Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Dayuhan]

Ray, how do any of these quotes and links suggest that a small infantry exercise focused on insurgency is related to "containing China", or that any South/Southeast Asian military cooperation is caused by a US policy position?

Of course SE Asian nations, and India, are keeping a wary eye on China's military emergence. That's not because the US tells them to, it's because they're neighbors and naturally concerned. Not necessarily fearful, yet, but concerned. That does not mean, of course, that this specific exercise had anything to do with "containing China"... the nature of the exercise suggests that it didn't.

It's fairly obvious that countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam or the Philippines cannot compete with China in the acquisition or deployment of conventional military forces. That doesn't mean they have no options. I'd think they'd be well advised to look closely at the asymmetric naval model employed by the Iranians: focus on small, fast, missile-equipped patrol boats and land-based missiles. They wouldn't be able to defeat the Chinese, just as the Iranians can't defeat the US navy, but they could pose enough of a threat to commerce and to the straits of Malacca that to provide a real disincentive to conflict.

[Ray]

The Nations are not doing at the US bidding but definitely, like it or not, there is a convergence towards the US' strategic vision in Asia Pacific.

The commonality of interests, spurred by the sudden change from the Peaceful Rise philosophy of China to the current aggressive hegemonic posture, has encouraged the closing of ranks amongst the nations. These exercises, though small in size, is basically to establish the core groups, which will impart instructions back home. Therefore, though small in outward appearance is contributory to training the soldiers back home. There is where the importance of these interactivity lies.

Singapore, for instance, extensively uses Indian Armed Forces assets to keep themselves fighting trim.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Ray,

The Nations are not doing at the US bidding but definitely, like it or not, there is a convergence towards the US' strategic vision in Asia Pacific.

I like it

The commonality of interests, spurred by the sudden change from the Peaceful Rise philosophy of China to the current aggressive hegemonic posture, has encouraged the closing of ranks amongst the nations.

Agreed, but also think we're in a time where alliances are more likely to shift with changes in the wind. The regional states will adapt a hedging strategy to minimize the hegemonic influence of the regions three powers (U.S., China and India). This will force the regional powers to moderate their behavior and act in a way that is non-threatening if they want to maintain influence in the region. In the long run this may be good for all concerned. Unless the Chinese are stupid, and I suspect that is NOT the case, I think they'll be forced to moderate their behavior once they realize acting like the regional bully isn't working.

These exercises, though small in size, is basically to establish the core groups, which will impart instructions back home.

Multinational exercises have implications well beyond the small scale engagement. There are diplomatic discussions and agreements between the countries that facilitate these exercises, and these excerises, even small in scale send a message to the international community. At the tactical level the knowledge gained is often valuable, and as you said the knowledge is further proliferated when the exercise participants return.

[Dayuhan]

The Nations are not doing at the US bidding but definitely, like it or not, there is a convergence towards the US' strategic vision in Asia Pacific.

Is it really "The US's strategic vision" or are a number of nations developing their own strategic visions that overlap in various ways... and not in others. Indonesian participation in a COIN exercise with India, for example, might be aimed largely at demonstrating independence from the US and Australia, the traditional military supporters. That may or may not be part of an American strategic vision.

The commonality of interests, spurred by the sudden change from the Peaceful Rise philosophy of China to the current aggressive hegemonic posture, has encouraged the closing of ranks amongst the nations.

"Aggressive hegemonic" would be an overstatement... it's not like they're emulating the US and sending troops into faraway countries. Still, a more assertive posture than before and one to which regional states will respond in their own ways, which will sometimes overlap. More a continuing round of pushing and shoving around the edges than desperate resistance to a hegemonic power.

[davidbfpo]

An Indonesian former defence minister has commented, under the headline 'China’s Military Buildup No Cause for Concern: Juwono':

Former Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono says he believes China’s move to boost military spending by 11 percent this year won’t jeopardize East Asia’s stability as it merely represented an “annual ritual” reflecting “the tussle between the government and the military.”

Link:http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/...-juwono/502965

Hat tip to Lowy Institute (Australia)

[Ray]

"Aggressive hegemonic" would be an overstatement... it's not like they're emulating the US and sending troops into faraway countries. Still, a more assertive posture than before and one to which regional states will respond in their own ways, which will sometimes overlap. More a continuing round of pushing and shoving around the edges than desperate resistance to a hegemonic power.

China has a long way to go before they can emulate the US.

Indeed there will be pushing and shoving, but the nations are getting ready not to be pushed too far.

The manner in which Vietnam, an old enemy of the US, readily took the US help and conducted naval exercises with the US in the South China Sea, as also the manner in which Philippines took the US help and allowing the US troops to 'rotate' US troops being stationed in the Subic Bay base (from where they forced the US to quit) is indicative of the 'concerns' these nations have towards the Chinese moves.

What makes the Nations wary is that China has scant regards for what the world order feels. They do exactly what they want and that to many is scary!

[jmm99]

I suspect (pure gut reaction) that the end game is a South & East Asian Nation Group, continental-insular, that would look something like this (inside the orange-brown perimeter):

World Map US Limits S&E Asia.jpg

Should the US "put together" this Group ? Not in my Worldview. Should the US be a member of this Group ? Not in my Worldview. But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

Just a couple of comments on my map. Australia-NZ are in a separate blue box. Why ? They are colonialized nations where the predominant culture relates back to Europe, but adapted to local conditions and a mix of immigrant groups. The same might be said of the Americas. However, Australia-NZ have obvious direct links to the South & East Asian Group. So, Australia-NZ would be expected to have a different Worldview from, say, the US; but, the common cultural links are still strong (so blue lines for them as well).

The South & East Asian Group either were not colonized by European states, or the colonizations did not take; thus, in the latter case, sovereignty came back to the indigenous peoples.

My take and mine alone.

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

I suspect (pure gut reaction) that the end game is a South & East Asian Nation Group, continental-insular, that would look something like this (inside the orange-brown perimeter):

World Map US Limits S&E Asia.jpg

Should the US "put together" this Group ? Not in my Worldview. Should the US be a member of this Group ? Not in my Worldview. But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

Just a couple of comments on my map. Australia-NZ are in a separate blue box. Why ? They are colonialized nations where the predominant culture relates back to Europe, but adapted to local conditions and a mix of immigrant groups. The same might be said of the Americas. However, Australia-NZ have obvious direct links to the South & East Asian Group. So, Australia-NZ would be expected to have a different Worldview from, say, the US; but, the common cultural links are still strong (so blue lines for them as well).

The South & East Asian Group either were not colonized by European states, or the colonizations did not take; thus, in the latter case, sovereignty came back to the indigenous peoples.

My take and mine alone.

Regards

Mike

The US is already at organising such a 'grouping'.

Unlike before where the US directed such grouping by organising them into an Alliance, headed by the US, this time around, they have done it is a very subtle way.

Sensitive to the requirement of preserving 'nationalism' of each country, the US is not directing any country. Instead, the US is merely 'assisting' all to realise the 'effectiveness' of achieving a common strategic perspective and the US is merely 'acquiescing' to be around the area to help and be effective 'just in case'!

This brilliant strategy of the US would not have come into place if China did not transmogrify from the Peaceful Rise (having built up a cogent defence force in the time of the Peaceful Rise by lulling all and sundry including the US) to its new aggressive hegemonic pursuits. The Chinese belligerency has spooked all to close ranks. Interestingly, the closing of ranks is bilateral and not multilateral as yet.

The fact that inspite of security issues being bilateral, it is worth noting that the ranks that participate in Naval Exercises with the US in these waters keep increasing. Of course, it is not against any nation, but merely honing the issue of 'interoperability'.

Australia and NZ are the wet blankets. Maybe there is some method in the madness in this too!

My views.

[Ray]

One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

Mere presence, having an 'escape route' does not give the real apprehension of the sons of the soil.

For instance, the Green Card holders in the US, who preferred not to opt for US citizenship, found it odd that the US was so obsessed with the threat of the USSR.

But the Americans were convinced that there was a threat from the USSR.

There are many non US citizens living for years in the US, who feel that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a daft thing to do.

But the Americans, who actually faced the threat, possibly do not think so and that is why Bush was elected twice!

Second generation British of Pakistani origin perpetuated horrors in the UK. They were convinced that they were right.

But the other British citizens did not share their views.

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

[Dayuhan]

One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

And yet you tell me with great confidence, from India, that:

It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

On what basis do you make this assessment?

There are many non US citizens living for years in the US, who feel that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a daft thing to do.

But the Americans, who actually faced the threat, possibly do not think so and that is why Bush was elected twice!

Possibly a minor point, but the first time he was elected pretty much nobody thought there was a threat from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

Can anyone claim to have "ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people" in any land, native or not? There are a pretty diverse range of psyches and mindsets in most lands.

I can tell you with some confidence that most Filipinos feel far more threatened (with good reason) by the mendacity, corruption and ineptness of their own politicians than they do by China, and that the Filipino elite feels more threatened (with equally good reason) by domestic threats than by anything the Chinese might do. That's pretty obvious just from observing the discourse on both sides.

Discussion of an expanded US military presence, by both those who favor it and those who oppose it, tends to revolve far more around local issues than around the supposed China threat. Of course the situation with China is part of the discourse, but it's not a dominant part and there's little to indicate that any part of the populace feels imminently threatened. Of course various groups are trying to use the "China threat" card to their advantage, both in relations with the US and in domestic politics, but that is based as much on opportunism as on perceived threat.

The US is already at organising such a 'grouping'...

...This brilliant strategy of the US would not have come into place if China did not transmogrify from the Peaceful Rise (having built up a cogent defence force in the time of the Peaceful Rise by lulling all and sundry including the US) to its new aggressive hegemonic pursuits. The Chinese belligerency has spooked all to close ranks. Interestingly, the closing of ranks is bilateral and not multilateral as yet.

I'm not at all convinced that what's happening is the result of brilliant strategy on the part of the US (some here would think that an oxymoron). I don't think it's centrally directed at all, just a matter of a number of nations reacting to a changing situation in the way they see fit.

I suspect that you're somewhat overstating the extent of a rise in both Chinese belligerency and the reaction from the US and local powers. Exercises in the area have been going on for a long time; they tended to be somewhat larger back in the days when Clark and Subic were operating. The pushing and shoving with the Chinese has been going on sporadically for a long time as well. Just because there's more media notice now doesn't mean things have fundamentally changed. The one thing that is substantially different is the Vietnam/US engagement, but of course that traces back to a whole host of factors, and the Vietnamese have more reason to fear China than most in SE Asia do.

[Dayuhan]

Indeed there will be pushing and shoving, but the nations are getting ready not to be pushed too far.

This is true, but I think the scale of Chinese assertiveness and the degree of threat posed by China to anyone is often substantially exaggerated.

also the manner in which Philippines took the US help and allowing the US troops to 'rotate' US troops being stationed in the Subic Bay base (from where they forced the US to quit) is indicative of the 'concerns' these nations have towards the Chinese moves.

There are no US troops stationed at Subic, not any publicly announced plans to station any there. Stepped up port calls are expected.

What makes the Nations wary is that China has scant regards for what the world order feels. They do exactly what they want and that to many is scary!

That sounds like they're emulating the US!

[Ray]

But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

That is exactly what is happening.

[Ray]

This is true, but I think the scale of Chinese assertiveness and the degree of threat posed by China to anyone is often substantially exaggerated.

In a world of diminishing resources, every nation is jockeying to get the maximum out of the seas.

It is natural for China to grab what it can since its long term aim is to rule supreme and even overtake the US as a superpower. I would be surprised if it is canvassed that China is merely doing what she is doing just to keep herself afloat.

In such a scenario, the Chinese activities prove to be a threat to the interests of the neighbouring nations and those who share the waters with her. The threat is more real since the neighbouring nations are in no position to counter the Chinese forays with any conviction.

One has to be a neighbouring nation to realise the threat China poses.

There are no US troops stationed at Subic, not any publicly announced plans to station any there. Stepped up port calls are expected.

Two decades after evicting U.S. forces from their biggest base in the Pacific, the Philippines is in talks with the Obama administration about expanding the American military presence in the island nation, the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China.

Although negotiations are in the early stages, officials from both governments said they are favorably inclined toward a deal. They are scheduled to intensify the discussions Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March. If an arrangement is reached, it would follow other recent agreements to base thousands of U.S. Marines in northern Australia and to station Navy warships in Singapore.

http://www.astheworldsleeps.org/node/4149

That sounds like they're emulating the US!

Nothing wrong to realise that US sometimes can be right!

[Dayuhan]

One has to be a neighbouring nation to realise the threat China poses.

I haven't the burden of being a nation, but I live less than 60km from the South China Sea and less than 800 from the China mainland, which I suppose makes me a neighbour of sorts. I can't say I feel threatened at this point.

Two decades after evicting U.S. forces from their biggest base in the Pacific, the Philippines is in talks with the Obama administration about expanding the American military presence in the island nation, the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China.

Although negotiations are in the early stages, officials from both governments said they are favorably inclined toward a deal. They are scheduled to intensify the discussions Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March. If an arrangement is reached, it would follow other recent agreements to base thousands of U.S. Marines in northern Australia and to station Navy warships in Singapore.

I was in Subic a few months ago, much discussion of this. Certainly there will be more port calls (the US Navy has put out a tender for a tank farm and fueling station, among other signs), but for a whole host of reasons a permanent presence or actual stationing of ships or personnel looks quite unlikely.