Strategic Shift Essay

SHIFT OF US MARITIME PRIORITIES FROM ATLANTIC TO ASIA PACIFIC REGION 1. Introduction. This “Strategic Shift” essay predicts important changes in United States defence planning during 2012 and early 2013. Through a series of strategic and operational exercises made by United States Navy in the region that placed greater emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions, the plan is to shift bulk of its naval assets to Asia within the next decade and increase the number of military exercises in the region. Under the strategic plan, the United States would shift cruisers, destroyers, submarines and other warships so that 60% of them will be based in the Pacific by 2020. Currently, the United States Naval fleet of 285 ships are evenly split
between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The strategic shift is result of an agreement to rotate United States Navy through Australia and Philippines according to an arrangement. United States claims rising of United States force levels, they shouldn 't be seen as a threat to China but as a stabilizing influence in a rapidly developing region. This global reposition of the United States Navy would represent a substantial peacetime military shift that is likely to be favoured by Asian countries. On the contrary it is considered as nervous step by the United States as China increasingly flexes its economic and territorial muscles. China is building its own stealth fighters and ship-killing missiles as part of an effort to force the United States to operate further from its shores. Although the United States officials eschew publicly identifying Beijing as a potential adversary, military officials have a wary eye on China 's military build up. The United States inclination towards India and her joint ventures with Indian Navy and their increased activity in terms of weapons and gadgets in maritime has clear identification of dominating the region by keeping an eye on China and pressurising Pakistan. Shift of United States maritime priorities from Atlantic to Asia Pacific region has serious implications for Pakistan. 2. Aim. To carry out in depth analysis of the new shift in United States maritime priorities to Asia Pacific region, emerging role of India in Indian Ocean, challenges and opportunities for Pakistan and suggest viable recommendations to Pakistan/Pakistan Navy. 3. Historical Perspective of United States Strategy. America got independence on July the 4th 1776 under the motto 'E Pluribus Unum ' (For Many, One). First used to unify the 13 British colonies in North America, this phrase acquired new meanings when America received large numbers of immigrants from many lands. The American nation emerged as a sovereign entity after defeating the British in the war of 1812. Its independence was expounded in no uncertain terms in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which called for an end to European intervention in US affairs and pledged US neutrality in wars between European nations. Expanding westwards under the slogan of "manifest destiny" the Americans began relocating and subjugating the natives of North America. As America grew in size and strength the discord between States also grew which finally culminated in the Civil War (1861-65). The Civil War ended in defeat of the Confederate states which united the nation as one solid entity. From 1865 to about 1945, the U.S. grew to become the world 's leading industrial nation. a. The Cold War. When the war ended in Europe on 8 May 1945, Soviet and Western (US, British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. With the onset of the Cold War, a brief postwar status quo emerged until the Communist takeover in China in 1949. Communist hegemony now reigned over about one third of the world 's territory while the United States emerged as the world 's more influential superpower with respect to the other two thirds, of which some was being challenged by Marxist movements. There were fundamental contrasts between the visions of the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States, led by President Harry S. Truman since April 1945, was determined to open up the world 's markets to capitalist trade and to shape the postwar world according to the principles laid down by the Atlantic Charter: self-determination, equal economic access, and a rebuilt capitalist Europe that could again serve as a hub in world affairs. The only major industrial power in the world to emerge intact; and even greatly strengthened from an economic perspective was the United States. b. Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was fought from 1959 to 1975. In fact, it was a "proxy war" between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, considered as part of the Cold War. The war claimed 1.5 million Vietnamese, 58,226 American soldiers killed with 350,000 casualties. Australia and New Zealand lost 500 and 38 soldiers respectively. c. The Korean War. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately committed U.S. forces to Korea. The war became a stalemate, with over 33,000 American dead and 100,000 wounded, but nothing to show for it except a resolve to continue the containment policy. By threatening to use nuclear weapons in 1953 Eisenhower ended the war with a truce that in 2006 is still in effect. d. The Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cold War reached its height during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tense confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States over the Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The crisis began on 16 October 1962 and lasted for thirteen days. It is regarded by many historians as the moment when the Cold War was closest to exploding into a devastating nuclear exchange between the two superpower nations. e. End of the Cold War. It was Jimmy Carter who had officially ended the policy of détente following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, East-West tensions in the early 1980s reached levels not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was born out of the worsening U.S.-Soviet relations of the Reagan era. Reaganite hawks have since argued that pressures stemming from increased U.S. defense spending was an additional impetus for reform. Gorbachev tried to save Communism in Russia first by ending the expensive arms race with America, then in 1989 by shedding the East European Empire. Communism finally collapsed in Russia in 1991. 4. United States Current Strategic Landscape f. Iraq War. United States wants today’s war to a logical end. United States left Iraq due to its depleting economy and ever increasing expenditure on keeping the forces without much legal mandate.United States administration has acknowledged the many important successes in Iraq, g. Afghanistan War. The war is again not winding down in Afghanistan, even if the planning for United States withdrawal has begun. ISAF has pushed Taliban out of their former strongholds in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, and they have taken fight to the east. NATO Training Mission Afghanistan has improved Afghan security forces such that they are large enough and capable enough to assume more responsibilities in Helmand and Kandahar as well as in other provinces where the levels of violence are low. All aspects have been considered keeping in view the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan. There is a limit to what can be achieved by force of arms or by diplomacy, and maybe she has reached that limit. United States believes it can shift its strategic security focus to the Asia-Pacific region, because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in pursuit of al Qaeda are over. 5. Asia Pacific Region. The Asia-Pacific’s strong response to the worldwide economic crisis, its burgeoning military modernization programs and growing integration are evidence of the region’s expanding global power. At the same time, region is home to growing transnational threats, developed nations and emerging states, authoritarian regimes and democratic politics. As global power shifts from Atlantic to Asia Pacific, American strategists have also articulated a comprehensive and forward-looking strategy to deal with the complexities of this increasingly vital region. h. Raison D 'être of United States Policy Shift. After a decade defined by 9/11, two wars, and a financial crisis, President Obama showed strong inclination to restore the foundation of the United States global leadership and economic strength. Since then the United States has put in place a set of policies that have put economy on the path to recovery, and helped create six million jobs in the last thirty-five months. At the same time, renewing United States leadership has also focused on the regions that will shape the global order in the decades ahead. Understanding and anticipating the importance of Asia Pacific region became the most pressing challenge for the coming generation of United States strategists. To aid United States policymakers in managing this highly complex environment, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has convened influential policymakers and thinkers to assess changes and trends and to articulate a broad agenda for the United States as follows:- (1) Shift of Economic Hub. As the tides of influence and power shift from Atlantic to Pacific shores – propelled by the remarkable ascents of China and India and the economic growth of an entire region that now accounts for over 30 percent of global GDP. America must reassert its strategic presence in Asia. Unfortunately, many strategists shape policies toward the region through either a Cold War or anti-terrorism lens; both are limited in dealing with Asian dynamism. Region must be described in creative and forward-looking terms and United States strategy must be shaped to meet future challenges. A traditional approach will not suffice if the United States is to protect American interests and help Asia realize its potential. The new strategic vision, articulated as the “power of balance,” involves creative engagement in multilateral forums while strengthening existing bilateral alliances and relations. It demands a willingness to enter agreements on specific issues, rather than as a means to cement broad-based, balance-of-power alliances. And, perhaps most importantly, it requires American political parties to perform a balancing act at home: bipartisanship in foreign policy debates must be the goal not lofty rhetoric. (2) Shift of Geo-Political Power. Ongoing shifts in geopolitical power from West to East make the Asia-Pacific region more important to the United States today than ever before. Region is already an engine of the global economy, and major Asian countries are becoming global economic and political actors. Yet, as Asia’s importance has grown over the last decade, Washington has often been focused elsewhere. Obama administration needs a more active approach to Asia-Pacific region that recognizes new geopolitical realities and positions the United States to deal effectively with the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Such a strategy must build upon America’s long-standing positive engagement in Asia and articulate a vision that can advance U.S. interests and attract support from countries in the region. i. US Policy Towards Asia-Pacific. Basing on the analysis carried out by strategists, it was clear that there was an imbalance in the projection and focus of United States power. It was President’s judgment that United States was over-weighted in some areas and regions, including military actions in the Middle East. At the same time, United states were underweighted in other regions, such as Asia-Pacific. Indeed, policymakers believed this was their key geographic imbalance. On one level, this reflected recognition of the critical role that United States has played in Asia for decades, providing the stabilizing foundation for the region’s unprecedented social and economic development. Beyond this, it was in sighted that Asia’s future and the future of United States are deeply and increasingly linked. Economically, Asia already accounts for more than one-quarter of global GDP. Over the next five years, nearly half of all growth outside the United States is expected to come from Asia. This growth is fuelling powerful geopolitical forces that are reshaping the region: China’s ascent, Japan’s resilience, and the rise of a “Global Korea,” an eastward-looking India and Southeast Asian nations more interconnected and prosperous than ever before. j. China’s Response. China is of the view that United States was creating tensions in the Asia-Pacific region by strengthening its military presence and reinforcing its alliances there. China gave clear message and strongly alluded to Obama’s administration’s policy to “pivot” toward a greater focus on the Asia-Pacific region. China gave the statement, “Some country has strengthened its Asia-Pacific military alliances, expanded its military presence in the region, and frequently makes the situation tenser.” Thus, China has an arduous task to safeguard its national unification, territorial integrity and development interests. Over all, China suggested that China should be satisfied with its strategic position and offered a congratulatory note, saying that China “has seized and made the most of this important period of strategic opportunities for its development, and its modernization achievements have captured world attention.” China is of the opinion that the West is trying to contain China, and that will be resisted. Currently, the world situation is undergoing its most profound and complex changes since the end of the cold war. Moreover, hostile Western forces have stepped up their strategy of imposing Westernization on our country and splitting it up, and they are doing their utmost to fence in and contain country’s development. 6. United States Developments in Maritime Strategy k. Pacific Ocean. United State has made following developments in maritime strategy in Pacific Ocean:- (3) Inclination towards Thailand. Stronger military-to-military ties have been adapted between United States and Thailand to share threats and challenges that we will be faced together in this region and in the future. (4) Investments in Region.
United States companies are engaged in the $8 billion construction of three Australian navy destroyers. (5) Trade Agreement. Opening previously closed Southeast Asian nations for private investment from United States companies and backing a multicounty trade agreement apparently designed to counter China’s regional economic dominance. (6) Lifting of Trade Sanctions with Myanmar. President Barack Obama authorized U.S. companies to invest in Myanmar for the first time since 1997, and also authorize imports of most goods from Myanmar. Later on framework agreement covering trade and investment has also been formulated eliminating all punitive restrictions except for an arms embargo. (7) Free-Trade Pact with ASEAN Countries. United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement has been in force since January 1, 2004. U.S. two way goods trade totalled $37 billion in 209, up 17 percent from 2003 (the year before the FTA’s entry into force). U.S. goods exports were $21.6 billion, up 31 percent from 2003, and U.S. goods imports were $15.4 billion, up 2 percent from
2003. (8) Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. This agreement is underway and in finalisation stage. Sixteen rounds of Trans-Pacific Partnership talks have been done amoung the stake holder. the agenda points of all previous talks were discussing intellectual property, non-conforming measures and cross-border trade in services, rules of origin, and sanitary and phytosanitary issues, as well as chief negotiators from the eleven TPP countries Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. (9) Managing North Korea in Pacific. United States-Korea trade agreement has provided countless new opportunities for United States exporters to sell more Made-in-America goods, services, and agricultural products to Korean customers and to support more good jobs. l. United States – India Naval Relations and Indian Ocean. India is turning its geopolitical attention away from a purely continental geopolitical outlook to the oceans as its rising naval power and maritime interests. United States increasingly sees India as a partner and net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond. According to the new defence strategy unveiled by the Pentagon in January 2012, “the United States is also investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India to support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.”India too sees its increasing maritime partnership with the United States as meeting its interests in Indo-Pacific with economics and politics driving the integration of the two ocean spaces. The unprecedented coincidence of interests in the overall context of the growing India-United States strategic partnership has provided the necessary context for stronger maritime cooperation between the two, particularly after the initiation of the pivotal nuclear agreement in 2005, which ended India’s nuclear isolation as well as the prolonged “estrangement” between the two democracies. (10) Chinese Factor. India has concerns about China’s growing military power and its maritime ambitions in the Indian Ocean, and New Delhi has maritime interests in the South China Sea, but it does not want to be seen as aligned against China. (11) United States – India Joint Ventures. Following are the few joint ventures of United States and India in Indian Ocean:- (a) United States managing the tensions in the East and South China Seas. (b) Two navies have developed a level of interoperability and the capacity to work together, should an occasion arise in areas such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR). (c) Joint Navel exercise between United States and Indian Navy in Pacific Ocean and East China sea. (d) Personnel exchanges and maritime information shairing between United States and India. (e) Bilateral staff talks on regular basis. (f) Port visits on regular basis. (g) Signing of Logistics Supply Agreement (LSA) between the Navies of both countries. (h) Transfer of major conventional weapons from United States to Indian Navy. 7. China’s Maritime Security and Capability. PLA Navy (PLAN) is China 's mainstay for operations at sea, and is responsible for safeguarding its maritime security and maintaining its sovereignty over its territorial seas along with its maritime rights and interests. m. Composition of People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The PLAN is composed of the submarine, surface vessel, naval aviation, Marine Corps and coastal defence arms. In line with the requirements of its offshore defence strategy. n. Blue Water Capability and Strategic Deterrence. PLAN endeavours to accelerate the modernization of its forces for comprehensive offshore operations, develop advanced submarines, destroyers and frigates, and improve integrated electronic and information systems. It develops blue-water capabilities of conducting mobile operations, carrying out international cooperation, and countering non-traditional security threats, and enhances its capabilities of strategic deterrence and counterattack. o. PLAN’s Current Maritime Security Capability. Currently, the PLAN has a total strength of 235,000 officers and men, and commands three fleets, namely, the Beihai Fleet, the Donghai Fleet and the Nanhai Fleet. Each fleet has fleet aviation headquarters, support bases, flotillas and maritime garrison commands, as well as aviation divisions and marine brigades. In September 2012, China 's first aircraft carrier Liaoning was commissioned into the PLAN. China 's development of an aircraft carrier has a profound impact on building a strong PLAN and safeguarding maritime security. 8. Emerging Role of India in Indian Ocean. Region contains 1/3 of the world’s population, 25% of its landmass, 40% of the world’s oil and gas reserves. It is the locus of important international sea lines of communication (SLOCs). Indian Ocean also is home to the world’s two newest nuclear weapons states, India and Pakistan. Indian Ocean region suffers from a high level of international and internal conflict and is a key venue for international piracy. It also is the locus of some 70% of the world’s natural disasters. p. Joint Exercises with other Countries. India conducts joint naval exercises with other friendly countries designed to increase naval interoperability and also to strengthen cooperative security relationship. Some such exercises take place annually. List of countries with which India carryout joint exercises is as under:- (12) French Navy. (13) Russian Navy. (14) US Navy. (15) Republic of Singapore Navy. (16) People 's Liberation Army Navy. (17) Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. (18) South Korea. (19) Germany. (20) Israel. (21) Australia. q. Weaponry of Indian Navy. Fleet of Indian Navy comprises mixture of domestic built and foreign vessels. The Indian Navy presently has one aircraft carrier in active service. India has issued a request for information for another six submarines. India has paid US$2 billion for the completion of two Akula-II class submarines which were 40–60% completed. Three hundred Indian Navy personnel were trained in Russia for the operation of these submarines. India has finalised a deal with Russia, in which at the end of the lease of these submarines, it has an option to buy them. For the first time India has designed and built first boat of a class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. These nuclear-powered submarines will be a vital part of the India 's much desired nuclear triad. r. Modernisation and Future. Indian Navy is currently undergoing a 15-year modernisation plan in an attempt to replace older in service equipment. US$700 million was spent on the purchase of 12 single-seat MiG-29K and four dual-seat MiG-29KUB fighters and six Kamov-31 maritime helicopters to operate from the new carrier. Indian aim is to have a total of three aircraft carriers in service, with two fully operational carriers and third in refit. This aim will increase the overall effectiveness of Indian Navy. Long term plan was recently revealed by the Navy and shows a road-map to a blue-water navy with six aircraft carriers in service. Indian Navy has signed a deal with Boeing to supply twelve P-8 Poseidon Anti Submarine Warfare/Maritime Surveillance Aircraft. The first aircraft has been delivered and order for another two in 2013 and the remaining five by 2015 has been placed. 9. Analysis s. There is a growing gap between industrialized world and developing countries as well as between Muslims and the West. It is leading to unrest, growing North-South tensions and mass migration. t. USA is asserting its military strength, and is trying to work out as to how to ensure that its influence is not diluted. u. There is a potential for increased competition between the various players for control of resources, markets, and technology. v. Asia Pacific region encompasses a total of about 80 percent of world economy. This dependence places a very high premium on ensuring stability in this region. w. Trade expansion of India and internal security imbalance in Pakistan has nestled stronger ties between India and United States thus compromising Pakistan’s national interest. x. The power balance disturbance can imply India’s emergence as the unrivalled regional power. However, India faces problems such as uneven internal economic growth, poverty, illiteracy, energy shortage, unrest and terrorism. India’s democracy will remain strong, albeit more fractionalized. India appears not to relent from its rigid stance of Kashmir being integral of India. y. Pakistan as a consequence of US intent to establish strategic relationship with India may experience an unwarranted imbalance in conventional weapons, thus generating circumstances either to enter in an arms race with India or else rely on its nuclear deterrence in both cases its economy will be affected. z. China has always been a major strategic partner of Pakistan and more ties between these countries are further strengthening as Gwader port becoming a vital trade route for China in warm water. {. Pakistan is situated at such a geographical location which can assist trade around the year. Early establishment of Gwader port will further make Pakistan more dominant in the region. Gwader port will not only be an alternate trade hub but can also act as Naval defence for Pakistan Navy. |. Joint Naval exercises with friendly countries will be more imperative for developing new Naval warfare techniques and will also add step towards strengthening relation as well. 10. Conclusion. Asia Pacific has gained prominent place in current geo-political scenario. On the whole, United States is in a position in the region. New partnerships are being developed on the basis of long term economic benefits. The United States has committed to being an active member of regional organizations. The United States has already made a start in pursuing economic ties through trade agreements that will supplement diplomatic and military relations. Diplomatic approach of “Asia first” rather than “China First” or “alliances first” is suitable for United States to manage the dynamics in the region. However, United States Priorities in the region has shaped more complex international landscape. The combination of enhancing strategic impact with trade has adopted new capstone concept for countries in the region. Moreover, United States close relationship and defence ties with India basing on which India’s conceiving of being might in region has instigated bigger challenges for Pakistan which needs to be evaluated and suitable responses be adopted to carter for future generations of Pakistan.

Bibliography
Books
1. Hilal (Brigadier) & et al, “Case Study – United States of America”, Group Research Paper, National Defence College, AFWC, 2009. 2. Sajid (Brigadier), “Changes in Global Power Structure: Emerging Trends and Impact on Pakistan”, Individual Research Paper, National Defence College, AFWC, 2006.
Electronic Journals and Newspaper articles 1. Lieutenant General (Retired) James M. Dubik. “Asia-Pacific First: What Does This Actually Mean.” Army Defence Magazine Publication. February , 2012 http://www.ausa.org/publications/FC_Dubik 2. Linda D. Kozaryn, “Asia-Pacific Region Vital to U.S. Security.” American Press Service Publication. April, 2012 http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx 3. Kurt M. Cambell & et al. “The Power of Balance: America in iAsia.” Centre for a New American security Publication. June 2008 http://www.mercury.ethz.ch/Files/2008-06 4. Ben Blancherd, “China points finger at U.S. over Asia-Pacific Tensions.” Daily Reuters Article. April, 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16 5. Michele Nash-Hoff, “Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers.” Hoffingtonpost Blog, February 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff 6.
S. Ameer Latif, “Indian and the New U.S. Defense Strategy.” Center for Strategic and International Studies Publication. February 2013 http://csis.org/publication 7. Rakhmani Gupta, “Reading the Tea Leaves of China’s New Defence Strategy.” Real Clear World Article. April 2013 http://www.realclearworld.com/articles 8. Siva Govindasamy, “Aero India:Naval helicopter request for proposals expected around mid-2009” Flight Global Article. January 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Brigadier Hilal & et al, “Case Study – United States of America”, National Defence College, AFWC, 2009.
[ 2 ]. Lieutenant General (Retired) James M. Dubik, Asia-Pacific First: What Does This Actually Mean; http://www.ausa.org/publications/FC_Dubik_0212.pdf
[ 3 ]. Linda D. Kozaryn, Asia-Pacific Region Vital to U.S. Security; http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx
[ 4 ]. Kurt M. Cambell, Nirav Patel, Vikran J. Singh, The Power of Balance: America in iAsia; http://www.mercury.ethz.ch/Files/2008-06_CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia
[ 5 ]. Ben Blancherd, China points finger at U.S. over Asia-Pacific tensions;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-china-defence
[ 6 ]. Michele Nash-Hoff, Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff/why-the-trans-pacific
[ 7 ]. S. Ameer Latif, Indian and The New U.S. Defense Strategy; http://csis.org/publication/india-and-new-us-defense-strategy
[ 8 ]. Rakhmani Gupta, Reading the Tea Leaves of China’s New Defence Strategy; http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/04/27
[ 9 ]. Brigadier Sajid, “Changes in Global Power Structure: Emerging Trends and Impact on Pakistan”, National Defence College, AFWC, 2006.