Suchergebnisse

The Indo-Pacific region is an area adjacent to some oceans and the gateway that connects the great power and small countries to the world; this region is always considered by Vietnam as a key strategic geographic area, having direct impacts on national security, position and its role in this region. While big powers have different perceptions to the Indo-Pacific region, as a country occupying an important geographic position in the Pacific region, Vietnam shares a common vision of an open and rule-based area, and a common interest in maintaining peace, stability and prosperity as well as building a common space for coexistence and development with the belief that the Indo-Asian-Pacific is large enough for every nation to grow and prosper. This article finds out that recent changes in the Indo-Pacific region in geopolitics, economics, security and national defence have made many countries, including Vietnam, to redefine their global and regional policies to refresh their strategic perceptions. Vietnam has its own perception, position, approach and national orientations, which is shaping its state behaviour and perspectives in this geopolitical vibrant Indo-Pacific region. Besides, this article uses the SWOT analysis model to determine the challenges, strengths and weaknesses of Vietnam in the Indo-Pacific region. Moreover, while the future of the Indo-Pacific in a post-COVID-19 pandemic world remains filled with uncertainty and economic challenges, the crisis also presents an opportunity for Vietnam to re-evaluate its position. Today, Vietnam always maintains its foreign policy of independence, self-reliance, multilateralism and diversification of international relations, which attaches great importance to enhancing multi-faceted cooperation with countries in the Indo-Pacific region. Thus, with its own perception and geostrategic advantage, Vietnam—a developing country in the region and in the world with relatively stable economic growth, pursuing rules and order will be a positive factor for a stable, peaceful and prosperous development in the region.

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (popularly known as Quad) emphasizes building a free, open, inclusive, secure, stable and resilient Indo-Pacific region. For this, it adopts an action-oriented practical approach to provide holistic security for all types of vulnerabilities, risks and threats. The region is vulnerable to various climate change impacts, including sea-level rise, floods and droughts, heatwaves and typhoons or cyclones. To strengthen climate security, the Quad set up a Working Group on Climate Change and launched practical joint climate action, namely 'The Quad Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Package' (Q-CHAMP), which equally focuses on mitigation and adaptation/resilience aspects of climate action in the region. It also stressed making climate diplomatic efforts with other countries and regional organizations like ASEAN to set up mechanisms for joint climate action to address climate change effectively. Against this backdrop, this article aims to discuss joint climate initiatives taken by the Quad under its climate diplomacy to address climate change in the Indo-Pacific region. This study has also addressed a fundamental question: To what extent does climate diplomacy make the Quad an appropriate strategic platform that provides a suitable political environment for cooperation, negotiation and dialogue to address complex security issues in the post-Cold War era? This qualitative study has been completed based on a textual analysis of the data relating to the Quad's joint climate action. The article argues that as a minilateral cooperative platform, the Quad's joint climate action in the form of a Climate Working Group and the Q-CHAMP would be able to mitigate greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and build the adaptive capability of communities to adapt to the various climate change impacts, as well as contribute to establishing a secure, stable and resilient region along with a noticeable contribution to meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement at the global level.

Japan's commitment to a Free and Open Indo-Pacific and its assessment of the changing global strategic environment have driven Tokyo to a new path-breaking strategy ...

The aim of the paper is to study the European Union's geoeconomics policy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. In recent times, the Indo-Pacific has been gaining attention of the global economic powers. On this issue, the EU has launched a cooperation policy in the IndoPacific. This study examines the EU's comprehensive strategy for the expansion of its presence in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. The EU wants economic and security partnerships among the Indo-Pacific countries. Among the EU member states, the French government is much enthusiastic about strategic cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. The European Union's policy has been operating in the regions as an instrument of soft and hard power. The research highlighted that the EU implies the construction of structural strategic networks to intensify the high capacities in the projection of power. The EU uses the key approaches of hard and soft power to achieve transatlantic goals. The comparative case study method is useful to know the objectives and results of the research. In conclusion, the EU needs to establish a much stronger relationship among the pacific countries to counter the Chinese aggression and expansion in maritime diplomacy.

The 21st Century is witnessing a significant change in the strategic landscape. The US hegemonic power that provided the stability for almost seven decades is in relative decline. Over the past decade, amidst the receding hegemonic status of the US, nation states, and especially the rising powers, are reformulating their foreign policy to reposition themselves in the strategic transformation by enhancing their defence capabilities, asserting militarily and forming countervailing alliances. Countries such as China, Russia, France and Germany, have challenged U.S. unilateralism in the United Nations and other forums such as NATO, whenever their interests have not converged with the United States. This receding trend of hegemonic influence is visible in the Kosovo crisis, Iraq war, and recently in the Ukrainian and Syrian crisis.

The Indo-Pacific region is said to be the center of the 21st century, unlike the Asia-Pacific in the 20th century. In the region, China is emerging rapidly in terms of economic strength, defense capability, and international presence. The US and other concerned countries are striving to cope with the new development. It looks that the US manages to somehow retain its Pax Americana as in the latter half of the last century. China which dreams to head for Pax Sinica has been implementing various measures including removing unfavorable circumstances to promote its dream. At the moment, it is hard to make prompt predictions on how these two Pax would be going. The key question would be ways to deal with China. Typical policies now under implementation are engaging policy represented by the RCEP and balancing policy by the Quad. These two policies have a timeline of short-term policy and middle-term policy. Perhaps, contents of the policies would be finalized depending upon China's economic development as one of the major factors. To bring about peace and stability of the region, in tandem with them, it might be necessary to bring about a regional order of the Indo-Pacific where it has been lacking. The close relations of Japan and India could be utilized for such a purpose also. Although COVID-19 is afflicting the whole region, it is hoped that the pandemic could be overcome by vaccines and other measures in the near future. It is the right time now to ponder over the future direction of the Indo-Pacific region before it is too late.

Indo-Pacific has been among the most contested regions in the past decade. After China demonstrated its ambitious goal in reviving maritime silk road with its military and economic presence, United States, India, Japan, and Australia formed a new coalition to counter this strategy. This paper aims to examine the position of Indonesia as a traditional regional maritime power in the context of this changing maritime landscape of the Indo-Pacific region. In doing so, this paper develops the concept of "the three faces of maritime power" which distinguishes maritime power into hard, soft, and normative maritime power. The findings of this paper indicates that Indonesia demonstrates less of its hard and soft power, but it capitalizes on its normative power to demonstrate its presence in the new maritime landscape of the Indo Pacific

The paper looks at the security challenges faced by the Modi administration in the Indo-Pacific region. There is a special focus on Indo-Pak relations and Sino-Indian relations. Whilst India has had problematic relations with both China and Pakistan in the recent past, relations between India and China are likely to improve because of the exponential growth in trade between the two countries. Good economic relations between the two rising Asiatic giants, particularly in the post-2000 phase, is likely to diffuse some tension over border issues. However, this is not the case with neighbouring Pakistan. In Pakistan, whilst civilian leaders may view India favourably, the more powerful Pakistani military and the ISI do not, and hence problematic relations with India are likely to continue. In the final analysis, whilst realism helps us to understand Indo-Pak relations, both realism and liberalism gives us an insight into Sino-Indian relations.

From the point of view of the American ruling elite, China is the main opponent of the United States in the international arena. Currently, the balance of forces (economic, military, technological) between the United States and China is changing not in favor of America, and Washington is forced to build a whole system of alliances and partnerships in the IndoPacific region for strategic deterrence and, possibly, strategic encirclement of the PRC. The very idea of the IPR arose from the American ruling elite as the optimal form for the implementation of this strategy. Currently, however, the United States has failed to realize the idea of China's economic and political isolation – not all countries in the Indo-Pacific region are ready to join the anti-Chinese policy of the United States.

Among other things, a globalizing world has challenged the old dichotomy between science and diplomacy and helped to facilitate the advent of Science Diplomacy. This term encompasses a particular form of public diplomacy and refers to the use of scientific collaborations among nations to tackle common challenges. Science Diplomacy operates on the assumption that many of today's problems—food, water, energy, climate, and health—cannot be solved by any single state and, more often than not, require international technical or scientific solutions. Does Science Diplomacy represent a major paradigm change or simply a minor adjustment in the making of foreign policy? In the Indo‐Pacific, the need for Science Diplomacy is clear, but at present there are mixed signals on whether states in the region are really prepared to develop its potential. On one hand, the Square Kilometre Array project—the construction of a large radio telescope in Australia and South Africa from 2018—represents a good example of a multilateral diplomatic effort to facilitate and extend scientific collaboration to dramatically improve human capabilities to survey the sky. On the other, science diplomacy has so far largely failed to live up to its potential to address climate change, the most significant threat to the future of the Indo‐Pacific region and the world beyond. However, successful efforts to make Ross Sea a global marine sanctuary also shows that, despite obstacles, Science Diplomacy can sometime have spillover effects into political decision making with positive outcomes. This mixed picture highlights a paradox. While the emergence of Science Diplomacy reflects a recognition by states that a growing number of national problems require international scientific solutions, such recognition remains patchy and somewhat uneven. Many states, particularly the most powerful ones, continue to be constrained in the international arena by the old Westphalian idea of unfettered state sovereignty.