Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Strategic Game in Indo-Pacific Region and Its Impact on China’s Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Annual Report on the Development of the Indian Ocean Region (2018)

  • 508 Accesses

Abstract

Recently, the term of “Indo-Pacific” has often been mentioned by US, Japan, Australia as well as India. The Trump administration’s strategy for advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific, which aims to place multiple big powers or middle powers in the Great Chessboard of “Indo-Pacific” to cope with the rise of China and form a balance among major powers under the American hegemony. It can be said that the “Indo-Pacific” strategy is a continuation of “Asia-Pacific Rebalancing” and a new containment against China in the Indo-Pacific Region. It seems that China is excluded from the strategic system, but in fact it is not only involved, but also the main target of the “Indo-Pacific” strategic conception. The core region of this strategy includes the West Pacific and Bay of Bengal in the East Indian Ocean. The main intention of the US is to make India, Japan and Australia as the strategic strongholds, especially by taking the strategic advantage of India in the East Indian Ocean to exert pressure on the Western Pacific and squeeze China’s strategic space. In this strategic dynamics, China will not only inevitably be facing some pressures brought by the “hegemonic threat” in this region, but will also suffer a negative impact on China’s promotion of economic integration here, as well as the security order in the region. Although the “Indo-Pacific” strategy is at the conception stage, or more of a “strategic deterrent”, and there is still a lot of uncertainty in whether it can be implemented in the future, but the strategic game caused by the US’s regarding China as a competitor will continue. Based on this, China should regard the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas as a whole from the perspective of geo-economics and make plan in combination with the “Belt and Road”. China can take the advantages of its geo-economic advantages to explore positive factors in the “Indo-Pacific” geo-economy, accelerate the integration of the economies of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific regions and resolve the “security dilemma” in geopolitics with geo-economy as a breakthrough. China can create and utilize opportunities for cooperation with the countries in this region and appropriately expand the maritime rights and strategic space to serve the construction of “Belt and Road”, especially the 21st Maritime Silk Road.

Zhu Cuiping, professor, Deputy director, Research Institute for Indian Ocean Economies(RIIO), Yunnan University of Finance and Economics; Her research fields include Indian Ocean strategy, South Asia issues and Sino-Indian relations.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Taylor (2014).

  2. 2.

    Zhao (2017).

  3. 3.

    Li Anfang: From “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”, Which Four Sticker Does the United States Lack of for Its “Strategic Flickering? http://www.shobserver.com/news/detail?id=71243.

  4. 4.

    Jin (2017).

  5. 5.

    For related studies, see: Rong (2017, pp. 48–61), Xia (2015a, pp. 32–51), Wei (2013, pp. 140–160), Cao (2014), Lin (2018a), Zhu (2014a, pp. 40–65); Zhu (2016), Zhang (2013), Wu (2014), Zhao (2013), Xu (2017), Chen (2015), Wang (2016a, pp. 49–60).

  6. 6.

    Mcdaniel (2012), Quoted from Wei (2013, p. 141).

  7. 7.

    Jin (2013).

  8. 8.

    Lin (2018b).

  9. 9.

    Chen (2012a).

  10. 10.

    American Department of Defense (2012).

  11. 11.

    Xia (2015a, p. 35).

  12. 12.

    Zhu (2014a).

  13. 13.

    Trump Has Issued Three Hit Reports and Stepped up the Implementation of the “Indo-Pacific” Strategy, China Youth Daily, February 24, 2018, http://news.ifeng.com/a/20180224/56231054_0.shtml.

  14. 14.

    The full text of the US National Security Strategy Report both in English and Chinese, http://www.sohu.com/a/213628403_120790.

  15. 15.

    Hillary R. Clinton, “Remarks on India and the United States: Vision for the 21st Century”, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1107/S00450/remarks-on-india-and-the-united-statesvision-for-the-21st-c.htm.

  16. 16.

    Zhu (2013, p. 8).

  17. 17.

    India Has Become the Largest Arms Buyer, http://news.163.com/17/0318/14/CFQL7SGV00014AED.html.

  18. 18.

    Brzezinski (1998).

  19. 19.

    Li and Li (2015).

  20. 20.

    Ma (2015).

  21. 21.

    Song Wei: The US New Security Strategy Has Intensified the Arms Race in East Asia, http://news.163.com/18/0212/07/DAE8LFFM00018AOR.html.

  22. 22.

    Zhang (2015).

  23. 23.

    Lou (2017).

  24. 24.

    Zhang Wenmu: National Strategic Capabilities and Geographical Game, http://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1596600717819060726&wfr=spider&for=pc.

  25. 25.

    Kaplan (2013a, p. 30).

  26. 26.

    Kaplan (2013b).

  27. 27.

    Xiao (2014).

  28. 28.

    Waltz (2008, p. 112).

  29. 29.

    Mansell (2003).

  30. 30.

    Liu (2017).

  31. 31.

    Brewster (2016).

  32. 32.

    Wang (2016b, p. 109).

  33. 33.

    Indian Blue Book: The annual growth rate of India’s defense budget has remained at 10% in recent years, http://world.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0510/c1002-29266597.html.

  34. 34.

    Waltz (2008, p. 134).

  35. 35.

    Zhu (2013, p. 1).

  36. 36.

    Kissinger (2015).

  37. 37.

    Dehio (2016), Quoted from Han and Huang (2017).

  38. 38.

    Zhu (2014a, p. 52).

  39. 39.

    Mearsheimer (2015).

  40. 40.

    Kaplan (2013a, p. 227).

  41. 41.

    Wang (2016a, pp. 49–50).

  42. 42.

    Zhu (2018).

  43. 43.

    Kaplan (2013a, p. 221).

  44. 44.

    Wang (2016a, p. 54).

  45. 45.

    Xia (2015b).

  46. 46.

    Zhang (2012).

  47. 47.

    Zhu (2014a, pp. 61–62).

  48. 48.

    Zhu (2014a, p. 64).

  49. 49.

    Zhou (2013).

  50. 50.

    Chen (2012b).

  51. 51.

    Objective security means that there is no exact threat from the material aspect. Subjective security refers to psychologically defining the feeling that there is no threat.

  52. 52.

    Jiang and Li (2017).

  53. 53.

    Yang (2017).

  54. 54.

    Rong (2017, pp. 48–50).

  55. 55.

    Zhu (2014b).

  56. 56.

    Kissinger (2009).

  57. 57.

    Zhu (2017).

  58. 58.

    Kaplan (2013a, p. 123).

  59. 59.

    Song (2012).

  60. 60.

    Wang (2016b, pp. 109–110).

  61. 61.

    The Report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China puts forward: Adhere to the Coordination of Land And Sea to Accelerate the Construction of a Maritime Power, People’s Daily, October 18, 2017, http://www.cme.gov.cn/info/1527.jspx.

  62. 62.

    Xi Jinping delivered a keynote speech at the Boao Forum (full text), https://m.zhangle.com/views/information/newspaper.htm?repetId=100100796860&titleTag=1&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0.

  63. 63.

    Xi Jinping proposed to adhere to the path of peaceful development and promote the building of a community of human destiny, http://cpc.people.com.cn/19th/n1/2017/1018/c414305-29594530.html.

References

  • American Department of Defense. 2012. Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewster, David. 2016. The Ocean of India: The Truth of India Seeking Regional Leadership, translated by Youkang Du and Yue Mao, 2016 ed., 232. Social Science Literature Publishing House [Australia].

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzezinski, Zbigeon. 1998. The great chessboard: The United States’ preliminary position and its geo-strategy, translated by the China Institute of International Studies, 1998 ed., 4. Shanghai People’s Publishing House [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Yuyang. 2014. The Maritime Security Deployment and Impact of US “Indo-Pacific” Strategy. Modern International Relations 8: 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Yali. 2012a. The “Rebalancing” Strategy of the United States: A Realistic Assessment and China’s Response. World Economics and Politics 11: 68–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Tong. 2012b. Returning to Geographical Characteristics, Exploring the Essence of Sea Power. World Economy and Politics 2: 60–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Bangyu. 2015. The Similarities and Differences of the Strategic Conception of the US-Australia-India and China’s Response. Socialist Studies 6: 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehio, Ludwig. 2016. The Vulnerable Balance: The Power Struggle of Four Centuries in Europe, translated by Yinhong Shi, 2016 ed., 24, People’s Publishing House [German].

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Zhaoying, and Zhaolong Huang. 2017. The Problem of Check and Balance: Rethinking the Absence of the United States Check and Balance after the Cold War. Pacific Journal 11: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Peng, and Shujian Li. 2017. The Illusory Incompatibility and Imaginable Security Dilemma—The Mutual Assistance Construction of Hostile Identity in the Process of Power Transfer. International Safety 1: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Canrong. 2013. The United States Motivation Behind the Concept of “Indo-Pacific”. Xinhuanet, 11 Jan 2013, http://news.xinhuanet.com/globe/2013-01/11/c_132095969.htm.

  • Jin, Canrong. 2017. The Concept of “Indo-Pacific” Is Like a Bubble, Gone with the Sun. Global Times, 22 Nov 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Robert D. 2013a. The Upcoming Geopolitical War, translated by Pu Han, 2013 ed. Guangdong People’s Publishing House [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Robert D. 2013b. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of US Power, translated by Zhaoli Wu and Yue Mao, 2013 ed., 8. Beijing: Social Science Literature Publishing House [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger, Henry. 2009. The Global Strategy of the United States, translated by Liping Hu and Jianping Ling, 2009 ed., 9. Hainan Publishing House [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger, Henry. 2015. World Order, translated by Liping Hu et al., 2015 ed., 303–304 CITIC Publishing Group [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Xiao, and Junjiu Li. 2015 The Belt and Road Initiative and the Reconstruction of China’s Geopolitical and Economic Strategies. World Economics and Politics 10: 53–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Minwang. 2018a. The Construction of “Indian” and the Tension of Asian Geopolitics. Diplomatic Review 1: 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Minwang. 2018b. The Construction of “Indo-Pacific” and the Tension of Asian Geopolitics. Diplomatic Review 1: 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Siwei. 2017 Development and Reconstruction of the Indian Ocean Security Governance System. International Safety Research 5: 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Chunhao. 2017. A New Posture Review of US-India Defense Cooperation. International Studies 1: 106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Jianying. 2015. Cognition and Response of the United States to the Belt and Road Initiative. World Economics and Politics 10: 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansell, O. 2003. The Logic of Collective Action, translated by Yuqi Chen, 2003 ed., 2. Shanghai People’s Publishing House [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcdaniel, D. 2012. India, China and the United States in the Indo-Pacific Region: Coalition, Co-existence or Clash?, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer. 2015. The Tragedy of Power Politics, translated by Yiwei Wang and Xiaosong Tang, 2015 ed., 391. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medcalf, Rory. 2012. Unselfish Giants? Understanding China and India as Security Providers. Australian Journal of International Affairs 66 (1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raja Mohan, C. 2013. SAMUDRA MANTHAN-Sino-Indian Rivary in the Indo-Pacific, 212. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rong, Ying. 2017. A New Trend of Strategic Interaction between the Powers in Indo-Pacific Region from the “Malabar” Military Exercise. Peace and Development 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumley, Dennis, Timothy Doyle, and Sanjay Chaturvedi. 2012. Securing the Indian Ocean? Competing Regional Security Constructions. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 8 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Dexing. 2012. Strategic Realism—A Choice for China’s Grand Strategy. World Economy and Politics 9: 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Melissa Conley. 2014. Differences between Australia and India on the Understanding of “Indo-Pacific”. Indian Ocean Economies Research 1: 138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kennedy. 2008. International Political Theory, translated by Xinqiang, 2008 ed. Shanghai Century Publishing House [United States].

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Xiaowen. 2016a. The Impact of the US “Indo-Pacific” Strategy on the South China Sea Issue: Focusing on the “Indo-Pacific” Strategic Supporting Countries. Southeast Asian Studies 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Jisi. 2016b. Strategy of Powers: Exploration and Reflection on International Strategy, 2016 ed. CITIC Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Zongyou. 2013. Strategic Adjustment of the US in India and the Influence of Geostrategy. World Economics and Politics 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Zhaoli. 2014. The Origin of Indo-Pacific and Multi-country Strategic Game. Journal of the Pacific 1: 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, Liping. 2015a. The US “Indo-Pacific” Strategy from the Perspective of Geopolitics and Geo-Economics. American Studies 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, Liping. 2015b. The US “Indo-Pacific Strategy” from the Dual Perspective of Geopolitics and Geo-Economics. American Studies 2: 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Yang. 2014. The Strategic Space Expansion of a “Medium Power”—Australian Security Reconstruction under the Vision of “Indo-Pacific” Strategy. Pacific Journal 1: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Juan. 2017. The US-India-Japan Maritime Security Cooperation in the Context of “Indo-Pacific” Strategy. South Asian Studies 2: 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Siling. 2017. The India Ocean and the US-Japan Interaction for Ocean Security: An Offensive Realism Perspective. International Safety Research 5: 74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Jianxin. 2012. The Post-Western International System and the Rise of the East. World Economics and Politics 5: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Li. 2013. The Impact of the “Indo-Pacific” Conception on the Multilateral Landscape of the Asia-Pacific Region. South Asian Research Quarterly 4: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Jiegen. 2015. The Analysis of Current US-India Security Cooperation and Prospect. Research on Indian Ocean Economies 1: 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Qinghai. 2013. The Concept of “Indo-Pacific” and Its Implications for China. Modern International Relations 7: 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Minghao. 2017. The United States “Indo-Pacific” Strategy: Old Wine in Old Bottles? Beijing News, 20 Nov 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Zhe. 2013. A Probe into the Political Motivation of Economic Conflicts between Powers—Based on a Comparative Analysis of US-Japan, US-China Trade Friction. Political Economy Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Cuiping. 2013. Perceiving Threats, Constructing Threats and the US-India Ocean Strategy Extension. South Asian Studies 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Cuiping. 2014a. Strategic Competition and Multilateral Relations in the Indo-Pacific Region. In Indian Ocean Regional Development Report, 2014 ed. Social Science Literature Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Cuiping. 2014b. The Security Situation in the Indian Ocean and the Dilemma of Cooperation between China and India. South Asian Studies 3: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Qingxiu. 2016. Can Japan’s “Indo-Pacific” Strategy Succeed? Northeast Asia Forum 3: 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Cuiping. 2017. The South Asian Direction of the Belt and Road Initiative: Geopolitical Landscape, India’s Difficulties and Breakthrough Paths. South Asian Studies 2: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Feng. 2018. The Contest Between the Powers of the South China Sea Under the Shadow of the “Indo-Pacific Strategy”, World Knowledge 1: 18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Indian Ocean Economies (RIIO), Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China

    Cuiping Zhu

Authors
  1. Cuiping Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Indian Ocean Economies, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, Yunnan, China

    Cuiping Zhu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Social Sciences Academic Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zhu, C. (2019). The Strategic Game in Indo-Pacific Region and Its Impact on China’s Security. In: Zhu, C. (eds) Annual Report on the Development of the Indian Ocean Region (2018). Research Series on the Chinese Dream and China’s Development Path. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7693-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation