- India’s rise as a global power highly likely, says Alyssa Ayres
- Think Again: India’s Rise – Foreign Policy
- Indispensable India
- The U.S. helped prevent war in 2008. Those days are gone.
Topics: Imperialism. In March , U.
A significant share of this would have to be imported from the United States. Any drawn-out intervention abroad would require even greater infrastructure, which India lacks. In fact, even the European Union countries are not equipped with the infrastructure for sustained projection of military force independent of the United States. This was demonstrated during the Balkans crisis, when they were forced at last to turn to the United States to intervene.
The second reason for the United States to promote Indian ambitions is that it suits U. This is spelled out with brutal candor in at least three important U. The first is a report commissioned by the U. Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions. The report is based on interviews with forty-two key Americans, including twenty-three active military officers, fifteen government officials, and four others; as well as with ten active Indian military officers, five Indian government officials, several members of the National Security Council, and outside experts advising the Indian government.
The second source is the writings of Ashley J.
Tellis, a former aide to Robert Blackwill during —03 when Blackwill was ambassador to India; he is considered at the moment a key U. Army War College, Natural Allies? The context for these studies is the situation of U. On the face of it, it would appear that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States faces no serious challenge to its global hegemony. Its military expenditures are half of world military spending; around 3.
- Guide to Java: A Concise Introduction to Programming.
- Productos inspirados en tendencias decorativas para cada estilo.?
- India’s Rise as a Great Power, Part One: Regional and Global Implications.
- Cognition and Chance: The Psychology of Probabilistic Reasoning?
- Psychology, 4th Edition.
- Soft Computing for Knowledge Discovery: Introducing Cartesian Granule Features!
The United States is the only country with the infrastructure and forces to project military force over long distances, and thus to fight sustained wars abroad, as it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan at present. Countries such as France and Britain are able to mount relatively small intervention forces to carry out operations against second-rate forces in, say, Africa. Yet it is economic power that ultimately sustains military power, and U. The U.
No doubt the U. An increasing share of goods and services are imported.see
India’s rise as a global power highly likely, says Alyssa Ayres
Thus the U. The figure for will be much higher. The giant U. However, this game cannot continue endlessly, as the debt would have to be serviced by larger and larger shares of the U. International investors and central banks are aware of this, and they are contemplating shifting their investments elsewhere. If this were to happen, the U. It can also challenge potential rivals in an arms race such that it can undermine their economies.
However, U. First, it must cover the whole globe and check resistance anywhere, for its supremacy rests precisely on the inability of any power to defy it; it is in a state of permanent war. Indeed, precisely because it intervenes everywhere to protect its supremacy, it is the number one target of anti-imperialist forces around the world. Second, while the U. The earlier liberation of Vietnam and the current Iraqi resistance have proved this amply.
In such cases its only hope lies in the manipulation of ethnic tensions. Third, one of the legacies of the great Vietnamese struggle is that the U. The United States may indeed finally institute conscription, but it would have to pay a heavy political price internally for doing so. It is in order to maintain its hegemony over diverse and shifting potential adversaries that the United States has set up a vast network of military bases.
Think Again: India’s Rise – Foreign Policy
The proliferation of new bases has spread U. We need to be able to do that whole range of military operations from combat to peacekeeping anywhere in the world pretty quickly. So the military wants a range of basing and access agreements with as many countries as possible and in as many regions as it can. Feith said the Pentagon wants to avoid the kind of environmental or political constraints that have limited U. War College study, which draws on discussions its author had with representatives of different military services at the U. Pacific Command, states bluntly:. We need tangible Indian support because our strategic interests and objectives are global, while the military and other means at our disposal to pursue them are not keeping pace….
American force posture remains dangerously thin in the arc—many thousand miles long—between Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Okinawa and Guam in the Pacific…. Distances in the Asian theater are vast, and the density of U. Moreover, the U. The QDR, therefore, identifies the necessity of securing additional access and infrastructure agreements…. India is the optimal choice…. The US Navy wants a relatively neutral territory on the opposite side of the world that can provide ports and support for operations in the Middle East.
India not only has a good infrastructure, the Indian Navy has proved that it can fix and fuel US ships. Over time, port visits must become a natural event. India is a viable player in supporting all naval missions, including escorting and responding to regional crises. India has already provided port facilities for U. Moreover, it has given the green signal for the United States to use Sri Lankan bases:. In return, Washington successfully pressured the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka to persevere in peace talks with the Sri Lankan government….
Moreover, at the moment, US ships and planes now enjoy a case-by-case access to Indian bases. Before that point, a U. Navy ship visited India approximately every three years; now, according to U. Pacific Command officers, there are regular trips. Before September 11, the Indian government would not allow U. The United States needs not only Indian facilities, but the services of the Indian armed forces themselves. According to Ashley Tellis, their role would be lowly, but useful to the United States:. But as its capabilities grow, so will its influence even if it is limited.
And that influence can help advance shared bilateral interests if relations with New Delhi are adroitly managed. In such circumstances, Indian resources could help to ease US operational burdens…. In those areas, great power interests are neither obvious nor vital.
Consequently, their incentives to enforce certain preferred outcomes unilaterally are poor. In such circumstances rising powers like India can make a difference because their substantial, though still not dominant, capabilities can swing the balance in favor of one coalition or another…. Cooperation between the two navies took off after the September 11, , incidents in the United States. For six months the Indian Navy undertook joint patrols with the U. Navy to escort commercial ships and patrol the busy sea lane running from the North Arabian Sea to the Malacca Straits.
That episode set a useful precedent. Exercises are conducted out of sight, with no US troops on the ground in India. Note that there is no mention of the United Nations; these operations will evidently not be carried out even nominally under its banner.
The U.S. helped prevent war in 2008. Those days are gone.
This is part of the systematic U. The PSI is not a treaty or an organization, but an informal coordination among a group of states, without binding terms or regulations, under the banner of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction WMDs. During the operation of the sanctions regime against Iraq — , Iraq was prevented at one point from importing pencils on the grounds that they contained graphite, which could be used in weapons manufacture. At their own initiative, and without the sanction of international law, the PSI participants may board and search any vessel in their waters or even on the high seas i.
The traditional Chinese system as a hierarchy was in contrast to the Westphalian principles and could not automatically transform into modern discursive power Wang, Yiwei, Unable to construct an alternative order, China has insisted on the Westphalian principles, which looked attractive to many countries in an era of intense interventionism by the US that often ended in chaos and chronic instability within those countries affected.
One reporter took a note that at the 60th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, the meeting that gave birth to the Five-Principles of non-intervention, only two notable leaders bothered to turn up. One was President Xi, who used the occasion to portray China as the well-meaning leader of the non-western world. The other was Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who suggested that the threat to the sovereignty of smaller countries no longer came from the west Bowring, Philip, Second, even in the Asia Pacific region, achieving dominance cannot be a serious Chinese objective because of the presence and influence of the US, Japan, and other regional powers.
While China is rising, many surrounding states are also on the rise. The 21st century has seen a multipolarity rather than Chinese hegemony in the region. In East Asia, the old rule that economics determines politics lost effectiveness because nearly all these countries closely worked with China economically but aligned with the US in security and politics and welcomed and even invited the US to balances the growth of Chinese power Yang, Zhizhen, Historically, to bandwagon with a rising power is common practice due to potentially great relative gains.
The most successful rising powers have been precisely the ones that have attracted the greatest number of bandwagoners Schweller, Randall, China cannot rise successfully without winning the support of its neighbors or at least preempt their balancing motives. Third, China has benefited and continues benefiting from the Post-WWII order underpinning stability and economic growth in the world and the region. Residing in a neighborhood with complicated power competition and historical animosities, Chinese leaders have to be measured and judicious.
It is the erosion of Asia, at least as an idea, as rivalries within geographic Asia overtake the notion of regional cohesion that once bound these countries together. China often expresses concern over the US—Japan alliance. Yet the alliance is part of the regional security architecture that has underpinned the stability in East Asia and prevented a potential remilitarization of Japan. Fourth, facing immense internal huddles in its rise, China is a fragile rising power with profound internal causes of concerns that have the potential to derail its rise.
The era of superior Chinese economic performance is over, exacerbated by the environmental destruction, rampant corruption, a growing gulf between rich and poor, huge local government debt, and looming demographic challenges that are worsened by the fact that it would be the first country to get old before it gets rich. To ensure its further rise, China must put its own house in order first. As a result, although the rise of China has caused concerns in the US and other parts of the world that China is to assert itself in its region and further afield and become a revolutionary power to undermine the existing world order, China is still abided largely by the established rules of the world order, engaging in reforms to revise rather than rewrite the norms and principles.
The differences between China and the US are not primarily over the principles of the world order but whether China has obtained the prestige and position of authority commemorating with its rising power status. China and may remain so if it is given more room as a rule-maker, in conjunction with the other powers, to reform the existing order, better reflecting its enhanced power and interests.