One of the landmark events of direct relevance to the difficult situation prevailing in South-East Asia (sea) region and the Indian ocean (RIO), was the statement at the beginning of March the head of the largest in the armed forces of the U.S. Pacific command (USPACOM) Admiral Harry Harris. Notable under the heading “let’s combine our ambitions” it took place during the holding in the capital of India Delhi the first conference “Dialogue Raisina” (Raisina Dialogue).
Organized by the Observer Research Foundation “Dialogue Raisina” is conceived as a new field (type “Dialogue Shangri-La” in Singapore, patronized the London International Institute of strategic studies, which will now be regularly (probably once a year, as “Dialogue of Shangri-La”) to operate under the auspices of the foreign Ministry of India. On this site we will discuss the various political and economic problems, mainly in the Asia-Pacific region (in the “extended” interpretation of this political and geographical concepts, that is, with the inclusion of the RIA).
Expressing “sincere admiration for the people of India, its culture and cuisine,” Admiral H. Harris reproduced the popular USA meme about “the world’s two major democracies that foster security and prosperity in the region”.
He drew particular attention to the almost synchronicity of two trends, namely: the “pivot” in the Asia-Pacific region’s key foreign policy interests of the United States and strengthening India look East policy (Look East Policy), which has been observed since the coming to power of the Narendra modi government. And visible “leadership characteristics” of both the initiators of these trends. All this gave the speaker sufficient basis to call for “joint advance”, which, however, has been “fast enough”.
Meanwhile, the acceleration of the mentioned “movement” is necessary, primarily, for the purpose of “guaranteeing the freedom and openness of sea lines of communication, which is critical to global trade and prosperity. This is the cornerstone of a rules-based international order and principles, in the maintenance which we can’t show hesitation”.
In fact, in the last phrases of H. Harris accurately reflected as the main problem of General displacement in the Asia-Pacific region of the centre of gravity of the new global game and the US ‘ vision of their own (as well as their existing and potential allies) role in their decision.
It should be noted that the process mentioned displacement, the main “axis” of the struggle of the main participants of the new game, her role in the USA and its allies were the subject of discussions in the expert community in the first half of the last decade.
But in the form of more or less established concepts of these points are reflected in 2007 in the famous thesis Shinzo Abe (then first time holding a post of the Prime Minister of Japan) on “arc of instability” that threatens the interests of “democratic countries”, which is bordered from the South Asian mainland.
Even then, commentators have drawn attention to the fact that the indicated Abe “arc” suspiciously coincided exactly with one of the world’s traffic of delivery of hydrocarbons from the Persian Gulf to India, China, Japan and other Asian countries. Control over its functioning has gained importance almost the main trump card in the new global game with the participation of leading world powers.
The development of the concept of Abe was the so-called “four Initiative” of 2007, when on the sidelines of the next ASEAN forum on security, the Ministers of defense of the USA, Japan, India and Australia has offered to form something like an “Asian NATO”. This proposal was supported by the joint naval exercises (involving also the CPA of Singapore), which in that year became the annual us-India “exercise Malabar”.
In response to sharp protests from China, “the Initiative of four” was forgotten for ten years, Australia has ceased to participate in these exercises, and Japan took part in them in some years.
Obvious attempt to revive “the Initiative of four” and 2007 was the performance of H. Harris, in which special attention was paid to India is a “critical element” of the activities entrusted to him the command.
For the last passage in H. Harris is the reason. They were caused by the General policy of Washington to the dramatic rise in significance in India’s policy “pivot” towards the Asia-Pacific region, and the fact of entering two thirds of the Indian ocean in the USPACOM area of responsibility.
H. Harris, however, did not limit India’s most preferred partners in the implementation of American policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Citing growing comprehensive contacts of India with Japan and Australia (i.e. two American allies de jure), he advocated “the extension of this trilateral configuration to a four-sided” by incorporating the latest in USA.
Not ruled out accession, and other “small countries”. Including those who “through blackmail and violence turn up some [larger] countries” in the region.
One of the main tasks of future military-political (quasi)Union H. Harris believes the sharing of national VMS “to ensure the economic interests” of the participating countries. The main component of these interests he was bound (as the authors of “the four Initiatives” 2007) with the smooth operation of the above-mentioned traffic “passing through the Indian ocean and the South China sea”.
But the reference made by the speaker on the South China sea was forced to thinking his Indian listeners. Because the idea of revitalizing Indian Navy in the South China sea (under the Look East Policy) has long been discussed and in India itself. In particular, it calls on Delhi Vietnam is today probably the main political and economic partner of India among Southeast Asian countries.
But the main reason restrained until the response of the Indian leadership on such calls is a clear awareness of the very real prospects of direct military-political confrontation with China, considering almost all the space of the South China sea its national territory. The Beijing declares the readiness of providing the necessary guarantees to ensure the “freedom of navigation” (which supposedly is so worried about Washington, DC) on passing through the South China sea trade routes.
Notable was the statement by the defense Minister of India Manohar Parrikar made the next day after the speech, H. Harris. It consisted of two main provisions. First, M. Parrikar said that “at the present time, as before, the issue of joint patrolling in the Asia-Pacific region” for the Indian Navy is not relevant.
Here draw attention to the words “currently” and “the Pacific”. The latter, apparently, was understood in a “narrow” interpretation, that is, without the inclusion of the Indian ocean region. In other words, the Indian Navy will not (yet) participate in joint naval patrols in the South China sea. The very same that prospect, according to M. Parrikar, like any other, must be “carefully considered”.
The second provision of his statements boiled down to a clear reaffirmation of India’s intention to continue to participate in U.S.-Indian naval exercise “Malabar”.
In General, the content of the speech of the Minister of defence India new Delhi reflects the contradictory policy toward China. It comes down to attempting to reconcile the (increasingly difficult to reconcile) its components such as the desire to develop mutually beneficial economic relations and growing fears in connection with the strengthening of military components of national power of the PRC.
As for the prospects of connecting Japan and Australia to a new edition of “the four Initiatives” in 2007, proposed this time by the head of USPACOM, Tokyo is unlikely to encounter any problems. While refraining from any large-scale military activity in the South China sea and RIO alone, Japan could become a party to a collective of events.
This will contribute to the comprehensive development of Japan’s relations with India, which will accelerate after the meeting the Prime Ministers of both countries held in new Delhi in December 2015, One of the points adopted the Joint statement is the agreement on a permanent now Japan’s participation in the exercise “Malabar”.
For reasons that were previously considered in the IEE, it is difficult to say something definite about the position of Australia, if the performance of H. Harris in Delhi will have any practical consequences in terms of the formation of at least the prototype of an “Asian NATO”. The Minister of defence of Maris Payne spoke on this topic in a very evasive, stating only that “[Australian] doors for consultation with close partners opened”.
As mentioned H. Harris “snooty” country, which he sees as a threat to “freedom of navigation”, the target received a message of high American military commander. In the Chinese foreign Ministry has limited itself to the expression of the hope that is scheduled for 2016 trilateral exercise “Malabar” in the waters “North of the Philippines” will not threaten the interests of “third countries”.
Editorial Global Times on the same subject, also soaked in enough moderate, stated, first, the important role of H. Harris and American diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the duality of his personal position on the place and role of China in the Asia-Pacific region in General and SCS in particular.
In the conditions of growing tension in almost the entire space surrounding China, such restraint on the challenges from its main geopolitical opponent, it seems Beijing is still the only possible form of response.
