THE VIEWS OF MEMBER STATES ON EU INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY

Austria

Vienna supports the EU’s adoption of an Indo-Pacific strategy as a means to not only protect European interests in the region but also contain Beijing. Austria generally emphasises cooperation with democratic nations, prioritising partnerships with South Korea, the United States, and Japan rather than China. The exceptions are Australia, which it does not prioritise, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – which it does prioritise, but which includes a mixture of democratic and authoritarian countries.

Belgium

Belgium sees the adoption of an EU Indo-Pacific strategy as an opportunity to manage the transatlantic alliance and develop an anti-China strategic tool. The Belgian government reasons that it is best to keep its friends close and its enemies closer – in the sense that active engagement with China should help it monitor the country’s rise up close. Belgium wants to form key partnerships with democracies in the Indo-Pacific, including the United States, India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria regards the EU’s Indo-Pacific strategy as providing both opportunities for Europe, as an anti-China strategic tool, and as a means to manage the transatlantic alliance. Sofia believes that it is relatively important to strengthen ties with democratic countries in the region, and would welcome greater engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its member states – especially against the backdrop of EU-ASEAN negotiations on a free-trade agreement. Bulgaria sees the United Kingdom, China, and Japan as the EU’s key partners in the region.

Croatia

Zagreb understands the Indo-Pacific strategy as both an opportunity for Europe and an anti-China strategic tool; and it sees in the strategy an alignment with the United States. As a result, in establishing regional partnerships, Croatia would give priority to pursuing relations with traditional partners such as the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan. As one of the largest, and most populous and influential, countries in the world, as well as Beijing’s rival in the region, cooperation with India would also be welcome. Further partners to be considered would be the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Indonesia, the Pacific islands, and Vietnam.

Cyprus

Cyprus sees the Indo-Pacific as a field of opportunity for Europe. As such, the adoption of a joint EU strategy would be understood as an assertion of European strategic autonomy. Because Cyprus views the democratic character of potential partners as very important, it maintains that Europe’s main partners in the region should be Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) should also be involved.

Czech Republic

Prague understands the Indo-Pacific as both a field of opportunity for Europe and a vehicle for dealing with China. As such, the EU Indo-Pacific strategy would represent an assertion of strategic autonomy. Key partners in the region would be the following (in order of importance): India, the United States, South Korea, and Japan. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Canada, and New Zealand are other actors that could be key partners in the region. China, on the other hand, is not seen as a like-minded partner, but rather a player that – in certain domains – should be monitored further.

Denmark

Denmark understands the Indo-Pacific as a field of opportunity in which the implementation of an EU strategy would create an opportunity for assertiveness as well as a way to support the transatlantic alliance. In this endeavour, Denmark would like to see the establishment of partnerships with relevant players in the field, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), India, Japan, Indonesia, and Singapore.

Estonia

Estonia understands the Indo-Pacific as geographic region that could translate into a field of opportunity for Europe, while it sees the strategy itself as a way of managing the transatlantic alliance. For Tallinn, the democratic character of potential partners is highly relevant, and is reflected by its choice of preferred partners in the region: the United States and India.

Finland

While the Indo-Pacific per se is understood as a field of opportunity for Europe, the adoption of an EU Indo-Pacific strategy would be interpreted by Finland as an assertion of European strategic autonomy. Helsinki places great importance on the democratic character of potential partner countries. This is reflected in its expressed preference for partners in the region: the United Kingdom, the United States, and India. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) would also be a welcome ally for the EU.

France

As it sees itself as an Indo-Pacific nation, France considers the forthcoming EU Indo-Pacific strategy as a tool to assist its own national interests as well as a vehicle through which to control China’s increasing influence. French policymakers would favour a strategy that aims to assert EU strategic autonomy and reinforce the transatlantic alliance. Against this backdrop, a steady partnership with Australia and India would constitute an essential pillar of engagement for France. It also considers the United Kingdom and the United States indispensable allies in the region, but how they would work more closely together is yet to be clearly defined. France would also welcome greater cooperation with Indonesia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Germany

Germany regards security considerations in the Indo-Pacific as important, especially against the backdrop of tensions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, which could undermine the overall stability of the region. That being said, Germany would welcome EU security engagement that is more orientated to non-traditional security issues: it believes that the regulatory power of the EU should be employed to promote good governance, climate policy, and a rules-based order in the region. Sustainable maritime activities would also be welcome in an effort to promote conscious climate action, although it is not Germany’s prime interest.

Greece

Greece understands the Indo-Pacific region as a field of opportunity for Europe, in which a unified strategy should aim to enhance EU strategic autonomy, take the United States into account, and seek to maintain good relations with China. As concerns which particular partnerships to pursue, Athens would seek deeper cooperation with Washington and New Delhi, but would not exclude Beijing either.

Hungary

The Indo-Pacific is seen by Budapest as a region of opportunity for Europe. Hungary would prefer for the strategy, when implemented, not to be bound by geostrategic considerations, but rather to be driven by the goal of supporting regional stability, and to focus on trade, economic cooperation, and development. The establishment of partner countries in the region would depend on the role that the Indo-Pacific strategy would come to adopt. Ultimately, though, Hungary is wary of the strategy undermining China’s interests in any way.

Ireland

Dublin understands the Indo-Pacific region as a field of opportunity for Europe, where the adoption of a unified strategy would represent an assertion of European strategic autonomy. Ireland would pursue partnerships with the United States, China, and India primarily, viewing each as equally important actors in terms of regional relevance and balancing out divergent interests Ireland has recently deepened its engagement with New Zealand, and regards the country as another like-minded actor that could help establish partnership working in the Indo-Pacific, especially in view of the fact that Dublin considers the democratic character of potential partnerships to be important.

Italy

If the Italian view is that the Indo-Pacific in its geographic sense is a field of opportunity for Europe, the adoption of a unified strategy on the region would signify for Italy an assertion of European strategic autonomy. In the establishment of partnerships with regional actors, Italy would prioritise engagement with the “Quad” partners of India, Australia, Japan and the United States. The Italian stance on China remains nuanced, and Italy may have some difficulty reconciling its position should the new EU Indo-Pacific strategy strike a different pose. If the overriding emphasis of the strategy is the pursuit of EU economic interests, then – according to Italian officials – China, as an important commercial and economic partner, ought to be included in the conversation. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) should also be included.

Latvia

Riga regards the Indo-Pacific concept as an anti-China strategic tool, and it views the eventual adoption of a unified strategy on the region as an alignment with US goals. Given this, it believes that Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and India would be the most relevant partners for the EU in the region.

Lithuania

Lithuania understands the Indo-Pacific both as a field of opportunity for China and as an anti-China strategic tool. Vilnius largely regards the forthcoming strategy as an alignment with the United States and a way of managing the transatlantic relationship. It sees India, the United States, and South Korea as key partners in the region, mirroring the importance that Lithuania attributes to the democratic character of potential partners. It also considers ASEAN an important actor to engage with.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg understands the Indo-Pacific as a field of opportunity for Europe, and sees the strategy as helping foster a coherent approach to the Indian Ocean, shaped around the concept of cooperation with key partners in Africa and Asia. Regarding the establishment of partnerships in the region, it believes that the European Union should choose who it cooperates with on the basis of specific policy areas where partners can find common ground, and based on shared principles and values, or mutual interest. In this sense, although Luxembourg regards the democratic character of potential partners as important, it would establish partnerships with China as well as with Australia and Japan.

Malta

For the island, the Indo-Pacific represents a field of opportunity for Europe, in which an EU strategy would translate into an assertion of European strategic autonomy. The key partners in the region with which the European Union should seek to deepen ties are Japan, Australia, and China. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) would be welcomed to the conversation as well. The democratic character, or otherwise, of potential partners is not necessarily regarded as a priority.

Netherlands

For the Netherlands, the political driver behind the Indo-Pacific concept is to recognise the economic and geopolitical importance of the region and to strengthen the European Union’s ability to act. Against this backdrop, the adoption of an Indo-Pacific strategy would represent an assertion of EU strategic autonomy, while at the same time underscoring the importance of the transatlantic alliance. In this sense, the Netherlands holds that Australia and the United States should be regarded as the EU’s main partners in the region, along with Canada and countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Depending on the ultimate nature of the initiative, further partners, such as Sri Lanka, could be included.

Poland

Poland understands the Indo-Pacific as both a field of opportunity for Europe and a strategic tool against China. The adoption of the EU Indo-Pacific strategy in this sense would be considered to be an alignment with the United States. The countries that Poland would regard as key partners in the region would be India, the US, and Japan, as well as Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. In this regard, the democratic character of a potential partner country is not seen as an important criterion.

Portugal.

Portugal understands the Indo-Pacific as a field of opportunity for Europe, and also as an anti-China strategic tool. Lisbon believes that adopting a unified strategy on the region would represent an assertion of European strategic autonomy, an alignment with the United States, and a tool to manage the transatlantic alliance. In the region, Portugal would prioritise the establishment of partnerships with the United Kingdom, the US, India, and Japan. Moreover, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and countries belonging to the Community of Portuguese Language Countries – Mozambique and East Timor in particular – should be regarded as potential partners as well.

Romania

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains that the Indo-Pacific concept is both a field of opportunity for Europe and a key anti-China strategic tool. For Romania, adopting an Indo-Pacific strategy would form part of managing the transatlantic alliance. In terms of establishing partnerships, Romania believes Europe should not simply partner with countries with a strong democratic character, though it is does accord some importance to this aspect. For Romania, the United Kingdom, the United States, and China are the most important potential partnerships to establish in the region, as well as countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly those that are “like-minded” at a multilateral level, such as Singapore.

Slovakia

The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Finance each see the Indo-Pacific as both a field of opportunity for Europe and an anti-China strategic tool. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the issue as “not recognised”. More departmental disagreement comes from the way in which an eventual EU Indo-Pacific strategy would be interpreted, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that it would be an assertion of European strategic autonomy. The Ministry of Defence, though, views it also as a way of managing transatlantic alliances, and the Ministry of Finance sees it as a way of aligning with the United States. These disagreements continue in discussion of who key partners in the Indo-Pacific should be, with the exception that all ministries ranked the US as the most important partner. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance also prioritised Australia and China, while the Ministry of Defence prioritised the United Kingdom and Australia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also considers countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to be important partners. The democratic character of these countries would also be heavily considered when deciding their partnership.

Slovenia

Slovenia sees the Indo-Pacific as an economic alternative to China, but does not necessarily think that a strategy on the region should become a tool to use against China. It views the European Union as being able to play a role in balancing China’s ability to leverage its growing economic presence to form voting blocs in the UN General Assembly, as well as diversifying and balancing systemic influence over Indo-Pacific countries. . Slovenia would, however, still see the adoption of an Indo-Pacific strategy as a move by the EU to align with the United States. Key partners in the Indo-Pacific should include the United Kingdom, followed by the US and China. Ljubljana also sees smaller and medium-sized countries in south-east Asia as potential partners, such as Malaysia, which is a country significantly smaller than China but which has economic potential. When deciding which countries would be best to partner with, Slovenia sees the democratic character, or otherwise, of a country as only somewhat important.

Spain

For Spain, the most important partners in the Indo-Pacific would be Japan, Australia, and South Korea, as well as Vietnam and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). However, the partner it sees as most key is China, because of its crucial position within the region and the entire globalised system. This leads Madrid to promote the discovery of common ground and “balance” with China. A potential partner’s democratic character is only somewhat important for Spain.

Sweden

In Sweden, policymakers tend to view the Indo-Pacific as an opportunity for Europe, and regards the adoption of an EU strategy as an assertion of “Global Europe”, underlining the EU’s global role as based on cooperation between partners with shared values and interests. Sweden sees the EU’s key partners in the region as being South Korea, the United States, and Australia, as well as Singapore. Stockholm also values partnerships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). How democratic these partners are is important to Sweden but it not the overriding factor