Carl Bildt

STOCKHOLM – Is the dominance of “Indo-Pacific” thinking leading Western strategists astray?

Originating in Australian foreign policy circles, the United States adopted this label in 2018, when the Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command was officially renamed the Indo-Pacific Command. The status of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (“Quad”), comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the US, was duly elevated, and Europe, too, got on board, with a minor avalanche of policy documents bearing the same label.

In pushing the Indo-Pacific line, Western strategists usually emphasize the importance of bringing India into the fold. But the real objective – though it is seldom stated explicitly – is to contain China in the region.

The Indo-Pacific narrative undoubtedly has merits. It rests on a strong historical foundation, and the policies it has inspired are important for meeting many looming global challenges. The problem is that it also threatens to distract us from an equally important alternative narrative: the Eurasian one.

Which is more immediately relevant to the challenges the West faces? While the Indo-Pacific framework has an obvious maritime foundation – framing the Indian and Pacific Oceans as the........

© The Korea Times