China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[omarali50]

It is sometimes alleged (and i have done it myself) that most of this "strategic" stuff must be cover for some person's shortcut to immediate monetary rewards, or some institution's ticket to greater relevance (and a larger share of the pie).
I dont just mean outside commentators.. I am guessing there are Chinese "think-tankers" who go around saying stuff about the urgent need to invest in Gwadar or to blow it up or whatever. Can we ascribe all of it to institutional interests (more money for the PLA or the think tank or Sinopec?)? or to personal interests (even something as small as annual paid visits to a conference in Hainan?)?
Or could it be that a lot of things really happen due to misunderstanding? they are in someone's interest eventually, or they hurt someone eventually, but mostly by accident. Neither gainer nor loser made the plans. Just took advantage of someone else's attempt at thinking strategically. Or suffered because of someone else's notion of strategic depth (see pakistani people for details).
Its not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious.

[davidbfpo]

An Australian review of an Indian analyst's book 'Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific' by C. Raja Mohan:http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?284514

A few passages:

This book is as much about China’s historic turn to the sea and America’s challenge in mainta#ining stability as it is about the maritime challenge for a rising India. For it will be the complex ballet among the strategic and economic interests of these three powers that determines, above all else, if the so-called Asian Century will be domina#ted by coexistence and cooperation, or by competition and conflict.

(Later) More than anything else, it is China’s acute dependence on energy imp##orts across the Indian Ocean that means Beijing—like India—has no cho#ice but to accept that it is a quintessentially Indo-Pacific nation, not purely an Asian one.

[Backwards Observer]

As charming as it is to be treated once again to an article tossing down the “Indo-Pacific” concept like a rattle from a think tank high-chair, the colicky deployment of fabulist buzzwords is neither a remedy for a dearth of grounded regional insight nor a substitute for adult diplomacy by any of the relevant stakeholders. Presumably this includes the Indo-Australian region. Other than that, it would seem that a positive economic climate would indeed suit all parties, including the gentlemen formerly known as the East India Company . Conversely, it could be ventured that the so-called "9 dotted line" is likewise an inappropriate and outdated bargaining position that is based on an outmoded (self)-perception that detracts from sensible negotiations.

The normalization process is proceeding well. As I wrote earlier too, 2012 has been a truly transformative year and our policymakers have done exceedingly well. As recently as in 2006-2007, we were marvelling at the idea of a quadripartite alliance of Asian democracies under the US’s mentorship; as recently as in 2009, we were contemplating how to fasten the ‘global commons’. (Robert Kaplan wrote a full book on it.)

Indeed, both were geopolitical projects with a barely hidden ‘anti-China’ bias. We have come a long way from there, thanks largely to fortuitous circumstances. Yet, some of our pundits conceive the ‘Indo-Pacific’ as our country’s ’sphere of influence’. The doctrine of ‘Indo-Pacific’ — comprising the swathe of the globe stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to Vanuatu — is probably intended as a red herring to China. Shibboleths don’t dissipate easily. We hardly jettisoned one — ’string of pearls’ — with great hesitation. (by M K Bhadrakumar - Indian Punchline)

India-China shibboleths take time to dissipate - M K Bhadrakumar - Indian Punchline - 3.5.2013

[Bill Moore]

An Australian review of an Indian analyst's book 'Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific' by C. Raja Mohan:http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?284514

A few passages:

Good article, and especially liked this portion:

But these old-fashioned critiques miss the point that the Indo-Pacific idea derives overwhelmingly from economics, energy and seaborne globalisation. More than anything else, it is China’s acute dependence on energy imports across the Indian Ocean that means Beijing—like India—has no choice but to accept that it is a quintessentially Indo-Pacific nation, not purely an Asian one.

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.

[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.