Obama masked his recent trip to India behind economics yet the trip was of massive strategic significance. by James Luko
(centrist)
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The pundits, media and bloggers have missed the "strategic point" of Obama's BIG visit to India.
In this past year and growing in recent months, China has been flexing its muscles and pushing around key regional strategic allies in Asia; Japan, Taiwan and Korea (as well as warning off American surveillance craft in the area of China's Hainan Island- home of China's secret submarine base).
Obama's visit is not about distracting from the mid-term defeats (since the India trip was planned long before the mid-term elections) nor drumming up business for America. The visit is clearly a visit akin to Nixon's visit to China in 1972; which was a strategic re-alignment, containment and counter-strategy to the then Soviet Union.
The idea that President Obama would make such a monumental and resource laden trip to India for business is preposterous. India is still a relatively poor economy, with a GNP smaller than Canada and only the 15th largest importer in the world. Obama could have chose 14 other more lucrative destinations to drum up business for America.
Therefore the real purpose of the visit is clear, a policy of "encirclement" of China is being undertaken. This policy takes place in the context of upcoming cuts to the military and disengagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a counter-strategy move by the Pentagon and a notice to China that the U.S. Will not tolerate it pushing around U.S regional allies, Japan and Korea.
Currently the U.S. Maintains a strategical half-circle around China- that being; Japan, South Korea, Australia and Pakistan. Missing to complete the circle are the major strategic powers of India and Russia. India has noticed China flexing and threatening regional neighbors more than ever, exercising both military (increased pace of military spending, exercises and drills) and economic (halting sales of strategic rare minerals to Japan) as well as rhetorical pressures. In addition to this, China is "standing up" to American economic policies and publicly repudiating trade issues, American criticisms of the value of the Yuan, quantitative easing, etc. thereby signaling China's coming of age as a global player, not afraid to throw its weight around.
The U.S. Will not tolerate our regional strategic allies, Japan and Korea, from being intimidated by China. Despite massive coming reductions in military spending and force numbers, Obama is showing that the U.S. Need not engage China head on but in joining regional forces can ENCIRCLE China by adding India and Russia to the strategic fold.
The Russian are currently enjoying massive sales to China in raw resources, oil, timber and minerals but are keenly aware of China's eye on Eastern Russia. Eastern Russia is sparsely populated, difficult to defend and flush with the natural resources China needs for the future. In this context, Russia will listen to Obama and consider a rapprochement with the Pentagon in the strategy of hemming in the Chinese. India and Russia would complete a ring of steel comprised of substantial military and economic power.
With the above scenario, wait for part deux which will be a ground breaking trip of Obama and H. Clinton to Russia in the coming months to complete this new "containment" strategy in order to cap the Chinese.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Luko only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Luko is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: phead128
Date: November 16, 2010 11:53:58 PM
Um, India's largest trading partner is China. $ Japan's largest trading partner is China. $$ Korea's largest trading partner is China. $$$ Australia's largest trading partner is China. $$$$ United States' largest trading partner is.... China. $$$$$
How can a USSR-style containment strategy against your largest trading partners? Impossible to 'contain' the rise of 25% of humanity whose geographic proximity and sheer economic clout overwhelms any perrenial influence from an upstart nation half a world away.
Russia is not a hedge against China! Russia and China are strategic allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which is an anti-US organization.
Pakistan is hardly a hedge against China. Pakistan is also one of China's strongest and most reliable 'all-weather' allies.
--------------------- Lack of credibility in this article:
US-Thailand military alliance?
US-Philippines military alliance?
US-Taiwan (ROC) military alliance?
US-New Zealand military alliance?
How can you forget that conquered Afghanistan shares a Western border with China?
How can you forget that US has airforce bases in Uzbekistan, Takjistan, and Kazahkstan, Central Asian nations that border China?
We all know US Superpower status was built through common enemies (ie. First, it was the Nazis and fascism, then it was the Soviet Union and Communism, now it is Radical Islamic Terrorism, and we now have the Chinese threat.) American Empire is not sustainable if it must erect it's rule of might through finding mysterious "bad guys" to fight every so often. US hasn't even held it's crown of perennial Superpower (#1) for 10 years until China came along and brought with it a multi-polar world, accelerated by US mishaps in the Middle East.
If US fought China in a Cold War style engagement, China is not going to collapse due to overspending in military like USSR. That is the scary part.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: November 17, 2010 06:05:55 AM
Thanks for your comments.
A containment strategy, similar to what the US used against the USSR does not imply a trade war, embargoes or boycots. You might realize that during most of the latter half of the Cold War, the U.S. Continued to TRADE with the USSR and so did Western Europe. For example, large sales of American wheat to the Soviet Union often filled the USSR's gap in production, even though on the other hand- we were Cold War enemies spending billions on conventional and nuclear weapons to defeat the other. One would also note that trade between Japan and other Asian countries continued despite Japan's growing military power and aggression before WWII.
Containment in the strategic sense does not mean- direct confrontation and openly “thwarting” China's economic rise, but rather- geo-strategic partners- in CASE, China chose aggression, just as NATO NEVER fought the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, and as noted above, continued to trade with both- yet the containment strategy was in place for deterence.
I would disagree that Russia and China are “strategic” allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization- as one who has lived in China for the past three years- among the Chinese there is NO love lost for the Russians.
Thailand, Philippines, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. are indeed U.S. Allies but are not significant in terms of military or economic power regionally “compared” to South Korea, Japan, Australia and Pakistan.
We are heading to disengagement and major drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq, dictated by both withdrawal policy and upcoming military cutbacks. The biggest cuts can ONLY occur in operational expenses of the Iraqi and Afghani theatres without massive cuts to US overall force, platform and equipment. So one would not count on those being part of strategical containment.
As you mentioned U.S. Force presence in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazahkstan, - the presense is logistical in nature and hardly offers a “forward” “strategic” force- and neither are the host countries about to ally themselves with the U.S. Outside of logistical operations.
In that sense I would think that your comment of the article having a “lack of credibility” to be a superficial comment without any analysis in depth, perhaps given more time to examine the thrust of the article you may realize that.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: November 17, 2010 06:13:12 AM
So there is no misunderstanding, I did not mean to say that Russia is NOT a member of the SCO, but that I disagree with your comment that Russia and China are "strategic" allies in the SCO. They are 'tactical' partners in cooperation in the SCO in which the main purpose is security of common border areas. That is the mainstay of the SCO, NOT overall strategic cooperation and/or mutual defense.
Posted By: phead128
Date: November 17, 2010 12:03:33 PM
The current superpower should embrace its possible successor. It should bind it as closely as possible with ties of blood, commerce and culture.
There is nothing more dangerous for America's future national security, nothing more destructive to America's future prosperity, than for Chinese schoolchildren to be taught in 2047 and 2071 and in the years after 2075 that America tried to keep the Chinese as poor as possible for as long as possible.
Posted By: phead128
Date: November 17, 2010 10:33:30 PM
It's called Common security, not Containment.
Containment is using Asian nations against each other for the sake of buttressing US power in the region against a potential troublesome rising adversary power.
Common security is just a united common statement against military adventurism from any power period.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: November 18, 2010 03:35:27 AM
I agree “common security” would be the opeative phrase “ IF “ there is NOT a, as you say, “ potential troublesome rising adversary power” and in your words – using “ military adventurism.” Now, let's examine China's position of increasing military adventurism and aggression towards its neighbors;
China OCCUPIES Tibet
China OCCUPIES portions of India (Aksai Chin)
China CLAIMS huge portions of North-East India (Arunachal Pradesh)
China THREATENS Taiwan with INVASION if Taiwan continues to consider independence
China has CUT “rare-earth” element sales to Japan- severely hampering Japan's economy
China CLAIMS the Spratly Islands ( for its potential in oil)
China has WARNED off and CHASED out U.S. Surveillence ships operating in international waters
China has not restrained North Korea using it as leverage against South Korea and the U.S.
So I think, military occupation, threats of invasion, irredentist territorial claims sounds like “military adventurism” and it certainly sounds like a “potential troublesome rising advesary power” to most Asian nations. Put this in the context of China 'rapidly' modernizing and increasing its defense budget, sounds VERY MUCH like a 'potential' rising adversary in the region- as you put it.
Regarding “buttressing U.S. Power in the region” well, therein lies the difference between the U.S. Presence in Asia and China. America IS a Pacific Rim nation, obviously with multiple interests. The American presence, unlike China's presence in Tibet and India, is VOLUNTARY, the U.S. Unlike China in Tibet and India- is NOT an occupation power. The U.S. Voluntary withdrew from bases in the Philippines and Japan when asked to by the host countries- when China was asked to withdraw from Tibet and Aksai Chin- it has not- it OCCUPIES BY FORCE. The U.S. Does not occupy by force any nation in Asia, China does.
So, in light of this, I think “common security” is NOT the appropriate term, but rather- CONTAINMENT of an increasingly aggressive occupation power- China.
