Naval Exercise Foreshadows America's Most Important Future Alliance

[onedomino]

Back in the Cold War (Miss those days? Don't worry, looks like there will be at least a short reprise), India was a Soviet client state, even though it claimed to be non-aligned. Now India seems to have switched sides for the upcoming geopolitical grind with the petro-dollar primed new Soviets under the anti-democrat Putin. The bipolar world of US v. CCCP is gone, but new nation-state configurations are taking shape. Will the future be multi-polar? Or as some analysts believe triploar: US/Pacific Rim/India v. EU/Russia v. China. The teams are lining up for economic and military competition in the 21st Century. Should be quite a game.

4-Nation Naval Exercise May Presage New Alliance
By Vivek Raghuvanshi
New Delhi

complete article: http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2904666&C=navwar

Australia, India, Japan and the United States will join in a Bay of Bengal naval exercise in September, hinting at progress in negotiations for a possible four-way alliance.

The first high-level discussions of such an alliance came in May, when assistant secretaries of state and equivalents from the four countries met on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum gathering in Manila, Indian Foreign Ministry sources said.

The meeting was held quietly, but not secretly; just days before, China issued demarches to all four participants, formally asking about their intentions.

Singapore will also play in the exercises, which will include submarines, naval aircraft and 20 ships, including the U.S. aircraft carriers Nimitz and Kitty Hawk and the Indian carrier Viraat.

The exercise, announced July 11 during the visit here by Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, will be part of a joint maritime-security initiative for the Asia-Pacific region.

The visit also yielded a bilateral agreement to share classified information on regional security, including maritime issues, one Indian Defence Ministry official said.

One analyst said the alliance talk indicates that India’s strategic policies have changed.

“The origins of this shift can be traced to several earlier periods, the latest being the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which is what triggers the search for new partnerships,” said Swaran Singh, an associate professor of disarmament studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University here. “The ‘look east’ policy, for instance, was one offshoot of it, and India’s rapprochement with the U.S., [or Israel] another major offshoot.”

 

[Annie]

I'll just wait to see what 'Russia' and it's 'allies' do in response. It's coming...

Truth to tell, I think China is more likely the new Russia or USSR. Iran though, in short run is going to be the thorn.

 

[onedomino]

I'll just wait to see what 'Russia' and it's 'allies' do in response. It's coming...

Truth to tell, I think China is more likely the new Russia or USSR. Iran though, in short run is going to be the thorn.

China has the manpower and is developing industrial strength. But it is constrained regarding natural resources. That is the main reason it is building new military power: to increase the economic and diplomatic leverage necessary to secure access to raw materials. It may take decades, but some students of geopolitics think that Russia will ultimately combine with the EU. It does not have the population base needed to go it alone. Iran will be a short-term player, but hydrocarbon resources will mean nothing 50 years from now. As oil is gradually replaced as an energy source, the influence of the Middle East will recede. There will be wild cards: over the next few decades technological innovations may make nation-state economic alliances obsolete.

 

[maineman]

I'll just wait to see what 'Russia' and it's 'allies' do in response. It's coming...

Truth to tell, I think China is more likely the new Russia or USSR. Iran though, in short run is going to be the thorn.

the fractured nations of the former soviet union do not reall have a significant naval presence on the world stage. I do not foresee much of a response in kind to this sort of sabre rattling.

 

[Mr.Conley]

China has the manpower and is developing industrial strength. But it is constrained regarding natural resources. That is the main reason it is building new military power: to increase the economic and diplomatic leverage necessary to secure access to raw materials. It may take decades, but some students of geopolitics think that Russia will ultimately combine with the EU. It does not have the population base needed to go it alone. Iran will be a short-term player, but hydrocarbon resources will mean nothing 50 years from now. As oil is gradually replaced as an energy source, the influence of the Middle East will recede. There will be wild cards: over the next few decades technological innovations may make nation-state economic alliances obsolete.

While I will grant you that some sort of EU/Russia alliance is possible, current events certainly don't signify to me that the two are growing close. If anything, the EU seems to be distancing itself from Putin and discretely escape the energy stranglehold he has over the continent. Then there's England and this whole Liviniko affair. While Germany and France may have temporarily aligned themselves with Russia in the buildup to the Iraq war, times have changed. Both Merkel and Sarko are decidedly pro-America, especially in comparison to their predecessors. The recent wave of authoritarianism spreading across the Russian heartland, along with the Afghan operations, seems to have only reinvigorated the NATO alliance. I wouldn't write off Europe so quickly.

 

[akiboy]

Back in the Cold War (Miss those days? Don't worry, looks like there will be at least a short reprise), India was a Soviet client state, even though it claimed to be non-aligned. Now India seems to have switched sides for the upcoming geopolitical grind with the petro-dollar primed new Soviets under the anti-democrat Putin. The bipolar world of US v. CCCP is gone, but new nation-state configurations are taking shape. Will the future be multi-polar? Or as some analysts believe triploar: US/Pacific Rim/India v. EU/Russia v. China. The teams are lining up for economic and military competition in the 21st Century. Should be quite a game.

I hope the so called Indo-US-Japan-Aussie "alliance" works out. Its time China decides not to mess with New Delhi in Asia. Asia never belonged to Beijing and New Delhi will make sure it dosen't. Cant wait for India to test the Surya ICBM next year and acquire a nuclear submarine. The Chinese think the Indian Ocean is their just because they roam around it with their nuclear submarines!!!

 

[onedomino]

While I will grant you that some sort of EU/Russia alliance is possible, current events certainly don't signify to me that the two are growing close. If anything, the EU seems to be distancing itself from Putin and discretely escape the energy stranglehold he has over the continent. Then there's England and this whole Liviniko affair. While Germany and France may have temporarily aligned themselves with Russia in the buildup to the Iraq war, times have changed. Both Merkel and Sarko are decidedly pro-America, especially in comparison to their predecessors. The recent wave of authoritarianism spreading across the Russian heartland, along with the Afghan operations, seems to have only reinvigorated the NATO alliance. I wouldn't write off Europe so quickly.

If there is anything that the typical European likes less than Russia, it is America. Transitory leadership aside, the trend in Europe is certainly not toward the US. Sarkozy and Merkel did not get elected because they were relatively pro US. Rather, previous German and French economic leadership was so ineffective, new governments were elected despite obsolete ties to the Atlantic Alliance. The brutal totalitarianism of the old Soviets is still fresh in the minds of eastern European leaders. As a result, they are pro American. But in the long run, they will cast their lot with EU foreign policy, which will reflect future economic (and possibly military) competition with the US. Even the UK, which connects culturally more with America than the Continent, will be inexorably drawn toward the foreign policy positions of the EU. I do not agree that Afghanistan has revived NATO. France, Germany, and Turkey are reluctant participants at best. None of these nations permit their forces to engage the Taliban in offensive combat operations. Further, France is continuously agitating to sell sophisticated weapons to the Chinese. How does that fit into the NATO playbook? NATO is on life support, and while there will be no official dissolution, it will simply fade away. Beyond the Western Hemisphere, America's most important future alliance will include India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

If there is anything that the typical European likes less than Russia, it is America. Transitory leadership aside, the trend in Europe is certainly not toward the US. Sarkozy and Merkel did not get elected because they were relatively pro US. Rather, previous German and French economic leadership was so ineffective, new governments were elected despite obsolete ties to the Atlantic Alliance. The brutal totalitarianism of the old Soviets is still fresh in the minds of eastern European leaders. As a result, they are pro American. But in the long run, they will cast their lot with EU foreign policy, which will reflect future economic (and possibly military) competition with the US. Even the UK, which connects culturally more with America than the Continent, will be inexorably drawn toward the foreign policy positions of the EU. I do not agree that Afghanistan has revived NATO. France, Germany, and Turkey are reluctant participants at best. None of these nations permit their forces to engage the Taliban in offensive combat operations. Further, France is continuously agitating to sell sophisticated weapons to the Chinese. How does that fit into the NATO playbook? NATO is on life support, and while there will be no official dissolution, it will simply fade away. Beyond the Western Hemisphere, America's most important future alliance will include India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia.

I agree with you're analysis, it's spot on as I see it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

If there is anything that the typical European likes less than Russia, it is America. Transitory leadership aside, the trend in Europe is certainly not toward the US. Sarkozy and Merkel did not get elected because they were relatively pro US. Rather, previous German and French economic leadership was so ineffective, new governments were elected despite obsolete ties to the Atlantic Alliance.

I see no evidence that the current foreign policies of the French, German and British government are "transitory". I will grant that compared to 20 years ago the Western Alliance is not as strong as it once was, but, without the barrel of the Soviet arsenal pointed in Europe's direction, existential security is guaranteed, thus no longer necessitating the obediance once heeded to US hegemony. However, that does not imply the dissolution of the transatlantic relationship. The trend of dissolution that reached its climax in 2003 no longer holds, and, as Bush leaves office, relations are likely to improve. For all the political blabbering of the past 6 years, economic and cultural ties between the United States are stronger than ever. Besides, given the totalitarian nature of resurgent Russia, Europe's leaders will inevitably orbit closer to the US star. Sure, the average European may express distaste for the current administration and even America itself, but, with a few exceptions, Europe's leaders have consistentl aligned themselves with the United States. The NATO alliance and Europe's positive relations with the United States have created the longest running peace in European history. They won't throw away all they've gained.

I do not agree that Afghanistan has revived NATO. France, Germany, and Turkey are reluctant participants at best. None of these nations permit their forces to engage the Taliban in offensive combat operations. Further, France is continuously agitating to sell sophisticated weapons to the Chinese. How does that fit into the NATO playbook? NATO is on life support, and while there will be no official dissolution, it will simply fade away.

Again, it's a matter of relativity. During the pre-Iraq War buildup, NATO really did look like a dying institution; however, the Afghanistan operation has provided us with an opportunity to rejigger the institution into a new, more versatile one based less on mutual defense as on securing and upholding the common values of the alliance ie. democracy, rule of law, human rights, etc.