Japan-India-US Trilateral Strategic Dialogue on
Security Issues in the Indo-Pacific Region

The Japan-India-US Trilateral Strategic Dialogue on Security Issues in the Indo-PacificRegion is co-hosted by Japan’s Okazaki Institute and the Japan Institute of International
Affairs, the United Service Institute of India, and the Vanderbilt University US-Japan Center.
This Dialogue has thus far been held three times. The first was in Delhi in November 2011,
the second in Washington in October 2012, and the third time in Tokyo in March 2013, and it
has been confirmed that this Strategic Dialogue will continue into the future. This reportsummarizes the key points of consensus among the Dialogue participants, andrecommends policies that should be taken to further strengthen security and defense
cooperation among Japan, India and the US.

Principal points of consensus in Trilateral Dialogue
Assessment of the security environment in the Indo-Pacific region
The Dialogue participants were agreed that the Indo-Pacific region faces a variety oftraditional and non-traditional security issues even as it rapidly develops economically.
They also came to the consensus that Japan, India and the US are the key players insecurity and defense in the Indo-Pacific region, and that they share not only their own many
interests but also responsibility for ensuring the region’s security and prosperity.

The expansion of China’s influence and national power both politically and economically is
the most important development in the Indo-Pacific security environment in recent years,presenting both opportunities and challenges to the region as a whole. The Dialogue
participants considered it possible that China’s military build-up and assertive behavior
could heighten tensions over regional maritime disputes in particular and produce seriously
adverse effects. The Dialogue participants believed it important to increase transparency
regarding the military capabilities of major countries in the Indo-Pacific region. While theDialogue participants were agreed that a policy of containment against China wasinappropriate and counterproductive, they were also in agreement that efforts should bemade to improve comprehensive cooperation and ensure that China will conform to, andfulfill its responsibilities under, established international law and practices in the region. At1

the same time, they reached a consensus on the need to make the necessary security anddefense preparations to hedge against situations developing in undesirable directions.

The Dialogue participants were of the same view that political and military developments inNorth Korea were the most pressing security issue for the Indo-Pacific region. Given theuncertainties surrounding the Kim Jong-un regime, the Dialogue participants felt it
necessary for Japan, India and the US to prepare for more provocations by North Korea in
the form of completely ignoring the wishes of the international community, and to pursue
talks on responding to future developments in concert in order to resolve such issues as
nuclear/missile development and nuclear non-proliferation. The Dialogue participants also
share concerns about China-Pakistan-North Korea nexus on nuclear and missile
proliferation and recognize the need to make more efforts on nonproliferation.

The Dialogue participants agreed that efforts should be made to involve China in bilateraland multilateral talks in order to avoid the danger of an arms race in the Indo-Pacific region,
to prevent inordinate military build-ups and the outbreak/escalation of unintended
confrontations, and to foster a habit of cooperation among the militaries of the region. The
Dialogue participants regarded greater transparency and confidence-building measures as
the keys to achieving these objectives. It was pointed out that, in this context, establishingbilateral hotlines between defense authorities and concluding agreements to prevent
contingencies with the involvement of China as well as pursuing multi-lateral strategic
dialogue and joint exercises among or centered on Japan, India and the US were allmeasures worthy of further consideration.

It was also recognized that, with the region’s rapid development, economic and energy
security have become important issues in the region’s strategic environment, above all
because the expansion of energy demand and the hunt for energy resources could prompt
actions that would destabilize energy markets and maritime security. It was pointed out thatstable supply networks must be established for the region and energy resources safely
developed as the world’s economic center of gravity shifts to the Indo-Pacific region.

The Dialogue participants acknowledged that the Indo-Pacific region faces many security
issues of a non-traditional character as well as those of a more traditional type. They2

believed that many maritime security issues in particular should be addressed jointly by thethree countries as major security and defense players in the region. The Dialogue
participants also recognized the fragile nature of maritime security and reaffirmed the needfor the maritime law codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). The Dialogue participants emphasized the importance of freedom of navigationand sea lane security in particular. These are critical elements in further expanding trade inthis region. It was also agreed that cooperative efforts to tackle common concerns such as
piracy and illicit trade (especially trade in materials that could be used in the manufacture ofweapons of mass destruction) must be strengthened. In light of the fact that the Indo-Pacificregion is subject to frequent earthquakes, typhoons and other natural disasters, theDialogue participants viewed Japan, India and the US as playing important roles in disastercountermeasures and relief efforts as well.

The Dialogue participants strongly recommended that the US ratify UNCLOS and join in thisagreement as soon as possible. Having all countries connected with the Indo-Pacific region
become UNCLOS signatories would serve as an extremely important foundation for
resolving disputes in accordance with the rule of law.

The Dialogue participants agreed that the Indo-Pacific region is facing new types of threats
to space and cyberspace security, and that it would be useful to take up these issues andconsider solutions in all meetings relevant to the security and defense of Japan, India andthe US.

The roles of bilateral alliances and multilateral frameworks
The Dialogue participants recognized that the Indo-Pacific security environment haschanged tremendously since the end of the Cold War, and acknowledged continuingelements of instability in this region. The Dialogue participants were mindful that existing
bilateral alliances play an extremely important role in the maintenance of peace and security
in the Indo-Pacific region. At the same time, the Dialogue participants also held that themultilateral frameworks in the Indo-Pacific region add value by contributing to the enduring
security and prosperity of the region through strengthened trust and cooperation among theparticipating countries. Periodic dialogue involving institutions connected with security anddefense in Japan, India and the US could aid in this progress. The Dialogue participants

3viewed steady efforts in developing existing multilateral frameworks in the Indo-Pacificregion as being of increasing importance for bolstering trust and promoting cooperation, andsaw this as contributing to the region’s safety and security. They recommended that thegovernments of Japan, India and the US pay careful and close attention to theseframeworks and broadly participate as much as possible.

Security in the Indo-Pacific region is a composite concept covering economic and energy
security as well as traditional and non-traditional security, and it is vital to utilize the various
multilateral frameworks mentioned above as well as flexible and multilayered bilateral andtrilateral frameworks. Promoting cooperation, exchanging information and building
confidence through these frameworks will contribute to the stability of the region by
preventing misunderstandings, reducing mistrust, and expanding the scope of commoninterests.

Japan-India-US cooperation and the role of Track II diplomacy
Japan, India and the US are major countries willing and able to contribute to the region’s
security and stability and, despite some differences of opinion regarding maritime
jurisdiction, they share a wide range of interests and areas of cooperation. The Dialogue
participants were convinced that greater security and defense cooperation can also bepursued within a trilateral framework while taking into account the impacts on economic andenergy security.

The Dialogue participants were agreed that the Track II community of non-officials in thethree countries plays a key role in proposing specific ideas for security and defense
cooperation and confidence-building to their respective governments. They were also of thesame mind on the usefulness of Track II dialogue and information exchange in deepening
mutual understanding.

Recommendations on future areas of cooperation for three countries
Reflecting on the discussions at the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue, the Dialogue participants
identified and recommended areas of security and defense cooperation for Japan, India andthe US from the perspective of Indo-Pacific stability and prosperity.

In making theserecommendations, they agreed that the advantages of Track II diplomacy should be4

leveraged to ensure more in-depth discussions at the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue and tofurther research on more detailed and specific proposals for trilateral cooperation.

Developing a maritime security coalition
The Dialogue participants welcomed the progress made in existing bilateral cooperation
among Japan, India and the US in the area of maritime security/defense, as well as theongoing development of this framework into trilateral cooperation. In view of the importanceof ensuring that sea lanes transiting the Indo-Pacific region are not blocked and not used forillicit activities, the Dialogue participants regarded it as essential that the three countries
enhance and develop cooperation in both traditional and non-traditional areas of maritime
security, including anti-piracy operations, HA/DR and the non-proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction, in the form of a “non-alliance” maritime security coalition. This coalition
would not resemble a “containment alliance” targeting a particular country as a hypotheticalenemy, but would rather be a loose, voluntary association providing universal maritime
security as a regional public good.

The Dialogue participants agreed that the three countries must address challenges ofanti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition to continued efforts todevelop the Air-Sea Battle concept, the maritime security coalition needs to work on thestrategy of Offshore Control to defeat A2/AD threats and its own A2/AD as part of thisstrategy.

This maritime security coalition would in future go beyond these three countries to seek out
the participation of other sensible maritime countries in the region. The Dialogue participants
shared the view that building a maritime security coalition should be given the utmost priority
within trilateral cooperation, and agreed that the three countries must give more concreteconsideration to what form this maritime security coalition should take for the time being andwhat strategies should be pursued.

Deepening and expanding trilateral cooperation
The Dialogue participants shared the view that trilateral cooperation in the following areas
ranks right below the formation of a maritime security coalition in importance, and affirmedthat specific research would continue to be pursued within the framework of this Strategic5

Dialogue:① ISR cooperation in multilayered domains (need for a GSOMIA agreement)② Strategic-level defense cooperation (nuclear deterrence, conventional (non-nuclear)
deterrence, space/cyberspace security, Offshore Control)③ Operational-level defense cooperation (BMD/CMD, counter-A2/AD)④ Tactical-level defense cooperation (various warfare)⑤ Non-traditional security cooperation (anti-piracy efforts, HA/DR, nuclear/ballistic missile
non-proliferation, etc.)⑥ Education and training⑦ Logistical support cooperation (need for an ACSA agreement)⑧ Permission to use/access military installations⑨ Cooperation between defense industries

6