The Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia Security Dialogue) : Updates and Discussions

There are other loose goupings which are possible though, like a "Five Eyes Plus One Against China" (with India being the Plus One).
There's already a Five Eyes Plus Against China, it's Five Eyes Plus Three, with France, Germany and Japan.
But the Five Eyes itself is far too special for India to be a part of.
I share that sentiment. As you said, the Five Eyes are a club of nations who say yes to everything America decides. The USA are a hegemon so their definition of ally is the same as the dictionary definition of vassal.

Now obviously I cannot claim to know India better than the Indians do, but my impression has been that since acquiring independence, India has desired nothing more than to remain independent and sovereign. Hence creating the Non-Aligned Movement to reject having to become a satellite of either Moscow or Washington, developing an independent nuclear deterrence capabilities, petitioning for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, and creating the system of "strategic partnerships" to eschew joining formal alliances. Those, to me, are the actions of a nation that would now want to become the vassal of a crumbling empire -- unless, through some cynical calculus, they figure the empire is crumbling enough that they can usurp the crown, but despite all the damage Trump's incompetent administration is doing, I don't think America is that ripe for replacement yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro
There's already a Five Eyes Plus Against China, it's Five Eyes Plus Three, with France, Germany and Japan.

Five Eyes Plus Four then. Or simply one where India replaces Germany.

I share that sentiment. As you said, the Five Eyes are a club of nations who say yes to everything America decides. The USA are a hegemon so their definition of ally is the same as the dictionary definition of vassal.

Now obviously I cannot claim to know India better than the Indians do, but my impression has been that since acquiring independence, India has desired nothing more than to remain independent and sovereign. Hence creating the Non-Aligned Movement to reject having to become a satellite of either Moscow or Washington, developing an independent nuclear deterrence capabilities, petitioning for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, and creating the system of "strategic partnerships" to eschew joining formal alliances. Those, to me, are the actions of a nation that would now want to become the vassal of a crumbling empire -- unless, through some cynical calculus, they figure the empire is crumbling enough that they can usurp the crown, but despite all the damage Trump's incompetent administration is doing, I don't think America is that ripe for replacement yet.

India's official policy is India is too big to choose a side. So India is its own side. India's gameplan is to buy time by cooperating with others until it can chart its own path independently. Possibly in the post 2030 world.

The problem with usurping the American throne would mean inheriting all their problems as well. India has no need to make such a choice when time is on its side.
 
Five Eyes Plus Four then. Or simply one where India replaces Germany.



India's official policy is India is too big to choose a side. So India is its own side. India's gameplan is to buy time by cooperating with others until it can chart its own path independently. Possibly in the post 2030 world.

The problem with usurping the American throne would mean inheriting all their problems as well. India has no need to make such a choice when time is on its side.

Would you still Believe this Hypothesis
When China has a 1000 SHIP NAVY

And when more than 50 ships and submarines are present from Andaman to Gwadar , playing a Cat and Mouse Game With Indian Navy
 
Would you still Believe this Hypothesis
When China has a 1000 SHIP NAVY

And when more than 50 ships and submarines are present from Andaman to Gwadar , playing a Cat and Mouse Game With Indian Navy

Even if they have a 1000-ship navy, the Chinese will find it very difficult to operate in the IOR without being able to control the skies, so they need carriers. And they also need SSNs. And they need enough to counter the USN and allies in the Pacific first, before being able to spare some against India. Lastly, ships don't have endless range and endurance, they need to resupply after a point, and the Chinese do not have any territory in the IOR on the Malacca side that they can use, their only option is Djibouti, all the way on the other side of the IOR. So geography is not in their favour. Not to mention, only the main warships can be used against India, so that 1000 will drop down drastically.

Geography is the main factor actually. It's like the movie 300, numbers can't be used against India if you can barely even enter the battlefield. They can't use Malacca, it's too well defended. So their main option will be Sunda. But the distance is extremely punishing to the point where they will need to send in supply ships with escorts quite frequently. Our submarine force and ship task forces can sink such supply convoys. So even if a carrier gets into the IOR, it will likely get stranded. Even a nuclear carrier will have escorts that need supplies. And all this without even having begun the fight. Regardless, it will take them a decade or more to get the kind of capability needed to successfully operate in the IOR without getting stranded and isolated. That's more than enough time for us to build up our own capabilities.
 
India has no need to make such a choice when time is on its side.
The thing is that time is also on China's side.

And in their rivalry against India, they have a headstart, industrially, economically and militarily. In the short term, they have a clear advantage against India. On the medium term, India may get a way to reclaim the advantage thanks to the effects of China's one-child policy, which will give China the same kind of demographic problem of the global north: an aging population. However, the demographic explosion of India is not necessarily an asset: having such a large population of young people can be a challenge to educate and integrate in the workforce, especially when many parts of India remain very poor and underdeveloped and automation is going to decimate the job market. And if you pay attention, China has invested a lot in artificial intelligence and other advanced automation technologies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro

Yes, Virginia, the Trump Administration Does Have a China Strategy​

On October 26, a week before the U.S. presidential election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper will begin two days of high-level talks in Delhi. In person.

That shouldn’t be a surprise. If one puts politics aside, and connects the many and varied dots, one can see that the U.S. administration has a clear China strategy that is well thought out, multifaceted, and based on a deep understanding of China. It even has a name.

But before getting to the administration’s strategy, we need to understand what it is designed to counter — China’s concept of Comprehensive National Power (CNP).

Comprehensive National Power

Diplomat Brief​

Comprehensive National Power is a dominant framework in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) view of the world. CCP think tanks and organizations use it to shape policies and gauge success.

The premise is that a nation’s Comprehensive National Power can be given a numerical value based on a specific but exceptionally wide range of factors, from military strength, to soft power, to access to natural resources, to advances in research and development, and much more.

Retired U.S. Coast Guard Captain Bernard Moreland — whose last posting was as U.S. Coast Guard liaison to Beijing — explains: “One of the important things to understand about CNP is that it is an objective metric. Beijing constantly calculates and recalculates China’s CNP relative to other nations the same way many of us watch our 401(k) grow. For us in the West, concepts like ‘national power’ are subjective vague concepts. The [Chinese Communist Party is] obsessed with engineering and calculating everything and believe that all issues can be reduced to numbers and algorithms. This is what they mean when they euphemistically refer to ‘scientific approaches.’”

The result is that any possible tactic – legal or otherwise – is considered fair game in serving the CCP’s goal of increasing China’s Comprehensive National Power. That includes using proxies and diversions to make counteractions more difficult.

In an October 21 article for Foreign Affairs, U.S. National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien detailed some of the many ways Beijing is trying to advance its CNP. They include intellectual property theft, co-opting international organization, using fishing boats for military action, hostage diplomacy, coercive economic policies, use and intimidation of Chinese nationals overseas to advance China’s interests, infiltrating and corrupting foreign education systems, debt traps, bribery, blurring the lines between state, commercial and military activities, and more. Much, much more.

Additionally, according to Comprehensive National Power logic, a country’s relative CNP can also increase if competitors drop down in the ranking. So, say the Chinese economy is going to be affected by an epidemic. It makes sense to not actively limit the disease’s spread so that it becomes a pandemic, and other countries are affected as well.

These actions – considered by many at least immoral if not illegal — are not aberrations. They are part of the CCP’s system. And for years the system has been working; China’s Comprehensive National Power has been increasing.

Comprehensive National Defense

This is where the Trump administration comes in. From early on, it was clear China was core concern. The administration’s December 2017 National Security Strategy called China a “revisionist power.” It explained that “China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor,” adding “A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place.”

In June 2019, the Department of Defense published the “Indo-Pacific Strategy Report: Preparedness, Partnerships and Promoting a Networked Region.” It opened with “The Indo-Pacific is the Department of Defense’s priority theater.” The reason: “the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, seeks to reorder the region to its advantage by leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce other nations.”

In November 2019, the Department of State published the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Advancing a Shared Vision” report, which wrote, “The People’s Republic of China (PRC) practices repression at home and abroad. Beijing is intolerant of dissent, aggressively controls media and civil society, and brutally suppresses ethnic and religious minorities. Such practices, which Beijing exports to other countries through its political and economic influence, undermine the conditions that have promoted stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific for decades.”

The Trump administration understands China. Still, as in many other countries, actions proposed by those concerned with defense, security, and intelligence were at times curtailed by those coming from the economic side, as has been seen by the slow movement on banning TikTok.

However, overall, beginning early in the term, and really gaining speed after COVID-19 muted some of the internal dissent that was still pushing for “engagement” with Beijing, the Trump administration set about countering China’s Comprehensive National Power with actions that incorporated reciprocity, whole-of-government efforts, economic levers, and more. It, in fact, put together elements of a Comprehensive National Defense.

While not perfect, or always consistent, many of the defensive actions were bold and smart – and many closed areas of access China never should have been allowed to develop in the first place.

According to Grant Newsham, retired U.S. Marine Colonel and former head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific:

The PRC’s trade cheating and intellectual property strong-arming and theft were well known for many years. Yet, the Trump administration was the first to take a systematic and forceful approach to the issue; pressuring China and trying to insert reciprocity into the trade relationship. This started shortly after Trump took office and despite resistance from Wall Street titans and certain business interests that were cozy with the PRC. Has Trump’s economic pushback on China been perfect? No. But he’s done more than anyone since China was allowed into WTO almost twenty years ago and allowed to play by its own rules.
In one specific example, U.S. funds invest billions in China, in spite of the financials of the companies being opaque, and the funds potentially going to Chinese military-linked companies actively working on technologies to undermine and attack the United States. After action by the president, the Thrift Savings Plan — which includes pensions of veterans — dropped a plan to invest tens of billions in China. This was the first time something like that happened.

There were myriad other firsts as well. Looking at CCP espionage, influence and interference activities in the U.S. alone, some of the administration’s publicly known countermeasures in just the last few months have been:

  • Closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston, reportedly a node for such operations.
  • Requiring senior PRC officials to obtain approval before visiting U.S. university campuses and meeting with local officials (this is reciprocity for Chinese regulations on U.S. officials).
  • Pompeo’s designating the center that manages the Confucius Institutes as “an entity advancing Beijing’s global propaganda and malign influence,” requiring it to register as a foreign mission.
  • Requiring multiple Chinese state-linked media organizations in the U.S. to register as “foreign missions” and share information on their U.S.-based employees with the government.
  • Arrests of Chinese researchers who lied about their links to the Chinese military in order to gain access to U.S. research labs. Additionally over 1,000 Chinese students deemed to have military links had their student visas revoked and prospective students from China are now required to show that they don’t have links to the Chinese military.
  • A Department of Justice crackdown, including arrests, of U.S.-based researchers illicitly participating in China’s “Talents” program that is “designed to attract, recruit and cultivate high-level scientific research” to advance Beijing’s CNP.
  • Guidance for immigration law that now makes it nearly impossible for members of a Communist Party to become U.S. permanent residents or citizens.
  • Requirements for U.S. think tanks to report if they have foreign funding.
Additionally, adds Newsham: “President Trump is also the first to have seriously tightened up on Chinese investment and acquisitions – to include of advanced technologies – in the USA. Trump has gone after Huawei and ZTE, major Chinese telecom companies that were both trade cheats, but also operate as extensions of Chinese intelligence surveillance.” Admittedly, there are still tensions within the administration, and hits and misses, so while ZTE issues remain to be fully addressed, the push against Huawei has been more effective.

Some close to the administration have even raised concerns about a potential GNC deal with Chinese-owned Harbin Pharmaceuticals as many of the company’s outlets (which require customers to provide substantial personal information) are near U.S. military bases and are popular with personnel. A Chinese parent company could gain access to a trove of sensitive information about military personal and activity via the purchase. They understand China so well, the administration knows that thanks to the mechanics of Comprehensive National Power, even the sale of a seemingly innocuous sports-oriented company is a national security concern.

There has been such widespread defensive action by this administration against China’s Comprehensive National Power it’s hard to keep track – especially given the obfuscating miasma of day-to-day political coverage. In case you missed them, other recent examples include: an Executive Order to secure U.S. supplies of critical minerals, an Executive Order on “Ensuring Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs Are Made in the United States,” an export ban involving semiconductors, and, after China passed its National Security Law, stripping Hong Kong of its special economic status

The rational for this whole-of-government, indeed whole-of-nation, Comprehensive National Defense was made explicit in an unprecedented series of coordinated top-level speeches in the summer of 2020. On June 24, U.S. National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien made a speech about the implications of CCP ideology. On July 7, FBI Director Christopher Wray spoke about CCP espionage, influence, and interference operations. On July 16, Attorney General William Barr spoke about CCP economic influence and intimidation. And on July 23, Pompeo spoke about “Communist China and the Free World’s Future” at the Nixon library, driving home the point that the engagement approach launched by Nixon — while well meaning — has failed, and it was time for a new approach.

A major component of that new approach brings us to the possible name of the administration’s underlying China strategy. Comprehensive National Defense is not enough, as China thrives off pressuring and picking off countries one by one – as it has been trying to do recently with its economic pressure on Australia and hostage blackmail with Canada.

Comprehensive Multinational Defense

What is required is what Moreland has termed Comprehensive Multinational Defense (CMD).

Since those first documents, the Trump administration has emphasized the importance of working with allies and partners, and adapting and building structures to underpin those relationships, allowing them to survive changes in governments. It was one of the reasons for the May 2018 change of the name of U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM), highlighting the importance of India to the region, and to U.S. strategy.

The work on relationship building in the Indo-Pacific has been consistent and extensive. The Quad (the United States, India, Japan, and Australia) was resurrected and recently held foreign minister-level meetings in Tokyo. It was important enough to be attended by Pompeo in person, even though the president had recently been diagnosed with COVID-19. And now, Australia has been added to the Malabar exercises, where the four militaries will work on interoperability in a public outing of the Quad that CCP strategic accountants must assume will take serious points off Beijing’s Comprehensive National Power numbers.

The United States has also backed the South China Sea claims of partners, increased engagement with ASEAN, upgraded the U.S.-Mekong Partnership, signed a defense cooperation deal with the Maldives (an important node in the Indian Ocean), sent a high level delegation to Taiwan, and more. Again, just in the last few months.

Apart from a range of high profile freedom of navigation operations, it has also been working on developing interoperability with partners. For example with India it held the first tri-service exercises, a U.S. Navy P-8 submarine-hunter was refueled at India’s Andaman and Nicobar islands, and an Indian warship was refueled by a U.S. Navy tanker in the Arabian Sea. This is apart from all the advances in information-sharing that are happening at a much quieter level.

And then there is the multi-billion dollar Pacific Deterrence Initiative wending its way through Congress with bipartisan support. The PDI is specifically designed to bolster the capabilities of and interoperability with allies and partners in the region. Additionally, there is substantial U.S. encouragement of like-minded countries in the region working together outside of the United States’ direct engagement, which has seen India and Japan, and India and Australia, sign logistics agreements, making operationalizing the Quad more seamless.

These are not small decisions and they don’t happen by accident. There have been lacunae, mistakes, and missteps, and there is a lot left to do, but if anyone doubts the seriousness with which the administration takes the building of a Comprehensive Multinational Defense, watch closely for big announcements about more foundational agreements during Pompeo and Esper’s visit to India. And, though it will likely be missed in the fog of election reporting, after India, Pompeo won’t head back to the United States – he will head to Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Indonesia to shore up even more ties with Indo-Pacific partners.

The administration, and its partners, want to institutionalize as many elements of Comprehensive Multinational Defense as possible so that it can weather any changes in government in any of the partners. This is because they know it is the only strategy that can counter the Chinese Communist Party’s relentless, brutal, “scientific approach” to resurrecting and expanding the reach of the Middle Kingdom’s Comprehensive National Power.

The strategy is clear, and focused, and likely the only thing that will work. Beijing knows it, which is why it is doing all is can to drive wedges in core elements like the Quad. Indo-Pacific allies and partners know it as well, and many are doing what they can to join and lead. It is starting to work. The only question is, will it continue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gautam
The thing is that time is also on China's side.

And in their rivalry against India, they have a headstart, industrially, economically and militarily. In the short term, they have a clear advantage against India. On the medium term, India may get a way to reclaim the advantage thanks to the effects of China's one-child policy, which will give China the same kind of demographic problem of the global north: an aging population. However, the demographic explosion of India is not necessarily an asset: having such a large population of young people can be a challenge to educate and integrate in the workforce, especially when many parts of India remain very poor and underdeveloped and automation is going to decimate the job market. And if you pay attention, China has invested a lot in artificial intelligence and other advanced automation technologies.

Both have a mix of advantages and disadvantages. Time is on China's side as well, but they also have to deal with the US and Europe, India doesn't.

While China's population is a disadvantage, India's can be either. If the population gets an education, then it's a massive advantage. Automation and AI may take time to take effect in a country like India due to how cheap the labour is. And India does have an elaborate plan to upskill the population.
 
ElUKXgVVMAAPZQh

ElUOO_ZVcAAHOaX.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN
@STEPHEN COHEN @Saaho @Lolwa @Hydra

India has said it would like to go alone in tackling China, but some amount of cooperation and assistance would be discussed.

There, that's the official Indian stand on the matter.

India's unlikely to ever get into an alliance game with others. But strategic partnerships and cooperation will be pursued.
 
@STEPHEN COHEN @Saaho @Lolwa @Hydra

India has said it would like to go alone in tackling China, but some amount of cooperation and assistance would be discussed.

There, that's the official Indian stand on the matter.

India's unlikely to ever get into an alliance game with others. But strategic partnerships and cooperation will be pursued.
Obviously that was expected. Alliance is still a long way to go...
 
Obviously that was expected. Alliance is still a long way to go...

If it's expected in the future, then that's not the way to go about it. Rather you would have to start building a narrative towards it instead of saying we want to go alone. Can't just go "We change our minds" when it comes to these things.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Volcano
If it's expected in the future, then that's not the way to go about it. Rather you would have to start building a narrative towards it instead of saying we want to go alone. Can't just go "We change our minds" when it comes to these things.
Well Indian diplomacy is quite erratic when it comes on ground results. I very well expect a "we change our minds and give us your weapons" when reality will hit them. But I feel these open ended statements are alright for now. We should atleast wait for the 2020 elections to see if an alliance with the Muricans is actually viable or it's another hogwash. If Biden comes to power I hope we stay out of any alliance with the Americans...
 
What India will really get out of BECA agreement ? Can somebody explain in layman terms ?

We get better quality access to their GPS data basically. We get access to more accurate maps, so the quality of the targeting data is superior. It means our missiles and UCAVs will be more accurate when killing stuff.
 
Well Indian diplomacy is quite erratic when it comes on ground results. I very well expect a "we change our minds and give us your weapons" when reality will hit them. But I feel these open ended statements are alright for now. We should atleast wait for the 2020 elections to see if an alliance with the Muricans is actually viable or it's another hogwash. If Biden comes to power I hope we stay out of any alliance with the Americans...

Biden isn't good for anybody but China. Regardless, alliances aren't made based on who is in power. India has bipartisan support and any potential alliance structure will be handled by the bureaucracy rather than the politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa
India has said it would like to go alone in tackling China, but some amount of cooperation and assistance would be discussed.

There, that's the official Indian stand on the matter.

India's unlikely to ever get into an alliance game with others. But strategic partnerships and cooperation will be pursued.
Either there is going to be covert treaties or India will fail miserably as it is failing at keeping Chinese threat under control.

As I always believed, the faces in parliament have very little to do with morons in South Block. Indian bureaucracy fails it big time. Say good bye to Ladakh.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Shaktimaan
The American left is very strongly pro-Muslim and therefore anti-India. They'll side with Pakistan and therefore China.
American left is pro-nothing. The cann't be pro-anything. There is a fundamental reason behind it.

Democrats are basically what they call a "big-tent" party. That means they cann't publically take strong pro-positions on anything besides the usual fluff. So, they are essentially pro-all and pro-none just because they need support from anywhere and everywhere in elections. They are pro-black, they are pro-immigrants, they are pro-muslims, they are pro-latinos, they are pro-browns etc etc etc.

They are doing what Mulayam does/used to do in UP (M-Y politics), just at a larger scale. They don't have a big white base like Republicans so they stitch a base out of many small groups and hence they are pro-anything and pro-nothing.

However all of above are their election image. When it comes to strategic issues, they are pro-money and pro-MIC, just like all other politicians in USA.
 
We get better quality access to their GPS data basically. We get access to more accurate maps, so the quality of the targeting data is superior. It means our missiles and UCAVs will be more accurate when killing stuff.
Yeah I suppose we need their GPS data and get addicted to it. Then it will be back to kargil days when some incident takes place.
We need to continue developing our NavIC system.