Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XXIV, Middle East Region and Arabian Peninsula, 1969–1972; Jordan, September 1970

69. Study Prepared by the Interdepartmental Group for the Indian Ocean¹

Washington, undated.

Non-Strategic Naval Limitations in the Indian Ocean

I. Summary and Conclusions

Separate statements concerning the summary and conclusions of this paper were prepared by the State, ACDA and CIA representatives and the OSD and JCS representatives.²

A. The following views are those of the State, ACDA and CIA representatives.

1. A US–Soviet agreement to avoid competition by limiting their permanent naval deployments in the Indian Ocean may prove to be in the US interest. While the US plans to upgrade MIDEASTFOR qualitatively, it does not now plan to increase the size of that force or to make other permanent deployments. The Soviet Union may continue to increase its deployments, as it has in the last few years. Hence, it may be in the US interest to bind the Soviets to a level comparable to our own.

2. The Indo–Pak war and the surge of the Enterprise task force, which were not considered in this study, could affect the timing of any US initiative with the Soviets for naval limitations in the Indian Ocean. It would be best to await further clarification of the situation on the subcontinent and in the area before undertaking such an initiative, although a naval limitation understanding with the Soviets might well form part of our efforts to normalize the situation in the area.

3. A US–Soviet agreement to limit their permanent naval presences need not affect either our right or our ability to “surge” temporarily into the Indian Ocean if we needed to and as we have done with the Enterprise. We could do it again—if this seemed advisable and effective—even if we had concluded an agreement with the Soviets similar to those considered in this study, since only permanent deployments would be limited. On the other hand, frequent surges, even though called “temporary”, would vitiate an agreement.

4. The Soviets do not have direct land access to South Asia and would have to cross international borders to send ground forces to intervene there. Such a move would entail serious international political risk with implications far beyond local effect in the Indian Ocean area. There is no evidence that the Soviets are prepared to take those risks.

5. Relative geographic propinquity may give the Soviets some advantage over us in influencing states of the Indian Ocean area—although great power “influence” is based on a whole array of factors in addition to geography. Nonetheless, if geography somewhat favors the Soviets, they should not also be allowed the additional advantage of a greater naval presence as well.

6. In accordance with the terms of reference in Dr. Kissinger’s memorandum of October 28, the study analyzed certain specific issues of non-strategic naval limitations and their comparative impact on the US and USSR. These issues and the conclusions of the analyses are as follows:

a. Bases and Support Facilities

A prohibition on bases would probably favor the Soviets. They have developed a modus operandi which allows them to support their forces without a base structure comparable to ours. Although we have not developed such a modus operandi in the case of MIDEASTFOR, it would be possible to maintain that force without a base, if we were willing to spend the extra resources involved in deploying another auxiliary ship to the area. However, for a number of reasons primarily political in nature, it is important that the base at Bahrain be retained. It is also important that Diego Garcia be retained, at least as a communication facility.

b. Surge Capabilities

“Surge” capabilities involve the insertion of forces from outside the area. They would not be affected by an agreement limiting permanent naval deployments within the area.

Surge capabilities depend on the location and nature of the forces surged. US forces would probably come from the Seventh Fleet, as recently demonstrated by the surge of the Enterprise. The Soviets would most likely send their forces from their Pacific Fleet based at Vladivostok as they also did recently or, if the Suez were reopened, from their Mediterranean squadron. In the latter case surging forces of the two sides would arrive at about the same time. In the former, US forces from the Seventh Fleet would arrive sooner. ASoviet surge force cannot match the amphibious and air capabilities of a US surge force; thus the Soviets would not have the same capability to project power ashore.

c. Possible Precedents

A US decision, in agreement with the Soviets, to exercise restraint in naval deployments to the Indian Ocean would not be a limitation on our rights with respect to the international waters of the world. Those rights are based on principles of international law and on the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and cannot be affected by a bilateral US–USSR agreement to limit their own naval deployments. The US and the Soviet Union would not be “legislating” for others. Limitations of the nature considered in this paper could be structured so as not to establish precedents adverse to our interest in freedom of the seas or the Law of the Sea. In fact, voluntarily accepted restraints would tend to strengthen rather than weaken the rule of law.

d. Distinguishing Naval Activities

Distinguishing between naval activities might be done in terms of time in the area, or in terms of specific types of activities (e.g., transits, visits, training exercises, maneuvers, port visits). An agreement which attempted to sanction some but prohibit other types of activities might be difficult to formulate and might establish an undesirable precedent.

A generalized understanding (Option 1) would probably not require definition of naval activities, in terms of time or otherwise. On the other hand, for reasons of both policy and precedent, an agreement which placed specific limitations on sailing days or number of ships (Options 2, 4 and 5)³ in terms of time in the area should only limit their “permanent presence.” This could be defined as naval deployments in the Indian Ocean for X months or longer. Transits or visits of shorter duration would not be limited. The US would remain free to introduce forces for a temporary period.

e. Caveat Clauses

Various caveat or escape clauses which recognize the right of withdrawal under certain circumstances should be part of any specifically worded naval limitation agreement. A generalized understanding limiting US-Soviet naval competition in the Indian Ocean would require less caveating and might not require a specific “escape clause”.

7. Options

Two types of options have been considered in this study, as they relate to the above issues:

a. A Specifically Worded Agreement

Such an agreement would place numerical limitations on the total number of certain types of ships and limitations on total ship days. Only permanent deployments would be limited; short term visits and transits would be allowed. The agreement would include an escape clause. Bases and SSBNs would not be limited. This type option would present obvious problems of negotiability since the Soviets would probably press for limitations on bases and submarines. Also, a formal and detailed agreement, in contrast to a general understanding, would seem to be disproprotionate to the magnitude of the problem it would seek to solve.

b. A General Understanding

Potentially undesirable features of a specifically-worded non-strategic naval limitation could be avoided or minimized by casting an agreement in general terms. A general understanding would place inhibitions on sharp increases in the level of Soviet naval forces, while allowing us the flexibility to match low level increases.

Such an agreement might consist of declarations of restraint by the US and USSR, with the definition of “restraint” being part of the negotiating record.

B. The following views are those of the OSD and JCS representatives.

1. OSD and JCS representatives believe that recent events in the Indian Ocean area make it inadvisable to enter into a dialogue with the Soviet Union on naval arms limitations at this time. It is certain that the Indo-Pak war will have significant effects on political relationships and major power influence in the area. It is not at all clear, however, what these effects will be. Until the results of the recent war can be better assessed, it would not be prudent to undertake discussions with the Soviets leading toward closing of some of the US political and military options in the area. To a lesser (but still important) degree, this argument also applies to the UNGA resolution declaring the Indian Ocean a “zone of peace.”

2. Further, aside from recent events, OSD and JCS representatives believe that neither a specifically worded agreement nor a general understanding (Option 1) with the USSR which places restrictions on naval activity in the Indian Ocean would be in the best interests of the United States for the following reasons:

a) The USSR occupies a central geographic location while the US does not. They are less dependent on overseas sources of supply and are less involved with overseas allies. Primarily for these reasons, the Soviets have developed a naval strategy designed to disrupt our sea lines of communication and to obstruct the projection of our sea power ashore. In the political arena, they have traditionally pressed for the concept of closed seas, which would transform the enclosed and semi-enclosed seas contiguous to the Soviet Union into “Soviet lakes” and facilitate achievement by the Soviet Union of military and political preponderance in these areas.

The naval strategy of the US on the other hand, is designed to maintain control of the vital sea lines of communication on which we and our allies depend and to project military force inland from the sea when necessary. Thus any agreement or understanding which would place “equal” restrictions on the US and Soviet naval forces would tend to support the Soviet strategy while, at the same time, it would counter the US strategy. Likewise, any agreement or understanding which would advance the principle of closed seas to the detriment of free seas would tend to work to our disadvantage and establish a damaging precedent.

b) Any agreement or understanding (Option 2) reducing or limiting US naval forces in the Indian Ocean would be viewed by the littoral nations as reflecting a lessening of US interest in the area at a critical time. The importance of MIDEASTFOR has increased now that the British have withdrawn their forces from the Persian Gulf area. The Trucial States in particular view MIDEASTFOR as a stabilizing influence between the Arab world and the expanding Iranian interest in the Persian Gulf area.

c) Any agreement or general understanding (Option 1) that would place restrictions on the use of naval forces in the Indian Ocean area could serve to complicate efforts to settle the situation in the Middle East. At the present time the options available to negotiators include the possible use of US naval forces. However, the flexibility afforded by this range of options could be reduced by placing restrictions on the number, size or time on station of naval units in the Indian Ocean area.

d) A naval arms limitation agreement or even a general understanding (Option 1) with the USSR in the immediate aftermath of the Ceylonese peace zone resolution would be viewed by many as major power accession to pressure by littoral states and as a tacit acceptance of the principle that coastal states have a right to regulate activities of other nations in high seas areas adjacent to their territorial waters. Such negotiations would thus weaken the US position on Law of the Sea, would lead to additional pressures at the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference to limit naval uses of the high seas even further and could cause us to fail in achieving our overriding ocean policy objective—to preserve the freedom of the sea in the largest possible area of the world’s oceans.

e) The incorporation of a caveat or “escape” clause could not adequately serve our national interests in regards to limitations of naval forces in the Indian Ocean area. The invocation of an escape clause would have a political price which might be significant in any specific instance. Since the US in all likelihood would be more reluctant than the Soviets to implement the escape provisions of an agreement, the delay involved in considering the decision would operate to give the USSR a time advantage.

f) Naval units can be deployed around the world without crossing national boundaries. To enter into an agreement or understanding that in any way restricts the use of naval forces would be to give up an option of great flexibility and value to US national security interests.

g) A naval arms limitation in the Indian Ocean would not necessarily serve to hinder or dampen the efforts of either the US or USSR in seeking greater influence with the littoral states of the Indian Ocean area. The problem involves the various means of access to the subcontinent area. A naval limitation in the Indian Ocean would not reduce competition equally since the Soviets would still have a distinct advantage by being part of the Euro-Asian continent. In addition, we cannot overlook the military and political power of the Chinese and their influence in the sub-continent.

h) Finally, OSD and JCS representatives do not believe it would be feasible to have meaningful discussions with the Soviets since SSBNs will not be included in any such negotiations. It is not realistic to believe that the Soviets would seriously discuss limitations on their anti-submarine forces without demanding similar restrictions on our SSBNs. If talks are started, we expect that the Soviets would press hard to include SSBNs and would propagandize in an effort to bring maximum pressure on the US to accommodate the Soviet demands.

3. The OSD and JCS representatives’ conclusions as regards limitations on Indian Ocean bases and support facilities, distinguishing between various naval activities and US and USSR surge capabilities are as follows:

a) Any agreement or understanding that restricted bases and support facilities in the Indian Ocean area would favor the Soviets. The Soviets to date have not relied on establishment of a specific base in the area. Their present modus operandi allows them to operate by relying on their support ships in the area rather than local area facilities. Conversely, it would be very expensive for the US to maintain any presence in the Indian Ocean if denied access to base facilities. The expense would involve the reassignment of a considerable number of ships from other forces both for rotational purposes and logistics.

b) The question of distinguishing naval transits from exercises, “show of force” maneuvers and rotation of naval forces, and of distinguishing all of these from a permanent presence in the area would be both difficult and argumentative. Any definition distinguishing between mobile force and premanent presence would, of necessity, be restrictive. Acknowledging this type of restriction is not in our national interest. Basically, it is inconsistent with our view of freedom of the seas. Further, it could later lead to undesirable applications in other ocean areas of higher US interest.

c) A comparison of the impact of deployment limitations in terms of surge capability and reaction time on US and USSR non-strategic naval forces tends to favor the US at the present time. However, the likely opening of the Suez Canal coupled with the present Soviet/Egyptian relationship would give the Soviets a decided advantage in the more economically important western part of the Indian Ocean area. The US would be restricted in the use of an open canal primarily because of the size of our aircraft carriers. The possibility also exists that, with Egypt in control of passage through the canal, our ships could be delayed by passage procedures. The Soviets would not be similarly restricted.

[Omitted here is the remainder of the paper.]

1. Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–060, Senior Review Group Meetings, SRG Meeting Indian Ocean 10/6/71. Secret. Under a February 15 covering memorandum, Farley and Selden submitted the paper to Kissinger in response to his request of October 28; see Document 64.
2. Not attached.
3. For these numbered options, see Document 59.