The strategic maneuverings between India, China, Pakistan, Japan et. al. continue, with the Arabian Sea as an emerging focal point.
India's giant new western naval base INS Kadamba was opened on May 31, with India's Defence Minister saying that it would protect the country's Arabian Sea maritime routes. Kadamba is an $8+ billion project that will become India's 3rd operational naval base after Mumbai and Visakhapatnam, and the first base under the sole control of India's Navy.
This is a move that matters at a global-historical level.
According to defense experts, the naval base at Karwar will play a major role in securing the seas not only for India but also for countries like Japan, which rely heavily on shipping for imports and exports through maritime routes in the Arabian Sea.
In Pakistan, meanwhile, the new deep-water port of Gwadar near Iran is in use by Pakistan as well as China, which also relies heavily on shipping for imports and exports through maritime routes in the Arabian Sea. In fact, China helped finance the project.
Defense Industry Daily has the details and links.
As far back as June 2002, I've been watching this play evolve, and proposing a "Mumbai Doctrine" as a logical successor to a similar effort once upon a time. As Wikipedia notes:
"Although it would take decades to coalesce into an identifiable policy, [President Monroe's Secretary of State] John Quincy Adams did raise a standard of an independent U.S. foreign policy so strongly that future administrations could not ignore it. One should note, however, that the policy succeeded because it met British interests as well as those of the United States and, for the next 100 years, was secured by the backing of the Royal Navy."
Probably because it kept their big strategic competitors out of a key area, while fostering the rise of new power that shared its background and traditions.
A wise lesson from our past - and perhaps for our future, as well.
Good info Joe, thanks.
From a U.S. perspective, this seems like a 'win.' The USA and India have growing economic ties, share basic democratic values & English as a major language, and are developing greater military cooperation after decades of India tending towards better relations with the Soviets.
Securing the Arabian shipping lanes is a vital interest of many different nations. Encouraging our allies to take on responsibility for their own local interests is a necessary step for freeing U.S. assets to help deal with threats in areas where countries are less able to do so, such as Africa and Eastern Europe.
The Russians, the Chinese and the Indian government are threatened by the Islamist terrorism sponsored by our allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That may be one reason why they don't trust us.
Mary,
The "why" answer you look for is neatly contained in the last paragraph you quote.
It was a meeting on political and economic cooperation between Russia and India (who have had long-standing friendly relations), plus China, on a wide variety of topics. Terrorism being a front and center issue these days, it came up too. But if you read your own quotes, it wasn't the focus.
India meeting with Russia and China to discuss ways to cooperate profitably across a number of sectors is normal diplomacy and good sense for a rising power.
The sky is not falling.
Joe, I think many people lack a knowledge of just how extensive historically the cooperation between the Soviet Union ( and now Russia ) and India has been in the military realm. Examples like India being the only country licensed to produce many Soviet/Russian weapon systems like advanced aircraft such as the Su-30 fighter aircraft and the T-72 tank.
From a military standpoint it's encouraging to see both of these powers preparing to undertake a level of responsibility commensurate with their new power. Compare that with Germany and France. The challenges there are ones for both foreign and domestic policy. We really ought to do what we can so that the military build-up is not in fact a threat to us nor is it perceived as a threat here.
No, the sky isn't falling. Economic cooperation is a good thing. After all a rising tide raises all boats, and the Russian economy needs all the help it can get.
But Russia, China and India don't seem to trust us when it comes to the war against terrorism. When President Bush holds hands with one of the primary supporters of terrorism in India and Russia, and when our State Department does everything it can to legitimize the Saudi government, why should anyone trust us?
China, Russia and India are also allied with the Saudis, and with Iran. We're all equally stupid, but that doesn't make it right. If we keep playing these old cold war realpolitik games, the world isn't going to end, but neither will the war on terror. If we don't all acknowledge that terror-supporting states are the enemy, the war on terror will go on, and on, and on..
..and that's not good for anyone's economy - except Iran and Saudi Arabia's.
I cant see how turning against Musharaff, who has been twice the victim of assasination attempts by AQ, would be useful to the WOT. We should press for more democracy there, but not turn against him. If we turn completely from Pakistan there is an excellent chance of a Taliban style govt there, which would NOT be cooperative in the WOT. What would we do then, invade? That would make the war in Iraq look like a picnic by contrast. Maybe it would please India, but it would NOT be wise.
AS for Saudi, politics there are byzantine, as anyone who follows the posts of Dan Darling and others on that knows well. KSA is going through a political transition now - while again, we should press them on both democratization and global support of Wahabism, I cant see completely turning away from them. Maybe that would please Russia, but I dont think it would be the best strategy for the US.
Of course India will pursue its own best interests, and will continue to try to improve its relations with China, even as it works to be secure against China. We will pursue our own best interests, and do our best to work with both Pakistan AND India.
Realpolitik is sometimes overdone, but it was not invented by idiots.
Sometimes we have to ally with a nasty dictator to win a war. In our fight against fascism, Roosevelt allied with Joseph Stalin.
He didn't try to fight fascism by creating an alliance with Mussolini and Hitler, though. Because if he did that, he wouldn't be fighting fascism.
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are terror supporting states. The KSA and Iran are as Islamist as al Qaeda is. They are the terrorism that we are supposed to be fighting.
If we were fighting a war against terrorism, we might ally ourselves with oppressive states, like Russia or China. We would also join India in their efforts to confront Pakistan. Since the combined armies of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan could be defeated by Belgium, this alliance probably could have eliminated the Islamist/terrorist threat back in 2003.
We probably would have done this - if we were fighting a war against terrorism.
I'm not sure what we're fighting. The war in Iraq has accomplished some wonderful things - getting rid of Saddam, enabling elections in Lebanon and Iraq, but I think our government sees China and maybe even Russia as being a bigger threat than terrorism. I think they believe that we can restrain Islamist supported terrorism and use our alliance with them as a bargaining tool in their cold-war based games, despite 9/11, and 3/11, and in Beslan. I think this is a bad policy that will lead to a long and economically draining war. But it's just a guess.
Just a few comments on mary's last post:
- Russia, China, and India have large armed forces, but most of it is defensive in composition. Relatively little of it is deployable at any distance away from the bases and supply chains inside their countries. One of the big reasons the U.S. is considered the "last superpower" is its ability to project force worldwide, not just in the Americas. So, even if all the 'big boys' decided to gang up on the Saudis, Iranians, and Pakistanis, the bulk of the fighting is still going to fall on the U.S., and given the size of our armed forces even before Iraq, taking on all three would mean using nukes (as per Steven den Beste's take on the Three Conjectures). That's a Pandora's Box that none of the major powers want to see opened again.
- To form a true alliance with China, we'd have to write off Taiwan. The repercussions of that on all our other alliances would be serious and long-lasting, since every nation would have to reconsider whether the U.S. was prepared to sacrifice them if their needs became too inconvenient.
Mary,
One thing at a time. The Saudis are something you do last, not first, for a whole bunch of reasons. I agree that holding hands with them is idiotic, though. Maybe even beyond idiotic.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock. I don't mind making "nice doggie" with the Saudis, as long as we never forget that rock and why we're holding it. The good news is, everyone else knows why we're saying "nice doggie."
The Russians also know that if they want to do a bit of "wet work" in the dry Saudi climate, the USA isn't going to make a big deal out of it. Physically defending the Saudis stopped being an American responsibility once Saddam was gone. No, Russia "distrusts" the USA because Bush keeps nattering about democracy while Putin is trying to shut it down, supports efforts by former countries in the 'glorious' Soviet Empire to be and remain independent, and has a presence in Central Asia. A "trustworthy" USA, to them, would say nothing about Russia's eroding democracy, leave the task of containing Central Asian Islamic extremism to the brilliant minds that brough us Grozny, and let Russia get on with reconstituting its empire in the Ukraine and beyond in exhange for favours elsewhere.
That what you want?
RE: Pakistan.... I suspect that the Belgian army would be in rather a bit of trouble after Pakistan nuked them. Just a guess.
On a darker note, one of the current nightmare scenarios is a coup in Pakistan that leaves, essentially, the Taliban/al-Qaeda with nukes. Multiply this scenario by every Islamic state with access to nuclear weapons technology, now or in the future. That's why non-proliferation by any means matters. It's also why Belmont Club's 3 Conjectures/ Golden Hour thesis resonates so strongly.
India doesn't want that either.
Which is why I'm confident that India understands the 3-corner game the USA is playing in Central Asia. They're not thrilled, but they understand - and relations are warming steadily, thanks in part to some excellent work by the State Dept. and its recent Ambassador. There's still some hurt feelings over the USA's withdrawal of military cooperation and technology after India went nuclear (a proper action, I think - you?).
As long as the USA makes it clear where its long-term interests lie, and supports India's rise even as financial and cultural ties between the 2 nations continue to tighten, relations will continue to move forward.
I must say, the idea of an Indian aircraft carrier cruising the Persian Gulf, an area with lots of Indian citizens and also lots of funding earmarked for Islamic extremism in Kashmir, is... interesting. That would give all concerned a lot more to think about, I bet.
But that's a future, not our present. At present, there is far too little focus on the stakes re: proliferation and the war, on both sides of the political spectrum in the USA. You watch what comes out of the GOP these days, and while they at least acknowledge the existence of a threat and a war (unlike their opponents), it isn't high on their priorities list.
To me, this also points out why it will be important to have other countries as security guarantors around the world. But giving that job to the tyranny-loving kleptocrats, Toyota Taliban, and dictators at the UN is suicide. A focus on regional "coalitions of the willing," coupled with more dependable backup structures like the NATO Rapid Reaction Force, strikes me as a better approach.
Best of all that a crtical area would be underpinned long term by the rise of a young power with manpower to spare, strong political and cultural commonalities, and an immediate personal interest in an important but oft-neglected area.
That has been a formula for success before, despite considerably more grounds for hard feelings (1770s, us winning the War of 1812 and burning down parts of Washington). We never did go for that tiebreaker, so I guess it all turned out more or less OK.
It can again. The Anglic Reach is long, it seems...
As far as I know, India doesn't have any history or philosophy of expansionism. They don't have an ideology to spread. There seems to be a healthy dose of nationalism, which for India is a good thing considering how diverse the nation is.
India and the US are natural allies, more so than any other nation in Asia. It was only their biting the apple of socialism and the quirky politics of the Cold War that has kept this natural alliance from prospering. Now is a good time to let it bloom.
The two wildcards are Pakistan and China. The legitimate interests of this nations must be accomodated. This doesn't mean that their illegitimate interests should be appeased. Other than the threat of Islamism and Kashmir, neither really have an expansionist ideology like that of the Soviet Union, so there's room much optimism.
India isn't shy about interfering in the affairs of its neighbors, lurker. Bangladesh, Goa, Sri Lanka ... any of these ring bells? And why is it that Kashmir is even in India rather than Pakistan?
Russia "distrusts" the USA because Bush keeps nattering about democracy while Putin is trying to shut it down, supports efforts by former countries in the 'glorious' Soviet Empire to be and remain independent, and has a presence in Central Asia. A "trustworthy" USA, to them, would say nothing about Russia's eroding democracy, leave the task of containing Central Asian Islamic extremism to the brilliant minds that brough us Grozny, and let Russia get on with reconstituting its empire in the Ukraine and beyond in exhange for favours elsewhere.
That what you want?
Putin may not trust us because of organizations like the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. The purpose of this committee for 'peace' is to encourage the Russians to negotiate with Chechen 'rebels' (ie. Saudi funded Islamists)
ACPC members include high-ranking members of our government, like Richard Perle, Stephen J. Solarz, Alexander Haig, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
After Beslan, this organization doesn't seem to have been very active, but Putin has many reasons not to trust us.
I've been to Russia, and I doubt that they can reconstitute their empire. Their main goal seems to be to keep their economy from collapsing. Our friends the Saudis are not helping them do this.
You say 'one thing at a time' - you're right, we should concentrate on one thing at a time. Are we fighting Islamist terrorism or are we fighting commies? We can't fight them both at the same time.
If we're fighting terrorism, why do will call the Sudanese government our allies? Why do we call the Yemeni government our allies? Both of these governments have obvious al-Qaeda connections, both are Islamist, and both are slaughtering innocent civilians.
If we're fighting Islamists & terrorism, why did we ignore the existence of Islamist groups in Iraq? Why did we act as if Saddam was our only enemy in the area?
The Saudis gave as much support to al Qaeda as the Taliban did. But they, like al-Qaeda's friends in Yemen and the genocidal govt. of the Sudan, are our allies. Yes, holding hands with Abdullah was idiotic. It didn't enhance our image in the Middle East (where the Saudis are hated) and it didn't enhance Bush's image in America. The only people who may have been impressed were the Russians and the Chinese.
I don't think we should seek any alliance that would threaten Taiwan, and I think we should follow India's advice when it comes to Pakistan. And the GOP is more grounded in reality than the left, who are, for the most part, beyond hope.
But since the war in Afghanistan ended, I've seen absolutely no indication that the Bush adminstration or the State Department has any real plans to fight Islamists or their terrorist groups. Our soldiers and the Iraqis are fighting terrorists, and they're doing the best job they can, but our government seems to see the Islamists as our own pet pit bull, something we can use to frighten the Russians and the Chinese. I think we're still fighting the Cold war, and in that war, our govt. sees an alliance with Islamist governments as an asset that we can control. They have no intention of hitting that doggie with a rock because it's still valuable to them. And, as I said before, I think it's a bad policy that will harm a lot of growing economies, ours included. The Islamists are a bigger threat than a new Soviet Union or China. And even if they're both a threat, we can only fight one enemy at a time.
I'm pretty sure that even Putin knows that Stephen Solarz, Al Haig and Brezinski are not today "high ranking members" of our government.
Robin,
Would you call India's meddling in these countries expansionist?
WRT to Kashmir... Doesn't this go back to the rules of partition? As I recall , the leader of each region was empowered to decide which country to join, i.e. India or Pakistan. Muslim majority Kashmir's Hindu leader elected to join India. That's all I know on that subject, I'm sure there's many juicy details. Please enlighten us.
Robin, part of Kashmir is in Pakistan, a aprt of which Pakistan gifted away to China. India is probably the only country I know that won a war and lost territory to the loser instead of gaining - look up LOC.
During partition, Kashmir's Maharaja wanted to remain independent, when he was attacked by Pakistani "tribals" seeking merger with Pakistan. He then signed over Kashmir to India in return for military help.
Robin, I forgot to add that Goa is an Indian Union Territory (Doh!) and India had to interfere with the massacre of millions of Bangladeshi citizens by the Pakistani military when Bangladesh was still East Pakistan.
I would echo Shanti's comments, and also add:
India' s interest in Sri Lanka extends from the Tamil Tigers issue.
I have been really proud of the working relationship between the Indian Navy and US for Tsunami Relief. Its good to have a democratic friend to forge a single purpose alliance; and I suspect we will see more given the rot within the UN.
That's fine, you've given us India's excuses. Their legitimacy can be argued as can whether or not India's interventions and invasions ( together with some of their pronouncements on their intent to control the Indian Ocean ) are "expansionist".
mary: I think we should follow India's advice when it comes to Pakistan.
Sure cant argue with that ....
Shanti
Thanks for the tidbits, please feel free to be more expansive, the Indian perspective is not something we understand very well, most of it is a projection of our own opinions, we would certainly welcome yours as more valuable, and not just on India, but on how you and your peers view the world outside your borders generally.
Robin, the instrument of partition signed by the Maharaja himself is not an excuse. The millions of Bengali people murdered by the Pakistani army were not an excuse - here is a look from the Bangladeshis' perspective.
As for the Sri Lanka question, you do know that the Indian Peace Keeping Force was sent there upon request by the Sri Lankan government to undercut Indian-expatriate Tamil guerrillas, right? It was the Indian army fighting against ex-Indians - expansionist?
Raymond, thanks for the kind words.
Indians always had very good feelings for americans right from our freedom strugle. USA was extending lots of media support to our efforts. USA has always been the ultimate destination for any ambitious educated India to persue his/her academic goals. Unfortunately, our colonial past made us suspicious of all foreign powers as we were enslaved by Britain through its British East India company. This made us a closed economy and it took many decades to develop self confidence to open up to outside business world. By attitude we Indians are very much like americans at individual level. I can almost vouch on the behalf of majority of Indians that India and USA make the best friends in the world today. There might be muliple historical reasons for India and USA not be on the same side in past, but present and future is not so. India and USA are so complementary to each other in today's scenario. Togethr we can fight almost on all fronts simultaneously. I am not sure, how many of you know, even during two world wars Indians fought almost on all the fronts. May be USA takes few lessons from imperial Britis who used to recruit soldiars from Nepal (even now they do). India has the man power and USA has the resources. Two put together can change the balance of world power. USA should incluse a clause in its defence pacts with India to recruite Indians for its armed forces. Like BPO industry, USA can have millions of armymen from India at fraction of salaries. India and USA together can flood Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere with best army. I am sure India will be very happy to have this arrangement with USA. Its worth trying..
"India and USA together can flood Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere with best army. I am sure India will be very happy to have this arrangement with USA."
While I respect your views, I doubt whether it will be the natural response of majority of Indians. Moreover from US perspective, they will like to have soldiers who can die for motherland US and not Mercenaries.
WRT to KASMIR, I feel a lot of my forum mates don’t know much about the issue. I will try to present an unbiased view of the issue. Please feel free to post if you have a different point of view/want to add something.
Basic Reason of Kashmir Conflict:
More than being war of territory, Kashmir is a war of waters. Kashmir controls the pathways of rivers that form the lifelines of Pakistan and Northern India. Naturally, both the countries want to have sources of their rivers under their own control.
Historical Perspective:
Going back into history, Kings in British India were given option to either choose India or Pakistan or stay independent. Kashmir King chose to be independent at first. But in 1948, Kashmir first came under attack by Pakistan sponsored infiltrators and then actual Pakistan Army pitched in. King tried to resist but was too weak to resist against the mighty Pakistan Army. He was on the verge of losing his entire territory when he asked India for help.
Here the rules of game changed. India asked the King to sign ‘Accession to India’ as a precondition for its military help. Then the Indian Army was sent into the action. While Indian Army got back 2/3rds of Kashmir back, for some strange reasons then Indian PM Nehru decided to move UN. The historians say the reasons might have been
1. A realization on the part of top Indian commanders that the warfare will now be in mountains and it will be increasingly difficult and costly for Indian forces to capture more territory
2. A fear that Pakistan will move UN under charter VII (Under this charter the UN resolutions are enforceable). India moved under the resolution VI
Anyway the UN resolutions resulted in a three step solution to Kashmir Problem:
First step: Pakistan was supposed to withdraw all its army/armed units/police from the state of Kashmir
Second step: After first step was completed, India was supposed to maintain minimum required law enforcement forces and withdraw all others
Third Step: After completing both these preconditions, plebiscite would have been held.
Unluckily for Pakistan, in late 1940’s Sheikh Abdullah had a great following in Kashmir and he was singing love with Indian PM Nehru at that time. So fearing a loss of its jugular veins, it refused to vacate the aggression.
Then came war of 1965 and 1971. In a smart move, then Indian PM Indira Gandhi made then Pakistan PM J. Bhutto to sign a statement saying that Kashmir was a bilateral issue and will be solved jointly by India and Pakistan without the interference of any other entity, in return of 70,000 prisoners of war. So it took care of UN resolutions.
Unluckily for India, the elections in state of Kashmir were rigged extensively in 1986. It fuelled the anger in the local people as some very strong regional leaders lost by a lot of margins.
Pakistan, as a last ditch effort to get Kashmir, supported this feeling of anger towards federal India and fuelled the freedom movement. But this ‘freedom movement’ got changed into ‘Terrorist Movement’ when Pakistani Military Establishment decided to divert the ‘Jihad’ groups from Afghanistan into Kashmir. This was probably required on part of Pakistan as the local groups were going outside its sphere of influence. You wont believe but their have been cases of local militant groups fighting with foreigner militants here.
In early 2000’s, the elections were held in Kashmir after about 10 years of insurgency (these elections were free and fair as reported by international magazines), but unluckily for India, some Kashmiri groups refused to participate fearing the rigging again.
After that the game of Chess is going on between Pakistan and India till date.
Post a response if you want more information on any specific point.
Warm Regards,
Vaneet
Thanks, Vaneet. Winds did a full Kashmir briefing on May 17, 2002 entitled Kashmir: The Other conglict. It was followed a week or so later by Kashmir: Tick-Tock, Tick-tock, which looked at the (very real at the time) possibility of war betwen Pakistan and India, what form that might take, and some aspects of the geopolitical strategies at work.
To Robin:
You seem to be both ignorant of the history of the subcontinent and unduly biased against India. I think the other regions your brought up in the context of India's 'excuses' and 'expansionism' have been covered by the others.
What is really shocking is that you mention Goa! Goa, FYI is an Indian State and an integral part of India NOT a neighbour. You must be referring to the time when the Indian Army and AF were called in to kick out the Portugeese when long after the British and French colonial occupiers had left and the Portugeese were given lots of time and space to leave nicely, they still insisted on holding on to Indian land.
So you are suggesting that the Portugeese were legitimate in travelling half-way across the world and occupying Indian land, and Indian actions in getting back a small portion of the subcontinet still under occupation is EXPANSIONISM?