Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Walker`s World: A 4x4 coalition emerging? (US-UK-Japan-India)
M&C news ^ | Dec 4, 2005, 16:20 GMT | Martin Walker

Posted on 12/04/2005 10:10:26 AM PST by Gengis Khan

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The Bush administration is quietly seeking to build with Britain, Japan and India a globe-spanning coalition system that can contain China, claims a leading neo-conservative thinker.

'Over the past six months, the Bush administration has upgraded its budding strategic partnerships with India and Japan. Along with the steady special relationship with Great Britain, what is beginning to emerge is a global coalition system -- it is too soon to call it a true alliance -- for the post-Cold War world,' argues Thomas Donnelly, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

In a new essay just published by the AEI, titled 'The Big Four Alliance: The New Bush Strategy,' Donnelly says that 'far from maintaining a unilateralist approach to American security,' the Bush administration has been forging a strategic partnership structure that can help to manage the rise of China, while also buttressing the liberal international order of free trade, free markets and expanded democracy.

'You might call this emerging set of alliances the 4x4 strategy,' Donnelly suggests. 'It is built around four great powers -- the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and India -- who share four basic strategic principles: that the dangers of radicalism, failing despotic governments, and nuclear proliferation in the greater Middle East are too great to ignore; that the growing military strength and political ambitions of Beijing`s autocrats make it far from certain that China`s `rise` will be a peaceful one; that the spread of representative forms of government will increase the prospects for a durable peace; and that military force remains a useful and legitimate tool of national statecraft.'

What is striking and new is that Donnelly, a powerful advocate of a strong U.S. defense, now acknowledges that the American role is overstretched and can no longer sustain its lonely superpower role.

'We need help,' he suggests.

'It is clear that the Defense Department`s initial conception of `transformation` -- substituting capital for labor, firepower for manpower -- has not removed the inherent constraints imposed by a small force, reduced by 40 percent from its final Cold-War strength. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld`s preference for temporary `coalitions of the willing` has been supplanted by a new understanding that preserving the Pax Americana requires more permanent arrangements. This is not to suggest that the emerging Big Four allies are not willing partners, but simply to grasp that the immensity and difficulty of the military and broader security tasks have stretched current U.S. armed forces to a degree that they cannot sustain. We need help.'

Donnelly, formerly with the Lockheed Corporation and also former policy director at the House Committee on National Security, was one of the leading figures in the Project for the New American Century, the group from which the highly influential neo-conservatives emerged to dominate the thinking of the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. A highly controversial figure to many Democrats and to opponents of the Iraq War, Donnelly also played an important role in Congressional relations with the Pentagon, particularly over the 1997 and 2001 Quadrennial Defense Reviews.

'The central pillar of the new alliance is, of course, the United States,' Donnelly writes. 'Just as the Truman Doctrine committed the United States to lead the Cold War allies, so has the Bush Doctrine cast the country as primus inter pares among today`s allies; Britain, India, and Japan are becoming partners in a Pax Americana that is generally accepted across the political spectrum.

'No other power can perform this essential organizing and leadership role,' Donnelly writes. 'The Clinton administration took the primacy of the United States as much for granted as has the Bush administration. There is no reason to think that the next Democratic administration will change this fundamental approach.'

Donnelly leans heavily on the British alliance, which he calls 'our most constant source of strategic and military help' and praises their 'superbly professional forces, on a par with U.S. forces and possessed of particular strengths in special operations and expeditionary warfare.

'The Anglo-American military alliance remains the gold standard against which all others are measured and to which others -- particularly the Japanese alliance -- aspire,' he argues. In Tokyo, 'politicians across the spectrum now accept the premise that Japan should act like a `normal` nation and should assume some role in `collective self-defense` -- a euphemism for an alliance with the United States.

'Greater still is the gap between India`s potential as an alliance partner and the current reality,' Donnelly notes. 'Nevertheless, it may be that, over the course of time, the strategic relationship between Washington and New Delhi can become the keystone to preservation of the Pax Americana. The CIA has concluded that India is the most important `swing state` in the international system.'

India has a long way to go, Donnelly concedes, both in modernizing its largely Soviet-made weaponry and in learning inter-operability with U.S. forces

'Translating diplomatic desire into hard-core military power and interoperability between Indian and U.S. forces will take many years,' he writes. 'Military-to-military contacts with U.S. forces are increasing, but neither Indian nor Japanese forces yet enjoy the kind of close professional relationship that has existed for many years between U.S. and British armed services.

'In truth, the whole concept of a `Big Four` global partnership is more potential than real,' Donnelly concedes. 'There is not much chance of any Big Four summits or alliance charters on the horizon. Indeed, such a summit would be counterproductive; even if successful, this would be an alliance that dares not speak its name. The open question is whether common interests and common values can make this coalition a more permanent basis for American strategy.'


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aei; bigfouralliance; china; donnelly; india; japan; newnwo; strategery; uk; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: truth_seeker
You're quibbling like a little girl, as you say.

But if you need proof to make you feel good, as you say, then Williams is an excellent example, as you say.

They bought companies like Kidde, Valor, Heatrae Sadia, with no interest in sustaining them, only in cashing them out.

21 posted on 12/04/2005 10:52:30 AM PST by SteveMcKing ("No empire collapses because of technical reasons. They collapse because they are unnatural.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander

No, its not about you.
Razzor was refering to the "India" threads at FR and the large number of anti-India sentiments expressed on those threads.


22 posted on 12/04/2005 10:54:49 AM PST by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

American technology and equipment, the strongest and most reliable ally in Britain, Japan's historical position as China's opponent, and India to help match the population numbers and get in their other border/front. China plus Russia plus Cuba (plus Mexico or France?) would be the logical counter alliance.


23 posted on 12/04/2005 11:09:17 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

So no US company has ever asset-stripped a UK sub then?


24 posted on 12/04/2005 11:15:33 AM PST by Killing Time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander
I didn't know the US even had very good relations with India.

We do and have had for a number of years.

25 posted on 12/04/2005 11:23:07 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (When the First Amendment was written dueling was common and legal. Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

We also have a shared language with India in many respects. India has the largest number of English speaking citizens in the world.


26 posted on 12/04/2005 11:51:20 AM PST by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

Depends on what you mean by "majority opinion," GK. If you are talking about average Janes and Joes, most don't really care about India one way or the other. In certain IT-intensive regions, one might come across people who work with Indians or have collegues in India. Outsourcing is a topic of discussion too.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that Americans are not interested in other cultures. It is just that India is a relatively new quantity for them. Most Americans tend to be very open-minded about new people and cultures when they meet a foreigner like me. Of course, there are exceptions and idiots but these are far and few between (in my experience). In any case, every country has its share of nutjobs.

The Bush administration is very friendly and IMO we should look beyond the prism of Pakistan. While US support of the Paki koranimals is a source of frustration for India, we must understand their compulstions too (with the WOT). Personally, I see a great future for US-India relationships at the business, military, and policy levels.


27 posted on 12/04/2005 12:03:37 PM PST by indcons (Don't question either my intelligence or my ability; I have none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Thought you might be interested in this posting (by me). Any thoughts? Do you think I represent Americans' attitudes toward India accrately?


28 posted on 12/04/2005 12:15:29 PM PST by indcons (Don't question either my intelligence or my ability; I have none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: indcons

I agree with you about the need (for India) to look beyond the prism of Pakistan.

However Razzor and me were refering to the large number of recent anti-India threads and the sentiments expressed therein.


29 posted on 12/04/2005 12:18:05 PM PST by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

Oh...I agree. There are quite a few muslim trolls too. Then, there are the fools who don't know enough about India and who don't bother to learn.

That said, I was replying to your point about the opinion of the majority of American people.


30 posted on 12/04/2005 12:24:52 PM PST by indcons (Don't question either my intelligence or my ability; I have none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan
If China is such a threat, which they clearly are, then why do we pay them hundreds of billions of dollars a year to build a first-class military to challenge us?

It's a rhetorical question and I know the answer, but the real answer is that we should stop doing it. I call for an immediate boycott of all things Chinese until this threat is eliminated.

31 posted on 12/04/2005 12:30:16 PM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; Cronos; CarrotAndStick; razoroccam; Arjun; samsonite; Bombay Bloke; mindfever; ...
The Free Republic India and Indo-US Issues Ping!
 
Pinging you all!

32 posted on 12/04/2005 12:47:57 PM PST by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

I've only seen anti-India sentiments expressed by a few ignorameses who are really only angry at jobs lost to out-sourcing and anti-Christian activities by Indias own share of ignorant and/or violent Muslims and Hindus.

Perhaps I just missed the anti-India threads.


33 posted on 12/04/2005 2:06:43 PM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: indcons

I like the Hindu nationalists. Language, borders, culture... we could learn a few things from them...


We have a choice, trade with and align ourselves with the world's largest democracy (India) or the world's largest dictatorship (China).

The choice is easy for me...


34 posted on 12/04/2005 2:18:44 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: indcons; Gengis Khan

Yes, indcons, you wrote a good synopsis of the situation. I'll put it more bluntly for GK.

Most of my fellow Americans are ignorant of how we are regarded by most Indians who know anything about the USA. The piece you posted above was written through British eyes. Most of us are also ignorant about how we are regarded by most British people (like the writer of the propaganda piece above). Most in the USA are ignorant of the evil meaning and international backstabbing behind the phrase, "Pax Americana." We don't want "empire," and most of us do like the Indian immigrants and visitors we meet. For one, they are not as condescending and cynical toward us as are certain Europeans.

If the most tolerant and caring people of India continue to educate us, we will learn.

Those who distributed the recent anti-India columns that you've seen are members of small Christian identity organizations. They seek to divert America toward allying with countries where majority sentiment is in favor of religious fascism. They are more tied to religious sentiments in Europe (Italy, Russia, Serbia and others) than to the USA.

Some background for you on religious issues in America:

In our US Constitution, we have a clause for freedom of religious expression and another one against establishment of any one religion by our government. Those words are in our Constitution, because the first Europeans to arrive and survive in America sought to escape the Catholic edicts of Europe in those days (see Reformation, meetings in Holland, the English Civil War,...). They were the true Protestants (which Protestantism has been since overwhelmed and is now quietly reviving). They would not have crosses in their churches, and they despised celebrations like Halloween and Christmas as "paganism." Many true Protestants now are going Noachide (learning about Judaism with intentions to convert). A few others have been going back to Puritanism, Calvinism and other truly Protestant faiths.

But our Constitution remains the same on religion, and it will remain so due to the mixture of cultures that live in and enrich our country. And remember that most people in the USA don't have strong religious beliefs at all. They rather indulge in their daily personal affairs without much regard for written philosophies.


35 posted on 12/04/2005 2:28:16 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: indcons; Gengis Khan

Now I'm going to give that British you-know-what writer a piece of my mind! ..."Pax Americana," indeed! He and his kind may keep their projections about "empire" to themselves! I'm tired of their back-biting against us in other nations.


36 posted on 12/04/2005 2:35:47 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: familyop

The Europeans haven't been able to adjust to the fact that even their former colonies in Asia like Singapore and Malaysia matter more to the world's economy today than they do.

The European ingratitude is surprising given the US help during WW1 and WW2. Socialism has destroyed the Europeans; they seek to deflect the blame for their own faults towards the Americans.


37 posted on 12/04/2005 2:39:18 PM PST by indcons (Don't question either my intelligence or my ability; I have none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander; happyathome; truth_seeker; indcons; Gengis Khan
The British writer of the article mentioned "Pax Americana" three times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
"The term Pax Americana . . . It places the U.S. in the military and diplomatic role of a modern-day Roman Empire or British Empire (based on Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, respectively) . . . The term Pax Americana is used by critics of U.S. policy to describe an effort they allege is made by the U.S. to suppress countries that do not cooperate with U.S. policy, . . .


Most British writers--Conservative to Labour--use the phrase for the purpose of defaming the USA. Others use it in hopes that we'll help them get their "empire" back and in their twisted belief that we want an "empire." Either way, it comes out to all other countries as anti-USA propaganda. And why didn't you already know about it? ...because almost all of them are using it purposefully to defame us to other potential allies, and they don't really want us to see it.

Yes, Tony Blair sent troops to Iraq, but most Britons were and are very much against that.
38 posted on 12/04/2005 2:51:21 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: familyop

I would say British anti-Americanism has three fronts: the usual leftist self-loathing faction as represented by Ken Livingstone, a remnant High Tory faction headed by Sir Max Hastings, and a "Let's join the EU" Wet Tory faction led by Ken Clarke and Chris Patton etc.

Sure, there are plenty of Poms friendly to Americans - historically Sir Winston Churchill, or Margaret Thatcher in our times are notable examples. Unfortunately I don't see that many in prominent circles at the moment. Indeed if you check many British FRers' post the sneering towards America do exist consciously or subconsciously.


39 posted on 12/04/2005 3:02:07 PM PST by NZerFromHK (Alberta independentists to Canada (read: Ontario and Quebec): One hundred years is long enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: indcons
"The Europeans haven't been able to adjust to the fact that even their former colonies in Asia like Singapore and Malaysia matter more to the world's economy today than they do.

The European ingratitude is surprising given the US help during WW1 and WW2. Socialism has destroyed the Europeans; they seek to deflect the blame for their own faults towards the Americans.
"

Thank you. That was well written. For other who read this thread, interesting original documents can be found on the US Monroe Doctrine. Britain once sought to pair with our US leaders to occupy and use parts of South America and Central America. Other countries in Europe (Spain and France, IIRC) sought to do the same. All, including Britain, were rejected by our Monroe Doctrine in favor of leaving Central America and South America alone to become independent and free. But be wary of the many paraphrased Web pages full of rhetoric to obfuscate the truth of the Monroe Doctrine.

Almost all Americans reject "empire." Russia has used murderous tactics and threatened the USA to get its satellite countries back under Russian control. In the process, Russia has militarily allied with Iran and somewhat with China. China wants to conquer Taiwan. Iran threatened to wipe Israel off of the map and would attack Iraq again (or attack any other country to advance radical Islam).

Our US leaders look for like-minded international friends and negotiate peacefully except with nations that seek to attack us with force (as Saddam Hussein and his government in Iraq did).
40 posted on 12/04/2005 3:06:17 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson