The Indian Ocean: Strategic Hub in the 21st Century

 In recent years, the global political order, traditionally dominated by Western powers, has been undergoing significant transformation. The increasing geopolitical competition among the United States, Russia, and China, coupled with regional challenges such as the conflict in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and China's growing economic assertiveness, reflect a reordering of global power structures. At the heart of this transformation lies the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), a critical geopolitical arena that has become a focal point of international strategic competition. The role of the United States, Russia, and China in shaping this evolving global order is not limited to their direct actions but also reflects their strategic choices of inaction, or strategic silence, on critical global issues.

The United States: Promoting Global Justice While Exempting Itself

Historically, the United States has been a significant proponent of international norms, having played a key role in the creation of institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and human rights conventions (Ginsburg, 2018). However, the U.S. has repeatedly refrained from submitting itself to the jurisdiction of international legal frameworks, particularly in relation to its military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Kavanagh, 2021). This selective engagement highlights an asymmetrical global order where powerful states like the U.S. shape international norms while avoiding accountability for their actions. The contradiction between the U.S.’s global advocacy for justice and its refusal to adhere to international law exposes the inherent imbalances in the current global system. 

Russia’s Multipolar Strategy: The Role of Silence in Diplomacy

Russia’s foreign policy consistently emphasizes the importance of multipolarity, advocating for a global order where emerging powers and regional actors have a stronger voice, rather than a world dominated by the U.S. and its allies. In regions such as Syria, Ukraine, and Libya, Russia has opposed U.S.-led initiatives and positioned itself as a counterweight to Western influence (Lukin, 2020). However, Russia’s approach to the Indian Ocean Region and its relationship with India reflect a more complex diplomatic strategy of strategic silence. For instance, in the context of the Eelam Tamil issue, a sensitive conflict involving human rights and geopolitical tensions, Russia has refrained from vocal criticism despite U.S.-India collaboration in the region (Pape, 2019). This calculated silence underscores the importance of strategic non-engagement as an effective tool in international diplomacy.

The Small Drops initiative, which I am actively involved with, works in regions impacted by conflict and human rights abuses, providing insights into how such silences can influence local communities. During my work with NGOs in the UK and participation in numerous human rights and modern slavery meetings, it has become evident that regional powers, like Russia, often choose silence as a diplomatic maneuver to maintain alliances and regional stability.

China’s Dual Strategy: Expansion Abroad and Repression at Home

China’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean is undeniable, with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and investments in strategic ports such as Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan (Chen, 2019). These moves reflect China’s broader ambition to secure vital maritime routes and assert its dominance in the region. However, China’s internal policies, particularly its human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang, stand in stark contrast to the image it attempts to project on the global stage. The mass detention camps, forced labor, and pervasive surveillance in Xinjiang have sparked global outrage and raised questions about China’s credibility as a global leader in governance and human rights (Zenz, 2020). Furthermore, the state-sanctioned persecution of Christian communities and the destruction of churches underscores China’s inconsistency in promoting human rights abroad while repressing them at home (Johnson, 2018).

As I have witnessed through my involvement with grassroots movements in the UK, the voices of Chinese expatriates, particularly those who have migrated from regions affected by Chinese repression, often remain hesitant to speak publicly. During an awareness campaign in Leicester Square (30th March 2025), it became clear that many individuals from China express their concerns about human rights violations but are reluctant to engage openly due to fear of reprisal. This phenomenon is a reflection of the broader climate of fear that exists among diaspora communities worldwide.

The Indian Ocean: A Theater of Strategic Silence

The Indian Ocean Region is now a central theater of geopolitical competition, where the balance of power is shaped not only by military might and diplomatic initiatives but also by the strategic silences of major powers. The growing collaboration between the U.S. and India on maritime security and the rules-based order is a direct response to China’s expanding influence in the region. Conversely, Russia’s calculated silence on issues that could disrupt its relationship with India highlights how inaction can be just as consequential as direct intervention.

The grassroots movements I have been part of in the UK, including the Small Drops NGO, work to amplify the voices of marginalized communities and raise awareness about issues such as modern slavery and human trafficking. These local engagements provide valuable insights into how global power dynamics manifest at the community level. Through street campaigns and awareness programs, I have witnessed firsthand the significance of these voices, which often go unheard in mainstream political discourses.

Conclusion: The Role of Silence in Shaping Global Power Dynamics

As global power dynamics continue to evolve, it is increasingly evident that strategic silence plays a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical order, particularly in regions like the Indian Ocean. The choices made by powers such as the U.S., Russia, and China—whether through active engagement or deliberate abstention—will continue to influence the future of global governance. The case of China’s human rights violations, Russia’s diplomatic inaction, and the U.S.’s selective engagement with international norms demonstrate the complexity of modern geopolitics, where silence can be a tool of power just as much as direct action.

Through my work with NGOs like Small Drops and grassroots engagement, I have seen how these global dynamics affect local communities, especially those caught in the crossfire of geopolitical struggles. By listening to the voices of people on the ground, from Leicester Square to the streets of Sri Lanka, it becomes clear that international relations are not only shaped in the corridors of power but in the lived experiences of individuals and communities worldwide.

References:

• Chen, J. (2019). "The Belt and Road Initiative and China’s Strategic Ambitions". Asia-Pacific Economic Review.

• Ginsburg, T. (2018). "The ICC and Global Governance". Journal of International Law and Politics.

• Johnson, L. (2018). "China’s Christian Persecution: State-Sanctioned Restrictions". The International Journal of Religious Freedom.

• Kavanagh, A. (2021). "International Law and the U.S. Military: Exemptions in the Age of Global Accountability". Global Security Review.

• Lukin, A. (2020). "Russia’s Multipolar World and Its Strategic Calculations". Russian Foreign Policy Journal.

• Pape, R. (2019). "The Role of Silence in Russian Diplomacy". International Security Review.

• Zenz, A. (2020). "The Xinjiang Crisis: A Human Rights Perspective". Journal of Human Rights Studies.

Nila Bala (Balananthini Balasubramaniam)

United Kingdom

05/04/2025

10:25

(Disclaimer: Images are AI generated and are used for representational purposes only)

***************************************************************