T

he Indo-Pacific, in spite of its growing popularity as a catch-all phrase for an emerging strategic concept of regional architecture, can still be demoted to a myth if a “common identity” among countries in the region cannot be found, a scholar on regionalism has said.

According to Amitav Acharya from the American University in Washington, DC, the success of an Indo-Pacific concept depends on whether countries in this widely defined region can go beyond competing interests to reach a common understanding.

“The Indo-Pacific idea is a myth turning into a reality that could yet turn out to be a myth unless competing conceptions are reconciled, historical principles upheld and institutional and identity gaps bridged,” he said in a discussion on regionalism held by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta on Monday.

The term “Indo-Pacific” has found wide usage in recent years, including last year when United States President Donald Trump used the term in his tour of Asia. However, the idea had been in use by other world leaders at different occasions.

Many countries have set their sights on the region by developing their own concepts, including India’s Act East Policy, South Korea’s New Southern Policy and Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Acharya argued that the naming conventions were very much a political construction.

“In Asia, this can be seen [throughout] the years by the change of names that were given to its forums and conferences, from Asia to Southeast Asia, to Asia Pacific, to East Asia,” he said.

Indonesia, with its ASEAN-led perspective, was no exception.

Last month, following a push from Jakarta, ASEAN member states agreed that the bloc needed to develop its own “collective outlook” on the Indo-Pacific concept, with some countries calling it the “Asian Indo-Pacific
concept”.

Under an ASEAN-led initiative, the East Asia Summit (EAS) — a forum comprising 10 ASEAN member states as well as Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Russia and the US — was envisioned as the perfect forum to define the Indo-Pacific concept.

Indonesia has been pushing for an ASEAN-led Indo-Pacific regional architecture to be discussed at the EAS and officials are poised to meet next month for further talks ahead of the 33rd ASEAN Summit in Singapore.

Indonesian officials circulated in August a draft document containing Jakarta’s version of the concept, “an open, transparent and inclusive Indo-Pacific regional architecture based on international law”.

“It seems to prioritize geopolitical security interests more than the interest of normative inclusiveness,” Acharya said, adding that the challenge lies in finding the right balance between inclusivity and the strong drive for strategic cooperation.

“As of now, a common identity between countries in the ‘Indo-Pacific’ region has yet to be seen.”

Over the weekend, the Foreign Ministry’s head of policy analysis, Siswo Pramono, noted a number of existing ASEAN programs that could be worked into a wider Indo-Pacific strategy, such as the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity and the 2025 ASEAN Community Vision.

Meanwhile, former Australian foreign minister Stephen Smith said there would be more strategic interest in the Indo-Pacific region on account of the cluster of largest economies situated there — particularly China, India and Indonesia.

“Indonesia has to accept responsibility on not just regional influence but also global influence,” Smith said at the 2018 Conference on Indonesian Foreign Policy. (tjs)