Indo-Pacific Perspective │ 1

Introduction

A Rules-Based Order

for the Indo-Pacific?

Dr. Peter Harris, editor

t is the policy of the United

States government to ensure that

the Indo-Pacific megaregion re-

mains “free and open.” In no small

part, this vision rests upon the wa-

ger that a single rules-based order

can exist from the western reaches

of the Indian Ocean to the vast ex-

panses of the Asia-Pacific. How-

ever, developing and enforcing a

cohesive international rulebook for

the Indo-Pacific will be far from

simple. For the United States and

its allies, the urgent need to

cement a rules-based order in the

Indo-Pacific is driven, at least in

part, by anxiety surrounding the

rise of China—yet this ongoing

movement in the balance of power

is also a major reason for why a

stable rules-based system will be

difficult to maintain. Then there is

the question of legitimacy. It is

possible for a rules-based system to

be truly fair and inclusive, or does

international order inevitably re-

flect the interests of some more

than others? Finally, it is not as-

sured that America’s presence in

the Indo-Pacific will continue to be

welcomed by regional govern-

ments.

This, the first “Indo-Pacific Per-

spectives” roundtable from the

Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, will

offer some answers to these com-

plex geopolitical (and “geolegal”)

questions. As the name suggests,

this new series of roundtables will

showcase viewpoints from across

the Indo-Pacific megaregion (and

sometimes beyond). The goal is to

facilitate a dialogue between aca-

demics and policy practitioners

that will be of great interest—and,

we hope, considerable use—to an

international cast of scholars and

decision makers whose work fo-

cuses on the Indo-Pacific. In this

inaugural roundtable, the partici-

pants hail from the United States,

United Kingdom, Singapore, India,

Harris

Indo-Pacific Perspective │2

and Indonesia. They are academ-

ics, expert analysts, and seasoned

policy advisers. Tasked with shed-

ding light on the concept of a rules-

based order in the Indo-Pacific,

they have provided a range of per-

spectives to clarify just how

fraught and contentious such an

order-building (and order-defend-

ing) project will be.

The roundtable begins with Nilan-

thi Samaranayake’s keen analysis

of US foreign policy toward the

Indo-Pacific. She points out that,

despite the inclusive rhetoric and

phraseology of a “free and open

Indo-Pacific,” America’s leaders

sometimes betray a preoccupation

with the Asia-Pacific at the ex-

pense of the Indian Ocean. For ex-

ample, US officials sometimes dis-

cuss the entire Indo-Pacific region

as bedeviled by maritime boundary

disputes, whereas such disagree-

ments are much more prominent

and consequential in the Asia-Pa-

cific than the Indian Ocean. If

states from India to Japan are to

remain committed to the idea of

belonging to a single Indo-Pacific

region, it will be important to clar-

ify the interests that these states

are supposed to share in common

with one another.

Benjamin Ho turns to analyze the

foreign-policy motivations of

China, America’s supposed rival in

the Indo-Pacific and another

potential driver of a rules-based

system for the region. According to

Ho, China’s leaders are open to the

broad concept of a rules-based in-

ternational order, even if they (un-

surprisingly) tend to support a dif-

ferent configuration of rules than

that put forward by the United

States. One of Ho’s major insights

is that Chinese leaders desire a

rules-based international system

that will help them to ward off ex-

ternal threats to domestic security.

This is the reverse of how interna-

tional order is discussed in the

West—that is, as a straitjacket to

prevent domestic actors from up-

ending international security.

Laura Southgate agrees that

China has an interest in using in-

ternational rules as tools to serve

its national interests—and, moreo-

ver, that its growing power means

that Beijing must be taken seri-

ously as a rule-shaper in the re-

gion. This is true whether China

chooses to be an active “maker” of

new rules for the Indo-Pacific or

whether it is expected to be a mere

“taker” of rules made by others.

Simply put, China is so powerful,

and its interests are so expansive,

that China’s willingness to comply

with rules will be a decisive factor

in determining the success of any

rule-based order. Southgate pro-

vides a case study of the United

Nations Convention on the Law of

Introduction

Indo-Pacific Perspective │3

the Sea—to wit, Beijing’s summary

rejection of a 2016 ruling by the

Permanent Court of Arbitration

that held some of China’s maritime

claims in the South China Sea to

be incompatible with international

law—to illustrate the central im-

portance of China to the success of

rules old and new.

Kei Koga offers a complementary

analysis of Japanese foreign policy

toward the Indo-Pacific. He points

out Japan’s leaders were among

the first to articulate the existence

of a cohesive Indo-Pacific space.

Koga points to the Quadrilateral

Security Dialogue (“Quad”) as Ja-

pan’s primary means of operation-

alizing and institutionalizing its

commitment to a free and open

Indo-Pacific, but makes the im-

portant observation that Japan

and the other Quad members (Aus-

tralia, India, and the United

States) cannot act imperiously to-

ward smaller regional actors. Koga

emphasizes the special importance

of the Association of Southeast

Asian Nations (ASEAN), noting

that Southeast Asia is the geo-

graphical center of the Indo-Pa-

cific. Without the endorsement of

ASEAN, Japan’s leaders seem to

have concluded, there can be no

hope of maintaining a rules-based

order to unite the Western Pacific

and Indian Ocean. Such interna-

tional-level considerations have

interacted with domestic politics to

shape Japanese policy toward or-

der-building, Koga argues.

Titli Basu uses her contribution to

bring India into the frame. Basu

makes the incisive point that the

coming multipolar world will be

anchored in a multipolar Asia; how

the competing powers of the Indo-

Pacific can manage to live along-

side one another will, in no small

measure, determine the fate of

global governance and security.

Basu argues that India must be

considered a major player in the

Indo-Pacific (and, by extension, the

rest of the world), but she insists

that India should not be regarded

as a mere “balancer.” This is some-

thing that US analysts are some-

times guilty of—valuing India in

geopolitical terms as a bulwark

against Chinese expansion, but not

taking the time to consider how

Delhi intends to exert itself as a

shaper of regional and global order

in its own right.

Ngaibiakching provides a sweeping

analysis of the issues facing Indo-

Pacific nations, from the problem

of institutionalizing regional order

to the imperative of avoiding a new

“Cold War” between the United

States and China. She echoes both

Southgate and Basu in observing

the importance of power as a foun-

dation for rule making; agrees with

Koga that small and middle

Harris

Indo-Pacific Perspective │4

powers will play a critical role in

shaping the emerging Indo-Pacific

order; and makes the forceful argu-

ment that multipolarity will not be

kind to the Indo-Pacific if it is not

accompanied by a firm commit-

ment to multilateralism on behalf

of the region’s major powers.

Finally, Dewi Fortuna Anwar of-

fers her unique perspective as not

just an eminent academician but

also a former policy maker in the

Indonesian government. Her de-

scription of ASEAN’s successes at

order-building, rulemaking, and

shared regional governance is an-

other powerful reminder that the

Indo-Pacific zone is far from mono-

lithic. Even if there is ample rea-

son to treat the Indo-Pacific as a

single megaregion, this must

surely be done while paying careful

attention to variation at the sub-

regional level.

What future is there for a rules-

based order in the Indo-Pacific? It

depends. Great powers like the

United States, India, and China;

middle and smaller powers like

Australia, Japan, and Indonesia;

regional blocs like ASEAN —all of

these actors will have an impact

upon the development of rules for

the region. The contributions to

this roundtable shed valuable light

on the interests and decision-mak-

ing processes of some of the parties

involved. They suggest that a

rules-based order from the Persian

Gulf to Northeast Asia is possible,

and perhaps even inevitable, but

still as yet undetermined. ■

Dr. Peter Harris

Dr. Harris is an assistant professor

of political science at Colorado

State University, where his teach-

ing and research focus on interna-

tional security, international rela-

tions theory, and US foreign policy.

He serves as the editor for the

Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs’

new “Indo-Pacific Perspectives” se-

ries. Dr. Harris has two main re-

search projects underway: one fo-

cusing on great-power relations

during periods of major interna-

tional change (with a specific em-

phasis on US–China relations) and

another focusing on the environ-

mental protection of US military

bases, including overseas bases in

the Indo-Pacific, as well as instal-

lations in the US states and terri-

tories. He has conducted extensive

research into Diego Garcia, the

largest island of the Chagos Archi-

pelago (British Indian Ocean Terri-

tory), which is home to one of the

most important US military bases

in the world. He received his PhD

from the University of Texas at

Austin and holds additional de-

grees from SOAS, University of

London, and the University of Ed-

inburgh. His work has appeared in

Introduction

Indo-Pacific Perspective │5

journals such as the Journal of

Indo-Pacific Affairs, African Af-

fairs, Anthropology Today, Asian

Security, Chinese Journal of Inter-

national Politics, Environmental

Policy and Law, International

Journal, International Political So-

ciology, International Politics, Is-

rael Journal of Foreign Affairs,

Journal of Transatlantic Studies,

Marine Policy, National Interest,

Political Quarterly, PS: Political

Science & Politics, and Review of

International Studies. He is news-

letter co-editor for the Interna-

tional History and Politics section

of the American Political Science

Association.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed or implied

in JIPA are those of the authors and should

not be construed as carrying the official

sanction of the Department of Defense, Air

Force, Air Education and Training Com-

mand, Air University, or other agencies or

departments of the US government or their

international equivalents.