Would India lease a naval base to USA in the Indian Ocean??

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Is leasing a Naval base to USA in the Indian ocean a good option for India? Is this a good solution to protect trade and stop Chinese encroachment? Discuss the complexity of this if it were to happen. Where?? How long?? what would be allowed to be placed there?? etc... Diego Garcia (British colonial territory) already leased but something closer to Asian continent.
Discuss any interest on the part of US.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,785
Likes
48,227
Country flag
Discuss any interest on the part of US.
Excellent point what incentive/motivation would make a base in the Indian ocean
A necessity? US already has Diego Garcia and bases in the middle east.
A base would be an added expense during an economic slowdown, usa
Already has china more or less surrounded in the south china seas. There
Is no formal alliance or agreements to facilitate building a base,there is little or no
Economic motivation except to possibly secure oil routes or challenge chinese
Incursions in the persian gulf with their gwadar port in pakistan. One good
Reason for a base could be with SCO gaining strength in the future by adding
More member nations there could be a remote chance of us dominance being
Challenged in the persian gulf,Arabian sea and Indian Ocean? The Indian ocean
Has 75 percent of the world oil going thru it so to preserve the status quo it
Maybe necessary?
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
I agree the above has an inordinately high probability of taking place provided we give them access to a major port, and i also agree with you that they would like nothing better than to have a super-carrier battle group safely based out of India.As far as lobbyists and bribes are concerned i have seen enough arms agents crowding defense shows and seminar venues in their range rovers( strangely they all seem to prefer black)to think that bribes and favors are already not ingrained into the system.

but i disagree with you on the point that they would not have any utility for a small island base.i on the contrary think that they would want a base sitting astride the mallacas, one simple listening station there could feed them data on PLAN movements into the IOR(aka the Chinese listening stations in the cocos listening in on us) , not to mention give them a toehold on the world's premier sea passage between the middle east and east Asia.
The US already has a fully developed naval base in Singapore. That is the entry for Malacca so what would they do with a non-developed Andaman or Nicobar island? A listening post is something China might do, but US has surveillance techniques in orbit that serve them better. There is nothing for them to gain by it, they want ports for capital ships.

i totally agree with you in this matter.we should never ever enter into any sort of alliance whether it's with the U.S. or be it with our old,trusted friend Russia.we should always stand there alone because in this way we can ensure that our country's sovereignty remains intact.plus we are one of the few countries in this world which have got an independent foreign policy and i am quite sure that the GoI won't jeopardize it under any circumstance.
India has a better chance to survive against Chinese imperialism if it continues to stand alone.....:rolleyes:
Sarcasm noted, but you wouldn't need US protection if GoI didn't delay procurement. You are forgetting the last time India and China had tense relations, the US said they should help China. China stole Indian land while the all powerful USSR sat by and did nothing. Face the fact that no one is going to fight your wars for you. Your border areas are not strategically important enough to any of the major powers to face off against a nuclear China.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,785
Likes
48,227
Country flag
The Indian Ocean emerging as central nexus of 21st century geopolitics
By Dr. Assad Homayoun

The Indian Ocean has already become the key focus of the global strategic and commercial contest for the 21st Century.

The realization is slowly dawning in Europe and the Americas that this is the dynamic element of the new Asia-Pacific strategic architecture.

And now, because of historical developments, Iran is very much at the heart of how the new Eurasian, Indo-Pacific, and African framework evolves.

The struggle for geopolitical interests in this vast region is already extremely tense, and yet it is being little studied or understood by most strategic policymakers; indeed, it does not receive significant international media or academic attention, perhaps largely because the traditional great powers — and the People's Republic of China (PRC) — do not at present have large military deployments in the area. Even the International Coalition's commitment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan relied on the quiescence of the Indian Ocean to be able to project force into the littorals.

The geography of the Indian Ocean is extremely important, and this will become evident in the coming decades. It is a dominant world source of hydrocarbon energy, and in the 21st Century the role of energy for the economic wellbeing and security of nations is decisive. Indeed history is geography in motion.

From ancient times, this region, as Sir Arnold Wilson also put it, has been of much interest to geologists, archeologists, historians, geographers, merchants, statesmen, and students of strategy.
The Indian Ocean and its littorals are the center of communications and competition for energy and minerals. Almost all conquerors from ancient times to the 18th Century — such as Darius the Great, Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, Mahmud of Qazni, Babur (who founded Mughal Empire of India), and Nader Shah — all passed from the strategic plain of Herat through the majestic Khyber pass to India. Sultan Mahmud from Ghazni invaded India 17 times.

The great religions of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'ism all originated from the lands which touch the Indian Ocean region. Indeed, it is easy to forget that 48 nation-states are either Indian Ocean littoral states, or are landlocked states which are dependent on that Ocean.

All oceanic explorers, such as Adm. Zheng-He of China, Vasco da Gama, and Christopher Columbus, started with the Indian Ocean as their centerpoint. In the 15th Century, Adm. Zheng-He, with 317 ships and a crew of 28,000 — including scientists, astronomers, interpreters, and medical doctors — passed through the Strait of Malacca from China, into the Indian Ocean, and from there visited the Persian Gulf. Adm. Zhang-He headed via Cape Route to the Americas. He explored or discovered America 70 years before Columbus.

[The story of Zheng-He is documented by British naval historian Gavin Menzies in his master works 1421: The Years China Discovered America, and 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance.

Menzies' histories have been widely challenged — attacked — by many mainstream historians, but history may yet vindicate his research, and, in any event, the basic theme of Zheng-He's pioneering journeys with the Chinese treasure fleets are well enough documented and accepted, even if they did not go as far as Menzies asserts.]

Later Portuguese, Dutch, French and Great Britain came into Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, but Great Britain outmaneuvered all and became lord paramount of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for two centuries. For the British, it took 11 months via the Cape of Good Hope route to come to the Indian Ocean and reach India.

After the Seven Years' War with the French in the 18th Century and with treaty with Paris, the French gave up all their interests to the British East Indian Company, and the British Government found its way to Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean through Baghdad. The route through the Persian Gulf took only five months instead of 11 months, and facilitated Great Britain's leverage to dominate the region.
Finally, the British Government after two centuries withdrew from the Persian Gulf in 1971. Immediately thereafter, Iran regained its control over three strategic islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa at the mouth of Straits of Hormuz. Indeed, Iran became the true gate keeper of the Persian Gulf with its unique position and active diplomacy and power projection in the regional and global geopolitical framework.

Indian Ocean waters directly touch 37 countries (depending on how the Indian Ocean perimeters are measured) and almost 1.8 billion people, with a significant number of Muslim states. Indeed the Indian Ocean is the heart of the world and, simultaneously, of the arc of Islam. This important ocean is, at its broadest reach, 6,200 miles (10,000 km) wide and 4,000 miles from north to south: an area of 73,556,000 sq.km (28,400,000 sq. miles), including the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

It is the center of several different arms races, as well as the home to low and high intensity conflicts, fundamentalism, political Islam, and Islamic jihad movements which would like to replace the West with an Islamic order. Terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the civil and secessionist wars underway in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are just part of the instability in the region. As well, the nuclear issue between the U.S. and the 5+1 group on the one hand and Iran on the other, is so significant that, if it is not settled, could lead to war.

Conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and other issues, and rivalry between India and the PRC, and the potential for ongoing instability in Afghanistan, contribute to making this region tense. With the warming of relations between U.S. and India, and the evolution of a new strategic relationship between Washington and New Delhi, Pakistan may seek a closer relationship with the PRC and a new approach to Russia. But none of this is static or clear. The U.S. in November 2014 began attempting to rebuild its strategic relationship with Pakistan.

Russia sent its Defense Minister to Islamabad. U.S. President Barack Obama made a significant State visit to India for India's National Day in January 2015, and so on.

Russia, with a naval base in Syria and supporting the Government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, also has a significant strategic relationship with Iran, and is therefore — again — integrally involved in the geopolitical contest in the Indian Ocean. The Middle East and the Indian Ocean region are in the middle of great transformation and many of its states are unstable.

The U.S., with bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia, has focused on sea lane security and close relations with Persian Gulf states, is still a great player in the region. The U.S. is becoming more involved in this region, once again, with the war against the Islamic Caliphate and terrorism. But it is the U.S. interest in Far East, to check the growing power of the PRC, and its engagement in Europe with the crisis in Ukraine, which holds the greater potential for state-on-state conflict.

It is not easy for international analysts, or even U.S. policy observers, to properly understand U.S. policy. The new 29-page national security document which was introduced on Feb. 6, 2015, by the Barack Obama Administration as the U.S.' 2015 National Security Strategy (NSS) was an important document, but gives no real clue as to how U.S. could be able to face the various significant problems in most part of the world, a world which is functioning in new ways.

It is necessary for the U.S. to devise a grand strategy not only to deal with ever increasing crises but especially regarding rapid rise of the PRC. The crisis in South China Sea, for example, could soon lead to a confrontation.

The U.S. was, by the beginning of 2015, the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas and this ended its dependence on Middle Eastern, Nigeria and Gulf of Guinea, and Venezuelan supplies.
Indeed, it has for many years seen its dependence on Middle Eastern oil decline; by mid-2014 some 20 percent or more of U.S. imported oil came from the Gulf of Guinea. But the U.S. energy situation could be set back if world oil prices remain low (ie: below $50 a barrel) for the coming year or more: highly-leveraged U.S. shale oil development firms may not be able to sustain investment and production if production costs exceed sales prices. If the U.S. returns to the global energy market, it could also see the U.S. revive its interest in Middle Eastern oil and gas production, and therefore the Indian Ocean sea lanes.

Apart from funding war between Sunni and Shi'a communities in the region, Saudi Arabia has exported Wahhabist-based jihadism into the Balkans, the Caucasus, South Asia, and elsewhere. But the same applies to Qatar, which hosts the major U.S. military basing on the Arabian Peninsula.
The United States has for some time closed its eye to Saudi and Qatari activities. Geopolitically the Gulf Arab states are surrounded by enemies and the serious threat of the Islamic Caliphate — which essentially sprang from support for jihadist groups from Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Such is the challenge faced by the new Saudi Administration of King Salman bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al Sa'ud, and internally it is faced with an unhappy Shi'a minority and a restless younger population.
Oman, which dominates the southern littoral of the Strait of Hormuz, faces challenges itself, at this critical time on the Arabian Peninsula. As Yemen falls into disunity, and possible renewed civil war between North and South, and Saudi Arabia battles its transition, Oman must now consider a leadership transition after four decades of stability and growth. Sultan Qaboos bin Sa'id al-Said has been fighting cancer in a German hospital since July 2014.

With the growing geopolitical importance of Iran and its role of the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), U.S. policy and interests has come to parallel that of Iran in many ways. Much, then, depends on the diplomatic negotiations now underway.

India, meanwhile, is geographically well-placed to project power from the Eurasian landmass into the Indian Ocean. Indeed, it is the anchor into to the Indian Ocean proper which Iran is to the Persian Gulf. The security of sea lanes passing across the Indian Ocean is vitally important for the People's Republic of China (PRC), as well as for the states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (Republic of China), and Australasia.

The PRC has a huge — even existential — interest in the Indian Ocean. It receives 80 percent of its energy from Persian Gulf and Africa through the Indian Ocean and via the Strait of Malacca. With the big deep water port in Gwadar, in the Baluchistan province of Pakistan, and with refueling facilities there and elsewhere in the Ocean, the PRC can monitor oil and commercial traffic from the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca and on to China.

Australia, like the U.S., faces two main oceans, and Australia controls some 8,000 miles of Indian Ocean coastline (7,500 miles — 12,000 km — of it in the State of Western Australia alone). Australia has vital interest in the security of the Indian Ocean. Imports of industrial products from the PRC, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Europe, and oil from the Persian Gulf are vital to Australia for its economy, and exports of natural gas, coal, iron ore and other minerals, and agricultural produce from Western Australia to the PRC, Japan, and other Asia-Pacific states via the Indian Ocean make it the most significant trade ocean for Australia.

The 16th Century navigator Adm. Alfonzo Albuquerque, after establishing Portuguese interests in the Persian Gulf, noted in 1576:

"There are three places in India that serve as markets of all commerce in that part of the world. The first is the Malacca at the exit to the Strait of Singapore. The second is Eden in the entry and exit of Strait Red Sea. The third is Hormuz at the entry and exit of the Strait of the Persian Gulf. This City of Hormuz is, according to my idea, the most important of them all. If the King of Portugal had made himself master of Eden with a good fortress such as those of Hormuz and Malacca, he will have been called Lord of all world. With these three key straits in hand, he may shut the doors against all commerce."

Now the three gates to entry and exit to the Indian Ocean for trade and the flow of energy are of vital importance because of the transforming global situation. If global trade is to remain stable, it would be necessary for those sea highways to remain secure. The Strait of Hormuz, which for 200 years was a crossroads of empire, now has become the international crossroads of the world for energy, and commence depends on the security of this sea route.

The Persian Gulf is considered the Western hand of the Indian Ocean. Its length is 500 miles and its width 180 miles and around 26 miles at the Strait Hormuz. It is like a bottle of wine with its cap is in the hands of Iran.

That is why the stability of Iran is of utmost importance for security the Persian Gulf and sea lane that is the jugular vein of international trade and communications.

Israeli opposition to Iran — after some 2,500 years of strong links between Persia/Iran and the Jewish/Israeli community — goes beyond the nuclear issue and focuses on the regional balance of power which may now be going against Israel's favor. Iran is already a nuclear weapons state, and will soon (if it is not already) be in a position to undertake ongoing manufacture of nuclear weapons. It is clear that Iran will not relinquish its nuclear goals, so external interests (those of the U.S., Israel, and others) may have to accommodate that reality, just as the nuclear capabilities of Israel, India, and Pakistan have been accommodated.

If an Iranian deal with the U.S. does not eventuate, and pressures continue, Iran would not hesitate to become an actual nuclear state in the comprehensive sense of that phrase. And for the United States the only option remaining would be a containment policy or a form of accommodation. Any deal short of leaving Iran a potential nuclear state will not be accepted by Iran. It is the geopolitical situation which dictates the direction of Iranian foreign policy. No matter who rules in Iran, whether it is a Shah, a cleric, or secular democracy: the possession of a comprehensive military nuclear capability will be the national security doctrine of Iran for as long as nuclear weapons hold strategic efficacy.

A diplomatic failure could cause a war which would catapult the region to chaos and instability, detrimental to the world economy and peace. And chaos and instability would, in any event, facilitate or accelerate Iran's nuclear program. That is why it is important that the U.S. rapprochement with Iran succeeds.

The clerical rule, which is an aberration in Iranian history, is rejected by the great majority of Iranian people. It has already begun to transform since the 1979 revolution, and inevitably will be replaced by a secular government.

Iran with its great humanist civilization, a cultural identity which radiates far beyond its borders, its human resources and geopolitical importance, can play a decisive role in the stability and equilibrium of the greater Middle East and Indian Ocean. With the eventual turn of the policy direction of Iran, it is logical that the historical relationship between Iran and the Jewish state of Israel would then be resumed.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2015/02/...y-geopolitics/
 

grampiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
140
Likes
145
Giving a naval base to the US, whether through Logistics Supply Agreement (LSA) or for any such matter is not possible and against India's national interest. India doesn't expect Americans to fight its wars nor they would expect India to join them anywhere. The offer of naval basing is not a matter of debate. In fact, there would be a criminal investigation if some such thing happens. There is a difference between 'being friends' and 'becoming an American poodle' and this difference would be maintained.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
India should eye Diego Garcia, the British American agreement will expire on 2016 which is likely to be extended for another 20 years as stated in the agreement as an option, so after 2036 India should be able to strike a deal with the Brits provided Uncle Sam want to giveup the base.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
India should eye Diego Garcia, the British American agreement will expire on 2016 which is likely to be extended for another 20 years as stated in the agreement as an option, so after 2036 India should be able to strike a deal with the Brits provided Uncle Sam want to giveup the base.
Nothing on this page which leads me to believe USN is getting ready to leave Diego Garcia by 2016.

Command Home Page
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
Nothing on this page which leads me to believe USN is getting ready to leave Diego Garcia by 2016.

Command Home Page
Like I said, US will take the extended lease for 20 more years after 2016 like it was stated in the original agreement in 1966, 50 years and an optional extension of 20 years.

The agreement may have been signed in 2014.

MPs now want the Government to use a two-year window before the 1966 lease agreement is due to be extended in 2016 for another 20 years to revise the text to include a new clause requiring express permission from London for any "extraordinary use" of the base.
Government told to renegotiate with US over use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
 

Ashok mourya

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
37
Likes
27
Country flag
Is leasing a Naval base to USA in the Indian ocean a good option for India? Is this a good solution to protect trade and stop Chinese encroachment? Discuss the complexity of this if it were to happen. Where?? How long?? what would be allowed to be placed there?? etc... Diego Garcia (British colonial territory) already leased but something closer to Asian continent.
If in return USA gives a territory in coastal china like Guam,Micronesia,Saipan to construct and maintain naval base there.Only give and take.
 

grampiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
140
Likes
145
Like I said, US will take the extended lease for 20 more years after 2016 like it was stated in the original agreement in 1966, 50 years and an optional extension of 20 years.

The agreement may have been signed in 2014.


Government told to renegotiate with US over use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
BY 2036, US will have probably no role in Asia and it will be trying to cut deals with China for some role in Pacific and other parts pf world. By 2036, Britain will have similar clout in world affairs as other European countries like Norway, Sweden etc. So that timeline would be a better period for India to lease Diego Garcia from Mauritius, as they are the rightful owners of this island.

Will Indian Navy be ready by then OR let China replace Americans in Diego Garcia?
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
BY 2036, US will have probably no role in Asia and it will be trying to cut deals with China for some role in Pacific and other parts pf world. By 2036, Britain will have similar clout in world affairs as other European countries like Norway, Sweden etc. So that timeline would be a better period for India to lease Diego Garcia from Mauritius, as they are the rightful owners of this island.

Will Indian Navy be ready by then OR let China replace Americans in Diego Garcia?
US will still have allies in the east, Chinese will definitely be looking to spread their influence in this region,hopefully by then they don't have too much influence on GB. Its important to have healthy relations with developing economies like Indonesia..... btw Britain bought those Islands from Mauritius.
 

Kay

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,354
Country flag
For Diego Garcia, India has to be cut deals with UK, US and Mauritius also (mostly for goodwill and PR). Future powers have to be more accommodating and inclusive as per tomorrow's expectations and standards. It would be better to position Diego Garcia more as as a Space Launch center and GPS Monitoring Center than a pure naval base.
 

grampiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
140
Likes
145
US will still have allies in the east, Chinese will definitely be looking to spread their influence in this region,hopefully by then they don't have too much influence on GB. Its important to have healthy relations with developing economies like Indonesia..... btw Britain bought those Islands from Mauritius.
Chinese will ensure that in next couple of decades, America is out of Diego Garcia. Its base there is a significant threat to Chinese Sea Lines of Communication in Indian Ocean. Chinese are not worried about Indian Navy but the presence of US Navy in DG, keeps a threat of SLOC choking, very real for Chinese. There are numerous Chinese language articles which talk about methods to force America out of Asian region. Its only now that Pillsbury and other senior scholars have started questioning Chinese intentions in future regarding America. PLA Navy is playing no A2-AD games anymore. Now, it is aiming for "Largest Economy, Largest Navy" in the world.

On America's part, its oil imports from Middle East have become irrelevant after Shale revolution. Wars in Afghanistan is winding up. In Iraq, it is not interested very much, except keeping ISIS in check. Bottomline, Indian Ocean is not that important anymore compared to Pacific and Atlantic. So one can see Obama giving lots of latitude to Xi Jinping and subtly, reaching some sort of understanding for a G-2 type relationship. Evidence: Find out, how many times Obama administration has criticized Xi Jinping in last 2-3 years? Compare it to George Bush and Hu Jintao years. He will soon reach an informal understanding where he keeps Pacific and Atlantic while Chinese get Indian Ocean. So, either India becomes ready to face this situation or becomes an ostrich, future will tell.

Britain is hardly of any consequence to discuss anymore. It should focus more on Alex Salmond right now.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Sarcasm noted, but you wouldn't need US protection if GoI didn't delay procurement. You are forgetting the last time India and China had tense relations, the US said they should help China. China stole Indian land while the all powerful USSR sat by and did nothing. Face the fact that no one is going to fight your wars for you. Your border areas are not strategically important enough to any of the major powers to face off against a nuclear China.
The US certainly did not offer help to China in the Indo-Chinese war. On the contrary the Americans and pretty much everyone in the West viewed China as the aggressor. But Nehru's earlier dithering on closer Alliance with the Americans meant that any American help cannot come sooner. Besides, during the entire duration of that conflict Kennedy was busy in its direvt nuclear face-off with the USSR in the Cuban missile crises. The World was at the cusp of a nuclear Armaggedon at that time. So you can rightly excuse the Americans for their sometimes confused responses to Nehru's pleas for material and US petsonnel beef up against China since balancing the continued existence of the human race as we know it and nuclear winter naturally consummed Kennedy and the US military.

It was much later after the assassination of Kennedy, end of term of his successor Johnson, during the term of Nixon that rapproachment with China happened. By then the conflict was already long past.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top