By John Green
The Indian Ocean, one of the world’s three oceans, has been a key maritime area for exploration and trade over many centuries. It is encircled by three continents and bordered by numerous states, large and small. It is certainly a promising subject for closer research in terms of its unique history, geography and politics, and deserving of attention.
“This book aims to explore and highlight the consequences and strategic implications of the Indian Ocean in the emerging geopolitical competitions of the twenty-first century,” the author Baruah writes. She stresses that “maritime security” is her prime focus but she does not define exactly what she means by security – security for what and for whom? And while she mentions big power competition and its impact on the area, she fails to put this competition into a meaningful political and economic context.
Unfortunately, rather than bringing to life this area, so rich in associations, she takes us on a convoluted journey in a leaky rowing boat, without oars or compass. It remains unclear what the goal of this journey or her purpose in writing this book are.
According to her introduction, she appears to have talked with and interviewed almost exclusively men (and they were all men, as she acknowledges) serving in the armed forces or in government positions, and this does skew her arguments. Her focus and purpose in writing the book are ill-defined but appear to centre around the issue of “security”, also ill-defined.
Her introductory sentences set the scene. “The Indian Ocean … is divided by varying religions, cultures and societies set in continental silos, which diminishes the maritime connectivity between all the nations bordering the ocean.” … “The diversity of the region poses the biggest challenge in creating a common identity, with varying degrees of differences in politics, governance, society, culture and economics of the Indian Ocean littorals and its islands. … maritime security traditionally a navy-led effort and conversation, has become a core pillar of foreign policy engagements within the Indo-Pacific discourse. … This book argues that the Indian ocean is the key theatre for competition within the Indo-Pacific construct.” So far, so good, but what is she actually saying?
The text continues in the same vein: “The maritime domain today has a distinct relevance to foreign policy priorities. Foreign ministries, navies, climate scientists, and ocean policy all have equal and growing interests in the domain. Together these interests have pushed the relevance of the maritime domain up the list of priorities in foreign policy calculations.”
Throughout, she writes in generalities, is repetitive and vague, as evidenced, for instance, in this sentence:
“The stability of the Indian Ocean is central to connectivity and trading routes between Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Instability or limited conflict in any of the regions would potentially carry significant economic and strategic implications for the wider region, with global implications.” One hardly needs to be told such basic truisms.
What do such bland statements clarify, explain or question?
Baruah views the Indian Ocean almost exclusively in terms of strategic issues (particularly from the viewpoint of the USA) and its role as a vital trade route solely in terms of competition between the big global powers.
“Viewing the Indian Ocean as one continuous theatre helps identify the strategic and geographic significance of the ocean in great power competition, for example between the US and China,” she writes. Then goes on to argue that the role of small island states in the Ocean will help shape competition among the big powers, and that they are already “playing a significant role in shaping great power competition,” but again she offers no real evidence for this counter-factual viewpoint.
She also seems to think that armed confrontation between the USA and China is a given: “The current conversation on conflict is centred on the western Pacific and potential fallout from a Taiwan Strait contingency. It is natural that the US and its friends and allies are preparing for a limited conflict in this theater based on Washington’s assessment and view of regional developments.” (My italics) Why it is natural to expect conflict here is not questioned or explained.
Throughout the book, her continued use of terms like ‘theater’ to describe the area and “strategic” when writing about inter-state relationships also betrays her viewpoint as one shaped by military thinking rather than one based on a broader approach and with the prospect of peaceful co-existence.
In her chapter on Diego Garcia, she writes that “The withdrawing British military presence only accelerated the need for greater US presence in the Indian Ocean area.” Why was the need for a US presence accelerated? While she does admit that the Chagosians were forcibly removed from the archipelago and barred from returning, and that the securing of the island as a naval facility has led to human rights violations, most of the chapter is devoted to details of British-US negotiations and the military significance of the island, rather than highlighting this abuse of the rights of the indigenous population.
She puts forward the thesis that the smaller nations in and around the Indian Ocean will become more significant in the coming period: “As countries around the world have adopted the Indo-Pacific as a new geographical theatre, maritime security has come to play a key role in strategic and foreign policy discourses … island nations – often ignored, but occupying a critical maritime geography – will come to play a significant role in shaping this geopolitical competition.” She doesn’t, however, develop this argument or provide evidence for her assertion. And, there is scarce mention of the role played by national independence movements in the area.
She only mentions in passing the potential impact of global warming, particularly on the small island nations, anywhere in the book, even though this is likely to have devastating consequences.
She notes that for the USA the Pacific is the key theatre for competition with China and “As a major player, Washington’s views and priorities largely set the narrative of geopolitical priorities around the world.” In the context of such competition, she argues, the Indian Ocean is likely to emerge as the key theatre and the ocean where much of this competition will be decided.” But, again, she provides no real evidence for this statement. She clearly views competition as central in terms of both trade and strategic interests.
Although she talks at length about the growing competition between the US and China that also impacts on the Indian Ocean, she fails to talk to any representatives of China or Russia, which is another key player, but she does talk to many US officials, even though that country has no geographical border with the Indian Ocean.
There are no revelations here, no evidence of incisive or innovative thinking or an interrogation of mainstream Western policy on the area. The reader learns nothing of essence about the peoples that populate the Indian Ocean and its littoral, nor about their cultures, their hopes and aspirations.
A book that promises a feast but delivers only crumbs.
The Contest for the Indian Ocean and the Making of a New World Order, By Darshana M. Baruah. Pubs. Yale University Press. Hdbck. £17.45
John Green is a former trade union official, a journalist and former documentary film-maker, which in the 1970s involved clandestine filming assignments in South Africa in the 1970s aimed at helping bring the abhorrent practices of the apartheid regime to world attention. He is the author of numerous books, including Ken Sprague, People’s Artist, A Revolutionary Life: Biography of Friedrich Engels and Britain’s Communists: The Untold Story.
The views expressed in the articles published on this website do not necessarily represent those of Liberation
Support our work – donate, become a member, affiliate your local organisation’s branch or volunteer
