U.S. naval strategy addresses rising China

U.S. naval strategy addresses rising China

By Dave & Nita Anand

To share United States' latest Asia-Pacific vision, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently jetted across Asia stopping in Singapore, Vietnam, India and Afghanistan to assess reactions and takers for its shift in the naval strategy that seems to have rattled China.

By 2020, the United States wants to position 60 percent of its naval fleet around Asia-Pacific region, instead of 50 percent presently and would seek to form new military alliances and/or partnerships with countries in the area. Instead of a permanent or stationery naval base like in Japan, the new strategy focuses on mobile operations and naval exercises in bilateral partnerships to appear less belligerent to China.

Despite its growing economic and military power — China's strategic thinkers, who are mostly concerned with ground and not sea realities — were surprised and furious since they see this reconfiguration of the U.S. navy assets and related military alliances and/or partnerships as ganging up with its neighboring countries against China. It is easy to see why.

Should the new U.S. Asia-Pacific vision come to pass with a talk of possible naval fixed-base in Bangladesh — it will trump Chinese navy designs and its arrogant posture in the South and East China Seas, as well as the Indian Ocean. Because of its rising power — China has started to control the lanes of China Seas with impunity and great disregard of international maritime rules and regulations. In July 2011, an Indian navy ship visiting Vietnam as part of their expanding bilateral ties was harassed when it received a radio message warning it that it was inside Chinese waters; the ship exited like a pussycat to avoid trouble with China.

Naval experts believe by 2020, China could be powerful enough to become the sole masters of the China Seas unless the United States focuses its attention to the region and joins hands with the neighboring countries for keeping sea lanes permanently open for everyone's use as per maritime regulations.

 INDIA's role in the evolving U.S. naval strategy

An aspiring power of the 21st Century, India, like China, is also tethered to ground realities and lacks capability to see beyond into the vast seas and open skies in its military planning to secure the country from multitude of threats. While recent purchases of military hardware bodes well, India's strategic thinking is more static than dynamic to keep up with the current times and the challenging times ahead.

In India, Panetta met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Defense Minister A.K. Antony, National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon and other officials to discuss the United States' new Asia-Pacific strategy along with ways to build closer military relationship as in an alliance and/or strategic partnership with Washington. In a speech at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, Panetta observed: "Our vision is a peaceful Indian Ocean region supported by growing Indian capabilities. America will do its part, but the fundamental challenge is to develop India's capabilities so it can respond to challenges in this region and beyond."

Not knowing how China will counter the U.S. vision and to avoid unnecessary tensions with China, India rightly resisted looking like an American poodle (a la Britain), and instead, pushed on for more purchase and indigenous production of restricted U.S military hardware, before deciding on the optimum path forward.

Media may have read too much into Panetta not holding a joint news conference with his counterpart Antony, especially when the Pentagon chief called the enhanced defense cooperation with India as "a linchpin" of this new U.S. Asia-Pacific strategy. India's coolness as media labeled it is more to do with the semantics of alliance versus partnership.

India is aiming for a partnership befitting its growing power more than any alliance that openly embraces the United States for specifically fulfilling its national interests. In their calculations — a lowly alliance today with United States for containing China may not be worth the risks that India might face in such a relationship later.

The ultimate strategist Henry Kissinger had it right in his heyday: In any triangulation scenario (China-India-the United States), India's options toward the United States and China must always be greater than their options toward each other, as it serves India's goals best if it has closer relations with the United States and China than they have with each other.

It is striking in this context what the Chinese vice-premier said during the recently concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting: "the real relationship of the century is between India and China and that India was wasting its energy on a partner far away." 

Can one believe in such Chinese rhetoric, especially when China is known to bat for itself? However, America is known to play in as a team, most of the times. So India could gain in strategic autonomy should it use the opportunity wisely in shaping and resolving the challenging issues that lie ahead.

India must first resolve its border issues with China to get the best results out of this triangulation since many military experts believe it will come into play more in what happens in the Indian Ocean than the China Sea, where China and The United States are expected to lock horns, and where India could come to America's aid more effectively should they forge a tighter coupling between the two democracies, the way the George W. Bush administration envisioned via its nuclear deal.

All the above indicates that the world's securitization order is in disorder, and that the United States' ambition of extending its superpower status beyond 2030 may be an illusion that is unachievable in the evolving multi-polar world. The bipolar world of the Cold War is behind us and this new multi-polar configuration is descending upon the world inexorably, which requires refining or even rewriting of older strategies to meet the economic and security challenges of the 21st Century.

The United States seem to be on the right track with their revised Asia-Pacific vision, and even though India is resisting becoming a protégé (better than being a poodle) of the United States, they will come around since both need each other as partners, if not as equal partners, which is what India wants to be treated as in this multi-polar world.

Dave & Nita Anand are proud residents of Trumbull since 1978. Dave, a former technology executive, has written and published two books: "People Super Highway, the Mystique & Quest of Soul" and "The Verses." He can be contacted at danand55@gmail.com.