Wherefore the Indo Pacific?  A brief thought piece

The past week has been an eventful one vis a vis discourses relating to the Indo Pacific.  It started for me at a round table held at RUSI’s HQ in Whitehall on Thursday 29th June on the topic of “UK & Europe’s Relations with the Indo-Pacific”.  Then to keeping a watching brief on the Shangri-la Dialogues organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in Singapore (30th May – 1st June), and ending with the Government’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 which was unveiled on Monday 2nd June.

So what is the significance of the “Indo-Pacific” region?  A German academic Karl Hauschofer is often credited with coining the term in the 1920s, referring to the countries connected via the Indian and Pacific Oceans.  However often we see its use as coded expression to exclude any mention of China, by far the most influential power in the region.  The Indo-Pacific has become more commonly used in the context of defence and security issues whereas “Asia Pacific” would for example be a more neutral term, whilst ASEAN+5, or signatories to CPTPP or RCEP (both excluding the US) more specific references where discussions revolved around trade matters.

The round table at RUSI organized by the Centre for Geopolitics, Cambridge was focused on the study of the Indo-Pacific to cover security, economic and other dimensions.  However inevitably discussions would lead back to the US and China rivalry – the elephant and dragon in the room!  This was of course unavoidable given that we are in the era of Trump 2.0 with rapidly shifting geo-political sands, not to mention and a full-blown trade war between the US and the rest of the world!

As for the IISS Shangrila Dialogues, we read about the no show from Defence Minister of China, DongJun, probably a public snub of the US Defence Minister, Peter Hegseth.  The latter made a belligerent speech on the need to counter China’s “imminent” threat in the South China Sea and calling on Asian countries to boost their respective defence budgets.  However, US’s policy of strategic ambiguity policy towards Taiwan remains as before – ambiguous.

Were I in Singapore, the host country, at the time, I would most likely have trailed Macron and PM Lawrence at the Lau Pa Sat, for a wefie!  But more seriously, I share the sentiments and political views of other ASEAN nations including President Prabowo of Indonesia who look to “hedging” our interests, advocating principles over power play in pursuit of a middle way, and calling for more inclusive communication.  In other words jaw jaw rather than war war to misquote Winston Churchill.

Finally, to UK’s Strategic Defence Review, and the question of whether there will be any change to its Indo-Pacific strategy?  There were hints of continued engagement and certainly continuing with partnerships such as AUKUS with Australia and the US.  However there is also expression of caution with regard to any expeditionary deployments which should not detract from UK’s commitment to NATO’s core Euro-Atlantic commitments.   Though China is described as a “sophisticated and persistent challenge” UK’s position unlike the US’s or the EU’s is not to view China as a rival or adversary.

Comments?

* Merlene is a Director of Paddy Ashdown Policy and Research Forum Limited and editor of the PAF’s publications on “The Rise of China” and “The Five Decade Journey of EU-ASEAN Relations”.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

13 Comments

  • Mike Peters 6th Jun '25 - 5:05pm

    My comment is this: China is clearly preparing itself to be able to reassert control over Taiwan which it views – with some justification – as the part of the China that did not come under Chinese communist control at the same time as the rest of the country.

    If the Chinese government does launch an invasion, it should not be viewed in the same light as if China decided to invade the Philippines or some other country. Whether the USA wants to get involved in what China regards as an internal, Chinese affair, is up to the USA, but we should stay well clear.

  • David Evans 6th Jun '25 - 6:40pm

    While acknowledging the logic of Mike Peter’s comment from many viewpoints, there are so many locations in the world where a large, powerful nation regards another piece of land or even sea as part of its territory. The claim is usually based on some historic view varying between:-

    1) the fact that the territory was largely unoccupied but occasionally used by its ancestors, through
    2) inhabitants of the area being indigenously of the same nationality, to
    3) past occupation and administration that was lost or not maintained.

    The first example is effectively the basis for the CCP’s view of most islands in the South China Sea
    The Second example was Germany’s claim over the Sudetenland or Russia’s current claim over Ukraine
    The third is largely the state of Israel’s view of the West Bank, Gaza and other parts of what was Palestine or the CCP’s claim over Taiwan.

    Most are morally dubious due to a contrary viewpoint of the majority of current inhabitants.

    However, the reason Taiwan is so vitally important strategically on the international stage as that it currently produces about 66% of chips and 90% of the Superchips. It would be a political disaster to all of us if that fell into the hands of China.

  • Simon McGrath 6th Jun '25 - 6:40pm

    Merlene – thanks for this very interesting article. Fascinating to read about the origin of ‘ Indo Pacific and the way it is used.

    I was struck on the SDR that at the same time the Govt is ( rightly ) talking about the threat from Putin , it is sending our principal naval force to the other side of the world !

  • Peter Chambers 7th Jun '25 - 12:25pm

    @Simon

    In the Great War the Royal Navy had five Battleship Squadrons (BS).
    BS6 was provided by the USN, under Entente command (the RN).

    The USA is merely returning the favour in the modern day.
    The UK has the privilege of providing CSG 12.

  • Paul Reynolds 7th Jun '25 - 12:33pm

    Thanks Merlene for a useful briefing. (My you have been busy!).

    The UK has an (informal-ish) agreement with the US on naval patrols around Taiwan/Formosa with a distinct division of labor between the two forces. This at least in part explains the distribution of naval assets.

    UK-China relations are indicative of a serious ‘big picture’ problem that the UK now has.

    The Starmer government has participated in the ‘increasing China threat’ narrative, whilst trying to improve trade relations behind the scenes. This has not gone particularly well, unsurprisingly. The UK is now falling in with the ‘nation-builders’ (as Trump calls US neoconsevatives) in their miltaristic anti-China rhetoric, which is an implied challenge to Trump’s orginal ‘economy first’ line.

    With Brexit and the EUs almost-unified focus on Ukraine, taken together with shaky Downing St – White House relations, the UK is facing the potential of being stranded geopoltically, featuring strained relations with the US, EU, China, and according to Fiona Hill, diectly at war with the Russian Federation.

    No doubt the Chinese Communist Party are prepared for an invasion of Taiwan (its own territory – the UK and US still formally accept that Taiwan is part of China) in order to prevent independence, especially given rhetoric from Hesketh & Co. However, the policy of the CCP is to avoid war if a all possible. The the reasons for this are clear; the unelected CCP depends on economic growth to stay in power. A military conflict with Taiwan and the USA would partially destroy the Chinese economy.

  • Merlene raises extremely important issues. I doubt if China will pass up the chance to annex Taiwan during Trump’s reign – they must know a paper tiger when they see one, but who owns the Taiwanese super-chip factories doesn’t matter much, as the chips could be manufactured in the US.
    More important is that the sixth great extinction (the Anthropocene one) is happening, and is unstoppable. When the effects become significantly worse, the human race could either band together to try to slow it down, or fight over who gets the dwindling means of survival (the far more likely scenario), and if we continue to cast China as an enemy they will find it easier to write off the non-Chinese world as ‘expendable’. It suits Trump to vilify China, for purely domestic political gain, but we ought to be building bridges, and not letting our global view be led by a deranged narcissist.

  • Mick Taylor 8th Jun '25 - 9:25am

    The real question: Is it worth going to war with China over Taiwan?
    Perhaps, instead of cosying up to China and trying to get trade deals, we should be preparing to stop all trade with China, along with the rest of our allies. China needs to trade to support its population and economy.
    Of course, the governments of most ‘Western’ nations won’t be prepared to sacrifice profits to do the right thing. Instead they will cry crocodile tears and continue to arm both sides.

  • Today’s Observer carries a further reminder that China is hoovering up fish at an alarming rate from all over the world, with seemingly little regard for anyone else, or the consequences of their actions for the marine ecosystems. This is an example of how we already need to be on sufficiently friendly terms with China to be able to talk them into an international effort to preserve fish stocks. Making them feel the western world is against them (as Trump seems determined to do) will make it easier for them to shrug off our concerns, and go their own way.

  • Simon McGrath 8th Jun '25 - 10:19am

    @Mick – ‘Of course, the governments of most ‘Western’ nations won’t be prepared to sacrifice profits to do the right thing. Instead they will cry crocodile tears and continue to arm both sides.’
    which Western Governments are arming China ?

  • David Evans 8th Jun '25 - 12:44pm

    Andy,

    I appreciate your comment, but have you considered the logistics required to make your thought “who owns the Taiwanese super-chip factories doesn’t matter much, as the chips could be manufactured in the US” a meaningful possibility?

    David

  • Thank you for this thoughtful and balanced reflection. Your point about the term “Indo-Pacific” shifting from a geographic label to a political one is quite relevant. I especially appreciated your insight on ASEAN’s approach of how strategic hedging is not a sign of indecision, but a careful effort to stay flexible amid growing global divisions. That kind of nuance is often overlooked in public debates.

  • @David Evans, yes I have. When China takes back Taiwan and owns the sole provider of sophisticated chips it could either keep the price the same or make them prohibitively expensive. If they do that, the business case for spending $billions on building a similar factory in the US becomes stronger. Anyway, I think I’ve read somewhere that plans to manufacture them in the US are already under way. As I understand it, it’s fiendishly difficult to make the ‘super-chips’, but if they can do it in Taiwan, it must be possible to do it somewhere else.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    "Inequality in the UK is not increasing". ??? It depends on how it's measured. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/182967/economics/inequality-i...
  • Andy Daer
    There are many domestic matters which need Liberal Democrat attention, because of a number of failures by the new Labour Administration to live up to expectatio...
  • David McDowall
    Understood there is intense competition for space on the Conference agenda, but I was taken aback that the LDFP-proposed motion on the future of Palestine and I...
  • Mohammed Amin
    I disagree with the author's starting point. Inequality in the UK is not increasing. There was a significant increase in inequality from about 1980-1994 but ...
  • Graham Jeffs
    "working people", that nauseating expression, is Labour code for "working class". It certainly doesn't mean people earning really good salaries. The Labour Part...