Version classiqueVersion mobile

Fluid Networks and Hegemonic Powers in the Western Indian Ocean

 | 
Iain Walker
, 
Manuel João Ramos
, 
Preben Kaarsholm

India and Africa: Maritime Security and India’s Strategic Interests in the Western Indian Ocean

Denis Venter

Résumé

In the 2010s, in conjunction with an expansion of India’s naval capabilities, there has been a significant extension of India’s maritime security relationships throughout the Indian Ocean region. Much of the emphasis has been on developing relationships with small states (Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Oman) at, or near, the key points of entry into the Western Indian Ocean. Arguably, the extreme asymmetries in size have made the development of such relationships relatively easy, as there is no question of competition or rivalry. Some of these states have long seen India as a benign security provider and have maritime policing needs that India can usefully fulfil. In some cases, India may effectively act as a security guarantor, as is arguably the case with Mauritius and the Maldives.But gaps inevitably remain in India’s strategic posture and New Delhi needs to further strengthen its hand in coastal Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula. Also, littoral states on the African seaboard look towards regional power centres for assistance in maintaining maritime order and addressing security challenges. Countries with enhanced maritime capabilities like India, South Africa, Australia, and the US could assist by not only co-operating amongst themselves, but also by taking other littoral states on board as part of multilateral efforts towards the maintenance of maritime order. A challenge for New Delhi is to maintain perceptions of India as a benign and non-hegemonic power in the Indian Ocean region as it moves towards achieving great power status.

Texte intégral

1There are a number of the critical issues that are likely to play a major role in the western Indian Ocean region over the next 10 to 15 years. But first the region has to be defined.

Defining the Western Indian Ocean

2Covering an area of some 68.5 million km² and bounded by land masses on three sides (Africa, Asia, and Australia), the Indian Ocean is the world’s third-largest ocean. The greater oceanic region, though complex, forms a distinct geographical area. In comparison to the world’s other oceans, defining the exact boundaries of the Indian Ocean has been something of an imprecise science and has been a long-standing source of disagreement (Luke & O’Loughlin, 2010, p. 9). Sithara Fernando (2011, p. 23) adds a fourth land mass, Antarctica, in which case the total ocean area increases by several million square kilometres.

Figure 1: Parameters of the Western Indian Ocean

Figure 1: Parameters of the Western Indian Ocean
  • For the purposes of this chapter, the ‘Western Indian Ocean’ can be delimited by the following maritime points and boundaries:

  • latitude 60°S (the northern-most limit of the Southern Ocean)

  • Cape Agulhas (the southern-most point on the African continent) at longitude 20°E

  • the east coast of the African continent from South Africa in the south to Somalia and Djibouti in the north

  • the Bab-el-Mandeb, which separates Djibouti and Yemen, on the southern-most reaches of the Red Sea

  • the east coasts of Yemen, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

  • the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman on the Arabian Peninsula, on the eastern-most reaches of the Persian Gulf

  • the southern coasts of Iran and Pakistan

  • the west and east coasts of India and

  • longitude 88°E, running roughly through Kolkata (Calcutta) on India’s east coast, down to latitude 60°S.

3According to this delimitation, the Western Indian Ocean region comprises the following countries (littoral and island states): the Comoros, Djibouti, India, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, the Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, the Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

  • 1 The broader Indian Ocean ‘Rim’ consists of 29 littoral countries and 6 island states. The Indian Oc (...)

4On the basis of this conceptual framework, the Western Indian Ocean region (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Ocean, or the region) is comprised of 18 littoral and island states, as well as three territories in an entirely different category, controlled by extra-regional states: Réunion and Mayotte (both France) and the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), including the Chagos archipelago and the atoll of Diego Garcia (United Kingdom). Moreover, the region also includes numerous other island territories, such as Lakshadweep (India), Socotra (on the entrance to the Gulf of Aden, Yemen), and Tromelin Island, the islands of Juan de Nova, Bassas da India, and Isle de l’Europa (in the Mozambique Channel, France), which constitute valuable exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and strategic outposts (Schofield, 2007, p. 3).1

Maritime Security and the Threat of Somali Piracy in the Western Indian Ocean

5The Indian Ocean is, once again, becoming an arena for geostrategic rivalry of some sort (see Brewster, 2014, pp. 5-11; Shambaugh, 2009, pp. 137-157). In fact, the region is emerging as one of the 21st century’s leading strategic theatres, as a stage for the pursuit of global strategic and regional military and security interests.

6Relations between the three major powers of the region, India, China (the People’s Republic of China, PRC), and the United States, continue to evolve in complexity, heightened by the rise of India and China and a possible decline in US power in the region. However, the perception of US strategic decline warrants caution and should not be taken too literally. Of the three powers, indeed of all the world’s leading powers, the US alone has the ability to project significant and sustained force into the region. It is a capability which, to 2020 at least, other powers can only aspire to. Furthermore, the US presence is viewed positively by India, which recognises it as a bulwark against Chinese expansion and assertiveness. In the broadest possible sense, while a rising China seeks to counter the dominance of the US and assert itself as the regional hegemon, an emerging India seeks, in turn, to act as a counter-balance against China. This is a situation which can serve US interests well, as the two regional rivals are left to compete and take all or most of the risks involved. India’s naval expansion is a case in point, as it adds additional weight to the US naval presence (Luke & O’Loughlin, 2010, pp. 12-13).

  • 2 For overall GDP figures and GDP figures per capita, see World Bank (2015), and IMF (2015).

7At the same time, there is a burgeoning concern over an array of non-traditional security threats, especially energy security. Without any doubt, the Indian Ocean is critical to global trade and economic growth, as well as food and energy security (Chaturvedi & Okunev, 2012, p. 1; Hartley, 2012, p. 5).2 However, now the world’s most important route for international maritime long-haul cargo, the Indian Ocean remains vulnerable to piracy and highly unpredictable potential acts of maritime terrorism. Maritime security can no longer be conceptualised only in terms of a composite of sea power and naval arms build-ups, island and maritime boundary disputes, navigational regimes, activities in EEZs, competition over resources, and the maintenance of law and order at sea, including the protection of sea lanes of communication (SLOCs). The concept of human security also needs to be revisited with reference to some of the most pressing environmental issues: land degradation, access to fresh-water resources, the exploitation of fishing stocks, climate change, the illegal disposal of nuclear waste, environmental refugees and urban expansion and deterioration (Chaturvedi & Okunev, 2012, p. 1; see Hughes, 2011, pp. 41-45; UN Secretariat, 2008; UNEP, 2005).

Figure 2: Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC)

Figure 2: Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC)

8Of the three temperate oceans of the world, the Indian Ocean is probably the most problematic for security management. Despite this reality, however, the ocean seems bereft of any collective maritime security arrangements. The lack of maritime security around the Horn of Africa, in particular, causes a great deal of concern as it not only threatens commerce, but also peace and regional stability, international trade and global energy flows. From whichever direction, entry into the Indian Ocean is constrained by geographical imperatives. The routes through the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Hormuz have been used since antiquity for purposes of trade and communication and, naturally, a huge proportion of this trade is carried by sea. It raises the important question of what the strategic responses of regional navies are, ensuring the safe and efficient passage of these cargoes. Indeed, there are also countries outside the immediate region depending on secure shipping and they, too, have a legitimate interest in fostering a regime of co-operation. Some do not see a threat to shipping because of the interdependence of all in the region on maritime trade, but reliance on such a notion has obvious shortcomings. Rather than leave security management to chance it is axiomatic that it is in the interests of all to build a maritime security mechanism to promote an ocean-wide sphere of peace and tranquillity (Cozens, 1998, p. 1).

9In determining particular strategies, regional navies have a vital role to play, but it should also be appreciated that “maritime strategy has a [clear] peace-time dimension” (McCaffrie, 1996, p. 7; see also Groenewald, 1997, p.1). Maritime strategy is idiosyncratic; in fact, it is fundamentally and significantly different from any other purpose -- it is unique. To quote Jack McCaffrie (1996, p. 4) again:

10Navies have always been noted for their versatility and, in particular, their utility in situations short of conflict. This versatility comes from the characteristics of reach (including sustainability), adaptability (including the capacity to threaten and apply force in a finely graduated way), and acceptability (in that warships are diplomatic instruments unlike any other kind of armed force).

11Maritime security, on the other hand, can be a rather broad, unfocussed and somewhat amorphous concept (Potgieter, 2012, p. 1) as it is both multi-dimensional and multi-faceted and involves both military and non-military issues. In the world of today, however, the luxury hardly exists of making clear-cut distinctions between traditional ‘military’ security issues (naval threats and challenges), hard, ‘non-military’ security issues (arms, narcotics and human trafficking, piracy and terrorism at sea and the protection of shipping, SLOCs, fishing stocks, sea-bed minerals and offshore oil and natural gas resources) and soft, ‘non-military’ security issues, such as providing energy security, safeguarding port and ship-building facilities, delimiting extended maritime spaces (EEZs), enforcing legal and regulatory mechanisms in maritime zones (maritime management), protecting the maritime environment, preventing pollution and dumping of toxic waste and securing dual-purpose oceanographic data (Roy, n.d., pp. 1 & 2). Thus, maritime security basically deals with the prevention of illicit activity in the maritime domain, covering national, regional and international efforts to enforce such security. Current global realities have introduced a range of maritime security challenges in the Indian Ocean region as the roles of non-state actors have direct and fundamental effects on the evolving situation. This is a serious development as the rich Indian Ocean maritime trade, which includes much of the world’s energy shipments and almost half of global container traffic, traverses the ocean and is crucial to the world economy (Potgieter, 2012, p. 1).

Figure 3: West-East-West SLOCs Traversing the Indian Ocean

Figure 3: West-East-West SLOCs Traversing the Indian Ocean

12Recent economic turbulence worldwide suggests that a prudent and cautious approach to the matter of maritime security is required everywhere. Indeed, when economic growth is charging along and prosperity seems assured for all, voices of protest and disquiet usually tend to fade, especially in authoritarian regimes (Lingle, 1997, p. 55). But the present political discord in some countries is symptomatic of the converse of that contention. It is difficult, of course, to predict what the next stage in the world economy will have in store, but it is fairly obvious that economic growth will, of necessity, rely to a very large extent on the use of SLOCs (Cozens, 1998, pp. 1-2). What, then, are the latent and potential areas of friction which could surface to threaten freedom of navigation or otherwise impede the free flow of trade in the SLOCs of the Indian Ocean area? The following represent some areas of insecurity (see Valencia, 1998):

  • Transnational disputes may arise from perceived irregularities by a littoral state in the practice of the right of ‘innocent passage’ through territorial waters by foreign ships. A littoral state may merely suspect ‘activities inimical to its interests’.

  • Marine pollution is a major source of concern. An estimated 25,000 tonnes of washed-out crude oil per day are being jettisoned into the sea anywhere between the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab-el-Mandeb, the Mozambique Channel, and longitude 88°E. The effect on local communities and traditional fishing villages could be catastrophic and thus has political and security consequences.

    • 3 Underwater oil exploration and production in the north-western Indian Ocean takes place in an offsh (...)

    Undersea exploration for oil and gas (and minerals, although presently unlikely) pose not altogether unforeseen problems and security challenges.3

  • Piracy has been evident in and around the waters of Somalia, in the Arabian Sea, and down the coast of East Africa.

  • Maritime territorial disputes and inter-regional tensions could be exacerbated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) which now permits littoral states to impose national development interests in the ocean arena (EEZs), an extension of jurisdiction that has opened up a Pandora’s Box of volatile issues.

13There are also some tasks not readily appreciated or understood, grouped under the collective title of ‘maritime confidence-building measures’ (see Grove, 1996, Chapter 5): (1) transparency measures, such as visits by naval vessels, sharing general information on doctrine, policies and force structures, joint publishing of tactical and operating doctrines (that is, replenishment at sea, RAS), exchanging of personnel, and joint observation of naval exercises; (2) co-operation measures, more generally search and rescue (SAR) and humanitarian operations; and (3) incidents-at-sea agreements, addressing particular regional concerns, such as surveillance, fisheries, anti-piracy, anti-narcotic and illegal migration traffic, and dealing with activities usually tending to be bilateral in nature, but could also be extended to a multilateral forum such as the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS).

14The fact that these measures are suggested as necessary illustrates a degree of ‘uncertainty-based planning’ in the Indian Ocean. This is not to suggest the beginnings of an arms race, but rather the convergence of at least two important motivators. First, since the ratification of UNCLOS III, governments are acutely aware of the importance of their rights and sovereignty over their respective ocean territories and EEZs. Second, in order to exercise these responsibilities countries need ‘sea-securing resources’; in other words, ships capable of exercising sea power. It is into this arena that Indian Ocean navies and others need to insert sea-control platforms as a contribution to reducing insecurity at sea, thus demonstrating a firm resolve to maintain and preserve good order at sea. The costs of disrupted trade flows are probably incalculable, but nevertheless enormous, and the effects are unpredictable, but nonetheless deleterious to all in the Indian Ocean region and beyond. As the impact of the provisions of UNCLOS III takes effect, and as the changing strategic landscape of the Indian Ocean comes into sharper focus, the need for a stable and secure environment increases. Undoubtedly, there is a pressing need for a system of collective maritime security in the Indian Ocean (Cozens, 1998, p. 3).

India’s Strategic Interests in the Western Indian Ocean

15In recent times, India has adopted an expansive maritime strategy. Driven by great power aspirations and by strategic rivalry with China, India is expanding its naval capabilities and security relationships throughout the Indian Ocean region. It is paying specific attention to developing relationships at the key points of entry into the Western Indian Ocean (Brewster, 2010a, p. 1), i.e. the Strait of Hormuz (from the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Sea), the Bab-el-Mandeb (from the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden), and through the Mozambique Channel northwards into the south-western Indian Ocean along the shores of the Southern and East African littorals.

The Maritime Dimension in Indian Strategic Thinking

  • 4 However, this is not to suggest that the Ottoman (Turkish), Portuguese, Dutch, French and British m (...)

16Among the changes in Indian strategic thinking in recent years has been a partial reorientation in India’s strategic outlook in the maritime domain. Clearly, Indian strategic thinking has traditionally had a continental outlook. For thousands of years, military threats to India have been perceived as coming primarily from the northwest,4 reinforced by the country’s experience in the 20th century when any direct military threats (from Japan, Pakistan, and China) were land-based. The continuing threats on India’s western and northern borders and from domestic insurgencies has led to the Indian Army holding an undisputedly dominant position within the Indian military establishment. However, there is a developing view among some Indian strategists of India as a maritime power: that India’s peninsular character and geographic position gives the Indian Ocean a preponderant influence over the country’s destiny (see Brewster, 2014, pp. 11-15 & 23-35; Brewster, 2010a, p. 1; Menon, 2009). As Subhash Kapila (2012, p. 1) points out:

17The Indian Ocean stands aptly named because India’s peninsular geographical configuration… places [it in a] unique commanding position on the Bay of Bengal on the eastern flank of the Deccan Peninsula and the Arabian Sea on the western flank. In strategic maritime terms, India is in a position to dominate the vast expanse of maritime waters from … the Gulf of Aden … all the way down south to the outermost extremities of the … [Southern Oceans].

18Some Indian leaders have also drawn a close connection between India’s maritime ambitions and its destiny as a great power. As former Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee (2007) noted:

19… after nearly a millenni[um] of inward and landward focus, we are once again turning our gaze outwards and seawards, which is the natural direction of view for a nation seeking to re-establish itself, not simply as a continental power, but even more so as a maritime power, and consequently as one that is of significance on the world stage.

20Thus, one could argue that any significant geographical expansion of Indian influence can only take place in the maritime domain. As Rajiv Sikri (2009, p. 250), a former Secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, commented: “If India aspires to be a great power, then the only direction in which … [its] strategic influence can spread is across the seas. In every other direction there are formidable constraints.”

21India’s standing as the most populous state in the Indian Ocean region and its central position in the northern Indian Ocean have long contributed to beliefs about the country’s destiny to control its eponymous ocean (the ocean to which its name was given). According to some, there is now a well-established tradition among the Indian strategic community that the Indian Ocean is, or should be, ‘India’s Ocean’. Many in the Indian Navy see it as destined to become the predominant maritime security provider in a region stretching from the Bab-el-Mandeb to the Malacca Strait, and also having a significant security role in areas beyond (Scott, 2006, p. 99). This view was amplified by former US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates affirming that the US was “… look[ing] to India to be a partner and net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond” (Murphy, 2009). And, according to Donald Berlin (2006, p. 60):

22New Delhi regards the Indian Ocean as its backyard and deems it both natural and desirable that India function as, eventually, the leader and the predominant influence in this region – the world’s only region and ocean named after a single state. This is what the United States set out to do in North America and the Western Hemisphere at an early stage in America’s ‘rise to power’.

  • 5 A slightly different version of this quotation is: “Whoever controls the Indian Ocean controls Asia (...)

23Many Indian maritime strategists see predominance in the Indian Ocean as potentially also delivering significant influence in East Asia. Alfred Thayer Mahan, the 19th century American naval strategist, is frequently cited by Indian strategic thinkers, including a statement (incorrectly) attributed to him: “Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia. In the 21st century, the destiny of the world will be decided on its [the Indian Ocean’s] waters”.5

  • 6 For a general discussion of India’s maritime strategy and capabilities, see Buzsynski (2009, pp. 73 (...)

24During the Cold War, India’s ability to pursue its maritime ambitions was severely constrained and for decades following independence the Indian Navy was known as the ‘Cinderella’ of the Indian armed forces. However, increased enthusiasm for maritime power has been accompanied by an expansion in India’s naval capabilities;6 since the mid-1990s the country has embarked on a major programme to develop a ‘blue-water’ navy with significant increases in naval expenditure. India’s armed forces budget grew at an annual rate of 5% from 2001-2005, at around 10% from 2005-2008, and to a massive 17.63% in 2012/13, but fell back to a rather modest 5.31% in 2013/14, primarily due to economic constraints. Yet, under the new Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the defence budget has again been boosted by 12% for 2014/15. At the same time, the Navy’s share of the increasing defence budget has risen from 11% in 1992/93 to 18% in 2008/09, and now seems to have stabilised at 17.8% for 2013/14. Still, in relation to the overall defence budget it faced a resource cut of 2.6% in real terms. Nevertheless, initial increased capital expenditure had encouraged plans for significant changes in the Indian Navy’s force structure, with an emphasis on sea-control capabilities (see Miglani, 2014; Brewster, 2014, p. 13; Behera, 2013a; Behera, 2013b; Brewster, 2010a, pp. 2 & 3). Already, the Navy is undergoing substantial expansion with 40 ships and submarines, including two nuclear submarines and two aircraft carriers, either on order or already commissioned. The target is to have a 165-ship fleet by 2022, consisting of 60 surface combat craft, submarines and three aircraft carrier groups with a total of 400 MiG-29K aircraft and attack helicopters (Potgieter, 2012, p. 3). As some India observers are keen to point out, with two aircraft carriers in operation by as early as 2012/13, “the balance of power in the Indian Ocean … [would have] tilt[ed] decisively in India’s favour” (Rai, 2009, p. 7). And, according to Admiral Arun Prakash, the former Indian Chief of Navy Staff, India aims to exercise selective sea control of the Indian Ocean through task forces built around the projected three aircraft carriers that will form the core of separate fleets in the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Sea. The rapidly expanding Indian Coast Guard may also play an important complementary role to the Indian Navy, particularly in circumstances where there are reasons to emphasise policing functions over those of the military (Brewster, 2010a, p. 3).

  • 7 Invitees to the naval symposium include France (which India recognises as a littoral state by virtu (...)

25In conjunction with an expansion in naval capabilities over the last decade or so, India has been quietly expanding its influence throughout the Indian Ocean. The Navy has been active in developing security relationships that are intended to enhance India’s ability to project power and restrict China’s ability to develop similar security relationships in the region. Given that the Indian Ocean is in many ways an enclosed sea, the Indian Navy has placed particular emphasis on the ‘choke points’ at entrances to the ocean around southern Africa (including the Mozambique Channel), the Arabian Peninsula (including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el-Mandeb) and the straits connecting the Indian and Pacific Oceans through the Indonesian archipelago (the Malacca, Sunda and Lombok straits). According to the Indian Navy’s 2004 Maritime Doctrine, “… [control] of the choke points could be useful as a bargaining chip in the international power game, where the currency of military power remains a stark reality” (IMOD-N, 2004, p. 64). The Navy has also sought to institutionalise itself as the leading power in the Indian Ocean through such initiatives as sponsoring the multilateral IONS, to which the navies of all Indian Ocean littoral states are invited (Brewster, 2010a, p. 3).7

26But India’s naval ambitions have not been without its critics. Given the longstanding lack of co-ordination in strategic planning in New Delhi, the Indian Navy’s activist role in the Indian Ocean has often been way ahead of the views within the other armed services and the government. There is long-running tension between the Indian Navy and the Ministry of External Affairs over the Navy’s assertive regional policy, including over the 2008 decision to participate in anti-piracy operations off Somalia (Unnithan, 2008; Thaindian News, 20 November 2008). According to some, the Ministry of External Affairs repeatedly turned down requests from the Indian Navy to conduct naval interceptions. It is not clear to what extent these tensions merely reflect bureaucratic caution or a more fundamental disagreement over the Indian Navy’s regional strategy (Brewster, 2010a, p. 4; Maitra, 2005). Others are sceptical about the ability of India to transform itself from a continental to a maritime power. Varun Sahni (2005), for example, warns that the Soviet Union’s failed attempts to become a naval power in the 1970s and 1980s should act as “a cautionary … [note] for India’s Mahanian navalists … [and] a grim warning of what happens to a continental state that harbours overly grandiose maritime ambitions”.

  • 8 In 2007, the US Navy released a maritime security strategy that still stressed the Atlantic and Pac (...)

27However, over the last decade or more the US has actively encouraged India’s strategic ambitions in the Indian Ocean region. In March 2005, the Bush Administration announced that it would “help India become a major world power in the 21st century”, adding that “… [we] understand fully the implications, including the military implications, of that statement” (US Department of State, 2005). In fact, the US has focused on assisting in the expansion of India’s power projection capabilities and its role as a security provider in the Indian Ocean, with the former US Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter stressing that Washington welcomes India “taking up … responsibility to ensure security in this part of the world” (Dikshit, 2008). US encouragement for the development of India as a regional naval power in the Indian Ocean has been compared to Britain’s strategy in the late 19th and early 20th century when it found itself challenged by the growth of German naval power. Britain then forged partnerships with emerging naval powers, the US in the Western Hemisphere and Japan in the Pacific, allowing them a measure of regional hegemony, while the UK concentrated its resources in the North Atlantic against Germany (see Holmes, Winner & Yoshihara, 2009, Chapter 3). This analogy, while far from perfect, does capture some of the facets present in current US thinking, particularly its perceptions of the growing Chinese maritime threat and its desire to see India grow as a regional balancing power against China (Brewster, 2010a, pp. 4-5; see Chellaney, 2008, pp. 23-36).8

India’s ‘Emeralds’ in the Indian Ocean

28Over the last decade or so, India has developed good security relationships with many states throughout the Indian Ocean, with particular emphasis on the maritime choke points of the Mozambique Channel in the south-western Indian Ocean and the entrance to the Persian Gulf in the northwest, as well as the Malacca Strait in the northeast. India is also developing a security presence in the central Indian Ocean, astride the east-west SLOCs across the Indian Ocean (Brewster, 2010a, p. 7).

  • 9 Between April 2000 and January 2010, Mauritius was the largest source of foreign direct investment (...)

29To be sure, the south-western Indian Ocean is the gateway between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. India’s security relationships in the region are anchored by its close relationship with Mauritius (see Brewster, 2014, pp. 69-76), the island state that lies around 900km to the east of Madagascar. India has longstanding and close political, economic and security associations with Mauritius. Some 70 per cent of the Mauritian population is of Indian ethnic origin and for several decades Mauritius has acted as the primary gateway for international investment into India originating from the US, Europe and elsewhere, largely due to favourable tax arrangements.9 Former Mauritian Prime Minister Paul Bérenger described the bilateral relationship as “umbilical and sacred” and security relations as “intense” (The Hindu, 2 April 2005; Baruah, 2003), while former President Sir Anerood Jugnauth referred to the connection in terms of “blood relations” (The Hindu, 3 December 2009). Consequently, the Mauritian élite regards India in largely benign terms and appears to have accepted India as having a special role in Mauritian security.

30Indian-Mauritian co-operation was formalised in a 1974 defence agreement under which India has transferred patrol boats and helicopters to Mauritius (including the supply of a patrol vessel in 2010) and provides training to Mauritian personnel and officers for the Mauritian National Coast Guard and Police Helicopter Squadron (effectively, the Mauritian navy and air force). Since 2003, the Indian Navy has provided maritime security through periodic patrols of Mauritian waters, including anti-piracy patrols in 2010 (Deccan Chronicle, 24 November 2009; Ramachandran, 2007b). India also backs Mauritius’ territorial claims to Diego Garcia which was separated from Mauritian administration in the 1960s (Vyas, 2001). Mauritian political leaders have publicly indicated on several occasions that India would be permitted to establish naval facilities on Mauritius if it so wished (Harrison & Subrahmanyam, 1989, p. 263) and there are claims that India already operates a signals intelligence station (India Defence, 7 July 2007). In 2006 and 2007 there were reports of discussions between the Mauritian and Indian governments over the long-term lease to the Indian government of the Agalega islands (which lie between the island of Mauritius and the Seychelles), ostensibly for tourism (Sidhartha, 2006a; Sidhartha 2006b). It has been speculated that India’s intention was to upgrade the Agalega airstrip to service Indian manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft (Forsberg, 2007). Discussions over the proposal reportedly ended due to political sensitivities concerning the local Creole population - contemplating, perhaps, the complaints of Diego Garcians who were dispossessed of their islands following a deal between the British and Mauritian governments (Brewster, 2010a, p. 8).

  • 10 The US also provides anti-piracy maritime surveillance through unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) stat (...)

31India also has growing security relationships with Madagascar, Mozambique and the Seychelles, littoral states in and around the crucial Mozambique Channel, the SLOC used by shipping transiting the Cape of Good Hope (Brewster, 2010a, p. 9). The security of the Seychelles was highly contested during the latter half of the Cold War as the US and the Soviet Union competed to maintain or establish a security presence in the islands. At the same time, India was seen by the Seychelles as a benign regional protector. In the early 1980s, Seychelles’ leftist former President Albert René sought commitments from then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to intervene in case of an attempted coup. Although Gandhi declined to provide any public assurances, India did contribute two helicopters and training for the Seychelles security forces (Harrison & Subrahmanyam, 1989, p. 263). The Indian Navy has also assisted with maritime security in the Seychelles EEZ under a 2003 defence co-operation agreement in terms of which it provided anti-piracy patrols in early 2010 (see Brewster, 2014, pp. 76-79).10 Moreover, in 2005 India donated a patrol boat to the Seychelles, reportedly in a hurried effort to pre-empt offers of Chinese assistance (Ramachandran, 2007a). Also, in July 2007 the Indian Navy opened an electronic monitoring facility in northern Madagascar at the head of the Mozambique Channel (Ramachandran, 2007b; India Defence, 7 July 2007) and apparently had been granted ‘limited’ berthing rights in the island for Indian naval vessels (Pubby, 2007).

  • 11 For a wider discussion of India’s strategic ambitions and role in south-eastern Africa, particularl (...)

32The Indian Navy has also acted as a maritime security provider for Mozambique, including taking responsibility for maritime security during the 2003 African Union (AU) and 2004 World Economic Forum (WEF) summits held in Maputo (Ramachandran, 2007b). And, in 2006, India and Mozambique entered into a defence co-operation agreement that envisages joint maritime patrols, supply of military equipment, training and technology transfer in repairing and assembling military vehicles, aircraft and ships (Brewster, 2010a, p. 9; People’s Daily, 7 March 2006).11

33What is more, India’s maritime security relationships in the south-western Indian Ocean are buttressed by growing maritime security relations with France (Brewster, 2014, pp. 79-80) and South Africa. Since 2001, the Indian Navy has conducted annual exercises with the French Navy, which operates out of Réunion and Djibouti. India has sponsored the ‘IBSA Trilateral Security Dialogue’ between India, Brazil and South Africa, pursuant to which trilateral naval exercises (IBSAMAR) have been held in 2008, 2010, 2012, and in 2014 off the Cape of Good Hope in South African waters (Cape Times, 21 October 2014; Brewster, 2014, pp. 96-98; Brewster, 2010a, p. 9). Further south, India also has a growing presence in Antarctica, with one active research station and a second that was scheduled for commissioning in 2012.

  • 12 This includes an announced US$700 million investment by China in a special economic zone in Mauriti (...)

34While some might see India as having a strong security role in the south-western Indian Ocean, there are fears in New Delhi that China might try to undermine or pre-empt Indian’s relationships. Again, according to the former Indian Chief of Navy Staff Admiral Arun Prakash (2007b, p. 7), India “cannot afford to have any hostile or inimical power threatening the island states in this region”. Political and economic relations between China and Mauritius and Seychelles are closely watched by New Delhi (Lamont, 2010),12 and it has been claimed that a so-called Chinese ‘thrust’ towards these island states presages Sino-Indian naval rivalry in the Western Indian Ocean (Mohan, 2009). While China may seek to develop its economic and political interests in the area, it seems unlikely that it would be able to dislodge India as the dominant security provider to Mauritius, and there are no indications at present that it would be able to seriously challenge India’s maritime security role elsewhere in the south-western Indian Ocean (Brewster, 2010a, p. 10).

  • 13 This perception is reinforced by the fact that the US military relationship with India is the respo (...)

35India historically exercised a special political and economic role in the north-western Indian Ocean. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, British India was the dominant economic, political and military force in the region. The Trucial States (now the United Arab Emirates) and Aden (now Yemen) were administered from British India and British Indian Army garrisons were stationed throughout the Persian Gulf until 1947. However, India’s influence in the region diminished significantly following independence and, although New Delhi generally adopted a pro-Arab foreign policy, its ties in the region were regularly strained as a result of the India-Pakistan conflict. Pakistan’s close political, economic and military ties with many states in this region continue to this day. Some argue that the ability of India to extend its security presence in the north-western Indian Ocean has also been constrained by the US predominance in the Gulf, leaving little room for New Delhi to develop its own relationships, and that the US has not encouraged an increased Indian security presence there (Brewster, 2010a, p. 10).13

  • 14 As at April 2010, Pakistan had led CTF-150 on four occasions.

36Despite these constraints, India is developing security relationships in the region, particularly with Oman (which sits on the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Persian Gulf). Oman may see India as partially balancing its security relationship with the US and, since 2003, India has entered into several defence agreements with the Sultanate dealing with training, maritime security co-operation, and joint exercises (India Defence, 6 April 2010; Jha, 2009). The Indian Air Force uses the Thumrait air base for transit purposes and Oman has offered the Indian Navy berthing facilities in support of anti-piracy patrols (Dikshit, 2009). The Indian Navy has also sought to play an active role in the containment of Somali-based piracy and since October 2008 has one or two vessels in anti-piracy patrols off Somalia. However, India’s contribution has been made separately from the US-sponsored Combined Task Force-150, in which Pakistan has played an active role (Brewster, 2010a, p. 11).14

37The two island chains that dominate the central Indian Ocean are the British-administered Indian Ocean Territory (which hosts the US air and naval base at Diego Garcia), and the Maldives, both sitting north-south astride the major east-west SLOCs between the Middle East and East Asia. India has long regarded the Maldives as falling within its South Asian sphere of influence. In 1988, with the apparent blessing of the US and Britain, India sent troops and naval forces to the Maldives to support former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom against an attempted coup by Sri Lankan mercenaries. Since that time, India has supplied the Maldivian armed forces with equipment and training and the Indian Navy has provided maritime security. In August 2009, a security agreement was formalised that will significantly enhance India’s capabilities in the central Indian Ocean. India has been granted use of the former British naval and air base at Gan Island, part of the southern-most group of islands in the Maldives lying around 1,000 km south of India and around 700 km north of Diego Garcia (Brewster, 2010a, p. 11). India is reportedly planning to base Dornier aircraft and helicopters at Gan, although it is unclear to what extent the Indian Navy will establish a permanent presence at the associated Gan naval facilities. India also reportedly plans to station aircraft and naval vessels at Malé in the central Maldives and at Haa Dhalu atoll in the north (Dutta, 2009). As part of the agreement, India is building a system of 26 electronic monitoring stations across the Maldives archipelago, apparently to protect the Maldives’ large EEZ from illegal fishing activities (Chandramohan, 2009).

An Indian Sphere of Influence in the Indian Ocean?

  • 15 On an Indian sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean, see Brewster (2014, pp. 35-37).

38To what extent should India’s maritime security relationships in the Indian Ocean be seen as the beginnings of an Indian sphere of influence in the region?15

  • 16 This included the creation of territorial buffer areas to insulate direct contact with other empire (...)

39The discourse on an Indian sphere of influence beyond South Asia is sometimes identified with Lord Curzon, the former British Viceroy of India who, at the beginning of the 20th century, advocated the adoption of a ‘forward policy’ to secure India’s strategic position. Curzon’s so-called ‘forward school’ argued that India’s security demanded, amongst others, control of maritime routes and key ports en route to India, including Aden and Singapore.16 In many ways, the policies of the British Raj represented a significant departure from Indian traditions which had little history of territorial expansion or military and political adventure beyond the limits of the sub-continent. George Tanham’s (1996, p. 73) study of India’s strategic culture in the early 1990s characterised Indian strategic thinking as being “defensive” and “lack[ing] … an expansionist military tradition”. Indeed, any affirmation of an Indian security sphere beyond South Asia largely ceased following independence. After 1947, India effectively withdrew to the Indian sub-continent and asserted what has been called ‘India’s Monroe Doctrine’ according to which New Delhi would not permit any intervention by any ‘external’ power in India’s immediate neighbours in South Asia and related islands (Brewster, 2010a, p. 15). While India’s attempts to exclude other powers from South Asia had only limited success, New Delhi’s ‘Monroe Doctrine’ was used to justify military interventions in Sri Lanka and the Maldives in the 1980s (see Holmes & Yoshihara, 2008, pp. 997-1011).

40Several decades earlier, Kavalam M. Panikkar (1943, pp. 100-101), India’s most famous maritime strategist, argued that the Indian Ocean should remain “truly Indian”, advocating the creation of a “steel ring” around India through the establishment of forward naval bases in Singapore, Mauritius, Yemen (Socotra), and Sri Lanka. Towards the end of World War II, he wrote that “… to India … [the Indian Ocean] is the vital sea”, asserting that “Indian interests have extended to the different sides … of the Indian Ocean [and], based as they are on the inescapable facts of geography, have become more important than ever before” (Panikkar, 1945, pp. 84 & 94). In a similar vein, Keshav Vaidya (1949, pp. 91, 101 & 130) talked of India’s oceanic destiny needing around half a century to come to fruition. And nearly seven decades later, his hopes that India “… must, at least, rule the waves of the Indian Ocean” and “… must be the supreme and undisputed power over the waters of the Indian Ocean .… well on the path to becoming a mighty sea power … which alone can ensure national greatness” are, perhaps, about to be realised.

41Since the end of the Cold War there has been a revival in discussion in India about a ‘natural’ sphere of influence extending well beyond South Asia. This is related to a desire to move beyond India’s traditional strategic preoccupations in South Asia and re-engage with its extended neighbourhood; in other words, to rectify what former Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh called India’s unnecessary acceptance of “the post-Partition limits geography imposed on policy” (Mohan, 2003, p. 205). Eric Margolis (2005, p. 70) perceptively remarks that what is “driving India’s naval strategy is the concept that the vast Indian Ocean is its mare nostrum …. that the entire triangle of the Indian Ocean is … [its] rightful and exclusive sphere of interest”. As David Scott (2006, p. 120) emphasises, “… [to] shape the Indian Ocean as India’s ocean is India’s ‘Grand Strategy’” for the 21st century. Thus, from the turn of this century, the Indian Ministry of Defence began describing India’s ‘security environment’ as extending from the Persian Gulf in the west to the Strait of Malacca in the east (IMOD, 2001), an area which Jaswant Singh called India’s “sphere of influence” (Rajghatta, 2001) and what former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (2004) has somewhat more diplomatically referred to as India’s “strategic footprint” (Brewster, 2010a, p. 16).

42While there is obviously an aspiration in New Delhi to develop an expanded Indian strategic space, it is not at all clear what this might mean in practice. There is little doubt that India’s approach to spreading its influence in the region differs significantly from Lord Curzon’s, and it seems unlikely even in the long term that India will regain the regional hegemony exerted by British India. However, short of hegemony, India could express regional dominance through the development of a more hierarchical regional order or seeking to exclude other powers from the region. To date, the Indian Navy has taken a co-operative approach in developing security relationships, an approach that has been relatively successful. The failure of India to project military power beyond the limits of South Asia during the Cold War has placed New Delhi in good stead in much of the Indian Ocean region.

43New Delhi has a noticeable lack of historical baggage in many of its dealings in the region, with the exception of the Islamic factor arising from the Pakistan conflict. India is often perceived as essentially a benign power and not a would-be hegemon, in contrast with other external powers such as the US. While India is not in a position to exert significant power through military predominance or ideological means, it may be able to do so as a provider of public goods. This is certainly the current approach of the Indian Navy, which emphasises its ability to provide maritime policing, anti-piracy, and anti-terrorism functions. However, there are sometimes also noticeable overtones of hierarchy in India’s dealings with the region, particularly in New Delhi’s overt opposition to regional relationships with China (see Brewster, 2014, pp. 194-196; Brewster, 2010a, pp. 16-17).

44In the longer term, India’s role in the Indian Ocean will likely be determined (and limited) by the extent to which its naval expansion plans come to fruition. Drawing on the experience of the US in the Western Hemisphere in the 19th and 20th centuries, James Holmes (Holmes, Winner & Yoshihara, pp. 50-52) identifies three basic roles which the Indian Navy could play: first, a ‘free-rider’ navy, in which the Indian Navy can play a growing role in maritime policing and humanitarian functions, while the US continues to play a dominant role; second, a ‘constabulary’ navy, in which the Indian Navy would, sparingly and with tact, intervene in littoral countries to advance the common interest of South Asian states; and third, a ‘strong-man’ navy where it seeks to establish hegemony in the Indian Ocean and has the capability to mount a forward defensive posture beyond the Indian Ocean. Holmes concludes that the ambitions represented by the Indian Navy’s expansion programme in the coming decades would give it the capability to act somewhere between a ‘free-rider’ navy and a ‘constabulary’ navy (Brewster, 2010a, p. 17). Undoubtedly, challenges in the maritime domain call for more effective law enforcement and the maintenance of maritime order. These challenges are, essentially, part constabulary, part economic, and part human welfare. And as crime on the high seas has increased, various avenues have opened up for maritime security co-operation (Ghosh, 2004, p. 1).

45It should be noted that the potential for an Indian sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean is also subject to some important caveats: although India has ambitions to expand its strategic space in the Indian Ocean, there are real questions as to whether these aspirations will be achieved. India has a long history of its strategic ambitions surpassing its capabilities, of strategic goals and military expansion plans going unfulfilled. The planned expansion of India’s naval capabilities is probably years away from being achieved and is highly contingent upon the sustainability of India’s high economic growth rate. India’s security partners in the Indian Ocean (with the possible exception of the Maldives) will likely maintain other important security relationships as well and will not easily grant an exclusive security role to India. And, most importantly, the US has every reason to maintain a major regional security presence, particularly in the north-western Indian Ocean (Brewster, 2010a, p. 17).

46Nevertheless, India’s aspirations to expand its strategic space in the Indian Ocean region are clearly related to its broader ambitions to be recognised as a great power, ambitions that may, if anything, grow in coming years. Certainly, many would see a sphere of influence as a natural appendage of great power status. One study on India’s regional plans (Pardesi, 2005, p. 55) concluded that:

47… a rising India will try to establish regional hegemony in South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region … just like all the other rising powers have since Napoleonic times, with the long-term goal of achieving great power status on an Asian and, perhaps, even global scale.

  • 17 For an incisive analysis of India as the natural centre of gravity and its leadership role in a reg (...)

48From a geopolitical perspective, spheres of influence are seen as a normal part of ordering the international system. According to Saul Cohen (1973, p. viii) “… spheres of influence are essential to the preservation of national and regional expression … the alternative is either a monolithic world system or utter chaos”. The key feature of a sphere of influence is not just the ability to project power, but an acknowledgement of a hierarchical relationship in which the great power provides security to lesser powers in return for an acknowledgement of its leadership role (Brewster, 2010a, pp. 17 & 18).17 Many Indian strategists see China’s political and security relationships in South Asia and its putative ‘String of Pearls’ strategy as part of a cohesive policy of ‘encirclement’ or ‘containment’ of India that justifies the development of a ‘defensive’ sphere of influence by India. As Arun Prakash (2006, p. 11) argued: “The appropriate counter to China’s encirclement of India is to build our own relations, particularly in our neighbourhood, on the basis of our national interests and magnanimity towards smaller neighbours.”

  • 18 For an insightful discussion on US-Indian co-operation in the Indian Ocean region, see Brewster (20 (...)

49As it expands its influence in the Indian Ocean region, India also has had to accept the continuing role of the US in the region. The US, particularly with its base at Diego Garcia and its naval facilities in Singapore and the Gulf, seems likely to remain the predominant naval power in the Indian Ocean region for many years to come. However, there are indications that the US is willing to cede to and, indeed, encourage a major regional naval role for India, particularly in the north-eastern Indian Ocean. For its part, India’s willingness to co-operate with the US in achieving its ambitions is not as paradoxical as it may seem. As former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson (1955, p. 64) once conceded, the US (in developing its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere in the 19th century) relied on Britain, the then superpower, to enforce the Monroe Doctrine until the US was sufficiently strong to do so itself. Similarly, India may have good reason to co-operate with the US while it builds its own naval power (Brewster, 2010a, p. 18).18

  • 19 For a perceptive analysis of a new security partnership between India and Australia in the Indian O (...)

50Yet, with the exception of the US, India will likely wish to co-operate with extra-regional navies in the Indian Ocean only as long as they recognise India’s leading role in the region (Pardesi, 2005, p. 53). The apparent willingness of Japan to recognise India’s role as the ‘leading’ maritime security provider west of the Malacca Strait forms a not insignificant element in the developing India-Japan security relationship (see Brewster, 2010c, pp. 95-120). How Australia fits in this picture is also not entirely clear. Australia’s naval power ranks second only to India’s among the littoral states. There is no suggestion that India is seeking to expand its strategic space into the south-eastern Indian Ocean and there is little reason for it to do so as the junction of the Southern and Indian Oceans is not a maritime choke point (Brewster, 2010a, p. 19). Nevertheless, there is a ‘strong mutual interest’ for Australia and India to enhance maritime security co-operation (Australian Government, 2009, p. 96), particularly in areas such as maritime policing (piracy, maritime terrorism, illegal fishing, human trafficking) and disaster management (see Brewster, 2010b, pp. 1-9).19

A Brief Outline of Security Threats in the Western Indian Ocean Region

51Multiple sources of insecurity afflict many of the countries that rim the Indian Ocean. These challenges include terrorism in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India; state failure, civil war and insurgency in Yemen and Somalia; high-volume drug-trafficking via Pakistan and Iran; and piracy and armed robbery at sea around the Horn of Africa and in the Arabian Sea. Not all of these security concerns have occurred at peak intensity at the same time, and thus it is arguable that they have been addressed ‘insufficiently’ and on an ‘if-and-when’ basis. Even so, these risks threaten one of the most critical strategic and trading spaces in the world. The Persian Gulf remains the global market’s most important source of crude oil, while the northern Indian Ocean constitutes a key sector of the globe’s ‘West-East-West’ trading belt. For this reason, it is all the more remarkable that these issues have not previously caused a greater holistic security breakdown in the Indian Ocean region.

52As trends that have particularly worrisome security implications continue to evolve, it is conceivable that the conflated pressures of political insecurity, insurgent conflict, terrorism, illicit trafficking of all kinds, and piracy and vessel hijacking outstrip the international and regional community’s ability to effectively respond to such issues in a sustained manner. Decision-makers should now confront the logic of adopting a ‘management’ approach to these challenges. Yet, successful management of security challenges of this magnitude, complexity, and inter-connectedness requires policy coherence, imagination, sustained participation, and considerable resources. Amidst the existential pressures of geopolitical fragility, internal political upheaval, insurgency, famine, and inter-state tensions, there is now a growing danger that the specific threats from terrorism, human trafficking, arms smuggling, and piracy will not get the resources and policy attention they require, and could therefore increase further in the near-term and beyond.

53As offshore oil and gas exploration and production evolves along Africa’s east coast from Mozambique northwards to Somalia, improved private and government maritime security have to be put in place, especially in the coastal waters of northern Mozambique, Tanzania, and Kenya. And as offshore industries expand, infrastructure, port facilities, and support shipping will likely be tempting targets for armed robbery, piracy, kidnappings, and sabotage for a range of actors, including organised criminal gangs, terrorists, and insurgent groups (some of which have yet to emerge or be identified). Also, historically, the settlement of territorial disputes has been one of the most protracted areas of geopolitical conflict. In most instances, disputes are benign, rendering them virtually dormant but, even so, they have the potential to become flashpoints in the coming years.

  • 20 These parts of the Indian Ocean region are categorised by Lloyd’s Market Association of London, whi (...)
  • 21 For various perspectives on the piracy conundrum, see Herbert-Burns (2012b, pp. 23-39); Luke (2012a (...)

54There appear to be a daunting number of maritime security threats and challenges in the Indian Ocean region, both extant and potential,20 and insufficient resources to address them. Indeed, the mere fact that the Indian Ocean region constitutes the world’s largest swath of maritime space that is prone to piracy and terrorism of some sort, signifies that the region will arguably remain the maritime area with the greatest array of security challenges for the foreseeable future.21 However, while the resources that a very large and diverse group of states have devoted to addressing these challenges have never been adequate to the task, the largely successful coalition-building measures (CBMs) and joint task-force deployments have been impressive. With appropriate leadership from the US and the European Union, these multilateral efforts can be built upon in future. Other key states such as Australia, India, the UAE, Oman, Pakistan, Iran, and South Africa should come forward to forge regional multilateral solutions to address piracy, hijacking, human trafficking, terrorism, illegal fishing, and the integrity of EEZs. While not all these states and powers will be (or can be) grouped to address every challenge, opportunities for security co-operation and confidence-building in the region do exist (Herbert-Burns, 2012b, pp. 23 & 38-39).

Figure 4: The Somali Piracy Threat in the North-Western Indian Ocean

Figure 4: The Somali Piracy Threat in the North-Western Indian Ocean
  • 22 India’s National Ship Owners’ Association, figuring that piracy costs the global shipping trade som (...)

55The oceanic area now threatened by Somali pirates is vast (more than 2.5 million square miles) and security of this space can never be assured, even with hundreds of warships. The 35 to 45 warships collectively provided by many states that are routinely deployed in the international recognised transit corridor (IRTC) and in parts of the Somali Basin are woefully inadequate. However, most of the Gulf Co-operation Council states, including the UAE, have decent-sized naval forces and patrol craft. The Gulf States rely heavily on shipping for their economic prosperity, especially to secure the flow of crude oil exports. This reality should be matched with far more robust and sustained naval patrolling by Oman and the UAE, while Western powers that have replenishment capabilities could provide the necessary logistical support. On the north-eastern and eastern side of the high-risk area (HRA), India22 and Pakistan could likely provide more sea and air surveillance resources. Additional maritime patrol aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles based in Oman, the Seychelles, Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar could further enhance current levels of maritime domain awareness. Those states with sufficient warships, such as the US, the UK, China, France, Germany, Japan, and Turkey, could provide additional frigates and destroyers to extend the patrolling footprint deeper into the high-risk area, guided by improved maritime domain awareness and intelligence.

56Ever since the piracy threat began to grow in 2008, maritime domain awareness has improved considerably due to the efforts of the UK Maritime Trade Organisation (UKMTO), the Maritime Security Centre-Horn of Africa (MSC-HOA), and various combined task forces. Even so, more could be done to harness the surveillance and threat-reporting capability of all the merchant vessels in the high-risk area, which could potentially expand the intelligence-gathering capacity for military forces by an order of magnitude. In the longer-term, an internationally supported financial programme to boost the naval and coastguard capacity of countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, and the Seychelles would enable these states to provide far better maritime security and counter-piracy operations in their own waters (Herbert-Burns, 2012b, pp. 35 & 36).

Conclusion

  • 23 In 2010, the growing share of trade in India’s economy stood at around 43%. Rapid economic growth, (...)

57Without any doubt, for India the Indian Ocean has huge and growing strategic significance, as it is most concerned with the ocean as a geostrategic space as opposed to a regionally significant one. India’s traditionally land-oriented strategic vision has expanded in the past two decades to place greater weight on its maritime environment, and the Indian Ocean is now looked on as part of the inner ring of India’s security environment. Being the pathway to international trade, the Indian Ocean is strategically and economically more important than ever before (Schaffer, 2011, pp. 1 & 2).23 Quite evidently, India is dependent on substantial seaborne trade and, consequently, its security interests have an important maritime dimension. Security and trade (commerce) have long been linked, and navies have long ago ceased to be military platforms only and have become tools for the protection of trading vessels and the policing of SLOCs (Pandya, Herbert-Burns & Kobayashi, 2011, pp. 2 & 4).

  • 24 For a penetrating analysis of the expansion of Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean, see Brewster (...)

58But, the Indian Ocean is also a potential arena for competition with a rising China and a setting for security co-operation with the US. In the past, India regarded with suspicion any country or development that challenged its ability to dominate its maritime space. As India’s economy has grown, and as it has become more integrated with the world economy, this perspective has shifted. For the past decade, New Delhi has recognised that it cannot dominate on its own, and has come to regard the US presence as neutral or even beneficial to its interests. However, India’s big strategic concern in the Indian Ocean is China, and New Delhi has been watching China’s growing presence with great suspicion.24 This includes not just the ‘String of Pearls’, places along the littoral where China is arranging for preferential access (including the new ports of Gwadar in Pakistan and Hambantota in Sri Lanka), but also the political links that China is building with these two countries and with Myanmar (Burma) and Bangladesh. In internal government deliberations in New Delhi, these factors enhance the strategic importance and bureaucratic clout of the Indian Navy, which has been consistently built up since 1990. Although the Navy accounts for a relatively modest share of Indian military spending (18% for 2012/13), it gets a significantly larger share of new procurement, some 72%. However, Indian officials speak of its mission in language reminiscent of their American counterparts: ‘naval diplomacy’, also with a focus on humanitarian operations like tsunami relief (Schaffer, 2011, pp. 1 & 2). Clearly, the rendering of assistance during natural disasters (tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flooding) have spawned a multitude of additional ‘out of area’ operational roles for regional navies, and these have dramatically increased transnational maritime security challenges in the Indian Ocean region (Ghosh, 2004, p. 10).

Figure 5: Great Power Competition in the Indian Ocean Region

  • 25 Somali piracy has dropped off dramatically in recent times and there has been no attack on a commer (...)
  • 26 For a detailed discussion on the IOR-ARC and the IONS, see Oman Tribune, 4 November 2012; The New D (...)

59Other security threats in the Indian Ocean have also achieved a higher profile in the past decade. Piracy in the Arabian Sea and around the coast of Somalia in the Horn of Africa, to India’s west, has become the major menace.25 However, almost paradoxically, India’s approach to the Indian Ocean is primarily as a solo player, and so far it has been wary of direct involvement in multinational enterprises such as international anti-piracy operations. It has sought other ways to co-ordinate with the other nations concerned: co-operation rather than joint operations. Anti-piracy ought to be the major arena for international organisations to shape regional policy-making, but it has thus far been a relatively ineffective one as far as India is concerned. Nevertheless, India has been the driving force behind the Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Co-operation, IOR-ARC (dedicated to strengthening economic co-operation among the Indian Ocean littoral states) and a consultative group for the navies of the countries bordering the Indian Ocean, the IONS.26 Because of the naval focus of the IONS, it is likely to attract a greater degree of attention, but it is noteworthy that the Indian government has emphasised its responsibility not just for security but also for disaster management, ocean resources, and environmental issues, signalling New Delhi’s desire to build a broad-based set of relationships around this vital waterway. Neither of these organisations, however, alters the basic judgement that multilateral organisations have had a relatively modest impact on how New Delhi addresses Indian Ocean issues, and that India’s absence from the multinational anti-piracy task force limits the impact of that multilateral effort (Schaffer, 2011, pp. 1 & 2).

60To sustain its current economic growth and achieve its great power ambitions, India sees the Indian Ocean region as critical to securing its strategic interests. India’s interests in the Indian Ocean region are heavily focused towards improving trade, investment and economic growth, while it also attempts to secure access to hydrocarbon reserves and arable land in order to strengthen its energy and food security. Due to its heavy dependence on inbound seaborne trade, India has placed a premium on developing its naval capabilities to safeguard and project its influence across the Indian Ocean. Given that India sees itself as a major power with strategic interests across the Indian Ocean, and that its requirements for access to natural resources are set to grow, it is likely that New Delhi will aim to significantly expand its influence across the Indian Ocean in the coming years (DeSilva-Ranasinghe, 2011, pp. 1 & 10). Undoubtedly, maritime strategy is playing an ever-increasing role in Indian strategic thinking (see Prakash, 2007a, pp. 157-176). As India reaches for great power status, it is turning more and more to the Indian Ocean as a means of expanding its strategic space. Although it currently co-operates with the US, India has long-term aspirations towards attaining naval predominance throughout much of the Indian Ocean (Brewster, 2010a, p. 19). Also, the rise of India will play a key role in the gradual co-operative integration of the various countries and peoples of the Indian Ocean basin. The long-term result will be a more prosperous and globally more influential region (Berlin, 2006, p. 84).

61In the 2010s, in conjunction with an expansion of India’s naval capabilities, there has been a significant extension of India’s maritime security relationships throughout the Indian Ocean region. Much of the emphasis has been in developing relationships with small states at or near the key points of entry into the Western Indian Ocean (including Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Oman). Arguably, the extreme asymmetries in size have made the development of such relationships relatively easy: there is no question of competition or rivalry, for example. Some of these states have long seen India as a benign security
provider and have maritime policing needs that India can usefully fulfil. In some cases, India may not only be a co-operative security provider, but may also effectively act as a security guarantor, as is arguably the case with Mauritius and the Maldives (Brewster, 2010a, p. 20). But gaps inevitably remain in India’s strategic posture and New Delhi needs to further strengthen its hand in coastal Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula (Berlin, 2006, p. 84). Also, littoral states on the African seaboard look towards regional power centres for assistance in maintaining maritime order and addressing security challenges. Countries with enhanced maritime capabilities like India, South Africa, Australia and the US should assist by not only co-operating amongst themselves, but also by taking other littoral states on board as part of multilateral efforts towards the maintenance of maritime order (Ghosh, 2004, p. 10).

  • 27 It was reported at the time that the South African Navy’s capabilities remained rather limited; tha (...)
  • 28 Although the South African Navy has since commenced limited anti-piracy operations, it is restricte (...)

62But, in reality, things look slightly different. India is by far the dominant littoral naval power in the Indian Ocean. Australia has the next most powerful Navy, but it can only feasibly aspire to be a middle power (Gordon, 2012, p. 2). In such company, South Africa is the naval midget amongst maritime giants. Despite being the best in the southern African region, if not in Sub-Saharan Africa, the South African Navy is grossly under-resourced (Van Rooyen, 2012, p. 13). The urgent need to re-equip the Navy was seemingly addressed by acquiring four corvettes and three submarines for delivery by 2007, as part of an arms deal package of some R70 bn concluded in 1998/99 (Engineering News, 23 November 2005). As late as 2010, however, Vice Admiral Refiloe Mudimu, Chief of the South African Navy, expressed apprehensions about the ability of the Navy to effectively “patrol and protect” even South Africa’s territorial waters (Heitman, 2010, p. 10).27 Although a senior naval officer tried to put a positive spin on the situation by noting that maritime security around the African continent “… is being addressed by means of the AU 2050-African Integrated Maritime Security Strategy” (Teuteberg, 2012), this is in all likelihood yet another paper tiger – given the AU’s poor track record and the strategy’s extensive projected timeline. Given continued limited maritime resources and the fact that a dramatic positive change in terms of maritime resource allocations in the near to medium-term is rather remote, the situation ‘in the water’ is not likely to change soon (see Van Rooyen, 2012, pp. 13-14; Van Rooyen, 2011, pp. 22-23).28

63In the coming years, therefore, India needs to develop much stronger co-operative security relationships with the larger littoral states, particularly South Africa and Australia. There is much scope for security co-operation, especially in the maritime domain. However, the implications of India’s strategic ambitions in the Indian Ocean still need to be worked through. To what extent, for example, might India expect implicit acknowledgement of a leadership role in Indian Ocean security and/or support in any attempts to exclude China from the region? In future, a challenge for New Delhi is to maintain perceptions of India as a benign and non-hegemonic power in the Indian Ocean region as it moves towards achieving great power status. A strong and influential India means a more multipolar world, and this is consistent with Chinese interests. However, as China increasingly regards India as its main Asian rival, Beijing sees India’s power projection in the Indian Ocean as a disconcerting development.

Bibliographie

Acheson, D.G. (1955). A Democrat Looks at His Party. New York: Harper.

Agence France Press (Paris), 8 April 2016. Somali Piracy is Down, Not Out – The Scourge May Yet Return.

allAfrica.com (South Africa), December 2010 & January 2011. South Africa: Navy’s Frigates and the Somali Pirates.

Associated Press (New York), 12 October 2008. Somali Piracy Backed by International Network.

Australian Government. (2009). Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Baruah, A. (2003). India-Mauritius Ties ‘Umbilical and Sacred’. The Hindu (New Delhi), 22 November.

Behera, L.K. (2013a). India’s Defence Budget, 2013-14. Defence Review Asia. Acces-sed 9 August 2015 at http://defencereviewasia.com/articles/216/Indian-Defence-Budget-2013-14/

Behera, L.K. (2013b). India’s Defence Budget, 2013-14: A Bumpy Road Ahead. IDSA Comments, 4 March. Accessed 9 August 2015 at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Indias DefenceBudget2013-14_ikbehera_040313/

Berlin, D.L. (2006). India in the Indian Ocean. Naval War College Review, 59(2), Spring, pp. 58-89.

Brewster, D. (2010a). An Indian Sphere of Influence in the Indian Ocean? Security Challenges, 6(3), Spring, pp. 1-20.

Brewster, D. (2010b). The Australia-India Security Declaration: The Quadrilateral Redux? Security Challenges, 6(1), Autumn, pp. 1-9.

Brewster, D. (2010c). The India-Japan Security Declaration: An Enduring Security Partnership? Asian Security, 6(2), pp. 95-120.

Brewster, D. (2104). India’s Ocean: The Story of India’s Bid for Regional Leadership. London: Routledge.

Buzsynski, L. (2009). Emerging Naval Rivalry in East Asia and the Indian Ocean: Implications for Australia. Security Challenges, 5(3), pp. 73-93.

Cape Times (Cape Town), 21 October 2014. SA and India in Joint Naval Exercise.

Chandramohan, B. (2009). India, Maldives and the Indian Ocean. IDSA Comment, 13 October. New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).

Chaturvedi, S. & Okunev, I. (2012). Chair and Discussant’s Outline for Panel RC15.390. Panel on Indian Ocean Geopolitics in the 21st Century: Rethinking Space, Scale and Security. International Political Science Association Conference, Madrid, 12 July.

Chellaney, B. (2008). Assessing India’s Reactions to China’s ‘Peaceful Development’ Doctrine. NBR Analysis, 18(5), April, pp. 23-36.

Cohen, S. (1973). Geography and Politics in a World Divided (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cozens, P. (1998). Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean. Wellington: Asia Pacific Research Institute (APRI).

Deccan Chronicle (Hyderabad), 24 November 2009. Indian Ship to Patrol Seychelles, Mauritius.

DeSilva-Ranasinghe, S. (2011). India’s Strategic Objectives in the Indian Ocean Region. Workshop Report, 20 October. Perth (WA): Future Directions International.

Dikshit, S. (2008). No Strings Attached to Sale of Ships. The Hindu (New Delhi), 29 March.

Dikshit, S. (2009). India, Oman Still Studying Undersea Pipeline. The Hindu (New Delhi), 30 October.

Dutta, S. (2009). Indian Navy Eyes Maldives -- Counter to China’s ‘String of Pearls’ Plan. The Telegraph (Kolkata), 20 August.

Engineering News (Johannesburg), 23 November 2005. SA Navy to Have All New Corvettes and Submarines by 2007.

Fernando, Y.J.S.N. (2011). Co-operation in the Indian Ocean Region: Towards the Co-Existence of IOMAC and the IOR-ARC (7 June). In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (pp. 23-27). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February 2012.

Forsberg, S.J. (2007). India Stretches its Sea Legs. United States Naval Institute Proceedings, 133(3), March, pp. 38-42.

Gerosa, G. (1979). Will the Indian Ocean Become a Soviet Pond? Atlas World Press Review, November. Original article published as La flotta sovietica presidia nuovi mari, dated 6 August 1970 and translated from l’Europeo, Milan.

Ghosh, P.K. (2004). Maritime Security Challenges in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Paper prepared for the Center for Strategic and International Studies & the American-Pacific Sea-Lanes Security Institute Conference on Maritime Security in Asia, Honolulu, Hawaii, 18-20 January.

Gordon, S. 2012. Indian Ocean: Don’t Militarise the ‘Great Connector’. East Asia Forum (EABER-ANU, Canberra), 10 April.

Groenewald, E.P. (1997). Maritime Defence Philosophy. Unpublished Paper. Pretoria: Naval Headquarters, Chief of Naval Operations.

Grove, E. (1996). Maritime Confidence and Security-Building Measures. In Bateman, S. & Bates, S. (Eds.), Calming the Waters: Initiatives for Asia Pacific Maritime Co-operation (Chapter 5). Canberra Papers on Strategy and Defence No. 114. Canberra: Australian National University, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

Harper, M. (2009). Chasing the Somali Piracy Money Trail. BBC News. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 24 May.

Harrison, S.S. & Subrahmanyam, K. (Eds.). (1989). Superpower Rivalry in the Indian Ocean: Indian and American Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hartley, J. (2012). Foreword. In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (p. 5). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February.

Heitman, H.R. (2010). A Task Too Big for a Single Navy? Naval Forces, IV/2010, p. 10.

Herbert-Burns, R. (2012a). Countering Piracy, Trafficking, and Terrorism: Ensuring Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean. In Michel, D. & Sticklor, R. (Eds.), Indian Ocean Rising: Maritime Security and Policy Challenges (pp. 23-39). Washington, DC: Stimson Center, July.

Herbert-Burns, R. (2012b). Counter-Piracy Operations: EU-NAVFOR and NATO. Maritime Security Briefing No. 2, Indian Ocean Naval Activity, Spring. Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 20 April.

Holmes, J.R. & Yoshihara, T. (2008). India’s ‘Monroe Doctrine’ and Asia’s Maritime Future. Strategic Analysis, 32(6), November, pp. 997-1011.

Holmes, J.R., Winner, A.C. & Yoshihara, T. (2009). Indian Naval Strategy in the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.

Hughes, J. (2011). The Piracy-Illegal Fishing Nexus in the Western Indian Ocean (10 February). In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (pp. 41-45). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February 2012.

IMF (International Monetary Fund). (2015). World Economic Outlook, April 2015. Accessed 9 August 2015 at http://statisticstimes.com/economy/world-gdp-ranking.php/

IMO (International Maritime Organisation). (2009). Reports on Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships, First Quarterly Report. London: IMO, Annex 1, 22 September.

IMO (International Maritime Organisation). (2013). Information Resources on Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea against Ships. London: IMO, Maritime Knowledge Centre, 24 January.

IMCI (Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry). (2010). India’s FDI Statistics. Accessed 9 August 2015 at http://dipp.nic.in/fdi_statistics/india_FDI_January2010.pdf/

IMOD (Indian Ministry of Defence). (2001). Annual Report, 2000-2001. New Delhi: Ministry of Defence.

IMOD-N (Indian Ministry of Defence-Navy). (2004). Indian Maritime Doctrine. New Delhi: Ministry of Defence, Integrated Headquarters.

India Defence (New Delhi), 7 July 2007. Indian Navy Activates Listening Post, Monitoring Station in Madagascar, Indian Ocean.

India Defence (New Delhi), 6 April 2010. India to Sell Small Arms to Oman.

Jayawardene, H.W. (1994). The Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Co-operation (IOMAC). In Payoyo, P.B. (Ed.), Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas. Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press.

Jha, S. (2009). India Strengthens Military in Gulf. UPIAsia.com, New Delhi, 3 November.

Kapila, S. (2012). Indian Ocean: Strategic Imperatives for India to Keep It Indian. Paper No. 5242. New Delhi: South Asia Analysis Group, 4 October.

Thaindian News (New Delhi), 20 November 2008. Lack of Consensus Holding Back Anti-Piracy Policy.

Lamont, J. (2010). Beijing Edges Aside Delhi to Woo Mauritius as Africa Hub. Financial Times (London), 26 January.

Lingle, C. (1997). The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century. Hong Kong: Asia 2000.

Luke, L.G. (2010a). Peak Piracy Season Here Again: Solutions Lie on Land, Not Water (22 April). In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (pp. 31-33). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February 2012.

Luke, L.G. (2010b). Somali Pirates and Islamist Militias Joining Forces -- An Attractive Proposition? (22 October). In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (pp. 35-39). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February 2012.

Luke, L.G. (2010c). United in Disunity? Pan-Regional Organisations in the Indian Ocean Region (30 April). In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (pp. 19-22). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February 2012.

Luke, L.G. & O’Loughlin, C. (2010). Critical Issues in the Indian Ocean Region to 2020 (13 September). In Luke, L.G. & Luttrell, T. (Eds.), Indian Ocean: A Sea of Uncertainty (pp. 9-17). Perth (WA): Future Directions International, February 2012.

Mail&Guardian (Johannesburg), 15 November 2011. SA, Moz and Tanzania in ‘Innovative’ Anti-Piracy Pact.

Maitra, R. (2005). India Bids to Rule the Waves. Asia Times (Hong Kong), 19 October.

Margolis, E. (2005). India Rules the Waves. Proceedings of the US Naval Institute, 131(3), March, pp. 66-70.

McCaffrie, J. (1996). Maritime Strategy into the Twenty-First Century: Issues for Regional Navies. Working Paper No. 297, August. Canberra: Australian National University, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

McPherson, K. (2002). SAARC and the Indian Ocean. South Asian Survey, 9(2), pp. 251-261.

Menon, S.S. (2009). Maritime Imperatives of Indian Foreign Policy. Speech to the National Maritime Foundation, New Delhi, 11 September.

Middleton, R. (2008). Piracy in Somalia: Threatening Global Trade, Feeding Local Wars. Chatham House Briefing Paper AFP BP 08/02. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Middleton, R. & Quartapelle, L. (2010). Le conseguenze della pirateria nel corno d’Africa [The Consequences of Piracy in the Horn of Africa]. Osservatorio di Politica Internazionale (p. 5, note 11), May. Rome: Senato della Repubblica.

Miglani, S. (2014). India Raises Military Spending, Eases Foreign Investment Limit on Arms Industry. Business News (New Delhi), 10 July. Accessed on 9 August 2015 at http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/10/india-budget-id/NKBNOFFOWQ20140710/

Mohan, C.R. (2003). Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mohan, C.R. (2009). Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Western Indian Ocean. ISAS Insights, 52. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), 24 February.

Mukherjee, P. (2007). Admiral A.K. Chatterjee Memorial Lecture, Kolkata, 30 June.

Murphy, D. (2009). Indian Ocean: New Strategic Playing Field. Christian Science Monitor (Boston), 28 June.

Murphy, M. (2007). Contemporary Piracy and Maritime Terrorism: Assessing the Threat. Adelphi Papers, 47(388), June, Chapter 3.

Naidu, G.V.C. (2000). The Indian Navy and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).

Oman Tribune (Muscat), 4 November 2012. Indian Ocean Rim States’ Meeting to Focus on Piracy, Trade.

Pandya, A.A., Herbert-Burns, R. & Kobayashi, J. (2011). Maritime Commerce and Security: The Indian Ocean. Washington, DC: Stimson Center.

Panikkar, K.M. (1943). The Future of Southeast Asia: An Indian View. New York: Macmillan.

Panikkar, K.M. (1945). India and the Indian Ocean: An Essay on the Influence of Sea Power on Indian History. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Pardesi, M. (2005). Deducing India’s Grand Strategy of Regional Hegemony from Historical and Conceptual Perspectives. Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS).

People’s Daily (Beijing), 7 March 2006. India, Mozambique Sign MoU in Defence Co-operation.

Potgieter, T. (2012). Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean: Strategic Setting and Features. Paper No. 236. Pretoria: Institute for Strategic Studies (ISS).

Potgieter, T. & Schofield, C. (2010). Poverty, Poaching and Pirates: Geopolitical Instability and Maritime Insecurity off the Horn of Africa. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 6(1), June, pp. 86-112.

Prakash, A. (2006). China and the Indian Ocean Region. Indian Defence Review, 21(4), October-December, pp. 7-13.

Prakash, A. (2007a). India’s Maritime Strategy. USI Journal, 137(568), April-June, pp. 157-176.

Prakash, A. (2007b). Security and Foreign Policy Imperatives of an Emerging India. In Prakash, A. (Ed.), From the Crow’s Nest: A Compendium of Speeches and Writings on Maritime and Other Issues (pp. 1-8). New Delhi: Lancer Publishers.

Pubby, M. (2007). India Activates First Listening Post on Foreign Soil: Radars in Madagascar. Indian Express (New Delhi), 18 July.

Rai, R.B. (2009). The Indian Experience of Strategy and the Indian Perspective on Maritime Strategy in the 21st Century in the IOR. Paper presented at a Conference on Strategic Theory, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 11-12 June.

Rao, R.P. & Talukdar, S.N. (1980). Petroleum Geology of Bombay High Field, India. In Halbouty, M.T. (Ed.), Giant Oil Fields of the Decade, 1968-1978. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 30.

Rajghatta, C. (2001). Singhing Bush’s Praise. The Times of India (New Delhi), 13 April.

Ramachandran, S. (2007a). China Moves into India’s Back Yard. Asia Times (Hong Kong), 13 March.

Ramachandran, S. (2007b). India’s Quiet Sea Power. Asia Times (Hong Kong), 2 August.

Reuters India (New Delhi), 22 February 2011.

Reuters (New York), 13 August 2012.

Roy, M. (n.d.). Maritime Security in South-West Asia. New Delhi: Society for Indian Ocean Studies. Accessed 9 August 2015 at http://www.iips.org/Roy-paper.pdf/

Roy-Chaudhury, R. (1998). Maritime and Naval Co-operation in the Indian Ocean. Asian Strategic Review 1997-98 (pp. 258-282). New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).

Rumley, D. & Chaturvedi, S. (2012). Towards Maritime Regionalism: A Unifying Concept for the Indian Ocean. Abstract of a paper presented in the Panel on Indian Ocean Geopolitics in the 21st Century: Rethinking Space, Scale and Security, International Political Science Association Conference, Madrid, 12 July.

Sahni, V. (2005). India’s Security Challenges out to 2020. Paper presented at the Australia-India Security Roundtable, Canberra, 11-12 April.

Schaffer, T.C. (2011). Indian Ocean Geostrategic Environment: The View from South Asia. Washington, DC: South Asia Hand, 1 February.

Schaffer, T.C. (2011). Indian Ocean Rivals are Better Served with Co-operation. The National (United Arab Emirates), 23 August.

Schofield, C. (2007). A Complex Mosaic: Maritime Jurisdictional Claims in the Indian Ocean. Indian Ocean Survey, 3(1/2), p. 3 (endnotes 3 & 4).

Scott, D. (2006). India’s ‘Grand Strategy’ for the Indian Ocean: Mahanian Visions. Asia-Pacific Review, 13(2), pp. 97-129.

Shambaugh, D. (2009). The Evolving Security Order in Asia. In Ayres, A. & Mohan, C.R. (Eds.), Power Realignments in Asia: China, India and the United States (pp. 137-157). New Delhi: Sage.

Sidhartha. (2006a). India Acquiring Global Footprint. The Times of India (New Delhi), 25 November.

Sidhartha. (2006b). India Eyes Island in the Sun. The Times of India (New Delhi), 25 November.

Sikri, R. (2009). Challenge and Strategy: Rethinking India’s Foreign Policy. New Delhi: Sage.

Singh, M. (2004). PM’s Address at the Combined Commanders Conference, 26 October. New Delhi: Prime Minister’s Office.

Tanham, G.K. (1996). Indian Strategic Thought: An Interpretive Essay. In Tanham, G.K., Bajpai, K.P. & Mattoo, A. (Eds.), Securing India: Strategic Thought and Practice in an Emerging Power (pp. 28-111). New Delhi: Manohar.

Teuteberg, B.H. (2012). Letting the Facts Speak for Themselves (Letter to the Editor). Business Day (Johannesburg), 2 March.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 2 April 2005. Indo-Mauritius Joint Statement on the Conclusion of PM Dr. Manmohan Singh’s State Visit.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 3 December 2009. India-Mauritius Ties More than Diplomatic: Jugnauth.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 2 November 2012. Indian Emphasis on Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean Region.

The New Delhi Post (New Delhi), 4 November 2012. India Pitches for Greater Anti-Piracy Co-operation.

Tsvetkova, B. (2009). ‘Securitising Piracy off the Coast of Somalia’. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 3(1), May, pp. 44-63.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2005). Waste Dumping off Somali Coast May Have Links to Mafia, Somali Warlords. The Environment in the News, 16 March. New York: UNEP.

Unnithan, S. (2008). The Hijack Dilemma. India Today (New Delhi), 17 October.

UN Secretariat. (2008). Urban Agglomerations 2007. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

US Department of State. (2005). Background Briefing by Administration Officials on US-South Asia Relations. Washington, DC: Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, 25 March.

Vaidya, K. (1949). The Naval Defence of India. Bombay: Thacker.

Valencia, M. (1998). Asian Maritime Resources: The Potential for Conflict and Co-operation. Paper presented at the Oceans Governance and Maritime Strategy Conference, Canberra, 18-19 May.

Van Rooyen, F.C. (2011). Africa and the Geopolitics of the Indian Ocean. Occasional Paper No. 78, February. South African Institute of International Affairs, Johannesburg.

Van Rooyen, F.C. (2012). A Southern Perspective on the Indian Ocean. Research Paper, South African Institute of International Affairs, Johannesburg.

Vyas, N. (2001). India Will Back Mauritius on Diego Garcia: Narayanan. The Hindu (New Delhi), 11 March.

Washington Post (Washington, DC), 3 October 2011. Indian Ship Owners Say Piracy Costs Tops $9 Billion Annually, Demand UN Maritime Force.

World Bank. (2015). World Bank 2015: Data by Country. Accessed 9 August 2015 at http://data.worldbank.org/country-indicator/MS.ML.XPND.GD.ZS; and http://globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id/

Notes

1 The broader Indian Ocean ‘Rim’ consists of 29 littoral countries and 6 island states. The Indian Ocean ‘Region’ can either be limited to the Rim countries, or it can be expanded to include landlocked countries dependent on the Indian Ocean. Thus, the number of states that comprise the Indian Ocean ‘Region’ can vary from a minimum of 35 Rim countries to a maximum of 52 states; see Fernando (2011, p. 23); Roy-Chaudhury (1998, note 4).

2 For overall GDP figures and GDP figures per capita, see World Bank (2015), and IMF (2015).

3 Underwater oil exploration and production in the north-western Indian Ocean takes place in an offshore oilfield, Bombay High (65km long, 23km wide, 75 metres deep), 176km off the coast of Mumbai in the Gulf of Khambhat off the Indian west coast, opposite the shores of the Indian states of Gujarat and Maharashtra (Rao & Talukdar, 1980, p. 487). British Petroleum (BP) joined India’s Reliance Industries in a partnership on 23 oil and gas production-sharing contracts. This includes the KG-D6 block, spread across more than 50,000km² in the Krishna and Godavari river basins, off the east coast of India’s Andhra Pradesh state in the Bay of Bengal (Reuters India, 22 February 2011; Reuters, 13 August 2012). Naturally, in order to safeguard these vital national assets, India has to maintain a very strong naval presence in both these maritime theatres.

4 However, this is not to suggest that the Ottoman (Turkish), Portuguese, Dutch, French and British military presence in India, from around the 1490s and during the course of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, did not also include a major maritime component.

5 A slightly different version of this quotation is: “Whoever controls the Indian Ocean controls Asia. The ocean is the key to the Seven Seas.” This quotation is often attributed to Admiral Mahan but, in reality, is of doubtful provenance. The earliest reference to this quote in English appeared in an article, “Will the Indian Ocean Become a Soviet Pond?”, in the Atlas World Press Review magazine of November 1979 – an article originally written by Italian journalist, Guido Gerosa, entitled La flotta sovietica presidia nuovi mari, and translated from the Italian publication l’Europeo (Milan) of 6 August 1970.

6 For a general discussion of India’s maritime strategy and capabilities, see Buzsynski (2009, pp. 73-93); Holmes, Winner & Yoshihara (2009); and Naidu (2000).

7 Invitees to the naval symposium include France (which India recognises as a littoral state by virtue of its colonial territories), but not Britain or the US (notwithstanding their presence in the British Indian Ocean Territory, BIOT), or China.

8 In 2007, the US Navy released a maritime security strategy that still stressed the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as the principal centres for regular US military presence – but now, the Indian Ocean was added as a key strategic focus. This reflects in part the importance the US attaches to the Gulf, but it also illustrates how central the integrity of sea lanes and their multifaceted connections have become to US strategic planning. In the past ten years, India-US security co-operation has expanded markedly, and naval co-operation centres on the Indian Ocean is its most active component. In the same period, India’s attitude towards a permanent US presence in those waters has shifted from deeply sceptical to supportive (Schaffer, 2011).

9 Between April 2000 and January 2010, Mauritius was the largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) into India, comprising 43% of total investment, with the second largest investment source being Singapore; see IMCI (2010).

10 The US also provides anti-piracy maritime surveillance through unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) stationed in the Seychelles.

11 For a wider discussion of India’s strategic ambitions and role in south-eastern Africa, particularly in Mozambique, Tanzania and Kenya, see Brewster (2014, pp. 85-89 & 92-93).

12 This includes an announced US$700 million investment by China in a special economic zone in Mauritius.

13 This perception is reinforced by the fact that the US military relationship with India is the responsibility of US Pacific Command, based in Hawaii, while the US security presence in the north-western Indian Ocean is administered by US Central Command, based in Qatar (which also has responsibility for the US military relationship with Pakistan). For a discussion on India’s role in the north-western Indian Ocean and its attempts to develop a strategic relationship with Iran, see Brewster (2014, pp. 112-118).

14 As at April 2010, Pakistan had led CTF-150 on four occasions.

15 On an Indian sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean, see Brewster (2014, pp. 35-37).

16 This included the creation of territorial buffer areas to insulate direct contact with other empires, including Afghanistan in the west, Tibet in the north, and Thailand (Siam) in the east, and for British India to take an active role in managing the affairs of these buffer zones.

17 For an incisive analysis of India as the natural centre of gravity and its leadership role in a regional security order in the Indian Ocean, see Brewster (2014, pp. 199-200 & 202-206).

18 For an insightful discussion on US-Indian co-operation in the Indian Ocean region, see Brewster (2014, pp. 171-179).

19 For a perceptive analysis of a new security partnership between India and Australia in the Indian Ocean region, see Brewster (2014, pp. 154-159).

20 These parts of the Indian Ocean region are categorised by Lloyd’s Market Association of London, which provides professional and technical support to Lloyd’s underwriting (insurance and, specifically, shipping) community, as ‘Piracy, Terrorism, and Related Perils Listed Areas’, enclosed by the following boundaries: on the north-west by the Red Sea, south of latitude 15°N; on the west of the Gulf of Oman by longitude 58°E; on the east by longitude 78°E; and on the south by latitude 12°S; see IMO (2013), and IMO (2009).

21 For various perspectives on the piracy conundrum, see Herbert-Burns (2012b, pp. 23-39); Luke (2012a, pp. 31-33); Luke (2012b, pp. 35-39); Oman Tribune, 4 November 2012; Potgieter & Schofield (2010, pp. 86-112); Middleton & Quartapelle (2010, p. 5, note 11); Tsvetkova (2009, pp. 44-63); Harper (2009); Middleton (2008); Associated Press, 12 October 2008; Murphy (2007, Chapter 3).

22 India’s National Ship Owners’ Association, figuring that piracy costs the global shipping trade some US$10 bn annually, has formally urged the Indian government to back the creation of a maritime anti-piracy force under UN command (Washington Post, 3 October 2011).

23 In 2010, the growing share of trade in India’s economy stood at around 43%. Rapid economic growth, exceeding 8% per year since 2003/04, depends on a steady and secure supply of energy. Imports of oil and gas represent some 70%, and about two-thirds of this cargo has to come in by sea. Crude oil is India’s largest import, about US$100 bn per year and one-third of all imports, while refined oil is its largest export at about US$29 bn per year.

24 For a penetrating analysis of the expansion of Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean, see Brewster (2014, pp. 182-196).

25 Somali piracy has dropped off dramatically in recent times and there has been no attack on a commercial vessel in over two years. Piracy seems to have been suppressed, but not stopped – it may well return at some stage in the future. Therefore, the international maritime presence remains vital to maintaining this welcome reduction in pirate attacks; see Agence France Press (Paris), 8 April 2016.

26 For a detailed discussion on the IOR-ARC and the IONS, see Oman Tribune, 4 November 2012; The New Delhi Post, 4 November 2012; The Hindu, 2 November 2012; Rumley & Chaturvedi (2012); Fernando (2011, pp. 23-27); Luke (2010c, pp. 19-22); McPherson (2002, pp. 251-261); Roy-Chaudhury (1998, pp. 258-282); Jayawardene (1994).

27 It was reported at the time that the South African Navy’s capabilities remained rather limited; that it would have difficulty in contributing to anti-piracy operations off Somalia; that budgetary constraints would allow for only one frigate and support ship to be put to sea at any given time; and that such a deployment would deplete the entire 2011 annual operational budget (allAfrica.com, December 2010 & January 2011).

28 Although the South African Navy has since commenced limited anti-piracy operations, it is restricted to the Mozambique Channel, in pursuance of South Africa’s commitment to the Southern African Development Community (Mail&Guardian, 15 November 2011).

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Parameters of the Western Indian Ocean
URL http://books.openedition.org/cei/docannexe/image/469/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 796k
Titre Figure 2: Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC)
URL http://books.openedition.org/cei/docannexe/image/469/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,2M
Titre Figure 3: West-East-West SLOCs Traversing the Indian Ocean
URL http://books.openedition.org/cei/docannexe/image/469/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Figure 4: The Somali Piracy Threat in the North-Western Indian Ocean
URL http://books.openedition.org/cei/docannexe/image/469/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M

Auteur

University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search