Russia, China, and the concept of Indo-Pacific

Bibliographic Data

ID6154516
AuthorsI E Denisov (0000-0001-5447-1164, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, corresponding author), О Г Парамонов (0000-0001-5497-1310, Moscow State Institute of International Relations), E Arapova (0000-0001-8765-9825, Moscow State Institute of International Relations), Ivan A Safranchuk (0000-0003-2214-6628, Moscow State Institute of International Relations)
Year2021
Volume12
Issue1
Pages72-85
Publication date2021-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Eurasian Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1879-3665 • E-ISSN: 1879-3673
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1879366521999899
OpenAlexW3137946023
LanguageEN
Citations received12
References cited16

The newly minted concept of the “Indo-Pacific Region” (IPR) is generally seen as a response by the United States and its allies to China’s growing influence in strategically important areas of the Pacific and Indian oceans. However, the view of IPR as a single (U.S.-led) anti-Beijing front is simplistic and misleading, obscuring a variety of approaches by the region’s states. New Delhi has a strong tradition of non-alignment, whereas Tokyo is more interested in rules that restrict unilateral actions not only by China but also by other regional players, including the United States. Australian business is very cautious about frictions in trade relations with China. Beijing views the growing military activity of the United States off its shores, including in the South China Sea, as a threat to regional stability. According to the authoritative Chinese sources, the Indo-Pacific strategy of Donald Trump is part of broader efforts to prevent China from becoming a dominant regional and global power. At the same time, the development of Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) understanding of the Indo-Pacific region is less of a concern to Beijing, as the South-East Asian countries interested in balancing China and the United States are unlikely to fully join the fight against the “authoritarian threat.” As for Russia, it unequivocally rejects the military/power-based U.S. version of the IPR concept and is more amenable to flexible versions promoted by other players, such as Tokyo’s multilateral vision for the Indo-Pacific Region. In the end, the final response of Russia and China to IPR will thus be determined not only by U.S. actions but also by the behavior of other regional powers

Authoritarianism · Beijing · China · Democracy · Development economics · East Asia · Economics · Economy · Geography · Great power · Indo-Pacific · International trade · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Global trade and economics · International Maritime Law Issues · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access