Washington: The United States sees India as a “critical power” and wants a stronger partnership with New Delhi, a senior Pentagon official has said, rejecting suggestions that restoring the name Pacific Command signals diminished US attention to India or the Indian Ocean.
Under Secretary of War for Policy, Elbridge A. Colby, said the change from INDOPACOM to PACOM reflected Washington’s military focus on the Western Pacific and the first island chain.
The US did not downgrade India’s strategic importance, he added.
“This is not in any way a sort of denigration of the importance of the Indian Ocean area or of India itself,” Colby told an on-the-record virtual briefing organised by the State Department’s Asia Pacific Media Hub.
He cited his March visit to India and visits by other senior US administration officials as evidence of continuing engagement.
“We really see India as a critical power, and the Indian Ocean, of course, is very important,” he said.
“There are multiple important relationships we have there.”
He said that the United States viewed India as a vital relationship with the potential for a natural partnership, even though the two countries would not always agree.
“If anything, we really see India as a vital relationship where there’s a natural partnership,” Colby said.
“Let’s look where our interests align. We’re going to have areas where we don’t always agree. But we’re looking for a stronger India.”
Colby said the revised command name was linked to US strategic priorities set out in its national security and defence strategies.
“The strategic focus of the United States military is really — and consistent with the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy — is on the first island chain,” he added.
“So the Pacific element to that is really the focus, the Western Pacific area, obviously stretching into Southeast Asia here,” he said.
The first island chain is commonly understood as the arc running from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines towards parts of Southeast Asia. It is central to US defence planning in the Western Pacific.
Colby also noted that terms used to describe the wider region do not always carry identical geographical meanings.
“There’s also different geographical lexicon. Indo-Pacific has one meaning, the Pacific has another, the Asia Pacific has a third,” he said.
His comments came during a visit to the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia.
Throughout the briefing, Colby presented the Trump administration’s regional approach as one built on military strength, practical cooperation and respect for national sovereignty.
He said that Washington was not asking countries to choose sides.
“Instead, it was seeking cooperation on access, training, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, foreign military sales and maritime capabilities.”
“We’re not asking for fealty; we’re asking for practical things: access, collaboration, these kinds of things,” Colby added.
The official said the United States wanted regional partners to strengthen their own defence industries and military capabilities.
He added that such efforts should be measured by their contribution to deterrence rather than by domestic political or industrial objectives.
(IANS)
