Naval Cooperation: A View from India

Commander Manav Sehgal, IN 2009 Winner Open Section

A man of war is the best ambassador.

Oliver Cromwell[1]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘cooperation’ as ‘working together to achieve something’. Nation states may be said to cooperate when in order to realise their own goals, they modify policies to meet the preferences of other states. ‘Conflict’ and ‘cooperation’ between states can be explained through the analogy of two slabs of cake laid end to end as shown in Figure 1.^[2]

Figure 1: A Conflict Cooperation Model (Geoffrey Till).

History bears testimony that there is a close connection between state relations and military interaction. That is why nation states guardedly deploy their military forces either with (cooperation) or against other nations (conflict). This is also the reason why nations find it easier to cooperate in other fields such as economy, culture, scientific research, than in the field of security. The end of the Cold War standoff has led to the abolition of a major cause of global and related regional insecurities. In the changed world order, irregular non-traditional threats are overtaking conventional forms originating from nation state adversaries. While the latter can be countered through military deterrence, dealing with the former requires sustained action by various agencies, both internal and external to the region, actions that transcend traditional frontiers and sea lines. Consequently, defence cooperation has attained many new forms and meanings. Today, defence cooperation encompasses all activities undertaken by the Defence Forces to avoid hostilities, build and maintain trust, and to contribute in conflict prevention and resolution.^[3] Defence cooperation activities are not structured and conducted in isolation, but form part of the larger process of inter-state cooperation. The degree of defence cooperation has for long been dependent on the prevailing relations between states. Where the relations are good, cooperation has flourished. Where there is a dip in relations, countries have resorted to ceasing cooperation, and at times even indulged in direct military coercion. During the Kosovo conflict, in direct retribution of the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by the US, China had suspended port calls at Hong Kong for all US naval vessels. These could be resumed only in the year 2000.

This essay aims to establish that the converse of the above is equally correct - that is to say better defence cooperation (in particular naval cooperation) improves the relations between nations, and thereby helps reducing tensions. The main arguments of the essay have been structured with reference to answering three essential questions: Why do navies cooperate? How does naval cooperation help in reducing tensions? How can we cooperate better? Naval cooperation is a subset of defence cooperation, and comprises of operations in which naval forces of two or more nations operate in the same theatre, without formal arrangements to coordinate operations or an integrated command structure. The various levels at which naval cooperation can be conceptualised are at the alliance level; in coalitions; non-coalition naval cooperation; and the more general, maritime cooperation.^[4] An alliance involves the highest degree of political commitment. Operations carried out under the auspices of an alliance may encompass the entire span of maritime operations, from benign operations to full scale war fighting. Coalitions entail a political commitment and defined political objectives by coalition members. Coalitions are more limited in scope than formal alliances, often lacking a mutual commitment and not requiring the same degree of shared worldviews. Naval cooperation at the non-coalition level does not require any specific common political or strategic objective. Such cooperation comprises of ‘actions undertaken by mutual consent’.^[5] This is focused on non-controversial areas especially in benign and constabulary roles. A nation can thus continue to reap the benefits of such cooperation as a ‘partner’ while still distancing itself from being an ‘ally’ of the other. Maritime cooperation involves navies and/or other maritime security agencies such as coast guards that engage in benign or constabulary operations in normal conditions. Maritime cooperation may or may not involve navies directly.

While a relatively high degree of political commitment is presupposed in alliances and coalitions this is not binding for the latter two levels. Thus the main focus of the essay in as far as ‘reducing tensions’ goes, is at the non-coalition naval cooperation and maritime cooperation levels. Activities falling within the ambit of these levels include, but are not restricted to, maritime security dialogues, seminars, goodwill visits, combined exercises, exchange of observers, disaster management, humanitarian assistance and sports and adventure activities. Such cooperation may also include the provision of special rights and privileges to partners such as facilities for operational turnaround, rest and recreation and training. Cooperation at these levels takes place only when and where there is a convergence of common minimum interests.

Why Do Navies Cooperate?

Oceans are a primary source of food, minerals, energy and transportation in the world, all of which are prerequisites to national well being for littoral countries. Increasingly, nations are being confronted with threats, other than war, both at sea and from the sea, which are in conflict with their national interests. Today, the maritime challenges faced by nations include:

• Increase in illegal activities along with the progressive growth of legitimate maritime activities.

• Manifold growth in ocean use that exceeds the carrying capacity of the oceans, causing pollution of the marine environment.

• Horrific changes in the world and ocean environment, leading to increased loss of life and property from natural disasters.

• Potential for conflict in the quest to demarcate imaginary lines at sea to claim sovereignty over ocean resources.

Most nations appreciate that the vast and porous nature of the seas makes ‘constructive engagement’ inevitable in the current times. As Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tony Tan has eloquently explained, ‘individual state action is not enough. The oceans are indivisible and maritime security threats do not respect boundaries’.^[6] Since bigger maritime powers are more vulnerable to disruptions, they tend to be at the forefront of consortia supplying security to them. The ‘Global Maritime Partnership Initiative’ (proverbially called ‘1000 ship Navy’) of the US Navy is aimed at achieving peace and order throughout the world’s maritime domain through new levels of naval and maritime cooperation. The Asia-Pacific region, beset by maritime sources of international dispute and crime, is host to a vast number of security constructs videlicet Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) at the Track I level, Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific at the Track II level and Western Pacific Naval Symposium (WPNS) and Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) at the naval level. In addition, dedicated anti-piracy patrols namely, Malacca Strait Patrols carried out by the littoral states Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand exemplify the advanced level of cooperation attained in the region. These have resulted in drastic reduction in the acts of piracy in the Malacca Strait (two incidents per year in the last two years) and the London based insurer Lloyds has removed the Strait from the list of vulnerable areas.^[7]

The specific avenues where benefits accrue due to cooperation between naval forces are:

• Maritime Security. Besides the Cold War, a major cause of insecurity for many states has been intra-regional rivalries. These rivalries have constantly overshadowed the issues of collective security and maintenance of good order at sea. Consequently, serious degradation has come about in the overall security environment. In the changed world order, transnational maritime crime has assumed centrestage, with criminals and anti-social elements virtually exploiting the immunities afforded by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 and International Maritime Law. Various forms of transnational transgressions being witnessed world over include acts of piracy, terrorism, drugs, arms or human trafficking, environmental degradation from oil spills, waste disposal and pollution by ships, illegal exploitation of resources such as fish and natural resources.

• Prevention of Environmental Degradation. Pollutants recognise no demarcations or boundaries at sea. Hence, the ill effects of any environmental related incident are not expected to remain limited to the waters of any one country. The contiguous nature of the seas thus dictates a cooperative effort in tackling environmental degradation related issues.

• Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief. The advancements in communications have resulted in bringing to us much more rapidly and vividly the erstwhile miseries suffered by humans in the wake of calamitous situations. Therefore, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief has become a major theme of our times. There are also growing anxieties over the possible increase in the frequency of natural disasters as a result of global warming. By harnessing the combined maritime capabilities of countries, much greater synergy can be attained not only in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief but also in preventing (also predicting, forecasting, training and awareness) and getting prepared (including detection, tracking, limiting damage and rehabilitation of populace) for disasters.

• Search and Rescue. Search and rescue is another aspect where manifold improvement can be attained by cooperation. By effective sharing of resources, search and rescue operations can be made swifter, safer and more fruitful. The success of the European Maritime Safety Agency in dealing with search and rescue related issues all over Europe is a case in point.

• Reduction of Costs. Cooperation makes possible the pooling of resources between countries for solving common problems. This spreads the risks and costs, while increasing, and demonstrating, the legitimacy of the operation. It therefore provides a ‘means by which smaller navies can exert more influence than they could on their own’.^[8]

• Mutual Learning. Multinational maritime forces benefit from frequent periods in company to exercise and develop their full operational effectiveness.^[9] Cooperation also enables enhancement of maritime domain awareness, examining and imbibing of ‘best practices’ and generation of interoperability.

• Improvement in State Relations. The diplomatic role is an important role of navies the world over. Most nations regard ‘men of war’ as virtual ‘ambassadors’ of the state and use them as instruments of foreign policy.^[10] Warships are commonly employed on ‘flag showing’ missions with the aim of fostering cooperation and building ‘bridges of friendship across the oceans’.^[11]

How does Naval Cooperation Help in Reducing Tensions?

Naval operations in the past were customarily shrouded in confidentiality. This was because apprehensions prevailed not only regarding the possibility of the adversary finding out the technical and combat parameters of vital equipment, but also about the likelihood of his estimating crew efficiency, procedures, morale and level of preparedness. This information, if obtained by the enemy, could be used in times of war and peace, to his advantage. Alternately the information could be supplied to any other interested nation. In the absence of a clear understanding as to who the adversary was or could be, navies resorted to operating out of ‘sight’ of others. In the event of unscheduled encounters at sea, the reactions often ranged from between neutral, cold, competitive to aggressive and hostile.

In the present times much has changed over the oceans. Naval units operate selfassuredly in the littorals, in the vicinity of ships and aircraft from other nations, communicating and even exercising with them. The levels of cooperation have shown a steady upswing and so has the scope of exercises carried out. Unscheduled encounters are not only used for exchanging pleasantries, but also navigational and operational information. Notwithstanding these changes, in the complex world order, relations between states are shaped by various other factors such as historical, ethnic, economic, political, ideological affinities and ties besides defence cooperation. There exists no simple formula to extrapolate the benefits of naval cooperation directly on to state relations; the benefits can at best be estimated subjectively. Further, the gestation period for a change in perception is long. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify the effects of naval cooperation in improving interstate relations. Yet, the reality of the benefits is implicit in the very fact that nations and navies continue to indulge in this demanding and costly endeavour year after year, even in these very ‘money mindful’ times. The factors contributing to tensions are:

• Sovereignty Concerns. The very medium of the oceans that the navies operate upon, serves to quell fears and concerns arising from sovereignty issues. This makes it possible for even rival navies to cooperate on the high seas without stirring any such concerns at home. Operating together at sea does much to calm the nerves while still not raising concerns of giving leeway to the adversaries.

• Transparency. One of the biggest spin-offs of naval cooperation is transparency. Transparency is an accepted norm of confidence-building. Transparency breeds trust while secretiveness breeds distrust. The ‘Airborne Monitoring Agreement’, the predecessor of the ‘Open Skies’ program, between Hungary and Romania in the early 1990s, was designed to promote transparency between the two countries and was considered a ‘notable success in smoothing the relations’.^[12] Transparency helps competing nations solve their security dilemmas by providing a more realistic assessment of each other’s capabilities and intentions. This prevents assumption of the worst case scenario, as also the spiralling chain of reactions which normally aggravate tensions and conflicts.

• Benchmarking. While promoting transparency, naval cooperation also offers an opportunity for the participating navies to benchmark each other’s technology, professionalism and spirit. In a tacit way this adds to the net deterrence worth and helps in preventing conflicts. In the year 2000 for instance, Singapore participated in 70 exercises with its military partners, hosted multilateral exercises in diving and mine countermeasures with other members of the WPNS and a submarine rescue exercise with the Japanese and South Korean navies.^[13] ‘Such exercises enhance friendship and understanding, and also allow the Republic of Singapore Navy to benchmark itself against some of the most advanced navies of the world’.^[14]

• Image Enhancement. Naval cooperation offers a means to showcase the operational capabilities of the participating navies. By frequent participation, interaction with major powers and staying operationally relevant, a navy can carve out a positive image of the country in the world arena. This helps in creating ‘political space’ on the world stage that further perks up security.

• Channels of Communication. When militaries cooperate many more channels of communication are opened up at the ministry, headquarters and unit levels. These channels normally help maintain links even in times when the political tensions are high, and consequently minimise the chances of accidental escalation.^[15] In the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack, the continual Director General Military Operations level talks between India and Pakistan helped in dismissing speculation about troop build up and normalised the situation on the borders.

• Confidence Building. Experience has often shown that the seas provide a natural environment where confidence building measures are easier to implement than on land. Even during the height of the Cold War in 1972, America and the Soviet Union had signed an agreement on ‘Prevention of Incidents on the High Seas’, which was mutually beneficial to both countries. While this agreement was not an end in itself, it was definitely a ‘catalyst for a change in relationship’.^[16]

• Transnational Concerns. Absence of cooperation can lead to alleviating tensions between countries as issues like arrest of nationals of the other can crop up. Even otherwise, issues like arrest/harassment of fishermen can become sore points in relations and raise tensions.

• Socio-Political Factors. Naval ships are used as tools of diplomacy in cooperation. Cooperation activities such as Fleet Reviews, port visits, exchange of observers, seminars and informal gatherings foster interaction and cultural sensitisation. This in turn cultivates understanding, trust and mutual respect. China’s International Fleet Review 2009 at Qingdao was aimed at ‘promoting understanding’ and ‘removing suspicions about China being a threat to World security’.^[17]

• Economic Spin-Offs. Multinational cooperation activities provide navies and state defence industries openings to put their products on display for prospective buyers. For this reason, most countries prefer to commit indigenous platforms for naval cooperation. Provision of operational turnaround and other facilities augments the revenue earnings. Other examples of economic benefits are in the field of marine hydrography. Improved economic association has a net deterrence value of its own and along with other factors helps diffuse tensions, if any, between states.

• Media Coverage. Military cooperation activities receive generous media coverage, nationally and internationally. Accounts of military cooperation reassure people on the streets, and the politicians in turn, about the peaceful intents of the cooperating nations. Sustained coverage about military cooperation year after year has a soothing effect on the tensions between states and helps to overcome or reframe the image of the cooperating partners.

How Can We Cooperate Better?

• United Nations Involvement. Until the end of the Cold War, United Nations (UN) peace support operations were limited to the domains of the land and air forces only. Naval forces, where deployed, were in supporting roles to land operations. In 1998, the UN Independent World Commission on the Oceans had called upon national navies to be employed in a supranational role to police the oceans and uphold international law.^[18] A UN maritime standing force has also been suggested by Norway and Russia in the past, to deal with the security threats in the maritime environment. Flying a UN flag, in addition to the country’s flag, a warship would signal that is acting in good faith, against a threat of common concern, and under the sanction of a universally accepted body. This would enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of the mission. Another advantage of UN peacekeeping operations is that they may involve countries otherwise marginalised by their economic weakness.

• Frameworks. For any cooperative structure to be enduring, it needs to be institutionalised under a framework. A well publicised structure of cooperation acts as a deterrent for potential troublemakers. In addition, frameworks provide strategic reassurance, both to the cooperating partners and to other nations. The WPNS and IONS are examples of cooperative frameworks at the naval level. Frameworks have a charter that is binding on all partners. However, when the agreements contained within the framework are violated, these then send strong signals of malign intent. Such signals are less obvious when there are no frameworks in the first place. Therefore formalising cooperation into frameworks would ‘pre-empt disputes as well as prevent disputes from developing into conflicts by enhancing trust and understanding’.^[19]

• Multilateral Cooperation. ‘Multilateral security cooperation is important to foster trust among member countries’.^[20] By participating in multilateral forums nations and navies dispel fears about their intentions and promote better interoperability. Regional agreements act as building blocks of multilateral cooperation since they best enshrine cultural sensitivities, religion and other regional concerns.

• Bilateral Cooperation. Bilateral cooperative arrangements have a higher threshold of common minimum interests than multilateral arrangements and also permit easier execution. Therefore, bilateral cooperation forums are more fruitful. Networks of bilateral cooperative arrangements enable states to customise their relationships, maximising the value and minimising the risks. In short, by simply increasing the bilateral relationships, the quality of cooperation on the whole also stands to improve. Thus, multilateral cooperative arrangements need to provide adequate ‘room’ for bilateral cooperation.

Figure 2: The three conditions of Interoperability Model (Manav Sehgal).

• Interoperability. Even if there is willingness between nations to cooperate, successful execution is not guaranteed unless there is interoperability between them. ‘Interoperability is about much more than commonality of equipment, and we would be unwise to restrict ourselves to unduly narrow mental constructs’.^[21] It includes the development of standard operating procedures, common or compatible doctrine and tactics, techniques and procedures.^[22] Interoperability is required at the minimum across the core management foundations of policy, organisation, training, material, leadership and education. Consequently, there is a need for existing mechanisms at various levels to be aggressively and imaginatively used to promote interoperability. An interoperability model elucidating cooperation at various levels is illustrated below and shows how the lack of interoperability inhibits cooperation.

Conclusion

Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged. They must be built over time.

A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower[23]

The end of the Cold War has irrevocably altered the character of international relations. One of the most noticeable changes has been the increased willingness of nations to ‘cooperate’ in a mutually beneficial way. Likewise, in the maritime domain, naval cooperation activities have also received a fillip. Increasingly, navies are cooperating for combating crime at sea, pollution control, exploitation of oceanic resources and mutual assistance during disaster situations. Besides these, the indirect spin offs of cooperation have been cost cutting by sharing of assets and mutual learning. That good relations between nations augur better cooperation can be understood without difficulty; however this essay asserts that the converse is also true. In sum it proclaims that ‘defence cooperation follows as well as builds good bilateral (and multilateral) relations’.^[24] While naval cooperation promotes transparency between states and prevents assumptions of worst case scenarios, absence of cooperation frequently leads to expansion of disputes. Consciously aware, nations use cooperation as a platform to showcase their preparedness and economic, industrial, scientific and military might. This adds to the net deterrence value of the armed forces and also improves the national image. Sustained cooperation helps in changing mindsets not only of the participants but of the nations through the media. Greater economic relations as a result of naval cooperation increase dependency and develop into disincentives to conflicts. Despite this, much remains to be accomplished in the realm of naval cooperation. International naval cooperation needs to be dovetailed with the actions of the UN. There is also a clear rationale for frameworks where the requirements of national security of states are enmeshed with one another, so that threat perceptions and vulnerabilities are reduced, and security is attained at a lower cost. These cooperative frameworks should ‘harness both the close spirit of bilateral ties and the collective synergies of multilateral ventures’.^[25]

References

1. ↑ Rear Admiral Pradeep Chauhan, ‘Indian Naval Foreign Cooperation Endeavours’ Journal of Indian Ocean Studies, vol. 15, no. 4, August 2007, p. 225.
2. ↑ Geoffrey Till, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century, Frank Class, London, 2004, p. 1.
3. ↑ Ministry of Defence, Annual Report 2007-2008, New Delhi, 2008, p. 172.
4. ↑ Chris Rahman, The Global Maritime Partnership Initiative: Implications for the Australian Navy, Papers in Australian Maritime Affairs No. 24, Sea Power Centre - Australia, Canberra, p. 35.
5. ↑ Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy), Freedom to Use the Seas: India’s Maritime Military Strategy, New Delhi, 2007, p. 83.
6. ↑ Tony Tan, ‘Maritime Security after September 11’, International Institute for Strategic Studies conference, Singapore, 1 June 2003.
7. ↑ Siddharth Varadarajan, ‘India Could Take Lead in Anti-piracy Diplomacy’ The Hindu, www.hindu.com/2008/11/20/stories/2008112061211200.htm (16 March 2010).
8. ↑ Till, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century, p. 365.
9. ↑ Royal Navy, BR1806, British Maritime Doctrine, 2nd edn, 1999, p. 25.
10. ↑ Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy), Freedom to Use the Seas: India’s Maritime Military Strategy, p. 94; Royal Navy, BR 1806, British Maritime Doctrine, 1999, pp. 57-90.
11. ↑ ‘Bridges of Friendship across the Oceans’ was the theme of the International Fleet Review held at Mumbai in February 2001. Ships/delegates from 30 countries participated in the event.
12. ↑ The Open Skies program was one of the efforts to calm tensions in Europe after the end of the Cold War. This program premised on reducing suspicions between states by allowing member states to carry out airborne surveillance within the other’s national airspace on demand. In March 1990 tensions broke out between Hungary and Romania, most notably at Tirgu Mures. Fortunately peace began to prevail and both sides sought to calm tensions within themselves. As part of this process, Romania proposed the ‘Airborne Monitoring’ program with Hungary. Dan Lindley, ‘Cooperative Airborne Monitoring’, Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, August 2006, pp. 325-343.
13. ↑ Till, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century, p. 365.
14. ↑ Till, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century, p. 321.
15. ↑ Vice Admiral Premvir Das, ‘Maritime Cooperation and the Role of Joint Exercises’ SP’s Military Yearbook 2004-2005, SP Guide Publications, New Delhi, 2005, p. 38.
16. ↑ Rear Admiral Hasan Ansari and Rear Admiral Ravi Vohra, Confidence Building Measures at Sea: Opportunities for India and Pakistan, Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper/33, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, December 2003.
17. ↑ Xinhua, ‘Fleet Review to Promote Understanding: China’, The Hindu, www.thehindu.com/2009/04/22/stories/2009042255231500.htm (14 June 2009).
18. ↑ Manoj Gupta, ‘Maritime Cooperation: Plain Talk Utopian or Doable’ Maritime Affairs, vol. 2, no. 2, winter 2006, p.128.
19. ↑ ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ‘Concept and Principles of Preventive Diplomacy’, www.aseansec.org/3571.htm (22 March 09).
20. ↑ LTC Irvin Lim Fang Jau and CPT Phua Chao Rong, Charles, ‘Balancing on Shifting Sand: Perspectives on Singapore’s Strategic Engagements with the Major Powers in the Asia-Pacific’, Pointer, vol. 34, no. 2, 2008. p. 30.
21. ↑ Adm Sureesh Mehta, Chief of the Naval Staff, Address At Inaugural IONS Vigyan Bhavan’, indiannavy.gov.in/ion_seminar2008.htm (22 March 2009).
22. ↑ Rahman, ‘The Global Maritime Partnership Initiative’, p. 49.
23. ↑ US Navy, USMC & US Coast Guard, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, October 2007, available at www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf (10 April 2009).
24. ↑ Ministry of Defence, Annual Report 2007-2008, p. 172.
25. ↑ LTC Irvin Lim Fang Jau et al, ‘Balancing on Shifting Sand’.