In 1890, Alfred Mahan affirmed, that “whoever controls the Indian Ocean will dominate Asia, the destiny of the world will be decided on its waters” .In 1968, after United Kingdom withdrawal from Indian Ocean region the United States (US) presumed the responsibility of sustaining the order in the Indian Ocean. In earlier era, its overwhelming power-projection capacity, the US endorsed the moderate policy thwarting by outer hegemony and the rise of other intimidations to the Indian Ocean region. Indian Ocean appears as the essential battlefield of struggle in global political views. Strategic position of the Indian Ocean region in terms authority and significance of its Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) makes it important for the littoral and external hegemons. The geostrategic competition among major power like the US, China and India, in the contemporary era this region has determined its regional states to boost their military forces in the Indian Ocean.
Formerly, the Indian Ocean considered as a deserted ocean and today it has turn out to be a center of political and intentional activities. Moreover, The US has established its military naval base Diego Garcia on the isolated land mass of Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean region due to its interests in this region.Due to strategic importance of Indian Ocean and the competition among major regional powers the US always supports India, to counter Chinese hegemony in this region.
Keeping in view Indian geo-strategic position, the US developed strategic partnership with India to contain China. The Indo- US partnership presumes to efficaciously hedge against Chinese designs in the Indian Ocean. The present study aims to discuss the US security strategy for the Indian Ocean and its implications for China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
The Indo-US partnership in Indian Ocean has unsurprisingly made cautious Pakistan and China regarding the strategic stability in this region. Pakistan is conscious of its instant and extensive neighborhood in the Indian Ocean. Pakistan has to appraise its alternatives and ready to handle any challenge that Indian Ocean can tender in the future. China has already exceeded the America as the largest energy consumer and now it has turned into more reliant on overseas oil and gas.
This era is most dynamic and emerging era with all respects. It brought lot of changes in international map and as well as in technology and all walks of life. This era is marked as Global era and globalization is its key importance. The 20th century was dominated by most of mega events of history which redefined the shapes of mankind on surface of world. Events like World War I and World War II, Nuclear power exploration and its control, chauvinism and decolonization, establishment of UN, massive improvements in science and technology, awareness of environmental degradation, digital revolution, and massive advancement in information technology shaped life in new patterns. This also affected the Indian Ocean with multiple ways like politics, technology, emerging of powers, trade, communication and navigation and changing boundaries of territories.
With increase in trade and discovery of fusel fuels, industrial revolution exaggerated. Oil, Gas and other petroleum products became strategic commodities. This also caused to ship petroleum from its origins to Europe and other industrial countries. The world has been affected tremendously by petroleum and its byproducts particularly in 20th century. These petroleum products have become central to our lives. Crude oil found in inside earth and in rocks is processed to form different petroleum products. From lighting and cooking inside homes to running of gigantic machinery of heavy industrial complexes all are mostly based on petroleum. The Indian Ocean region is very important in this regard as five of world’s largest oil producers are located in this region. Out of world total trade of oil and petroleum 40% petroleum products are traded from Indian Ocean and its shipping lanes are backbones of most of international economies.
The strait of Bab al Mandab known as “Gate of Lamentation” is a narrow strait only twenty miles wide that allows ships to pass from the Red Sea to Gulf of Aden and to Arabian Sea. This strait is divided into Eastern Channel, Alexander’s Strait’ two miles wide and western channel “Dact al Mayun’ 16 miles wide by an island “Perim” in the center of Bab al Mandab. The oil came from Middle East must have to pass through this strait to their way to Suez Canal and it save extra time and money of ships that carry oil from Middle East to Europe and America. Thus Bab al Mandab became very strategic connection among Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea and similar for rest of the world. Further this era comprises on the emergence of regional and extra regional power in Indian Ocean region such as US, China, India and Pakistan. China is meticulously emerging and constructing up its naval occurrence in Indian Ocean, which is being sighted as rising threats for the wellbeing of India and US as well.
The US armada was initially founded as the Continental Navy times ago, in 1775 during the American innovative war. Initially the US fleet was operated in Pacific and Atlantic but later due to the trade awareness and Indian Ocean’s growing importance tilted the United States towards it. In the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, the Indian Ocean considered as a British lake, the British not only acquired India but also got control the various choke points of Indian Ocean to protected the trade routes of their favor. At that time the American presence in this part of world was minimal.
American concern in the Indian Ocean region rose extensively during and after the II World War. Ultimately, the US happen to be the main sponsor of protection on the high seas in the Indian Ocean region, on the other hand, after the British draw down from east of Suez canal in 1970s. Additionally, for the future of this region the American President “Franklin Delano Roosevelt” congested in the Suez Canal while he returns from the Yalta Conference in 1940s. So in particular he met the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz ibn Saud on a ship voyage. The king had brought a number of sheep on slat, butchered and roasted for the American bunch.At the same time, the protection of oil assurances was converse by the pertinent parties.
Nowadays, it is stiff to envisage the Indian Ocean region, particularly the Arabian Sea region without the US maritime attendance, but the US occurrence in the Indian Ocean is not as mature or as profound, as it has presence in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The US naval presence in the Indian Ocean is consequently reliant on the benevolence of its associates. However, there is no distrust this goodwill would continue in near future. The Indian Ocean and the land of its surroundings have been developed its significance and it is expected to become imperative to the US navy.
Economic concerns always played most important task in the formulation of US overseas strategies and foretelling its supremacy in abroad. US economic concerns in the Indian Ocean region are the main cause of the main possessions like oil, decisive supplies and raw materials and the sea lanes of communication are worth mentioning. Though, for the US the Indian Ocean has turned out to be a vital tip of foreign its and financial strategies and it has grown impact on its defense. Thus, for the economic survival of US allies of US the unhindered shipping of raw materials, oil and other products through the Sea Lanes of Communication was mandatory. According to the President Nixon report on foreign policy to congress in May 1973, the US and other industrial nation’s demands of energy are rising in world so in this case the need of Persian Gulf oil would increase in the near future. Consequently, the assertion of the ongoing flow of Middle East energy resources are increasing its importance for the US, Western Europe and Japan. In today’s world the significance of constant supply of oil and other Mineral Resources to the US and its allies have happened as the milestone for the American foreign and defense policies. In the post Second World War the main concerns of US were to deter the expansion of communism in Europe and other parts of the World. In post II World War Era Indian Ocean region lost its strategic significance due to the rising tensions between superpowers, in Europe. Moreover, France and England had colonies in Indian Ocean’s littoral States, the Britain thus, provided a sagacity of safety to the US interests in Indian Ocean.
The US war with Korea in 1950s had deep effects on the US economic concerns, which was extended to comprise a great part of the Asia. Therefore, the alliances were established with the littoral countries of Indian Ocean I-e India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Further, US entreated the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) the aim of this treaty was to check the South–West extension of China, which was measured to be a Soviet ally. Washington also created another accord among Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (ANZUS) for the assure protection of European nations. Likewise, US encouraged the configuration of Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1979, to take initiative as an observer. In all these provisions, US sought and protected major participation of Great Britain, and it kept its presence in the area which limited to flag -showing profile at Bahrain based Mideast force. The Suez crises in 1956 and the Colonial rule in Subcontinent brought home the fact that the British cannot continue its presence in the region for an indefinite period, nevertheless later on the announcement of British withdrawal came as a surprise for the whole world. The inspiring Soviet entry into the region in the wake of the British decision to withdraw from the area was seen as a part of intended Russian move to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of British. These historic events led US to believe that in an area as important as the India Ocean, it is dangerous to let the Soviet Union attain a potential that would be significantly greater than its own .
The Nixon doctrine, “for the security concerns the arrangements were modified to make available a more secure US role in Indian Ocean Region, the burdens and responsibilities were shared within the allies for their own protection and security and for more bitterly sharing of materials and manpower”. This doctrine highlighted that, in some cases and area US would be militarily involved, and in some cases the involvement would be much lesser. The US key objective was to maintain a balance role in Indian Ocean Region that would continue to represent US interests in the area. It also encouraged littoral states to contribute for their own security issues, further the US would help to provide the Naval and Air presence as a possible prevention and the allies would help to supply their own ground troops.
The naval units of the US which were desired by maintained a viable presence due to its elasticity and comparative autonomy in the global waters. For the preservation of necessary deterrence, it was essential that they can approach to any part of the Indian Ocean in the undeviating time. In the perspective of the Nixon doctrines, the “Island strategy” naval base Diego Garcia considered a vital to US naval wellbeing in Indian Ocean. In gulf war era, the US persists to set up the coalitions in Indian Ocean region for security concerns.
On the other hand, the post 9/11 era has marked a rising involvement of the US Administration in this Region. In the light of 9/11 attack on US, President Bush highlighted two superseding security concerns in his speech, Bush provided policy guidelines for the US involvement in the Indian Ocean. According to Bush two major features of the US involvement includes first, to countering china and second, securing oil trade routes. The most significant key factor for extensive involvement of the US can be measured as that the US said that the war in Afghanistan is a war for justice. But the War in Gulf, it is the underlying motivation for the US involvement. George W. Bush said that the Taliban defeat is the most repressive regime in the history of the world. According to a journalist, in the past, it was the US who expectant the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to help the Taliban regime. So when the Taliban took the power, the US considered nothing obnoxious in the Taliban’s rule and campaign to compel the stringent Islamic laws.
The premeditated concerns of Washington in the Indian Ocean can be measured by a comprehensive foreign policy stance. Further, that viewpoint is prejudiced by the essential regional interests and also comprised on state’s explicit purposes. On the other hand the Washington’s key objective is to curtail and eliminate those threats which are alarming for the US interests in this region.
Due to the vital strategic location, rich resources, important trade ways, the just beginning Sino-US and Sino-Indian contentions, programmed of uncertain purpose, and Islamist extremists. Because of these scenarios the Indian Ocean region seems successful to get the consideration of the US representatives and strategists.
The United States foreign policy, specifically regarding the Indian Ocean and, particularly related to China, India and Pakistan, it can be recapitulating in a hierarchical way to describe the core objectives of the US policy. So in this regard there are two notable points to explain. First of all, in the US as like other States, the national and global concerns are extremely linked up with external strategy statements. Secondly, the US contemporary economic conditions would have consequences for the foreign and defense policies.
There are diverse strategic schools of thoughts I-e the renowned American strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, Lord Horatio Nelson, J.C Wylie and John talkie when that derives to ponder about the prominence of the strategic purposes of the US in this region.
One School of thought argues that Indian Ocean region will turn out to be more imperative for the US, due to its ongoing dependency on oil imports from the Middle East. Further, the US allied need is to preserve the strategic supremacy to counter Chinese activity in this region, it also wants to curtail the influence of Iran. In the case of a competition with China, the Indian Ocean would have a great implication in trade, mainly related to the supply lines.
There is another school of thought which suggests a fascinating amalgamation of the above school of thought. It is about that this Indian Ocean region will always have been attractive for the policymakers of United States. Despite the fact, the focus of United States is growing day by day in this region. .
To put aside the above considerations, it comes into view that there would be an intensive practice of multifaceted measures by the US to look closely the issues of this region with its particular partners. This is also source to increase the awareness about all the issue on local level, which is not in the favor of The US interests. Likewise, for the sake of sustainability the US can confront with other powers for the security of its interests. Furthermore, the Washington’s nature of assets and capabilities are likely to change in Indo-Pacific region. US also may get force to step back from its presence in Indian Ocean Region after the fulfillment of its interests, and then it will definitely consider the other partners of this region like India, Indonesia, and Australia to pursue its interests.
There are different key factors of ongoing rapid transformation in Indian Ocean Region. China is emerging as the second leading economy globally and its transnational mammoth project and Silk Road Economic Belt project with Pakistan and other Asian States. Secondly the US counter strategy towards china’s rise and pivot strategy to Asia, furthermore, the US also concerned to ascent several emerging economies of the littoral states in this region like India, Indonesia, Pakistan and others. In near future, it seems there will be rise of intensive economic activities within and through the Indian Ocean and there would be high possibility of militarization among littoral and external powers. In this context the CPEC presumes a vital importance in this region. India have fear that, this mega venture by China and Pakistan can encircle the India’s boundaries of both land and maritime. Further that the Indian Ocean is desirable for India to endure its limited naval front both economically and militarily. Moreover, with the influence of US, the other key regional countries such as India, China, United Kingdom, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, France, South and the United Kingdom will play a vital part in the Indian Ocean region on different levels. There are some major features of United States objectives in the Indian Ocean are seeing moderately clear. Similarly the United States conceives the alarming threats to its interests in Indian Ocean Region from the regional countries like China and Iran.
The following analysis briefly explains the aspects of US involvement on Indian Ocean Regional key countries.
China’s naval projection can be traced back to the heyday of Qing dynasty; the China’s naval legacy was not prolonged far beyond the Cape of Good Hope. As long as Chinese objects in Indian Ocean, China has already obtained the shore operational capabilities. China seeks to build blue water navy to maintain its presence and fulfillment of its long term objectives in Indian Ocean Region. Concurrently, China is also eagerly increasing its participation in multilateral institutions like wise, its participation in the UN peacekeeping missions, international disaster relief campaigns such as counter-terrorism and counter-piracy mission..
The regional neighbors of China view the naval projection as a fearsome offensive force in Indian Ocean. That’s the reason the US and its regional allies consider the naval modernization of China in Indo-Pacific as a potential threat to its interests. Likewise the dominant naval position of China is becoming the cause of clash of interests between the two major states China and the US.
The US considers China as a potential source of instability in Indo-Pacific region so in 2010 one of the US official warned China to cultivate its activities in this region. The US Pivot to Asia strategy with its allies to encircle China along the eastern and southern island chain periphery. Further for the containment of China, the US also built strategic rings and also expands its defense treaties with its South Asian regional allies to encircle China in this region. China on the other hand considers the US as a major threat to the security. Beijing is also making substantial efforts to counter the US in the Indian Ocean, for example in 2013, Beijing warned the US not to interfere in the region. Secondly, China imposed no-fly zone in the South China Sea area.
Likewise, the emergence of China as booming economy and also dominant superpower in Asia-Pacific regard as a major player in this region. The aggressive and strong emergence of China has changed the geopolitics of Asian region, as long as it also affects the international order. Now China has become the most significant partner of Asian countries due to its economic rise. The rapid rise of china also poses the major threats to its neighbors and other countries such as for the US. The general views of engagement of China’s in this region considered by many countries as a threat to its interests.
China is ever more signifying its assertiveness in various strategies to make best use of its interests in this region. The assertion of Chinese president Xi Jinping of China’s aims to start a “New 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” another part of the “One Belt One Road” inventiveness which is related to the newest proposal of grander economic collaboration among the States. China invested with the assurance of US$40 billion in this mega venture, China intends to expand the structure along with the sea routes and road routes, through these exertions china wants to amalgamate its ongoing ventures. This offer not only unwraps better opportunities for China, but it will also contribute to enlarge its domain of encouragement.
Eastern seas after Afghanistan: UK and Australia come to the rescue of the U.S. in a clumsy way
In March 2021 the People’s Republic of China emerged as the world’s largest naval fleet, surpassing the US Navy. An advantage of around 60 ships, which will increase in 2024, when China will count on a fleet of at least 400 units. A goal already announced in 2018 by President Xi Jinping.
After the unsuccessful withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States announced the establishment of a new security cooperation alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia, whose first task is to assist Australia in building nuclear-powered submarines.
Considering its allies, the White House has shared only nuclear propulsion technology with the UK and Australia will be the next. Although the officials from the three countries denied that the new alliance was targeted to any country, European and US media believe that the move is intended to counter Chinese power and strength.
In addition to nuclear-powered submarines, the three countries will also strengthen cooperation in the areas of network technology, artificial intelligence and quantum technology. White House officials revealed that Britain played a strategic leadership role in reaching the alliance.
In Global Britain in a Competitive Age. The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy of March 2021 – which sets out the government’s geopolitical strategy after Brexit and outlines the UK role in the world over the next 10 years – the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, proposed to reposition UK’s global strategy after Brexit. He announced the foreign and defence policy, stressing that the country would be deeply involved in the Indo-Pacific region in the future.
According to a statement released by the White House on September 15, the US-UK-Australia security alliance is named AUKUS, and is designed to strengthen the three countries’ diplomatic, security and defence cooperation in the said region.
Under the new regional arrangement, the three countries will further strengthen information and technology sharing, as well as integrate science and supply chains and security and defence-related industrial bases.
The first key basis of the arrangement is the United States of America and the United Kingdom, with the aim of assisting Australia in building nuclear-powered submarines. The three countries will spend 18 months discussing how to implement the plan.
As said above, before Australia the United Kingdom was the only country with which the United States shared nuclear propulsion technology. It should be recalled that during the Cold War, after the Soviet Union had launched the first artificial satellite (the Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957), the United States and Britain signed a joint defence agreement on July 3, 1958 (the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement) to share key military nuclear technology. Britain obviously ignored the rest of Europe, about which, even before Napoleon, it had cared very little except as a rampart from the South and the East. However, let us revert to the present day.
Compared to conventional submarines, nuclear-powered ones are faster; they have greater endurance and attack capabilities and are more difficult to detect. Currently, only six countries in the world have this type of weapon: the United States, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, France, India and the United Kingdom.
According to the AUKUS plan, these submarines will be built in Adelaide, the capital of the State of South Australia, but the Commonwealth of Australia has no nuclear industry nor the necessary fissile materials. US officials have revealed that nuclear materials can be shipped from other countries to that federal State. The USA and Australia already signed an agreement in 2010, which stipulates that Australia will not retract or increase the amount of nuclear materials sent to the country from the United States, and it should also be recalled that Australia is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, however, has already put his hands on, declaring that the construction of nuclear-powered submarines does not necessarily mean the production of nuclear weapons. He emphasised that Australia did not seek to acquire nuclear weapons, nor did it seek a chance in civilian nuclear power.
Nevertheless, some experts believe that Australia’s construction of nuclear-powered submarines is off to a bad start. In an interview with The Washington Post, James Acton – Director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace – pointed out that the move severely undermined the nuclear non-proliferation system and could also trigger an arms race.
He sharply predicted that, after Australia’s precedent, Iran might also announce the construction of nuclear-powered submarines: after all, Iran is a subject of international law and a co-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as is Australia.
In the past, while such a possible Iranian request might have been opposed by the international community, with AUKUS it will be lent credence, unless the aforementioned international law also formally establishes the existence of first-ranking and second-ranking States.
On the political level, Hugh White, a former Australian defence official, stated in an interview with The New York Times that Australia’s move was not just to build nuclear-powered submarines, but also a strategic adjustment to significantly deepen anti-Chinese cooperation with the United States.
When the new Indo-Pacific security alliance was announced on September 15, US President Joseph Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison were careful not to mention the People’s Republic of China.
President Biden said that the establishment of the new alliance was used for ensuring long-term peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. US officials stressed that the trilateral cooperation was not directed against any other country, but was designed to safeguard the strategic interests of the three countries.
But whether it is the Australian media, the British media such as The Guardian or the US media such as CNN, they all agree that the alliance is directly targeting China.
Over the next few days, President Biden will also meet at the White House with the leaders of the “four-country group”: the United States, Japan, India and Australia.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, on the other hand, said at a press conference on September 16 that mutual respect and trust are the prerequisites for dialogue and cooperation between the countries.
He stressed that the current difficult situation in China-Australia relations stemmed solely from Australia. The most urgent task for Australia is to address the setback in relations between the two countries, as well as seriously assess whether it views the People’s Republic of China as a partner or a threat, and hence sincerely uphold mutual respect and treat each other as equals.
Let the principles and spirit of a comprehensive strategic partnership – not a sectoral one targeted against someone – govern the relations between the two countries.
In an interview with The Guardian, a senior White House official revealed that, when the new understanding was established, the UK played the role of mediator on all key issues and was “a very strong strategic leader”.
It should be noted that, on the issue of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Britain and the USA had severe divergences. The British Secretary of State for Defence, Robert Ben Lobban Wallace, repeatedly criticised the United States. Therefore, in theory, the USA can also bypass Britain and directly reach an agreement with Australia on nuclear-powered submarines.
The senior White House official – who disclosed the above mentioned issue – believes that this time the UK is so active in the three-nation military alliance because it had to “pay a deposit” for the policy described in Global Britain.
Global Britain, in itself, is a grandiose and vague concept. According to the UK government’s official website, the core of Global Britain is to invest again in UK’s relations with other countries, so as to promote an international order based on well-defined rules, and to demonstrate that the UK is a well-advised and trusted country in the international arena.
Some analysts believe that Boris Johnson’s Global Britain is trying to emulate Churchill’s three-circle diplomacy, e.g. the three areas of influence in British foreign policy: the Empire and the Commonwealth, the Anglo-Saxon world – in particular, the special relationship with the United States, i.e. the 51st star – and Europe.
The UK uses its close relationship with the second circle to act as a link between the other two circles to safeguard Britain’s interests and status as a (former) great power.
Meanwhile, let us see what France thinks about it. The French Ambassador to Australia, Jean-Pierre Thebault, was recalled to Paris on September 18. Before leaving, he criticised Australia for having made a “huge mistake” on the issue of submarine construction. Ambassador Thebault arrived at Sydney airport on the evening of September 18th, from where he took a flight to leave Australia and return to France.
On September 17, the French Foreign Ministry issued a communiqué announcing the immediate recall of the Ambassador to the United States, Philippe Étienne, and of the Ambassador to Australia, the aforementioned Thebault.
The communiqué stated that Australia had abandoned the submarine-building agreement reached with France and had instead established a “new partnership” with the United States on the development of nuclear submarines – an “unacceptable behaviour” between allies.
Before returning to France, Ambassador Thebault said that Australia’s cancellation of the submarine contract with France was a “big mistake” and that Australia’s handling of the partnership was “very bad”. He revealed that this was not just a contractual issue, but an issue of partnership based on trust and mutual understanding.
Ambassador Thebault reiterated that at no time did Australia give France any clear signal to suspend the relevant contract. He said that France was kept completely in the dark about the steps taken and during that period many Australian officials not only continued to discuss the project with France, but also expressed their willingness to make the project a success.
No comments have come so far from Australia.
AUKUS: Human-made disaster
AUKUS is a new military alliance that emerged recently, among Australia, UK, and The US. Under this alliance, it has been declared that Australia will be equipped with nuclear submarines. There exists a panic in the region as Australia was not a declared nuclear state and if equipped with a nuclear submarine, whether or not, it is safe? Scholars and intellectuals have various opinions, but, agreed on one point that it will promote a nuclear race in the region. I believe, the spread of nuclear weapons, especially those who have no experience of handling nuclear submarines, maybe not be safe. It can be mishandled or accidentally, can cause any incident of disaster not only for Australia but for the whole region. Keeping nuclear weapons, need special safeguards and different temperament. To be a mature and responsible state is a prerequisite for having nuclear weapons, it also needs different ethics and principles to be equipped with such lethal weapons.
On the other hand, while NATO is there and Quad was created to specifically counter China, was there any genuine need for creating a new alliance like AUKUS? Is NATO abandoned? How the NATO member state thinks to ward AUKUS, one can imagine. Anyhow, they are hurt and mistrust has been created among NATO and the US. First of all, The US is not at its peak to offend or compel any other country, like EU member states, and on other hand, the US economy is not in such a state, where it can support the luxury of defense expenditure like before. It is right to approach to cut defense expenditures and spend more of the socio-economic welfare of the country, but to create a new alliance is negating such an approach.
Many EU member states are confused and upset and in the days to come, the gap may widen further. First of all, some of the EU countries are in close cooperation with China economically. China has become the largest trading partner and investor for many EU countries. Dependency on the US has reduced considerably.
Especially, France is offended as it was in the advanced stage of negotiations with Australia for a similar deal but suddenly hijacked by the US and UK. France has lost a big opportunity and it’s her right to react and protest. France has called back its Ambassadors from Australia and the US. This is an initial reaction, but, more actions may be seen in the near future.
France, in a reaction, has announced to collaborate with India in a similar manner, which is not welcomed by Asian partners, as it will create a race in the region. Furthermore, India is in the hands of an extremist Hindu political party – RSS. RSS is a fanatic party and can go to any extent, without thinking about the consequences. It is not safe for the region to equip India with nuclear submarines.
This region is highly populous, China with its population of 1.4 billion, India itself is 1.2 billion, and the rest of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Maldives, collectively constitutes almost half of the world’s population. If any misadventure happened in this region, half of the population of the whole world is under threat.
It will be not a wise decision to promote nuclearization, either by the US, UK, or France. One mistake cannot be compensated for by making another one. It will be a total disaster for humankind.
Humankind needs peace and prosperity. Human-made disasters can be averted and must be averted. It is the right time to take appropriate measures to stop nuclearization and the promotion of the nuclear race in this part of the world or any other part of the world. It is our individual’s responsibility to raise our voice and bring public awareness of such human-made disasters. Collectively we may avert such disasters, all peace-loving nations and individuals must join efforts to neutralize such deals and agreements. Countering China, to take such extreme actions is not justified. The US may review its decisions and avert disaster to humankind.
Presidential Irrationality and Wrongdoing in US Nuclear Command Authority
Abstract: In post-World War II memory, no greater political danger has confronted the United States than the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Endowed with nuclear command authority, this unstable and openly law-violating American leader pointed the United States toward existential harms. Recognizing this threat to the nation’s physical survival, General Mark Milley acted honorably and effectively to protect an imperiled republic. By expanding pertinent safeguards against any presidential abuse of nuclear command authority, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff did what was necessary and proper. The following assessment by Professor Louis René Beres, who has been publishing on nuclear war-related issues for more than half a century, underscores what should never again be allowed to defile America’s national security decision-making. “The safety of the people,” reminds Cicero in The Laws, “shall be the highest law.”
“As to dangers arising from an irrational American president, the best protection is not to elect one.”
General Maxwell D. Taylor, from personal letter to the author, 14 March 1976
Meanings of Decisional Irrationality
Strictly speaking, irrationality is not a proper medical or psychiatric term; rather, it is a more-or-less scientific description of human distortion and behavioral disposition. Still, as a convenient shorthand for exploring mental or emotional debility in US presidential decision-making, this colloquial reference is adequate, timely and potentially useful. In essence, though now just retrospective, America’s most senior general officer revealed assorted verifiable grounds for questioning former President Donald J. Trump’s mental stability. Now, looking ahead, it is necessary to take a longer term and generic look at US presidential nuclear authority.
This look must become a task for disciplined strategic thinkers, not politicians.
How to begin? This uniquely critical area of presidential decision-making – one that has remained ambiguous or deliberately “opaque” – concerns both the right and capacity to order a launch of US nuclear weapons. To be tangibly meaningful, these intersecting decisional components must always be examined together. This is the case though any presidential nuclear capacity functioning without correct antecedent authority would be worrisome per se.
By definition, as I have discovered personally over the past half century, these are all complicated intellectual matters. In 1976, then just five years out of Princeton as a newly-minted Ph.D., I began work on an original book about nuclear war and nuclear terrorism. From the start, I focused especially on US presidential prerogatives to order the firing of nuclear weapons. I was most particularly interested in the potentially-plausible prospect of presidential nuclear irrationality and/or wrongdoing.
In technically scientific terms, this did not mean a US president who was “clinically insane” (obviously the most fearsome sort of scenario), but “only” a Head of State who might sometime value some specific preference or combination of preferences more highly than American national survival. Today, at least until General Milley’s revelations, we worry more about leadership irrationality in certain other countries, most conspicuously in North Korea and Iran. Nonetheless, as the JCS Chair recently disclosed, the worst atomic decisional errors could happen here. Even if this were not the case, there could still take place variously unforeseen decisional synergies between (1) a fully rational American president and his irrational negotiating counterparts in Pyongyang or Tehran; or (2) an irrational American president and his expectedly rational counterparts in such conspicuously adversarial states.
In the Beginning
Back “in the early days” of apocalyptic nuclear issues, and with an expressly American decision-making focus in mind, I entered into ongoing communication with then-former JCS Chairman Maxwell Taylor. In my last correspondence with the distinguished and decorated general, he responded with a handwritten letter (attached hereto) dated 14 March 1976. As the Taylor response explicitly referenced only the dangers of an “irrational American president,” I could legitimately undertake no automatic extrapolation of his diagnosis to other strategic risks.
Still, there are various related hazards that ought never be disregarded prima facie. For example, we must become better prepared to deal with a US Chief Executive who appears more than irrational. This means a president who was seemingly “crazy,” “insane,” or “mad.”
It is difficult for me to imagine that General Taylor would have hesitated to adapt these characterizations of more advanced decisional “pathology” to the extant subject-matter scope of nuclear decision making. This is the case even though such characterizations could never be seriously scientific. To obtain authentically scientific assessments of nuclear event probability, there must first exist a determinable frequency record of pertinent past events. Unassailably (and fortunately), there has never been a nuclear war from which to draw valid strategic inferences.
There is more. Any US presidential order to launch nuclear weapons would be effectively sui generis. The US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II did not constitute a nuclear war, but rather the American use of nuclear weapons in an otherwise conventional war. In August 1945 (the month of my own birth in war-torn Europe), there were no other atomic bombs anywhere on earth.
Not a one.
Whether concerned with presidential irrationality or madness, present analytic concern should be focused upon an emotionally or mentally debilitated president. Whichever applies, the truly vital questions going forward will have to do with Constitutional, statutory and other recognizable sources of US war-making authority, especially presidential right to order the use of nuclear weapons.
International Law and US Law
Urgent questions here will relate to assorted and sometimes subtle intersections of international law and US law. From the beginning of the United States, international law has been an integral part of its national law. Early on, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted and reasserted that all international law – whatever its source – had been incorporated into the domestic law of the United States. Before Marshall, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Law of England clarified that the “law of nations” is always “a necessary part of the law of the land.”
These Commentaries represent the authoritative foundation of all United States law.
Under current US law, whatever its apparent jurisprudential origins, a president may correctly use military force once Congress has declared a war or after the US (and/or its citizens) have been attacked. As to the permissible kinds of force and levels of force, these operational decisions would have to be determinable according to longstanding laws of war of international law (the comprehensive law of armed conflict or humanitarian international law), and also the municipal law of the United States. In any such foreseeable circumstances, there would exist no clearly identifiable prohibitions against nuclear force per se.
For better or for worse, non-weapon-specific prohibitions would apply broadly, to the extent that any US retaliation or counter-retaliation would violate the always-binding expectations of discrimination (sometimes called “distinction”), proportionality, or military necessity.
Both the US Constitution and the War Powers Act place strict limits on any president’s authority to initiate hostilities with a foreign power, whether by conventional or nuclear means. A significant grey area has to do with the Commander-in- Chief’s right to strike first defensively or preemptively; that is, as a presumptive expression of “anticipatory self-defense. Here, the authorizing component of permissibility must be the perception of any grave danger that is “imminent in point of time.”
Logically, the relevant criteria of “imminence” could not reasonably be the same today as they were back in a pre-nuclear 1837. That was the year of the Caroline, the classic case setting the correct legal standard for all subsequent preemptive national action.
Matters of Chronology and Crisis
What should we have expected from former President Donald Trump if he had sometime reasoned that a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies was “imminent in point of time?” Should we have remained comfortable with leaving such a prospectively existential judgment to his own personal decisional standards of the moment? Or should this eleventh-hour option have been be a matter of more plainly shared or “concurrent authority” with the US Congress?
In actual state practice, applicable questions of law are apt to be subordinated to the overarching and ubiquitous assumption that any president’s final authority in defending the United States should never be challenged during an impending or already-ongoing crisis. This sort of assumption would become especially worrisome in circumstances where an enemy nuclear attack could be contemplated and anticipated. In brief, this means that a verifiably irrational or mad American president would likely have his military commands obeyed, up to and including an order to use nuclear weapons. This reasoning applies also to preemptive American strikes, whether launched in retaliation or counter-retaliation. It also means that while a wide variety of redundant safeguards already exists to prevent unauthorized uses of American nuclear weapons up and down the identifiable nuclear chain of command, no parallel safeguards can exist at the top or apex of this unique decisional hierarchy.
This was the precise conclusion reached in General Maxwell Taylor’s 1976 letter to me (attached hereto) on nuclear command authority.
There is more. It remains possible, of course, and even potentially desirable, that a presidential order to use nuclear weapons would be disobeyed at one or another recognizable level of implementation. Strictly speaking, however, as any such expression of disobedience would be “illegal,” it is not sufficiently probable or reliable in extremis atomicum. The staggering irony of actually having to hope for certain high-level instances of disobedience or chain-of-command failures ought not be too casually set aside.
Prima facie, this irony reveals that extant US nuclear-decision safeguards are sorely and overwhelmingly inadequate.
The Best Protection Lies with the American Voter
Is the US nuclear presidential authority dilemma remediable in any still-promising ways? “The best protection,” I learned from General Maxwell Taylor almost fifty years ago, is “not to elect” an irrational president. But now, as such straightforward advice cannot be acted upon retroactively, the residually “best protection” must lie elsewhere Among potentially gainful sources, this suggests more vigilant statutory oversight by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Advisor and certain select others. This oversight also includes a more predictably reliable willingness – either singly or in appropriate collaboration with the others – to disobey any presumptively irrational or insane presidential nuclear command.
Such willingness could be correctly defended as law-enforcing under those universally binding Nuremberg Principles (1946) that obligate all persons (especially senior government officials everywhere) to resist “crimes of state.” Because war and crimes against humanity are not mutually exclusive, compliance with overriding Nuremberg Principles could become necessary not only to limit aggression, but also to prevent genocide.
Ultimately, America’s best chance of avoiding or surviving such a grievous threat could depend less upon any codified law or tangible institutions than the last-minute or impromptu courage of a handful of senior officials. Though any such estimation must be less than ideal or optimal, it may simply be “realistic.” To wit, it was the courage and insight of a single senior decision-maker, JCS Chair Mark Milley, that firmed up necessary Constitutional protections against a severely debilitated commander-in-chief.
Buttressed by national and international law, it is incumbent upon voting American citizens to act upon General Maxwell Taylor’s 1976 warning. That earlier alarm, which cautioned “not to elect” a potentially “irrational” American president, should be extended to include even a potentially “insane” Commander-in-Chief. In the final analysis, however, we may not be able to rely upon prudential and law-oriented voters to effectively save the United States from itself – that is, from prospectively aberrant nuclear decision-making. In that intolerable case, all narrowly statutory or technical directions on nuclear decision making would be overtaken by visceral expectations of American “mass.”
Then it would be too late.
American democracy owes a sincere debt to US General Mark Milley. In the sycophancy-driven Trump world, a world of determined anti-reason, Milley’s reliance upon law and virtue was much more than merely acceptable. For US national integrity and survival, it was indispensable.
But what should we do now?
 For informed accounts by this author of nuclear attack effects, see: Louis René Beres, The Management of World Power: A Theoretical Analysis (1973); Louis René Beres, Transforming World Politics: The National Roots of World Peace (1975); Louis René Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Louis René Beres, Mimicking Sisyphus: America’s Countervailing Nuclear Strategy ((Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1983); Louis René Beres, Reason and Realpolitik: U.S. Foreign Policy and World Order (Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1984); Louis René Beres, Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1986); and Louis René Beres, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed., 2018).
 This expansion included urgent consultations with chiefs of the armed forces and conversations with foreign leaders concerned about Trump-induced US instabilities.
 These publications have been both strategic and legal in focus.
 General Taylor was an earlier Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. His handwritten letter to Professor Beres follows this article and the author’s bio. On August 18, 2017, Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a bill to the US House of Representatives that would have required President Donald Trump to undergo a mental health examination to determine if he is emotionally stable enough to remain in office. The proposed legislation expressly invoked the 25th Amendment, a rarely-used Constitutional provision allowing the vice-president and members of the Cabinet to remove a president from office. Rep. Lofgren’s bill did not become law.
 “Science,” says 20th-century Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y’Gasset in Man and Crisis, ” by which I mean the entire body of knowledge about things, whether corporeal or spiritual – is as much a work of imagination as it is of observation…. the latter is not possible without the former.”
 This book was published by the University of Chicago Press as Louis René Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (1980).
Irrational adversaries would likely not be deterred by the same threats directed at presumptively rational foes. On pertinent errors of correct deterrence reasoning (here regarding Iran in particular) see: Louis René Beres and General John T. Chain, “Could Israel Safely Deter a Nuclear Iran?” The Atlantic, August 2012; and Professor Louis René Beres and General John T. Chain, “Israel and Iran at the Eleventh Hour,” Oxford University Press (OUP Blog). February 23, 2012. General Chain (USAF/ret.) served as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic Air Command (CINCSAC).
 Expressions of decisional irrationality could take different or overlapping forms. These include a disorderly or inconsistent value system; computational errors in calculation; an incapacity to communicate efficiently; random or haphazard influences in the making or transmittal of particular decisions; and the internal dissonance generated by any structure of collective decision-making (i.e., assemblies of pertinent individuals who lack identical value systems and/or whose organizational arrangements impact their willing capacity to act as a single or unitary national decision maker).
 Nuclear risks threatening US security could form an intricately interconnected network. Capable assessments of such risk must eventually include a patient search for synergies, and also for possible cascades of failures that would represent one especially serious iteration of synergy. Other risk properties that will warrant careful assessment within this genre include contagion potential and persistence.
 One such generally ignored risk is “playing to the audience,” that is, seeking personal popularity at the expense of national security. Accordingly, see Sophocles, Antigone, Speech of Creon, King of Thebes: “I hold despicable and always have…. anyone who puts his own popularity before his country.”
 Donald Trump’s presidency brings to mind those fragments of Euripides that concern tragic endings. Here we may learn from the classical playwright, “Whom God wishes to destroy, He first makes mad.” Inter alia, Greek tragedy explores the wider civil harms that any deranged “sovereign” mind can produce. Looking at the United States today, struggling with rampant “plague” and with extraordinary domestic instability, there is a still-discoverable wisdom in classical Greek tragedy.
 Significantly, neither the irrational/rational nor insane/sane distinction is narrowly dichotomous. There are, rather, multiple or “continuous” variations of each pairing, an indisputable fact that makes any more far-reaching psychological or legal analysis of these already-complex nuclear decision-making issues even more problematic.
 See also “Supremacy Clause” of the US Constitution (Article VI); The Paquette Habana, 175 US 677,700 (1900); and Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726, F.2d. 774, 781, 788 (D.C. Cir. 1984) per curiam).
 For the crime of aggression under international law, see: Resolution on the Definition of Aggression, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Dec. 14, 1974. U.N.G.A. Res. 3314 (XXIX), 29 UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 31), 142, UN Doc A/9631 (1975) reprinted in 13 I.L.M., 710 (1974).
 See, on such issues: Summary of the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), 1996.
 The principle of proportionality has its jurisprudential and philosophic origins in the Biblical Lex Talionis, the law of exact retaliation. The “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” can be found in three separate passages of the Jewish Torah, or Biblical Pentateuch.
 The principle of “military necessity” is defined authoritatively as follows: “Only that degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required for the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life, and physical resources may be applied.” See: United States, Department of the Navy, jointly with Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; and Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M, Norfolk, Virginia, October 1995, p. 5-1.
 Long before the nuclear age, Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel took a position in strong favor of anticipatory self-defense. Vattel concludes The Law of Nations (1758) as follows: “The safest plan is to prevent evil, where that is possible. A nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor.” (See Vattel, “The Right of Self-Protection and the Effects of the Sovereignty and Independence of Nations,” reprinted in 3 Classics of International Law, 130 (Carnegie Endowment Trust 1916 (1758). Vattel, in the conspicuously earlier fashion of Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius, (The Law of War and Peace, 1625) drew widely upon ancient Hebrew Scripture and Jewish law.
 The Caroline concerned the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule. Following this case, the serious threat of armed attack has generally been sufficient in law to justify certain appropriate militarily defensive actions. In a formal exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then US Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for national self-defense that did not require antecedent attack. Accordingly, the authoritative jurisprudential framework now permitted a military response to threat as long as the danger posed was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Naturally, this standard could sometimes be more easily met in our time-compressed and prospectively apocalyptic nuclear age.
 Reflecting this second point-of-view, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D, LA County) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D, Massachusetts) introduced H.R. 669 (Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017) back on 24 January 2017. Although this proposed legislation would have prohibited the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a Congressional Declaration of War, it’s not clear that it could also have dealt satisfactorily with the irrationality/insanity issues herein under discussion. Moreover, the proposed legislation seemed to make no meaningful distinction between a nuclear first-strike and a nuclear first-use. https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-senator-markey-introduce-restricting-first-use-0
 In part, at least, this implicitly core assumption is rooted in our continuously-anarchic system of international relations, a decentralized structure often referred to by the professors as “Westphalian.” The reference here is to the landmark Peace of Westphalia (1648), which concluded the Thirty-Years War and created the still-extant state system. See: Treaty of Peace of Munster, Oct. 1648, 1 Consol. T.S. 271; and Treaty of Peace of Osnabruck, Oct. 1648, 1, Consol. T.S. 119. Together, these two major agreements comprise the historic “Peace of Westphalia.”
 See Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, Adopted by the UN General Assembly, 11 December 1946. Inter alia, these Principles underscore the formal jurisprudential assumption of solidarity between states. This peremptory expectation, known in formal law as a jus cogens assumption, was already evident in Justinian, Corpus Juris Civilis (533 CE); Hugo Grotius, 2 The Law of War and Peace (1625; Chapter 20); and Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758; Chapter 19).
 See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948; Entered into force, 12 January 1951.
 “The safety of the people,” Cicero warns prophetically in The Laws, “shall be the highest law.”
 The “mass-man,” we may learn from 20th century Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y’Gasset The Revolt of the Masses, “learns only in his own flesh.” Seem, also, by Professor Beres, at Yale: Louis Rene Beres, https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/call-intellect-and-courage; and at Princeton: Louis Rene Beres: https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2018/02/emptiness-and-consciousness
 There is no longer a virtuous nation,” warns the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, “and the best of us live by candlelight.”
The Battle for the Soul of Islam: Will the real reformer of the faith stand up?
Saudi and Emirati efforts to define ‘moderate’ Islam as socially more liberal while being subservient to an autocratic ruler is...
Financing Options Key to Africa’s Transition to Sustainable Energy
A new whitepaper outlining the key considerations in setting the course for Africa’s energy future was released today at the...
Eastern seas after Afghanistan: UK and Australia come to the rescue of the U.S. in a clumsy way
In March 2021 the People’s Republic of China emerged as the world’s largest naval fleet, surpassing the US Navy. An...
AUKUS: A Sequela of World War II and US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Deemed as a historic security pact, AUKUS was unveiled by the leaders of the US, the UK and Australia –...
Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow
It is the success or failure of remaking America, not Afghanistan, that will determine not just the legacy of the...
WEF Launches Toolbox of Solutions to Accelerate Decarbonization in Cities
With the percentage of people living in cities projected to rise to 68% by 2050, resulting in high energy consumption,...
Demand for Circular Economy Solutions Prompts Business and Government Changes
To truly tackle climate goals, the world must transform how it makes and consumes. To support this effort, circular economy...
Defense3 days ago
American Weaponry in the Hands of the Taliban
Economy4 days ago
Synchronicity in Economic Policy amid the Pandemic
Defense3 days ago
Presidential Irrationality and Wrongdoing in US Nuclear Command Authority
Southeast Asia3 days ago
The Anandamahidol Foundation and the Legacy of Rama the Ninth of Thailand
Finance3 days ago
Deloitte reports FY2021 revenue
Energy2 days ago
Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline – An ‘apple of discord’ between Azerbaijan and Russia?
South Asia2 days ago
The Post-US Withdrawal Afghanistan: India, China and the ‘English Diplomacy’
Economy3 days ago
Economy Contradicts Democracy: Russian Markets Boom Amid Political Sabotage