Why The US Needs A Base In Australia?

South China Sea (SCS) dispute has become an epicenter for many reshuffles in strategic thinking and regional politics. This dispute has been continuing to be a dominating factor in defining intra and inter regional relationship between South Asia and South East Asian nations, for couple of months. The US has forwarded its hands of assistance towards the SCS littoral states in opposition to China. India’s involvement with direct governmental presence in that region has added a new dimension. Now it is widely assumed that China’s supremacy, not only as a regional but also as a global power, will be tested with that dispute. Recent move from Washington to establish an air base in North Australia, in the name securing the US’s interest in Pacific region, can be taken as a clear act of provocation against China. The deployment will start in mid-2012, company-size rotations of 200 to 250 Marines near Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. President Barack Obama has announced an enhanced security agreement with Australia providing up to 2,500 military personnel to be stationed in the country in the coming years. At the same time, in the Philippines, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a declaration reaffirming a longstanding mutual defense treaty between the two countries. China has already questioned the value of Washington's plan to strengthen military cooperation with Australia and updating its defense treaty with the Philippines. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin called for discussions about the boosting of American troop deployment in East Asia, questioning just how cooperation would benefit the international community.

Now let us look back. Just few months ago, US president declared to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan in a gradual process. The timeline for the withdrawal are- 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a “steady pace” through 2013-14. And there in Australia it has a plan to increase deployment from 250 in 2011 to 2500 in 2012. In one of my published articles, ‘Afghanistan troops pull out and South China Sea dispute’, I told that there was a invisible link between US decision of pulling out troops from Afghanistan and strategic developments in greater Asia. US strategists are finding it more useful to concentrate elsewhere than Afghanistan. Mark Thompson wrote in ‘Time’ magazine that like a geopolitical seesaw, the U.S. military is tilting its forces away from Europe to the Pacific, where they will serve to calm regional fears about China's growing military might. Beijing has been poking around the South China Sea in recent years. More than $6 trillion in goods ships through the sea annually, and the U.S. and its allies want to ensure its hold on open navigation rather than letting it a Chinese lake. So now it is very much apparent that US’s security paradigm is revolving around ‘China strategy’. In my article I claimed that strategists of the US might find it more important to make strong foothold in South Asia or South East Asia to dissolve China’s prowess in that region and utilizing present turmoil centering the SCS. In the present context we have seen that the US’s decision to establish a new marine base in Northern Australia is a deliberate decision to offset China’s hegemony in the Asia Pacific. This decision has given US an opportunity to explain it in multidimensional ways. Though the Obama administration is proclaiming that the decision is taken for their security purpose but, in fact, at the end, this base would be built with a clear intention against China.

But Chinas strategists did not misinterpret the situations. China knows it very well that though it is a leader in global economy but still lagging much far behind from the US as per as military capability is concerned. The US move to Australia would prompt China to concentrate in the region of Asia Pacific. Probably this time China would try to upgrade its naval power more, than any other military options. Because it is highly assumed that Chinese navy is substandard in comparison to that of the US, Russia or even India. And as per as SCS dispute is concerned naval power is going to be one of the crucial factors. So as a ‘would be supper power’ it is highly expected that China will concentrate in that particular area for upgrading.

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on this day.

Palestinian bid: The harsh realities

In the twenty first century international relations, one truth has become more phenomenal -- states are getting divided into smaller parts in the quest of gaining the right of self determination and self independence. In many aspects ‘two states solution’ has become an automatic choice. This truth, in the recent past, is apparent for South Sudan and now many leaders are considering for ‘New Libya’ and Iraq to bring an end to protracted inter-ethnic conflicts. Now ‘two states solution’ will turn into remarkable ‘panacea’ if Palestine gets recognition of statehood in the ongoing UN summit. Senior members of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) went to the Security Council. Senior members of the PLO said that they would go to the Security Council beside General Assembly to achieve their goal. The bid was opposed by Israel and the United States, with the latter threatening to veto any bid for full UN membership of Palestine.

Background of this bid

Why this bold step was taken this time, though belatedly? Many regional developments which were weakening Israel’s position and support in Middle East might have encouraged Palestine to go for the bid. Israel’s one of the most valuable friends in Europe and Middle East, Turkey has shown its back side. In recent past, both countries’ relationship status downgraded to the lowest rung. Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador, just a few weeks back. Turkish Premier Recap Tayyip Erdogan gave a rousing speech to Arab foreign ministers in Cairo last week, declaring support for Palestinian state. On the other hand, recent Middle East developments have placed the US in an acid test like situation. In this circumstance, the US could not play double role. If the US does not support Palestine cause, it will worsen more its ever bad image in the Middle East. So, Palestine authority was expecting that there could be a miracle in its way. But the reality is totally different as we know the strong Israeli lobby within America would never allow letting it. But many prominent citizens within Europe and even the US have also spoken up. Former Finnish President and Nobel Laureate Martti Ahtisaari and the European Commission’s former foreign policy Chief Javier Solana published an article on ten reasons why European countries should vote in favour of the Palestinians in the UN.

Harsh realities

This Palestinian move has raised a range of questions from optimism to skepticism. Many are skeptical of the move, and several questions remain unanswered. Will it bring an end to the Israeli occupation? Will it alter the US’ diplomatic role in the region? Will it get Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table? Or will it inspire a grassroots Palestinian mobilisation? Experts on international affairs and legal affairs have found many potholes in this move. Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and writer in the US, says that one of the greatest concerns and the reason that the statehood bid has created polarisation in the Palestinian community has been that it is not clear what the objective of the statehood bid by the PLO is. There was no PLO meeting to go to the UN; it was just an executive decision by the president to go through with statehood. Hassan Jabareen, a legal expert of Palestinian citizens in Israel, denoted the legal side. He found the inevitable and impending conflict between the recent bid for one state solution and the previous UN Resolution 181 of 1947 which asked for two state solutions. Despite the fact that the Arabs were against the resolution, it formed the legal basis for Israel as a sovereign state. Now Palestine would seek the demarcation according to 1967 resolution.

Going to the UN, by the Palestinians would make more sense as step one in a multi-pronged strategy to bring about a national achievement. The only viable Palestinian path to full UN membership is via the Security Council, and that route is blocked by the certainty of a US veto. Failure at the Security Council may itself be a drawn-out process. The bid for statehood is not changing anything on the ground, but in the international arena. It will change the terms of the debate and tilt the balance of power internationally against Israel and in favour of Palestinians. It is mainly a symbolic act. It will change the dynamics in a very symbolic way.

So it is clear that the realities are very much cruel for the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle is that it does not have any reliable friend in the permanent Security Council. But the helpless Palestinians can hope for some political gains, at least. If it could manage the US by hook or by crook, the result could have been positive. But at the end I think this decision of going UN is a bold step and will work as a moral boost for its future gain.

The writer is a member of fairbd.net group.

India Looks Beyond South Asia

“India's leadership has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific... and we encourage you not just to look east, but continue to engage and act east as well."

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State, USA

US-India Strategic Dialogue, 2oth July, 2011, Chennai, India.

This year, Hillary Clinton made some high remarks regarding India’s leadership in South Asia and beyond during her last India tour. At a strategic dialogue between India and the US, held in Chennai, Hillary made a clear indication that her country wants to see India as a leader within a vast region, ranging from South Asia to Asia pacific including Central Asia.  In recent past, some significant developments in South Asia and South East Asian strategic landscapes are now proving that Hillary’s speech has far reaching impacts. Developments in the regional politics include the recent visits of the heads of the governments from Vietnam and Myanmar to India; India’s footprint in, probably, the most sensitive area in the world at this moment- South China Sea (SCS). All these developments placed us in a situation where we get an opportunity to explore the possible unseen links between Hillary’s speech and regional political developments.

Last month, Vietnamese president Trung Tan Sang paid four-day visit to India, aimed at deepening ties between two countries. Six agreements were signed after Sang met Indian premier Manmohan Singh. Among those agreements the most noteworthy of which regards oil and gas exploration by an Indian state owned company, ONGC Vindesh, in waters disputed by Vietnam and China in the SCS. Chinese criticism regarding the Indian exploration plans, already voiced last August this year, when Indian external minister SM Krishna visited Hanoi and announced that India would go ahead with operations notwithstanding China’s opposition. It is relevant here to mention that Vietnam and India enjoy mutual strategic interests as per as common threat perception from China is concerned.  

In the same month, Myanmar’s president, retired General Thien Sien, also visited New Delhi for four days in a bid to increase trade and cooperation, especially in energy sector. Since Myanmar has important energy resources in abundance, both India and China have been eyeing to buy those to meet their growing domestic energy demands. In the immediate pasts Myanmar’s energy resources had been under China’s sole occupation. Presuming Myanmar’s strategic importances, India started to develop relationship with that authoritarian country in the first half of 1990s.  Policy towards Myanmar was initiated under India’s broader policy towards South East Asia- “Look East Policy”. Though India is the largest democracy in the world, but it doesn’t hesitate to establish relationship with the world’s most repressive-captive-despotic state, Myanmar. India’s this contradictory stance is termed as ‘U-turn from idealism to realism’. Relations between Myanmar and India have been growing in the past few years. Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam visited Myanmar in 2006 and two years later, Vice-President Shri M.Hamid Ansari paid an official visit to the country in 2009. Reciprocally, Myanmar's former leader Senior-General Than Shwe, and many high officials visited India between 2008 and 2010. Myanmar-India bilateral trade reached 1.071 billion U.S. dollars in 2010-11 and India stood as Myanmar's fourth largest trading partner after Thailand, Singapore and China, according to official statistics. This year India promised Myanmar that it would lend $500 million in credit for a variety of infrastructure projects. Moreover, both countries discussed border security issues, a major concern for New Delhi, as insurgents groups from its northeast have set up camps along the frontier with Myanmar.

The recent developments can be analyzed in two dichotomized perspectives. One perspective claims that those regional developments mainly taking place because of concerted effort from India and USA.  But another point of view claims that South East Asian states are anchoring on Indian shore because they are tormented by China’s belligerent policies. If we enter deeper into those incidences then we will see that there is a ‘balancing game’ working in whole regional politics. Focusing primarily on the economic ties in the beginning, India and its South East Asian counterparts have increasingly expended the scope of cooperation to include other issues, such as defense and security. For South Asian states, an eastward looking India provides an array of opportunities, and is especially useful for balancing Chinese influence in the political, economic and defense realm in the region. For example- in the aspect of Myanmar, the seesaw is characterizing Myanmar's relations with its principal ally, China. During Thein Sein's visit to Beijing in May, the two countries decided to proclaim "a comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership". Recently, however, Myanmar's decision to suspend the construction of the Myistone dam in the northern Kachin state, a project meant to supply electricity to China which was being executed by a Chinese corporation with massive Chinese investment, has caused substantial tensions. For Vietnam, she is upset with China’s illegal claims in SCS. Now these states are optioning India to replace China, as much as possible.

Another thing- the existing bonhomie relationship between two global powers, US and India, is instigating South East Asian states to strengthen more their existing relationship with India. So it is very much apparent that many political developments in South East Asia are coming on India’s way. Now retrospect the Hillary’s last India tour and remember her ambitions concerning India. Now the US wants to fish in the troubled water of SCS. Probably India will give the proxy for the US. And Vietnam will be the stronghold for the US in South East Asia which it assumes as much as good friend as England in Europe. On the question of SCS dispute the US is giving strong support to many SCS littoral states including Vietnam with both moral and materials. India’s approval of off-shore exploration for oil and gas in SCS by its state owned company, a clear defiance against China, was mainly propelled by the US. Now in the South East Asia and SCS region China has to face India first before the US.         

This article was first appeared on the Daily Star on 12th November, 2011.