The Asia-Pacific Strategic Triangle
| Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Published date | 01 August 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2347797014536641 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Asia-Pacific Strategic
Triangle: Unentangling the
India, China, US Relations
on Conflict and Security
in South Asia1
Johannes Dragsbaek Schmidt
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to give insight into the debate over the strategic
triangle and how it impacts conflict and security in South Asia. First the new
geopolitical motives of the United States in the Asia-Pacific are outlined. Then
the concept of strategic triangle is elaborated and its applicability discussed; third,
details about China and India’s relations and responses to the new US policy are
being analyzed; the perspective turns to the implications for conflict and security
in South Asia with a focus on Afghanistan and Iran where oil and energy secu-
rity are the main denominators of foreign policy calculations and moves in the
strategic triangle; and finally, some concluding remarks are offered to explain the
recent shifts in interactions between these core players in the emerging world
order and whether a new geopolitical architecture is emerging.
Keywords
Strategic triangle; international political economy; foreign policy; security;
the United States; India; China
Introduction
Although most scholars agree that the United States is in a motion of relative
decline it may be premature to talk about a shift from a unilateral to a multipolar
or tripolar world order. We do see the contours of a new world order but do not
know yet the end result or whether in fact it will turn out as world disorder. The
gridlock of multilateralism and immanent crisis in the United Nations (UN)
and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has changed global policy priorities and
Article
Journal of Asian Security
and International Affairs
1(2) 203–222
2014 SAGE Publications India
Private Limited
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/2347797014536641
http://aia.sagepub.com
Johannes Dragsbaek Schmidt, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political
Science at Aalborg University, Denmark. He can be contacted at E-mail: jds@dps.aau.dk
Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 1, 2 (2014): 203–222
204 Johannes Dragsbaek Schmidt
decision-making towards regional groups, bilateralism and transnational relations.
Rapid global change is also connected to the rise of East and South Asia in the
world system. According to recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) projec-
tions India and China will continue being the fastest growing countries in the near
future. Forecasts show positive growth rates in the longer run indicating a deep-
ened shift of geo-economic gravity towards the Eastern hemisphere and this may
involve a genuine shift in geopolitical priorities as well.
The recent foreign policy change or strategic rebalance by the Obama
administration illustrates this post-hegemonic stalemate. The seemingly diplo-
matic shift from Europe to Asia can be viewed as an attempt of launching a new
Cold War in Asia ‘viewing oil as the key to global supremacy’ (Klare, 2011)
and a strategic shift to project US power ambitions in the region. It can be
interpreted as a downsizing of the transatlantic partnership and an emerging
unpredictable situation of renovated nationalism, re-installing currency wars
and beggar-thy-neighbour policy. The launching of the new defence strategy at
the Pentagon on 5 January 2012 was accompanied by the US Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Martin Dempsey’s key message emphasizing that ‘All trends are
shifting to the Pacific…. Our strategic challenges will largely emanate out of
the Pacific region’ (Pilkington, 2012).
These indications coupled with embryonic protectionist policies by Washington
and the European Union (EU) to overcome the economic crisis and relative
decline vis-à-vis especially China, but also India and Brazil have increased fears
of an all-out trade war. The White House has a potentially dangerous power
instrument: the threat of currency tariffs (Beattie, 5 December 2011) while the
newly emerging economies in the form of BRICS2 are advocating a re-writing of
the international financial architecture and a gradual de-coupling from American
Dollar hegemony. The BRICS have also reiterated their wish to rewrite the rules
and regulations governing other global political and economic institutions (Legro,
2012), a move strongly supported by India as well as other non-Western countries.
The BRICS countries seek an enhanced role in international affairs and greater
influence in global decision-making and leadership.
In this context the shifting geopolitical and geo-economic global order is
changing focus away from the traditional strategic triangle of Europe, the US and
China to a newly renovated interest in the conflictual, competitive and contradic-
tory relationship among India, China and the US.3 The strategic interactions
among these three countries have become the subject of intense analysis by schol-
ars and analysts all over the world. It also raises the question whether the new
American strategy ‘Pivot to Asia’ has any real substance. In fact, India is the only
country mentioned by name as a vital partner and this implicitly indicates the
impact on the Sino-Indian relationship and furthermore it illuminates the argu-
ment that we are observing a real geopolitical and geo-economic shift in strategic
importance from the Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific. This would imply a weakening
of the European sphere of influence whether in the institutionalized form of the
To continue reading
Request your trial