Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia. This ocean is the key to the seven seas. In the 21st century the destiny of the world will be decided on its waters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
In this paper we are concerned with the United States and the Soviet Union only. Other Powers,. including the United Kingdom, China and France, are omitted because of their not-too-much significant role in the politics of the Indian ocean.
2.
KirdiDipoyudo, “Important Developments in the Indian Ocean Area”, Indonesian Quarterly(L)Djakarta Vol. 10 (2), 1982, p. 1.
3.
CottrellA.J., and BurrellR.M., “Soviet-US Naval Competition,” Orbis (Philadelphia, P.A.), (18) 1975, p. 1109.
4.
GraemeGill, “The Soviet Union, Detente and the Indian Ocean,” Australian Outlook (Canberra), 31 August, 1977, p. 256.
5.
SmolanskyO.M., “Soviet Entry into the Indian Ocean: An Analysis,” in A.J. Cottrell R.M. Burrell, (Eds.), The Indian Ocean’ (New York) 1973, pp. 346–348
6.
KudryavtsevV., “The Indian ocean in the plans of Imperialism,” International Affairs (Moscow), 1974, p. 117.
7.
According to ValiF.A., for countries which in one or another respect desire to rely on Soviet assistance - political, military or economic - the visits of Soviet warships are considered to be a guarantee of the determination of Moscow to abide by its commitments. Politics of the Indian Ocean Region (New York, 1976), p. 181.
8.
On this point, see JukesG., The Indian Ocean in Soviet Naval Policy (London), 1972, pp. 5–12.
9.
ValiF.A., n. 7, p. 181.
10.
SmoianskyO.M., n. 5, p. 351.
11.
ShepherdG.W.Jr., “Demilitarization proposals for the Indian Ocean”, in L.W. Bowman and I. Clark, (Eds.), The Indian Ocean in Global politics (Boulder, Colorado), 1982, p. 233.
12.
ibid., Pp. 236–237.
13.
A spokesman of the Department of State (Ronald I. Spiers) once remarked, “The Indian Ocean area, unlike Europe and Asia, is one which has been only on the margins of United States’ attention. Never considered of great importance to the central balance of power system it has been on the edges of great power rivalry.” Similarly, Vali has observed, “If we could define the US interest on a scale from 0 to 10, the Indian Ocean would lie in the 2-3 interest range, while the Mediterranean would be in the 7-8 and the North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific in the 8-9 range.” For these observations, see F.A. Vali, n.7, p. 185.
14.
BiswasC., “Imperialist Game in the Indian Ocean.” Report presented on behalf of the World Peace Council to the International Conference on the Indian Ocean, New Delhi, 1974.
15.
ValiF.A., n. 7, p. 185.
16.
Ibid.
17.
See FarerThomas, War Clouds on the Horn of Africa (New York), 1976.
See J. Stockwell, In Search of Enemies (New York, 1978), F.H. Halliday, Arabia without sultans (New York), 1975.
22.
See GandhiIndira, “India and the World”, Foreign Affairs (New York), vol. LI, 1972.
23.
The Lusaka Declaration inter alia stated, “The Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace: adoption of a declaration calling upon all states to consider and respect the Indian Ocean as a Zone of peace from which great power rivalries and competition as well as bases conceived in the context of such rivalries and competition, either army, navy or air force bases, are excluded. The area should also be free of nuclear weapons.” Cited in Sen GuptaB., PouloseT.T., and BhatiaH., The Malacca Straits and the Indian Ocean (New Delhi), 1974, p. 108.
24.
In her speech before the UN General Assembly in October 1971, Mrs. Bandaranaike said, “The concept of a ‘Zone of Peace’ is inherent in the concept of non-alignment which requires that the land territories, air space, and territorial waters of non-aligned states must be closed to great power conflicts and rivalries. All areas under the jurisdiction of non-aligned states should, therefore, by definition be zones of peace.” Cited in Sen GuptaB., pouloseT.T., BhatiaH., Ibid, pp. 108–109.
25.
For this and other UN resolutions on the Indian Ocean, see MisraK.P., Quest for an International Order in the Indian Ocean (New Delhi, 1977), pp. 135–153.
26.
ColombosC.J.The Law of the Sea (London, 1967), pp. 47–48.
27.
SornarajahM., “Indian Ocean as a peace Zone,” Indian Journal of International Law, (New Delhi), Vol. 12(4), 1972, p. 548.
28.
See D.W. Bowett, The Law of the Sea (Manchester, 1967), p. 3; C.J. Colombos, n.26, p. 56.
29.
ColombosC.J., n. 26, pp. 66–67.
30.
SornarajahM., n. 27, p. 549.
31.
ShepherdG.W., n. 11, pp. 224–228.
32.
SingerM.R., Weak States in a World of Power (New York, 1972), p. 256.
33.
Sreedhar, “Arms Transfers to the Indian Ocean Region”, Indian Defence Studies Analyses Journal (New Delhi), Vol. XIII(2), 1980, p. 239.
34.
Cited in Sreedhar, Ibid., p. 240.
35.
SingerM.R., n. 32, p. 282.
36.
ValiF.A., n. 7, p. 238.
37.
SinghK.R., for instance, has argued that, “It is imperative for the littoral states to face the foreign powers on the basis of a unity of approach. There is already an awareness of the feeling of an Indian Ocean Community…. Such a community approach has to be further consolidated … by coming together to defend their marine interests against the possible inroads which are being planned under the garb of keeping the ocean and the ocean-bed free for humanity.” Politics of the Indian Ocean (New Delhi, 1974), pp. 185–186.
38.
MisraK.P., n. 25, p. 94.
39.
GannonE.J., “Military Considerations in the Indian Ocean,” Current History (Philadelphia, P.A.), November, 1972, p. 229.
40.
See RosenS.J., and JonesW.S., The Logic of International Relations (Cambridge, 1977); B. Sen Gupta, Soviet-Asian Relations in the 1970s and Beyond (New York, 1976).
41.
ValiF.A., n. 7, p. 187.
42.
See LichtheimG., Imperialism (New York, 1972).
43.
KapurA., “Carter's Diplomacy and the Indian Ocean Region” in L.W. Bowman and I. Clark, (Eds), n. 11, p. 134.
44.
RussettB., and StarrH., World Politics (Bombay, 1985), p. 410.
45.
See WrightQuincy, Causes of War and Consequences of Peace, (New York, 1935).
46.
Cited in PalmerN.D., and PerkinsU.C., International Relations (New Delhi, 1985), p. 189.
