Securing the Indian Ocean?

Indo-Pacific Governance Research Centre Policy Brief Issue 3 April 2012 THE INDO-PACIFIC GOVERNANCE RESEARCH CENTRE Securing the Indian Ocean? Competing Regional Security Constructions Dennis Rumley, Timothy Doyle & Sanjay Chaturvedi IPGRC POLICY BRIEFS IPGRC Policy Briefs present policy-relevant research to issues of governance within and beyond the Indo-Pacific region. The papers are written by members of the IPGRC and their research associates and are designed to contribute to public discussion and debate on crucial issues of global governance. The opinions expressed in this policy brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IPGRC or the University of Adelaide. Contact: Email: ipgrc@adelaide.edu.au http://www.adelaide.edu.au/indo -pacific-governance/policy/ Key Points: The content of the regional security debate and responses in Australia is primarily a reflection of three competing security constructions of the Indian Ocean Region. Firstly, an all-embracing concept of an Indian Ocean Region comprising up to 51 states at its largest scale to 19 states at the scale of the Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). Secondly, a scaled-down version of the first into the East Indian Ocean. Thirdly, an Indo-Pacific concept which emphasises the pre-eminence of regional naval power and ensures that India (along with Indonesia, Japan and the United States, among others) potentially plays a central policing role not only within the Indian Ocean Region. The move away from an Indian Ocean and towards an Indo-Pacific security construction has reignited the basic trilateral geopolitical tension faced by Australia s external linkages: that, culturally, Australia identifies primarily with Europe; that, economically, Australia s strongest links are with Asia, and especially China; and that, militarily and politically, Australia is aligned with the United States. About the Authors: Dennis Rumley, Professor of Indian Ocean Studies, University of Western Australia; Timothy Doyle, Professor of Politics and International Studies and Founding Chair of the Management Committee, for the IPGRC. University of Adelaide and Professor of Politics and International Relations, Keele University; and Sanjay Chaturvedi, Professor of Political Science, Panjab University. Policy brief prepared by Dr Mark Bode, University of Adelaide. This policy brief is based on an article by Rumley, D, Doyle, T & Chaturvedi, S Securing the Indian Ocean? Competing Regional Security Constructions' to be published in the Journal of the Indian Ocean Region in June 2012. Please direct all comments regarding the paper/policy brief to Professor Tim Doyle tim.doyle@adelaide.edu.au

Introduction In recent years, the regional security debate and responses in Australia have primarily reflected three competing security constructions of the Indian Ocean Region (see the table attached to this position paper on page 8 outlining key distinctions between the three regional conceptualizations). The first is an allembracing concept of an Indian Ocean Region comprising up to 51 states at its largest scale to 19 states at the scale of the Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). The second is a scaled-down version of the first into the East Indian Ocean. The third and largest in area is an Indo-Pacific concept which emphasises the pre-eminence of regional naval power and ensures that India (along with Indonesia, Japan and the United States, among others) potentially plays a central policing role not only within the Indian Ocean Region. A narrative based on an Indian Ocean Regional security construction tends to be perpetuated by liberal practitioners and commentators concerned primarily with non-traditional security issues, with the cooperative use of diplomacy and smart power in a regional community context. On the other hand, the dominant narrative based on an Indo-Pacific Region security construction tends to be propagated by conservative practitioners and commentators concerned principally with the use of collective traditional security and hard power directed either overtly or covertly towards individual states, and more particularly, towards China. While there are subservient interpretations of the Indo-Pacific concept that are inclusive of China, these inclusive maps are not the dominant geopolitical construction currently espoused. In this Policy Brief, we argue that there is an overriding narrative at work that deemphasises an Indian Ocean Regional security construction, while attempting to propagate a view in favour of a more US-centric/China exclusive Indo-Pacific regional security construction. We argue for a more inclusive definition of the Indo-Pacific, one that includes both China and the United States. Indian Ocean Region From a formal perspective, the Indian Ocean Region could be defined as comprising those states that border directly onto the Indian Ocean itself. From a functional point of view, we could define the Indian Ocean Region as comprising those 19 states that belong to the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). The 2

The 21 st century has seen a strategic reassessment of the global geopolitical significance of the Indian Ocean Region common formal and functional criterion is a border on, and an interest in, the Ocean itself. In the case of the latter criterion, we could include states associated with the tributary waters to the Indian Ocean as well as those land-locked states for which transit to and from the sea is primarily oriented towards the Indian Ocean. Using this broadest regional construction, we can identify a total of 51 states, 28 of which are Indian Ocean Rim states, plus a further 10 that are coastal states of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, together with an additional 13 Indian Ocean land-locked states One view of a preferred regional security construction is that it be built around this Indian Ocean Region. This view argues that strategic reassessments of the Indian Ocean Region and associated security challenges are contributing to the development of a new collective Indian Ocean security paradigm built on maritime regionalism. This paradigm is primarily designed to facilitate confidence building and to deal effectively with a wide range of so-called non-traditional security challenges. Significantly, however, the United States Unified Command Structure divides the Indian Ocean Region between USAFRICACOM and USPACOM, splitting the Indian Ocean in two. This division has resulted in a fragmented security organisation structure as far as the US approach to the IOR is concerned (Hastings 2011). Often changes in overall strategic direction fail to transpire simply because bureaucratic and departmental structures are pre-existing and well-entrenched, rather than because there is an acceptance or rejection of a new institutional architecture that reflects power shifts and new regional constellations (Doyle 2011). The East Indian Ocean A second competing regional security construction centres on the East Indian Ocean (EIO). We have been reminded recently that: Australia often forgets that it s a threeocean country. While Australia has had a unified policy framework for the Pacific Ocean, such an approach is lacking for the Indian Ocean as a whole (Bateman and Bergin 2010, p. 33). A full Australian engagement in an Indian Ocean-wide set of security initiatives is subject to the constraint of territorial overstretch : that is, the challenge of attempting to undertake too much engagement across too great a span of territory on too many issues (Rumley 2012, p. 103). Since Australia s geographical reach is limited, a more limited regional security construction might be preferred to begin with. While not neglecting the rest of the Indian Ocean Region, Australia, it is argued, should focus on the geographically closer East Indian Ocean (EIO) sub-region to enable practical cooperation and constructive dialogue (Bateman and Bergin 2010, 3

pp. 45-7). Importantly for this regional construction, the EIO is congruent with USAPACOM. The Indo-Pacific Region A third regional security construction is that of the Indo-Pacific region. Some commentators appear to take it for granted that we have now entered the Indo- Pacific century (Medcalf 2012, p. 13). Proponents exert us to believe that its emergence is both irresistible (Wesley 2011) and inevitable (Raja Mohan 2011). We are assured that the Asia-Pacific era died in 2011 and was replaced with the Indo- Pacific era. The conservative Australian journalist Greg Sheridan, for example, claims that the 60 th anniversary AUSMIN meeting in San Francisco in September 2011 marked the pivot point at which both Australia and the United States began to redefine their region not as the Asia-Pacific, but as the Indo-Pacific (Sheridan 2011). Significantly, the Indo-Pacific construction itself is contested. The University of Adelaide s Indo-Pacific Governance Research Centre defines the Indo-Pacific as the region spanning the Western Pacific Ocean to the Western Indian Ocean along the eastern coast of Africa (IPGRC 2011). The Indo-Pacific has also been defined as the areas of the Indian Ocean and the West Pacific (Curtis el al 2011, p. 1). Furthermore, it has been defined as an emerging Asian strategic system that encompasses both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, defined in part by the geographically expanding interests and reach of China and India, and the continued strategic role and presence of the United States in both (Medcalf, Heinrichs and Jones 2011, p. 56). Furthermore, increasing economic and trade linkages a process of regionalisation necessitates the construction of an Indo-Pacific regionalism. It appears that one of the practical security aims of the re-introduction of this regional construction is to shift the centre of gravity of Indian and Australian security concerns towards the South China Sea as a part of a burden-sharing strategy with the United States. It is thus in part an attempt by the United States to engage India and Australia (and others) while simultaneously being a mechanism for facilitating its hegemonic transition. USA and the Indo-Pacific It has been argued that the United States does not have a coherent geopolitical vision of the Indian Ocean Region and that the allocation of political and military 4

any potential security function either traditional or maritime security cooperation-that IOR-ARC might consider undertaking will likely take place at other forums, though IOR-ARC will remain an extremely useful regional governance form for a whole array of other cooperative ventures resources makes it difficult for the US to make a credible commitment to the security of the Indian Ocean Region. To the extent that the US has an alliance structure in the Indian Ocean Region, it is composed of the residual relationships from other strategically important regions, thus decreasing its ability to be turned to the security of the Indian Ocean Region. While the US Department of Defense rhetorically recognises the geopolitical importance of the Indian Ocean Region, there is no single US military command structure dedicated to the Indian Ocean Region, as noted earlier. The military forces that are prepositioned in the region are not insignificant, but are ill-suited for making the necessary commitments to the region as a whole. This spatial distribution of resources has implications, consequently, for the United States ability to claim that the Indian Ocean Region as a whole is at the core of its interests (Hastings 2011). The new imperative of shifting from an Indian Ocean to an Indo-Pacific regional security construction is driven, in part, by concerns over possible Chinese naval expansionism and by a concern over the use of Chinese naval power both in the Indian Ocean and in the South China Sea. From an American perspective, effectively managing these concerns requires the cooperation not only of India, but also of Australia, Indonesia, Japan and other states that possess similar concerns. Australia gains, it is argued, because it will obtain a US presence in a remote region which is of national economic significance and which is thus a potential subject of future threat. From an overall regional geopolitical perspective, the coalition will affect a closer monitoring, and potential control over, the eastern exits and entrances of Indian Ocean access routes. The end result is clearly of global geopolitical significance. The renewed interest in an Indo-Pacific construction on the part of the United States clearly has some basic implications for the long-term future of US-Australia security relations. The move away from an Indian Ocean and towards an Indo-Pacific security construction has reignited the basic trilateral geopolitical tension faced by Australia s external linkages: that, culturally, Australia identifies primarily with Europe; that, economically, Australia s strongest links are with Asia, and especially China; and that, militarily and politically, Australia is aligned with the United States (Rumley 2007, p. 137). Enhanced engagement has also been proposed by creating a formal trilateral dialogue among Australia, India and the United States that would be designed to face common security challenges in the Indo-Pacific Region (Curtis et al 2011). 5

Towards a more inclusive regional security construction One of the more important dimensions of contested regionalism is whether the scale or the type of regionalism includes or excludes certain states, and whether the type of regionalism is in full accord with, or conflicts in some way with, state/non-state goals. This dimension of contested regionalism can be seen to operate in practice from, first, the viewpoint of the state wishing to be included, and, second, from the perspective of the state or states wishing to implement exclusion. In either case, inclusion in/membership of regional constructions/organisations can be used as a mechanism for creating or reconstituting some form of regional identity (Rumley 2005). The depiction of the Indo-Pacific by most commentators and state actors in Australia, India and the United States, and the way it has been perceived in China, indicates that the current Indo-Pacific regional construction is exclusive and is thus directed towards China itself. The propagation of this concept in its present portrayal may well have unintended negative consequences which may lead to an increase in regional instability. As mentioned at the outset, we argue for an Australian model of regionalism which is inclusive of bilateral relationships with both China and the United States. Conclusion and implications The undoubted strength and influence of the Indo-Pacific regional security construction has some important implications for our other two Indian Ocean proposals IOR-ARC and EIO. For example, as aforesaid, the prospects for EIO security cooperation along the lines discussed earlier in the paper remain relatively bright, if only because the EIO is congruent with USAPACOM. However, any potential security function either traditional or maritime security cooperation that IOR-ARC might consider undertaking will likely take place at other forums, though IOR-ARC will remain an extremely useful regional governance form for a whole array of other co-operative ventures. 6

References Bateman, S. and Bergin, A. (2010), Our Western Front: Australia and the Indian Ocean, Barton, ACT: ASPI. Curtis, L. et al (2011), Shared Goals, Converging Interests: A Plan for US-Australia- India Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, Washington DC: Heritage Foundation, Department of Defense (2009). Doyle, T. (2011), Building Indian Ocean regionalisms: an agenda for IORG research, in V. Sakhuja, ed., Reinvigorating IOR-ARC, New Delhi: Pentagon Press, pp. 1-17. Hastings, J. (2011), The fractured geopolitics of the United States in the Indian Ocean Region, Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, Vol. 7 (2), in press. Medcalf, R., Heinrichs, R. and Jones, J. (2011), Crisis and Confidence: Major Powers and Maritime Security in Indo-Pacific Asia, Sydney: Lowy. Medcalf, R. (2012), Unselfish giants? Understanding China and India as security providers, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 66 (1), pp. 1-13. Raja Mohan, C. (2011), India and Australia: maritime partners in the Indo-Pacific, The Asialink Essays, Vol. 3 (7), November, pp. 1-4. Rumley, D. (2005), The geopolitics of Asia-Pacific regionalism in the 21 st century, The Otemon Journal of Australian Studies, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 3-25. Rumley, D. (2007), Australia s regional security challenges: a geopolitical perspective, in D. Rumley and D. Gopal, eds., Globalisation and Regional Security: India and Australia, Delhi: Shipra, pp. 133-157. Rumley, D. (2012), Refloating IOR-ARC: Australian perspectives, in V. Sakhuja, ed., Reinvigorating IOR-ARC, New Delhi: Pentagon Press, pp. 87-105. Sheridan, G. (2011), New Australia-US push deals India in to Pacific, The Australian newspaper, 17 September and available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/new-australia-us-push-deals-indiain-to-pacific/story-e6frg76f-1226139302534 Tuathail, G. Ó (1992), The Bush Administration and the End of the Cold War: A Critical Geopolitics of US Foreign Policy in 1989, Geoforum 23: 437-452. Wesley, M. (2011), Irresistible rise of the Indo-Pacific, The Australian newspaper, 4 May accessible at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/irresistible-rise-ofthe-indo-pacific/story-e6frg8nf-1226047014015. 7

Table: distinctions between the three regional conceptualizations Indian Ocean Region East Indian Ocean Indo-Pacific Region Diplomacy limited diplomacy traditional security 19 states comprise IOR-ARC Tripartite bloc US-India centric/excluding Pakistan excludes India; Iran excludes US; China Dialogue Partner Soft power Non-traditional security issues Australia/India/Indonesia Japan also key player Soft/hard power Australia-China contested Hard power Traditional security Pan-regionalists Sub-regionalists Nationalists Foreign affairs departments departments/consultants Liberal commentators Foreign affairs/defence Departments Liberal/conservative Commentators Defence Conservative commentators IPGRC Research Mission A primary focus of our research agenda is on political dynamics of governance and institutional innovations in the provision of public goods and regulation especially as it relates to economic and social development in the region. This will address issues relating to the organisation of markets and politics, and their effectiveness and fairness in addressing complex economic and social problems. It will also include an examination of the transformations of political organisation and authority at various scales global, national, and regional which have a bearing on the complex multilevel governance of the delivery of public goods and regulations. The centre has a particular focus on the global and regional challenges arising from the shifting tectonic plates of economic and political power to the Indo-Pacific region. 8