China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Dayuhan]

Of course this is true for many powers who want to maintain access to the world's largest markets. China and India are emerging sea powers that can help contribute to maritime security, or interact in a way that threatens maritime security and consequently global trade and regional security. Not surprising, we're at a time where Naval power is becoming increasingly relevant, and yet we have one of the smallest Navies we had in decades.

It's also true that China and India desperately need access to the world's most prosperous markets. GDP per capita has a lot more to do with disposable income and actual purchasing power than raw GDP.

I do not think naval strength will be what keeps access to markets open: if you have to shoot your way into a market, there's a war going on, and that's generally not much good for trade.

The US Navy may be smaller than it has been in decades, but it is still very very large relative to those of peer competitors, and significantly enhanced by the presence of allies such as Japan. I do not buy the idea that emerging Asia demands a larger Navy. The reduced number of ships in the Navy is a necessary result of the enormously increased cost per ship, and trying to resurrect a Navy with the same number of ships featured in Navies past would simply be unaffordable at today's prices.

[Bob's World]

PACOM needs to come to grips with their strategic bi-polar disorder. Are India and China rising maritime nations with a duty to build navies and contribute to their share of ensuring secure sea lane for free trade for all parties willing to work within the rule of law; or is their slightest move in that direction some sort of threat that demands we build a larger US Navy and A2AD systems to sustain a status quo of US dominance in the region?

We are so fearful to turn loose of a set of conditions that have grown obsolete and irrelevant that we cannot reach out to embrace a more sustainable future that we can see and articulate, but unwilling to accept.

Economics may make the decision for us. DoD and the Air and Naval services will simply be cut off from the funds they need to implement their fantasy and they will be forced finally to plan for reality. Change is hard, but change we must.

[Bill Moore]

PACOM needs to come to grips with their strategic bi-polar disorder. Are India and China rising maritime nations with a duty to build navies and contribute to their share of ensuring secure sea lane for free trade for all parties willing to work within the rule of law; or is their slightest move in that direction some sort of threat that demands we build a larger US Navy and A2AD systems to sustain a status quo of US dominance in the region?

We are so fearful to turn loose of a set of conditions that have grown obsolete and irrelevant that we cannot reach out to embrace a more sustainable future that we can see and articulate, but unwilling to accept.

Economics may make the decision for us. DoD and the Air and Naval services will simply be cut off from the funds they need to implement their fantasy and they will be forced finally to plan for reality. Change is hard, but change we must.

Bi-polar is difficult to treat, sometimes the treatment has proven more harmful than the disease

On a serious note much of what you have written rings true, but issue resides well above the level of PACOM.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

I agree, but as you know, in good naval tradition, no one ever tells the Admrial when he has no clothes. Likewise, I don't see Admirals (or Generals) telling the President that we are long overdue for a new family of policies, relationships and strategy for the Asia-Pacific region.

When the military is handed an overly simplified bit of politicized policy guidance such as "pivot to the Pacific" their tendency is to convert that into programming validation to double down on old approaches and to finally get the clearance to buy all of the toys they have been denied during an irritating decade of fixation on non-state threats.

I think we need a much deeper analysis and comprehensive program of policy and strategy towward the Pacific. I think it is reasonable that the military should demand such top cover from civilian authorities. But I suspect the military is quite happy with simply getting a green light to push those long-delayed pet programs and to sustain the status quo.

It's not like China has built a "Great Red Fleet" and sent it on a world tour; or reached out and captured by force a string of strategic islands with deep water ports up and down our West Coast. China's activities in support of their rise to power are de minimis compared to our own. We need to make room for them at the table, or they will simply take room when the time is right. Just like we did.

[davidbfpo]

A interesting, short article from Australia's Lowy Institute on whether China wants "pearls" or hotels for its navy (PLAN). It starts with:

Will China's growing global economic interests lead it to expand its overseas military presence and capabilities?' This is a question that has been asked by policymakers, academics and strategists since China's economic growth became dependent on its ability to access energy through maritime sea lanes and overseas markets.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/..._WEEKLY&utm_me

It cites a report by a Singaporean think tank:http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/D...pectives-7.pdf

First, there is no evidence that the Chinese are currently conducting military activities at any of the String of Pearls sites. To date, PLAN Gulf of Aden task forces have not used or visited a single String of Pearls site. Second, transactions between the PLAN and host countries providing support for PLAN Gulf of Aden operations have been commercial in nature. These ports have only provided “hotel services,” replenished supplies, and served as liberty sites for visiting PLAN ships.

[Ray]

US-China rivalry looms off Russia’s Far East borders

What is at stake for Russia as U.S.-Chinese tensions continue to rise in the Pacific?

Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - http://rbth.com/opinion/2013/03/10/u...ers_23685.html)

In the jockeying for the Pacific Rim, the shadow of Russia cannot be overlooked.

However, this makes interesting reading.

Russia, which harbors plans to exploit the economic potential of Siberia and its Far East in close cooperation with its Asian neighbors, has something to mull over — in particular, the fact that any escalation between the U.S. and China is not in its national interest and does not agree with its comprehensive program of modernization.

The author of this article is a Russian who is the director of the ASEAN Center at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) under the Russian Foreign Ministry.

[davidbfpo]

A short video interview of a British SME on Sino-Indian relations in the Indian Ocean (17 mins):http://defaeroreport.com/2016/10/14/...-indian-ocean/

Thread reopened.