Japan and Australia frame Indo-Pacific security as geopolitical zero-sum game, obscuring regional cooperation and indigenous agency amid global crises

Indigenous Pacific and Southeast Asian communities define security through relational ecosystems—land, sea, and ancestral ties—where militarization disrupts traditional conflict resolution mechanisms like 'talanoa' (dialogue) in Fiji or 'gotong royong' (mutual aid) in Indonesia. The current narrative erases how indigenous navigational knowledge (e.g., wayfinding in Polynesia) historically ensured regional connectivity without centralized militaries. Indigenous land and water defenders in Australia and the Philippines have long warned that extractive industries (mining, logging) fuel instability more than geopolitical rivalries, yet their insights are excluded from defense dialogues. The securitized framing also ignores how indigenous women’s peace networks (e.g., in Bougainville) have mediated conflicts without state intervention.

The current 'security vacuum' narrative echoes Cold War-era containment strategies, where crises in one region were framed as existential threats to another, justifying military buildups (e.g., SEATO, ANZUS). Historical precedents like the 1955 Bandung Conference show how non-aligned states resisted great-power militarization by prioritizing economic cooperation and cultural exchange. The 1971 ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality) declaration in Southeast Asia demonstrated how regional states could collectively reject external security architectures. Yet today’s discourse ignores how ASEAN’s founding members explicitly rejected military blocs in favor of 'dynamic equilibrium' through dialogue and economic integration.

In East Asia, the concept of 'guanxi' (关系) emphasizes long-term relational trust over transactional alliances, a framework absent in Japan-Australia defense cooperation. African and Latin American non-aligned movements historically resisted great-power security frameworks by prioritizing South-South cooperation, offering a model for Indo-Pacific states seeking autonomy. The African Union’s 'Silencing the Guns' initiative demonstrates how regional bodies can address instability without external militarization, yet this is rarely cited in Indo-Pacific security debates. Indigenous Australian and Māori security frameworks, which center 'care for country' and intergenerational responsibility, provide alternative paradigms to the current securitized approach.

Security studies research consistently shows that military deterrence increases instability in multipolar regions, while economic interdependence and institutional cooperation reduce conflict risk (e.g., studies by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). Climate security literature highlights how resource scarcity (e.g., water, fisheries) drives migration and conflict more than geopolitical rivalries, yet this is omitted from defense narratives. Network analysis of regional trade flows (e.g., ASEAN+6) demonstrates that economic integration reduces conflict propensity, contradicting the 'zero-sum' framing of Japan and Australia. The scientific consensus on 'complex interdependence' (Keohane & Nye) is ignored in favor of realist security paradigms.

Pacific Islander navigational chants (e.g., Māori waiata, Hawaiian oli) encode ancestral knowledge of regional security, framing the ocean as a connective tissue rather than a battleground. Buddhist and Hindu philosophies in Southeast Asia emphasize 'ahimsa' (non-violence) and 'dharma' (cosmic order) as foundations for stability, contrasting with the militarized discourse of Japan and Australia. Indigenous Australian art (e.g., dot painting) often depicts land-sea relationships as sacred covenants, a metaphor for security that transcends state boundaries. The erasure of these spiritual frameworks reflects a broader colonial project to devalue indigenous epistemologies in favor of secular, state-centric security models.

Scenario modeling by the East-West Center suggests that unchecked militarization in the Indo-Pacific could lead to a 'security dilemma spiral' by 2035, where miscalculation triggers regional conflict. Alternative futures, such as a 'Pacific Commons' model (shared governance of fisheries and shipping lanes), demonstrate how indigenous stewardship could reduce great-power competition. Climate-induced displacement (e.g., Tuvalu, Kiribati) will likely reshape security architectures, yet defense dialogues remain fixated on traditional military threats. The rise of AI-driven surveillance and autonomous weapons systems (e.g., Australia’s AUKUS submarine deal) risks exacerbating instability by removing human judgment from crisis decision-making.

Smaller ASEAN states like Laos and Cambodia, which prioritize economic development over military alliances, are sidelined in Japan-Australia security narratives. Indigenous communities in Okinawa (Japan) and the Northern Territory (Australia) face militarization of their lands yet have no seat at defense negotiation tables. Women peacebuilders in Mindanao (Philippines) and Bougainville (Papua New Guinea) have mediated conflicts without state intervention, but their work is excluded from official security dialogues. Pacific Island leaders, who have repeatedly warned about climate-induced security threats, are treated as passive recipients of aid rather than architects of regional solutions.