Posted on 07/26/2012 9:05:56 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
During his recent visit to New Delhi, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta highlighted the evolution of the annual Indo-U.S. naval war game Malabar from a passing exercise for the two navies’ ships into a full-scale engagement across all functional areas of naval warfare. Indeed, the steadily increasing complexity of Indo-U.S. naval force coordination has been a standout feature of an otherwise interest-driven relationship, suggesting Washington increasingly sees India as the western hinge of the U.S. pivot to Asia, with the U.S. Navy backstopping the shift from the Pacific. However, before the Indo-U.S. entente on the seas becomes a full-blown condominium, more dialogue between the two navies will be necessary.
India’s latest naval buildup, unlike a previous one in the mid-1980s, has been welcomed by the existing U.S. alliance framework in Asia at a time when major defense cuts loom in the West and China shows signs of proto-hegemony in its near waters. The degree to which the region is comfortable with the Indian naval expansion is illustrated by former Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe’s endorsement of India’s role in keeping Asian sea lines stable in a way that can reassure Vietnam, the U.S. and South Korea, if not China. India’s stated aim of acting as a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean region has been similarly endorsed by successive Pentagon documents, with the U.S. overtly calling for a greater Indian role in the Indo-Pacific.
This is a far cry from the early days of the Obama administration, when talk of a G-2 arrangement between the U.S. and China angered India. In 2009, a Chinese admiral even talked about dividing up the Indian and Pacific Oceans between the Chinese and American navies. However, rising tensions in the South China Sea have put this narrative to rest. Instead, India and the U.S., along with Japan, Australia and Vietnam, have increasingly converged around the need to maintain freedom of navigation on the high seas. And India is no longer holding back on voicing its support for keeping the South China Sea in particular an open international waterway, as recent comments by the Indian finance minister indicate.
There is also a realization in Washington that India is actually much better placed for a new peacekeeping architecture in the Indo-Pacific than China, owing to both geography and India’s specific naval capabilities. While much has been made of China’s refurbishment of the Soviet-era aircraft carrier Varyag, the Indian navy actually has more than 50 years experience operating carriers and is well on its way to positioning two carrier strike groups in the Indian Ocean starting in 2013, with a third expected by 2020. India has also leased a nuclear attack submarine from Russia, which according to one Pentagon assessment is superior to comparable Chinese submarines in terms of acoustic stealth.
These advances in power-projection platforms are proceeding side by side with the cementing of ties among the members of the Indian-led Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, which is facilitating Indian military deployments in the region. India today provides maritime oversight to the Seychelles, the Maldives and Mauritius. It also patrols the Mozambique coast and has listening facilities in Madagascar and berthing rights in Oman, Qatar and Djibouti. The Indian navy is set to emerge as the chief provider of hydrographic data to Kenya, Tanzania and even Saudi Arabia. In the eastern Indian Ocean, India’s Andaman and Nicobar Command has the assets to surveillance seed all the key chokepoints in the Indonesian archipelago.
This carefully constructed network of relationships may also give India the confidence to accommodate a U.S. Naval presence in the Indian Ocean to which it previously objected. Neither the use of American drones operating out of the Seychelles to target insurgents in the Horn of Africa nor the U.S. presence in Diego Garcia is an unsettling prospect for India anymore.
To the contrary, India’s own expanding posture coupled with the U.S. presence ensures that there is very little space for China to fill in a noncooperative manner. In fact, Chinese analysts have begun calling for expanded maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific as well.
One area where India will continue to oppose a heightened U.S. presence is the Bay of Bengal, as demonstrated by the alarm in New Delhi over reports in late May that the U.S. Navy might be looking to base ships in Chittagong, Bangladesh, where they would be able to surveil Indian missile facilities in the area.
However, Washington seems to be sensitive to New Delhi’s red lines, and the State Department quickly denied any plans to base in Chittagong. More broadly, the U.S. pivot to Asia, while projected to move 60 percent of the U.S. fleet to the Pacific Ocean, seeks to maintain a dynamic rolling presence rather than one revolving around permanent bases, something that India will be quite comfortable with.
For its part, the U.S. will want India to demonstrate its acceptance of such a posture by signing the Logistics Supply Agreement, which would allow both sides to use each other’s facilities with a net settlement of costs taking place over a given time period. However, given India’s reluctance to join any overt bloc framework, it is unlikely that India will sign on. More likely is an extension of replenishment facilities to the U.S. outside the framework of a formal agreement.
Indeed, both India and the U.S. will be wary of provoking any knee-jerk countermeasures from China, one of the key reasons why Washington and New Delhi are seeking a trilateral India-U.S.-China dialogue. Nevertheless, it is in the naval sphere that Washington is most inclined to make strategic transfers to New Delhi, and a U.S.-India naval condominium could be the best way for both sides to achieve their strategic objectives heading into the new century.
Saurav Jha studied economics at Presidency College, Calcutta, and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He writes and researches on global energy issues and clean energy development in Asia. His first book for Harper Collins India, "The Upside Down Book of Nuclear Power," was published in January 2010. He also works as an independent consultant in the energy sector in India. He can be reached at sjha1618@gmail.com.
Photo: Sailors assigned to the guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey stand in ranks as the Indian navy destroyer Sapura pulls alongside during a Malabar 2012 exercise, April 11, 2012 (U.S. Navy photo by Spc. 3rd Class Christopher Farrington).
How about our corporations get with the program and stop building up China.
Just asking.
Not going to happen... not with the kind of manufacturing base that they have helped set up in China.
It’s got to happen.
Otherwise the USA is done.
Then their money is done.
Then ... everything is done.
Just saying. Bring back jobs now.
Might be a good idea. Combine our ability to use techy things to locate problems, with the Indian Navy’s willingness to actually use a deck gun against pirates. Maybe it’s an idea.
The USA needs to cultivate a genuine strategic alliance with India. Indian is the great natural ally for the USA in this century.
Customers and investors drive businesses, and customers demand lower prices and investors demand higher profits. In order to lower their cost structure, companies outsource non-critical activities to places where they can get the most value for their money.
This, in turn, allows them to offer their products at a lower price, and depending on what the company does, millions of customers could benefit. Likewise, the investors then receive higher profits and better returns on their investments.
I used to agree with you on that theory. I do not anymore.
We stopped demanding a level playing field. We threw out our bathwater, and now we’re failing.
We need to start playing defense as well as offense.
Charge to import into America, and build back up our industry.
Now.
Tariffs will only shrink the size of our economy.
Consumers will have to pay higher prices and our exporting industries will surfer from retaliatory tariffs.
Higher prices = less demand = smaller economy
Gotta run.
Wish you a good evening. :D
That is a nice sentiment. As long as folks line up outside (fill in the discount chain store here) to get their Chinese stuff cheap— it will never happen.
We are pretty much done.
Protectionism will work about as well as the drug war. It’s futile, like trying to stop the tides.
I disagree.
However a change needs to be made, here in America.
We need, yes need to start insisting on balance. That means right now, we need to enact import tariffs.
Significant import tariffs.
Double the price of our oil, for the children!
Doubly ironic is your last comment, when compared to your tagline.
You’re sleeping.
America did absolutely fine, for the 200 years we ran a surplus.
America is DYING now, because we have exported all our manufacturing.
You almost cannot find anything made in America anymore. Nowhere.
It is a very large shame.
No.
China is a new thing. China is four times the size of America, population-wise.
Four times. That means China will expand and expand and expand.
We need to take action now. China has now overtaken America in exports.
Time to stop messing around.
Look we are messing around while China is eating our breakfast, lunch and dinner.
China is not open.
China does no allow competition WITH China. China cedes nothing. China imports “American” car factories, it does not import American cars.
Yet we continue on, as if everything is just fine...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.