Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

Many short-tempered folks advocate India leaving the Quad to show displeasure with Biden's shenanigans.
That would be short-sighted for Quad was created an Indo-Japanese(Abe-NaMo in 2016) group that the US joined and brought along Australia.

So leaving our own formation to show ire at a late joiner is silly.
The fundamentals for creating the group have not changed.

Further US FP is a Presidential prerogative. Once Biden loses support, they could temper their stance.
Lets see.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by bala »

The trouble with Quad is really the US in the arrangement. The US has deep entanglement with China on the economic front and other off-the book understanding (e.g. G2). The deep state of the US has its own deep state within China and the links are strong. The US by itself can handle the intransigence of China especially around the pacific and other SE Asian nations, it does not need anyone including India to counter China. It is the big dada.

India with Japan is good. India with Phillipines, with Vietnam, with Cambodia, with Thailand, with Malaysia, with Indonesia, with Burma is all good and desired. However the Quad with US/Australia has an entirely different flavor. China co-opted with Russia to oppose the Quad. The main opposition is towards US, not India. All the media articles are trying to corner India to oppose China/Rus combo. India is not opposed to Russia. India has reservations about China mainly due to its bullying of south Asian nations and, of course, it has border disputes with China. The only benefit of the Quad is India gets allies to oppose China in the SEAsia seas and the pacific. The other benefits are not worth anything, including common exercises and such, more like chai biscoot meetings and getting to be friends and knowing each other's systems. But the latter are best done with each nation separately. Hence the doubts about Quad linger.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by V_Raman »

I get the feeling that USA joined Quad to make the India-Japan alliance toothless and eventually break it.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3986
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by vera_k »

If India with Japan is thought to be good, realize that the USA is treaty bound to defend Japan. The USA must be involved if it is a security matter and not purely a mercantile one.

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Dilbu »

The problem is really about having an alliance with US, of any kind. They are always in the bed with TSP in one form or another therefore India will have apprehensions about trusting them in full. Similarly as far as US is concerned, India will not disconnect itself from Russia and be a full fledged MuNNA.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4667
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by gakakkad »

I think India needs to bid it's time for a few more years and grow rapidly . Needs to downplay the "Indian century" thingy and if needed even pretend to be a munna. Till it achieves a GDP of 10-15 trillion. Which will happen in early 30s and nominal GDP parity with the us will occur in late 30s. To ensure that happens US must not perceive India to be a threat . And if needed to pretend munna for realpolitik reasons so be it . Situation in Russia is unclear at the moment. To an outside observer they don't look good . If they need to be ditched they need to be ditched . Key is to lay low and grow till India is too powerful for deep state to meddle around with . Such a time is not all that far away . Hopefully US remains distracted by russkies and Panda for the next decade and a half to leave India alone .
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6094
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by sanjaykumar »

^^ One must recognise that the obverse is true as well. The US thinks India is always good n bed with Russia.

There is nothing evil about self interest. At least not beyond the banal evil of politics.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

vera_k wrote:If India with Japan is thought to be good, realize that the USA is treaty bound to defend Japan. The USA must be involved if it is a security matter and not purely a mercantile one.

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan
Please watch the Kissinger video in China thread. Mao wanted US to keep Japan tied up in the security Treaty as that binds Japan.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

There is a video where the interlocutor asks Jaishankar what India wants from the QUAD?

He gives very clear answer. It's not military as US wants.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by SSridhar »

gakakkad wrote:I think India needs to bid it's time for a few more years and grow rapidly . Needs to downplay the "Indian century" thingy and if needed even pretend to be a munna. Till it achieves a GDP of 10-15 trillion. Which will happen in early 30s and nominal GDP parity with the us will occur in late 30s. To ensure that happens US must not perceive India to be a threat . And if needed to pretend munna for realpolitik reasons so be it . Situation in Russia is unclear at the moment. To an outside observer they don't look good . If they need to be ditched they need to be ditched . Key is to lay low and grow till India is too powerful for deep state to meddle around with . Such a time is not all that far away . Hopefully US remains distracted by russkies and Panda for the next decade and a half to leave India alone .
gakakkad, good post.

We have to learn to play Realpolitik. Of course, these days we are doing a better job no doubt, than we did most of the time before. Apart from that, the foreign policy must be holistic too.

For the next two decades at least, the US will remain locked with China and its allies. This is our time. China used every such opportunity since the 1960s, after it broke-off from the USSR to grow. It set aside strident criticism and strong suspicion of the US to join hands with it (with suitable protection, however much it was worth). It set aside demands of apology and war reparation from Japan in order to attract high-technology, trade and investment from that country. The Japanese Emperor & Empress were even received in Beijing. Of course, the gloves were off once the importance of Japan became less in the Chinese scheme of things, especially by 2012 when Senkaku was nationalized and the agreement over exploitation of o&g in the East Sea was lying in tatters. Most others do not realize the 2000-year old civilizational enduring hostility between Japan & China.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Cyrano »

If they need to be ditched they need to be ditched
In a unipolar world under US hegemony and if we are aligned to the US ways of overlordship then ditching Russia can be contemplated. Over the past 3 decades we were slowly moving in that direction, until Covid hit and Ukraine war started.

But we dont want to become a US vassal state, and given our energy needs and military equipment installed base, we dont have a choice but to manage everyone reasonably and thats exactly the type of realpolitik that we are doing now.

Even with our biggest direct threat China, we have a huge trade dependency that has only grown despite some attempts to control it.

US is today our biggest trade partner. We have started to have some critical dependencies on the US as well, be it mil equipment, engines for LCA - a source of pride.

So this ditching business is not convincing to me at all. It may make us feel good momentarily, but try telling "we'll eat grass but stay firm on ditching XYZ..." to 1.4 billion people - won't work. No Indian govt that takes such a route will survive.

Who knows, in the future, we may even face situations where we need to swallow some H&D aka pride to coexist with other world powers. As a last resort, it may still be OK. But what we need to keep doing is avoid getting into such "last resort" situations as much as possible. We need to hitch more and more countries to reinforce our position and our trajectory, not ditch this country or that.

Thats why India is batting for a multipolar world and our EAM is going out of the way to build relationships in every corner of the world. From Brazil to Slovenia to New Zealand.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4667
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by gakakkad »

India will almost certain because a 10+ trillion economy end of this decade and achieve parity of nominal gdp with unkil end of next decade. (10 years ahead of what current western models say if everything goes well). when that happens , the world will by definition not be unipolar.

the above is almost certain but not 100% certain. black swan events that prevent it from happening are internal conflicts (aka Victoria Nuland color's revolution euromaidan playbook , ) , or much less likely a full scale war with PRC (which is one stone 2 bird situation for unkil).

i we pretend munna for a while , the color revolution attempts will be much milder and manageable.. and we may get some TOT deals that we need so we don't have to reinvent the wheel in some cases.

Once our GDP reaches a certain threshold , US will really have no leverage. Once we exceed them (we have to absolutely ensure that happens) , they are welcome to play our munna.

Modi/Jaishanker are doing the right thing. If Russkies go downhill , we are covered albeit with some additional effort. if russkies prevail we are still covered . I think current focus should also be on contingency. If EU de industrializes (frankly believe it is going to , only the extent that it does needs to be seen) , we need to keep our shopping carts ready.. If Russia collapses we need to ensure that we scrap that barrel for useful tech , scientists etc..
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by NRao »

So, are we now saying the Quad has morphed into a Bi or a Duo? (A fair conclusion IMO)
SSridhar wrote:.................
For the next two decades at least, the US will remain locked with China and its allies. ........................
I very much doubt that scenario. IMO, the polarity and world order will be decided by 2026/27, certainly by 2030.

Multiple comments:
gakakkad wrote: Modi/Jaishanker are doing the right thing. If Russkies go downhill , we are covered albeit with some additional effort. if russkies prevail we are still covered .
"Russia" - to the Americans (actually neocons/liberals) is not a nation. It is the natural resources (estimated at $72 trillion) beneath the land mass we call "Russia". That $$$$$ is what Ukraine and other revolutions are about.

So, if Russia is reformed, know for sure India will pay a tremendously huge price for all imported commodities and will never be able to set proper prices for her exports. Reason? Simple: only the "US" will determine who gets what and at what price - much like the price cap on oil they have proposed.

Bottom line: the rules of engagement that we are used to will not exist. The new rules will be determined in DC, for teh rest of the world to follow.
India will almost certain because a 10+ trillion economy end of this decade and achieve parity of nominal gdp with unkil end of next decade. (10 years ahead of what current western models say if everything goes well). when that happens , the world will by definition not be unipolar.
Maybe not. In a scenario where Europe is hollowed out, Indian trade will decline by that much. And if Russia does not retain her position, then India is perhaps #2, after China, for similar treatment (Blinken has announced a new position for sub-national. Targeted for breaking India)
the above is almost certain but not 100% certain. black swan events that prevent it from happening are internal conflicts (aka Victoria Nuland color's revolution euromaidan playbook , ) , or much less likely a full scale war with PRC (which is one stone 2 bird situation for unkil).

i we pretend munna for a while , the color revolution attempts will be much milder and manageable.. and we may get some TOT deals that we need so we don't have to reinvent the wheel in some cases.

Once our GDP reaches a certain threshold , US will really have no leverage. Once we exceed them (we have to absolutely ensure that happens) , they are welcome to play our munna.
.
Too many IF/THEN/ELSE statements. Which means India is not in control of her destiny.

As an importer of energy, India holds very few cards in a world where Russia (perhaps even China) does not exist. In fact, IMO, none.
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by S_Madhukar »

10T by decade sounds way too optimistic. Our population first up needs way better education and attitude before we get up there. 5T sounds more likely. I am not sure if Eleven will like Unkil to cut up Russia as they will bring them closer to their borders with Baki lapdog. The whole sea now is full of sharks baring their jaws. India needs to navigate cautiously but at least the danger is visible.
vimal
BRFite
Posts: 1904
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by vimal »

What’s the set of concrete things India needs to do and can control? I can think of two:

1. Get rid of russi weapons platforms. This is very much possible if we have the political will. Replacing tin cans with Arjun. We have enough russi tanks for long term spare salvaging just in case. Induct more LCA with retiring of migs. This still leaves dependence but we are whittling it down by the end of decade.
2. Nuclear energy. The world is already moving to EV we need to increase electricity output and replace many oil based energy sources. Our railway can be fully electrified. China though has already captured Lithium.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

sanjaykumar wrote:^^ One must recognise that the obverse is true as well. The US thinks India is always good n bed with Russia.

There is nothing evil about self interest. At least not beyond the banal evil of politics.
There is a major qualitative difference. The US started giving Pakistan weaponry before India bought a single bullet from Russia. That weaponry directly affects India. India's ties with Russia doesn't really harm the US unless one defines ' harm'' as" not buying/ accepting US arms in a military alliance arrangement. Or alternatively, as potentially reducing the opportunity of US companies to make more profits off India because of India's policy of setting up steel plants, dams, heavy machinery and a few other things in the public sector, thus essentially excluding the US from any significant involvement in those areas.

India has not done anything remotely as egregious and outrageous as threatening the US in the waters surrounding it a la the 7th fleet in the Bay of Bengal.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

As a corollary of sorts, India is not in any way, shape or form responsible for communism in Russia or Russia's misdeeds in different places. The US and the UK bear a huge responsibility for Pakistan's military composition and its policies toward India.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by SSridhar »

NRao wrote:
SSridhar wrote:.................
For the next two decades at least, the US will remain locked with China and its allies. ........................
I very much doubt that scenario. IMO, the polarity and world order will be decided by 2026/27, certainly by 2030.
Polarity would probably be determined by 2027 (the 21st Congress), one way or another.

Whoever wins or loses, the strong embers will linger for quite sometime after the event. It isn’t as though the fire will be completely extinguished on the day that Taiwan falls or China falls.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by bala »

pretend munna for a while
India has been munna/munna behavior for a very long time since 12 century, first to Islamic hordes and then the Britshits. After Independence the dominance of the Indian Brown sahibs has continued the behavior. Unless each individual in India is very clear about their Indic identity the problem will persist. Forging a self assured path is tricky and fraught with all kinds of problems.

The US is well aware of the fact that India and China dominated the world for centuries and the wealth of the nations was usurped by the Britshits and indirectly also the US. The fear of losing to them is front center in their policies. They will create enough chaos to justify their own lead and stability. It is kinda of truism that in order to have stability you have to induce chaos once in a while to advance. The resource rich nations were targeted by the Britshits ergo the US too. You can add resources such as human resources to the equation. If the middle east including Iran were to join the BRICS then the worry lines on the US become longer. Already Iran is part of Shanghai Cooperation. Saudi is favorable towards Russia and wanting to join BRICS. I am hoping that Russia emerges stronger from the Ukr-Rus tussle. This stance by Russia is very crucial otherwise the rest of world will be dancing to the tunes of the US.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

Cyrano wrote: ... given our energy needs and military equipment installed base, ...
Cyrano garu, great observation. 10 years time frame proposed by gakkakad ji is a little too short though we would be steadily moving in that direction.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

gakakkad wrote:India will almost certain because a 10+ trillion economy end of this decade and achieve parity of nominal gdp with unkil end of next decade. (10 years ahead of what current western models say if everything goes well).
aap ke much ghee shakkar. I would be the happiest person if that comes about. That said, is there a model to back up your claim or is it just wishful thinking that western models are wrong?
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

gakakkad wrote: ... (aka Victoria Nuland color's revolution euromaidan playbook , ) , or much less likely a full scale war with PRC (which is one stone 2 bird situation for unkil).
It is hard for even massa to pull off a successful color revolution in Inda. While full-scale war is a low-probability event, low-grade conflict with China and low to medium grade internal turmoil would have a similar, if not worse, effect on our growth.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

NRao wrote:As an importer of energy,...
In addition, weapon system dependency, plus no indigenous capability to manufacture chips.
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Dilbu »

That leaves India with only the advantage of a young and growing middle class which is a powerful market capable of driving the economic engines of the world. Here also the demographic advantage will start closing after X number of years, even if not at the accelerated pace due to one child policy in China.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Cyrano »

Lets look at our relative strengths and limitations with respect to our QUAD partners for a moment:

Our geographic location - without India, there is no indo in indo-pacific. Diego Garcia and Australia's mostly lifeless western coast notwithstanding. And Indo is where a substantial trade flow of the planet occurs. When some day east-African countries become economically stronger, this will only increase. So the net maritime security assurer and capable first responder here will always be India. And this is not charity, keeping our neighbourhood clean and functional is essential for us. QUAD serves to legitimise India in this position and hopefully draws meaningful contributions from the other 3 or at the very least, minimises unproductive interference. I'd go as far as to say even China benefits from this.

- India's young and mobile population - Australia makes quite a bit on money from Indian students, benefits from Indians' highly productive skills and talents (with near zero problems caused by Indian immigrants compared to any others) to grow its own economy, and with the new FTA, by supplying to Indian markets. As does the US, since decades. Our diaspora is also a strength for us, to establish better understanding and create some influence, though the latter is a long term prospect. Japan is the only outlier here, but thats OK.

- Indias agricultural prowess that feeds its 1.4B people and can export some surplus. At certain critical times this is a lever that can be quite powerful as we have seen recently.

India's participation and leadership in many multilateral bodies like BIMSTEC, ASEAN, BRICS, G20 etc and its good relations with African and ME countries ensures we can mobilise effective support in a non-coercive way for QUAD initiatives from various stakeholders. India is also able to bridle OBOR influence to some extent, and keep an eye on overexploitation of marine resources like Chinese overfishing (they have emptied some seas around west Africa already) and preserve livelihood of many millions in IOR countries.

India also acts as a barrier for whatever designs US & AUS may have in the IOR today or later. We can also involve France for ex which has several million citizens and overseas territories in IOR & Pacific, which has multiple uses.

Most importantly in allows us to be plugged in onto some of the conversations between the other three members that can impact us and our neighbourhood and put on table issues and initiatives that shape the future designs of the other three on IndoP and IOR. All these are as important as the much touted "counter balancing China militarily by QUAD grouping" proposition. Even without the military angle, it draws India closer to J, A & US which is an essential pre-requisite to do any sort of counter balancing.

The QUAD has its utility in also ensuring India has a foot in the door, a seat at the table and no big moves happen in IOR behind its back and India can voice its concerns in a formal platform.

But QUAD does not do much directly to help with India's major limitations:
- Colossal energy needs and the external dependencies it creates with suppliers across the world
- Unfriendly and belligerent neighbours that can be triggered to create nuisance for India
- External dependencies for Mil tech and equipment - Atmanirbhar is a long journey for decades to come
- MFG weakness due to decades of neglect, not just in high-tech devices and machinery but also chemicals, fertilisers, processes, tools, skills and training - which makes us import dependent
- Improve trade with ASEAN partners which are a lot more influenced by China's economic might since decades.

But what QUAD does is to help us stay involved in IOR & IndoP big power conversations and deal with matters before they become major distractions and therefore help us focus a bit better on addressing our limitations.

As far as I've seen, being part of QUAD doesnt put any constraints on us (or others) to be part of various other international fora, so whats the problem?

I have already posted Dr SJ's superb exposé of the why and what of QUAD a few pages ago on this thread, so please listen to his talk, I need not restate all that he said, and I'll be far less effective in conveying it than him.
yensoy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2494
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by yensoy »

^^^^^^ Good points

1. India is too big to "be helped" by anyone. Our problems are vast and unique, and the scale at which we operate is unprecedented. So we have to help ourselves although point assistance such as specific knowledge tie-ups and investments are always welcome.
2. If we can be part of SCO and we can most certainly be part of Quad. If we can be members of BRICS bank and AIIB (another multilateral bank with China as the dominant lender/vote holder) we can be part of Quad.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

An important journal from an Indian perspective on Maritime Affairs.

National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi, a premier think tank of the Indian Navy

https://maritimeindia.org/maritime-affairs-journal/


Link to articles.

https://maritimeindia.org/category/articles-nmf/

They also have a China study cell.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

By choice am putting this tweet in the QUAD thread and not the China thread...

https://twitter.com/HalBrands/status/15 ... OyoYg5wLXw
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

All four parts are printed now. Please help to post them.

Thanks.
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Bart S »

^
Quad:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... tain-china
Japan:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... f=Yg3sQEZ2
Australia:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... ver-taiwan
India:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... d-india-do
Europe:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... #xj4y7vzkg

The analysis of India's position seems superficial and full of his own biases and pre-conceived notions along with a NYT/Wa-Po editorial board type contempt and dislike of India.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

Regardless we need to see what they are saying.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

The first article Setting the stage

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... tain-china
America Can Contain China With an Alliance of Five
Conflict in the Indo-Pacific looks increasingly plausible, and the US is going to need lots of help from Australia, India, Japan, and the UK.

By Hal Brands
November 2, 2022 at 3:00 PM PDT

(This is the first in a series of dispatches from partner nations the US will depend on in its rivalry, and potential war, with China. Read part two, on Japan, here; and part three, on Australia, here.)

The US-China rivalry is a global affair, but the heart of the contest is in the Indo-Pacific. This is the world’s most populous, economically dynamic and strategically important region. It is where the Chinese challenge to US power, and to the international system that power underpins, is most severe. It is where outright war between Washington and Beijing is most likely.

And it’s where four key countries — the subjects of a series of columns over the next two weeks — could shape the outcome of a Sino-American showdown through the choices they make.

Just two years ago, it was still a fringe opinion to suggest that China might invade Taiwan or otherwise touch off a major regional conflict in the 2020s. Now, in Washington at least, that view is becoming conventional wisdom. :?: :?: :?:

{XJP in the 19th Congress very clearly said Taiwan is unfinished business!}


More and more, I hear U.S. officials — including those who are hardly card-carrying hawks — privately saying that Washington and Beijing may be headed for a test of strength in the next three to five years. America’s top naval officer stated that a fight could come sooner than that. China’s growing ambition to retake Taiwan and remake the region, the thinking goes, are about to crash into America’s determination to prevent that.

If there is a US-China war, it won’t simply be a fight over Taiwan or some other hotspot. The war would be a fight for hegemony in a crucial region, and for all the global influence that follows.

If China defeated the US, it could shatter American military power — and confidence therein — up and down Asia’s maritime periphery, while reinforcing Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s narrative that the East rises as the West declines. If Washington thrashes Beijing, say goodbye to the idea that China is destined for dominance in Asia and beyond.

{Hal Brands sets up a zero-sum game between US and China. He ignores Korean War and Vietnam War where it already happened. If China takes over Taiwan it won't shatter anything. Already US has exited Saigon and Kabul without any loss except some egos.}

Regardless of who wins, a US-China war would have cascading consequences. The conflict might expand geographically, as the Pentagon blockades China’s energy imports or targets its naval vessels wherever they can be found. War would precipitate an economic earthquake, tearing apart supply chains and disrupting some of the most lucrative trade routes on the planet. There would be a very real prospect of nuclear escalation. And a war in the Western Pacific wouldn’t simply be a China-America duel: Its course could change fundamentally based on how other countries position themselves.

{Old domino theory at play. Also, the Biblical Apocalypse scenario is being painted.}

How well China fares in a Taiwan fight hinges, in large part, on how big and strong the opposing coalition is. Whether the US can operate effectively across the vast distances of the Pacific depends on what sort of support, logistical and military, it has from partners and allies. Countries that don’t directly join the fighting could still make a difference by granting (or denying) Washington access to ports and airfields, replenishing depleted US ammunition stockpiles, or joining in economic and technological punishment against Beijing.

Unfortunately, from Washington’s perspective, there isn’t much certainty around this issue. The Indo-Pacific lacks a single, region-wide military alliance akin to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so any response to Chinese aggression will be a geopolitical pickup game.

Over the next two weeks, I’ll be traveling to Japan, Australia, India, and the UK to find out how these four critical countries are thinking about a war they hope will never come. These countries comprise the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Australia, India, Japan and the US) and AUKUS (Australia-UK-US), the two most important mini-lateral security arrangements in the Indo-Pacific.

Collectively, they include three close US treaty allies and a sometimes-distant security partner, India. Short of war, they are already deeply engaged in the struggle to mold the Indo-Pacific future. If war erupts, they would be among Washington’s best bets for broad international support — yet all would confront hard choices about whether and how to respond.

A war that the US fights in the Western Pacific without allies is a war it runs a very high risk of losing. A war that it fights at the head of a large democratic coalition is one China probably cannot win. The more Beijing fears the latter scenario, the better deterred it may be from using force in the first place.

The Chinese-American rivalry is a contest for Indo-Pacific hegemony. But in what they do and don’t do, an array of middle powers will have their say in who wins.
Second article Japan.

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... f=Yg3sQEZ2
Why Japan Is Gearing Up for Possible War With China
The threat of Chinese aggression is producing a quiet revolution in Tokyo’s statecraft — and officials are pushing the nation to get ready for a fight.

By Hal Brands
November 6, 2022 at 2:00 PM PST


(This is the second in a series of dispatches from partner nations the US will depend on in its rivalry, and potential war, with China. Read part one here; part three, on Australia, here; and part four, on India, here.)

If China were to attack Taiwan, it wouldn’t just have to face a hostile superpower. It would also likely have to confront its longstanding regional rival, Japan. For centuries, Japan and China have vied for hegemony in East Asia; at times, they have threatened each other’s survival. Today, as I found from three days of meetings with Japanese officials and analysts in Tokyo, the threat of Chinese aggression is producing a quiet revolution in Japanese statecraft — and pushing the nation to get ready for a fight.

{XJP is quite aware that the Taiwan invasion will lead to Japanese rearmament. And hence his speech to 20th congress was replete with a peaceful merger. And threat of force if external actors force their views on Taiwan.}

For the US, China is a dangerous but distant challenge. For Japan, China is the existential danger next door. Years before American leaders were proclaiming the return of great-power rivalry, Japanese officials were warning that Beijing was up to no good. As China’s capabilities become more formidable and its conduct in the Taiwan Strait more menacing, Tokyo’s concerns grew more acute.

{in fact it was Shinzo Abe and NaMo who set up Japan-India group in 2016 which becamee QUAD.}

The weather may have been beautiful when I visited the capital, but there is very much a sense that storms are on the horizon. “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” warned Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in June. The same month, some 90% of the Japanese public believed the country should prepare for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That was before Chinese leader Xi Jinping ratcheted tensions by firing ballistic missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei.

Firing Ballistic Missiles was one of the war like reponses that XJP did after Nancy Peliosi stirring the pot.}


In Tokyo, as in Washington, opinions differ regarding when the risk of war will be greatest, and even whether Xi would hazard everything in a high-stakes military gamble. Some officials told me that Xi’s recent personnel reforms — which included placing a veteran of China’s last foreign conflict, against Vietnam in 1979, and a former commander of Chinese military forces opposite Taiwan in the two top spots on the Central Military Commission — amount to a creation of a “war council.” Others counter that the People’s Liberation Army will lack key capabilities necessary to invade Taiwan, such as sufficient amphibious landing craft, for years to come.

But there is little debate the country must brace for trouble, because China taking Taiwan by force would be disastrous for Japan.

If Taiwan fell, the islands at the far southwestern end of the Japanese archipelago might become indefensible. China could constrict Japan’s vital trade routes, increase the pressure around the disputed Senkaku Islands, and otherwise coerce its historic rival.

This is why the Tokyo government has stated — as strongly as it can, given Japan’s post-1945 aversion to the use of force — that it would not stand by while Taiwan was subjugated. Already a serious regional military power, Japan is moving rapidly to strengthen its capabilities for deterrence and defense.

Japan plans to nearly double defense spending by 2027. It is turning some of the southwestern islands into strongpoints studded with anti-ship missiles and air defenses; it reportedly has plans to use its high-quality submarine fleet to bottle up the Chinese navy. Tokyo is also moving to acquire American Tomahawk cruise missiles and other “counterstrike” capabilities that could target the Chinese mainland.

Some of these moves are publicly justified as measures to deal with a very real threat from North Korea, which livened my arrival in Tokyo by launching ballistic missiles that triggered alerts for residents of north and central Japan to seek cover. But Japanese officials acknowledged privately to me that every crisis with Pyongyang strengthens their argument for acquiring weapons that can blunt aggression by Beijing.

Meanwhile, cooperation with the US is getting deeper, with American and Japanese forces stepping up training together – including large-scale exercises off several southern islands this month – and preparing joint-operational plans in case conflict over Taiwan breaks out.

These measures are part of a larger shift, as Tokyo — which in the 1930s and 40s ravaged its neighbors — becomes a pillar of Indo-Pacific security. When the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement under President Donald Trump, Japan salvaged a pared-down version of that accord, to act as a counterweight to Chinese influence.

Japanese officials are weaving a web of security partnerships, with countries from Australia to India, meant to strengthen checks against Chinese expansion. Tokyo even coined the idea of preserving a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” a phrase Washington has now appropriated.

To be sure, it’s a halfway revolution. Doubling defense spending would take Japan’s military outlays to just 2% of GDP. The country’s constitution still imposes serious constraints on foreign and defense policy. But the overall trend is clear and, most likely, durable. Kishida, once considered a dove, is carrying out the policies that his more hawkish predecessor, Shinzo Abe, envisioned — without provoking nearly as much blowback as the more polarizing Abe.

This is good news for Washington. Access to Japanese bases and the involvement of Japanese forces would make the odds in a war over Taiwan far more favorable for the US. An alliance that began as a one-way security guarantee after World War II is steadily evolving into a more authentic partnership.

{Looks like Hal Brandds is unaware of role of Japanese bases in the Korean War!}

That’s not to say that the two countries are in lockstep. The volatility of US politics and the legacy of the Trump years have led to lingering concerns about America’s long-term reliability. As I learned in Tokyo, Japanese think-tanks are quietly studying geopolitical “plan B’s” (or “plan A’s”) in case Trump returns to power. Military and diplomatic investments that make Japan a better ally of the US today serve as insurance against a future in which America retreats into isolationism or angry unilateralism.

Japanese and American diplomats I spoke to also worried that Washington sometimes elevates the symbolic aspects of support for Taiwan, such as the Pelosi visit or calls to recognize that island as an independent country, over concrete action to strengthen its defenses. Whereas Tokyo prefers deterrence without provocation, the US periodically practices provocation without deterrence. That’s not a good way to handle a dangerous rival — or to keep America’s single most crucial ally in the fold.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

Australia

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... ver-taiwan
Why Australia Is Gearing Up for Possible War With China
The Pacific is vast, but there is an increasing understanding in Canberra that a conflict over Taiwan would hit very close to home.

By Hal Brands
November 9, 2022 at 2:02 PM PST

(This is the third in a series of dispatches from partner nations the US will depend on in its rivalry, and potential war, with China. Read part one here; part two, on Japan, here; and part four, on India, here.)

Japan is America’s single most important ally, but Australia has historically been its most reliable. Alone among US allies, not just in the Indo-Pacific but globally, Australia has fought in all of America’s major wars since World War I.

As I found during three days in Sydney and Canberra, the prospect of war in the Taiwan Strait is forging Australia, Japan, and the US into a latter-day Triple Entente — the pre-World War I coalition that sought to contain Imperial Germany — in the Western Pacific. That comparison is reassuring and disquieting at the same time.

Less than a decade ago, Australia was the poster child for US allies who refused to choose between Washington and Beijing. How times change. In 2017-18, revelations of pervasive Chinese efforts to corrupt Australian politics caused a pivot in public opinion.

In 2020, China punished Australia economically after the Canberra government supported an international inquiry into the origins of Covid-19. Beijing’s expanding influence in the South Pacific has sparked fears of Chinese flotillas threatening Australia’s sea lanes.

{Just like XJP admonished Canada at G-20 in Bali and others in APEC. XJP is the Emperor and vassal states dont get respect.}

Yet what came through most clearly this week, in conversations with Australian analysts and officials, was concern that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan might catastrophically compromise the security of the entire Indo-Pacific. “Australia could not survive in a Chinese-dominated region,” one defense expert told me. It would become “a satrapy,” forced to toe Beijing’s line or suffer the consequences.
{ Australia felt abandoned by Great Britain when Churchill used Australian troops as cannon fodder in 1916 at Gallipoli. Indian troops were the second largest contingent but that's another matter. In WWII Imperial Japan came close to New Guinea and Australia had to reconsider its alliances as GB abandoned Singapore. This resulted in many pacts with US like ANZUS, Five Eyes etc. But the rise of China has revived the historical ghost of existence from Imperial Japan to China. Note the usage of the word 'satrapy'. The irony is lost on Hal Brands! Satraps are Indi-Scythian warlords serving an overlord. Very clear they consider XJP will be the overlord. It begs the question that under many Sussie PMS they willingly became defacto satraps!}

This is why, as Michael Green of the US Studies Centre in Sydney notes, Australia has in recent years pushed Washington to go faster on issues ranging from curbing the influence of Huawei Technologies Co. to creating one new security grouping, AUKUS, and reinvigorating an older one, the Quad.

The Australian government recently signed a joint declaration with Japan that looks a lot like “alliance-lite.” The two countries pledged to consult and work with each other “on contingencies that may affect our sovereignty and regional security interests.”

It’s a remarkable historical shift: In 1942, Northern Australia feared a Japanese invasion; today, Japanese troops are preparing to train there with the Australian army. And Australia, like Japan, is striving to strengthen its ability to defend itself and the region it inhabits.

Nuclear-capable American B-52 bombers will soon operate out of Northern Australia as part of a larger expansion of the US presence there. AUKUS — the Australia-UK-US security arrangement announced last year — will produce (eventually) nuclear-powered attack submarines and (more quickly) unmanned underwater vehicles and other advanced capabilities.


Based on conversations I’ve had in Washington and Canberra, it also seems likely that Australia may lease one or more US attack submarines until the boats built under the AUKUS deal are ready. Investments in cyberwarfare and intelligence capabilities are increasing as defense spending rises.

Bulking Up Down Under

Source:Sipri

Note: in US dollars

Admittedly, the Australian military is small, and the distances to the Taiwan Strait are large. The Australians wouldn’t have huge amounts of firepower to contribute to a Taiwan fight.

{I said on Twitter need to differentiate between lizards and lizard tails. Australia and EU are lizard tails when confronting the dragon.}

But, Australian officials told me, in a conflict where the margin between victory and defeat would be razor-thin, their military would have a critical role. Envision a geographic division of labor — in which Australia uses air power and sea power to secure critical lines of movement through Southeast Asia, while Japan holds Northeast Asia, and the US busts the invasion or blockade of Taiwan itself.

US air power and Marines in a Taiwan conflict would likely operate from Australian bases. Australian space, cyberwarfare and intelligence assets would be crucial. Conceivably, US-made Australian F-35s might fly from American bases in the Western Pacific, or Australian ground forces could help Taiwan repel an invasion (although geography alone makes these more distant possibilities).

Distance isn’t the only dilemma Australia faces. Developing the capabilities currently envisioned, especially attack submarines, will require major spending hikes. Deepening cooperation with allies and partners triggers perennial concerns about Australian sovereignty. Australia would suffer economically in a conflict with China, which accounts for 31% of its trade.

Even so, Australia probably wouldn’t stay on the sidelines. Opinion polling indicates that a plurality of the population favors sending forces to defend Taiwan, so long as the US does, too. The center-left government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refuses to be pinned down on Australia’s intentions, but one recent defense minister deemed it “inconceivable” that Australia wouldn’t be involved.

There is increasingly an assumption here that a war in the Western Pacific would involve a “three-plus-one” coalition — Australia, Japan and the US helping to defend Taiwan. These three countries increasingly resemble the Triple Entente — between France, Russia and Britain — a loose coalition committed to stopping their era’s autocratic challenger, Imperial Germany, from shattering the balance of power.

Yet the Triple Entente failed to prevent World War I, in part because its looseness — there was no formal treaty binding all three members — encouraged German leaders to hope it might fracture in a crisis. There’s a similar challenge before the democracies today.

NATO could prevent Warsaw Pact but not Ukraine War.}

Australia, Japan and the US all have policies of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan — they have indicated they won’t let China take the island, but made no formal commitments to its defense. Separate alliances bind the US to Japan and the US to Australia, but there is no trilateral mechanism ensuring that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on all. Nor is there a unified command structure that would be needed for the three powers to fight together effectively.

{ China is not a threat like Soviet Union was. FSU had a contiguous land border with Western Europe. China is separated by the seas where the USN is unchallenged. So a war with China would be similar to US war with Imperial Japan on the high seas. So what will a NATO-like alliance do? Provide bases for the US. And get attacked.}

There are sound reasons for maintaining strategic ambiguity, not least that no one wants to set off a crisis by shifting the status quo in the strait. Yet as World War I reminds us, conflicts have also started when aggressors underestimate the resistance they will eventually face.

Australian officials told me they worry that it will be difficult to generate tons of new military capabilities in the next half-decade, so one way to strengthen deterrence is to make as clear as possible that Beijing will face a powerful democratic coalition if it attacks Taiwan. After all, it seems likely that Australia, like Washington and Tokyo, would find it hard to avoid such a fight. One critical question, in Canberra and elsewhere, is how explicitly to make this known in advance.

{That's the question! BTW, for the West looks like the military option is the only one, as they have a military advantage. Something for the strategists to think about.}
Europe:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... #xj4y7vzkg
If China Invaded Taiwan, What Would Europe Do?
The UK and other allies would have valuable supporting roles in a Pacific crisis, first by taking responsibility for their own security. :mrgreen:

By Hal Brands
November 16, 2022 at 9:00 PM PST

(This is the last in a series of dispatches from partner nations the US will depend on in its rivalry, and potential war, with China. Read part one here; part two, on Japan, here; part three, on Australia, here; and part four, on India, here.)

While European nations deal with the economic fallout from a war in Ukraine, Washington is warning them to brace for the economic catastrophe that could result from a war over Taiwan. US diplomats are reportedly telling their transatlantic counterparts that the global economy would suffer a hit of $2.5 trillion per year from a Chinese blockade of the island, while a full-on invasion would cause immensely more commercial carnage.

These are scare tactics with a purpose: The US means to enlist its European allies in deterring a prospective Chinese assault. This week, I was in London, as part of a larger set of discussions with analysts and officials on both sides of the Atlantic. It became clear that the European allies would have a major stake in a Taiwan conflict. But no one has nailed down how, exactly, countries at one end of Eurasia would help deter — or win — a war at the other.

It’s natural for Washington to seek support in Europe. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is its most formidable bloc of allies; the European Union is the third-largest economy in the world. Geography, of course, is a problem. “Dying for Taiwan?” French journalist Sylvie Kauffmann wrote recently: “The Europeans had not signed up for that.”

Even so, there is a growing awareness that Europe can’t ignore a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored that aggression in even a single region can endanger the security and prosperity of the larger global order. China’s growing military capabilities, economic predation, and assertive conduct have set off concerns that it seeks fundamental changes to an international system in which Europe has thrived.

{Since 1498, Europe has benefitted like a lizard's tail on Asia. First colonization of India and then the Century of Humilation of China. It is about time they realized their aukat and stayed home.}

Not least, if NATO is an alliance of democracies, it cannot easily look aside as another democracy is conquered; if it is unwilling to help America address its most fundamental security challenge, then perhaps the US will be less invested in Europe in the future.

{While most if not all NATO countries are democracies, the way they treat the rest of the world is totalitarian. And it is laughable to call Turkey a democracy.}

As a result, European countries are conducting their own partial pivots to Asia — a “tilt,” one British defense official told me this week, rather than a leap. In 2021, the EU approved a strategy promising “enhanced naval deployments” in the Indo-Pacific. NATO has called out the China challenge in its most recent Strategic Concept.

{Good that the British want to tilt after exiting Asia by abandoning Hong Kong to Chian!}

The most capable non-US members of the alliance — including Britain, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Germany — are enhancing their activities along the Pacific Rim. As part of its post-Brexit “global Britain” concept, the UK has deployed a carrier strike group and deepened defense ties with Japan and other regional partners. London has also sought to make itself more central to the region’s security through its AUKUS partnership with the US and Australia.

{London had an alliance with Japan in WWI.}


The US and UK are now engaged in nascent contingency planning for a Taiwan military crisis; American officials confirmed to me that the US and the EU have begun discussions about a prospective economic response. “Against the Chinese Navy, we will win if we fight together, in coalition,” the head of the French Navy declared in August.

That’s not to say that there is clarity about what the Europeans might do in a crisis. Germany’s position on China is clear as mud. Whether Berlin seeks to deepen or limit its commercial relationship with Beijing varies based on which minister is speaking for the government.

{Germany's economy is its strength and it needs to strenghten it after the hit from US's Ukrain War. So it is seeking trade wtih China. In fact its bilaterla trade ties are massive.}

The Ukraine war has heightened European sensitivities to aggression in the Western Pacific, but also limited their ability to respond. Even with coming increases in defense spending, many countries’ forces will be needed closer to home.

The logistical constraints on wartime European military deployments are also daunting. As defense analysts such as Franz-Stefan Gady and Bruno Tertrais note, NATO countries have capabilities — such as aircraft carriers and sophisticated attack aircraft — relevant to combat in the Western Pacific. But they would struggle to get those assets to the region quickly in a crisis, and to find the basing and aerial refueling needed to support them.

Washington may thus hope that the key European contribution would be economic: Participation in export controls, trade and financial sanctions, and investment bans to wreck China’s prosperity even if it seizes Taiwan. For this approach to help deter a conflict, though, it needs to be thoroughly developed and advertised beforehand — which may be a challenge, officials in Washington and London tell me, given that many countries will know how far they are willing to go only once the shooting starts.

On the military front, Europe might help by delivering niche capabilities and plugging holes in other regions. The UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands could assist in cyberwarfare, by helping Taiwan defend its systems and identify weaknesses in China’s. They could contribute reconnaissance satellites and other intelligence assets to the coalition effort; replenish US ammunition stocks; and perhaps offer long-range strike capabilities such as cruise missiles delivered from the sea.

Britain and other countries could send arms to Taiwan, as they have done for Ukraine, although this would require a US-led effort to break through whatever naval cordon Beijing might erect. In an especially grim scenario, where a Taiwan war goes long and attrition is severe, European attack aircraft could conceivably fly missions from carriers or US bases in the Western Pacific, to compensate for American losses.

Of course, these steps would be more feasible if Europe and its surrounding regions were quiet — which, right now, they are not. So if a Taiwan conflict erupted amid threats from a declining but dangerous Russia and a rapidly nuclearizing Iran, the allies’ major military assistance might involve taking greater responsibility for security in Europe and the Persian Gulf as the US swings forces into the Pacific.

Even this, though, is more of an aspiration than a plan, because the members of the transatlantic community are only starting to talk to each other about what they would do — and what they would ask of each other — in a conflict.

None of these measures will be easy. Yet the message that US diplomats are carrying to Europe is the right one: The cost of failing to deter a war may be having to fight it, at an exorbitant price.
A stragegist is delvering only one option of war and doom and gloom as the message.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ramana »

Finally India.
Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... d-india-do
If China Invaded Taiwan, What Would India Do?
The New Delhi government fears its expansionist neighbor but is deeply wary about getting in the middle of a brawl with Beijing.


ByHal Brands
November 13, 2022 at 5:00 PM PST

(This is the fourth in a series of dispatches from partner nations the US will depend on in its rivalry, and potential war, with China. Read part one here; part two, on Japan, here; and part three, on Australia, here.)

The US, Australia and Japan would be the core of any alliance to defend Taiwan from an attack by China. But the Indo-Pacific is enormous, so the success of this coalition of the willing might hinge on what support it could scrounge up from an axis of the ambivalent — a group of strategically situated, and strategically hesitant, countries across the region.

Access to bases in the Philippines and perhaps South Korea could help Washington bring its airpower to bear. Use of logistical facilities in Singapore would make it easier to operate in the South China Sea. :?: Overflight rights from Southeast Asian countries would allow the US to get long-range bombers stationed at Diego Garcia into the game. And simply to get to the fighting, one Australian official told me last week, Canberra would need Indonesia’s “grudging acquiescence” to transit through its archipelagic waters and airspace.

All of these countries fear an expansionist China. All are positioned well to help contain it. Yet all are deeply wary about getting in the middle of a brawl with Beijing. This applies in spades to another Indo-Pacific power I’ve been visiting: India, whose behavior in a Taiwan crisis remains a question mark at best.

India’s centrality to the US-China rivalry is clear. The country is a major regional power in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, two regions where China aims to expand. India has experience with Beijing’s bullying along their contested border in the Himalayas. Since a military clash that killed at least 20 Indian troops in June 2020, officials and analysts in New Delhi told me, any remaining illusions about Chinese President Xi Jinping have fallen away.

As the world’s largest democracy, India is unavoidably — if not always enthusiastically — prominent in a US-China competition that President Joe Biden frames in ideological terms of free nations versus autocracies. As a leader of the developing world, which is again becoming a geopolitical battleground, India exercises great diplomatic influence as well.

{Just so the record is clear Biden Administration's first act was to threaten India with charges of a foreign currency manipulator. It conducted FONOPS in Lakshadweep Islands and brought back memories of USS Enterprise in Bay of Bengal during the 1971 Bangladesh War to liberate East Pakistan from genocide by US ally Pakistan. Next, it with held vaccine adjuvants which were not needed by any US vaccine maker and released them as the second COVID wave raged in India. And no formal apology or rationale. And India has the largest land border with China along the LAC unlike any of these island nations.}

The Biden administration is bullish on India, and with good reasons. New Delhi has aligned itself with a reborn Quad — alongside Australia, Japan and the US — and its vision of a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Washington reportedly provided intelligence support to India during and after the 2020 Himalayan skirmish.

{Thats a new one! It was Trump adminstration that provided some reduced images.}

India is using naval exercises and arms sales to countries such as Indonesia to deepen its engagement in Southeast Asia in ways that complicate Beijing’s designs. The relationship with India is “the most important for the United States in the 21st century,” the Biden administration’s Asia policy czar, Kurt Campbell, has said.

But don’t get carried away, because India can be both a hardheaded and a halfhearted partner. There is no enthusiasm for anything like a formal alliance with Washington. As former foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale said to me, “India is too big, has too much of a history and identity as a great civilization, to be attached to someone else.”

The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose commitment to democratic norms at home is questionable, lacks any sentimental attachment to the liberal international order abroad. Much to the disappointment of US officials, India’s dependence on Russian guns and gas has produced an unabashedly equivocal stance on the war in Ukraine.

{The writer questions Modi govt commitment to democracy when he came to power with 4 times the number of votes Biden got in the last election. India has a low per capita economy. It can't afford the $6/ gallon gas to keep running. The writer has no idea about the size of India.}


So how might India react if China attacked Taiwan? Although India can’t project much military power east of the Malacca Strait, it could still, in theory, do a lot. US officials quietly hope that India might grant access to its Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in the eastern Bay of Bengal, to facilitate a blockade of China’s oil supplies. The Indian Navy could help keep Chinese ships out of the Indian Ocean; perhaps the Indian Army could distract China by turning up the heat in the Himalayas.

{ US has been sending missionaries to Andaman and Nicobar islands to convert the people. As to Indian Army turning the heat in the Himalayas one needs to look at the terrain map. Its a defensive are aot an offensive area.}

Even short of military assistance, India could rally diplomatic condemnation of a Taiwan assault in the developing world. During the crisis that followed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August, India publicly accused China of “militarization” of the strait.

New Delhi has a real stake in the survival of a free Taiwan. China has a punishing strategic geography, in that it faces security challenges on land and at sea. If taking Taiwan gave China preeminence in maritime Asia, though, Beijing could then pivot to settle affairs with India on land.

{Not necessarily. Its complex.}

Expect a “turn toward the South” once China’s Taiwan problem is resolved, one Indian defense official told me. And in general, a world in which China is emboldened — and the US and its democratic allies are badly bloodied — by a Taiwan conflict would be very nasty for India.
{What is this a voyage of fear-mongering that the writer embarked on? He has limited understaning of the countries he visited and just keeps saying China is bad. If so why not look at General Marshall debates in 1948.}


But none of this ensures that India will cast its lot, militarily or diplomatically, with a pro-Taiwan coalition. Appeals to common democratic values or norms of nonaggression won’t persuade India to aid Taiwan any more than they have induced it to help Ukraine.

Armchair strategists might dream of opening a second front in the Himalayas, but India might be paralyzed by fear that openly aiding the US anywhere would simply give China a pretext to batter overmatched, unprepared Indian forces on their shared frontier.

{Do those arm chair strategists even know what the terrain is like? BTw a mapping of Chinese incursions with political factors has shown they increase whenever US appears close to India.}


The Modi government has been happy to have America’s help in dealing with India’s China problem but is far more reluctant to return the favor by courting trouble in the Western Pacific.
{Quite an untrue statement. And not worth rebutting.}

What India would do in a Taiwan conflict is really anyone’s guess. The most nuanced assessment I heard came from a longtime Indian diplomat. A decade ago, he said, India would definitely have sat on the sidelines. Today, support for Taiwan and the democratic coalition is conceivable, but not likely. After another five years of tension with China and cooperation with the Quad, though, who knows?

{Wrong. Ad ceade ago India would have been glad to be a ne-Gungadin. Now Gungai will look after himself.}


Optimists in Washington might take this assessment as evidence that India is moving in the right direction. Pessimists might point out that there is still a long way to go, and not much time to get there.
{Unfortunately its the pessimist who drive the policy in DC and keep using a stick on India to get cooperation.}
ernest
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by ernest »

The most prudent move for India, in case China invades Taiwan, would be to retake all of PoJ&K. We need to prepare for a 2-Front war, but take the initiative when situation allows us to.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Pratyush »

Can India trust the US to supply the micro processors from the US Fabs?

Once Taiwan Fabs have gone offline.

That is where our priorities should be post PRC invasion of Taiwan.

The US onshoreing of micro processors production in US territories is going to enable them to kiss goodbye to Taiwan with little pain.

But for India it will be catastrophic.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Cyrano »

Articles such as these show how superficial the understanding of India is, among nearly ALL western analysts and commentators. Especially regarding how much India has changed since 2014, and where it wants to go. I suspect its not much different among advisors to their Govts and policy makers.

Even state dept officials aren't any better, like the recent episode of Daleep Singh who got exposed and then sacked. Lets hope officials participating directly in QUAD discussions are learning real quick.

But thats OK, the present Indian Govt is very good at using the west's incomprehension and misunderstandings about India to its advantage.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32278
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by chetak »

Cyrano wrote:
Articles such as these show how superficial the understanding of India is, among nearly ALL western analysts and commentators. Especially regarding how much India has changed since 2014, and where it wants to go. I suspect its not much different among advisors to their Govts and policy makers.

Even state dept officials aren't any better, like the recent episode of Daleep Singh who got exposed and then sacked. Lets hope officials participating directly in QUAD discussions are learning real quick.

But thats OK, the present Indian Govt is very good at using the west's incomprehension and misunderstandings about India to its advantage.
Cyrano ji,

It may be more of a wishlist than any actual hope for India to put its future on the line for a fight in which we have no dog. Modi has been wary of the ameriki embrace, (rather like afzal khan embracing Shivaji Maharaj) because of the many unwanted conditions that came attached.

The amerikis wanted to control eyraab oil and keep prices low for themselves. The goras in the EU were sitting pretty, getting fat, pampered, and comfortable while getting oil/gas from a reliable local supplier like putin. No one wanted to poke the bear except for the amerikis who were hell bent on destabilizing putin and disrupting the russki oil flows into europe, the very oil flows which kept the russki economy ticking. Among other things, Putin supported eyraan and that made the ameriki bloc unhappy.

The amerikis also thought that they could subjugate and bully India like they have done with the pakis for over seven decades now, badly wanted to cut off India's supply of russki weapons, and gain preferential access to India's markets, (consumer as well as weapons) while giving India almost nothing in return while dictating India's internal and external policies to suit their worldview, effectively making India a vassal state.

This was the tried and tested game plan that they used with the pakis. They did not understand that we are very different from the jehadis civilzationally, culturally, and economically, and also a stable democracy with political stability as seen repeatedly in the way governments have transitioned in and out of power without even the iota of a blip after undeniably free and fair elections.

India's steadfast support of putin's russia was/is a black swan that came out of leftfield like a sniper's bullet, and collectively sandbagged the goras.

Now that the ukraine imbroglio may be set for the long haul, the goras have refocussed their attention on disrupting India but they are also extremely mindful of the fact that India is a not only a swing player in the vital grain trade but also a smart player that too big to be pushed around.

India's leadership, for once, is not overawed by the goras, and is very confident in its own right.

The QUAD largely remains on paper and yet the amerikis want India to commit to a quasi military understanding that will see only India placed in harm's way while the goras parlay with the cheeni in exotic locales and discuss how asia is to be divvied up between the hans and amerikis. Every gora and his auntie is clamoring for a free trade agreement with India where all trade is done by the gora and all payments are done by India

Their very poor game plan became undone when they cut and ran from afghanistan, snubbed the eyeraabs, and lost the global trust that they had built up over the decades after WWII.

What exactly caused the meltdown in the ameriki deep state is not yet clear but clearly, the inmates are running the asylum........
vimal
BRFite
Posts: 1904
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by vimal »

That article has a lot of typos which i've fixed below.
The Biden administration is bullish on India, and with good reasons
replace "bullish" with "bullshitting".

New Delhi has aligned itself with a reborn Quad — alongside Australia, Japan and the US
replace "reborn" -> "stillborn"
Washington reportedly provided intelligence support to India during and after the 2020 Himalayan skirmish
.
replace "Washington" -> "Trump Admin"
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by Larry Walker »

If PRC attacks RoC - what will be GoI stand ? Asking because India does not recognize RoC as independent of PRC and maintains One-China policy - and in that case technically PRC is not attacking an independent country.
Post Reply