India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

[krishna_krishna]

+100 Ramana sir, in the process we can shake hands with whoever necessary.

[ShauryaT]

IF UN decides on acting, India has said she will get involved in Syria - under UN.

So, you think, India does not understand that this will never happen as it would jeopardize Russian interests?

Do you honesty believe that living in the US is all great? Beer cans to everything have been thrown. Kids prevented from joining sports teams. Heck such is life. The *only* stuff I will grant you is if you side swiped - something totally out of the blue. Rest you need to prepare, that is your responsibility. And, yes, nothing is fair. But, then, that is the beauty in life - streaming challenges.

Time to separate the personal from the geo-political NRao. I have been living in the US for 2.5 decades and am thankful for this host nation to provide me with opportunities and my share of roadblocks. HOWEVER, let us not conflate the personal experiences with geo-political choices for India!

[arshyam]

But, with Carter potentially leaving, it may slow down. which is why he visited India thsi quickly - to cement a few things that cannot be undone or will take a lot to undo.

Hence better to wait and watch. No need to rush into it now.

The problem is that you are looking at the US as one entity - monolithic. She is NOT. India will get bombarded by some Christian group or the other. There will be a Hillary that will be a threat. There will be a SD that will have a bias for TSP or China. These are given, documented.

I hope you realize that this makes the case for signing these agreements even weaker. What I understand from your post is the the US gov itself may keep doing things contrary to what other arms want to do, signed agreements or not. In that case, better to deal *only* with those arms that have common interests with ours, and not enter into this all-embracing 'foundational' agreements. Or in your words, IN continues to deal with PACOM only. No need for the Fifth fleet to stop by Karwar for lunch.

My earlier statement on the Foreign policy thread seems even more attractive now:

As for maintaining a balance, the Navy can patrol the SCS under a dedicated agreement that includes the USN, JMSDF, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc. That's in our interest and is what we should be driving instead of the opposite way right now with these so-called foundational agreements.

[NRao]

A hand shake with the US can serve our interests. No need for a hug or an umbrella.

Very true. But the throttling has to be done by India. AND, it can be variable.

There is ever only one alternative to stand up on your own two feet and minimize ANY support from external poles.

From what I have read in open source, India was the one that requested certain techs from the US. Outside of EMALS has the US offered anything by herself? India asked for help on the carrier, asked for help with the jet engine, asked for specific non-exportable tech transfers for the planes, asked for mods in the LSA - I suspect the same applies for the others. India signed the End Use Monitoring around 2009/10.

Supposedly, these things are meant to make India stand on her feet much faster than were she to go it alone.

??????

[ShauryaT]

Left to its own devices the services/users will prefer to get the best gadget that is available. The MRCA was an example of how NOT to procure a platform. It is upto the civilians to provide the checks and balances such as a budget, define risk, objectives, etc....The IN left to its own devices jumps at the EMALS is no surprise. The question to understand from an Indian view point is do we need such a capability, for what? at what cost? What are the risks? Alternatives to not having such a capability? etc....

These determinations are the domain of strategic analysis and then making the right choices. Jumping on the EMALS and no power plant itself is a red flag. In the same way, I am sure there are many techs that the US CAN offer, the question for India is the same, at what cost? Also, these are all military items, and while I am sure the US companies are looking to make a profit and get paid for these, the costs here are not in terms of currency but in terms of power. Geo-political power and what I call as strategic sovereignity.

[NRao]

So, you think, India does not understand that this will never happen as it would jeopardize Russian interests?

No idea on Syria. On Russia (a diff thread), India has tagged her as an energy resource. So, I very much doubt Russia will be relied upon as anything else. But................

Time to separate the personal from the geo-political NRao. I have been living in the US for 2.5 decades and am thankful for this host nation to provide me with opportunities and my share of roadblocks. HOWEVER, let us not conflate the personal experiences with geo-political choices for India

Fast moving threads have drawback.

My point was in both cases, even with the risks invoved, one has to prepare. So, as an example, if Indians think Hillary would be a Ahole, then they need to prepare and not keep complaining 5-10 years from now. That is the common thread between the two - prepare.

Hence better to wait and watch. No need to rush into it now.

OR, sign if you think this is the best it is going to get. Hillary may say "nope".

Up to India. I am not saying it is good or bad, just saying it will happen.

I hope you realize that this makes the case for signing these agreements even weaker. What I understand from your post is the the US gov itself may keep doing things contrary to what other arms want to do, signed agreements or not. In that case, better to deal *only* with those arms that have common interests with ours, and not enter into this all-embracing 'foundational' agreements. Or in your words, IN continues to deal with PACOM only. No need for the Fifth fleet to stop by Karwar for lunch.

Well, complex subject. But let me say this. PACOM will not support a lot of what happens within Af-pak region.

the question for India is the same, at what cost?

++1. Very true.

Good ol' ROI.

[NRao]

And, for good measure:

India, US agree on logistics agreement, to be signed in a month

A few observations:

1) Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA)
2) In addition both countries have agreed to set up a new bilateral Maritime Security Dialogue “between officials from our respective Defence and External Affairs Ministries”. EAM/DoS is new
3) Mr. Parrikar said that they have also decided to enhance our on-going Navy-to-Navy discussions to cover submarine-related issues .... Subs is also new

Manohar Parrikar To Visit China On April 18 To Strengthen Defence Ties

[vishvak]

The top dog NGOs are not saints of pre-colonial era though there is a lot of propaganda already ongoing. It isn't our fault about taking overt precautions when the Second Gora have landed in Goa, considering that people ran into jungle when the First Gora ie Portuguese landed in Goa. The temple visited by Carter probably faced barbarism earlier but since he visited a church too so no one can question perfectly secular America and long term intentions. To give access to some port is just foolish prolly after what US 7th fleet did in the bay of Bangal.

[ShauryaT]

One idea by BK.

Parrikar should offer, for a start, that Indian naval ships will join American warships in periodic sailings through these waters on FON mission. And agree to persuade littoral states in the region — Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Australia to also join in such patrolling. The problem with single state FON sailings is that China can easily intimidate and thwart them by pressuring the country undertaking it. Even the US has not been immune to such pressure. But a flotilla comprising naval vessels from three, five, or seven regional states will be more difficult for Beijing to handle in the manner it has done single states — by huffing and puffing, and hinting at more decisive military action. This way forcefully to impose the collective will of regional states will have a more salutary effect on China than anything else.

For once, New Delhi needs to lead such an initiative to gain credence especially with Southeast Asian states who are convinced India is all talk and no action. Carter will be taken aback by this show of new found Indian resolve, no doubt, and will likely jump at it. Even if Carter doesn’t, India should proceed with this initiative, try and get other regional countries to join it in opposing China’s adventurism. It will be a welcome departure for the staid and stale no-risk national security strategy New Delhi has followed. It could be the first among other such actions India could take to push China on the defensive.

But, realistically, does the Modi government have the moxy for such enterprise that will serve India’s distant defence interests very well? Nah.

[Viv S]

I can't get over the feeling that something stinks. why are the DOD faqers trying so hard?? and for what??

Because China will overtake them economically within the next 15 years and military within the next 25 (if not earlier).

They may lose local military supremacy upto the first Island chain within the next ten years. Now one may say, that's their problem not ours.

Distance between US and China: 6,000 km

Length of India-China border: 4,000 km

Worst case scenario, the US can pull out of East and South East Asia. Where are we going to pull out to? The Indian plate has been sliding under the Eurasian plate for the last 55 million years.

And this is something India is well aware of. Which is why, much to the angst of many supporters, not only did the new BJP-led govt not roll back ties with the US, they doubled down on them without the UPA-style indecisiveness. Restarted the trilateral Malabar exercises while instituting stronger military links with Japan, Australia and the South-East Asian states.

we have no shared values and mutual interests as long as the arm and support the pakis

While they can (and have) drastically reduce support to Pakistan over the last five years, until the pullout from Afghanistan is complete, they can't afford to break off support to the Pakistan, despite the losses they've suffered to Pakistani proxies and its harboring of OBL. Afghanistan is a land-locked country accessible either through Pakistan or Iran or CSTO states.

If India's first priority was to cut off aid to Pakistan, it would be urging the US to retreat from the Af-Pak region. However, due to a variety of factors we want them to stay on longer (the corollary to which, the GoI is prepared to tolerate a certain degree of aid, to grease the wheels, for a longer period).

Government urges US to refrain from withdrawing troops in Afghanistan

NEW DELHI: The Modi government, worried over recent reports that suggest that Pakistan's spy agency ISI is encouraging terror groups and Taliban elements including Haqqani network to target Indian assets in Afghanistan, has moved the Obama administration to stay put in the landlocked country and retain its interest there.

[ShauryaT]

Why not send our own troops to Afghanistan in an entente with Iran? Or do you think we need the mighty US to support us for that too? Afghanistan is our neighbor and there is every conceivable geo-political reason to ensure Afghanistan is secured by Indian blood, sweat and money. The MEA as usual are being nincompoops. There is no Modi govt strategy here. It is all our entrenched non-aligned do nothing bureaucratic thinking. Pleading to the US to secure Afghanistan? Really. That wretched ragged place with 30 million people, utterly fragmented and eminently controllable.

So, let us understand Indian costs and risks of taking such a step and also do not forget the opportunities that it provides us with. Will the US support such a venture - on India's terms and keep its dog in the region muzzled?

[ShauryaT]

Because China will overtake them economically within the next 15 years and military within the next 25 (if not earlier).

They may lose local military supremacy upto the first Island chain within the next ten years. Now one may say, that's their problem not ours.

[/quote]Also, where will India be in the next 25-40 years vis-a-vis China?

[NRao]

One idea by BK.

Parrikar should offer, for a start, that Indian naval ships will join American warships in periodic sailings through these waters on FON mission. And agree to persuade littoral states in the region — Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Australia to also join in such patrolling. The problem with single state FON sailings is that China can easily intimidate and thwart them by pressuring the country undertaking it. Even the US has not been immune to such pressure. But a flotilla comprising naval vessels from three, five, or seven regional states will be more difficult for Beijing to handle in the manner it has done single states — by huffing and puffing, and hinting at more decisive military action. This way forcefully to impose the collective will of regional states will have a more salutary effect on China than anything else.

For once, New Delhi needs to lead such an initiative to gain credence especially with Southeast Asian states who are convinced India is all talk and no action. Carter will be taken aback by this show of new found Indian resolve, no doubt, and will likely jump at it. Even if Carter doesn’t, India should proceed with this initiative, try and get other regional countries to join it in opposing China’s adventurism. It will be a welcome departure for the staid and stale no-risk national security strategy New Delhi has followed. It could be the first among other such actions India could take to push China on the defensive.

But, realistically, does the Modi government have the moxy for such enterprise that will serve India’s distant defence interests very well? Nah.

I have not idea what India has asked from the US WRT geo-politics. I am just hoping it is NOT to contain China. It *should* be a Chinese roll-back.

The US can think about containment, India needs a roll-back.

India seems to have made a dent in SL, but India needs to go a step further: apply (not propose) the Indian model; China can fund, we will manage. "We" as in India.

[nvishal]

@ Nrao, cosmo

I'm not sure whether you guys understand the balance of power policy so let me give you some pointers.

*The americans need pakistan(and china) to balance india. We cannot fight pakistan to a conclusion because the americans will step in before that happens.

*Here's the ultimate googly - The americans cannot let india defeat china either. An asia without china will create a power vaccum which will suck russia into asia which the americans do not want.
----------

If we want to fight china or pakistan, there is no way that is possible using western weapons - you cannot move forward without accepting this first. The russians will not give weapons to india because that'll cause the americans to distribute weapons to china/pak as a way to balance off.

When shit actually hits the fan, its either going to be team russia or team US. With the americans actively practicing the balance of power policy, india will most defintely be fighting alongside russia with russian made strategic weapons.

Those are the basics

[Rudradev]

Here's the situation as I see it.

Everything comes down to China. Russia and the US are both wooing China in ways that further their own respective spheres of influence. This is how.

What does China want? A secure route to its west. A safe, guaranteed way to bring goods to the EU markets (mainly) and bring back energy from the ME sources. A route that does not rely on American/Japanese/South Korean goodwill (the Pacific) and is not vulnerable to Indian blockade (the Malacca strait).

Both Russia and the US are wooing China with this carrot: two alternative routes to the west, for which they will stand guarantee. Now let us examine these routes being offered.

In Russia's case the proposed route is from Xinjiang via Central Asian (CIS) states to Iran>ME, and across Russia proper to the EU. The "Silk Route" in other words, under SCO dominion with Iran, China and Russia forming the bulwarks of a continental "Fortress Asia".

To stymie this, the US is encouraging Shia-Sunni conflict in the ME, and also building up ISIS dreams of a Sunni "Khorasan" that will place itself bodily across such a route and destroy any sense of security.

So what route is the US offering to China instead? Lanzhou MR into Pakistan and thence to Gwadar... bypassing the straits of Malacca and directly into the Indian Ocean and Gulf, under US dominion. USN/CENTCOM will guarantee security of the sea routes from the Arabian Sea on to the Mediterranean, and thence EU.

Note that there are two ways from Lanzhou MR into Pakistan. One is via Afghanistan. The US is leaning hard on Ashraf Ghani to create a dispensation acceptable to Islamabad that Pakistan can stand guarantee for. The Afghans are resisting, because this inevitably means giving in to Paki dominance; but they are under considerable pressure from three larger powers (US, China, and Pakistan) to go along. Pakistan's main concern is that India should be shut out of Afghanistan. China is in agreement with this for many reasons. US is also in agreement because Pakistani compliance is a key piece of the carrot that they want to offer China... the route west via Af-Pak, which will wean China away from a "Silk Route" plan in collaboration with Russia.

Now, Afghanistan still remains riddled with security concerns, and will be for the foreseeable future. Hence China is exploring a second route west, via CPEC. Lanzhou MR into Pak-occupied NA and POK, and thence into Pakistan proper to Gwadar. This is also in US interests because the US will dominate the sealanes from Gwadar to the Gulf or to the Mediterranean; hence, China taking this option will also make Beijing more dependent on the US.

Note that an important factor to consider for the US, if they want China to go along with either of the proposed westward routes through Gwadar, is that India is not far away from Gwadar. If the Chinese become dependent on this westward egress, India is capable of plunging multiple daggers into their side... either off the Paki coast, or in Baluchistan, or in Kashmir/NA, or even in Afghanistan.

This is why US is leaning on India to turn its back on its western flank and "look east". In this way, India becomes a pehredar for the South China Sea and Malacca Straits... securing a choke-point that serves the US' PACCOM interests more than our own, and which the US itself is helping to make redundant as a choke-point by supporting a trans-Gwadar westward route for China. Essentially we will be helping police the US' allies' interests in the South China Sea, playing Gungadin to support the US hegemony of security guarantees to ASEAN and the Philippines; meanwhile China itself will have free, US-guaranteed access to its west via Gwadar where we have turned a blind eye.

Do I really need to spell out why this is unacceptable?

A thousand times, no. We need to pull out ALL the stops to make sure that both the CPEC route via POK/NA, and if possible the Af-Pak-Gwadar route via Afghanistan, cannot work for China. We have to destroy any sense of security Beijing might have regarding the carrots that the US is holding out to China. Too bad for the US and its interests. It is in OUR interest that these routes never become established routes of commerce that the world economy depends on, and that the "international community" will later band together to protect if threatened.

If that ever happens, goodbye Kashmir, goodbye Afghanistan.

Unless the US is prepared to see that the carrot of a westward route that it is offering China runs directly contrary to Indian interests... and agrees to fully accommodate Indian interests in this regard... Carter (and every carpetbagger who travels to India in his wake) should go back with absolutely nothing from us.

[krishna_krishna]

Rdevji awesome post, I will add that there is move to offer carrot from our side as to we will sign this in agreement in future at the same time making safe bye bye to current administration till we have more options/ leverage in Af pal area including Iran

[nvishal]

Rudra,

Your post is very good. It tries to make sense of the business between complex relationships.

[NRao]

So what route is the US offering to China instead? Lanzhou MR into Pakistan and thence to Gwadar...

Cannot buy that. THAT is IOR, India's background and an area given to the UK + France.

This is why US is leaning on India to turn its back on its western flank and "look east".

Nope. "Look East" predates any US thinking of Pivot. It is "Act East" (Modi) that Carter has latched on to.

In either case India has never given up her IOR backyard. She cannot, even if the US wants her too.

There are many hole IMHO:

* All these thinking assume that China is an innocent child who only wants to play peacefully
* IF Gwadar was the goal, then why SL, BD, Myanmar, Maldives, Djibouti and perhaps half a dozen that I have missed? Energy guarantees are a small part of a larger equation
* It is China (without the US or Russia) that has proposed a treaty between China (ahem), Pakistan (who can leave her out?), A'stan and Tajikistan

I'm not sure whether you guys understand the balance of power policy so let me give you some pointers.

Have a FAR bigger pointer for you:

China offered that the US take over the Pacific, while China the IOR.

So, how exactly do you intend resolving that?



IMHO, the US wants to be the driver that maintains "peace" all over the world. IMHO, Russia is no longer a viable player (both the US and China will see to that). China is a thorn that the US want to take care of, without which the US cannot be the driver. And, this is the high level game the US is playing. The US cannot stop either China nor India from rising, so the US is trying to line up the ducks as best as she can. China needs no help any longer. India does need some help and IMHO is comfortable with that order provided China does not step on her toes and prevents using others to do so.

In a nutshell.

[Agnimitra]

Rudradev ji, if Iran's interest is with Russia's carrot to China and against the alternative US-guaranteed carrot via Af-Pak, then what explains Iran's pipeline overtures to Pak? Perhaps Iran has also been exploring a possible stake in both carrots as each one grows? For the foreseeable future, that may be the case.

[ramana]

---
RD my gut instinct was US wants to protect China by engaging India.
You have given the rationale.

[ramana]

Agnimitra its all about developing options always.
Only MMS did not.
He was Sam bharose!

[nvishal]

The gut instinct has always been that US and china have some kind of convergence in their idea of world order. Through all their differences, I can call it a working relationship.

[ramana]

IOR given to UK + France.

By whom?

And did you note both are has been powers racked by scandals and terrorist attacks?

[Rudradev]

So what route is the US offering to China instead? Lanzhou MR into Pakistan and thence to Gwadar...

Cannot buy that. THAT is IOR, India's background and an area given to the UK + France.

Rhetoric is fine, but I'm talking about realities. What are the PLA personnel (disguised as "engineers" or whatever) doing in POK and Northern Areas otherwise? They certainly seem to have bought into this vision quite heavily.

This is why US is leaning on India to turn its back on its western flank and "look east".

Nope. "Look East" predates any US thinking of Pivot. It is "Act East" (Modi) that Carter has latched on to.

Yes, my bad. "ACT East", not "look east".

But whatever you label it, that is what the US wants India to do. Let the US/China/Pakistan collude unmolested in the CENTCOM zone, and restrict ourselves to the PACCOM zone of the Indian ocean.

In either case India has never given up her IOR backyard. She cannot, even if the US wants her too.

I certainly hope she will not. But please recognize that the IOR has westward as well as eastward littorals in addition to a southward expanse. US would like us to confine our activity to the eastward littorals as a pehredar. Maybe southward to help feed the penguins.

But see where the US divides PACCOM vs. CENTCOM. They want no doubt that USN is the top dog in Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Bosphorus and onwards. They will not countenance a challenge from the IN to total maritime dominance here even in the far future... and accordingly, they want us to turn our back on this part of the IOR as a "confidence building measure".

There are many hole IMHO:

* All these thinking assume that China is an innocent child who only wants to play peacefully

This is entirely your assumption, sir, and nothing like that is even indirectly implied by what I have posted.

* IF Gwadar was the goal, then why SL, BD, Myanmar, Maldives, Djibouti and perhaps half a dozen that I have missed? Energy guarantees are a small part of a larger equation

What exactly is your reasoning? Because China is also seeking other alternatives, that means Gwadar is NOT a goal for them? Or a less important goal?

Gwadar is a critical node that becomes all the more critical if PLAN is to have any hope of sustaining other Indian Ocean/Red Sea presences in any meaningful way... otherwise India can blow out all the other ones you have mentioned like candles.

* It is China (without the US or Russia) that has proposed a treaty between China (ahem), Pakistan (who can leave her out?), A'stan and Tajikistan

China has no hope of such a treaty working out without the US' full blessing. There are too many US assets (and bikaoo Paki assets) in the region for such a corridor to be viable without US' blessing, and China knows it. The US is also fully on board with the program; not only are they at the table, forcing Kabul to give in to Paki and Chinese domination, but they are also providing the negative inducement of ISIS etc. to prevent China looking for an overland alternative via Russia and SCO states.

[Rudradev]

Rudradev ji, if Iran's interest is with Russia's carrot to China and against the alternative US-guaranteed carrot via Af-Pak, then what explains Iran's pipeline overtures to Pak? Perhaps Iran has also been exploring a possible stake in both carrots as each one grows? For the foreseeable future, that may be the case.

Iran, I think, has its own concerns. A very big concern is that it has involved itself in a large regional conflict against the ME Sunni powers of GCC and Turkey, tacitly backed by Israel, and being fought mostly to its west. The last thing it needs is to have the Sunni alliance attacking via the eastern front (Afghanistan and Pakistan) as well. So it would like to keep the Pakis "on-side" as far as possible (and for the most part, the Pakis have been cooperating... witness their reluctance to send troops to fight the Houthis, e.g.)

The best case for Iran is if the Russian/Chinese/SCO-sponsored "Silk Route" vision comes to fruition... that is Iran's best bet for overland pipelines from South Pars all the way to Europe, for example. But if the Chinese swing the other way and manage to make the Af-Pak-Gwadar (or CPEC-Gwadar) route work, with US blessings, the Iranians don't want to stay competitive in that scenario as well, hence the pipeline overtures. You're absolutely right about that.

[krishna_krishna]

Rdevji,that also explains China's move to send fleet to Mediterranean it's like monkey Trina to balance two scales and keep both the options so BRICS/SCo on one and massa on the other. Even it makes a choice would not give other up in order to have options and keep other on toes all the time

[Rudradev]

---
RD my gut instinct was US wants to protect China by engaging India.
You have given the rationale.

Ramana garu, if we are right, the repercussions are vast.

Have you had a strange feeling about the nature of the J&K separatist movement lately? I feel it has taken a turn away from the old path of overt Islamization (which had bad-PR associations, given the kind of publicity Taliban, Pakiban and Al Qaeda garnered for themselves over the last 15 years).

It has, since Modi's election, adopted more of the intifada/"Orange Revolution" color it used to have in the Robin Raphel days... designed to give it a sense of "respectability" as a "true democratic movement for self-determination" in international eyes.

Even the terrorist attacks have shifted to mainly military targets, like Pathankot AFB; meanwhile, terror against civilians in Jammu comes directly from Pakistan's artillery guns across the IB (not gruesome beheadings by jihadi infiltrators like in the days of Doda and Udhampur in the 1990s). This kind of ethnic cleansing easily escapes notice in the international media (after all, the "most dangerous border in the world" is always a place of cross-border firing).

Something is going on here. It is suggestive of a collusion between US SD and Pakistan to give the Kashmir separatist movement a "makeover", and change it into something the "international community" can get behind. The narrative is being reinvented... Hindu Fundamentalist, intolerant India is "oppressing civilians" in Kashmir, and it is in the world's interest that we should "free" the Kashmiri people before they coalesce around dangerous ISIS-type Islam and become an international threat.

If we look at this in the context of needing to keep India away from the CPEC... preventing us from breaking the CPEC at the key POK/NA nexus... it begins to make a new kind of sense.

[ramana]

Rdevji,that also explains China's move to send fleet to Mediterranean it's like monkey Trina to balance two scales and keep both the options so BRICS/SCo on one and massa on the other. Even it makes a choice would not give other up in order to have options and keep other on toes all the time

Our Panchatantra gives many examples of having to juggle many options. That's reality. Need many irons in the fire.
Are you familiar with Ashtavadhanam or Shatavdhanam!

Same way.

Only Macaulayites have one option : go with the cat that robs you.

[ramana]

RD, now see why BJP is in the J&K govt. no matter what.

[ShauryaT]

RD: Let me stick to likely possibilities and not theories which are difficult to prove. I think China is ready to up the stakes with a full base in Gwadar. It will not be official but a strong air base in Kashgar with overflight rights in TSP, AWACS, refuelers and extensive transfer of Subs, aircrafts of all types to PN and PAF. Gwadar will see permanent stationing of PLAN assets by way of replenishments and like. (estimates are as of now, it is one PLAN sub a month that makes a visit to the IOR). It is TSP's way of selling herself to another bidder as her former lover is now bored of her. PLAN is getting ready to defend its own assets in the Gulf and Gwadar is its lynchpin - so no US delegation. For Pakistan, the geo-political drivers to be in bed with China are far more compelling than the policeman, she was courting. What was missing was Chinese heft and willingness, which is now in play. We may be able to block Gwadar but then be ready for a two front war. check mate India?

Is the hug with the US, India's response? If it is, then TSP/PRC plan has succeeded. It further solidifies, PRC wanting India to stay firmly with in southasia, with China in control of its periphery. PLAN may not have the heft yet to dominate the oceans but by controlling the littoral states, it controls the outcome leaving India to float in the empty waters of the ocean? At the end of the day a few Chinese ships destroyed is a bad bargain to China's control of our land access routes.

We need aggressive steps in the littoral states and make moves to increase the threat profile to China from India to make it back off from CPEC. China wants to compete with the Crab and not just one of its claws. Expect China to make the next moves in Iran.

[Cosmo_R]

Current strength is business skills and spiritual stuff.
Military power and economic uplift are need to keep the above skills going.

YES!

And focus totally on the goals in the second sentence.

[ramana]

Cosmo_R If we all are in sync then why the angst!

ShauryaT, Its bigger game we should discuss in Geopolitics thread. Will x- post your post.

[Rudradev]

Krishna-krishna ji, China is deft at playing both sides for maximum gain. It is what they did during the cold war as well. No surprise they are continuing to do it now.

Shaurya, PRC has a long way to go before it can steam out of Gwadar and on to the Gulf/ME/Mediterranean unchallenged. US cooperation is an absolute must for their commercial traffic (let alone PLAN assets) to pass through the CENTCOM zone. So Gwadar itself is a non-starter for any Chinese project that does not have the US on-side. PLAN simply cannot compete with India on this front... they have the full western Pacific littoral and South China sea to concentrate on. It will be years before they can project the naval power in our backyard that can seriously threaten what we have today, and we will hardly be standing still in the meantime. The only thing that can tip the balance in their favour is if USN is aligned in securing the sea lanes west from Gwadar on China's behalf. That effectively removes even the one lever we have, at the straits of Malacca, to blockade Chinese commercial traffic.

Yes, they can position assets all along CPEC that end up strengthening Pakistan and extending their influence over the Pakistani state, for all the good it will do them... if any party does not like that, all it has to do is activate a hundred different faultlines in Af-Pak and the PLA will find it tough going (note that this has already happened, using suspicious jihadi groups with no apparent affiliation). I believe that a well-executed, low-cost hybrid warfare format is enough to deny China meaningful strategic access to the IOR and increase the costs of CPEC/Gwadar for them so that ROI falls below the acceptable limit.

The real danger is US/PRC/Pakistan collaboration. There are factions in the GOTUS avidly in favor of this (the ones pushing for Pak/PRC dominion over Afghanistan). They are the direct descendents of the Zbigniew Brzezinski lineage, who think that Chinese and Islamists are America's best allies to dominate Eurasia with.

What GOI is doing to counter this is to smilingly accept the US embrace on offer. Offer chai-biskoot. Agree to sign X, have a photo-opportunity on Vikramaditya's deck, then bring up some minor clauses in X we would like to change, and counter-offer to sign Y instead. Above all else it is time we need on our side... time for the economy's trajectory to lift off and stable growth to set in, time to build up our own military strength further (preferably with indigenous assets), time for internal threats (the most severe kind) to be identified and neutralized. One way to gain time is to make the Americans think they can hedge their China-Pakistan bet by working with us... so that they are reluctant to commit fully and swiftly to backing the CPEC/Gwadar project.

Of course this needs to be combined with aggressive steps... diplomacy in Iran and all IOR littoral states to east and west, and bringing the types of assets into play that will make CPEC look like a very dicey bet for the US (and even for PRC itself).

[NRao]

* IF Gwadar was the goal, then why SL, BD, Myanmar, Maldives, Djibouti and perhaps half a dozen that I have missed? Energy guarantees are a small part of a larger equation

What exactly is your reasoning? Because China is also seeking other alternatives, that means Gwadar is NOT a goal for them? Or a less important goal?

Well, plenty of questions, but, you were the one who said that the plan the US had in mind was to secure a route for china. And that Gwadar was the suggested route. IF that is true (and it well may be), then the question is why is China investing in ports and soldiers in POK etc .......... if US is the guarantor?

I am getting the impression that there is this giant conspiracy - and it very well may be true, I just do not know - that everyone in pretty much every nation is involved with. I mean if this has been in play for a while, then within India Madam had to be a part of it, so too MMS, who are in cahoots with the Sharifs in Pakistan, yada, yada, yada. Russian pipeline to EU - I get that. SA/Iran/Iraq pipeline to EU, sure. Possible. But a US plan to side with China, manage India by selling EMALS, ship designs, planes, etc. Dunno. And, that too Modi and Parrikar part of it. Can it happen, sure.

Really do not want to get too deep. But, what happened to all the Americans, who want to support China, when the Chinese eco went south? Did the US not know that empty building in the ton, bad debt, etc has a -ve impact and warn Ji about it?



Anyways, carry on.

[NRao]

Just wanted to post the following data point:

DoD Weighs Major COCOM Realignment

That is from 2013, but still in play.

The Pentagon is considering a major overhaul of its geographical combatant commands, possibly realigning oversight within hot-button areas of the world and eliminating thousands of military and civilian positions,according to defense sources..

While the plans for combatant command (COCOM) realignment and consolidation are still notional, sources say some options include:

■ Combining Northern Command and Southern Command to form what what some are calling “Americas Command” or “Western Command.”

■ Dissolving Africa Command and splitting it up among European Command and Central Command.

■ Expanding Pacific Command to include Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are part of Central Command.

They were under PACOM prior to CENTCOM.

[Viv S]

What does China want? A secure route to its west. A safe, guaranteed way to bring goods to the EU markets (mainly) and bring back energy from the ME sources. A route that does not rely on American/Japanese/South Korean goodwill (the Pacific) and is not vulnerable to Indian blockade (the Malacca strait).

Both Russia and the US are wooing China with this carrot: two alternative routes to the west, for which they will stand guarantee. Now let us examine these routes being offered.

This assumes that the US and Russia are equals with a China a dame to be 'wooed'. In reality however, Russia is firmly in the 'supporting cast' with the US and China being the lead players opposing each other.

Russian influence is limited to its immediate periphery particularly the Central Asian states, and that influence is slowly being eroded through political and financial levers exercised by China.

In Russia's case the proposed route is from Xinjiang via Central Asian (CIS) states to Iran>ME, and across Russia proper to the EU. The "Silk Route" in other words, under SCO dominion with Iran, China and Russia forming the bulwarks of a continental "Fortress Asia".

The route to EU already exists (read: trans-Siberian railway).

To stymie this, the US is encouraging Shia-Sunni conflict in the ME, and also building up ISIS dreams of a Sunni "Khorasan" that will place itself bodily across such a route and destroy any sense of security.

ISIS controlled region (who's days are numbered anyway) is nowhere close to the proposed CIS-Iran highway. As for its influence in Central Asia, China plans to counter that directly working with the CSTO states like Tajikistan, where Russian influence is waning.

So what route is the US offering to China instead? Lanzhou MR into Pakistan and thence to Gwadar... bypassing the straits of Malacca and directly into the Indian Ocean and Gulf, under US dominion. USN/CENTCOM will guarantee security of the sea routes from the Arabian Sea on to the Mediterranean, and thence EU.

Your entire argument is based on this statement, one with no supporting evidence, taking us into the realm conspiracy theories.

When did the Gwadar-Karakorum route become America's to offer or deny? They don't own it. They don't control it. And their influence with the state that does is just about enough to keep the ISAF fed, clothed and equipped.

Now, Afghanistan still remains riddled with security concerns, and will be for the foreseeable future. Hence China is exploring a second route west, via CPEC. Lanzhou MR into Pak-occupied NA and POK, and thence into Pakistan proper to Gwadar. This is also in US interests because the US will dominate the sealanes from Gwadar to the Gulf or to the Mediterranean; hence, China taking this option will also make Beijing more dependent on the US.

Its not 'exploring' it and its not a 'second route'. There is only one CPEC and its runs from Karakorum to Gwadar. And it'll get built whether the US likes it or not.

A thousand times, no. We need to pull out ALL the stops to make sure that both the CPEC route via POK/NA, and if possible the Af-Pak-Gwadar route via Afghanistan, cannot work for China. We have to destroy any sense of security Beijing might have regarding the carrots that the US is holding out to China. Too bad for the US and its interests. It is in OUR interest that these routes never become established routes of commerce that the world economy depends on, and that the "international community" will later band together to protect if threatened.

Again the assumption that the US is desperately trying to create and protect trade-routes for China, in contradiction of the rather obvious geopolitical rivalry between the two, takes one further into area of insidious conspiracies.

As to the other point, short of going to war, we have no real way of stopping the CPEC aside from supporting low-level insurgencies, which will increase the cost of doing business, but are unlikely to deter China from proceeding with the project.

And while we are unwilling to go to war over it, our conventional capability to threat it remains undiminished by any accord or agreement, written or unwritten, with the US. If anything our ability to threaten it has increased over the last few years with the P-8Is monitoring sea traffic in the Arabian Sea, and C-17s capable of supporting a large scale airborne operation to retake PoK, if ever we decided to take that step.

[Prem]

Anyhow, china claiming Gwadar will be operational by 2017.
We keep forgetting India will have it's own independent policy to pursue national interests with bases in Africa and posts in ME. Current chaos is good as it provide us perfect opportunity to keep strengthening ourselves in both economic and military spheres. If China's export falls again like last year, all bets will be off .

[Viv S]

Why not send our own troops to Afghanistan in an entente with Iran? Or do you think we need the mighty US to support us for that too? Afghanistan is our neighbor and there is every conceivable geo-political reason to ensure Afghanistan is secured by Indian blood, sweat and money. The MEA as usual are being nincompoops. There is no Modi govt strategy here. It is all our entrenched non-aligned do nothing bureaucratic thinking. Pleading to the US to secure Afghanistan? Really. That wretched ragged place with 30 million people, utterly fragmented and eminently controllable.

We spent blood, sweat and money on the IPKF mission and the lessons have been well learned. The same lesson has been learned by the US, albeit after bleeding in Afghanistan for 15 years with relatively little to show for it.

Neither the MEA nor the MoD is under any illusions regarding India's capability to unilaterally replace the US-led forces*, and successfully secure a wretched ragged place with 30 million divided people. Nothing about Afghanistan's history, political structure or social structure suggests that its 'eminently controllable' by an outside force, especially one without a contiguous boundary with the region (unless we begin with PoK, which is a project in itself).

*Iran isn't going to contribute troops for project in a Sunni state. At best it'll provide us with a logistical corridor.

So, let us understand Indian costs and risks of taking such a step and also do not forget the opportunities that it provides us with. Will the US support such a venture - on India's terms and keep its dog in the region muzzled?

The US wants nothing more than to get out of the region without the whole rickety structure crumbling behind them (as happened in Iraq), go home (with the nation-state equivalent of PTSD) and try to forget everything.

And they're more than happy to let China adopt the problem and leave them, Pakistan and the Taliban to work it out. If India were geographically and politically in a position where it could replace them, they'd have been happy to hand over the entire miserable mess to us.

Because China will overtake them economically within the next 15 years and military within the next 25 (if not earlier).

They may lose local military supremacy upto the first Island chain within the next ten years. Now one may say, that's their problem not ours.

Also, where will India be in the next 25-40 years vis-a-vis China?

25 years from now, we should have narrowed the gap with China a great deal, though at that point China will have comfortably surpassed the US, baring some major internal/global catastrophe. But we're still in 2016, and the heft we may have in 2040 (to say nothing of 2055) is long way off.

[NRao]

We keep forgetting India will have it's own independent policy to pursue national interests with bases in Africa and posts in ME

Hmmmm...

A deep within a deep.

India is being "managed" by the US, on behalf of China. So, an "independent policy" has to be a subset of the "managed" policy., which means it is not "independent". Hmmm... did I get that right?

If I may:

Also, where will India be in the next 25-40 years vis-a-vis China?

25 years from now, we should have narrowed the gap with China a great deal, though at that point China will have comfortably surpassed the US, baring some major internal/global catastrophe. But we're still in 2016, and the heft we may have in 2040 (to say nothing of 2055) is long way off.

IMHO India will do pretty well. China will take a very long time re-establish, in the mean time India will catch up. Perhaps not in absolutes, but in relative terms.

Meanwhile India, while formulating a "doctrine", needs to put everything on the table.

[NRao]

US Soldiers Could Use Indian Military Bases Soon: 10 Facts

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter is in New Delhi and said today that progress has been made towards sealing a deal that could see American soldiers on Indian bases under specific circumstances.
Here is a 10-point guide to this story:

1. Secretary Carter has met with Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and said India and the United States have agreed in principle to share military logistics.
2. Washington and New Delhi have largely agreed to the terms of a new agreement that allows the two militaries to use each other's land, air and naval bases for resupplies, repair and rest.
3. However, US troops can be in India only on the invitation of the government of India and the agreement isn't binding on either nation.
4. The new pact - whose text has not yet been finalised - addresses India's earlier concerns about losing its traditional autonomy and being perceived as having entered a military alliance with the US.
5. India, the world's biggest arms importer, wants access to US technology so it can develop sophisticated weapons at home -- a key part of the PM's "Make in India" campaign to boost domestic manufacturing.
6. The negotiations on this trip are focusing on the transfer of technology for new generation aircraft carriers to be built in India, jet engines, and helmet-mounted displays for pilots.
7. The US is also hoping to sell its F-16 or F-18 fighter jets to India as part of a major co-production deal involving more than 100 planes which would be manufactured in India in collaboration with an Indian partner company.
8. Secretary Carter told NDTV that the recent sale of US F-16s to Pakistan, which India strongly objected to, was based on the assumption that the fighter jets will be used for counter-terrorism operations."We strongly believe in curbing terrorism originating in the territory of Pakistan and we fully recognize that that has affected India in incidents that we deplore," he told NDTV.
9. The US is keen on working with India to counter China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea but has clarified that at the moment, it is not considering joint patrolling by an Indo-US fleet in the area.
10. However, both sides will work closely together in the Indian Ocean, the two sides agreed.