Kamal Davar | What’s in a name… Why ‘Indo-Pacific’ has Reverted to US ‘Pacific’ Command?

A historical question, “What’s in a name?”, embellishes William Shakespeare’s magnum opus Romeo and Juliet, and this phrase has been utilised countless times, both seriously and in jest, depending upon the user’s inclination to give it the colour or meaning they warrant. Most people employ this phrase lightly as they feel that, irrespective of the name or title given to an individual or institution, the true worth of an individual or institution lies far beyond its mere name.

Anyway, names do carry ample cultural and symbolic significance, and the above-mentioned phrase is followed in Shakespeare’s play by another famous line: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Extending this expression to the recent geopolitical churn and the catastrophic wars taking place around the world, some changes in military and economic alliances between nations are currently underway. The renaming of the erstwhile US “Indo-Pacific Command” the other day is an example of shifting geopolitical and strategic considerations. The current lack of warmth in India-US relations would perhaps also be a reason for this name change.

The Pentagon has officially announced that the name of the US Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) has been restored to its legacy name, the US Pacific Command (USPACOM), which had been changed earlier in 2018 to include the word “Indo” to signify the growing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and its linkages to the Pacific Ocean and, importantly, India’s emerging geopolitical role.

Additionally, the Pentagon has stated that the “reversion honours the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride for the oldest and largest unified command”, which was established in 1947.

The question now engaging the minds of many Indian servicemembers and strategic analysts is: What was the reason for this so-called name change? The Americans, not all though, would naturally ask the Indians: “What’s in a name?” Our reply could be: a lot. Our fading, one-sided friendship, engineered by the mercurial US President Donald Trump, may be the reason.

The US has eleven combat commands, which include seven geographic commands. USPACOM was the designation for the oldest and largest geographic unified combatant command. Its operational boundaries extend from the US West Coast to the western border of India. It is manned by over 375,000 personnel from the US armed forces.

Though US officials insist that removing the word “Indo” does not dilute their established operational missions, including their commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific region, many strategic analysts argue that it unequivocally conveys a strategic message to the global community, especially to India.

It requires no emphasis to state that, since the last couple of years, especially during the Trump administration 2.0, relations between the so-called strategic allies, India and the US, have plummeted owing to President Trump’s policies of imposing very high tariffs on India and making the grant of US H-1B visas grossly unaffordable.

As we fathom the reason for this unwarranted change in name, the China factor positively has to be reckoned with. It is a well-known fact worldwide that the military and economic gap between the United States and China is narrowing by the year. The US, for reasons best known to Washington, even under an over-talkative and policy-shifting President, appears to be trying to keep China in good humour.

President Trump’s recent visit to China was a diplomatic setback for the US. Even during the US-Israel combined war with Iran, at the Strait of Hormuz water bottleneck, the US targeted no Russian or Chinese cargo-carrying ships. On the contrary, three Indian flag-bearing commercial ships were targeted by the US Navy, resulting in the death of three Indian soldiers. Surprisingly, no apology from the US establishment was forthcoming. Unfortunately, the Indian government did not take up this case forcefully with the US government.

Coming back to the Chinese angle in the renaming of the US Indo-Pacific Command, the US, since the early years of this century, has encouraged the formation of the Japan-sponsored Quad, comprising India, the US, Japan and Australia, and AUKUS — a trilateral military alliance comprising Australia, the UK and the US — to keep the international waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans free for maritime traffic, as China is widely viewed as a maritime bully in this region.

Though little headway has been made in further energising these alliances, there is merit in forging closer cooperation among the member nations, as China will remain a long-term strategic military and economic threat.

However, it is also a fact that, without the US taking strong enough measures, both these alliances will remain merely talking shops, as China and Pakistan — America’s current favourite — would wish. US officials, however, continue to harp on the post-World War II maritime architecture being carried forward under its original name. Events in the foreseeable future will, however, make the exact reason for this change in nomenclature clear.

Overall, India’s current relations with the United States are on the downslide, despite some flattering remarks from President Trump last week at the G7 summit.

India will be well advised to pursue its strategic autonomy policy sincerely and adopt a mature, yet self-respecting, approach in its handling of all major powers worldwide.

We do need to tell President Donald Trump, after his recent remarks about “helping India if attacked”, that India can very well look after its own interests.

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was the first head of India’s Defence Intelligence Agency and is a strategic analyst.