Indian-US-Aussie Navy Co-Operation to counter China

[Tshering22]

agni -5 can take care of whole Aussie i think.India dont need any alliance.It is alone and it has to fight its battle alone as 26/11 perfidy of usa shown us.What india need is that true ICBM which can hit any corner of the earth from anywhere on earth.unless you threaten these so called western nations they take you for granted.

This is silly man! On what pretext are we going to strike Aussies off the map? Because they beat up a few Indians? That's no excuse for wiping them off earth. No government no matter how "anti-Western" or how right wing nationalist will ever do it and the maximum action for racism can be international political maneuvers that would leave OZ government red faced and take stern action against the perpetrators. Please do consider before posting such illogical comments.

True that we don't have much trusted support from West but in 26/11, Israel sincerely offered us a special forces help and it was GOI that turned down the request the offer. We weren't alone because of no one supporting us but because of our babus' corruption that left police under-trained and under armed. You know that we have a certain agreement with Israel when striking Islamist terrorists from Pakistan or domestic, don't you?

What corner of earth do we have enemies in apart from our own backyard? NOWHERE!! It is not like India cannot make ICBMs; Dr.Saraswat said already that if it is really needed, India has capability to design and make very long range ballistic missiles. It is just that we DON'T NEED TO since our most greatest threats are already sticking to us by borders.

We don't need an ICBM at the moment and making one that can strike beyond all of China would mean an end to inflow of hi-tech gear in India and as you know that India is not at an advanced stage enough to make ALL the stuff in-house. We don't want to end up stealing and copying like our bigger neighbour in hunt for technological superiority. Neither US nor Europe is of any threat to us and even without an ICBM. the Agni-V can reach most of Europe since it covers entire China from top to bottom.

What we need strategically are road/-rail mobile ballistic missiles that can be rapidly transported to designated launch sites. Each of these missiles should be MIRVed up so that it becomes impossible for ABM batteries to overwhelm a nuclear retaliation from India. Another thing we need is SERIOUS QUANTITY in our missile arsenal. I mean we're having lesser nukes than Pakistan! Less than China is understandable but lesser than Pakistan!!? It shows the disgusting slave mentality of GOI.

 

[Tshering22]

Southeast Asia: West Completes Plans For Asian NATO

THURSDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2010 13:10, WRITTEN BY RICK ROZOFF

In keeping with the global trend manifested in other strategically vital areas of the world, the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - a consortium of all major Western military (including nuclear) powers and former colonial empires - are increasing their military presence in Southeast Asia with special emphasis on the geopolitically critical Strait of Malacca.

The latter is one of the world's most important shipping lanes and major strategic chokepoints.

In an opinion piece The Times of London granted to George Robertson and Paddy Ashdown - the first a former NATO secretary general and current Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, the other a past intelligence officer and the West's viceroy in Bosnia at the beginning of the decade who nearly reprised the role in Afghanistan two years ago - in June of 2008 which in part rued the fact that "For the first time in more than 200 years we are moving into a world not wholly dominated by the West." [1]

In fact for the first time in half a millennium the founding members of NATO in Europe and North America are confronted with a planet not largely or entirely under their control.

With the elimination of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its network of allies around the world a generation ago, the prospect of the West reestablishing uncontested worldwide domination appeared a more viable option than it had at any time since the First World War.

Much as the British Empire had done earlier in positioning its navy and its military outposts overlooking maritime access points to monitor and control vital shipping lanes and to block adversaries' transit of military personnel and materiel, the West now collectively envisions regaining lost advantages and gaining new ones in areas of the world previously inaccessible to its military penetration.

Southeast Asia is one such case. Divided during the colonial epoch between Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (with the U.S. supplanting the last-named in the Philippines in 1898), it has a combined population of approximately 600 million, two-thirds that of the Western Hemisphere and almost three-quarters that of Europe.

The Strait of Malacca runs for 600 miles between Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore to the east and the Indonesian island of Sumatra to the west. According to the United Nations International Maritime Organization, at least 50,000 ships pass through the strait annually, transporting 30 percent of the goods traded in the world including oil from the Persian Gulf to major East Asian nations like China, Japan and South Korea. As many as 20 million barrels of oil a day pass through the Strait of Malacca, an amount that will only increase with the further advance of the Asian Century.

When the U.S. went to war against Iraq in 1991, notwithstanding claims concerning Kuwait's territorial integrity and fictitious accusations of infants being torn from incubators in the country's capital, one of the major objectives was to demonstrate to a new unipolar world that Washington had its hand on the global oil spigot. That it controlled the flow of Persian Gulf oil north and west to Europe and east to Asia, especially to the four nations that import the most oil next to the United States: Japan, China, South Korea and India. The first three receive Persian Gulf oil primarily by tankers passing through the Strait of Malacca.

The U.S. Department of Energy has provided a comprehensive yet concise blueprint for the Pentagon to act on:

"Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. They are a critical part of global energy security due to the high volume of oil traded through their narrow straits. The Strait of Hormuz leading out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans are two of the world's most strategic chokepoints. Other important passages include: Bab el-Mandab which connects the Arabian Sea with the Red Sea; the Panama Canal and the Panama Pipeline connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline linking the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea; and the Turkish/Bosporus Straits joining the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea region to the Mediterranean Sea." [2]

The U.S. has moved its military into the Black Sea and Central Asia as well as into the Persian Gulf, and two years ago the Pentagon inaugurated U.S. Africa Command primarily to secure oil supplies and transport in Africa's Gulf of Guinea and in the Horn of Africa.

The Strait of Malacca is the main channel connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. On its southeastern end it flows into the South China Sea where the natural resource-rich Paracel and Spratly island groups are contested between China on the one hand and several members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the other. The Spratly Islands are claimed in part by ASEAN member states Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam as well as Taiwan. The Paracel Islands were seized by China in a naval battle with South Vietnam in 1974.

The U.S. deployed the USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier and the USS John S. McCain destroyer to the South China Sea in August for the first joint military exercise ever conducted by the U.S. and (unified) Vietnam, three weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said while attending the ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting in the Vietnamese capital that "The United States...has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea," adding "The United States is a Pacific nation, and we are committed to being an active partner with ASEAN."

Clinton's trip to Hanoi was preceded by visits to the capitals of Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Korea, all three Asian nations solidly in the U.S. military orbit. While in the last country she traveled to the Demilitarized Zone separating South from North Korea with Pentagon chief Robert Gates, in the first such joint visit by U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the start of the Korean War (which led to war with China within three months).

Four days after Clinton left Seoul the U.S. launched the Invincible Spirit joint war games in the East Sea/Sea of Japan with South Korea, the following month the latest of annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises with 30,000 American and 56,000 South Korean troops, and in September anti-submarine drills in the Yellow Sea. [3]

Reflecting on Clinton's statements at July's ASEAN summit, Malaysian-based journalist and analyst Kazi Mahmoud wrote:

"Washington is using the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional group for a bigger military purpose and this strategy is becoming clear to observers due to the U.S. push for greater influence in Asia.

By reaching out to nations like Vietnam, Laos and even Myanmar (Burma) as it has lately - ASEAN consists of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam - "The United States is fomenting a long-term strategy to contain both China and Russia in Southeast Asia....Before the Afghan war, the Americans could count on Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia along with Brunei in the region. Today the U.S. has Vietnam and Cambodia on its side." (In July U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific led the Angkor Sentinel 2010 multinational exercises in Cambodia.)

Furthermore, Washington's recruitment of ASEAN nations, initially over territorial disputes with China, will lead to "turn[ing] ASEAN into
a...military corps to fight for American causes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen
and surely Georgia and North Korea....Once the U.S. has achieved such goals, it will control the Malacca Straits and the seaways of the region." [4]

Non-ASEAN nations Taiwan, with which the U.S. formalized a $6.4 billion arms deal earlier this year [5], is involved in a Spratly Islands territorial dispute with China and Japan is at loggerheads with China over what it calls the Senkaku Islands and China the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.

On October 11 U.S. Defense Secretary Gates met with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa at the ASEAN defense ministers' meeting in Hanoi, and the "defense chiefs agreed in their talks...that their countries will jointly respond in line with a bilateral security pact toward stability in areas in the East China Sea covering the Senkaku Islands that came into the spotlight in disputes between Japan and China...." [6]

The pact in question is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States signed in 1960, comparable to mutual military assistance arrangements the Pentagon has with Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand in the Asia-Pacific region. "It is also developing a strong strategic relationship with Vietnam, of all places. It is also working hard on Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which have indicated they want to get closer to Washington." [7]

During the Shangri-La Dialogue defense ministers' meeting in Singapore this June Gates stated: "My government's overriding obligation to allies, partners and the region is to reaffirm America's security commitments in the region." [8]

Singapore and, since July, Malaysia are official Troop Contributing Countries for NATO's war in Afghanistan. In June Malaysia and Thailand joined this year's version of the annual U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises, the largest in the world (with 20,000 troops, 34 ships, five submarines and over 100 aircraft this year), hosted by the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. RIMPAC 2010 marked the two Southeast Asian nations' first participation in the war games. Other nations involved were the U.S., Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and South Korea.

In addition to occupying Afghanistan with 152,000 U.S. and NATO troops, building an Afghan army and air force under the West's command, and integrating Pakistan in joint commissions with the U.S. and NATO [9], Washington is also consolidating a strategic military partnership with India. Last October the U.S. Army participated in the latest and largest of Yudh Abhyas (training for war) war games held since 2004 with its Indian counterpart. Exercise Yudh Abhyas 2009 featured 1,000 troops, the U.S.'s Javelin anti-tank missile system and the first deployment of American Stryker armored combat vehicles outside the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters. [10]

The U.S. has also been holding annual naval exercises codenamed Malabar with the world's second most populous country and in the past four years has broadened them into a multinational format with the inclusion of Canada, Australia, Japan and Singapore.

Malabar 2007 was conducted in the Bay of Bengal, immediately north of the Strait of Malacca, and included 25 warships from five nations: The U.S., India, Australia, Japan and Singapore.

This September 28 India and Japan held their first army-to-army talks in New Delhi which "aimed at reviewing the present status of engagements, military cooperation and military security issues...." Japan thus became the ninth country with which the Indian Army has a bilateral dialogue, joining the U.S., Britain, France, Australia, Bangladesh, Israel, Malaysia and Singapore. At the same time the Indian Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Naik, was on a "three-day goodwill visit" to Japan to meet with his Japanese counterpart, Air Self-Defense Force chief of staff General Kenichiro Hokazono. [11]

On October 14 the Pentagon launched the latest bilateral Amphibious Landing Exercise (PHIBLEX) and Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) in the Philippines, with over 3,000 U.S. troops and six ships and aircraft involved.

If a recurrence of the 1974 Battle of the Paracel Islands or the 1988 Chinese-Vietnamese clash over the Spratly Islands erupts between China and other claimants, the U.S. is poised to intervene.

On October 13 South Korea for the first time hosted an exercise of the U.S.-formed Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) naval interdiction operation, launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 with initial emphasis on Asia but which in the interim has assumed a global scope. [12]

To end on October 22, it involves the participation of 14 nations including the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and Japan, which are contributing a guided missile destroyer, maritime patrol planes and anti-submarine helicopters.

Six years ago Admiral Thomas Fargo, at the time head of U.S. Pacific Command, promoted a Regional Maritime Security Initiative which was described as "grow[ing] out of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)" and designed to "deploy US marines with high-speed boats to guard the Malacca Straits...." [13] Both Indonesia and Malaysia objected to the plan to station American military forces off their coasts.

In January of 2009 NATO announced plans for the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1), part of the NATO Response Force of up to 25,000 troops designed for global missions, to engage in "a six-month deployment to the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean" and to travel "through areas such as the Strait of Malacca, Java and the South China sea, an area of the world that is not frequented by NATO fleets." [14] The Indian Ocean, which the Pentagon divides between its Central Command, Africa Command and Pacific Command, is now also being patrolled by NATO warships. [15]

The SNMG1, which was the first NATO naval group to circumnavigate the African continent two years before, was diverted to the Gulf of Aden for NATO's Operation Allied Provider begun in April of 2009 and succeeded in August with the still active Operation Ocean Shield. Also last April, the NATO naval group, with warships from Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, arrived in Karachi, Pakistan "to conduct a two-day joint naval exercise with the Pakistan Navy in the North Arabian Sea" [16] en route to Singapore. According to the Alliance, "The deployment of warships in South East Asia demonstrates the high value NATO places on its relationship with other partners across the globe...." [17]

Just as the U.S. has reactivated Cold War-era military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region in the first decade of this century, [18] so have its main NATO allies.

Shortly after Washington deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln nuclear-powered supercarrier with "F/A-18C Hornet, F/A-18E/F super Hornet, C-2A Greyhound, MH-60R Seahawk and MH-60S Seahawk helicopters and other fighter jets" [19] to the Port Klang Cruise Centre in Malaysia this month, the defense ministers of the United Kingdom-initiated Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) collective - whose members are Britain, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore - met in the capital of Singapore for the 13th FPDA Defence Chiefs' Conference.

"The Defence Chiefs...issued the FPDA Exercise Concept Directive during the conference.

"The directive aims to guide the development of future FPDA exercises and activities to strengthen interoperability and interactions between the armed forces of the five member countries.

"It also aims to further enhance the FPDA's capacity in conducting conventional and non-conventional operations...." [20] The five defense chiefs then left Singapore to attend the opening ceremony of Exercise Bersama Padu 2010 at the Butterworth Airbase in the Malaysian state of Penang on October 15.

The military exercise continues to October 29 and includes "13 ships and 63 aircraft from the five FPDA countries working together in a multi-threat environment." [21]

The FPDA was set up in 1971, at the height of the Cold War, and along with similar military groups - NATO most prominently - has not only continued but expanded in the post-Cold War period.

According to the Australian Department of Defence, Bersama Padu 2010, "is a three-week exercise [commenced on October 11] designed to enhance regional security in the area.

"The exercise, which is part of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA), will take place at various locations across the Malaysian Peninsula as well as the South China Sea." It includes four Australian warships and eight F/A-18 multirole fighter jets. Australian Lieutenant General Mark Evans, Chief of Joint Operations, said "the FPDA countries shared a common interest in the security and stability of the region, and the exercise would enhance the interoperability of the combined air, ground and naval forces of member nations." [22]

All five FPDA members are engaged in NATO's war in Afghanistan as part of a historically unprecedented exercise in warfighting interoperability with some 45 other nations. Britain has the second largest amount of troops assigned to NATO's International Security Assistance Force, an estimated 9,500, and Australia the most of any non-NATO member state, 1,550. [23]

Afghanistan is the training ground for a global expeditionary NATO. And for a rapidly emerging Asian NATO, one which is being prepared to confront China in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Source: http://www.eurasiareview.com/201010289259/southeast-asia-west-completes-plans-for-asian-nato.html

References:

1) The Times, June 12, 2008
2) U.S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/background.html
3) U.S.-China Conflict: From War Of Words To Talk Of War, Part I
Stop NATO, August 15, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/201...flict-from-war-of-words-to-talk-of-war-part-i
Part II: U.S.-China Crisis: Beyond Words To Confrontation
Stop NATO, August 17, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/201...hina-crisis-beyond-words-toward-confrontation
4) Kazi Mahmood, U.S. Using ASEAN To Weaken China
World Future Online, August 13, 2010
5) U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow
Stop NATO, January 19, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/u-s-china-military-tensions-grow
6) Kyodo News, October 11, 2010
7) The Australian, August 19, 2010
8) Ibid
9) NATO Pulls Pakistan Into Its Global Network
Stop NATO, July 23, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/nato-pulls-pakistan-into-its-global-network
10) India: U.S. Completes Global Military Structure
Stop NATO, September 10, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/india-u-s-completes-global-military-structure
11) The Hindu, September 29, 2010
12) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of
World's Oceans, Prelude To War
Stop NATO, January 29, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/200...-navy-control-of-worlds-oceans-prelude-to-war
13) Financial Times, April 5, 2004
14) Victoria News, January 30, 2009
15) U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean
Stop NATO, January 8, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/201...ghan-war-to-horn-of-africa-and-indian-ocean-2
16) The News International, April 27, 2009
17) Indo-Asian News Service, March 26, 2009
18) Asia: Pentagon Revives And Expands Cold War Military Blocs
Stop NATO, September 14, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/asia-pentagon-revives-and-expands-cold-war-military-blocs
U.S. Marshals Military Might To Challenge Asian Century
Stop NATO, August 21, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/u-s-marshals-military-might-to-challenge-asian-century
19) Bernama, October 8, 2010
20) Government of Singapore, October 14, 2010
21) Ibid
22) Australian Government
Department of Defence
October 11, 2010
23) Afghan War: NATO Builds History's First Global Army
Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army

Interesting article and a good piece of writing. But it will be able to make an "Asian NATO" possibly out of entire Southeast with the Western armed Thailand as their regional leader. Pentagon knows that no matter how spineless a government India has, it will always remain out of alliances that limit its freedom of actions and decisions. Although personally I don't trust this ruling government; it is capable of stooping to any low levels of slavery and spinelessness.

 

[ajtr]

keep distance from usa its better for indian defence health. and independent foreign policy.otherwise india will become poodle like pak,jap,S.korea.

 

[mattster]

I think some of these articles/people commenting here are losing the "plot" as far as Australia goes !

Australia is so far away from China that it is highly unlikely that China will have any dispute with them on territory/sea-lanes or anything else. Australia is not that strategicaly important to China or anyone else, since it does not control any of the potential choke points for the delivery of Middle-East oil.

Furthermore the entire Australian population is very small and they will never be a major economic or military power, or even a major market for any goods. They are just too small in population - about 22 million, I think.

Australia's only relevance to China is that Australia is very rich is raw materials and minerals.

Australia is really lucky in that they dont have to spend a lot on defense as they are isolated from the rest of the world in the Indian Ocean, so there are no potential conflicts, unless there is a major global conflict.

At the most, the only country that Australia may ever have a conflict of strategic interests with would be its nearest neighbour - Indonesia.
Even that is highly unlikely.

Hence relying on Australia to form a defensive coalition is just meaningless since there is no real motivation for them to come to any country's aid.
What's in it for them. What is the imperative/incentive for them to be involved in a "Counter China" strategy ??

Australia is under the US umbrella defensively.
The Aussies have always been in the US camp as far as alliances go. they will passively follow the US whichever way its relationship with China goes.
But even the US would be foollish to depend on the Aussies too much. At the most they will be passive allies.

The REAL question is this:

Is India willing to dump its "non-aligned foreign policy" and align itself with the US in countering an increasingly aggressive China on the world stage. India cant do it alone.

Lets face it. Anyone else like Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand are light-weights.

Do Indian politicians have the balls to make the tough call ?

 

[Tshering22]

I think some of these articles/people commenting here are losing the "plot" as far as Australia goes !

Australia is so far away from China that it is highly unlikely that China will have any dispute with them on territory/sea-lanes or anything else. Australia is not that strategicaly important to China or anyone else, since it does not control any of the potential choke points for the delivery of Middle-East oil.

Furthermore the entire Australian population is very small and they will never be a major economic or military power, or even a major market for any goods. They are just too small in population - about 25 million, I think.

Australia's only relevance to China is that Australia is very rich is raw materials and minerals.

Australia is really lucky in that they dont have to spend a lot on defense as they are isolated from the rest of the world in the Indian Ocean, so there are no potential conflicts, unless there is a major global conflict.

At the most, the only country that Australia may ever have a conflict of strategic interests with would be its nearest neighbour - Indonesia.
Even that is highly unlikely.

Hence relying on Australia to form a defensive coalition is just meaningless since there is no real motivation for them to come to any country's aid.
What's in it for them. What is the imperative/incentive for them to be involved in a "Counter China" strategy ??

Australia is under the US umbrella defensively.
The Aussies have always been in the US camp as far as alliances go. they will passively follow the US whichever way its relationship with China goes.
But even the US would be foollish to depend on the Aussies too much. At the most they will be passive allies.

The REAL question is this:

Is India willing to dump its "non-aligned foreign policy" and align itself with the US in countering an increasingly aggressive China on the world stage. India cant do it alone.

Lets face it. Anyone else like Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand are light-weights.

Do Indian politicians have the balls to make the tough call ?

Buddy, I don't think that we'd be in any camps at all. There might be strong cooperation between the two countries to a large extent and limited within framework of multiple agreements that might be signed to specifically target Chinese, but I doubt that there will be any "joining the group" because joining any camp undermines our own strategic buildup and we end up losing a say.

This is neither cold war nor WW series where there are camps to join or to perish. Today's security environments are such that countries would prefer to work by set agreements and to work within the frameworks of these agreements, whether it is US/NATO or India or anyone else with an independent stand.

I from the very beginning never expected wastrels like Australians to be of any help in any scenario, especially since they worship China. There won't be any "alliance" in this but there might be strong cooperation between Southeast, US and India.

 

[pmaitra]

The REAL question is this:

Is India willing to dump its "non-aligned foreign policy" and align itself with the US in countering an increasingly aggressive China on the world stage. India cant do it alone.

Lets face it. Anyone else like Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand are light-weights.

Do Indian politicians have the balls to make the tough call ?

As correctly said by ajtr, India aligned herself in 1971 with the USSR, but not the Communist Ideology per se, because PRC was/is communist too. The bloc formation was ideology based, but only in the beginning. It is held by many, that the USSR created the Warsaw Pact and kept Eastern Europe under friendly regimes only because it wanted a buffer between USSR territory and the West, especially after losing 26 million of its citizens in World War II. Moreover, US was in a virtual alliance with PRC, a communist country, during 1971/72. The US, later, and till now is a quasi-ally of Vietnam, yet another communist country.

The smaller countries you mentioned in South-East Asia may be lightweights, but together they are strong and with Indian, Russian and possible US backing, will be formidable. PRC will surely go for a toss if such a situation arises, or will have to make serious territorial compromises with some of its neighbours so as to weaken the anti-PRC alliance. PRC is potentially cornered and has no choice at the moment. It'll pay for it's misdeeds and bullying tactics that it has practised in the last few decades.

 

[The Messiah]

The REAL question is this:

Is India willing to dump its "non-aligned foreign policy" and align itself with the US in countering an increasingly aggressive China on the world stage. India cant do it alone.

Lets face it. Anyone else like Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand are light-weights.

Do Indian politicians have the balls to make the tough call ?

Unlikely because another word for align is puppet when other countries align themselves with usa.

Why doesn't usa stop backing pakistan and its "good" taliban and align itself with India ?

 

[roma]

Austraslia thinks they can play a double game with dragon and get away with it - faT HOPES - they'll get played out good and proper if that continues - but really they dont have much of a policy to begin withand with a population of a mere 20 millions less than even malaysia's they rellay dont amount to much . It's USA 's call and they just rope the aussies in like it or not - i wouldnt bother too much about aus - the main player missin in this is Japan - probably diplomatically standing in the sidelines waiting for the cue to get in.

 

[Parthy]

Australia is so far away from China that it is highly unlikely that China will have any dispute with them on territory/sea-lanes or anything else. Australia is not that strategicaly important to China or anyone else, since it does not control any of the potential choke points for the delivery of Middle-East oil.

This can be fine in terms of keeping Chinese interest in protecting its sea-lanes. But unlikely to growing chinese ambition in South China sea.

Australia's only relevance to China is that Australia is very rich is raw materials and minerals.

Actually its vice-versa, Australia is more reliant on China for its rare-earth elements exports. And that is the reason Australia is the only nation which held a defence tie-up

Australia is really lucky in that they dont have to spend a lot on defense as they are isolated from the rest of the world in the Indian Ocean, so there are no potential conflicts, unless there is a major global conflict.

Yes Agreed!.. But not for a long time...:emot158:

Do Indian politicians have the balls to make the tough call ?

No they never had it!!.. They'll never do it when it comes to a call which decides the future.. :angry_1:

 

[Crusader53]

Unlikely because another word for align is puppet when other countries align themselves with usa.

Why doesn't usa stop backing pakistan and its "good" taliban and align itself with India ?

Many in the US would in fact love to. Yet, what would happen in Pakistan and Afganistan if the US removed its support??? To answer my own question a "big fat mess" even bigger than the one we are currently in. Nonetheless, the US is closer in many respects to India and that will only grow with time. As a matter of fact the US will sell things to India that would never even be on the table with Pakistan.


Regardless, the US is slowly moving more towards India everyday. Even the Liberal Democratic President Obama see's the need for closer US/Indian Relations. That said, things will likely move much faster after a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012 )

 

[ace009]

Many in the US would in fact love to. Yet, what would happen in Pakistan and Afganistan if the US removed its support??? To answer my own question a "big fat mess" even bigger than the one we are currently in. Nonetheless, the US is closer in many respects to India and that will only grow with time. As a matter of fact the US will sell things to India that would never even be on the table with Pakistan.


Regardless, the US is slowly moving more towards India everyday. Even the Liberal Democratic President Obama see's the need for closer US/Indian Relations. That said, things will likely move much faster after a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012 )

Well, the "big fat mess" we are in now with Taliban, Afghanistan and Pakistan was primarily created by three republican (and one democrat) presidents - Reagan started it with support to Afghan Mujahideen (the "fathers of the Taliban and the "Kashmiri Mujahideens") to fight the Soviets in the 80's. Like so many other cold war era short-sighted policies, this one backfired in destroying the "known" devil of the soviets (who after all, were rational enemies) and created a new monster, and unknown devil of the Taliban/ Al-Qaida/ Islamic terrorist complex. George H W Bush (the senior Bush) complicated the issue with arms support to Pakistan army, PAF and ISI, who actually helped create the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then Clinton turned a blind eye to Taliban help to Al-Qaida and Pakistan's nuclear piracy. When Pakistan was smuggling nuclear technology from China and exporting them to US enemies like Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea, both Bush senior and Clinton administration turned a blind eye to the proceedings. Even when AQ Khan was caught hands on, Bush Junior failed (deliberately?) to pursue the matter with Pakistani authorities and let ISI get away with the back-stabbing. As a result, North Korea and Iran was able to develop significant Nuclear fuel enrichment capabillities in the 1990's and 2000's.
even with the US-led war in Afghanistan, Pakistan on the one hand (PA, PAF) is getting arms, ammunition and equipments from US-army surplus (probably at a loss to US taxpayers, but a profit to US companies), while on the other hand (read the ISI) is helping Al-Qaida and taliban escape from the NATO forces, and even help in destruction of NATO property (supply convoys). Not to mention that ISI is helping Islamic terrorists planning terror attacks in India (Mumbai)/ Afghanistan (Kabul).
So, as far as India is concerned, US-policy towards Pakistan is full of shit, no matter which party has the presidency. For every positive thing Bush Junior did in favor of India (123 Nuclear deal), he did two unfavorable things (F-16 to Pakistan, Training of PA forces in Mountain warfare).
Obama did no better or worse than his predecessors as far as South-Asia is concerned. Instead of backing and helping a multi-cultural democracy and Economic powerhouse like India, the US is still embroiled with failed terrorist states like Pakistan. Unfortunate indeed.
I love the US economic systems, their Entrepreneurial spirit, the US culture of open-ness and modernity, their technological prowess. What I cannot understand is their muddle-headed approach to foreign policy, which results in war, conflict and support of bad regimes.

 

[Crusader53]

A simplistic view of a very complicated issue. Plus, the fact that you conveniently left out the majority of the world has sat by and did nothing!

 

[ace009]

like what? Rest of the world? If the US protects Pakistan, no one will dare to intervene. The Pakistanis know this, so does the rest of the world. As a result, on one hand the democratic countries (USA, Europe, Israel, India) fight terrorism, while on the other hand "aid" goes to the millitary countries who support terrorism.
I think Pakistani educated people are as weary of terrorism as the rest of the world, but their corrupt leadership survive and thrive on state sponsored terrorism.

 

[Crusader53]

like what? Rest of the world? If the US protects Pakistan, no one will dare to intervene. The Pakistanis know this, so does the rest of the world. As a result, on one hand the democratic countries (USA, Europe, Israel, India) fight terrorism, while on the other hand "aid" goes to the millitary countries who support terrorism.
I think Pakistani educated people are as weary of terrorism as the rest of the world, but their corrupt leadership survive and thrive on state sponsored terrorism.

Well, you would think most Pakistanis would be weary of Terrorism. Yet, many in the US are beginning to wonder of Pakistan resolve. As the Government and it's Military is so corrupt many are pushing for the US to distance itself from Pakistan. (which it is)

Let's also not forget the Relationship between Pakistan and China. No wonder the US and India are moving closer by the day.

 

[civfanatic]

Well, you would think most Pakistanis would be weary of Terrorism. Yet, many in the US are beginning to wonder of Pakistan resolve. As the Government and it's Military is so corrupt many are pushing for the US to distance itself from Pakistan. (which it is)

When have the opinions of common Americans mattered in shaping American foreign policy?

American support to Pakistan will end when Pentagon planners decide that Pakistan is no longer worth supporting, not when the common American decides to hate Pakistan.

And at present, it doesn't seem like the U.S. will let go of Pakistan anytime soon.

Let's also not forget the Relationship between Pakistan and China. No wonder the US and India are moving closer by the day.

India is moving closer to U.S. because we want access to U.S. technology (which no other country can provide), as well as the economic benefits that come with it.

Regardless, U.S. and India are hardly "allies" and can barely even be considered "friends".

If you want to be India's "friend", you can begin by ending all aid to Pakistan, publicly denouncing the Pakistani states's support for terrorism, and supporting India on Kashmir.

Or, even better, invade Pakistan and destroy its terrorist infrastructure so we don't have to do the work

 

[Crusader53]

When have the opinions of common Americans mattered in shaping American foreign policy?

American support to Pakistan will end when Pentagon planners decide that Pakistan is no longer worth supporting, not when the common American decides to hate Pakistan.

And at present, it doesn't seem like the U.S. will let go of Pakistan anytime soon.




India is moving closer to U.S. because we want access to U.S. technology (which no other country can provide), as well as the economic benefits that come with it.

Regardless, U.S. and India are hardly "allies" and can barely even be considered "friends".

If you want to be India's "friend", you can begin by ending all aid to Pakistan, publicly denouncing the Pakistani states's support for terrorism, and supporting India on Kashmir.

Or, even better, invade Pakistan and destroy its terrorist infrastructure so we don't have to do the work

Sorry, I doubt the vast majority of Indians agree with that position. Clearly, the Indian Government does not.

 

[mattster]

Unlikely because another word for align is puppet when other countries align themselves with usa.
Why doesn't usa stop backing pakistan and its "good" taliban and align itself with India ?

Well based on your analysis buddy - the UK, most of Western Europe(every Nato country), Canada, Israel, Australia and even Japan are all "US Puppets". I dont see anyone crossing the boundaries of these countries like Chinese who are crossing and humiliating Indian troops in the North-East every other month.

But more importantly I am always suprised by why Indians are so against US engagement in Pak.

Do you really think that the US is going to pour billions into Pakistan without having one foot on the neck of the Paki military.
It is the US that has taken the Jihadi fight away from the India-Pak border to the AF-Pak border. So what if a portion of the aid is used to by Pak army to target India. The benefits of having the US military kicking the Taliban ass inside and out of Pak far outweighs the negatives. An added bonus - it is turning the Jihadis against their own Pak military.

Isnt it sweet when your enemies kill each other without you having to lift a finger.

If I were the Indian citizen - I would be thankful that the US with its Predator drone strikes is keeping the Jihadis busy in AF-PAK. The longer the US remains in AF-Pak - the harder it is for the Pak State to engage in terrorist strikes against the rest of the world and that includes India.

Who do you think is going to fill the void in Afghanistan if the Taliban take over and the Karzai govt falls when the US leaves ??

I guess that is rocket science for some guys on this forum.

 

[nrj]

It is the US that has taken the Jihadi fight away from the India-Pak border to the AF-Pak border. So what if a portion of the aid is used to by Pak army to target India.

First sentence is contradictory at its best. Second line bills a big zero out of value of Indian Soldiers at border.
I'm amused! :emot0:

 

[Logan]

Clearly the wikileaks has shown what is what so we need to stop debating this topic as we know now that the US will not bother backing the ISI and it's counterparts as long as it keeps the Taliban's off USA's back,even if it knows full well that ISI manipulated the LeT terrorists who created the 26/111 rampage cause it's only obvious that why should the US cry over some Indian blood being spilled in the process as long as it's own nationals are safe.We don't hate US but clearly some policies are ambiguous in nature and not tustworthy.

 

[icecoolben]

frankly Australia is no more than africa with white people as it too a resource export dependent economy. They have depended on US & UK umbrella for security since their existence. U probably can find more cases to support F-22 raptor production in ausie air power forum,any cuts in orders sends shivers down their spine as US would have less to spare for Australian protection, they depend on US for all levels of hard power in dealing with other military powers both China and India. Australia literally gave up on developing naval capability when they decided to sell off their british supplied aircraft carriers. Depending on Australian cooperation is like running an economy with begging and stealing as enterpreneural activities.