Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Regionalism for Realists? The Evolution of the Indo-Pacific

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Political Science Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neoliberal institutionalists frequently see regional organisations such as the EU, ASEAN or the EAS as expressions of the desire for economic integration, political cooperation and the resolution of collective action problems. In this formulation, the creation of inclusive regional identities is seen as one of the potentially desirable consequences of institution-building. The Indo-Pacific, by contrast, has since its inception been driven by a rather old-fashioned concern with the balance of power in a part of the world in which China is once again playing a dominant and destabilising role. We argue that realists still have much to tell us about the material forces that are not only transforming the region—however, it is defined—but also which underpin the rise to prominence of the Indo-Pacific idea in particular. The so-called ‘Quad’ countries are both the main drivers of the Indo-Pacific concept and a clear manifestation of its underlying goals and principles. In such circumstances, we argue, the Indo-Pacific is unlikely to reproduce even the rather modest levels of institutionalisation achieved by other organisations, primarily because this vision of the region is one that is not intended to address the sorts of collective action problems neoliberal institutionalists highlight. On the contrary, the Indo-Pacific rescales the region to include India and strategically aligns certain regional states in an old-fashioned quasi-alliance to the strategic threat posed by China.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Among an ever expanding list are ASEAN + 3, the East Asia Summit, ADMM + , the ASEAN Regional Forum, Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation.

  2. Author interview.

  3. It has become commonplace to make a distinction between regionalism, or the conscious efforts of political elites to create regions, and regionalisation, or the uncoordinated impact of private sector actors in fostering regional economic integration. See Breslin and Higgott (2000).

  4. It is important to note that Walt’s more nuanced interpretation of alliance theory focused on perceived threats, rather than simply the material balance of power, something that helps to explain the ‘failure’ of Asia’s minor power to balance against the United States in quite the manner we might otherwise expect.

References

  • Abe, S. 2007. Confluence of the Two Seas. In Paper presented at the Speech by H. E. Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan at the Parliament of the Republic of India, 22 August.

  • Acharya, A. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J. 2005. Hegemony: The new shape of global power. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aizawa, T. 2018. The philosophy and practice of the ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP)’ decoded from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Tokyo: Ocean Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G.T. 2017. Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides's trap?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASEAN. 2019. ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific. https://asean.org/asean-outlook-indo-pacific/. Accessed 23 June 2020.

  • Aso, T. 2006. Arc of freedom and prosperity: Japan's expanding diplomatic horizons. In Paper presented at the Japan Institute of International Affairs Summit, Tokyo, November 30

  • Auslin, M. 2010. Security in the Indo-Pacific commons: Toward a regional strategy. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Department of Defence. 2013. 2013 White Paper, ed. DoD. Canberra.

  • Australian Department of Defence. 2016. 2016 White Paper, ed. DoD. Canberra.

  • Beeson, M. 2006. American hegemony and regionalism: The rise of East Asia and the end of the Asia-Pacific. Geopolitics 11 (4): 541–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, M. 2009. Geopolitics and the making of regions: The fall and rise of East Asia. Political Studies 57 (3): 498–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, M. 2019. Asia's competing multilateral initiatives: Quality versus quantity. The Pacific Review 32 (2): 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, M. 2020. The decline of the West”: What is it, and why might it matter. In Paper presented at the ASIAGLOBAL PAPERS, Hong Kong.

  • Beeson, M., and R. Higgott. 2014. The changing architecture of politics in the Asia-Pacific: Australia's middle power moment? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lct016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, M., and D. Stone. 2013. The changing fortunes of a policy entrepreneur: The case of Ross Garnaut. Australian Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2012.760526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, S., and R. Higgott. 2000. Studying regions: Learning from the old, constructing the new. New Political Economy 5 (3): 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewster, D. 2010. The India-Japan security relationship: An enduring security partnership? Asian Security 6 (2): 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, R.C. 2013. The perils of proximity: China-Japan security relations. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, K.M. 2016. The Pivot: The future of American statecraft in Asia. New York: Twelve.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cha, V.D. 2016. Powerplay: The origins of the American alliance system. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. 2001. Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization 55 (3): 553–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, H. 2011. America's Pacific Century. Foreign Policy.

  • Copp, T. 2018. INDOPACOM, it is: US Pacific Command gets renamed. Military Times. May 30

  • Cumings, B. 2009. Dominion from sea to sea: Pacific ascendancy and American power. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Silva-Ranasinghe, S. 2016. The politics of the Two Ocean Navy: An interview with the Hon Kim Beazley. Australian Outlook.

  • DFAT. 2012. Australia in the Asian Century. White Paper Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dower, J.W. 1986. War without mercy: Race and power in the Pacific war. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D.W. 2007. All Politics is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dueck, C. 2015. The Obama doctrine: American grand strategy today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Envall, H.D.P., and I. Hall. 2016. Asian strategic partnerships: New practices and regional security governance: Asian strategic partnerships. Asian Politics & Policy 8 (1): 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. 2010. Australia’s Asian Future. https://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech423.html. Accessed 8 Sep 2020.

  • Friedberg, A.L. 1993. Ripe for rivalry: Prospects for peace in a multipolar Asia. International Security 18 (3): 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, Aaron L. 2018. Globalisation and Chinese grand strategy. Survival 60 (1): 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funabashi, Y. 1995. Asia Pacific fusion: Japan's role in APEC. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L. 1997. We now know: Rethinking Cold War history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, B., and M.J. Green. 2009. Unbundling Asia’s new multilateralism. In Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community, ed. M.J. Green and B. Gill. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Australia. 2013. Strong and secure—A strategy for Australia’s national interest. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M.J. 2017. By more than providence: Grand strategy and American power in the Asia Pacific since 1783. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grieco, J.M. 1999. Realism and regionalism: American power and German and Japanese institutional strategies during and after the Cold War. In Unipolar politics: Realism and state strategies after the Cold War, ed. E.B. Epstein and M. Mastanduno, 319–353. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D. 2018. India is the weakest link in the Quad. Foreign Policy.

  • Hemmer, C., and P.J. Katzenstein. 2002. Why is there no NATO in Asia? Collective identity, regionalism, and the origins of multilateralism. International Organization 56 (3): 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hille, K., E. White, P. Riordan, and J. Reed. 2020. The Trump factor: Asian allies question America’s reliability. Financial Times.

  • Hopf, T. 2010. The logic of habit in international relations. European Journal of International Relations 16 (4): 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosoya, Y. 2011. The rise and fall of Japan's grand strategy: The "arc of freedom and prosperity" and the future Asian order. Asia-Pacific Review 18 (1): 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ip, G. 2019. Despite trade truce, U.S.-China cold war edges closer. Wall Street Journal.

  • Jaipragas, B. 2017. Why is the US calling Asia-Pacific the Indo-Pacific? Donald Trump to “clarify”. South China Morning Post.

  • Jenkins, S. 2020. The coronavirus crisis has exposed the truth about the EU: It's not a real union. The Guardian.

  • Jones, D.M., and M.L.R. Smith. 2007. Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian regional order. International Security 32 (1): 148–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. 2018. The jungle grows back: American and our imperiled world. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R.D. 2014. Asia’s cauldron: The South China Sea and the end of a stable pacific. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P.J. 2005. A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Brown, T. 2018. Asia’s security triangles: Maritime minilateralism in the Indo-Pacific. East Asia 35 (2): 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liff, A.P. 2017. China and the US alliance system. The China Quarterly 233: 137–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, J. 2004. Rise of the Vulcans: The history of Bush's war cabinet. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. 2017. Asia's reckoning: China, Japan, and the fate of US power in the Pacific century. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, JJ. 1994/95. The false promise of institutions. International Security 19 (3):5–49.

  • Medcalf, R. 2013. The Indo-Pacific: What's in a name? The American interest 9 (2): 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medcalf, R. 2014. In defence of the Indo-Pacific: Australia's new strategic map. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68 (4): 470–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medcalf, R. 2019. Indo-Pacific visions: Giving solidarity a chance. Asia policy 14 (3): 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medcalf, R. 2020. Contest for the Indo-Pacific: Why China won't map the future. Carlton: Black Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. 2017. China’s Asian dream: Empire building along the new silk road. London: Zed Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Modi, N. 2018. Prime Minister’s keynote address at Shangri La Dialogue. https://mea.gov.in/SpeechesStatements.htm?dtl/29943/Prime_Ministers_Keynote_Address_at_Shangri_La_Dialogue_June_01_2018. Accessed 1 June 2020

  • Mohan, C.R. 2003. Crossing the rubicon: The shaping of India’s new foreign policy. New Delhi: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. 1998. The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, L.M. 2020. Challenges to ASEAN centrality and hedging in connectivity governance—regional and national pressure points. Pacific Review 1–31 (in press).

  • Nagao, S. 2013. Japan-India military partnership: India is the new hope for Asia. CLAWS 57–78.

  • Palit, A. 2016. India’s Act East Policy and implications for Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Affairs 1: 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panda, J. 2018. Does India Endorse a US-led regional order? East Asia Forum.

  • Panda, A. 2019. The ‘Quad’ isn’t about to take on a naval dimension—But it’s not going anywhere. The Diplomat.

  • Pandit, R. 2020. India, US agree to expedite work on BECA, strengthen defence ties. Times of India.

  • Pant, H., and P. Saha. 2019. Charting a clear course in the Indo-Pacific. Observer Research Foundation.

  • Phillips, A. 2016. From Hollywood to Bollywood: Recasting Australia’s Indo/Pacific Strategic Geography. Canberra: ASPI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. 2012. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pompeo, M.R. 2019. Trump administration diplomacy: The untold story. https://www.state.gov/trump-administration-diplomacy-the-untold-story. Accessed 8 Sep 2020.

  • Pompeo, M.R. 2020. Communist China and the Free world’s future Washington: US Department of State.

  • Pyle, K.B. 2007. Japan rising: The resurgence of Japanese power and purpose. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachman, G. 2020. India picks a side in the new cold war. Financial Times.

  • Ravenhill, J. 2001. APEC and the construction of Pacific rim regionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rix, A. 1990s. Japan and the region: leading from behind. In Pacific economic relations in the 1990s, ed. R. Higgott, R. Leaver, and J. Ravenhill, 62–82. Boulder: Lynne Reinner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., A. Habir, and L. Sebastian. 2015. Indonesia's ascent: Power, leadership, and the regional order. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R.S. 2012. The problem with the pivot. Foreign Affairs 91 (6): 70–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. 2013. Australia's embrace of the 'Indo-Pacific': New term, new region, new strategy? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 13 (3): 425–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. 2019a. The geoeconomics and geopolitics of Japan’s ‘Indo-Pacific’ strategy. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 6 (2): 136–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. 2019b. Indonesia grapples with the Indo-Pacific: Outreach, strategic discourse, and diplomacy. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 38 (2): 194–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. 2017. A ‘rules-based’ maritime order in the Indo-Pacific: Aligning the building blocks. In Regional Outlook Paper. Brisbane: Griffiths Asia Institute.

  • Singh, A. 2019. India bides its time in the Indian Ocean. East Asia Forum.

  • Smith, S. 2008. Australia and India: the strategic outlook. In Paper Presented at the Speech to the Confederation of Indian Industries, Chennai, 9 September.

  • Söderbaum, F. 2012. Theories of regionalism. In The Routledge handbook of Asian regionalism, ed. M. Beeson and R. Stubbs, 11–21. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steil, B., and Della Rocca, B. 2020. Chinese debt could cause emerging markets to implode. Foreign Affairs.

  • The US Whitehouse. 2016. Joint statement—United States and India: Enduring global partners in the 21st century. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/07/joint-statement-united-states-and-india-enduring-global-partners-21st. Accessed 7 June 2020.

  • Ueki, C.K. 2020. Japan’s China strategy. Security Challenges 16 (3): 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Defense. 2019. Indo-Pacific strategy report: Preparedness, partnerships and promoting a networked region.

  • Van Langenhove, L. 2013. What is a region? Towards a statehood theory of regions. Contemporary Politics 19 (4): 474–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. 2020. Everyone misunderstands the reason for the U.S.-China Cold War. Foreign Policy.

  • White, H. 2017. Without America: Australia in the new Asia. Quarterly Essay 68: 1–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, T.S. 2011. Japan's alliance diversification: A comparative analysis of the Indian and Australian strategic partnerships. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (1): 115–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Jeffrey D. 2018. Rescaling to the Indo-Pacific: From economic to security-driven regionalism in Asia. East Asia 35 (2): 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yahuda, M. 1996. The international politics of the Asia-Pacific, 1945–1995. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Beeson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beeson, M., Lee-Brown, T. Regionalism for Realists? The Evolution of the Indo-Pacific. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 6, 167–186 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00163-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00163-0

Keywords

Article history

  1. Latest

    Regionalism for Realists? The Evolution of the Indo-Pacific
    • Mark Beeson
    • Troy Lee-Brown
    Published:
    01 June 2021
    Received:
    06 July 2020
    Accepted:
    16 September 2020

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00163-0

Navigation