The Zheng He Bequest

Posted on by
Reply

by

Vice Admiral (retd.) Vijay Shankar

Keywords: China maritime strategy, Zheng He, Comprehensive National Power, Third Island Chain

Download full article here: Shankar, The Zheng He Bequest

Excerpt:

A Historical Perspective

Between 1405 and 1433 CE the Ming emperors of China commissioned a series of seven naval expeditions into the Indian Ocean in order to impose imperial control over these waters and to awe the littorals of the South East Asia and the Indian Ocean of their techno military prowess. Resistance to the grand scheme of the emerging 15th century super power was met by the sword. Zheng He the eunuch admiral in court was made in charge of a grand fleet the likes of which had never been conceived before. Typically the fleet for each of the seven splendid voyages, included large treasure ships of a displacement unheard of in medieval times (400 feet in length, warships, troop transport, equine ships and a host of other support units totaling near 300 vessels (no armada was ever to match such force levels, either in terms of numbers or tonnage, till well into the 20th century.)

Through diplomacy, trade, coercion and the iron fist, Zheng irresistibly exacted tribute and capital from the suzerains of the countries he visited. In addition he ruthlessly suppressed the pirates of the South East Asian straits bringing to an end a long and anarchic period in these waters; he forcibly populated the Malaca region with Chinese (Muslims), the larger impact of which is felt to this very day; he waged a land war against the Kingdom of Kotte in Sri Lanka for trading rights; fought a campaign in Muscat, Aden and Mogadishu; and established fortified trading posts and cultural centers in Champa (Vietnam), Java, Siam, Cochin, Calicut, Hormuz, Muscat, Dhofar, Aden, Jeddah, Zeila, Mogadishu and the Maldives. He brought back to China, some voluntarily and at times forcibly, thirty envoys to the Ming court. [1]

[…]

There is undoubtedly considerable gap between China’s ambitions of realizing great power status and her current capabilities, so too the seriousness of internal stresses and inequities, the hazards that further deep penetration reforms may pose to the social fabric of the nation and the dangers of strategic miscalculations; there is no denying the will of the CCP and the relentless nature of their pursuit to global leadership. There remain however four crucial determinants which will dictate the course of China’s ambitions in the Indian Ocean region. These are:

(a) What form reconciliation of the Taiwan imbroglio will take and with what finesse     China will resolve her South China Sea territorial disputes. If either are conflictual it   will have far reaching negative impact on their ambitions in the Indian Ocean region.

(b) Energy security is greatly influenced by global markets, technological innovations   and is sensitive to geo political turbulences in the oil producing regions. A slowdown in economic growth will prove a serious dampener to long term designs.

(c) The coming ‘Third Island Chain’ covering the Indian Ocean region is hardly suggestive of a cooperative approach to security. Such unilateral strategies will invariably give rise to friction between the main stakeholders which may result in actions that are unfavourable for growth .

(d) Internal stresses and the growing economic gap in society are fissures that are not easily bridged, particularly if current growth rates are to be maintained. Pace of reforms and its penetration may all add up to turbulences in the core.

Chinese leadership had in the early nineties given guidance to their security strategies through the instrument of the ‘24 Character strategy’ and have allocated resources to pursue a military transformation from Mass to Mobility and Precision. Force structuring would not only be capable of securing the Second Island Chain but would look to projecting power in a broader regional sense and for global objectives. However this is subject to the determinants listed above. In any event the absence of a true sea control capability and its continued presence through the deployment of carrier groups in areas of interest is unlikely to be a reality for the next two decades. The absence of moves to establish cooperative stabilizing structures in areas where the stakeholders are many hold the portents for friction. Given such a delicate situation, Admiral Zheng He would have in all probabilities opted for a solution marked by mutuality and accommodation.

[1]  The Times Concise Atlas of World History pp 58-9 and Huan Ma “The Overall Survey of The Ocean Shores” written in 1416 in the Chinese language.

Download full article here: Shankar, The Zheng He Bequest

The Course From Cyrus to “Taqqiya”

Posted on by
Reply

By Vice Admiral (Retd.) Vijay Shankar

This article is forthcoming in the Winter 2012 issue of the Tehran-based International Politics Journal. For a full copy of the article please contact author directly at snigir@gmail.com.

Abstract

The question of whether Iran will make the bomb is a vexed one. In balance are the unrelenting sanctions, the inexorable push to pariah status and the imminence of military action on the one hand, while on the other, is a chimerical power status that not only serves to satisfy civilizational urges but also fulfils its perceived destiny as the dominant regional player. This article examines the impact of Iran’s “national character,” as inferred through the prism of history and contemporary polity, on the current nuclear crisis and thereafter scans the larger strategic context that Iran is faced with. The article concludes with a short-term prognostication.

Keywords: Asymmetric warfare, Break-out capability, IAEA and Iran, Iran nuclear program and proliferation, Iran strategic context, National character, Persian vs. Islamic identity, US-Iran relations.

Excerpts

Introduction: The Weight and Substance of History

In 539 BCE, one of the most successful yet extraordinary sieges in the history of warfare was brought to conclusion when Cyrus the Great invested Babylon. Cyrus was an emperor of a mould that the ancient world had not witnessed. Rather than a head-on against an impregnable yet magnificent fortification, he chose not just the timing (to penetrate the city defences during a period of night long festivities and revelry) but also to harness nature by diverting the Euphrates as it coursed through the city and entering when the river level fell below its walls unchallenged. The city, historians report, fell without any significant resistance.

Babylon was the Jewel in Cyrus’s crown. His Achaemenid Empire now spanned from the Indus in the East to Sardis and Lydia in Asia Minor and Egypt in the West. What characterized Cyrus’ empire and gave it distinct features that set it apart from the empires of antiquity was its tolerance, its abhorrence of barbarity and pillage and most importantly the setting up of a humane organisational and administrative core. All this was embodied in training and Persian polity, which was sensitive to the historical and diverse cultural context within which the Empire flourished and drew sustenance.

[…]

And what of the other Gulf States and neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia, which on 10th February 2012 gave notice of its elaborate nuclear programme and did not rule out a weapons agenda? While this may have a domino effect on regional proliferation, it could also develop into a deterrent relationship in-region through the removal of nuclear inequity (an idea whose time may well have arrived). The difficulty with a resolution that takes such a tack is the conflict that it will arouse with the status quo powers that are more than likely to ensure that the current balance is not upset even if it means resort to a conventional clash. The more pressing anxiety is the coming of the next nuclear age when erosion of proliferation regimes presents increased probability of clandestine networks delivering the bomb to non-state actors, at which time prevention and pre-emption, are the only rejoinders. Despite the Byzantine nature of things, Iran has persevered with the belief that the most credible way to counter and buttress non-intervention in regional affairs is to attain nuclear weapon status. Notwithstanding this conviction, she has skillfully avoided a head on situation with the USA. Iran has also observed certain clear redlines when supporting militias in the Middle East in terms of hardware supplied and the groups supported. In their nuclear policy, Iran has found the means to challenge the USA in the latter’s contradictory approach to countering proliferation; of invading Iraq, cutting a deal with Pakistan, imposing sanctions on Iran, seeking a regime change in North Korea and indeed, turning a blind eye to Israel. In this unpredictable setting, nuclear weapons or even an unambiguous break out capability not only provides balance to a strategic posture but would also extract more concessions and more incentives from America and the West. The fact that Iran has progressed uranium enrichment levels from 3.5% to near 20% and has stockpiled over 1000 kg of low enriched uranium,29 while within the stipulations of the NPT, would suggest that Iran may well build for itself an unremitting ‘break out’ capability stopping a step short of weaponizing and yet at the same time giving notice of a looming potential.

All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.