This article examines Japanese perceptions of the European Union's Indo‐Pacific Strategy through interviews with government officials and foreign policy influencers. Respondents considered the EU to be a highly important actor in the Indo‐Pacific context. Three‐quarters of respondents considered the Indo‐Pacific Strategy document to be sufficiently important that it constitutes an upgrade or a positive transformation of the existing relationship. Of the seven issue areas identified in the Indo‐Pacific Strategy, four—Connectivity, Digital, Ocean Governance, and Security and Defence—were identified as policy areas with high potential for future development to be explored. Nevertheless, although the bilateral relationship is characterized as a ‘close strategic partnership’, which has ‘never been stronger than today’, respondents offered three broad areas of constructive criticism of the strategy. These were: a confusing presentation of maritime security in the document; an almost complete lack of coverage of economic security; and broader criticisms regarding EU strategic communication in the Indo‐Pacific. This is problematic because Japanese respondents clearly identified maritime security and economic security as the two most important issues for the bilateral relationship going forward.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bacon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: