TheIndo-Pacific is a vastbiogeographic region ofEarth. In a narrow sense, sometimes known as theIndo-West Pacific orIndo-Pacific Asia, it comprises the tropical waters of theIndian Ocean, the western and centralPacific Ocean, and the seas connecting the two. The term is especially useful inmarine biology,ichthyology, and similar fields, since many marinehabitats are continuously connected fromMadagascar toJapan andOceania, and a number of species occur over that range, but are not found in theAtlantic Ocean.
As a distinctmarine realm, the region has an exceptionally highspecies richness, with the world's highest species richness being found in at its heart in theCoral Triangle,[1][2] and a remarkable gradient of decreasing species richness radiating outward in all directions.[1] The region includes over 3,000 species of fish, compared with around 1,200 in the next richest marine region, theWestern Atlantic, and around 500 species ofreef building corals, compared with about 50 species in the Western Atlantic.[3]
The term first appeared in academic use inoceanography andgeopolitics. Scholarship has shown that the "Indo-Pacific" concept circulated inWeimar Germany, and spread to interwar Japan. German political oceanographers envisioned an "Indo-Pacific" comprising anticolonial India and republican China, as German allies, against "Euro-America".[4]
Since the late 2010s, the term "Indo-Pacific" has been increasingly used ingeopolitical discourse. It is seen by some as a replacement for the "Asia-Pacific" regional concept which was pioneered byAustralia and Japan in the 1970s and 1980s.[5] As a geopolitical concept, the Indo-Pacific has a "symbiotic link" with theQuadrilateral Security Dialogue, or "Quad", an informal grouping between Australia, Japan,India, and theUnited States. It has been argued that the concept may lead to a change in popular "mental maps" of how the world is understood instrategic terms.[6] According to the political scientist Amitav Acharya, the "Indo-Pacific" was a concept built by strategists.[7] The Indo-Pacific started to gain ground in international relations literature as a geopolitical challenge by the U.S. towardChina, which still prefers the regional term Asia-Pacific.[8] The companion term "Euro-Atlantic" is often used by European leaders to denote a vaguely defined geopolitical space which is understood to include Europe and North America.[9][10] The Euro-Atlantic term is also popular with Chinese leaders.[11]
In its widest sense, the Indo-Pacific geopolitically covers all nations and islands surrounding either the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean. This definition encompasses mainland African and Asian nations who border these oceans, such as India andSouth Africa, Indian Ocean territories such as theKerguelen Islands andSeychelles,Indonesia (which is within the bounds of both the Indian Ocean and the Pacific),Philippines,Taiwan,China,Korea, Japan,Russia and otherFar East nations bordering the Pacific, as well asAustralia and all thePacific Islands east of them. The widest geopolitical definition also encompasses Pacific nations of the Americas such asCanada orMexico, and thesubarctic areas of the North Pacific, likeAlaska'sBering Sea islands.[12][13][14][15][16]ASEAN countries (defined as those in Southeast Asia) are considered to be geographically at the centre of the political Indo-Pacific.[17]
TheWWF andNature Conservancy divide the Indo-Pacific into 3realms (or subrealms), and each of these into 25 marine provinces and 77 ecoregions (Marine Ecoregions of the World; MEOW) based on data-driven expert opinion.[18] Other schemes for subdivision of the Indo-Pacific have included: 5 provinces, based on endemism in fishes;[19] 3 regions split into 10 provinces based on dissimilarity of fish assemblages,[20] 11 provinces based on range boundaries in corals,[21] 12 divisions split into 124 ecoregions based on biogeographic clustering from coral distributions[22] and finally 8 realms from distributions of 65,000 marine species.[23] All but the last of these schemes were tested against one another by an international consortium of marine scientists using genetic data from 56 Indo-Pacific species, with the reasoning that genetic data should reflect the evolutionary processes that structure the Indo-Pacific.[24] While there was no clear winning scheme, and all schemes were supported by data from at least one species, the genetic data in general favored schemes with few subdivisions, supporting the Indo-Pacific as relatively unstructured biogeographic realm - possibly the world's largest. Below are briefly described the 3 MEOW realms of the Indo-Pacific:
The Central Indo-Pacific includes the numerous seas and straits connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans, including the seas surrounding theIndonesian archipelago (with the exception ofSumatra's northwest coast, which is part of the Western Indo-Pacific), theSouth China Sea, thePhilippine Sea, the north coast ofAustralia, and the seas surroundingNew Guinea, western and centralMicronesia,New Caledonia, theSolomon Islands,Vanuatu,Fiji, andTonga. The Central Indo-Pacific, due in part to its central location at the meeting of two oceans, has the greatest richness and diversity of marine organisms, specifically located within theCoral Triangle, which contains 76% of all known coral species in the world.[2]
The Eastern Indo-Pacific surrounds the mostly volcanic islands of the central Pacific Ocean, extending from theMarshall Islands in the west through central and southeasternPolynesia toHawaii, to the west coast ofChile. The World Wide Fund for Nature believe the region ends at Chile'sEaster Island andIsla Salas y Gómez, although it is sometimes extended even further to include Chile'sDesventuradas Islands andJuan Fernández Islands.[25][26][27][18]
The Western Indo-Pacific covers the western and central portion of the Indian Ocean, including Africa's east coast and theMozambique Channel, surroundingMadagascar, theSeychelles, theComoros, theMascarene Islands,Maldives, and theChagos Archipelago; as well as theRed Sea, theGulf of Aden, thePersian Gulf, theArabian Sea, theBay of Bengal, and theAndaman Sea.[18]
Some seashore and coastal plants are found throughout most of the region, including the treesPisonia grandis,Calophyllum inophyllum,Heliotropium arboreum,Pandanus tectorius,Cordia subcordata,Guettarda speciosa, and the shrubsScaevola taccada,Suriana maritima, andPemphis acidula. These plants have adapted to grow on coral sand, and have seeds adapted to crossing salt water, including distribution by birds or which can survive floating in salt water.[28]
The treescoconut (Coco nucifera),candlenut (Aleurites moluccanus), andMorinda citrifolia originated in the Central Indo-Pacific, and were spread further across the region by human settlers.[28]
The Indo-West Pacific has been a hub of economic activity since ancient times. The entrance of the European colonial powers, such as theDutch andBritish East India Companies and the Portuguese, and the launch of atrans-Pacific transport ofslaves, migrants, and goods, created a deeper Indo-Pacific economic integration.[29]
The "Indo-Pacific" has been an economic idea since its early formulation inWeimar Germany. According to Hansong Li, the German geographerKarl Haushofer, son of the economist Max Haushofer, believed thatcapital, along withurbanisation andpopulation growth, are key vectors that determine the 'manometers' of the oceanic region. Haushofer also explained whyindustrialisation broke out in Europe rather than the Indo-Pacific by a spatial theory of demography.[4]: 3–22
Australia is the largest country to border both the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean, with the only others being the ASEAN-affiliated countries of Indonesia,Malaysia,Singapore,Timor-Leste andThailand. Australia has historically had strong economic and political ties to neighboring South Pacific countries affiliated with thePacific Islands Forum (which it co-founded in 1971), in addition to having over 80% of its population living within just 50 kilometers of the east coast. This has led to it traditionally being viewed as a Pacific country rather than an Indian Ocean-oriented country.[30] In the 1970s and 1980s, Australia became one of the primary architects ofPacific Rim regionalism/Asia-Pacific regionalism, with Australia and Japan collaborating on the founding of regional institutions such asPacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC), the Pacific Trade and Development (PAFTAD) forum and thePacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), before eventually co-foundingAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1989.[31] These organizations did not include South Asian countries only facing the Indian Ocean, such as India. Australia's secondary focus on the Indian Ocean has been compared toIsrael, as most of Israel's population lives on theMediterranean coast, with only a small section of the country being connected to the Indian Ocean via theGulf of Aqaba/Red Sea.[30] In 1970, the name "Indian Pacific" was chosen for anAustralian train service connecting the Pacific city ofSydney toPerth, which is Australia's only major Indian Ocean coast city.[32] In 1986, the name "Indian Pacific" was also chosen as the name for the holding company controlling theWest Coast Eagles, anAustralian rules football club based in Perth. It competes in theAustralian Football League, primarily based on the country's east coast. The club is still legally known as Indian Pacific Limited, despite trading under West Coast Eagles Football Club.[33][34]
In the 21st century, with the rising involvement of the United States in the new growth areas of Asia, the idea of the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor (IPEC) emerged during the U.S.–India Strategic Dialogue of 2013. The Secretary of StateJohn Kerry referred to the potential of the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor in transforming the prospects for development and investments as well as for trade and transit between the economies of South and Southeast Asia Indo-Pacific economic corridor.[35]
K. Yhome in his scholarly study has mapped out the potential for various emerging trans-regional corridors in Asia along with the challenges of linking IPEC into the larger web of regional economic integration initiatives taking shape in the region in 2017.[36]
On 23 May 2022, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, launched theIndo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). This agreement includes a dozen of initial partners including: Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Together, all the countries included within the framework represent 40% of the world GDP. The IPEF contains four pillars:
Historical precedent for the Indo-Pacific as a politically contested space comes from ancient times; in the European colonial era, commercial interests led to conquest by powers such as the Dutch and British East India Companies throughout the region.[29]
The German geopoliticianKarl Haushofer first used "Indo-Pacific" in the 1920s in multiple works ongeography andgeopolitics:Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean (1924),Building Blocks of Geopolitics (1928),Geopolitics of Pan-Ideas (1931), andGerman Cultural Politics in the Indo-Pacific Space (1939). Haushofer legitimated the integration of the two oceans by evidence inmarine biology,oceanography,ethnography, andhistorical philology. He envisioned an "Indo-Pacific" comprising anticolonial forces in India and China, as Germany's ally against the maritime domination of Britain, the United States, and Western Europe.[4]
The Japanese Prime MinisterShinzō Abe referred to the "confluence" of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in his speech to theIndian Parliament in August 2007 as "the dynamic coupling as seas of freedom and of prosperity" in the "broader Asia".[38][39] The focus of Japanese Prime Minister's August 2007 speech in the Indian Parliament was on security of sea lanes linking the two oceans. In the academic discourse relating to such maritime security issue in the Indo-Pacific, the first articulation was carried by a paper published in January 2007 by theInstitute of Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi. It was a result of consultations between IDSA and theJapan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) held in New Delhi in October 2006.[40] From 2010 onwards, the term Indo-Pacific acquired salience within the Indian government and has since been used often by India's apex political leadership.[41] From about 2011 onwards, the term has been used frequently by strategic analysts and high-level government/military leadership in Australia, Japan and the United States to denote said region. However, a formal/official documented articulation of the term first appeared in Australia's Defence White Paper, 2013.[42] It is also "symbiotically linked"[6] with theQuadrilateral Security Dialogue—an informal grouping of like-minded democracies in the region, comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.[43]
Since 2011, the term "Indo-Pacific" is being used increasingly in geopolitical discourse.[44][45]
In 2013, Indonesian Foreign MinisterMarty Natalegawa proposed an "Indo-Pacific Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" to restore trust, manage unresolved territory disputes, and help countries deal with change in the region.[46] In 2013, U.S. officials have begun using the term "Indo-Asia Pacific".[47]
In 2019, theUnited States Department of State published a document formalizing the concept of a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific", to be sustained among members of "the Quad", a partnership of four Indo-Pacific democracies led by the United States, in concert withAustralia, India, and Japan.[48] "Indo-Pacific" has also featured prominently in top-level U.S. strategic documents such as the 2017National Security Strategy,[49] the 2018Nuclear Posture Review,[50] and the 2018National Defense Strategy.[51] According to Felix Heiduk and Gudrun Wacker at theGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, the concept of a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" is aimed at containing China and the "Indo-Pacific" is "primarily understood as a U.S.-led containment strategy directed against China" in Beijing.[52] Australian scholar Rory Medcalf has argued that "The Indo-Pacific...does not exclude or contain China, though it does dilute China's influence."[53] It has been argued that the concept of the Indo-Pacific may lead to a change in popular "mental maps" of how the world is understood in strategic terms.[54]
The term's profile was raised when it found mention in the joint statement issued by the Indian Prime MinisterNarendra Modi and United States PresidentDonald Trump after the former's state visit to theWhite House on 26 June 2017. "As responsible stewards in the Indo-Pacific region, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi agreed that a close partnership between the United States and India is central to peace and stability in the region. In marking 70 years of diplomatic relations between India and the United States, the leaders resolved to expand and deepen the strategic partnership between the countries and advance common objectives. Above all, these objectives include combatting terrorist threats, promoting stability across the Indo-Pacific region, increasing free and fair trade, and strengthening energy linkages".[55] However, President Trump's November 2017 articulation on Indo-Pacific was widely seen as something that would usher in a new (US–China) Cold War.[56] This led to the Indian Prime Minister spelling out the Indian vision of Indo-Pacific as an enabler for "a common pursuit of progress and prosperity... not directed against any country... (albeit based on) our principled commitment to rule of law".[57] According to Dr. Cenk Tamer, the U.S. seeks to create an "anti-China axis" in the Asia-Pacific region through the conceptualization of the Indo-Pacific because it sees India as a key part in containing China. This was reiterated byPresident Biden, who declared a "secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific."[8] Tamer calls the Indo-Pacific a concept that started to gain ground in international relations as a geopolitical challenge by the U.S. toward China.[8]
The term was also used in 2019 by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in its statement ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP),[58] though the bloc also still uses the longstanding term "Asia-Pacific" which is preferred by China and Russia.[59] Its use by ASEAN is arguably an attempt by the bloc at balance-of-power hedging[60] between competing visions for the region between the US and China. However, it is also clear that ASEAN does not share the exact same understanding of the term as the US,[61] and its AOIP statement specifically states[58] that it envisions continuing to play a "central and strategic role" in the region.
In order to reduce its dependence on the Indo-Pacific, China has begun pivoting to the "Arcto-Pacific", aiming to usenorthern routes that are opening up due to climate change.[62]
Several state actors have published Indo-Pacific strategies, including theEuropean Union (EU) in September 2021.[63] In February 2022, the U.S. government released its official Indo-Pacific strategy,[64] while in November of that year, the Canadian government released its own Indo-Pacific strategy.[65] Canada have been described as walking a "diplomatic tightrope" in the Indo-Pacific, since they have attempted to align themselves with both China and U.S. allies like Japan.[66]
Pacific Island country leaders have prioritized terms such as "Blue Pacific" and "Blue Continent" over Indo-Pacific, which is seen as potentially marginalizing them.[67] The "Blue Pacific" identity was officially endorsed at the 48th Pacific Islands Forum meeting inApia,Samoa, in September 2017.[68] By 2019, the language among leaders shifted toward "Blue Pacific Continent".[69] Australia andNew Zealand, the two largest countries in the PIF, have engaged with the Blue Pacific Continent concept, while still using Indo-Pacific frameworks for broader regional contexts beyond the South Pacific area. Non-PIF members such as Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States have also engaged with the concept.[70] German political scientistPatrick Köllner wrote in 2021 that New Zealand only views itself as being a regional power in the South Pacific, while Australia views itself as both a regional power in the South Pacific and amiddle power in the Indo-Pacific.[71] In 2023.Fiji’s Prime Minister,Sitiveni Rabuka, proposed a declaration titled "Ocean of Peace", and it was endorsed at the PIF Leaders Meeting at theSolomon Islands in September 2025.[72] At a Japan-Fiji summit meeting and signing ceremony in November 2025, the "Ocean of Peace" declaration was regarded to share the same principles as Japan's "Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)" such as respect for sovereignty and maintaining a rules-based international order, and the two countries affirmed their cooperation toward the realization of a FOIP.[73]
The Indo-Pacific concept is yet not widely acknowledged amongst the governments ofLatin American countries orMiddle Eastern countries, countries which themselves are included under maximalist frameworks.[74] As of 2023, no Middle Eastern country in theGulf region had issued any official Indo-Pacific policy, with few leaders using the concept in public remarks.[75] Much ofChile's Indo-Pacific strategy is expressed through the South Pacific Defense Ministers' Meeting (SPDMM), which it annually holds with officials from other countries bordering the South Pacific, including Australia, Fiji, New Zealand,Papua New Guinea,Tonga andFrance (who are considered a South Pacific country due to their various South Pacific territories).[76]
TheAustralian Citizens Party, a minor party associated with the US-ledRouche movement, criticises the "Indo-Pacific" vision as a reenactment of Nazi strategy, given the concept's link to Karl Haushofer.[77]
Former Prime Minister of AustraliaPaul Keating, in a televised address at theNational Press Club, criticised the notion of the "Indo-Pacific" as a construct of the United States in its diplomatic war with China:[78]
The United States says, well, that's all very interesting. But look, if you behave yourself, you Chinese. You can be a stakeholder in our system. And look, you wouldn't have to be Xi Jinping or anybody, to take the view of your Chinese Nationalist say, "Well, hang on, let me get this right. We are already one and a quarter times bigger than you, will soon be twice as big as you, and we may be two and a half times as big as you. But we can be a stakeholder in your system, is that it?" I mean, it'd make a cat laugh.
Others have criticized the term for being overly broad, since under a maximalist definition, it encompasses every country with a Pacific or Indian Ocean coastline (including those in East Africa and the Western Americas) which accounts for 74 of all 194 independent countries, 65% of earth's total surface and a population of nearly 6 billion (three quarters of earth's total population).[79][80][81][82][83] The maximalist definition is used by Indian Prime Minister Modi, who in 2018 defined the Indo-Pacific as encompassing any country with a Pacific or Indian Ocean coastline, including those in the Middle East, who are often treated as a separate geopolitical zone.[5][84] On the other hand, the governments of the United States and Australia have defined anything west ofPakistan as not being part of the Indo-Pacific.[5] They also define the United States as being the only country in the Americas belonging to the Indo-Pacific regional framework.[85] Some wider definitions which include East Africa and the Middle East still do not include any of the countries of the Western Americas, instead ending the region at the Pacific Islands.[86][87] The French government's official definition includes all their Pacific and Indian Ocean territories, ranging from the archipelago ofMayotte, which is close to the coast of East Africa, to the Pacific atoll ofClipperton Island, which is 1,100 kilometers from Mexico.[88] Their definition encompasses mainland East Africa but not the mainland Western Americas.[88] Their definition also does not include Russia.[88][89] The Canadian government's official definition defines the Indo-Pacific as ranging from South Asia to the Pacific Islands, and encompasses 40 countries, excluding all countries from East Africa, the Middle East and the Western Americas, as well as Russia.[90][91]
The following political entities are included in the widest geopolitical definition of the Indo-Pacific, which interprets the space to include all areas bordering the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, or their marginal seas, bays, gulfs and straits:[79]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
