  2. 2.
    Abe, S. (2012). Asia’s Democratic Security Diamond, Project Syndicate (December 27).
  3. 3.
    Beeson, M. (2018). Institutionalizing the Indo-Pacific: The challenges of regional cooperation [Workshop]. The conceptual paper for this special issue.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bisley, N. (2016). Indo-Pacific: the Maritime and the Continental, ASPI Strategist (November 21).
  5. 5.
    Brewster, D. (2016). The Indo-Pacific Century: New Concept, New Challenges, APPS Policy Forum (August 10).
  6. 6.
    Brown, K. (2017). China’s Geopolitical Aims: The Curious Case of the 16-Plus-1. The Diplomat (May 3).
  7. 7.
    Chacko, P. (2014). The Rise of the Indo Pacific: Understanding Ideational Change and Continuity in India’s Foreign Policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(4), 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    China-Central and Eastern Europe Cooperation Fund (2017).
  9. 9.
    Clark, I. (1980). Indian Ocean. In W. J. Hudson (Ed.), Australia in World Affairs 1971–75 (pp. 306–323). Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coorey, P. (2017). Australia Backs Restoration of 'anti-China' Security Grouping. (2017, November 7). Financial Review.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ding Dong. (2018). Trump’s ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy Opens a New Cold War Against China. Greater Power Policy (March 5). China Institute of National Defence Finance Studies, No. 3, 14–20.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gyngell, A. (2018) Accessed May 7, 2018.
  13. 13.
    He, B. (2011). The Awkwardness of Australian Engagement with Asia: The Dilemmas of Australian Idea of Regionalism. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, B. (2017a). Australian Ideas of Regionalism. In M. Beeson. and S. Hameiri (Eds.), Navigating the New International Disorder: Australia in World Affairs 2011–2015. Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    He, B. (2017b). Contested Ideas of Regionalism in Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    James, P. E. and Martin, G. (1981). A History of Geographical Ideas. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan, R. D. (2009). The Revenge of Geography. Foreign Policy, 172, 96–105.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, S., Milner, A. (2014). Practical vs. Identity Regionalism: Australia’s APC Initiative, A Case Study Contemporary Politics, 20(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGregor, R. (2018). With China or Without. Lowy Institute (April 11). Accessed May 7, 2018.
  20. 20.
    Medcalf, R. (2013). The Indo-Pacific: What’s in a Name? The American Interest, 9(2).
  21. 21.
    Medcalf, R. (2014). In Defence of the Indo-Pacific: Australia’s New Strategic Map. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(4), 470–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michel, C. (2017). SCO Set to Expand, Adding India and Pakistan. The Diplomat (June 6).
  23. 23.
    National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2017, December 18). Accessed May 3, 2018, p.46.
  24. 24.
    Pan, C. (2014). The “Indo-Pacific” and Geopolitical Anxieties about China’s Rise in the Asian Regional Order. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(4), 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Panetta, L. (2012). Partners in the 21st Century. Address on Indo-US Defence Relations, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, June 6, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pepe, J. M. (2017). China’s Inroads into Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe: Implications for Germany and the EU. German Council on Foreign Relations, March 2017.
  27. 27.
    Perspectives on Security: Prospects for Partnership for a Safer Indo-Pacific. (2015). The Australian Centre of China in the World and the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.
  28. 28.
    Santikajaya, A. (2013). Challenge to ASEAN as an Indo-Pacific Security Connector. East Asia Forum.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scott, D. (2012). India and the Allure of the “Indo-Pacific”. International Studies, 49(3&4), 1–24.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shekhar, V. and Liow, J. C. (2014). Indonesia as a Maritime Power: Jokowi’s Vision, Strategies, and Obstacles Ahead. Brookings Institute (February 7). Accessed May 4, 2016.
  31. 31.
    Singh, A. G. (2016). India, China and the US: Strategic Convergence in the Indo-Pacific. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 12(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Staff [Reuters]. (2018). Australia, U.S., India and Japan in Talks to Establish Belt and Road Alternative. Reuters (February 19).
  33. 33.
    The African Link in China’s OBOR Initiative, Centre for Chinese Studies (2017).
  34. 34.
    Velloor, R. (2017). ASEAN is Fulcrum of Indo-Pacific Strategy. The Straits Times.
  35. 35.
    Wang, J. (2012). Toward West: China’s Geostrategic Rebalance. Global Time (October 17).
  36. 36.
    Wilkins, T. (2010). Building Regional Security Architecture: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: From an Organisational Theories Perspective. In P. A. Mehdi (Ed.), State, Society and International Relations in Asia (pp. 163–178). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Xi, J. (2014). The Governance of China. Beijing: Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xue, L. (2016). Over the Belt and Road Initiative versus Rebalance of the Indo-Pacific: Cooperation in Competition. World Economy and Politics (5).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xue, L. (2018). Balance not Containment: the USA’s China Policy Behind the Notion of ‘Indo-Pacific’. Greater Power Policy (March 5). China Institute of National Defence Finance Studies, No. 3, 1–3.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhao, M. (2013). The Emerging Strategic Triangle in Indo-Pacific Asia. The Diplomat (June 4).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwood Campus, MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations