US seeks formal alliance similar to Nato with India, Japan and Australia

[Nilgiri]

US seeks Nato-like alliance with Indo-Pacific countries

Washington’s goal is to get countries in the Indo-Pacific region to work together as a bulwark against ‘a potential challenge from China’, said Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun.

www.scmp.com

US seeks formal alliance similar to Nato with India, Japan and Australia, State Department official says

• Washington’s goal is to get countries in the Indo-Pacific region to work together as a bulwark against ‘a potential challenge from China’, says the US official
• He says the four nations are expected to meet in Delhi sometime this autumn

Robert Delaney
Published: 5:02am, 1 Sep, 2020



Washington aims to formalise its closer Indo-Pacific defence relations with India, Japan and Australia – also known as “the quad” – into something more closely resembling the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), a senior US State Department official said on Monday.

The US government’s goal is to get the grouping of four countries and others in the region to work together as a bulwark against “a potential challenge from China” and “to create a critical mass around the shared values and interests of those parties in a manner that attracts more countries in the Indo-Pacific and even from around the world … ultimately to align in a more structured manner”, said Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun.

“The Indo-Pacific region is actually lacking in strong multilateral structures,” he said. “They don‘t have anything of the fortitude of Nato or the European Union. The strongest institutions in Asia oftentimes are not, I think, not inclusive enough and so … there is certainly an invitation there at some point to formalise a structure like this.”

“Remember even Nato started with relatively modest expectations and a number of countries [initially] chose neutrality over Nato membership,” Biegun added.


Biegun cautioned that Washington would keep its ambitions for a Pacific Nato “checked”, saying that such a formal alliance “only will happen if the other countries are as committed as the United States”.


Speaking with former US ambassador to India, Richard Verma, in an online discussion organised by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, Biegun also said the group of four nations were expected to meet in Delhi sometime this autumn and cited Australia’s possible participation in India’s Malabar naval exercise as an example of progress towards a more formal defence bloc.

India is “clearly indicating an intention to invite Australia to participate in the Malabar naval exercises, which will be a tremendous step forward in ensuring the freedom of passage and the security of the seas in the Indo-Pacific”, he said.


The naval exercises, taking place mostly in the Bay of Bengal, have been run annually by the US and India since 1992, and have included Japan since 2015.

Australia had taken part in the Malabar games once, in 2007, “but Beijing pushed back, meaning that India demurred on repeating the invitation, ostensibly for fear of needlessly antagonising China, despite Canberra’s clear willingness to take part,” the Sydney-based think tank Lowy Institute said in a July report. Singapore also took part in 2007.


The Lowy report said clashes between Chinese and Indian troops in June in the Himalayan Galwan valley, in which at least 20 Indian soldiers died, made the Indian government more inclined to bring Australia back into the Malabar games.

Japan and the United States have already been invited to join this year’s exercise, which has been delayed because of Covid-19, but Delhi has not yet formally invited Australia.

Biegun’s comments follow those of Donald Trump’s national security adviser Robert O’Brien, who on Friday called China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea “ridiculous” and touted upcoming quad meetings and planned visits by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with his counterparts in India, Japan and Australia in September and October.

The State Department official also suggested that Washington would like to see South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand to eventually join an expanded version of the quad, citing the “very cooperative” meetings that the group of four had with officials from these countries about the response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Those meetings between senior-level officials of the seven countries were “incredibly productive discussion among very, very cooperative partners, and one that we should look at to see a natural grouping of countries that really will do their very best to advance this combination of interests that we have made up Pacific”, Biegun said.


===============

Members may like to know that a dedicated Quad thread has been opened in the Indian subforum:

Quad Archive (India)

Thread dedicated to Indian relations with the other members of the Quad (Japan, Australia and the US). Relevant interviews, analysis and articles regarding such will be collected here, discussion is also welcome.

defencehub.live

 

[Ryder]

Interesting how South Korea is not part of it.

 

[Asena_great]

I was thinking about the same thing turkic world +india +japan + usa and the orbits south kora australia vietnam

 

[Saiyan0321]

US seeks Nato-like alliance with Indo-Pacific countries

Washington’s goal is to get countries in the Indo-Pacific region to work together as a bulwark against ‘a potential challenge from China’, said Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun.

www.scmp.com

US seeks formal alliance similar to Nato with India, Japan and Australia, State Department official says

• Washington’s goal is to get countries in the Indo-Pacific region to work together as a bulwark against ‘a potential challenge from China’, says the US official
• He says the four nations are expected to meet in Delhi sometime this autumn

Robert Delaney
Published: 5:02am, 1 Sep, 2020



Washington aims to formalise its closer Indo-Pacific defence relations with India, Japan and Australia – also known as “the quad” – into something more closely resembling the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), a senior US State Department official said on Monday.

The US government’s goal is to get the grouping of four countries and others in the region to work together as a bulwark against “a potential challenge from China” and “to create a critical mass around the shared values and interests of those parties in a manner that attracts more countries in the Indo-Pacific and even from around the world … ultimately to align in a more structured manner”, said Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun.

“The Indo-Pacific region is actually lacking in strong multilateral structures,” he said. “They don‘t have anything of the fortitude of Nato or the European Union. The strongest institutions in Asia oftentimes are not, I think, not inclusive enough and so … there is certainly an invitation there at some point to formalise a structure like this.”

“Remember even Nato started with relatively modest expectations and a number of countries [initially] chose neutrality over Nato membership,” Biegun added.


Biegun cautioned that Washington would keep its ambitions for a Pacific Nato “checked”, saying that such a formal alliance “only will happen if the other countries are as committed as the United States”.


Speaking with former US ambassador to India, Richard Verma, in an online discussion organised by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, Biegun also said the group of four nations were expected to meet in Delhi sometime this autumn and cited Australia’s possible participation in India’s Malabar naval exercise as an example of progress towards a more formal defence bloc.

India is “clearly indicating an intention to invite Australia to participate in the Malabar naval exercises, which will be a tremendous step forward in ensuring the freedom of passage and the security of the seas in the Indo-Pacific”, he said.


The naval exercises, taking place mostly in the Bay of Bengal, have been run annually by the US and India since 1992, and have included Japan since 2015.

Australia had taken part in the Malabar games once, in 2007, “but Beijing pushed back, meaning that India demurred on repeating the invitation, ostensibly for fear of needlessly antagonising China, despite Canberra’s clear willingness to take part,” the Sydney-based think tank Lowy Institute said in a July report. Singapore also took part in 2007.


The Lowy report said clashes between Chinese and Indian troops in June in the Himalayan Galwan valley, in which at least 20 Indian soldiers died, made the Indian government more inclined to bring Australia back into the Malabar games.

Japan and the United States have already been invited to join this year’s exercise, which has been delayed because of Covid-19, but Delhi has not yet formally invited Australia.

Biegun’s comments follow those of Donald Trump’s national security adviser Robert O’Brien, who on Friday called China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea “ridiculous” and touted upcoming quad meetings and planned visits by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with his counterparts in India, Japan and Australia in September and October.

The State Department official also suggested that Washington would like to see South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand to eventually join an expanded version of the quad, citing the “very cooperative” meetings that the group of four had with officials from these countries about the response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Those meetings between senior-level officials of the seven countries were “incredibly productive discussion among very, very cooperative partners, and one that we should look at to see a natural grouping of countries that really will do their very best to advance this combination of interests that we have made up Pacific”, Biegun said.


===============

Members may like to know that a dedicated Quad thread has been opened in the Indian subforum:

Quad Archive (India)

Thread dedicated to Indian relations with the other members of the Quad (Japan, Australia and the US). Relevant interviews, analysis and articles regarding such will be collected here, discussion is also welcome.

defencehub.live

This will create a domino effect and China will try to create something similar to contain Quad which means more militarization of the region. Military pacts will only help spread the oil that a single match light will burn and this was seen in world war I where a single light forced nations to go to war against countries they had no Cassus Beli against, simply due to military pacts and the only winners would be the arms dealer which ironically would be the countries that are making these alliances. US and China

 

[Saithan]

This will create a domino effect and China will try to create something similar to contain Quad which means more militarization of the region. Military pacts will only help spread the oil that a single match light will burn and this was seen in world war I where a single light forced nations to go to war against countries they had no Cassus Beli against, simply due to military pacts and the only winners would be the arms dealer which ironically would be the countries that are making these alliances. US and China

I am not sure if Australia has anything to do with that region. So getting involved means it's going to be a priority target.

Australia is pretty much protected by being away from everything, so they don't need to beef up their armed forces. But butting in is going to make sure China starts building bases in asia pacific and such, there are plenty of islands that can be used. So I doubt Australia would be stupid enough to repeat their past mistakes.

 

[Saiyan0321]

I was thinking about the same thing turkic world +india +japan + usa and the orbits south kora australia vietnam

You know that ultimately surrounds us right. Anyhow not possible. Not until something drastic happens.

1. It would be too hostile to pakistan and i dont think turkey and Azerbaijan would enter into such a NATO like Pact where India is a part of it too.

2. Secondly The CARS are divided in influence where China has influence on Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and I believe Uzbekistan as well whereas Russia dominates Kazakhistan and kyrgizsta. In this manner the US has no opportunity to expend influence to the CARS where they will become part of an Alliance that will lock them into a military struggle not just with China but with Russia as well. For Russia, US will be on the West and the South and that will endanger Russia greatly. Now coming back to CARS. Post the dissolution of the USSR, China did give importance to the CARS but not as much as it should have because it was rising at that time and its entire focus was on the east end. HDI, Developments and Trade and it was a good idea however mid 2000s China realized that it has depended entirely on the east and neglected the west and the south especially with US becoming more and more wary. We see this in the post 2010 Xinjiang express development road and the crush of political dissent. China realized that while the battle field may be the east, it is in the west and the south that the conflict will be won. China's only other access to sea is through only one country and that is Pakistan. It has no other option. Not the west nor to the north. Sealed entirely with only one country and that country luckily for China was undergoing two major problems. One Economy and Energy and second it was struggling on the International stage and its superpower ally was becoming more and more hostile. In this manner, China swiftly entered the stage and with the Gwadar deal, Aced the US in a manner that the US frankly did not see it coming. The port was initially under the control of the US and it was a blow to them and a display of the ever changing realities in the region.
Then we have the West filled with CARS. Nations whose people see the Uighur Plight ( Kazakhistan and Kyrgizstan) but many are indifferent as well and the governments realize that in their vicinity they will either be influenced by Russia or China and China is rich and Russia is not and unlike Russia, China has access to the warmer sea. There is Sinophobia over there where the locals believe that jobs will be taken and Chinese will marry local women however that is largely centered in Kazakhistan and Kyrgizstan. Tajikistan and Turkmenistan voted in favor of Chinese policies in Xinjiang along with half the Arab world. So we see here how much influence China has and is growing, with this. The three other CARS did not condemn it. Uzebkistan most likely saw no reason to do either. China has also been increasing influence in Afghanistan as well and that is when US is basically occupying the area. Thus it is very hard for US to enter the CARS. Some Analysts stated that US should use the Covid19 to increase influence by helping CARS financially at an extensive scale however US couldnt because they themselves got hit in the worst fashion and they dont have the finances that they once had.


All in all such a U shaped wall is just not happening unless unless China does something really stupid and i mean really stupid because right now their influence is naturally growing that even Russia is not contesting.

 

[Saiyan0321]

I am not sure if Australia has anything to do with that region. So getting involved means it's going to be a priority target.

Australia is pretty much protected by being away from everything, so they don't need to beef up their armed forces. But butting in is going to make sure China starts building bases in asia pacific and such, there are plenty of islands that can be used. So I doubt Australia would be stupid enough to repeat their past mistakes.

Geography has been Australia's best friend in terms of military adventures and Australia and India will force China to beef up because China will use Australia as a convenient excuse to militarize and it will also militarize in the islands of the Indian Ocean and nations with whom China has signed port deals. We may see military deals rise up since in the East China is basically being entrenched however in the South, China has means of stretching its arms with more ease. Frankly i dont think QUAD will become something like NATO. I think it will be more union engagement of military tech and joint projects but military pact would be a stretch.

 

[Ryder]

I am not sure if Australia has anything to do with that region. So getting involved means it's going to be a priority target.

Australia is pretty much protected by being away from everything, so they don't need to beef up their armed forces. But butting in is going to make sure China starts building bases in asia pacific and such, there are plenty of islands that can be used. So I doubt Australia would be stupid enough to repeat their past mistakes.

China is infiltrating Australia not to mention China is increasing its influence in the pacific islands which is considered Australias doorstep. If China gets green light for bases basically means China is at our doorstep.

Australia also believes its part of Asia hence why they want to play a role we are also allied with the USA through the Anzus treaty.

Lots of Factors why Australia is trying to play a role in the region.

Australia is beefing up its air and naval assets rather than the land army.

 

[Nilgiri]

Interesting how South Korea is not part of it.

More countries will likely join later after some credibility is first established in the next phase of the Quad.

I was thinking about the same thing turkic world +india +japan + usa and the orbits south kora australia vietnam

This is probably where it's headed long term. Indonesia is another one.

This will create a domino effect and China will try to create something similar to contain Quad which means more militarization of the region. Military pacts will only help spread the oil that a single match light will burn and this was seen in world war I where a single light forced nations to go to war against countries they had no Cassus Beli against, simply due to military pacts and the only winners would be the arms dealer which ironically would be the countries that are making these alliances. US and China

They are welcome to all the molotov-ribbentrop pacts they want...with all the lackeys they want. They have a few already.

Makes not a lick of difference to what the Quad will do now. There is already MASSIVE comms, logistics and intelligence sharing between them (if you look for example the deals India signed with all of them in the last few years along with South Korea and Singapore too). There is probably already defined roles of optimized theater operations should the enemy turn one of the area's hot. Next phase will be larger and larger exercises in real time over longer durations to fully scope out huge parts of operations in a conflict governing this....so as to be fully prepared for it at the highest intensive level.

You see the writing is on the wall for this evil regime long term.

They chose the wrong fork in the road and have decided turning back and picking the other one would cause too much loss of face...even though it is still not too late for it.

OK...their decision, their consequences to bear. They have learned not one thing about funny moustache man folly....sudentenland slicing all the way to concentration camps and all.

Then they spawns and spread a global plague with their filthy hygiene and diet choices on top. Yeah...I don't think many people realise the level of utter contempt more and more people have for this evil totalitarian regime....intent on making new enemies each passing year.

I am not sure if Australia has anything to do with that region. So getting involved means it's going to be a priority target.

Australia is pretty much protected by being away from everything, so they don't need to beef up their armed forces. But butting in is going to make sure China starts building bases in asia pacific and such, there are plenty of islands that can be used. So I doubt Australia would be stupid enough to repeat their past mistakes.

Both @Webslave and @Nein2.0 can probably tell you more about just how much tensions have ramped up between Australia and China now. China tried to push/influence Australia around on internal matters even lately.....Aussies are having none of it.

China can do all the predictable building and posturing it sees fit to.... problem for them is there is now a permanently island sized aircraft carrier stuck right up their haunches (with a full island chain above it too) looking at everything, monitoring everything. It's their own fault again they did what they did in HK and secured what Taiwan will permanently be (unless they want a world war where they get utterly annihilated) from now on.

Another problem is their lack of developed human capability in the operation of what they copy and paste.

Geography has been Australia's best friend in terms of military adventures and Australia and India will force China to beef up because China will use Australia as a convenient excuse to militarize and it will also militarize in the islands of the Indian Ocean and nations with whom China has signed port deals. We may see military deals rise up since in the East China is basically being entrenched however in the South, China has means of stretching its arms with more ease. Frankly i dont think QUAD will become something like NATO. I think it will be more union engagement of military tech and joint projects but military pact would be a stretch.

"Convenient excuse to militarize" ...as though they wouldn't otherwise?

Just give the goosestep artist what he wants in czechoslovakia, he will stop! *waves piece of paper!* see?

The Aussies haven't forgotten imperial Japan reaching new Guinea either btw, and how that would have turned out if there was no USN in the picture.

Collective security and cooperation among civilized countries (that you know dont put 1 million people in concentration camps as a basic principle) is most important to deal with the new nasty totalitarian yellow peril of our time.

The Quad will become something unique to itself, hence why the US said "similar" to NATO. It will actually be a lot better, flexible and optimised than NATO given the very layout and geography of the participants relative to the evil opponent....as say to NATO in Europe where it was a whole bunch of countries bunched up in just one salient westward thrust area of the USSR.

China is infiltrating Australia not to mention China is increasing its influence in the pacific islands which is considered Australias doorstep. If China gets green light for bases basically means China is at our doorstep.

Australia also believes its part of Asia hence why they want to play a role we are also allied with the USA through the Anzus treaty.

Lots of Factors why Australia is trying to play a role in the region.

Australia is beefing up its air and naval assets rather than the land army.

Yes it is with air and navy you project huge amount of power. China's army will be dealt with, if it comes to that, by other large armies. Its not really a thing for Australia to provide for in the Quad.

 

[Saiyan0321]

They are welcome to all the molotov-ribbentrop pacts they want...with all the lackeys they want. They have a few already.

Makes not a lick of difference to what the Quad will do now. There is already MASSIVE comms, logistics and intelligence sharing between them (if you look for example the deals India signed with all of them in the last few years along with South Korea and Singapore too). There is probably already defined roles of optimized theater operations should the enemy turn one of the area's hot. Next phase will be larger and larger exercises in real time over longer durations to fully scope out huge parts of operations in a conflict governing this....so as to be fully prepared for it at the highest intensive level.

You see the writing is on the wall for this evil regime long term.

They chose the wrong fork in the road and have decided turning back and picking the other one would cause too much loss of face...even though it is still not too late for it.

OK...their decision, their consequences to bear. They have learned not one thing about funny moustache man folly....sudentenland slicing all the way to concentration camps and all.

Then they spawns and spread a global plague with their filthy hygiene and diet choices on top. Yeah...I don't think many people realise the level of utter contempt more and more people have for this evil totalitarian regime....intent on making new enemies each passing year.

Well they will also try to do something similar and ofcourse it will be the same. As i said the region will militarize even more and will slowly become an oil spill that will only require a match to burn. Everybody will hold exercises and will prepare for conflicts that hopefully will never come otherwise the region will burn itself.

Unless there is extreme internal dissent, the regime will not be so easily removed. I have no care for the regime but their hold is pretty iron and it all depends on how the people of China feel about the regime. If they are dissatisfied with the regime at a mass scale then China will break from within otherwise they wont go anywhere and intervening to regime change in China is not possible. I am not saying that they dont have a habit of making new enemies each year but their fortress looks pretty invincible unless something drastic happens like a full fall of their economy or internal dissent from eastern China. Neither Tibet nor Uighur have the capability to make them worry.

"Convenient excuse to militarize" ...as though they wouldn't otherwise?

Just give the goosestep artist what he wants in czechoslovakia, he will stop! *waves piece of paper!* see?

The Aussies haven't forgotten imperial Japan reaching new Guinea either btw, and how that would have turned out if there was no USN in the picture.

Collective security and cooperation among civilized countries (that you know dont put 1 million people in concentration camps as a basic principle) is most important to deal with the new nasty totalitarian yellow peril of our time.

The Quad will become something unique to itself, hence why the US said "similar" to NATO. It will actually be a lot better, flexible and optimised than NATO given the very layout and geography of the participants relative to the evil opponent....as say to NATO in Europe where it was a whole bunch of countries bunched up in just one salient westward thrust area of the USSR.

convenient excuse to militarize means less condemnation and more support for militarization from both internal and external elements. I am not saying give them anything,. If you ask me whether Quad is paranoia or unnecessary, i would say NO. It is the reaction that will come from aggressive policy of a nation and in turn the aggressive nation will give its own reaction and on and on. If you ask them, they will say we are scarred from the past and if would ask you, they would say we are fearful of the future and by doing this both will work towards making a present that will only embroil the region in more conflict.

You say evil and they say evil. Civilized countries is something all nations called themselves yet many would disagree on that term for those nations.


Let us see. I see this situation towards militarization of the region even more.

 

[Nilgiri]

Well they will also try to do something similar and ofcourse it will be the same. As i said the region will militarize even more and will slowly become an oil spill that will only require a match to burn. Everybody will hold exercises and will prepare for conflicts that hopefully will never come otherwise the region will burn itself.

Of course there needs to be more militarization of allied countries that are worth something morally and align to such.

Along with more and more economic sanctions against the bully. Phase 1 is already being seen now, big hefty fines and bans for any technology provider to do business with Huawei. More parts of the export-reliance model will be imploded successively with time....the IPR tap has been cut off for good too. Fool me once and all that....no 2nd chances for those that renege on their end of what they were supposed to do.

PRC will over time be forced to self-juche itself into obscurity and irrelevance...if not a war. This is the fate of all totalitarian regimes in the end. The fate of all extreme control freaks.

Unless there is extreme internal dissent, the regime will not be so easily removed. I have no care for the regime but their hold is pretty iron and it all depends on how the people of China feel about the regime. If they are dissatisfied with the regime at a mass scale then China will break from within otherwise they wont go anywhere and intervening to regime change in China is not possible. I am not saying that they dont have a habit of making new enemies each year but their fortress looks pretty invincible unless something drastic happens like a full fall of their economy or internal dissent from eastern China. Neither Tibet nor Uighur have the capability to make them worry.

Again this decade will be the first of a big sobering lesson to them. It only gets worse if they don't learn from it. Change the iron grip to steel one, it really doesnt matter if you squeeze tighter and tighter on things that really ought not to be squeezed on at all.

There is always a force of good that ultimately balances all the accumulated bad you do. Putting it's date off only makes it worse for the forces of bad in the end.

convenient excuse to militarize means less condemnation and more support for militarization from both internal and external elements. I am not saying give them anything,. If you ask me whether Quad is paranoia or unnecessary, i would say NO. It is the reaction that will come from aggressive policy of a nation and in turn the aggressive nation will give its own reaction and on and on. If you ask them, they will say we are scarred from the past and if would ask you, they would say we are fearful of the future and by doing this both will work towards making a present that will only embroil the region in more conflict.

By not militarizing, you are exactly doing that....giving them power to wield (and threaten and coerce with) for free. Why is this? Its because CCP has set out and commited to a bulk militarisation plan, there is no accounting for external reactions, its all pretty set into concrete if you look at the commited shipbuilding capacities and outlays for air and army too.

So might as well prepare as best and as most you can afford to...and pool resources and cooperation with like minded countries wherever possible

You say evil and they say evil. Civilized countries is something all nations called themselves yet many would disagree on that term for those nations.

Totalitarian regimes are objectively and demonstrably evil. It doesn't matter what they call another (to try play equal-equal strawman) given the evidence is all there to see regarding the uighur camps and crackdown. They broke their own promises regarding Hong Kong and thats all out in the open now too.

Xi's CCP is re-finding that Mao totalitarianism.

What they will also find out this decade (and next ) is you don't neatly copy and paste mass technologies developed for the free world into a totalitarian one without major issues. They were developed and implemented sustainably in the free world for a reason.

Let us see. I see this situation towards militarization of the region even more.

I see the final defeat of CCP. There will be starving of finance over time and they have not hit anywhere near the critical thresholds of self-generating IPR critical mass, given that actually needs an internal system of free robust exchange and debate of ideas, rather than doing shakedown of investors you gyrated hips for a decade before.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is probably where it's headed long term. Indonesia is another one.

Foreign and defence ministers of India, Australia, Indonesia to meet amid concerns over China

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/foreign-and-defence-ministers-of-india-australia-indonesia-to-meet-amid-concerns-over-china/story-uEAcjcKPKFgKIrrShPCCrJ.html Foreign and defence ministers of India, Australia, Indonesia to meet amid concerns over China India, Australia and Indonesia...

defencehub.live