 |
| STANAVFORLANT in 1982 |
The
Standing NATO Maritime Groups, conceived in the late 1960’s as the Standing
Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT), were an attempt to create a regular deployment of the Alliance’s
warships to promote common operational standards. The
brainchild of Rear Admiral Richard Colbert, USN, STANAVFORLANT was intended to prevent
future maritime disputes that might explode into major wars. Colbert believed
that the 1967/1968 Arab Israeli War might have been averted or better contained
by such a force. He wrote,” “If a few of the maritime nations had formed a squadron of
destroyers and contested the closure of the Gulf of Aquaba—perhaps by escorting
an Israeli ship through—in support of the principle of freedom of the seas and
Innocent Passage, the situation there might have been pacified and the
Arab-Israeli war, such as it was, averted for a time or altogether.”[2]
For Colbert, European and Mediterranean waters were just the beginning. He
envisioned global U.S. participation in a network of similar partnerships. He
wrote, “With this as a prototype conceivably we can follow suit with similar
forces in time in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and
very importantly Latin America. As the Soviet Union continues to expand its sea
power worldwide, I can think of no more pragmatic and meaningful counter to
their activities than the United States participating as partners with friendly
countries in their various areas.”[3]
Colbert’s model is well suited to the
present situation in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean where general cooperation might have deterrent value. A multinational
maritime security force, with a rotational command and staff system based on
that of the present NATO Standing Maritime Groups, would be an excellent tool
for promoting common maritime operating procedures in the region and reducing
tensions amongst the participating nations. Such a force might begin with a
U.S. initiative toward its friends and allies in the region and expand to
include all nations who wish to participate, including the People’s Republic of
China and Russia. The Russian Navy, for example, participated in NATO’s
Operation Active Endeavour in September 2006 when the Russian frigate Pitliviy joined the mission. While the
NATO Standing Maritime Groups are divided into combatant and mine
warfare-specific units, an Indo-Pacific Standing Maritime Group would welcome a
variety of vessel types depending on what nations are participating and the mission
to be undertaken. These efforts could include counter-piracy patrols in
international waters, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR)
operations, as well as good will visits to promote peace and understanding in
the region. The solution to the present strained maritime security environment in
these waters should not be a unilateral U.S. military or even diplomatic
effort, but rather a multinational maritime undertaking. In such a situation, those that
refuse to join would be more likely seen by the international community as
troublemakers and not as active participants in reducing tensions.
Just as “only Nixon could go the China”,
the United States is the nation best positioned by its 160 plus years of direct
involvement in East Asian maritime affairs to initiate a
multinational standing naval force in the Indo-Pacific basin. An Indo-Pacific
Standing Maritime Group is the first step to promoting greater understanding
amongst the nations that border its littoral. It can welcome those who desire
greater cooperation, and just as effectively isolate those who refuse to join in
the international solution it presents to tensions in the East and South China
Seas. It is a better first step than a direct, increased U.S. military
presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment