By Commodore Anil Jai Singh
One of the defining functions of the USA’s displeasure at China’s belligerence and domination of the South China Sea has been the frequent Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) undertaken by US Naval warships in the South China Sea and also the Taiwan Straits. These have repeatedly drawn China’s ire as it views this as a transgression of its maritime sovereignty. However, this has not deterred the USA and is usually viewed as a prelude to the inevitable confrontation among the two navies that is anticipated sooner rather than later. These FONOPS are also meant to assert that the oceans are ‘global commons’ and for that reason there is no restriction on the presence of warships of any nation. It is also an expression of the significance getting attributed by the ‘arc of maritime democracies’ which also contains India and the other members of the Quad to a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) and the upkeep of a guidelines-based international order.
It for that reason came as a surprise when the USS John Paul Jones, a US Navy guided missile destroyer, undertook a Freedom of Navigation patrol west of India’s Lakshadweep islands. The statement that followed from the US Seventh Fleet that this operation was “…inside India’s Exclusive Economic Zone, without requesting India’s prior consent , consistent with international law” raised more than a handful of eyebrows. Infact, the statement went on to recommend that India had unlawful maritime claims which led India’s Ministry of External Affairs to respond with due indignation stating that “we have conveyed our concerns regarding this passage through our EEZ to the Government of USA through diplomatic channels.”
This incident has raised a lot of concerns, not least being the ambiguities and interpretations that exist in defining the correct of passage of warships in the oceans as stated in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, the guiding document for guaranteeing a guidelines-based order at sea. The UNCLOS, which has been accepted by most nations was ratified by India in 1995 but the United States, which champions the lead to for a guidelines-based international order has but to ratify it. India’s stance has been that whilst it has no objection to warships taking passage via its EEZ, it ought to be completed with prior notification. Apparently, the USA does not feel that is essential and considers it “inconsistent with international law,” the pretty law it has selected not to sign even 4 decades following its promulgation.
The USA also went on to say that this is not the initially time it has undertaken a FONOPS in the Indian EEZ. If that is certainly correct and there is small explanation to think it is not, it raises 3 vital concerns firstly, has it on earlier occasions also completed so without the need of informing India secondly, if it has completed so, has India turned a blind eye and was forced to raise its concern this time only mainly because the USA chose to make a statement and thirdly, if this has been taking place in the previous, what provoked the USA into creating such a strongly worded statement? In any case, it is a poor reflection on India’s considerably vaunted strategic autonomy, its credibility in guaranteeing adherence to its stated position on the use of its EEZ and possibly most importantly, on the ‘strategic‘ depth of the US-India relationship which has been described by leaders on both sides as the ‘defining partnership of the 21st century.
This is of even more significance in the maritime domain where this relationship is underlined by the frequent bilateral and multilateral engagement at sea between the two navies and the four foundational agreements signed over the last few years which are meant to further cement this relationship.
It is also significant that never before in all these years has the USA even broadly hinted that India’s conduct is “inconsistent with international law” in spite of often operating in and transiting via the Indian Ocean. Infact, the tone and tenor of the statement could lead one to think that the reference was to a competitor rather than a companion, notwithstanding the US assertion that there was practically nothing uncommon about it. Till now, India has been firmly on board with the US on criticising China’s flouting of the guidelines-based order and disregard for UNCLOS. It now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of not only getting subjected to the exact same by the US but also getting humiliated by the language employed in the statement. For years now, senior military and defence functionaries from the USA have been going to India and waxing eloquent on India’s significance in the Indo-Pacific. There have been repeated efforts by the US to involve India in its South China Sea imbroglio by participating in joint patrols with the US Navy to counter Chinese belligerence which India has resisted and rightly so.
It might be recalled that the US Defence Secretary had visited India significantly less than a month ago and each sides had commented on the warmth of the interaction. While thorny concerns like the imposition of CAATSA had been neatly sidestepped for the duration of the deliberations or so it seemed from the statements that emanated from his stop by, this unusually sturdy statement following the existing FONOPS could not have been produced without the need of the approval of the US political leadership and in unique the Defence Secretary coming as it did so quickly following his stop by to India in the third week of March. Infact, he might effectively have been conscious that this was going to adhere to.
One can’t but have a passing believed that this could possibly have been a message to India which hosted the Russian Defence Minister Sergei Lavrov significantly less than 3 weeks following Lloyd Austin’s stop by. This stop by integrated discussions on the concerns associated to the space, nuclear and military domains. India has usually reiterated its intent to proceed with the acquisition of the S-400 program that the US is so vehemently against. India has a lengthy-standing connection with Russia, which although significantly less strategic and more transactional than the one with the former Soviet Union nonetheless has sturdy strategic underpinnings. The Indian military nonetheless has a big Russian inventory. The Brahmos missile, arguably amongst the finest in the planet is a very prosperous joint Indo-Russian improvement the USSR/ Russia has on two occasions leased India a nuclear attack submarine with a third that might adhere to which is unprecedented with no other nation getting ever completed so. While the USA, with sales of more than USD 20 Bn worth of modern military gear has significantly enhanced India’s combat capability, it has also developed a vulnerability and an import dependence considering the fact that small or no transfer of technologies has followed.
Why the USA has selected to make such a sturdy statement on the FONOPS it undertook 130 miles west of the Lakshadweep islands in India’s EEZ and thereafter publicly highlighted that is “consistent with international law” hence suggesting that India’s position is ‘inconsistent’ has cast a shadow on the connection that was supposed to be on an unprecedented upward trajectory. It has underlined the reality that US national interest reigns supreme which is par for the course but the lack of sensitivity in undermining India’s stance on the UNCLOS with such an unexpected public statement has undoubtedly flummoxed a lot of.
China has usually questioned the legitimacy of the US-led guidelines based international order in the maritime domain, and not without the need of explanation if one had been to look at US actions in the area in the final seven decades or so. After this incident, India could effectively be pondering the exact same.
Strategic autonomy is the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy and as a accountable democracy, it has every single correct to make its personal alternatives which the planet ought to respect. This incident has clearly shown that for it to be credible, it will have to be backed by sufficient national energy or it dangers getting undermined time and once more as has been completed so blatantly in this case.
(The author is Vice President of the Indian Maritime Foundation, and a former submariner. Views expressed are individual and do not reflect the official position or policy of the TheSpuzz Online.)