With 'Indo-Pacific' Label Losing Its Lustre, China Has an Opportunity

A subtle yet significant shift in terminology by the US administration may indicate a recalibration of its approach to the Asia-Pacific region, potentially easing tensions with China. Following a summit between President Xi and President Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth visited India and Singapore. Their remarks, particularly Hegseth's keynote at the Shangri-la Dialogue, revealed a notable change in geographic framing.

“

In his keynote speech at the Shangri-la Dialogue on May 30, Hegseth referred to the Pacific 17 times. In contrast to his remarks at the same forum last year, when Hegseth used the term “Indo-Pacific” many times, he never once deployed that construct in this year’s speech.

In his speech on May 30, Hegseth referred to the "Pacific" 17 times, a stark contrast to his previous year's address at the same forum, where he frequently used the term "Indo-Pacific." Crucially, he did not use "Indo-Pacific" at all this year. This linguistic adjustment carries substantial implications. While "Indo-Pacific" is often associated with a strategy of containment aimed at China, the term "Pacific" on its own can project a vision of coexistence and a balance of power, where nations are not compelled to choose sides.

“

Whereas Indo-Pacific is a concept associated with containment, Pacific – on its own – projects a vision of coexistence for the two great powers on opposite sides of the ocean. It is a vision of balance of power, where no Asian nation is forced to choose sides.

The "Indo-Pacific" concept was largely promoted by Japan, particularly under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, as a means to construct a coalition that would encircle China. As Japan's economic dominance in Asia waned and it felt increasingly overshadowed by a rising China, it sought to broaden the regional scope to counter Beijing's influence. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), comprising the US, Japan, India, and Australia, is widely seen as the institutional embodiment of the "Indo-Pacific" idea.

“

The Indo-Pacific construct was championed by Japan – particularly under Shinzo Abe when he was prime minister – to build a coalition encircling China.

Hegseth's recent disuse of the term "Indo-Pacific" suggests a potential reevaluation of the Quad's strategic direction. This was further hinted at during a meeting of Quad foreign ministers in New Delhi. The most concrete outcome of that meeting was an agreement on collaboration regarding critical minerals. However, this area is already subject to numerous overlapping bilateral and multilateral frameworks, and past initiatives in this space have faced significant challenges, casting doubt on the future timelines for this new endeavor.

“

Hegseth’s recent avoidance of the term revealed the Quad’s fate. This was confirmed by the meeting of Quad foreign ministers in New Delhi. The most substantive outcome was a collaboration on critical minerals, an area already covered by a proliferation of overlapping bilateral and multilateral frameworks, whose past failures foretell the new initiative’s future with timelines likely to run into decades.