A Guest post from Martin at the Fantasy Fleets Blog
The world of 2050 will likely be dominated by 6 major players:
United States of America
European Union
China
India
Brazil
Indonesia
When we are looking to strengthen our diplomatic standing we must be careful to avoid conflicts with other allies. For that reason we must focus our attention on a few key countries.
United States
It is hard to envisage a set of circumstances that could see us as anything other than close friends with America. However close friendship should not mean subservience, as we have seen many times over the past decade. We should always look to America as our main partner in any major conflict. We also have to look at what we can bring to the table to support America to maintain our special relationship.
We can help America in two ways and neither involves deploying 10,000 troops in F**knowswhereastan.
Firstly, we can be the linchpin that holds America and Europe together.
Secondly, we can help the USA to curtail Chinese ambitions especially in South East Asia and the Indian Ocean.
Europe
One way or another Europe will begin to assert itself more and more on the world stage. In the past the UK has tried to hamper this preferring instead for Europe to rely on NATO. However why do NATO and EDA have to be mutually exclusive. Why can’t one benefit the other? Why can’t a Danish battalion serve in a British commanded division under a US Lieutenant General as part of a NATO force? Europe having the ability to act on the world stage without the USA means America does not always have to be there. If you think we are weary of always having to be the ones to do something how do you think America feels. From Bosnia to Libya they constantly have to get involved to solve European problems.
America can no longer maintain the 4.5% of GDP it spends on its military. This realisation comes at a time when it is being forced to counter the rise of a new super power with a population 4 times its size. Looking around the world it sees very few people who can truly help with the burden.
Even with the piss poor military spending of most European governments Europe accounts for 25% of world military spending combined. Most of this is wasted on heavy fixed forces still waiting to counter the Soviet hoards rolling across the planes of Germany. Harnessing even a small portion of that money and capability into expeditionary warfare could give Europe some significant clout in world affairs.
We are the only country in Europe that can help to develop this capability. Europe will always struggle to form a coherent foreign policy view. Just look at Germany over Libya. This means that joint European owned assets will always be problematic to use. However building our forces as the spine that will allow Europe to act through a coalition of the willing will allow us to build relatively major force projection capability on a budget and will also give us the ability to essentially veto European action.
We must also start to steer Europe in the direction we want rather than just simply reacting to French and German moves for closer integration. The UK has always favoured a larger Europe based on free trade as opposed to the smaller one based on Federalism favoured by Germany. We must focus all our diplomatic efforts on brining Turkey into the EU. This should allow us to better counter Germany and France while giving Europe access to a massive and rapidly developing regional power.
We should consider a bi annual exercise deploying a European force based around a divisional HQ out of area to demonstrate our capability. In addition another bi annual exercise should be considered landing a reinforced brigade sized force of 10-12,000 troops from the sea. We should also look to deploy a full corps sized force every five years sending both UK professional forces and our reservist armoured division(more on that later).
India
India with over a billion people will probably be the natural nation to counter the rise of China in the 21st Century in the way the rise of America countered the Soviet Union in the 20th. We must embrace India for this reason. We share so much with India from history to sport from our legal system to language. Yet we have virtually no military connection with them at all. If we are to develop the close ties we need with India we should be prepared to consider mutual defence treaties with them. We are already honour bound through the commonwealth to come to their aid. Would a formal treaty really be so different?
There are a number of areas were we may have contentions with India but none of these is impossible to overcome. The Joint British American base at Diego Garcia has long been an annoyance for India. Pressuring the USA to possibly allow Indian forces there may be one potential way to resolve this.
India’s difficult relationship with Pakistan can also cause problems however we should remember that Pakistan is an ally of China. It is not our ally. Even though the current situation in Afghanistan has forced cooperation, given the choice I would take India over Pakistan any day. Pakistan has nothing to offer us except problems.
India should be entitled to full UN Security Council rights including a veto. We should make getting India this our prime diplomatic effort amongst other Security Council members.
We should also look to work with India much more closely in weapons development. India has great naval ambitions in the area but lacks the human and scientific resources we have. All areas should be considered up to an including the development of SSN capability. Every Indian SSN cruising the Indian Ocean is one less Chinese SSN we have to worry about.
Indonesia
A country with over 250 million people and some of the largest natural resource deposits in the world. The third biggest democracy in the world as well and we have almost nothing to do with them. While we have actually fought Indonesia in the past in the 1960’s and 1970’s the Indonesia of today is a very different country. They have virtually no formal military ties with anyone and like the rest of the region they are desperately worried over Chinese expansion. Again we should look to take advantage of this vacuum.
At present the only mutual defence organisation in the region is the 5 powers defence agreement. Expanding this to a 7 Nation organisation including India and Indonesia would allow us to formally ally ourselves with both nations and help to counter Chinese ambitions in the area. These countries are far enough away from China to mean that while the Chinese would be unhappy about it they are unlikely to feel threatened enough to do anything about it. It would also help the USA which is able to devote very little to the region in way of permanent assets which are mostly taken up in the waters of North East Asia around Japan and the Korea’s.
We should also look to lobby on Indonesia’s behalf for at least a permanent seat on the Security Council if not a full veto.
China
We will never be able to be allies of China. The Chinese have their own grand strategy and feel they need no help to achieve it. China’s main disadvantage is its lack of friends. No one trusts them and no major nation has anything to do with them. As India said recently “it is difficult to work with someone when they tell you they own everything”.
The rise of China does not have to spell doom for the world. The only way to achieve this in my opinion is to make sure that everywhere they turn they are countered.
If they know that other countries can and will stand against them and they find themselves unable to gain major allies then they will have little choice but to revert to peaceful means. In order to do this we and our allies must maintain the ability to prevent China from gaining crucial supplies. Especially oil from the Middle East.
Russia
Russia is a difficult country to deal with. Let’s not forget they used a Nuclear Weapon in London a few years ago. We have little chance of developing substantial relations with Russia other than through Europe. As such we should not expend any major effort trying to build bilateral ties with them.
In the long run with its population collapsing, its abundant natural resources and huge un-defendable boarders Russia probably has more to fear from China than anyone else. It would be allot easier for China to make a play for Siberia than the Middle East and the day that Russia’s Nuclear arms cease to be a problem is the day we may see that reality.
Brazil
Again a country we have relatively little to do with but with over 200 million people and massive offshore oil reserves one we should be working with much more closely. We should not forget that we share some common interests. The UK owns a substantial part of the South Atlantic sea bed which may one day be developed for oil, gas or mineral extraction. Brazil is lacking in its ability to properly defend many of its new offshore oil installations. A mutual defence treaty in the South Atlantic might serve us both. While Argentina is likely to try to hamper this we should remember that Brazil is not exactly a lover of Argentina.
Offering Brazil help with UN Security Council membership, naval training and cooperation and possibly even basing aircraft at Ascension Island should be enough to sweeten any deal.
Middle East
We have excellent relations with most Middle East governments. The rise of Iran is the biggest cause of concern for both them and us in the region. We should consider closer military ties and even formal defence treaties with Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman and also permanently basing naval forces in the region. Apart from being major energy suppliers these countries are also substantial purchasers of British military equipment and major focal points for British business.
Why Bother
Obviously these diplomatic and military efforts will involve a considerable expenditure on the part of the British people over the next 50 years. We should ask the question of whether or not it is all worth it. Should we continue to maintain a prominent role or should we follow the example of someone like Germany taking a back seat and letting others do the leg work. I would say yes. Britain does not have an obligation to do this but we do have a need.
On a per capita basis the UK has more inward and outward investment than any other G7 economy. We have more expats (5.5 million of them) than any other western country. British business is more plugged in to what goes on elsewhere than any other major nation. We have a vested interest to make sure that the world is a safe and stable place and that British companies can operate freely.
We should also look to tie our foreign policy and military cooperation with economic deals. From letting BP drill well and HSBC open branches to BAE selling guns.
Other Means
When looking to win friends and influence people in the world we should use every asset at our disposal. These assets are considerable and are probably the main element that can let us punch above our weight on the world stage.
Media
The UK’s news media is un-surpassed in the world. The BBC in particular is probably the world’s most respected news organisation. In a world where information is power we should not under estimate its impact. We should make a concerted effort to make sure that every person on the planet has access to the BBC World Service free of charge. We should not attempt to influence BBC coverage but instead allow the institution to maintain its high standards. The truth will point to itself and as long as we are on the correct side we having nothing to fear from the BBC’s impartiality.
We should also remember other UK institutions. Al Jazeera in particular has a major impact on the Muslim world.
UK PLC
Many of the world’s largest companies are headquartered in Britain. Companies such as HSBC, Shell, Rio Tinto and BP wield massive amounts of power and influence in the world. They can also help us to economically exploit opportunities in nations we hope to develop better ties with. I would like to see these companies given the opportunity to appoint a representative onto the National Security Council.
Sport and Culture
Our sport and culture has an impact on the world in ways that few people in the UK understand. In Asia many more people are concerned by the choice of manager for Manchester United than even the choice of the US president. Simon Cowell is better known than Winston Churchill and countries from China to Brazil bend over backwards to gain their own Grand Prix.
Remember most people on the planet today do not have a television. But in decades to come they will. We should give every support possible to these institutions to continue to maintain and expand their influence.
Foreign Aid
Perhaps the worst thing the last government left us with was a legal requirement to spend 0.5% of GDP on aid. Worst still we are required to increase it to 0.7%. The present government for reason only known to its self has refused to consider cutting this budget.
In an attempt to justify it they have now decided to spend more of the budget on supporting humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan to support the Army. So the same people who we already spend £4 billion per year on trying to bring peace and security to will receive more money. Worst still because of the security situation in Afghanistan projects cost massively more than they do elsewhere and we provide the guys we are fighting even more targets meaning our hard pressed troops have to invest even more blood and treasure defending them.
Will these same Afghans that we are helping buy anything off us? Will we be opening hundreds of HSBC branches any time soon?
Let’s put our foreign aid budget into perspective. At 0.7% of GDP we are talking £10 billion per year. Assuming 2.5% per annum GDP growth that’s £674 billion over the next 40 years. China builds high speed rail lines for $20 million a mile. With this budget we could build 53,922 miles of high speed rail enough to wrap around the world twice.
Currently this budget is basically divvied up around the world on a roughly even basis with £1 billion going to China and £1 billion going to India. It gets us nothing. If we concentrate this budget on a few key allies particularly India, Brazil and Indonesia then we can use it to buy substantial influence. Many of the world’s poorest people live in these countries so there is no moral imperative to say we should not do so.
We should also tie at least 20% of this aid to military aid. If India decides it needs 200 fighters to protect its self and we offer 50 Eurofighters for free, where do you think they will buy the other 150 from? If the Indian government has to spend less on defence it will spend more on helping its people develop. Selling our weapons to other countries helps us maintain relations and a modicum of control over their policies, “don’t piss of the Brit’s or you won’t get any more spare parts for your Eurofighters”.
It also allows us better interoperation capability and if we enhance the fighting ability of our allies we enhances our own defence.
Eurofighter and the Type 26 should be the two major programs to benefit from this through Brazil, India and Indonesia. We should also consider OPV and Corvette subsidies for India Ocean Nations such as Oman and Kenya to help tackle piracy.
These aid budgets should be used to gain formal defence treaties as well as special treatment for British Industries such as banking and oil exploration. We should also look to use this money to help influential British institutions gain access to these countries i.e. subsidising rural electricity schemes and satellite communication so more people can watch the premiership or BBC news.
This really seems like a win win to me. We help the countries and people we need most while enhancing our own diplomatic standing and at the same time securing tens of thousands of high tech British Jobs.
“The Joint British American base at Diego Garcia has long been an annoyance for India. Pressuring the USA to possibly allow Indian forces there may be one potential way to resolve this.”
Good idea, i like.
But I particularly agree with the idea of linking a portion of UK aid to military assistance designed to boost defence exports.
I thought, FPDA was invoked to contain Indonesia? Yes, we should try to incorporate Indonesia and maybe India and Sri Lanka. But I guess, especially Malaysia and Singapore will not be amused.
But why stop at seven or eight partners? Think of SEATO renewed, this time with the democratic, economic powerhouses Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
@ McZ Ironically FPDA was invoked to guard against Indonessia. However NATO was set up to guard against the warsaw pack and now most of them are in it.
My thoughts on going upto 7 were two fold.
The USA has North Asia pretty well tied up from Japan and Korea to Taiwan. We can offer very little here independnatly. Countries like Vietnam and the Philipines may make sense however I wanted to avoid operating too close to China. While I don’t think we can be allies of China I don’t feel we have to be beligerant towards them. Deploying forces inside the South China past Malaysia would rightly piss them off. How would we feel about a Chinese Carrier crusing up the Channel? I take your point about Singapore and Malaysia however relations between these nations in far better today than its ever been. All three share common interest in protecting oil and gas reserves in the southern part of the south china sea that China claims. Any allaince is based on common interesta nd I think they have enough along with India, Australia, NZ and us to make it work.
An interesting article from WIFR which kinda ties in with your thinking:
http://www.warshipsifr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:concept-of-a-commonwealth-of-navies-is-perfect-fit-for-todays-world&catid=36:commentary&Itemid=65
Just trying to link up your ideas and TD’s: something like this, based upon TD’s SIMMS vessel?
http://blog.usni.org/2010/10/13/developing-realistic-security-and-assistance-squadrons-another-view-of-operationalizing-the-influence-squadron/
If you think the BBC are impartial then you need disabusing very quickly.
Warmism, Europhilia, Obama-worshipping. You can guess what their views on defence are!
Sorry about that but had to be done – the post has some good ideas and is especially welcome in emphasising our global reach and potential for relationships.
BBC impartial? Blair’s/Brown’s Broadcasting Company, Brussels Broadcasting Corporation, Al Beeb……….
The BBC is anti-American, anti-English, Europhile, anti-Israel, Islam apologist, anti-Church-of-England, anti-police, and
misandrist.
I really don’t mean this to be insulting, but we are now seeing a level of naivety seeping into your posts Martin. Others have already mentioned BBC, but lets not forget recent scandals, UK press is largely “gutter press”, for sure the FT is read around the world, including Beijing I suspect, but most of the rest of them ? As bad as FOX in their own ways……
On Russia: “Let’s not forget they used a Nuclear Weapon in London a few years ago.” – WTF ? How did I miss that one !! To what are you refering exactly ?
India – until recently I worked for a Global arm of KPMG, two of my friends there are very intelligent Indian gentlemen, fully trained Chartered Accountants and auditors, and there is a reason they have both left India ! This is their opinion, not mine, but apparently there are only two or three more corrupt countries in the entire world ! So for sure, India as buckets of potential, but I wonder at the amount of aid we give to a country with it’s own space programmme (we dont have one) and a bigger military than ours. So for the statement: “If the Indian government has to spend less on defence it will spend more on helping its people develop” – I think we can categorize that as well meaning wishful thinking.
Europe – seriously, where do we begin…….
“Europe will always struggle to form a coherent foreign policy view” – no shit ! So surely, the only way it ever could, is to be a fully federated “United States of Europe” as per the German-French model ? However, although the Euro-zone failed experiment seems to suggest it could never get there, even if it did, this is not the UK desire for Europe, so would we be part of it ? So perhaps a stand-off-ish UK would need a bi-lateral security pact with the U.S.of E ?
However I am all for spending the aid budget on military aid, or for taking the Italian model and using the aid budget to pay for the amphibious fleet (because it WILL be used for disaster recovery type aid operations) and for hospital ship(s) for “soft power” projection.
Just a thought and I realize why you concentrated on the BRIC’s, but one of those, India, has something common with Canada and Australia, – it is a member of the Commonwealth, it is an ex-empire state, with considerable Anglo-phile sentiments, and English is one of the official languages.
So what can Canada and Australia offer the UK, and vice-versa ?
“On Russia: “Let’s not forget they used a Nuclear Weapon in London a few years ago.” – WTF ? How did I miss that one !! To what are you refering exactly ?”
– My guess is he’s talking about that chap that got injected with radioactive material? I did bulk myself at reading that. While strictly a nuclear/radioactive attack, that’s not really how I’d categorise it.
No news is ever impartial or unbiased. It is why critical thinking skills should be third only behind literacy and numeracy in schools. It’s so tedious to see folk adopt the media position or assume the media position is THE position.
As for the nuclear weapon in London. That does explain the state of some areas.
Jed
Australia seems to be heavily moving towards the US militarily, but aren’t Canada in the same position as us with lots of obsolete equipment needing replacing? I know they are taking serious looks at the BMT Aegirs as everything else is too expensive.
We should definitely be fostering stronger ties with all the English speaking nations. From what was reported over here, the tour of William and Kate made a strong impression.
On another note, what about South Africa? Interestingly (or maybe not), Commonwealth nations make up 1 third of the worlds population (although half that figure is India).
Alexander Litvinenko. That was the fellas name. Poisoned with Polonium-210. Interestingly enough, his wife has just recently won the right for a full public coroners inquest. That should rub some salt into the Russia-UK relations sore.
RE: Stronger links with the Commonwealth, see my first link above: idea for a commonwealth of navies; even suggests each navy specialise in a particular capability, similar to TD’s idea of capability plus. The fleet can have fun doing exercises with the big boys (Australia, Canada, India, etc) and do TD’s forward presence training and security missions with the less developed Commonwealth members.
RE: BBC. The BBC World Service is one of the most underrated diplomatic assests we have. During the Cold-War the East listened to the Beeb because it was considered impartial, not Radio Freedom because it was overly propagandist.
EDIT: Sorry, Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty
@ BBC – Any news organisation is going to be open to criticism about is coverage. Some-times fair some-times unfair. Can anyone name me a better world wide TV news Network any-where in the world?
@ Jed, Russia used Polonium 210 to assassinate Alexander Litvinenko – Okay as small Nuclear Weapon but never the less a Nuclear Weapon used in our own capital.
@ Jed, I travel to India allot and have no doubt about the level of corruption present there. It’s a similar level to China but probably far less than Russia. With recent developments at least there are some signs of change unlike the other two countries. I am not naïve enough to think that money we spend on their defence will necessarily be offset by money they spend on social improvements. To be honest I don’t give a rats a**e how they spend their money. As a democracy that’s up to the people of India to decide. As long as they join with us in an Alliance, buy our equipment commit to minimal human rights standards and develop a substantial military capability to support our alliance I don’t really care. When dealing with the developing world we have to accept that many practices are not as good as ours but it’s up to the people of that country to change things.
In terms of Europe – I just don’t see the democratic mandate ever happening for a US of E. Politicians are sailing close enough to the wind as it is. Every time they have a referendum on treaty changes (minor ones) it is rejected by the voters. How are you going to get into a set up where Europe becomes one country on that basis? It took two British invasions and a civil war to get America to operate as a single entity bearing in mind those people all came from almost identical ethnic groupings, spoke the same language and had never been independent countries before. I just don’t see a US of E in my life time. If it does happen we will obviously have to change our stance. However dealing with the fringe nations such as Denmark – Sweden and hopefully in the future Turkey while having a more informal treaty with the US of E would probably serve us well.
In terms of Canada and Australia – I could not cover all aspects of foreign policy in this piece. Obviously an increasing of the FPDA agreement would improve our contact with Australia and I am not sure if we could do any more with Canada than we currently do through NATO. However these countries are fantastically important and we need to do everything we can to keep them on board with us.
@ Chris B – I did over state this intentionally to try and make my point. We have no hope of ever having a close relationship with Russia if this is the kind of thing they are prepared to do. So why bother trying.
Martin – radioactive poison does NOT equal a nuclear weapon !
On India – fair enough, I am all for more cooperation with them, just think we should change the nature of the relationship – including a straight up and very honest “if Pakistan nukes you, we will nuke them” which of course would not go down very well with “British” moslems, but such is life.
US of E – I don’t think it will happen in your 50 year time scale either, my point was as you will never get ALL Of EU to give up ALL their national self interest, then some of your comments about Europe seemed a tad invalid.
AndyW – Canada is in the grip of a corrupt retard, at least next time I should be able to vote ! Longest coast line in the world, across 3 oceans, only 2 land borders, both with the “friendly” U.S. and no realistic way to defend 4/5th’s of the countries territory (the Canadian Rangers, puh-leeze!) but if they go with Aegirs it will be a simple commercial, no drama contract, unlike their rejection of UK plea to work together on Frigates. No, to be honest Canadian defence policy makes UK look positively stellar !
@ Jed _ I obviously over stated the nuclear weapon point to make my point. However technically radioactive material is a nuclear weapon in the way that a dirty bomb is also a nuclear weapon. The fact that Russia was prepared to use such a thing to deal with a relatively irrelevant dissident in London knowing fool well we would find out really sums up Russia’s view of its self and us.
Not sure if I understand your point on Europe. I would have thought that the unwillingness of governments to give up sovereign powers gives us an advantage. As long as Europe does not form a single Military then we can build the spine around which other nations can deploy forces under a coalition of the willing. Obviously France is likely to resist and Germany does not want to be part of anything but there is more than enough of the rest of Europe to make meaningful contributions especially the Danes, Dutch and Polish.
Certainly agree about Canada. Their Navy is a total disgrace.
Martin – just be pedantic, a nuclear weapon is one which uses fission or fusion to go “bang”.
A “dirty bomb” is a Radiological weapon to be precise. Which is why the old term NBC is now the new term CBRN – Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
On Europe: “we can build the spine around which other nations can deploy forces under a coalition of the willing.” – yes I totally get that, and link it to TD’s definition of “capapability plus” or my definition of “niche capability” – BUT – will our squabling Euro partners, who never agree on anything foreign policy related, be able to find their own areas of capability to hang off your “spine” ? What if Denmark develops a niche ISR capability, but decides not to play when the time comes ????
Jed – I would hope that we could provide all the required C4ISTAR to enable the coalition without requiring any one other European nation. I think the fact that Europe can never agree on anything puts us into a stronger position. Everyone knows we will go off on pretty much any mission meaning that we will always be the willing partner. Even in the war on Iraq which was surely the most contentious issue ever a number of European countries were on board. With soon to be 30 members I think we should always be able to find at least 10 nations who are willing to contribute. If we can’t find sufficient numbers it’s probably a good sign that we should not be doing it anyway.
Its the Bolshevik Broadcasting Commune
“for sure the FT is read around the world”
Except in The City.
Its the house paper of the EUrocrat now. Business reads the WSJ and CityAM
“@ BBC – Any news organisation is going to be open to criticism about is coverage. Some-times fair some-times unfair. Can anyone name me a better world wide TV news Network any-where in the world?”
The FACT Zone has more bearing on reality than the BBC output….
I actualy agree with the “Capability Plus” Option as a supplement to “Strategic Raider”.
Everyone in Europe has fast jets, tanks, ect, what they lack is any ability to move them to theatre, supply them when they are there and organise something productive (Destructive?) for them to do.
Just look at Libya, no shortage of fast jets, massive shortage of AAR, ISTAR and so on, and complete reliance on American support, and permission, to act.
@DominicJ: seconded
“Most of this is wasted on heavy fixed forces still waiting to counter the Soviet hoards rolling across the planes of Germany.”
I’m not sure the Estonians and Georgians would consider it wasted. The Russian government already uses gas supplies at a political lever against Ukraine, and is treating Belarus more and more like a dependency.
“If we are to develop the close ties we need with India we should be prepared to consider mutual defence treaties with them.”
That means inevitably fighting nuclear-armed Pakistan, sooner or later, and guarantees more terrorism. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but you understated the down side.
“The only way to achieve this in my opinion is to make sure that everywhere they [China] turn they are countered. … we and our allies must maintain the ability to prevent China from gaining crucial supplies. Especially oil from the Middle East.”
This is the kind of foolish thinking that will lead to World War III. China reacts very badly to notions of containment. It doesn’t need to “revert to peaceful means” – it has a much less militarized foreign policy than the UK. (Obviously Taiwan is an exception: Chinese people have the same feelings about Taiwan that most readers of this blog have about the Falklands). The Chinese leadership would be delighted to see the tables turned and Britain eat dirt, but they’re far more interested in making money. Oil is not yet a zero-sum game, so why do we need to compete for oil with anything other than prices?
Incidentally, I’m currently watching ‘The Rise of the Great Powers’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_great_powers), which you might find helpful for learning more about Chinese strategic ideas. It’s propaganda, so what’s interesting is what they *don’t* say: we’re entitled to grab bits of the world because the Europeans did.
“Expanding this [FPDA] to a 7 Nation organisation including India and Indonesia would allow us to formally ally ourselves with both nations and help to counter Chinese ambitions in the area.”
FPDA was conceived as an anti-Indonesian organization. If Malaysia and Singapore were at all interested in regional collective security, they would go for an ASEAN-based framework, with balanced Chinese and US involvement. Non-starter.
“While Argentina is likely to try to hamper this we should remember that Brazil is not exactly a lover of Argentina.”
Bashing the Anglos wins far too many votes in both countries for a Brazilian-British defence treaty to be a runner. They are both committed to MERCOSUR for the forseeable future. It is far more likely that Ascension will cease to be a viable route to the Falklands as Brazilian military capability grows.
welcome to TD seek…
Just to reinforce what ‘seektruthfromfacts’ had to say about the FPDA. It is very much a token arrangement put in place when SEATO folded up. In Australia’s case no assigned forces just a couple of exercises a year.
The problem in SE Asia is you have a lot of post colonial states at different levels of development and lots of baggage. It is difficult to see them pulling together unless China becomes overtly hostile.
The US is putting much effort into trying to get India to act as a counterbalence to China. That has two major problems:
1. Since independance India has been very careful to action in its own self interest. There is no evidence at all that India will do the US’s or more generally the West’s bidding in any form.
2. India has a remarkable capacity for dis-organisation. Dispite greater contact with the West, it has acheived far less in improving its peoples lot than China and its industrial base is far more fragile.
If the UK felt compelled to increase its defence efforts in the Indian Ocean and/or South East Asia, the best use of any additional resources would be spent in reinforcing the US presence, or atleast sustaining an overall level of Western presence in the face of numerical atleast US decline.
Penang or Singapore are far to exposed to act as a base of operations even if the host government’s were willing. You would do far better to base a self contained task group at Diego Garcia……..if you have the resources.
Fleets and assigned forces can always move foward, but the worst case is adopting an overly ambitious posture that you ultimatly cannot sustain.
I did mention a while ago that the FPDA had no common defence agreement, all it binds anyone to do is keep the others informed as to their assets in the region.
SeekTruthFromFacts, it’s interesting that you mention Taiwan; the Chinese are happy to flatter the Argentinians for their support over China’s policies towards Taiwan.
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims
On the face of it, two entirely different situations; though both populations don’t want to be ruled by their belligerent neighbours.
Personally, I don’t see any great depth to China’s support for Argentina; they play a good diplomatic game, and that is one issue currently on Argentina’s agenda.
this seems relevant:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8995269/Our-friends-in-the-East.html
So even Chinas current tributary states are terrified of Chinas growing ambitions, and people cant fatham why independant nations are in a flap about remaining so?
RE “tributary states”
- many have become such because the rest of the world has pushed them into a pariah status
…Sri Lanka (at least as long as the civil war lasted), northern Sudan, Eritrea
Even Myanmar must have seen that there is an end to the road of relying solely on extractive industries (logging, minerals, hydropower)as the members of the military might be comfortable in an ownership role, but hardly have a notion about entrepreneurship?