The Prime Minister's recent visits to three Indian Ocean Region (IOR) littorals - Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka - have brought issues connected with the sea into focus. In each of these, assistance in developing port infrastructure and related facilities and cooperation in creating a secure maritime environment in the region have found resonance. At every conference on strategic and related issues, diplomats and security analysts speak of our interests at sea far more readily and with greater conviction than they did earlier, when diffidence or worse was the norm. Joint statements promulgated at meetings our PM has had with heads of government have included as many as two to three paragraphs spelling out the maritime dimension as an area of mutual concern; those put out at the summits with the US, Japanese and Australian leaders bear testimony to this emerging scene.
So, what has changed? The sea has always been the predominant medium for movement of commerce. It is true that in the last two decades or so, incidents of piracy in the waters of Southeast Asia escalated from plain robbery to taking of hostages for ransom. And the last few years saw dozens of ships being hijacked off Somali waters for huge sums of money, the total exceeding $400 million at last count - but even this did not seriously affect seaborne trade. As far as conflicts at sea are concerned, we have seen nothing even remotely comparable to the great battles at sea seen in yester years or of their impact on global geopolitics of the time. Looked at this way, it may be difficult to find fault with those who think that the focus on 'maritime security' is a lot of hype.
The reasons why things have moved seawards need elaboration. At the operational level, there is much greater awareness and collaboration on issues concerning security at sea. International norms governing maritime activities have also become more comprehensive, such as the Laws of the Sea, Suppression of Unlawful Activities at Sea and others. Within countries, inter-agency coordination among the many organisations dealing with different facets of sea-related activities has been tightened and, in some cases - e.g. Japan and China - centralised; sadly, India is still way behind and yet to learn from the terrorist attack of November 2008 on Mumbai. There is improved acquisition of information and its quick dissemination and a number of multi-national institutions now look at the totality of maritime concerns. In Southeast Asia, coordinated patrols in the Malacca Straits such as the Malaysia-Singapore-Indonesia (Malsindo) and Eye-in-Sky surveillance - in which these countries are joined by Thailand - have helped diminish piracy, while we have the multi-national Task Force 151 tackling that off Somalia. Together, these developments have enhanced global interaction and, consequently, brought diplomacy into play.
At a larger level, wars between nations have almost become passe, leave aside skirmishes here and there. Even countries with long unresolved land borders, India, China and Pakistan among them, have few options to settle scores by force of arms; on the other hand, issues of territorial sovereignty at sea have begun to gain primacy. China and Japan are contesting ownership of the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are laying sovereign claim to islands and islets in the South China Sea. By drawing its infamous nine-dash line, China has injected its own interpretation of rights at sea not in conformity with international laws. This emerging environment has made countries aware of the need to build up their own maritime capabilities and infrastructure as well as those of others with a new term, 'blue economy', coming into play. China's Maritime Silk Route (MSR) and India's 'Mausam' project fall in this category. While some of this may be motivated partly by self-interest, the environment is one of both challenges and opportunities. Add to this potential readjustment in great power equations at sea emerging from an assertive China, and linking maritime issues with national security strategy is clearly not only logical but also inescapable.
Different countries are dealing with the new scenario in their own ways. The US, already an Indo-Pacific power of unmatched capability, still finds it necessary to 'rebalance' to the Pacific with enhanced presence. Japan is moving towards a more proactive maritime doctrine, Australia is not lagging behind and countries affected by the South China Sea tensions are looking at the possibility of a joint patrol on the lines of Malsindo. Many of them want India to become more interested in the situation developing in that region.
India, essentially an Indian Ocean littoral, has its own compulsions. In the first place, it is pursuing stronger relations with the US in areas of congruence and maritime issues are one of these. The same is true of its engagement with Japan, Australia and several countries of South East Asia. However, beyond expressing its concern that there should be adherence to international law and free movement of commerce, it has not involved itself in the East and South China Seas but has begun to be more proactive in the IOR. In 2008, it initiated the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) with biennial meetings of heads of navies. More political substance comes from the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), which has its full support. Mr Modi's vision of building a strong grouping in the region and using cooperation and capabilities for a 'safe, secure and stable IOR' is unexceptionable.
This is all very well, but to walk this talk some steps have to be taken. One, we must speedily boost our own weak infrastructure and ability to execute, not just promise, major maritime projects in the IOR littoral. Two, we must be more proactive in linking defence to diplomacy for which credible strengths at sea are a pre-requisite. Three, all sea-related activities must be coordinated under one agency. Four, and most important, we must accept that in the Indian Ocean we have to play the role of a 'net security provider', in short, shoulder responsibilities that go with the country's size and location recognising that India has advantages in the region which China cannot easily match, given the tyranny of geography. And yes, let us, in passing, keep watch on what is happening in the Western Pacific too.
The author has been member of the National Security Advisory Board
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
