The US spent more than $607 billion on defence in 2008 according to SIPRI statistics and this constitutes 41% of global expenditure on defence. This far exceeds what the next nine countries spent during the same year. The Chinese spent $85 billion, the Russians $59 billion and the Indians $30 billion.
The Brazilians, the fourth member of the newly founded BRIC, spent even less. There are others who calculate that the US spends far more than this in its endeavour to maintain global primacy. America maintains about 750 military and intelligence bases world-wide and its intelligence budget exceeds India’s defence expenditure. Consider also the reach of the US Navy and Air Force and we have a clear idea of the extent of the difference between US forces and the rest of the world. The fact that the US ability to influence events in its favour is not commensurate with its expenditure and reach is ultimately immaterial since the power to deconstruct remains overwhelming.
It is for good reason therefore that the BRIC combine will remain, for the foreseeable future, a body that will concentrate on global economic, financial and climate issues while trying to build an increasingly multi-polar world order. All of them seek a bigger role in the management of the financial global order and are not prepared to pay for their own encirclement by allowing the US to overspend in dollars. Barring the Brazilians, the others have concerns in how the Great Game would play out in the 21st century.
American attempts to seek a role in Central Asia and the Caucasus worries the Russians, Indians fret about US military assistance to Pakistan and the Chinese remain concerned about US involvement in west Pacific and Taiwan. These are the geo-political drivers. The instrumentalities are going to be economic and financial and not military with China, for instance, willing to trade with Argentina and Brazil in renminbi. Sceptics argue that once multi-polarity is achieved the grouping will wither away under its bilateral contradictions and ambitions.
It is too early to predict as the US predominance is not likely to fade away soon but change is inevitable and BRIC will continue to hold for the time ahead.
The Brazilians, the fourth member of the newly founded BRIC, spent even less. There are others who calculate that the US spends far more than this in its endeavour to maintain global primacy. America maintains about 750 military and intelligence bases world-wide and its intelligence budget exceeds India’s defence expenditure. Consider also the reach of the US Navy and Air Force and we have a clear idea of the extent of the difference between US forces and the rest of the world. The fact that the US ability to influence events in its favour is not commensurate with its expenditure and reach is ultimately immaterial since the power to deconstruct remains overwhelming.
It is for good reason therefore that the BRIC combine will remain, for the foreseeable future, a body that will concentrate on global economic, financial and climate issues while trying to build an increasingly multi-polar world order. All of them seek a bigger role in the management of the financial global order and are not prepared to pay for their own encirclement by allowing the US to overspend in dollars. Barring the Brazilians, the others have concerns in how the Great Game would play out in the 21st century.
American attempts to seek a role in Central Asia and the Caucasus worries the Russians, Indians fret about US military assistance to Pakistan and the Chinese remain concerned about US involvement in west Pacific and Taiwan. These are the geo-political drivers. The instrumentalities are going to be economic and financial and not military with China, for instance, willing to trade with Argentina and Brazil in renminbi. Sceptics argue that once multi-polarity is achieved the grouping will wither away under its bilateral contradictions and ambitions.
It is too early to predict as the US predominance is not likely to fade away soon but change is inevitable and BRIC will continue to hold for the time ahead.
Source : Economic Times , 19th June 2009
24 comments:
Agreed, but:
1. In some areas the US, most notably at sea, the US is far ahead of the rest of the world. The US has a huge edge in sea power - Mahan would approve. In boots on the ground, on the other hand, the US is much less impressive, though still formidable.
2. The underlying US economy is much less formidable than its military power. In the medium term, unless some way can be found to apply technologies developed for the military to the civilian sector, the current level of US military power will be a huge drain on the US civilian economy and will be a big disadvantage to the US when it competes in other areas.
3. US military personnel are mostly US citizens. They are accustomed to a higher standard of living than Chinese or Indian military personnel. In manpower intensive combat, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a big disadvantage for the US.
4. Having worked at NASA Ames, I am convinced that the US government contracting system of having a fairly large government bureaucracy which is often poorly managed itself, managing a nearly equal sized private contractor management, is staggeringly inefficient. I remember being told by a civil servant that the project he was running had a budget of six million dollars, and I was one of six people who had done the actual work for a milestone that had to be reported to Congress. He offered me a million bucks as a joke. The US uses the same system, and the same contractors, for its military technology development. I'm willing to believe that Indian and Chinese military contractors are inefficient, but somehow I doubt that they are quite this bad. So I tend to be skeptical of the argument that because the US is spending a ton of money it must therefore be getting a ton of military power.
So there's a lot of illusion in the US Defense budget.
That said, I wouldn't advise India or China to fight the US militarily at any time in the next ten years, if they can avoid doing so.
Ray,
This is why I think when some of these pundits talk about G2 I'm like G-WHAT!! (come again plz.). US has 11 NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS!! China has 00000!! These pundits are giving POWER UNNECESSARILY to China.
Hopee good sense prevails over at US foreign policy establishment where some "analysts" are too Sinophilic (atleast for my taste). True, they may hold a lot of US debt. But US shouldn't worry too much abt that, the market will correct itself and remember the old adage
If u owe the bank $1M, the bank owns u
If u owe the bank $1B, YOU OWN THE BANK!!
US will be the TOP DOG for years to come. No question about that. Nice article, Mr. Sood!!
Raymond,
True I would not argue with the Americans on the battlefield. The destructive power is just too big. I take your point that it may not be the most efficient or the most efficient way of deploying resources but then I am paying for this am I not through the huge deficits that are run ? Nor is bureaucratic ineffiency a prerogative of any single country.
In the past military inventions have been tranferred for commercial use -- look at the Internet.It must happen again otherwise we will stop having inventions !
Vikram
Thanks Arvind. We have a long way to go, even longer than the Chinese. It is also true we need not get overawed by them
No Asian country will be in a position to match US for long time to come. But the BRIC grouping will be a way for developing countries to demonstrate their economic clout I guess.
How will India fit into the scheme of BRIC as a political hub given the long standing border dispute with China? Again, how can India which was part of Quad Initiative (now probably defunct) be expected to play any role in the SCO?
SCO is China's baby!! Should be used only as a very limited hedge by India. Nothing more nothing less. In a similar sense, BRIC is Russia's baby. Again India should only use it to get closer to the Russians. The grouping of these 4 countries as BRIC is flawed IMO. Their economic systems are miles apart. So are their political systems. India is different in BOTH these aspects and stands out wrt to the other 3. India should use the art of hedging till India can project power globally on her own.
Hi Anonymous,
Meaning no disrepect, but the various issues of how India will fit into the scheme of BRIC, how it will fit into the SCO, how as a recent B.Raman article asks India is to deal with Pakistan are not the problems of either the US or China.
India needs to decide what its objectives are, and act to promote them. As best I can tell the two clearest objectives it has are to hang onto Kashmir and use the US to develop its IT industry. It seems to do fairly well at both.
So India should figure out what its objectives are, and look at the US in terms of how it can use the US or China to achieve those objectives. Looking to the US or China without first figuring out what you want to get the US or China to do just invites the US or Chinese elites to try to manipulate India to secure their own ends.
Fact of life, friendship is between people, not countries.
Ray,
" ... Indians fret about US militray aid to Pakistan ..."
Those of us Indians who wonder why the US treats Pakistan's transgressions like an indulgent uncle should pedal back in history and find out why the departing Anglo-saxons mid-wifed the birth of the criminal enterprise called Pakistan, in the first place. You'll find all answers. Btw, the US is playing with fire -- do they realise that if a big chunk of South Asia falls to he jehadis, they'll get millions of foot soldiers ready to carry out suicide bombings. How will Raymond's US Soldeirs, uaccustomed to an enemy hell bent on dying, fight that scourge? And, God forbid, if all of South Asia falls to jihadis, the world will have a long unbroken green-coloured arc extending from the horn of Africa right down to Indonesia. How will the world handle a green underbelly?
" ... it is also true we need not get overawed by [the Chinese]"
By consistently punching with Pakistan, in a category below our weight class, don't you think we have ourselves downgraded India's image vis-a-vis the Chinese in the eyes of the world, Sood Saheb?
Mr Sood,
The interesting point is "remnibi" and the role it may or may not play. Yes, the US is far ahead today and also in near future. But its allies are drawing up plans to secure themselves, most notably Japan and Australia, in face of a declining superpower and the umbrella of protection it gave.
One should read up Pittman Act - how US owed gold to India and instead sold silver at 1 dollar an oz. when prevailing price was 50% of that. By cheating India, US not only saved the gold but also made sure, Indians ended up paying for US costs incurred in WW1. We contribute to the might of another, by our own acts !
Hi Raymond
'How India will fit in BRIC/SCO?' This question was in the context of BRIC emerging as a probable political alliance to counter to the US. I don't see any unity of purpose amongst Brazil, Russia, India and China. On the contrary how can even a loose alliance like BRIC function given the nature of rivalry and tensions which exist between India and China. Also the fact that India has moved closer to the US in the last few years. Bilateral contradictions may prove to be the undoing of this alliance.
@Anonymous
"Bilateral contradictions may prove to be the undoing of this alliance".
Not really. Brazil and Russia are both commodity countries primarily. China is a hige buyer, in fact the world's largest buyer, of many commodities. So THERE ARE DEFINITELY convergent interests and it would be premature to conclude that the alliance itself would wither. But as I said before India is different like it always is lolz!! The fact that India has made a rapproachment with US doesn't mean India will agree to everything that US says and does. And I think US perfectly understands that as well given the historical checkered relationship with India.
BTW recently read that Brazil US trade is gonna be done in rials and yuans. Gotta wait and see how that plays out.
Bottomline: BRIC is here to stay. From India's POV, it is another forum and basically hedge to represent and air out India's interests. Jus like the relation with US is. Competition leads to better deals!! Nothing more nothing less.
Mr Sood,
What do you think of the downgrade of India under Obama administration? You should write an article on that from India's POV.
Anonymous, I agree with you that BRIC is unlikely to emerge as a counter US alliance, unless the US is aggressive enough to create a strong feeling in Brazil, Russia, India and China that their shared conflict with the US is more important than their internal differences.
On the other hand, India and Iran are very different, and without Pakistan to unite them it is unlikely that they would work together. But since Pakistan exists, the basis for an agreement between India and Iran also exists.
One reason why I am less impressed by the power of the US than Vikram Sood is that I think the US elite wants to lead the entire world in the direction of a 1920's style capitalist economy led by themselves. This is a pretty ambitious objective. Even the staggering military power of the US seems to me unlikely to be able to accomplish it. By contrast, the objectives India wants its military to secure: hang on to Kashmir, hang onto Arunachal Pradesh and prevent the Naxalites from getting totally out of control, seem to me more reasonable {though the Naxalites might be a very serious problem}.
Think of it this way, the US is fighting a war in Afghanistan. Neither India nor China are fighting a war in South America. This strikes me as a huge advantage for India and China, especially since I have read a little about the history of attempts to conquer Afghanistan.
Ray
Hi Raymond
I don't think that the US would something so aggresive or radical so as unite the members of BRIC. In the foreseeable future, India may not want to be part of any "political alliance" which is anti-US. Same goes for Brazil. Russia (former Soviet Union) and China were and continue to be foes both pre-cold war and post-cold war. Given this equation, Obama Administration has unveiled the US-China-Japan trilateral security framework for Asia.
Having said that, India may not want to work with Iran in the near future in the wake of the controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear program and given the fact India has recently concluded a civilian nuclear deal with the US.
I am not too certain as to what the US objectives are. Today the US may dream of a situation that you have referred to but it is impossible to put in practice any such policy. In fact the US has more than its share of problems to deal with.
I agree that Afghanistan cannot be conquered militarily. The British policy on Afghanistan during the Raj makes interesting reading.
Coming back to BRIC, Russia a one-time reliable ally of India is also wooing Pakistan (the recent visit of Pak General Kyani) making it slightly uneasy for India. Sino-India problems have already been discussed. So, India in BRIC (as a political alliance) seems to be an odd man out.
Anon
Reference conversation between Anon and Ray....It is most interesting but Anon's last comments give me the feeling that he feels we are going to be left out on a limb once again. why should that be so. US is powerful but not as powerful as in the past. It needs other countries and markets.It can destroy some countries singlehandedly but cannot recontruct them alone. Besides markest in times of recession are something not easily scoffed at. The Chinese are in a bind too.They cannot pull out their money from the US without hurting themselves. The Russians are trying to regain lost ground. They might regain some but not all. If we can start to think in termns of buying US mil hardware, the Russians surely are justified in opening their markets to Pakistan. Life is a lot more interdependent. Yes Pakistanis seem to have hedged their bets better but the country remains a begging bowl economy and needs this kind of hedges. But that is it -- short term hedges against long term problems. Meanwhile we ought to be concentrating on what China is going to do next.
Mr Sood,
You have been a proponent of India working out an arrangement with China. I recently came across an article of yours about baltistan talked about India using China's rise as an opportunity.
Given the hostile Chinese moves against us and their close relationship with US, what kind of arrangement is possible wih China. I cannot foresee any Sino Indian cooperation directed at US anytime soon. Both seem to be vying for attention from the US and it seems China is deservedly getting a lots of it now.
Mr. Sood,
Appreciate your views.
I was beginning to feel a bit disappointed about the Asia policy of the new Obama Administration.
Firstly, India is seen more in the context of war on terror in the Af-Pak region which directly affects US security. India is now more like a convenient ally because concerns about terror directed against India from Pak soil has not received adequate consideration. China which is the most de-stabilizing force in the world and in Asia (proliferators of nuke technology, arming Pakistan) rather strangely is part of the new trilateral security framework with the US and Japan. India does not figure very highly in the list of US foreign policy priorities. Thanks to Australia's Kevin Ruud Administration, the Quadrilateral Initiative was given a quiet burial and the Obama Administration just consigned it to history. In this scenario, Pak-Russia co-operation is certainly likely to make India uneasy.
Sorry for posting the views under Anon.
Regards
Kumar
It's worth noting that India has been out on a limb before, and usually managed to do all right. India might actually be better off if the US government tends to ignore it.
As for China, figuring out what the Chinese will do is going to be very difficult. Their governmental system is fairly opaque and internal discussion tends to be in Chinese. I have trouble figuring out what the US or India will probably do. A lot of the data on India and the US is public, and the discussion tends to be conducted in English. I've read English translations of Sunzi and Three Kingdoms, which is perhaps not the most reassuring reading for non-Chinese.
My view is that the Chinese government might do anything, but will probably do very little against India. India might as well talk with the Chinese, since talk is cheap and an opportunity may emerge. At the very least, talking is likely to be seen as less hostile than refusing to talk would be.
Sir,
A nation gains respect by what it does with its limited or unlimited power.In todays world, the present Indian leadership and past leaderships except late Indira Gandhi and Rajiv are considered to be in league with USA.Today in G8 summit our PM is asking the G8 to help in containing Pakistan's behaviour.Does it show any Independence?
USA has already abrogated the US/India nuke deal . But our socalled western paid think tanks still in NSG waiver era.Soon we may be offerred security council seat without VETO along with Pakistan and asked to sign NPT/CBDT.How our nation can gain respect?
When we created bangladesh the think tanks said India is now never to fear Pakistan/China axis.
Today a truncated pakistan without US/China support indulges in thousand cuts on India.Why? It knows Indian lEADERSHIP WILL NOT ACT WITHOUT US APPROVAL.
@Ray
"It is worth noting that..."
Very well said. I totally agree. Let's hope that thinking prevails at South Block as well. Especially with the Democrats I think. Somehow I have this feeling that Republicans are much better to India (maybe because of the neocons and their frevour for democracy). And they also seem to be pretty "direct". With Democracts it is back to belt tightening and smoke and mirrors!!
Hilary's visit is gonna be interesting. Let's hope she doesn't utter the "K" word. There also seems to be a lot of pressure to award the fighter deal to F-16 or F-18. So I personally would prefer the French Rafale. Let's see what happens. I think US planes are TECHNICALLY pretty good but only problem is the imposition of some restrictions. Indians can get pretty sensitive about "sovereignty".
I'm a Democrat myself, and I'm not sure India actually does better with the Republicans. It appears to do so, because the interests of US companies looking to sell things to India tend to be more important to Republican administrations than to Democrats. On the other hand, the Bush administration tilted pretty strongly towards Musharraf, and ran up a huge debt to China. This debt to China means that just about any US administration is likely to do what is necessary to appease the Chinese. This tendency is probably not a good thing for India.
It's probably best for Indians to stop trying to judge which US administration is friendliest to them, and just work with the US system as it is. The increasing level of political organization and sophistication of the Indian-American community suggests to me that they are doing that.
Ray,
As for the planes, I'm tempted to suggest that India consider buying the Israeli version of the F-16. This assumes that Israel is in a position to guarantee a supply of replacement parts if the US falls out with India, of course. At the same time, dividing the loot between the Israelis and the US makers of the plane may leave India in a strong position to use US arms makers to influence the US govt.
While the US has a lot of politicians who are willing to consider double crossing both Israel and India, it probably doesn't have a lot of politicians willing to actually do it. Especially because even publicly suggesting you're thinking about double crossing Israel can be hazardous to your political health.
Any comments on the recent Indo Pak joint statement Mr. Sood?
Post a Comment