Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, Air University Press
/ Published November 21, 2019
Paul Szostak and Juan Pizarro
This article briefly reviews the major programs the US services have undertaken to develop cross-culturally capable forces in the twenty-first century to meet enduring senior advisor requirements, what level of success has been achieved utilizing new programs in expeditionary advisor roles, and how the Joint foreign area officer (FAO) community can be utilized to increase mission effectiveness. Ultimately, we will explore why the DOD should utilize FAOs to fill current and future expeditionary advisor requirements and why the creation of new advisor programs should be carefully considered in light of past experience.
Il Hyun Cho
In this article, the author contends that a key driver behind strategic calculations in the Indo-Pacific is the pursuit of greater regional autonomy in a changing regional order. Instead of following the footsteps of the two superpowers, Japan, South Korea, and India seek to carve out their own regional space and draw on the two hegemonic initiatives for their own specific foreign policy goals. By comparing the domestic debate about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy in the three Asian nations, this paper explores the ways in which each nation comes to grips with the dueling hegemonic strategies. As long as politicians in Tokyo, Seoul, and New Delhi stake out their regional positions on the basis of foreign policy autonomy, both the US push for an anti-China coalition and China’s drive to alter the regional order to Beijing’s liking are less likely to succeed. An analysis of the regional responses to the BRI and the FOIP will also help us better conceptualize the evolving regional order in East Asia.
This article discusses how larger global dynamics, underlying structural elements, and public attitudes open the door to political elites who are able to capitalize on malleable attitudes to undermine democracy. Additionally, the article looks at what the implications are for US interests in Asia.
This article outlines Chinese activities and strategic purposes for reaching out to the South Pacific, delving into whether there is an impending competition between India and China, which would manifest itself in that region.
Jared Morgan McKinney and Nicholas Butts
Having decided China’s rise is for real and that the nation has not been “socialized” to the extent desired by many, American officials, military officers, and civilian strategists now warn that the whole international order is threatened, that China wants to—or even, soon will—“dominate” East Asia, and that freedom and justice may be extinguished. This narrative is out of balance and risks generating unnecessary conflict. Instead, the authors argue that the United States should return to a balance of power strategy and recommit itself to making the world safe for diversity.
This article delves into the nuances in vogue in the region in the contemporary strategic thinking surrounding the Indo-Pakistan nuclear discourse and the repercussions of doctrinal shifts in nuclear-use strategy regarding deterrence stability.
This article analyzes Japan’s Indo-Pacific policies with selective focuses on sea-lane security, strategic alignment, and economic diversification. The article summarily reviews key features of geography that are relevant to Japan’s strategic thinking, the ways the country has dealt with these features, and the limitations on Japan’s actions. Then, the article discusses key changes in the external strategic environment surrounding Japan in the post–Cold War era and into the projected future. Lastly, the article analyzes how Prime Minister Shinzō Abe has steered Japan to deal with the new external strategic environment and the implications of his efforts for the US-centered alliance system in the Indo-Pacific region.
DOWNLOAD FULL EDITION
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 Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government or their international equivalents.