The US Indo-Pacific Security strategy in the 21st century

Today the world is undergoing a transformation driven by large-scale cross-border activity, with the rise of new actors challenging the modern political organisation of the world. Since the beginning of the century, the balance of power between developed and developing market economies has shifted significantly, ranking among the world's top twenty countries in terms of GDP.
There are several key approaches to this transformation. However, the most comprehensive theory is the so-called hegemonic stability theory, which clearly illustrates the course of transformation and the “transition” of power. According to it, the presence of a hegemon in the system is essential for a stable system of international relations. However, hegemonic power will eventually diminish. The transition of power will occur after the decline of hegemonic power.
Therefore, states interested in preserving the established international system will inevitably undertake some actions to achieve this, which explains the United States' actions. Under this transformation, the role of the US as a global influential actor in the international arena is gradually diminishing, yielding to the rapidly growing and economically advancing China.
The very name Indo-Pacific emerged a while ago and has replaced the term “Asia-Pacific region”. Different countries understand the new designation in varying ways, but the consensus remains the same: it reflects the new balance of power in Asia. China's economic, military and political rise, growing interdependence of the South, Southeast and East Asian sub-regions, India's increasing role in the region and the world, potential clash of interests between China and India in the long term shaped the concept. Today Indo-Pacific includes countries from the top 10 countries with the largest GDP in the world and from the 20 most densely populated countries. In addition, there is the strategically important Straits of Malacca, which account for 20-25% of all marine commodity turnover, and the South China Sea is the world's second busiest shipping lane.
Many international organisations operate in the region, namely ASEAN, APEC, ARF, SCO, TPSEP and others. Another important characteristic of the region is the so-called “integration of integrations”. Some national governments began to establish regional economic associations on more favourable terms of trade and options for the promotion of national currencies. For instance, the renminbi is being internationalized as a currency for payments between states. The region is consistently turning into a zone of U.S.-China rivalry with a characteristic build-up of presence. Military engagements are growing, the naval and other arms race is intensifying, and the probability of unplanned military clashes is increasing, especially given the possession of nuclear weapons.
Territorial disputes in the region periodically escalate. The tense situation on the Korean Peninsula only adds to the uncertainty in the region. The issue of the Taiwan Strait, which is directly involved in the U.S.-China struggle, stands apart. The distinctive features of the region's development are the continuing emergence of China as a global power; rapid economic and demographic growth; India's coming emergence as a global power; the increase in military expenditures and Asian arms race, especially at sea; the possibility that countries in the region will have to choose whether to join the U.S. or China; territorial conflicts over disputed territories; transition to national currencies; increasing nationalism; non-traditional threats such as maritime piracy, WMD non-proliferation, and illegal migration, tense situation on the Korean peninsula.
In the US, recognition of the region's importance began during the Bush administration. Back then, the focus of attention was on Northeast Asia, where a nuclear standoff was unfolding on the Korean Peninsula and China was rising, potentially challenging US dominance and putting pressure on Taiwan. Slightly later, attention also expanded to Southeast Asia due to the counter­terrorism agenda. The Obama administration's “pivot” was a continuation of this reorientation strategy. The objective was to dissuade China from attempting hegemony and thereby to preserve the existing balance of power in a region in which the US was in the lead. The first reference to the Indo-Pacific occurred in 2010. Finally, Indo-Pacific became part of the U.S. foreign policy discourse under D. Trump. A separate, atypical of US foreign policy documentation, the Indo­Pacific Strategy was issued for the region, demonstrating the US national strategic thinking.
The concept is closely related to strategic culture, which is defined as a way of thinking about power that stems from a state's historical experience, its traditions, geostrategic factors, and national character. Some researchers also add nation's values, attitudes, patterns of behaviour etc.
Due to the succession in these issues, we can refer to a certain national “style” of strategic thought. Existing schools of strategic thought, namely Continental School, Maritime School, Aeronautical School, Astronautical School, Special Operations School, Unifying School, all derived some formula from the conditions determining the ability of a state to dominate a battlefield and the world. These attitudes concern issues of the country's conduct in conditions of war and peace while such a culture shapes a nation's conduct concerning the use of force in foreign politics, attitudes toward international threats, civil-military interactions, and strategic doctrine.
The background context of US historical development provided Washington with “free security” and an abundance of natural resources. Individualism and the free market boosted economic growth, while the lack of need to defend itself against aggressive environment made the US a protector of the persecuted. Encroachment on this image is treated as an attack on the universal values, and from this perspective, the US has adopted the role of watchdog and a transformative global leader who projects these values into foreign policy. The US' strategic culture aims to ensure and maintain its global leadership.....

Купить