Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Introduction
In recent years, a quote ascribed to the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan has
been often cited by Chinese and Indian analysts: Whoever controls the Indian
Ocean dominates Asia. This ocean is the key to the seven seas in the twenty-first
century, the destiny of the world will be decided in these waters (quoted in van
Rooyen 2011, 5). Analysts and commentators have been seduced by this prophetic
assessment of the Indian Oceans future role, and variations of the quote have
even appeared in the Indian governments official documents (Holmes and
Yoshihara 2008, 43). However, what is most interesting about this quote is that it is
a fabrication (The Economist 2009). Mahans words have been manipulated to fit
the narrative of the evolving security dynamic in Asian watersbe they the
Indian Ocean, the South China Sea or the East China Sea.
In observing the evolution of the security environment in the Indian Ocean,
many scholars have accepted the notion of an emerging balance of power system
in the region which may one day resemble that of nineteenth-century Europe.1
This assumption may be valid, given the number of regional actors, their varying
interests and the anticipated great power interplay between China, India and the
United States (US). Thus, it is important to understand the actual implications and
1
A number of analysts anticipate a balance of power system in Asia. See, for example,
Malik (2012), Chellaney (2009), Niquet (2006) or Goldstein (1997).
q 2014 Centre of International Studies
2 Jan Hornat
consequences of a genuine balance of power system in the Indian Ocean region2
would it stabilize the security environment, would it preserve peace or would it
have adverse effects? This paper aims to demonstrate that in the current context of
the Indian Ocean a balance of power system would not foster a peaceful
environment, but, to the contrary, would have negative repercussions for the
stability of the wider Indian Ocean region and East Asia.
In employing the classical realist balance of power concept and the so-called
power transition theory, the paper seeks to create a theoretical framework for
interpreting a topic that is mostly treated through heavily empirical analyses. It is
important to note that the notion of balance of power has various definitions,
perspectives and interpretations, especially with regard to its historical evolution
(for a list of these definitions see Sheehan [2000]). For the purpose of this analysis,
a balance of power system alludes to a system of state interaction that is based on
the maintenance of the relative equality of power of individual states (or blocs).
In this system, individual states (or blocs) exercise policies and strategies that
deliberately aim to sustain mutual positions of power parity with all other states
(or blocs) contained within the system.
Balance of power versus power transition
In nineteenth-century Europe, the balance of power became the paradigm of
international relations theory and practice. Statesmen used balance of power as a
prism through which they made sense of and gave order to the complex web of
relationships between states. Not only did they believe the balance of power to be
a systemic, self-operating mechanism of international politics; they also adopted
concrete policies that sought an alleged equilibrium amongst states. But, as Hans
Morgenthau suggested, states must actually aim not at a balancethat is,
equalityof power but at superiority of power in their own behalf . . . all nations
must ultimately seek the maximum of power obtainable under the [given]
circumstances (Morgenthau 1960, 210). A clear example of such manoeuvring
was Napoleons France during the 1813 peace negotiations.
The Sixth Coalition against France was in agreement that a state of equilibrium
should be reinstated in Europe, but divisions remained in regard to the question of
how that equilibrium should be achieved (Sheehan 2000, 120). Napoleon, knowing
that the balance of power in Europe was sacrosanct for the Allied powers, rejected
the first peace proposal. Indeed, he could easily play upon the balance of power
concept to ensure that his country was not so excessively stripped of territory as to
become too weak and that no European state acquired such territory as to tip the
balance in its favour and hence become a security threat to France.
In this sense, balance of power can serve as a justification (or even a
camouflage) for expansionist policies or become a normative ideology that seeks
to preserve a power equilibrium by using all means necessaryincluding war.
The most adamant practitioners and theorists of balance of power, the
Metternichs and the Castlereaghsall thought of war as an instrument to
preserve or restore a balance of power . . . It merely masqueraded as a formula for
2
For the purposes of this paper the Indian Ocean region is defined as including all
Indian Ocean littoral states and regional actorssuch as the US (due to its military presence
in Diego Garcia) and China (due to its maritime interests).
Power transition theory thus falls into the category of so-called hegemonic stability
theories, which claim that the stability of the international system requires a single
dominant power to formulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the members of
the system. See Webb and Krasner (1989).
4 Jan Hornat
the challenger is eager to redress its grievances and assume its rightful role in
the world (Tammen 2008, 326), and the dominant power is unwilling to give up
its preponderance. The period of parity is identified as starting when a challenger
achieves 80% of the power of the defenderand lasting until the challenger
passes into superiority at 120% of the power of its former rival (Tammen 2008,
326). In the context of Organskis theory, the roles of the challenger and the
dominant power could be easily applied to contemporary China and the US and,
depending on developments in Asia, in the future perhaps also to India and
China.
This reasoning can be equally applied to coalitions and alliances. Walter
Lippmann saw that when the alliance is inadequate because there is an opposing
alliance of approximately equal strength, the stage is set for a world war. For then
the balance of power is so nearly even that no state is secure (quoted in Claude
1989, 78). This creates a security dilemma. In Organskis world, states and
coalitions pursuing balancing policies and struggling to maintain the power
equilibrium to preserve peace are, in fact, constantly achieving power parity, thus
raising the prospects for war. The current distribution of power in the Indian
Ocean between India, China and the US can be identified, in the language of
power transition theory, as a preponderance of power, the US being the dominant
(naval) power. Relations between the three powers may often be tense, but they
are arguably peaceful. It is the rise of China (and the potential power parity with
the US) that raises concerns of future conflict.
In a simplistic explanation of the mutual relations between the three powers,
the US is a status quo power with respect to China, and China is a status quo
power relative to India (Malik 2012, 362). This implies that, in terms of its power
position in the Indian Ocean, India is the least satisfied of the three powers and
that it will be active in strengthening its position vis-a`-vis China. China, on the
other hand, will aim to strengthen its position vis-a`-vis the US, while Washington
will try to avoid any disturbances to the current state of affairs. China is not a
status quo power in world politics, but with regard to India Beijing would be best
served if New Delhi were not to strengthen Indias regional power position. Even
though it is highly unlikely that all three powers will reach some level of power
parity in the near future, the key question is whether a balance of power system is
emerging in the Indian Ocean, in which each power will police the others to make
sure no one is tipping the balance in their favour, or whether a power transition
will occur and a new power will come to dominate the system.
In light of the aforementioned, this paper will further assess the positions of
each of the three powers in the Indian Ocean and identify the main points of
friction that are increasing political tensions in the region. The current state of
affairs in the Indian Ocean represents, in its most basic sense, a model that
juxtaposes Chinas stakes, Indias aspirations and the USs established role in
the region. The interaction of these three factors is likely going to shape the
security challenges of the Indian Ocean and should therefore be examined
more closely.
Chinas stakes
In the years since the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, Chinas Communist
Party (CCP) has increasingly derived its legitimacy of rule from the growing
4
It must be noted that economic prosperity is not the sole source of CCP legitimacy.
As Yanqi Tong claims, the current regime legitimacy is maintained because of the
historically rooted moral bond between the state and society and the societal expectation
that the state would be responsible for the wellbeing of the population (Tong 2011, 141). Yet
it is quite clear that the partys current objectives and policies are more prosperity oriented
than ideology oriented, which is closely linked to being responsible for the wellbeing of
the population.
6 Jan Hornat
transported by a proposed 2000-kilometre road and rail link directly to Kashgar in
Chinas Xinjiang province, thus bypassing the bulk of the Indian Ocean sea route
(Business Monitor International 2010, 39). A similar transport corridor from
Myanmars Sittwe port has also been proposed. The Chinese government has
even been exploring the possibility of financing the construction of a PanamaCanal-style passage through the Thai Kra Isthmusan estimated investment of
US$20 billionwhich would save around 960 kilometres of the journey from the
Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean (Bouchard and Crumplin 2010, 32).
Chinas policy of constructing port facilities in the Indian Ocean region has
come to be labelled the String of Pearls strategy and raises concerns in India that
these facilities may one day serve as forward deployment bases for the Peoples
Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Similarly to how Beijing perceives the first island
chain, New Delhi views Chinas String of Pearls as an attempt to encircle India
and, in the event of a conflict, limit its activities in the Indian Ocean. It is important
to note, however, that there is no hard evidence of Chinas intentions to use these
ports as naval bases (Lou 2012, 631). To the contrary, when in 2011 Pakistan offered
to upgrade the Gwadar port to a naval base, Beijing immediately rejected the
offer, not wanting to antagonize the US and India with the formal establishment of
a base in Pakistan (Pant 2012, 84). Moreover, Chinas involvement in the
construction of the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka is connected to the fact that
Colombo first invited India to cooperate in the construction but when New Delhi
rejected this offer China stepped in (Mohan 2010, 9).
To a certain extent, Chinas increasingly frequent incursions into the Indian
Ocean are a sign of power projection. Beijings growing naval fleet, bolstered by
the newly operational aircraft carrier (which is currently mainly utilized in
posturing), has fostered Chinas confidence and assertiveness in defending its
territorial claims and interests in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.5 The
Chinese leadership has been adroit in employing the countrys usable past to form
a narrative of its naval history. Veneration of the iconic admiral Zheng He, who
allegedly discovered America before Columbus, and emphasis on Chinas
successes in naval explorations and trade in the Middle Ages, mixed with the
current incidents over territory in the waters around China, have shored up
national pride in the navy and domestically legitimized investments in the PLAN.
In June 2013, China released the first Annual Report on the Development of
the Indian Ocean Region, which came to be labelled the Blue Book in the media.
Although it was published by a think-tankthe Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences (CASS)and not a government agency, the report can be considered a
semi-official standpoint of the Chinese leadership, due to the prominence of
CASS, whose policy prescriptions have often mirrored the governments views
(Singh 2013a).
5
Chinas assertiveness in protecting its territorial claims can be observed in the growing
number of maritime incidents in the regionnote the April 2012 standoff with the
Philippines over Scarborough Shoal, the May 2014 placement of China National Offshore
Oil Corporations oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam or the July 2012 administrative
upgrade of Sansha to prefecture-level city to administer (actually or nominally) parts of the
Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands, which are also claimed by Vietnam and the
Philippines.
8 Jan Hornat
is at the mercy of the power which controls the sea (Erickson et al 2010, 230).
However, unlike China, India does not face a Malacca Dilemma in its energy
imports; instead, its leaders picture an analogous Hormuz dilemma (Winner
2011, 105). Indian maritime doctrines and strategists thus appropriately identify
the arc from the Persian Gulf to the Straits of Malacca as a legitimate area of
interest and the Red Sea, the South China Sea and the southern Indian Ocean as
secondary areas of maritime interest (Erickson et al 2010, 230).
Its geographic predisposition and the increasing weight of its economy are
slowly pushing Indias mindset from continental to maritime. Its maritime
aspirations are exemplified by the acquisition of the Kiev-class aircraft carrier INS
Vikramaditya from Russia, which entered service in 2013, and the indigenous
development and construction of four Arihant-class nuclear submarines (the first
of which is undergoing sea trials, while others are expected to be commissioned in
2023) and two Vikrant-class aircraft carriers (expected to enter service in 2018 and
2025, respectively) (Times of India 2013).
Indias growing ambitions to protect its interests in the Indian Ocean, and to
play the role of a regional maritime power and security provider, are explicitly
stated in the INs 2007 strategic document Freedom to use the seas: Indias maritime
military strategy. In its foreword, Admiral Sureesh Mehta asserts that his countrys
primary national interest . . . is to ensure a secure and stable environment, which
will enable continued economic development and social upliftment of [Indias]
masses. He deems that this will allow India to take its rightful place in the comity
of nations and attain its manifest destiny. Mehta then emphasizes that Indias
maritime military strategy is underpinned by the freedom to use the seas for
[Indias] national purposes, under all circumstances (Integrated Headquarters
Ministry of Defence 2007, iii).
Freedom to use the seas and good order at sea are thus vital components
of Indias maritime thinking. However, in an ideal scenario for Indians, the
freedom to use the seas in the Indian Ocean would apply exclusively to India.
James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara propose that Indias perception of its future
role in the Indian Ocean looks for insight not to the nineteenth-century European
balance of power model, but to Americas Monroe Doctrine (Holmes and
Yoshihara 2008, 46).
The Monroe Doctrines initial aim was to prevent European states acquiring
new colonies or territory in the USs vicinity, but by the time of Theodore
Roosevelts so-called corollary to the doctrine the policy basically legitimized US
intervention anywhere in the Americas when US interests were jeopardized. It is
hard to fathom which part of the Monroe Doctrine is most appealing to Indian
strategists, but the basic idea of inhibiting extra-regional states from meddling in
Indian Ocean affairs is quite clear. Indeed, an Indian commentator interpreted
New Delhis politico-military efforts as a repetition of the Monroe Doctrine, a
forcible statement that any external forces prejudicial to Indias interests cannot be
allowed to swim in regional waters (cited in Holmes and Yoshihara 2008, 48). This
type of thinking about the maritime domain surrounding India raises the question
of whether New Delhi aspires to possess maximum sea control capabilities in
regard to the entire Indian Ocean or rather sea denial capabilities. While sea
control is a prerequisite in dictating the terms of a naval engagement in a
particular maritime space, sea denial has limited application and is meant to deny
a stronger adversary the use of maritime space (Singh 2013b).
On the other hand, China and the US are dialogue partners of the Indian Ocean Rim
Association (IORA), which was formed in 1995 in Mauritius.
10 Jan Hornat
facility in Chabahar, Iran. Furthermore, apart from strengthening its ties with
Southeast Asian nations as part of the Look East policy, India has been openly
consolidating its ties with Japana move that China views with great discomfort.
Former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh called Japan a natural and
indispensable partner in our quest for peace and security (Menon 2014) and in a
recent trip, closely monitored by Chinese media, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe attended Indias Republic Day Parade as the Chief Guestan honour
usually reserved for New Delhis closest friends (British Broadcasting
Corporation [BBC] 2014).
Simply put, Indias primary aspiration in the Indian Ocean is to be the
dominant power and security provider, yet its capabilities and real determination
lag far behind this goal. The contest between these aspirations and Chinas stakes
is indisputably shaping the current and future security environment in the Indian
Ocean, but the role of the US in the region is not negligible, and with a nuanced
approach to the disputed issues and challenges Washington could ensure that the
interaction of stakes and aspirations does not grow out of proportion.
The established role of the US
The US has been the dominant power in the Indian Ocean and the protector of
SLOCs since the United Kingdom announced its withdrawal east of Suez in the
late 1960s. During the Cold War, Washingtons primary interest was to curtail
Soviet influence in the region and protect oil transportation from the Middle East.
In the early 1970s, the US commenced the construction of a naval facility at Diego
Garciaan atoll leased from the British which was strategically located in the
centre of the Indian Ocean. With the end of the Cold War, the US became the
uncontested guarantor of free passage and good order at sea in the Indian Ocean,
extensively using Diego Garcia as a naval support facility during its interventions
in the Middle East.
The US protection of vital SLOCs in the Indian Ocean comes with a significant
price, though. It has been estimated that the US spends between US$47 billion and
US$98 billion per year to secure the Persian Gulf (Delucchi and Murphy 2008,
2257). Since both India and China benefit from US-protected SLOCs in the Indian
Ocean, the two nations are basically free-riding on US naval forces. As the US
faces budget cuts in almost all spheres of the federal government, including the
military, Congress may be increasingly reluctant to appropriate the necessary
funds for securing Persian Gulf maritime transport routes, knowing that
providing these funds also serves Chinas interests. In the event of such a decision
being made, the US would have to accept the loss of its dominant position in the
region, conceivably causing severe hikes of oil prices and instability in the entire
Indian Ocean.
When in 2005 Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick coined the phrase
responsible stakeholder, the notion quickly became part of George W Bushs
rhetoric vis-a`-vis China. Simply put, Zoellicks concept emphasized that China
has a stake in the current international system and should manage this stake in
a responsible mannerthat is, share the burden of upholding global peace and
security. The phrase has not been used very often by the Obama administration,
but it has nevertheless been extended to include other powers, such as India
(Hachigian and Schorr 2012). Writing in Foreign Policy, Secretary of State Hillary
In the context of this article (and the pivot policy), the Asia Pacific is defined as the
territory encompassing East Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania.
12 Jan Hornat
twenty-first century (Frankel 2011, 14). Yet, while New Delhi sought broader
cooperation in nuclear technology, Washingtons underlying intent in signing the
agreement seemed to reflect its desire to settle the issue of India possessing
nuclear arms while not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) (Schaffer 2009, 113).
Although the nuclear agreement cannot be perceived as a clear step towards a
formalized relationship between India and the US, it does represent a
rapprochement between the two states and demonstrates Washingtons attempt
to secure New Delhis future cooperation. The Obama administration allegedly
lobbied extensively for Australia to lift its ban on uranium exports to India, which
the administration viewed as an impediment to closer ties between New Delhi
and Canberraa clear sign of Washingtons interest in seeing the emergence of
closer ties between the two countries (Geraghty 2012, 11). Nevertheless, it must be
considered that in the future India may very well remain a swing power that
supports the US in some issue areas and China in othersthis stance, in fact,
would also fit with New Delhis traditional non-alignment paradigm. For
example, India and China, along with other emerging powers, have shared
interests on matters of global economic governance which may conflict with the
positions of established powers like the US and European Union.
In Washingtons interactions with India, another crucial factor comes into play:
Pakistan. Historical animosities and border disputes make India and Pakistan
irreconcilable rivals, while the US needs to maintain a partnership with Islamabad
to control the situation in Afghanistan and to monitor the (non-)proliferation of
Pakistans nuclear weapons. Therefore, closer US ties with New Delhi are limited
by the need to maintain good relations with Islamabad and vice versa. At the same
time, Pakistan is being described as the most stable and durable element of
Chinas foreign relations (Garver 2001, 187). Deeper ties between China and
Pakistan started in the 1950s, and they were characterized by both countries
antagonism to India. China quickly became Pakistans largest defence supplier, a
relationship that was underlined in the 1990s when Beijing essentially built
Pakistans nuclear programme (Pant 2012, 85). Pakistan thus finds itself in a
curious position within the India China US triangle with significant leeway to
influence the future of the trilateral relationship.
The US military is so active in the [Indian Ocean] region that it has become
part of the regions geopolitical fabric (Blumenthal 2012, 170). The geopolitical
fabric, however, is very complex, and every American step in the Indian Ocean
region should be highly nuanced and balanced with respect to Washingtons
ambiguous relations with regional stakeholders (for example, Iran, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Myanmar and even India). This situation is different from that of the
Asia Pacific region, where the US alliance structure is long established and thus
has facilitated the recent rebalancing policy.
The implications of a balance of power system in the Indian Ocean region
Current developments in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific may prove
wrong the Nixon Kissinger proposition that the road to peace still depends on a
balance of power (cited in Niquet 2006, 2). The contemporary political and
security context of Asia may be less suited to the balance of power system that
contributed to a peaceful era in European history.
14 Jan Hornat
necessity of a stable external environment to facilitate domestic economic
development. In an effort to soothe tensions in the disputed Himalayan border
region, Beijing and New Delhi signed an agreement in 2013 that lays down a
resolution mechanism to avoid using force (Subramanian 2013).
A balance of power system in the Indian Ocean region could lead to a
suppression of the common interests described and instead accentuate the
differences in Sino-Indian relations.
Balancing policies
One of the most contested questions regarding the balance of power concept is
whether the general tendency of actors in an international system to achieve the
state of relative power equilibrium is systemic, that is, operates naturally in a
self-perpetuating manner, or whether it is the consequence of specific balancing
policies of individual actors (see Sheehan 2000, 53, 77). If the former applies, a
balance of power system in the Indian Ocean is essentially an inevitable prospect,
unless the actors adopt anti-balancing measures. If the latter is correct, a balance
of power system will emerge only when the actors in the system agree to its
operation by pursuing balancing policies. A plausible answer is that balancing is
an inherent, self-operating characteristic of the international system whilst the
balancing policies of actors further reinforce the process and give it different
dimensions.
The balancing in the Indian Ocean region is still not as explicit and formalized
as that in nineteenth-century Europe. Nonetheless, certain steps of the regional
stakeholders can be perceived as concrete measures seeking a balance of power
(the growth of the IN, Chinas engagement in port construction, Indias Look East
policy and its rapprochement with Japan, and US lobbying for closer ties between
Australia and India).
Another important aspect of the balance of power concept is the role of
balancers. The function of the balancer is to implement measures that mitigate
disequilibrium and prevent the hegemony of any one state or alliance. Some
pundits claim that a balance of power system cannot operate efficiently without a
balancer while others argue that a balancer, by virtue of its very existence, would
subvert a genuine balance of power system (Sheehan 2000, 66).
In the context of the Indian Ocean, the US is the most probable adept to play
such a role in the future and has perhaps assumed this role already. As noted,
Washington is keen on bringing India and Australia closer together, and the
current strengthening of Indias ties with Japan is welcomed and quietly
supported. Interestingly, Indian analysts identify the weight of the United States
influence on Japans policies as a primary factor that prevented India and Japan
from drawing closer to each other in the past (Sibal 2014).
Despite Indias reluctance to formalize its partnership with the US and its
continuing loyalty to strategic autonomy, Evan Braden Montgomery has argued
that, given the prospect that China will pose a greater challenge to American
interests as it confronts fewer threats on land . . . Washington should consider
India as a prospective continental ally rather than a potential maritime partner
(Montgomery 2013, 76). Montgomery opines that, instead of strengthening Indias
navy, a build-up of Indian forces along the disputed border with China would
divert Beijings attention from the sea, and thereby Indias balancing of China
16 Jan Hornat
Ocean, such as Mauritius or the Maldives, would bandwagon with an alliance that
they perceived to have the upper hand. Certain states of Central Asia could also
play a role in the emerging balance of power system. While India maintains an air
base in Tajikistan, China is engaged in constructing gas pipelines leading from
Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Chinas Xinjiang province.
Indias growing presence in Afghanistan to balance Pakistans influence would
interfere with Chinas interests in the country, and, despite the fact that stability in
Afghanistan is in the interest of the US, India, Pakistan and China, the country
could become a bargaining chip in a balance of power system.
All these movements could be observed by the US in either an active or passive
manner. Washington could play the potentially neutral role of a constructive and
overarching balancer, thus maintaining its distance from any of the forming
coalitions, or it could actively seek to be part of the coalition balancing China.
However, Washingtons established role in the region and its web of friends and
alliances would give it little chance of becoming a true balancer in the system.
A balance of power system would thus make it impossible for the US to maintain
its twin relationship with Pakistan and India.
At this point, reason leads to the conclusion that an overt balancing coalition
against Beijing would not be in any regional states interest given the varying levels
of economic dependence on China. But as Chinas maritime assertiveness grows
and the pursuit of its interests is carried out at the expense of damaging the
interests of regional stakeholders, China itself may be the catalyst that
inadvertently pushes India, Japan, the US and other regional actors closer together.
Conclusion
The geopolitical fabric of the Indian Ocean region may be set for the formation of a
genuine balance of power system, but it would be myopic to conclude that a
balanced system of power relations would bring stability to the region.
In weighing the mutual power positions of China, India and the US, this article
has argued otherwise. As noted, the balance of power paradigm could be used as
an argument to legitimize the acquisition of territory, which could be a particular
issue in regard to territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the East China
Sea. Furthermore, since war is considered a legitimate means to maintain the
equilibrium, a balanced systemlike any other systemis no guarantee of
peace and stability. In fact, the current state of power distribution in the Indian
Ocean and East Asia carries a resemblance to Organskis power transition
scenario, in which an equilibrium of power is more likely to lead to war than is a
preponderance of power.
As I have argued, in a balance of power system mutual differences between
competing states and blocs are accentuated, rivalries may intensify and the
prospect of war can increase. Due to the extensive interconnectedness of the
Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, a balance of power system designed in one
region would quickly translate to the other, hence engaging states from the
western Indian Ocean littorals to the Korean Peninsula. Chinas rise is already
subtly bringing India and Japan closer together, although this potential
partnership may prove to be ephemeral. Considering the possible implications
of such a partnership for security developments in the region is a necessary
component of any political and security analysis of the region. However
18 Jan Hornat
Erickson, Andrew S, Michael S Chase et al (2011) Informatization and the Chinese Peoples
Liberation Army Navy in Phillip C Saunders, Christopher Yung, Michael Swaine and
Andrew Nien-dzu Yang (eds) The Chinese Navy: expanding capabilities, evolving roles
(Washington: National Defense University Press)
Erickson, Andrew S, Walter C Ladwig, III and Justin D Mikolay (2010) Diego Garcia and
the United States emerging Indian Ocean strategy, Asian Security, 6:3, 214237
Frankel, Francine R (2011) The breakout of China India strategic rivalry in Asia and the
Indian Ocean, Journal of International Affairs, 64:2, 1 17
Garver, John W (2001) Protracted contest: Sino-Indian rivalry in the twentieth century (Seattle:
University of Washington Press)
Geraghty, Colin (2012) India in the Indian Ocean region: re-calibrating U.S. expectations
(Washington: American Security Project)
Gokhale, Nitin (2013) Indias emerging blue-water navy, The Diplomat, 19 November,
,http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/indias-emerging-blue-water-navy/., accessed 10
February 2014
Goldstein, Avery (1997) Great expectations: interpreting Chinas arrival, International
Security, 22:3, 36 73
Green, Michael J and Andrew Shearer (2012) Defining U.S. Indian Ocean strategy,
Washington Quarterly, 35:2, 175 189
Hachigian, Nina and David Schorr (2012) The responsibility doctrine, Foreign Service
Journal, September, 47 51
Holmes, James (2012) Preparing for war with China, National Interest, 16 August, ,http://
nationalinterest.org/commentary/preparing-war-china-7352?pageshow., accessed
5 October 2014
Holmes, James R and Toshi Yoshihara (2008) China and the United States in the Indian
Ocean, Naval War College Review, 61:3, 41 60
Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (2013) Charter of business, ,http://ions.gov.in/sites/
default/files/CharterofBuisnes.pdf., accessed 11 February 2014
Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (2007) Freedom to use the seas: Indias maritime
military strategy (New Delhi)
Joshi, Shashank (2011a) Why India is becoming warier of China, Current History, 735, 156161
Joshi, Shashank (2011b) China and India: awkward ascents, Orbis, 55:4, 558576
Kagan, Donald (1989) The outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press)
Kapila, Subhash (2013) South China Sea: Indian Navy operational cruise, Paper No 5500,
South Asia Analysis Group, 29 May, ,http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/
1282., accessed 30 January 2014
Kaplan, Robert D (2010) Power plays in the Indian Ocean: the maritime commons in the
21st century in Abraham M Denmark and James Mulvenon (eds) Contested commons:
the future of American power in a multipolar world (Washington: Center for a New
American Security), 177 192
Kapoor, Deepak (2012) Indias China concern, Strategic Analysis, 36:4, 663 679
Krishan, Ananth (2013) China details Indian Ocean strategy and interests, The Hindu, 9
June, ,http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/china-details-indianocean-strategy-and-interests/article4795550.ece., accessed 11 February 2014
Lanteigne, Marc (2008) Chinas maritime security and the Malacca Dilemma, Asian
Security, 4:2, 143 161
Latif, Amer S (2012) U.S. India military engagement: steady as they go (Washington: Center for
Strategic and International Studies)
Li, Jie (2012) US in position to strangle Chinas maritime lifelines, Global Times, 6 August,
,http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/725455.shtml., accessed 11 February 2014
Lou, Chunhao (2012) US India China relations in the Indian Ocean: a Chinese
perspective, Strategic Analysis, 36:4, 624 639
Malik, Mohan (2012) India balances China, Asian Politics & Policy, 4:3, 345 376
Menon, Rajan (2013) Asias looming power shift, National Interest, September/October, 2032
Menon, Rajan (2014) An India Japan alliance brewing?, National Interest, 22 January,
,http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/india-japan-alliance-brewing-9748.,
accessed 11 February 2014