Interview by Gaveshna Sarswat
Disclaimer: All interviews reflect the individual views of our guests. This interview has been edited for readability and clarity of speech
Dr. Apila Sangtam is an Honorary Adjunct Fellow at the National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi, where she also serves as an Associate Fellow and Head of the ASEAN Cluster. Her work focuses on the geostrategic and policy implications of ASEAN member states on India’s maritime policies in the Indo-Pacific. With expertise in maritime security, India-Vietnam relations, the South China Sea, and India-US ties, she has published extensively and presented at numerous national and international forums. Dr. Sangtam holds a doctorate in Indo-Pacific Studies from Jawaharlal Nehru University, along with advanced degrees in International Relations and Political Science.
Let me begin by asking about the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific region in global affairs. Why do you think this region has gained such prominence in recent years? Could you elaborate on the key factors driving its significance, including its geopolitical, economic, and strategic dimensions? Additionally, how do you see the roles of major players like India, ASEAN and China?
The Indo-Pacific region, with key players like India, holds significant strategic importance in global foreign policy. Many countries with shared interests and priorities are involved in the Indo-Pacific. It’s a region of particular importance both regionally and globally due to the power dynamics among various countries.
As we know, the region has significant strategic domains, primarily due to the importance of trade routes. Trade connectivity has become critical for countries seeking to establish seamless strategic connectivity across borders. For instance, take the South China Sea: this is not just a crucial zone for global trade routes but also for energy supply lines, impacting energy security and freedom of navigation. I think it’s a vital point. ASEAN nations, for example, are under increasing pressure from China’s growing military presence and economic influence, and this is critical for understanding the regional security situation.
Your answer already covers much of my second question, but I’d still like to ask: besides traditional threats like security and energy, which you’ve already discussed, the region also faces non-traditional threats such as piracy, illegal fishing, and environmental issues. Could you speak to these in the context of the South China Sea?
The region faces both traditional and non-traditional security threats, and this significantly affects the regional political landscape. China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea, the intensifying tensions between the U.S. and China, and increased naval activities by countries like India, Japan, and Australia have heightened strategic competition and risk of conflict in the region.
Environmental challenges, such as overfishing and pollution, which have the potential to cause food insecurity in the region, require regional cooperation. Because non-traditional security issues are multifaceted, addressing them requires broader regional cooperation, which countries have initiated through various multilateral organisations. These frameworks, such as the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) and the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), introduced in 2019, are critical for fostering regional stability and security. For instance, India’s “SAGAR” initiative emphasises security and growth for all in the region, aligning with this vision of navigating the complex security landscape.
Given China’s actions in the South China Sea, how do you view its influence in the broader maritime security landscape? Do you believe its actions could affect other parts of the world’s maritime security?
I think we can’t ignore the broader impact of the Indo-Pacific region; whatever is happening here affects other countries. Take China’s expansive military ambitions in the South China Sea, for example. With extensive land reclamation and military construction of artificial islands, China is altering the landscape in ways that challenge the sovereignty of Southeast Asian nations and compromise the principle of freedom of navigation. This is crucial since the South China Sea is central to global trade and energy routes.
China’s actions don’t only impact the region but also influence other countries globally, given that these energy routes and trade pathways pass through contested waters. This situation has led other powers, such as the US, Japan, Australia and India, to respond to China’s activities by strengthening alliances, such as the Quad, and enhancing their own maritime and strategic capabilities. Many multilateral and multilateral frameworks are emerging to counterbalance China's influence, and I’d be happy to discuss them further if we have time.
I’d like to explore this further with an open question. China’s actions in the South China Sea raise broader maritime security issues. Do you think the way one country behaves in a contested area like the South China Sea could inspire other countries to act similarly in different contexts, say, for example, in regions where piracy is an issue, like the Red Sea?
Yes, over time, China’s behaviour is becoming more assertive, and it’s setting a precedent. We've seen frequent crises, such as tensions between China and the Philippines, which highlight the broader implications of China's moves. And just as events in Ukraine are observed globally, countries are watching China’s actions to understand the risks and consequences of such assertiveness.
While China may assert dominance, it faces losses in other ways—energy security, regional friendships, and even trust with neighbouring countries, many of whom are economically dependent on China but wary of its aggressive stance in the South China Sea. Now, countries are closely watching the Indo-Pacific dynamics, realising that China’s approach might be a signal for future global conflicts.
The South China Sea issue has indeed been a longstanding one, but why do you think China has become more assertive recently? What has changed compared to ten years ago that’s driving this shift?
In my opinion, China’s assertiveness has grown alongside the increasing global focus on the “Indo-Pacific.” China historically viewed this area as part of the “Asia-Pacific,” a concept that aligned with its vision. But with the rise of the “Indo-Pacific” framework, which promotes inclusivity, China has felt somewhat excluded, leading it to assert its interests more aggressively. This behaviour extends to China’s firm stance in areas like the South China Sea, where it claims nearly the entire region, impacting regional stability and triggering a recalibration of alliances among other nations.
Instead, China still prefers the term “Asia-Pacific,” and countries like Vietnam, which are closer to China's political sphere, also lean toward this term instead of “Indo-Pacific. This difference in terminology underscores a broader issue: China perceives the Indo-Pacific framework as a way to counter its influence. So, in response, China has started asserting its claims more aggressively, particularly in the South China Sea. China sees this as part of protecting its sovereignty and regional authority, while other nations are joining forces to establish a counterbalance.
We’re seeing how countries are coming together to balance China’s influence, with major powers like the USA conducting freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. My question is, what approach do you think is best? Should countries like the US, UK, Germany, and France continue these operations independently, or would a more coordinated collaboration with regional powers like India provide a stronger balance to China’s activities?
Freedom of navigation operations have indeed intensified, and they’re part of broader strategic coordination. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) conducted by the U.S. and its allies serve as a critical, albeit limited, tool in challenging China's expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, reinforcing the principle of open and lawful sea lanes. While these operations signal a strong commitment to international maritime norms and support for Southeast Asian nations contesting China’s claims, their effectiveness in shifting power dynamics remains constrained.
FONOPs underscore U.S. presence and deter unilateral actions, yet they risk escalating tensions without fully addressing the deeper issues driving regional instability. For ASEAN countries, reliance on FONOPs is often tempered by a preference for diplomatic measures and cooperative frameworks like AOIP, which aim to create a multipolar regional balance. Consequently, while FONOPs are a valuable deterrence tool, sustaining a stable balance of power in the region will require multi-pronged strategies that go beyond naval operations, including ASEAN-led initiatives and broader Indo-Pacific partnerships.
Like-minded nations are not only maintaining a military presence but also building alliances through initiatives like the recent QUAD joint exercises in the Indian Ocean. This was the first time such an extensive collaboration took place, showcasing the strong alignment between allies and partners in this region. The aim is to strengthen regional security without inciting confrontation, particularly given the sensitive nature of these waters and the potential risks for neighbouring countries. Another example of coordinated collaboration is India’s hosting of the ‘Milan 2024’ naval exercises, where 51 countries—including the US, UK, France, and Germany—participated, not solely to counter China, but to address shared maritime challenges together.
Since you mentioned India’s role, let’s discuss the position India can hold in the region, especially with its involvement in groups like AUKUS and the Quad. Where do you think India stands on this issue, and do you have any recommendations?
India’s strategic role in the Indo-Pacific is becoming increasingly significant, reflecting a proactive approach to ensuring regional stability, especially in counterbalancing other influences. Initiatives like IPOI (Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative) underscore India’s commitment to a rules-based order, emphasising openness, inclusivity, and security. This approach strengthens India’s partnerships with neighbouring countries and ASEAN, leveraging multilateral engagements to expand cooperation with like-minded partners.
India’s strategic positioning is especially impactful for smaller Southeast Asian nations and in the broader context of great power competition. By strengthening defence partnerships, particularly with countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, and providing capacity-building assistance to their naval forces, India plays a crucial role in supporting regional security. This helps to establish a balanced regional security framework where Southeast Asian countries can exercise greater autonomy.
India has already implemented numerous initiatives to bolster this role, including joint coast guard exercises, search and rescue missions, and disaster response operations across the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. These efforts showcase India as a “preferred security partner” rather than just a “net security provider.” This trust-building role is essential in the region, where India can offer strategic stability amid China’s expanding influence.
India should engage bilaterally with AUKUS on tech and maritime capabilities to strengthen its defence while retaining strategic autonomy. Simultaneously, by championing inclusive security frameworks that bridge ASEAN and Western interests, India positions itself as a unifying, stabilising force in the Indo-Pacific.
From what you’ve said, I understand that no single country can balance Chinese assertiveness alone. Countries in the region need to come together, not only relying on major powers but also collaborating with nations directly affected, like Vietnam and the Philippines, to effectively balance China’s influence. That’s a very insightful concept, Dr. Sangtam.
On a related note, I’d like to ask about the role the U.S. has been playing. With the upcoming U.S. elections next month, which will likely influence American foreign policy over the next few years, do you think a potential administration change could significantly impact the region?
Yes, changes in U.S. leadership could bring some policy shifts, but there has been continuity in certain strategic areas. For example, under past administrations, we saw policies like the “Pivot to Asia” during Obama’s term, evolving into the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy under Trump. This continuity shows that U.S. interest in Indo-Pacific stability remains strong due to shared security and economic concerns, even with leadership changes.
While the U.S. pulled out of agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Climate Agreement under Trump, it also adopted stricter trade policies against China, which included tariffs and other economic countermeasures. Regardless of election outcomes, the U.S. will likely continue to invest in regional stability, allocating resources and attention to sustain its influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Looking at the broader picture, is there an aspect of the geopolitical issues in the region that is overlooked or under-discussed, which you think people should pay more attention to?
The ASEAN chairmanship rotates each year, with each chair country bringing different priorities. For example, Laos is currently the chair, but next year it will be Malaysia. Each chair's focus varies; for instance, Malaysia is expected to prioritise regional issues like the South China Sea and, perhaps, address the Myanmar crisis, which has been a significant concern since 2021. Malaysia’s approach might differ due to its recent political landscape, which includes complex domestic issues and its relationship with China. The rotation presents challenges, as each country in the chair position has unique priorities, making it difficult to establish a consistent ASEAN-wide policy.
Under Indonesia’s recent chairmanship, the ASEAN Digital Economic Framework was introduced. Now, countries are watching Malaysia, given its perceived closeness to China, to see if it can manage ASEAN’s response to China effectively. This expectation puts pressure on Malaysia to lead ASEAN in addressing complex issues like the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and managing regional security and economic partnerships.
The US has been a strong supporter of Malaysia's upcoming chairmanship, encouraging Malaysia to take a firmer stance on issues like the South China Sea and the Myanmar crisis. There’s optimism, but also caution, as Malaysia’s past positions on these matters have sometimes been more reserved. ASEAN countries will need to keep a close eye on how Malaysia handles its leadership responsibilities given the current geopolitical context and the support it has from global partners like the US.
Although you’ve addressed it already, could you briefly summarise the strategies that both regional and global powers can adapt to balance China's assertive actions? Maybe start with regional strategies and then discuss the global approach.
To ensure long-term peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific, regional players should adopt a well-balanced approach. This balance is crucial as it integrates defence capability with diplomatic and ecological initiatives, drawing on external powers collectively. The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) provides an essential platform that enables players to collectively address security issues, facilitate dialogue, and, most importantly, build trust. Without mutual trust, managing disputes and finding resolutions would be difficult.
Countries should collaborate through initiatives focused on information sharing and intelligence, building joint response capacity, and supporting an open Indo-Pacific. These steps are key for regional countries to take together. Globally, it’s essential to continue pressing China to adhere to international norms, reinforcing a rules-based order. By balancing diplomatic, economic, and security efforts, regional and global players can develop sustainable strategies to address the challenges posed by China's assertiveness.
India’s vision for the Indo-Pacific aligns with its SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) strategy, emphasizing regional stability and prosperity through collaboration. While geopolitical tensions persist, India has pursued multilateral agreements with countries like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam to address maritime security and resource challenges. MOUs with the Philippines, for instance, focus on capacity building in areas like meteorology, showcasing India’s role as a key partner in training and expertise. By promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific and fostering cooperation on shared ecosystems, India emerges as a regional leader, advancing stability through security partnerships and collaborative initiatives.
Comments