Heard diplomats or analysts using a new turn of phrase only to wonder, “What does that mean?” Today we ask...
What is “Strategic infrastructure”?
Amid a building spree across the Pacific Islands and the contest over influence in the region, Australian and Japanese foreign and defence ministers met in September to commit to strengthening “strategic infrastructure” cooperation with the aim of delivering development assistance more effectively. This follows Australia and the UK’s agreement in March to “use the 2024 Strategic Infrastructure and Development Dialogue” to increase coordination of support to the Pacific and Southeast Asia.
In a geopolitical context, “strategic infrastructure” is tied to concern that foreign actors are using projects to build influence and gain advantage.
The Australian Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio budget statement refers to strategic infrastructure as a priority. The appropriations bill in the US Senate includes strategic infrastructure investments as part of its “Economic Resilience Initiative” (not specifically tied to the Pacific region) aiming to enhance economic security and “counter economic coercion”.
But what does “strategic infrastructure” actually mean? And is it “strategic”, “critical” or both?
No standard definition of “strategic infrastructure” exists, however in the Pacific the term broadly refers to those projects that have significant economic, social, and geopolitical impacts. But this can become complicated given the interchangeable use of the term “critical infrastructure”.
Within an economic development context, a 2012 World Economic Forum report uses “strategic infrastructure” to refer to investments that create “the greatest impact in terms of economic growth, social uplift and sustainability”. The report goes further, splitting strategic infrastructure into two categories: “critical infrastructure” (essential for daily life) and “projects of national importance” (projects that are not yet critical but which spur economic growth or address key environmental and social objectives).
But in a geopolitical context, “strategic infrastructure” is tied to concern that foreign actors are using projects to build influence and gain advantage. China is often referenced here, with an implicit assumption that some of its investments will have an adverse impact on the interests of traditional development partners such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom.
In this geopolitical context, foreign policy analysts will often cite telecommunications infrastructure (especially undersea cables), ports, airfields and even energy infrastructure as “strategic infrastructure”.
Securing access to Pacific Island ports and airports would allow China to project power and change regional dynamics.
The value of telecommunications infrastructure investments in particular is apparent when considering both economic development impact and potential defence and security concerns. With cybercrime (including state sponsored) and cybersecurity identified as an emerging security threat in the Boe Declaration on Regional Security, secure ICT infrastructure is increasingly valuable to Pacific Island countries. Australia and its partners are making significant investments in the sector, including through the Quad, although it is difficult to find direct references to these investments as “strategic infrastructure”.
Australia and its partners are also paying more attention to those other sectors foreign policy analysts often cite: airports, ports and renewable energy. All are top priorities for Pacific nations seeking greater connectivity, energy security and resilience. Under the Pacific Island Strategic Infrastructure Initiative, the US Trade and Development Agency is also targeting health care infrastructure.
Are these projects “strategic infrastructure”? This depends on the geopolitical impact with regard to their role in support of connectivity, trade, security, alliances, and importantly the investments’ role in countering influence of others and mitigating recipient countries’ vulnerability to coercion.
In the eyes of Australia and its partners, China’s attempts to secure access to what some analysts identify as “militarily significant” ports and airports in the Pacific inevitably raise the stakes for related infrastructure projects. Securing access to Pacific Island ports and airports would allow China to project power and change regional dynamics. Australia and its partners have an interest in ensuring infrastructure investments don’t result in either access or governance arrangements that pose a threat to regional stability or security.
While “strategic infrastructure” is an inherently subjective term, the common thread in its contemporary use is that it invokes a contested geopolitical environment in which some projects are seen as creating a vulnerability to coercion by an adversary. In a world of intensifying superpower competition and evolving alliances, the list of assets considered “strategic infrastructure” is set to grow longer.
