Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stability

[RamaY]

I understand the logic behind the "road goes thru Pakjab", but it requires unwinding of 3.5 friends. That is akin to asking for dismantling of 3.5 friends' mercinery non-state actor. That strategy needs of dozens of b*lls in GOI pants IMHO.

The alternative is to take the stuff piecemeal. A POK here, a Sindh there etc.

I am not convinced that POK would be that bad and that difficult to manage once GOI shows it's willingness and presence. My theory is that any of these regions devoid of Pakjab are manageable inspite of sunni-Wahabi elements. Cashmere is one such example.

TIFIW

[nvishal]

So you want that Indians waste their time in petty squabbles amongst the various Indian Empires!

Im more concerned about the state as a whole surrendering or covering down in behalf of entire india. What can i expect from a PM who gossips about a neighbour planning to set foot in SA and doesn't know which way it'll go? As i understand it, indian govt doesn't have a threshold whatsoever. It will only act if it is a case of a major war. Aside from that, everything is fair game for the neighbours.

[Pratyush]

I understand the logic behind the "road goes thru Pakjab", but it requires unwinding of 3.5 friends. That is akin to asking for dismantling of 3.5 friends' mercinery non-state actor. That strategy needs of dozens of b*lls in GOI pants IMHO.

The alternative is to take the stuff piecemeal. A POK here, a Sindh there etc.

I am not convinced that POK would be that bad and that difficult to manage once GOI shows it's willingness and presence. My theory is that any of these regions devoid of Pakjab are manageable inspite of sunni-Wahabi elements. Cashmere is one such example.

TIFIW

Boss that is not exclusive of the Pakjab strategy. Indian strategy must work at several levels. I.e pick up the low hanging fruits while simultaneously starving the Pakjab. To an extent the 3.5 must make a decision whether they will be sustaining the rump of pakjab or sustaining themselves. I feel that this can be achieved in the next 20-25 years.

All this requires that we have a consistent goal of destroying TSP. With no outbreaks of WKK itis in the minds of the GOI.

Simultaneously, we also need to make the PRC commit it self to the badlands of TSP for the pipelines. Along with the ecpenditure of its blood and treasure.

In effect make it the Vietam or the Afganistan of PRC.

JMT

[Sudip]

I am posting the pdf report, "Global Governance 2025:at a Critical Juncture" which is the source of the recent article by CNN IBN which claimed "India third most powerful nation"

[ramana]

Thanks Sudip.

[Paul]

X-post from Russia thread

Johann wrote:
X-posted from the TSP thread

Johann
Post subject: Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Aug 09, 20
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2010 03:36 pm
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 1210


Paul wrote:
No Johann, I still think it is in Indian interests for Russian influence to be rolled to pre-1700 AD borders.

I am probably the only person in this forum who thinks Russian and British imperial interests complimented each other in the great game. British imperial interests were secured through sea routes and Russian through the land routes.


There's no question that the mutual competition egged each of them to push harder and faster, and there's no question that the dynamics of the Great Game were the biggest single factor in the support for Pakistan's creation.



Paul wrote:
Hence they both need to be rolled back to the era when there independent Khanates in Turan...Most BRFites are mistaken if they think Rus transfer in Submarine and aircraft technology is synomous with Indo-Russian convergence of national interests.


Not sure about this - realistically when one looks forward the only real problem is the strategic nature of Sino-Russian cooperation given India's problems with the PRC. I'm not sure that a Russian collapse in the Far East would do anything other than strengthen the PRC.

A loss of Russian influence in Central Asia would also be a great thing for Pakistan - In the 1990s Russian border guards were the only thing that stopped the Deobandis and the ISI from rolling in to Dushanbe.

Tomorrow (and perhaps even today) the loads of Chinese money and the PLA might do in a pinch, but I don't think it is sufficient, which is why Russia and China form the heart of the SCO, and that is unlikely to change. The only country that has the ambition and the cultural ties that could allow it to play a similar role is Iran, but they have enormous internal problems (like an ideology that places getting involved in Shia areas of the world ahead of Farsi/Dari speaking areas) to sort out first.


Paul wrote:
Russian public is probably looking in the wrong direction if they think Chinese demographics is the biggest existential threat to their existence. Just wait for a few decades for the turks to get going......


Russians are actually most worried about the internal demographics of Chechens and Muslims from the Caucasus, as well as large numbers of Muslim immigrants from Central Asia - there is shift in public opinion from retaining Chechnya at all costs to preserve the federation to getting Chechens out of Russia.

The people who will have to worry the most about Turkish demographics are the EU. As for Turkey's political ambitions they will probably come at the expense of Iran which has spent the last 30 years trying to win over the Arabs with only very limited success outside the Shia minority.

In most ways Russians still benchmark themselves against the United States, and thinks of success and failure as a competition with the Americans, rather than the PRC, or Iran, or Turkey or any of the other rising powers. Perhaps that will change in coming decades...



Johann, Why don't the Brits and Roos slug it out in the mediterranean and leave Asia to the asians...given time we will work out a suitable compromise with the Chinese. After all, this is what the French and the Germans have done after centuries of fighting wars. Denial of access to the mediterranean remains a cornerstone of British foreign policy for the last 200+ years.

I was always puzzled for many years as to why Russia did not support Indian revolutionaries who escaped to Tashkent in the aftermath in the 1857 revolt. It is more surprising given that Russia and England fought a bitter war in the Crimea in 1853.

The only conclusion that I can draw is that these two imperial powers decided to localize their differences and prevent them from spilling in other regions.

Hence the Great game as described in Wiki

Quote:
From the British perspective, the Russian Empire's expansion into Central Asia threatened to destroy the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, India. As the Tsar's troops began to subdue one khanate after another, the British feared that Afghanistan would become a staging post for a Russian invasion of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

is a big sham perpetauated on Asia. The great game is actually nothing more than a smokescreen to Keep Asia’s destiny from being decided by Asians.

[ramana]

Now the Great Game is theater!

Berkeley Rep playing Great Game

[Ashley Kravitz]

Uncle Sam, energy and peace in Asia
By M K Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LJ30Ag01.html

[shaardula]

"Rare color photos from russia ~1900s"

click here for slide show

[ramana]

Three posts....

"Rudradev"

Evidence? Rather than go after Pakistan for the 9-11 attacks with Indian help, the US preferred:
1) To allow itself to be sidetracked by a long ground war in Afghanistan, with full and continuing Pakistani support to their enemies.
2) To ignore the role of Pakistan in creating the Taliban and supporting the OBL group all the way up to the murder of Ahmad Shah Massood.
3) To facilitate the survival of ISI assets that were crucial to the Taliban's operations, by allowing the Kunduz airlift.
4) To ignore the proliferation of nuclear weapons by the Pakistan government, labeling it the work of a "rogue AQ Khan network" and saying "the past is the past" even as proliferation continued into the future.
5) To pump billions of dollars of aid into Pakistan even as Pakistan continued to support the Taliban against US forces in Afghanistan.
6) To arm Pakistan with modern weapons systems that were completely and entirely India-specific.
7) To ignore future attacks against Western interests and citizens, including Daniel Pearl, the London and Madrid Subways and many more that were still carried out with the full support and facilitation of Pakistan.
8 ) To warn, caution and threaten India against retaliating for Pakistani terrorist attacks in India, and counsel that India should instead stabilize a dysfunctional Pakistan by giving away J&K to Pakistan.
The truth is that EVEN IF the West changes its mind after another Pakistani terrorist attack in a Western country, EVEN IF the US decides to punish Pakistan militarily for this... they will still seek to avoid any Indian involvement whatsoever. It is vitally important to the US that India should not gain from the aftermath of any Western action against Pakistan. For now, that means that India does not have to counsel restraint.
Restraint is automatically built in to any Western response towards Pakistan, and will be for the foreseeable future, because the West's desire to prevent India gaining is far greater than the West's desire to punish Pakistan. Whether we counsel restraint or not doesn't matter at all.

Onlee, contrary to a preference for TSP, there was a quid-pro-quo between Mush and Amritraaj that TSP's GUBO was conditional to keeping India out of any Afghanistan solution.

What you are saying here is a version of the narrative that was very often repeated by CNN and the New York Times as justification for "US compulsion to keep India out of any Afghanistan solution." It is a very convenient justification for the US, which was no more willing than Pakistan to have India play a military or political role in any Afghan solution. It would have thrown all of Washington's geostrategic calculations out of whack if India gained influence in Afghanistan as a result of Op Enduring Freedom... something far more important in the long term than "catching Bin Laden."

We know that Armitage threatened Mush with Pakistan being bombed back to the stone age if he did not comply. Add to this the fact that Pakistan's economy was, as always, in the toilet and could only stand to gain from any sort of economic and military aid from the US. Does that seem as if Pakistan was in any position to be dictating terms or "imposing conditions" on the US for its GUBO? I don't believe that for a minute. It is all very well for the US to say "oh, we kept India out of Enduring Freedom because Pakistan wanted it that way," when in fact the US also wanted it that way, at least as much as the Pakistanis did.

Let me put it like this.
1. At the time of 911 US was ignorant. The narrative of the Indian subcontinent was held by TSP, because that is what happens when you allow others to tell your narrative. There was no Indian narrative in the beltway (because no one was invited). TSP had the long institutional awareness of the US, because of its past alliances and the Soviet-Afghan War. The narrative only started to change from the middle of Kargil after IA started evicting NLI. (Before that US, UK wanted India to declare a ceasefire because frankly they did not believe IA would get them evicted). The first milestone was reached on 4 Jul, 1999 when NS was made to wait for an appointment with Bill Clinton. Though Jaswant Singh helped, 2001 was too less of a time frame to break TSPs instituational linkages with US. Besides, India (prone to self goals), itself had legitimised Musharraf by inviting him to Agra summit, weeks before 911.

Again, I have heard too many times about how the US was ignorant, delusional, naive, stupid, far too trusting and bhola-bhala in believing that Pakistan would be its loyal friend and ally against the Taliban.

Unkil did not become Unkil by being naive or ignorant. The US knew, and observed, and attempted to influence events in Afghanistan right since the end of the Soviet occupation... even though it is their popular media narrative (propaganda) that they had just forgotten all about Afghanistan and "ignored the region until 9-11." They were in fact very much present, setting up Kekmatyar against Mojadeddi, blessing (if not actively helping) the Benazir/Aslam Beg program to bring Afghanistan under Pakistani influence via the Taliban, inviting the Taliban for TAP pipeline talks in the US under the Clinton Administration, and carrying on a dialogue with the Taliban via a team of State Dept. interlocutors headed by Robin Raphel, even after OBL had been given shelter there as a wanted fugitive from US law following the African Embassy bombings.

The US went along every step of the way, and every step was calibrated to maximize Pakistani influence via the Taliban in Central Asia. Even terrorism against US citizens and economic interests was not allowed to risk or compromise this larger goal in any way. Today they say "oh, we ignored the region from 1989-2001", because that sounds like a far less damning mistake than "oh, we relentlessly and continuously supported the same people who came back and bombed our world trade center, and will continue doing so in the name of geostrategy."

There is absolutely no way the US did not know what it was going in for by forming an alliance with the TSPA in 2001. Any notion that they imagined having full and honest support from the TSPA/ISI... whom they knew so very well... simply does not hold water.

That we choose to believe this hogwash about poor ignorant US being taken for a 10-year, 18 billion dollar ride by the wily Pakis, ignoring ground realities, forgiving nuclear proliferation, and absorbing terrorist attacks on their own interests shows only one thing. It's not the US, but we who are still delusional about this.

2. TSP has not kept part of its deal for US to continue to hold any part of its side. In the meantime TSP is practically being frog marched to the point of exhaustion.

So everyone says. People were holding their breath for a total collapse of Pakistan when Baitullah's merry men were overrunning Swat. Did it happen?

TSP as a nation state in the conventional sense, hit the point of "exhaustion" long ago, by any international yardstick... they are an invalid state kept alive by continuous transfusion of funds and aid. Yet their claims on Indian territory are taken seriously by certain powers, and calls are made for India to be generous and "resolve Kashmir."

Meanwhile, the TSPA, ISI and the jihadi tanzeems are stronger than ever, flush with western funds, armed to the teeth with India-specific weapons by the west, manufacturing India-specific nukes by the hundred. That's because TSPA/ISI/tanzeems are != the state of TSP. They are an armed camp, or kabila, that is kept strong for the express purpose of serving Western geostrategic interests. The "exhausted" country of TSP is nothing but the foraging ground of this kabila... and why does an armed camp need to forage if it is being supplied for free from abroad?

3. Anyways, looking to the future. US after 10 years is more than aware of the duplicitous game of TSP. It has used drone to wreck every peace deal between taliban and TSPA that ISI has tried to manufacture.

They were always aware of it, and always preferred it to any chance of India having a role in the military-political dispensation of post-Taliban Afghanistan. No matter how bad or costly the duplicitous game, it was preferable in their geostrategic worldview. Drones are a palliative measure designed to inflict harm on specific proxies who are undermining the US' mission in Afghanistan. They are only controlling a symptom. Nothing is being done against the "cause" of the disease, because it is still an article of faith in US foreign policy making circles that this "cause" is necessary to sustain and support for long-term geopolitical purposes.

4. As wikileaks have pointed out, regular US Army officers were reporting back to their superiors of TSPA's double game. But CIA covered for TSP. (I am disappointed though that the State Dept has clamped down on it employees officially to read about them)

Why are you disappointed? State Dept with CIA input formulates US foreign policy, and backing TSPA/ISI as a geopolitical proxy for West and Central Asia is an absolute cornerstone of US foreign policy. You are only disappointed because you assumed otherwise to begin with.

Moreover, despite what the regular US Army officers have been saying, there is no question that the Pentagon (see the statements of Mullen and Fallon among others) is solidly and consistently covering for TSP as well.

Support for Pakistan in US foreign policymaking circles is not a matter of a few isolated pockets. It is across the board, particularly when it comes to ensuring that India should not gain as a result of any disturbance of subcontinental status-quo. That is the game... Islamic terror/sherror is only a sideshow.

5. That has changed since the RD affair (and streaming out of other operatives as were disucss). TSP has made some enemies in the last pillar of institutional support in the US. This means more than awareness, the linkages are breaking apart. I do not think the US intel community will be forgetting the RD affair in a hurry. Going forward the dice is loaded against TSP.

In the matter of a few weeks since the RD affair you expect things have changed? I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed again.

You're not seriously comparing a nuclear test by Indian institutions using Indian resources on Indian territory, to military operations against a foreign government on another continent... are you? However you look at it, the latter is far more contingent on our receiving a willing "invitation" than the former.

1. The point is about 1974 to 2005. No 2005 deal without 1974 Pokharan 1 (and consistent clean record in nuclear non-proliferation).

I don't see how this has any relevance to my original point, which is that India was not invited, and its participation was not encouraged, in any military enforcement of a NFZ in Libya... so on what basis were we going to go in? Were we going to ask to join, and then be told "no thanks?" For all you know this might have been exactly what happened, even before the UNSC vote. End result, we're not invited and we're not there... so it makes eminent sense for us not to have committed ourselves politically in favour of the whole adventure.

2. Inspite, of the quid-pro-quo of keeping India out, it has more street credibility and milestones in the eyes of Afghans than US-TSP combined, and could not be kept out of the Afghan solution, even after killing of its Attache.

India *always* had more credibility and appreciation among Afghans than the Pakis or the US. We have tried to play our cards there as well as we can, following the removal of Taliban. Thanks to our friends in Karzai's regime we have been able to maintain a presence with economic, humanitarian and developmental aid which has enhanced our goodwill.

But we do not have any influence on the military-political dispensation in Afghanistan, and in that sense we play a negligible role in the "Afghan solution". We were relegated to the back-bench during the London conference on Afghanistan, and kept entirely out of the Turkey summit. I simply can't believe that this was only because of the demands of a third-rate beggar nation like Pakistan. It was because this suits the geopolitical priorities of the West... period.

How would sending medics have established our power projection capabilities, exactly? ..
"All are welcome" is very well in theory, but the fact is, leadership of the UN mandate invariably devolves to members of the P5-- in this case the US, UK and France. They are the ones who ultimately decide the composition of the task force and delegate the roles to be played within it. They have made no secret of wanting GCC armed forces to get involved in the Libyan NFZ, but again, I haven't heard a word from them encouraging Indian involvement... only sniping by their pet mongrels in the media about "BRIC" hypocrisy, etc.

1. I am just curious to know the where it is on the scale, other than a 0. Sending medics, would at the very least, shown solidarity to the people of Libya. IMO there was a need to take sides. What India is saying is that is OK with dictators. In all likelyhood someone from Indian Oil is still holding deeds worth $4B from Saddam's era. (Same for ONGC for gas from Burma)

Firstly, it is by no means obvious that the people of Libya are unanimous in wanting Gaddafi overthrown.

Secondly, could you please explain what exactly is wrong in being "OK with dictators?"

I mean, it seems like India just cannot win. If we play an idealistic role of altruism in our foreign policy, then we are idiots who put moral principles first before securing our interests with realpolitik (like America does.) On the other hand, if we accommodate dubious regimes in order to secure our legitimate interests, then we are acting like hypocrites instead of being a beacon of freedom and democracy (like America is.) Whose narrative is this anyway?

2. I do not care for the pet mongrels or blame them becuase they are in 1 of the 2 categories - 1 those feel let down by India's non-performance and want to know What are India's strategic objectives and What is India willing to do, to attain them.

The other are who are paid to be ignorant, who really not critical of India's abstention at UNSC per se, but India itself. They should also, not be allowed to hold the narrative.

We agree on this point. We do not need to answer to any foreigner who demands to know what India's strategic objectives are or what India is willing to do to attain them. When the time comes the foreigners will find out.

3. P3 out of P5 because wikileaks do not happen with the other 2. If they did, not difficult to imagine the fate of the people who will do that, same day firing squad.

Not sure what you are saying here. Yes, I agree it is P3 out of P5 who are leading the Libyan operation, but where does wikileaks come into the picture?

To devise a game effectively we must have intimate knowledge of the gameboard. The Pentagon's New Map is exactly that... a realistic assessment of the gameboard at the time of writing, plus a vision of how the gameboard should ideally appear, in order to best serve US interests. Only on that solid foundation can strategies be devised and implemented to go from point A to point B.
Do we have a South Block's New Map? Let's start by making one. I would suspect that on such a gameboard, Libya (given the stakes, risks and rewards) would simply not be in play for any of our opening moves. Bahrain, on the other hand, might be... we will have to watch that carefully.

I would see it as a failure of policy, in case, US punishes TSP militarily and without India getting a piece of the action from the start. Because, per Mirza Alsam Beg, TSP would nuke India, anyways. For India to then join the fight after having missed all opportunities to shape - prevent or limit - the battleground.
Also, for the same reason, I would also see it as failure of strategy and its inability to in case India decides to punish TSP without US on board, only because the job will get done quicker. If TSP is solved for India, for the US, Iran with a pretense of nuclear weapons, ceases to be a threat too.

[/quote]

It seems that what you are saying is that Indian foreign policy only succeeds if India punishes TSP with US help. If India punishes TSP by itself, or US punishes TSP without India on board, then India has somehow "failed"?

Well, if what you say is true, we should reconcile ourselves to failure. The US will never, ever, ever allow India to benefit from any punishment of TSP that the US undertakes unilaterally. That is, unless something occurs to drastically alter US geostrategic calculations at the most foundational level. I cannot even imagine what that might be (even Paki nuclear proliferation to Iran/Libya/North Korea and the loss of NYC's twin towers were not enough.)

Likewise, if the US punishes TSP with any Indian help of any kind, it will STILL insist on complete control of whatever happens in Pakistan afterwards. Any cursory glance at history reveals that the US has no use for allies... only subsidiaries, and subsidiaries don't get any say in dividing the spoils. The only way we will be able to assert our influence in Pakistan in that situation will be to oppose the US once the job is done, as the Soviets did following the end of WW2. Do we have the "dum" for this?

In fact the only way at present, that we have any guarantee of controlling the post TSPA/ISI dispensation of Pakistan is to do the job ourselves, and without the US having any locus standi in the matter.[/quote]


and

To add to RD's above post:

US allowed Kunduz airlift so the elements could be safely preserved in TSp instae do being containered by Dostum. And they had the nerve to write articles about it. Its those Kunduz miscreants that are the bad Taliban biting US in Af-pak.

And as for US punishing TSP, they will make India give Kashmir while doing that so the TSP doesn't bite them back.

Right now the TSP is biting the hand that feeds them while flogging them.

India should sit still and let the nautanki continue with periodic Aman ki Tamasha to keep the flogging continue.

and

One question to ask is: why is Unkil so very desperate to ensure that India's influence is minimal or nonexistent, west of its present-day borders, especially in Afghanistan?

A primary reason is, because Afghanistan is the last foothold that Unkil has on the perimeter of Fortress Asia. Gaining this foothold was part of Unkil's plan even as he interfered in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion.

If India gained primacy of influence in Afghanistan, and then closed ranks with Iran-Russia-China... Unkil would find himself locked out of the Heartland.

We need to recognize that the 1947 partition was not just a partition of India, but a partition of Asia, with India as the centre of gravity from the Western point of view. At all points east and south of the subcontinent, India was to be the favoured proxy. At all points west and north, Pakistan. Between these two successor states of the British Empire, Western influence over the heartland was to be propagated as it had been in the colonial era.

India of course went its own way, with non-alignment, and refused to be drawn into conflicts such as Korea on the Western side.

Pakistan in particular was set up to be an Islamic state as a Western-influenced successor to the Khilafat (believe it or not, the Pakis didn't come up with this delusion all by themselves.)


When the Allies dismantled the Ottoman empire in 1918, they didn't just destroy a temporal sultanate. They completely extinguished a seat of spiritual authority, with Allah-mandated divine right to rule over the Islamic world. An equivalent catastrophe would be if the Turks had won at Lepanto, seized Rome, burned the Vatican, killed the Pope and abrogated the Holy See in the 16th/early 17th centuries. Can you imagine what an impact that would have had on Catholic christendom?

All present Western opinion towards Islam devolves from either guilt or righteous satisfaction pertaining to this event. The liberal, Islamist-apologists are trying to "right the wrong" of leaving the Islamic world in a state of orphaned interregnum. The conservatives are crusaders, looking to stamp out any new contenders for the Khilafat who might arise even in future.

Jinnah presented the opportunity to introduce a new Khilafat, suited/booted/whisky-drinking, in tune with Western norms and interests. He was put up at the Partition of Asia as a candidate for this position by the West. He was a Chalabi to the Ottoman Sultanate's Saddam Hussein!

Well, the best laid plans of mice and men will often go awry. However, it may be that mice are more capable than men at recognizing when the game is up.

There is a story about how Stanley Baldwin or General Allenby who said that we have finally returned after fall of Jerusalem to the British Indian troops in WWI!


Good review of the past history.

[Pranav]

Pay attention to what is happening in Russia. After the Medvedev-Putin spat over Libya,

Increasingly assertive Medvedev attacks Putin allies - http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 48/1/.html

Tensions growing in Russia's ruling tandem: report - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 2edbf1.451

New Russian Opposition Party Unveils Report On Corruption Under Putin - http://www.rferl.org/content/russia_opp ... 41988.html

It looks like Putin is being squeezed. Medvedev is quite close to the "Anglo-Americans".

[devesh]

watch for Medvedev to do pull a 'putin' on the West. i'm not sure he has enough control to take over from Putin. but if he does, expect him to immediately shaft the West. he's playing a clever game, but Putin can still prove him to be too clever for his own good. don't underestimate Putin. he has played the balance of power strategy very well. he's kept the various factions in the Kremlin under his control and given enough power to each that they keep aspiring for more, which leads to them to competition against some other faction, which inevitably means that different factions can't coalesce into a single group. and of course Putin comes riding on the horse as the savior and the great compromiser to bring peace between rival groups. it's a role that he has played with skill and shrewdness. the there are a lot of top factions in the Kremlin right now that owe their existence and power to Putin. Medvedev needs to bring them under his control, which he hasn't done. he should be more careful.

[svinayak]

Loads of pics:
When Indian and US navies met in Pacific

It is interesting to note the place where they are conducting the exercise, in Luzon Strait. To fully appreciate the significance of the Luzon Strait, I have given two maps over here. First of all see where Luzon Strait sits, between Taiwan and Philippines. Observe where India and Japan, specifically Okinawa is. I have highlighted both in red boxes.



The second is the map showing major sea transportation routes between Western Pacific and Indian Ocean.
I have highlighted the route which will fall under the guns of PLAAN/PLAAF in red. The remaining routes can be used by Indian ships or ships carrying Indian cargo, like oil and gas from Russian far east without too much trouble.

The original image showing sea transportation routes can be viewed over here

If we super-impose the images we see the significance of the place where India is holding this exercise. Also note that the Luzon Strait is one of the choke points, part of the first island chain and second island chain which have the PLAAN/PLA strategic experts have identified. The points which prevent, PLAAN ships from reaching the Western Pacific Ocean. Marinetine and anti-submarine aircrafts flying from northern Philippines and/or southern Taiwan can easily cleanse the whole strait of any lurking submarines. They also can provide choke points and disrupting the flow of ships. After all the strait is only 250 kms across.

With quite a significant chunk of oil and gas for India, from Russian far east, travelling these sea transportation routes, we find the Indian navy being positioned over here.

[ramana]

The Sino-Pak nexus -Learn from China’s strategic thinking by Gen (retd) V. P. Malik

It is often stated that at the strategic level, one requires a long memory and a longer foresight and vision. There are many people in India who have a tendency to overlook the Sino-Pak strategic nexus in the dialogue over India’s boundaries with these two countries. Boundaries are a manifestation of national identity. Disputed boundaries are often trip-wires of war.

It is, therefore, necessary to place this issue in its historical and futuristic perspective.

Soon after its Independence in 1949, China set out consolidating its historic frontiers and placing administrative authority and military boots on the ground in Tibet and Xinjiang. India did not do so and rues till date this Himalayan blunder in strategic terms. India’s northern boundary from the Sino-India-Afghanistan tri-junction to the Sino-India-Nepal tri-junction on the maps remained marked with the legend ‘Boundary Undefined’ till 1954. No serious attempt was made to establish administrative authority or place military boots on the ground in this area.

On July 1, 1954, Nehru ordered, “All old maps dealing with the frontier should be… withdrawn… new maps should not state there is any undemarcated territory… this frontier should be considered a firm and definite one which is not open to discussion with anybody.” By then, China had placed its military boots in Tibet and Aksai Chin and started the construction of a strategic road connecting Tibet to Xinjiang (China National Highway 219). Construction of this strategic road, started in 1951 but not noticed by India till 1955, was completed in 1957. It was seen in the Chinese maps published in 1958.

Nehru tried to justify the loss of Aksai Chin by calling it ‘a desolate area where not a blade of grass grows’. Nevertheless, it became one of the triggers for the Sino-Indian war of 1962.

Soon after the war, China began Xinjiang boundary negotiations with Pakistan. This was a period when both China and Pakistan were upset over the post 1962 war US military assistance to India. They signed the Sino-Pakistan Border Agreement in 1963 in which Pakistan ceded Shaqsgam Valley of the Northern Areas (J&K territory, under occupation of Pakistan) to China. This agreement described the eastern termination of the Sino-Pakistan boundary at Karakoram Pass. Pakistan promptly delineated NJ 9842 on the Soltoro Range towards the North East to Karakoram Pass, ignoring “thence north to the glaciers” statement of the 1948 Karachi Agreement between India and Pakistan. The result: Karakoram Pass, till then on the boundary between India and China, now had a third party access and claimant.

China maintained a studied silence over the Pakistani cartographic manipulation. It continued to show the area north of Karakoram Pass as being under China. Meanwhile, Pakistan and China started building the Karakoram Highway, linking Xinjiang to Pakistan through the northern areas.

Pakistan’s cartographic manipulation was followed up in international mountaineering journals and Western atlases. It started sending civil and military mountaineering expeditions to the mountain peaks and glaciers in this area.

It would be noted that the Chinese were willing to negotiate and settle the boundary issue of J&K (west of Karakoram Pass) with Pakistan. But they have refused to discuss that boundary with India on the ground of its being ‘disputed’. That ‘dispute’ did not come in the way of their negotiations with Pakistan.

In April 1984, India reacted to these developments and intelligence reports about Pakistan Army plans to deploy troops in the Siachen glacier area by occupying the Soltoro Ridge (now called the Actual Ground Position Line or AGPL) to secure the glacier and the territory to its east. This deployment (a) dominates Pakistani positions in the valley west of Soltoro Ridge (b) blocks infiltration possibilities across the Soltoro Ridge passes into Ladakh (c) prevents Pakistani military adventurism in Turtuk and areas to its south. Its northernmost position at Indira Col overlooks the Shaqsgam Valley, illegally ceded by Pakistan to China, and denies Pakistani access to Karakoram Pass and beyond that to Aksai Chin.

In 1987, China and Pakistan signed the protocol to formalise the demarcation of their boundary. Its termination at Karakoram Pass and Pakistani recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin clearly indicated an understanding between them. In the late 1980s, China started assisting Pakistan on the development of nuclear weapons, long-range missiles and in large-scale sale of conventional weapons and equipment.

In 1997, China agreed to send its military commander opposite Ladakh to meet his India counterpart in Leh as a confidence-building measure. Near the date, it was proposed that the meeting be held in New Delhi instead of Leh. It had to be called off. After the Kargil war, military attaches from all countries except Pakistan were invited for a conducted tour of the battle zone. The Chinese attaché declined that invitation.

Three years ago, China started issuing “stapled visas” to visitors from J&K, thus bringing into question its status as part of India. It refused a visa to the GOC-in-C, Northern Command, who was to make an official visit to China as a part of ongoing military-level exchanges. It has now increased its civil and military presence in the northern areas, purportedly to improve infrastructure there. Among the infrastructure reconstruction projects to be given priority are those related to the repair and upgradation of the Karakoram Highway, which was damaged in 2009. China also plans to construct railway tracks and oil pipelines from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar port in Pakistan.

In December 2010, while addressing a joint session of the Pakistan parliament, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stated: “To cement and advance the all-weather strategic partnership of cooperation between China and Pakistan is our common strategic choice…The two neighbouring countries are brothers forever. China-Pakistan friendship is full of vigour and vitality, like a lush tree with deep roots and thick foliage. China-Pakistan relationship is strong and solid, like a rock standing firm despite the passage of time.”

Recently, India and Pakistan resumed talks over the Siachen glacier issue. As in the past, Pakistan refuses to authenticate the AGPL and the existing troops’ positions and demands the Indian troops’ withdrawal to the pre-1972 position i.e. to the east of the line joining NJ 9842 and Karakoram Pass. Pakistan had formally authenticated the line of control in 1949 and 1972 but has consistently refused this position. The strategic consequences of a deal without such a formal authentication are obvious. Besides, it will re-introduce China into the end game because of its illegal control over the Shaqsgam Valley.

Without formal authentication of the AGPL, how does one detect any future encroachment into this area? It must be stated categorically that no amount of existing technology can have fool-proof surveillance and capability to detect small-scale infiltration, which is sufficient to hold and defend a tactical feature in this terrain. Can India afford to forego the strategic significance of the Soltoro position due to the financial cost-benefit ratio analyses? Or because not a blade of grass grows in the area? (Then why put up the Indian flag at Gangotri in South Pole?) Can India trust Pakistan to the extent of foregoing formal authentication of the AGPL after what Gen Pervez Musharraf did across the formally delineated LoC in Kargil? Our negotiators must keep all these points in mind in their discussions with Pakistani counterparts.

In his latest book On China, Henry Kissinger states that China’s strategy generally exhibits three characteristics: meticulous analysis of long-term trends, careful study of tactical options and detached exploration of operational decisions”. He describes the Chinese style of dealing with strategic decisions as “thorough analysis, careful preparations, attention to psychological and political factors, quest for surprise, and rapid conclusion.” There is much that our political leaders and officials can learn from China’s strategic thinking.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110611/edit.htm#4

[ramana]

Paul, Here is info on the other target of the Great Game: Western Yunan

Pioneer:

Great Game in Burma Book Review

The book gives a fascinating account of how the India-China rivalry would shape international politics, particularly in Asia, and how Burma is all set to play a significant role in all this, writes Raghu Dayal

Where China Meets India: Burma and the new crossroads of Asia

Author: Thant Myint-U

Publisher: Faber and Faber
Price: Rs 699

Blending history and travelogue with personal reminiscences, author Thant Myint-U, grandson of former UN Secretary-General U Thant, recounts the strategic location of Burma, linking the most far-flung regions of China and India. In the 16th century, the two countries together formed half the world’s economy. Within a generation this could be the case again, the author says. No wonder, the land where the two countries meet — Burma — gains a pre-eminent position in today’s world.

Currently, China’s presence in Burma is all-pervasive. There was, however, a time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when, with Burma being firmly part of the Indian empire, India was expanding towards China, not the other way around. Burma guarded India’s eastern flank as a buffer against China as well as against the French, who were then moving up the Mekong river from Saigon. British India saw Tibet as part of its “sphere of influence” and western Yunnan as part of its expanding backyard, which is now an integral part of China.

For most of the past 2,000 years, it was India — not China — which enjoyed a close relationship with South-East Asia. The region was known to Indians as Suvarnabhumi, the ‘Land of Gold’. The overwhelming majority of people in Burma, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia profess Buddhism, and more than 90 per cent of people on the island of Bali in Indonesia are Hindu. Indian classics such as the Ramayana are still popular in South-East Asia.

In the early 20th century, as the author says, Burma enjoyed a higher standard of living than India. As its economy grew, there was a need for labour as well as entrepreneurial and professional skills — all of which came from India. By the 1920s, the influx from India turned Rangoon (now Yangoon) into an Indian city, with the Burmese reduced to a minority. But this world came crashing down; the aerial bombing of Rangoon had hundreds of thousands of Indians flee. The Indian population is now only a fraction of what it once was.

Today, the Chinese model is in the ascendancy in South-East Asia. Burma, too, is being drawn into the Chinese economic orbit. Over the past 20 years, China has emerged as the Burmese Government’s most reliable supporter. Beijing has provided hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military hardware, including planes and tanks, as well as crucial diplomatic protection at the United Nations and elsewhere. The Burmese economy is today tied more closely to China’s than at any other time in modern history.

China was once much worse off than Burma. In the 1930s, Burma’s per capita GDP was at least twice that of China’s. By the 1960s, China had caught up. Today, China’s per capita GDP is at least six-times greater.

There has been an unprecedented migration of ethnic Chinese into Burma. Of about a million strong population in Mandalay, at least a third are now the Chinese. Unrestrained China, “a plundering behemoth” as the author says, is ubiquitous in infrastructure projects, building roads and dams, cutting down teak forests, mining for jade, and selling its own consumer goods. By early 2010, construction had begun on the oil and gas pipelines that would connect China’s southwest across Burma to the Bay of Bengal. They would run from Mandalay past Ruili, first to Yunnan and then to the Guangxi autonomous region and the mega city of Chongqing. Like the huge hydroelectric projects on the Irrawaddy and Salween, these pipelines have a strategic dimension as well — a part of resolving what President Hu Jintao called ‘The Malacca Dilemma’ in 2003.

When the Sino-Burmese borders were first opened up in the late 1980s, the first sign of the new China was the flood of cheap Chinese goods into Burmese markets. By the late 1980s, hundreds of factories sprang up across the frontier, producing goods developed specifically for Burmese consumers. Then came the logging on a gargantuan scale. The forests of Burma’s north and east were mercilessly chopped down. In areas close to Burma more than 95 per cent of forest cover has been cut down over the past 30 years and much of the cleared land turned into rubber plantations. The jade mines of the Kachin Hills were another big attraction. Many endangered species — from snow leopards to rhinos — are hunted and shipped. Women, too, have become a commodity.

Initially, it was the US that became the Burmese military Government’s best friend abroad, providing military training and welcoming its then dictator, General Ne Win, to Washington. China would then call Burma’s generals “fascists” and actively plot the regime’s overthrow. Western sanctions pushed Burma’s ruling junta closer to Beijing and created an unusually privileged conditions for Chinese business.

The book gives a fascinating account of how the Sino-Indian rivalry would shape international politics, particularly in Asia, and how Burma is all set to play a key role in all this.

-The reviewer is Senior Fellow, Asian Institute of Transport Development

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 17, 2011
By Shahzad Chaudhry
What is America’s great game?: The Express Tribune (Pak)

Code: Select all

http://tribune.com.pk/story/275286/what-is-americas-great-game/

The trend manifested well in a recent trilateral interaction between China, India and Pakistan, when a seasoned Indian interlocutor cautioned China to “expect and accept a growing Indian presence around China; that Australia, Japan, South Korea, and India were now natural allies; and that India’s presence in Vietnam was as much a reality as was China’s in Tibet and Pakistan”. China was duly cautioned on an increasingly assertive Indian disposition around its borders and in her backyard.

Next is the ‘New Silk Road’ emblem touted famously now by Hillary Clinton and aimed at creating a Eurasian centre of gravity linking the energy and rare earth metals-rich Asian region to Europe in the west and Japan in the east. Compare this to a recent, albeit relatively weaker, attempt by Pakistan to re-enshrine the age-old Silk Road connecting China, Central Asia and the former India sub-continent (read Pakistan now) with the trading region of the Middle East. The latter is considered an effort by China to establish its influence through trade and presence in the former Silk Road region while the former is aimed at exactly the opposite-to sabotage any such effort.

Enter Afghanistan again as an important element of American geo-strategy. As long as strife — or better still controlled chaos — remains in the eastern regions of Afghanistan and the contiguous Khyber-Pahtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan, the Chinese Silk road is hardly ever going to see the light of the day in its fully envisioned dimensions. Gwadar may therefore never be linked through a destabilised Balochistan and a dislocated Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa with China’s west. This is when the third element of the Istanbul Conference shall find relevance. A conglomerate of fourteen nations with a main actor in India could fill in that role in Afghanistan after the US leaves. It will also add to India’s growing persona in the international community even if it is to fill in as a proxy. Some of these roles will include sustaining the post-US structure, keeping the Taliban or remnants of Al Qaeda out, and more likely keeping eastern Afghanistan and by implication western Pakistan active through deliberately incited strife. That notionally and geographically will keep China boxed along its Asian axis.

[svinayak]

Asia new great Game

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... great_game

Asia's New Great Game
China and India are both hungry for Burma's vast natural riches. But will Burma's people pay the price or can this Southeast Asian backwater finally enter the 21st century?

BY THANT MYINT-U | SEPTEMBER 12, 2011


When geography changes -- as when the Suez Canal joined Europe to the Indian Ocean, or when the railroads transformed the American West and the Russian East -- old patterns of contact disappear and new ones take hold, turning strangers into neighbors and transforming backwaters into zones of new strategic significance. Entire groups decline or vanish; others rise in importance.

Over these next few years, Asia's geography will see a fundamental reorientation, bringing China and India together as never before across what was once a vast and neglected frontier stretching over a thousand miles from Kolkata to the Yangtze River basin. And Burma, long seen in Western policy circles as little more than an intractable human rights conundrum, may soon sit astride one of the world's newest and most strategically significant crossroads. Mammoth infrastructure projects are taming a once inhospitable landscape. More importantly, Burma and adjacent areas, which had long acted as a barrier between the two ancient civilizations, are reaching demographic and environmental as well as political watersheds. Ancient barriers are being broken, and the map of Asia is being redone.

For millennia, India and China have been separated by near impenetrable jungle, deadly malaria, and fearsome animals, as well as the Himalayas and the high wastelands of the Tibetan plateau. They have taken shape as entirely distinct civilizations, strikingly dissimilar in race, language, and customs. To reach India from China or vice versa, monks, missionaries, traders, and diplomats had to travel by camel and horse thousands of miles across the oasis towns and deserts of Central Asia and Afghanistan, or by ship over the Bay of Bengal and then through the Strait of Malacca to the South China Sea.

But as global economic power shifts to the East, the configuration of the East is changing, too. The continent's last great frontier is disappearing, and Asia will soon be woven together as never before.

At the heart of the changes is Burma. Burma is not a small country; it is as big in size as France and Britain combined, but its population of 60 million is tiny compared with the 2.5 billion combined populations of its two massive neighbors. It is the missing link between China and India.

[brihaspati]

What was this author doing when the British interests pulled the puppet strings from behind in Burma-Myanmar?

[svinayak]

Bj, There is something here. Look for word which say - Buddhist majority state with Hindu influence
This is new image creation of Myanmar and social engineering

[svinayak]

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/09/11/indi ... reat-game/

Worried by an increasingly assertive China, India has ramped up investment in its Navy and Air Force. Will it be enough to protect its own backyard?



How China Plays the Great Game
Given India’s size and numerous disputed borders, it’s hardly surprising that the country’s army – the third largest in the world – has for decades been central to New Delhi’s military planning. But for the past five years India has also, belatedly, started to focus on strengthening its maritime and aerospace capabilities to counter potential challenges.

The figures speak for themselves. The Indian Defence Ministry spent more than 54,000 crore rupees ($11.6 billion) on capital acquisition for the Navy and the Air Force combined during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years. This compared with just 13,539 crore rupees on the Army over the same period, according to figures submitted to the country’s parliament.

The shift in spending shouldn’t, of course, be mistaken as a sign that the Army is diminishing in importance. But it does highlight India’s increasing willingness to broaden its horizons in preparation for a possible future contingency further afield.

The Indian Navy, a seasoned force with a solid track record, is quietly expanding for a larger role in military diplomacy and outreach. Indeed, its near-term plans suggest ambitions to become a three battle carrier group force by 2020.

While its most prestigious acquisition – the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which was renamed the INS Vikramaditya – is likely to be inducted into the fleet by March 2013 at the latest, the country is also readying an indigenously built carrier that will most likely join the service by 2015.

At present, India operates a single aircraft carrier, the INS Viraat – a British-vessel from the 1960s that is seeing an extended lease of life thanks to the Navy’s innovative engineers and planners. The INS Vikramaditya, currently at harbour and conducting sea trials in Russia, will therefore give India a much needed edge in its maritime capabilities, not least because it will come equipped with the latest MiG-29 K series of aircraft. Indian naval aviators are already hard at work training with the planes away from the ship.

Traditionally, the Indian navy has sourced most of its ships from the former Soviet Union, but over the past decade, defence planners have leaned hard on Indian shipbuilding yards to deliver a variety of warships for the Indian Navy. For example, two recently commissioned stealth ships – INS Shivalik and INS Satpura – have been designed and built by public sector firm Mazgaon Docks Limited. The order books of India’s oldest government-owned shipbuilders are chock full with orders from the Navy, which is eyeing four more such guided missile frigates over the next five years.

PRC was pushed into the great game in 1949 after WWII when the British found that they have lost the great advantage in Asia.

[svinayak]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=25160
The EURASIA CONTROL IS STILL THE PRIZE FOR THE WESTERN POWERS

The Elite, the ‘Great Game’ and World War III

by Prof. Mujahid Kamran

Global Research, June 7, 2011
New Dawn Special Issue 16

The control of the US, and of global politics, by the wealthiest families of the planet is exercised in a powerful, profound and clandestine manner. This control began in Europe and has a continuity that can be traced back to the time when the bankers discovered it was more profitable to give loans to governments than to needy individuals.

These banking families and their subservient beneficiaries have come to own most major businesses over the two centuries during which they have secretly and increasingly organised themselves as controllers of governments worldwide and as arbiters of war and peace.

Unless we understand this we will be unable to understand the real reasons for the two world wars and the impending Third World War, a war that is almost certain to begin as a consequence of the US attempt to seize and control Central Asia. The only way out is for the US to back off – something the people of the US and the world want, but the elite does not.

The US is a country controlled through the privately owned Federal Reserve, which in turn is controlled by the handful of banking families that established it by deception in the first place.

In his interesting book The Secret Team, Col. Fletcher Prouty, briefing officer of the US President from 1955-63, narrates a remarkable incident in which Winston Churchill made a most revealing utterance during World War II: “On this particular night there had been a heavy raid on Rotterdam. He sat there, meditating, and then, as if to himself, he said, ‘Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing – this is total war.’ He continued sitting there, gazing at a large map, and then said, ‘Time and the Ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are’.”

Prouty further states: “This was a most memorable scene and a revelation of reality that is infrequent, at best. If for the great Winston Churchill, there is a ‘High Cabal’ that has made us what we are, our definition is complete. Who could know better than Churchill himself during the darkest days of World War II, that there exists, beyond doubt, an international High Cabal? This was true then. It is true today, especially in these times of the One World Order. This all-powerful group has remained superior because it had learned the value of anonymity.” This “High Cabal” is the “One World Cabal” of today, also called the elite by various writers.
The High Cabal and What They Control

The elite owns the media, banks, defence and oil industry. In his book Who’s Who of the Elite Robert Gaylon Ross Sr. states: “It is my opinion that they own the US military, NATO, the Secret Service, the CIA, the Supreme Court, and many of the lower courts. They appear to control, either directly or indirectly, most of the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies.”

The elite is intent on conquering the world through the use of the abilities of the people of the United States. It was as far back as 1774 that Amschel Mayer Rothschild stated at a gathering of the twelve richest men of Prussia in Frankfurt: “Wars should be directed so that the nations on both sides should be further in our debt.” He further enunciated at the same meeting: “Panics and financial depressions would ultimately result in World Government, a new order of one world government.”

The elite owns numerous “think tanks” that work for expanding, consolidating and perpetuating its hold on the globe. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and many other similar organisations are all funded by the elite and work for it. These think tanks publish journals, such as Foreign Affairs, in which these imperialist and anti-mankind ideas are edified as publications, and then, if need be, expanded in the form of books that are given wide publicity.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger et al, as well as the neo-con “thinkers,” owe their positions and good living standards to the largesse of the elite. This is an important point that must be kept in full view at all times. These thinkers and writers are on the payroll of the elite and work for them. In case someone has any doubts about such a statement, it might help to read the following quotes from Professor Peter Dale Scott’s comprehensively researched book The Road to 9/11 – Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (University of California Press, 2007):
...Bundy’s Harvard protégé Kissinger was named to be national security adviser after having chaired an important “study group” at the Council on Foreign Relations. As a former assistant to Nelson Rockefeller, Kissinger had been paid by Rockefeller to write a book on limited warfare for the CFR. He had also campaigned hard in Rockefeller’s losing campaign for the Presidential nomination in 1968. Thus Rockefeller and the CFR might have been excluded from control of the Republican Party, but not from the Republican White House. (Page 22)

The following quote from page 38 of the book is also very revealing:
The Kissinger-Rockefeller relationship was complex and certainly intense. As investigative reporter Jim Hougan wrote: “Kissinger, married to a former Rockefeller aide, owner of a Georgetown mansion whose purchase was enabled only by Rockefeller gifts and loans, was always a protégé of his patron Nelson Rockefeller, even when he wasn’t directly employed by him.”

Professor Scott adds:
Nixon’s and Kissinger’s arrival in the White House in 1969 coincided with David Rockefeller’s becoming CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. The Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy of detente was highly congruous with Rockefeller’s push to internationalise Chase Manhattan banking operations. Thus in 1973 Chase Manhattan became the first American bank to open an office in Moscow. A few months later, thanks to an invitation arranged by Kissinger, Rockefeller became the first US banker to talk with Chinese Communist leaders in Beijing.

[svinayak]

May 11, 2011
New 'Great Game' Limits America's Options in Pakistan
By James G. Wiles
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/ ... ricas.html

Here's an inconvenient truth for those conservatives demanding robust U.S. action against Pakistan. The Paks' double-dealing -- acting as a U.S. ally in the War with Jihad while simultaneously harboring Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, the governing shura (council) of the Afghanistan Taliban in Quetta and thousands of individual Talibs -- is indeed infuriating. It's also very much in Pakistan's interest.

Pakistan happens to live in a very tough neighborhood. Duplicity is the only way it survives: India to the east of them, Iran to the west of them, China and Russia to the north of them. And an angry America all over them.

Geography -- not the inconvenient truth, it's coming in a minute -- hasn't come up much in all the huffing-and-puffing on the blogs and the cable channels. But neither has the inconvenient truth.

Let's call it the 800-pound gorilla.

Cut off that $ 3.5 billion in aid! FoxNews' Bill O'Reilly told Karl Rove Monday night. Tell 'em we want Mullah Omar or else! They need us! The exchange, while heated, was highly unsatisfactory. Neither gentleman mentioned the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which drastically limits the U.S. ability to hammer Pakistan.

Instead, they talked all around it.

Certainly, Mr. Rove knows about the gorilla. And if Mr. O'Reilly reads the Wall Street Journal -- which, like FoxNews, is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation -- then he knows about it too. Without the gorilla, the whole discussion last night was stilted and artificial.

President Obama also knows about the 800-pound gorilla. And he didn't mention it on his 60 Minutes interview Sunday night. So nobody's talking straight.

Yes, Karl: Pakistan is nobody's push-over. It's a nation of 170 million people, densely populated.

Yes, Bill: Pakistan's playing a double game. Actually, it's playing a triple game, but we'll get to that. The Pakistani ambassador is indeed the perfect embodiment of the maxim that a diplomat is a gentleman who has been sent abroad to lie for his country.

Yes, Bill: Pakistan's political culture is weak and corrupt. Pakistan's been governed by the Army (which has taken power repeatedly in coups) longer than it has enjoyed civilian rule.

Yes, Karl: Pakistan is a nuclear state. They are the only Muslim nation to have the Bomb. They also have -- although their accuracy is not publicly known -- airborne and missile delivery systems.

Yes, Bill: Pakistan's leaders are -- with good reason -- paranoid about India. Since the 1948 partition of British India into Pakistan, Burma, and India, Pakistan has fought several wars with India. Pakistan lost every time.

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in what was East Pakistan -- Bengal -- becoming the independent nation of Bangladesh. They also don't like what the Indian Army is doing to the Muslim majority in Kashmir and Jammu.

Yes, Karl: as a result, Pakistani leaders want to control who governs in Kabul, so as to give Pakistan "strategic depth" against India.

We know all that. But none of those factors are what's limiting U.S. action against Pakistan. It's something else.

The problem is that the Paks have another major power courting them, which would love to become Pakistan's new BFF. And they haven't wasted time making their move -- in fact, the whole thing went down three weeks before we took out bin Laden.

The 800-pound gorilla is China. As reported on the April 27 front page of the Wall Street Journal, Pakistan's Prime Minister on April 16 told Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai in a face-to-face meeting in Kabul that he should send the Americans (and the Indians) packing. Make common cause, Prime Minister Gulani told Karzai, with us. China is our ally.

The Times of India is reporting that China is the only major power sticking up for Pakistan in its present embarrassment.

In other words: it's the Great Game again. China's now playing the role once played in the 19th and early 20th century by Imperial Russia, and from 1979-1991 by the Soviet Union. China wants a major naval base on the Indian Ocean. Pakistan is what they have in mind.

As Robert Kaplan details in Monsoon: the Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power (2010), China and Pakistan several years ago signed a joint venture to build a deep-water port in a place called Gwadar. It's ideally situated for China's purposes. Gwadar is an old smuggling port in the rebellious Baluchistan province of Pakistan. It sits just east of Iran, on the Arabian Sea, not far from the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The deep-water port and a new, two-lane highway linking Gwadar to Pakistan's main port of Karachi have been completed. However, the Paks -- double-dealing again! -- have leased the port to Singapore.

Was Pakistan's welshing on its deal with China the result of U.S. influence? Occam's Razor and the principle of cui bono both say yes. Certainly, it benefited us.

Reportedly, China now has a listening post in Gwadar. However, a reporter for the Guardian who visited Gwadar last month wasn't able to get close enough to see what's really going on there. Of course, the CIA's spy satellites are following every detail.

Robert Kaplan says that the Chinese would eventually like to have a modern highway connecting Gwadar to the Karakorum Road, which runs all the way to China. By being able to bring oil from the Gulf to China over this highway (or perhaps eventually by pipeline), the Chinese can greatly shorten (and protect) their energy supply. A Chinese carrier battle group operating out of Gwadar would also upend the current strategic balance in the Indian Ocean, while giving Pakistan protection against India.

Chinese admirals freely admit they've read Admiral Mahan. China has not had a blue-water navy since the 15th century. They're building one now.

If an offer from Beijing to replace the U.S. as the source to Pakistan for that famous $3.5 billion in military aid, plus major construction projects and investments and perhaps even a mutual defense treaty isn't already sitting on Prime Minister Gilani's desk, he was certainly ill-advised to make the statements he did to the Afghan President. Since Gilani's wife, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated (probably by Talibs) while she was running for prime minister, I don't think Gilani's doing anything rash at all.

The bazaar is open for business and everything is for sale.

The Paks can tell us to go straight to hell. And if we push too hard, the Chinese get in. Better, therefore, to use the Paks' "embarrassment" to leverage our position in Islamabad, strengthen the hand of those elements of the Pakistani government and military which are friendly to the United States. Pass a little money around. Take out a few people in the shadows. Use those Predators.

And -- most important -- continue to keep China and its growing navy out of the Indian Ocean and away from the Persian Gulf.
on "New 'Great Game' Limits America's Options in Pakistan"

[svinayak]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... great-game

Gwadar: Pakistan's new Great Game
The dream of making the port of Gwadar an economic hub has been destroyed by a superpower struggle for influence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... great-game

Rina Saeed Khan
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 April 2011 06.00 EDT

Gwadar may eventually be connected with the Karakoram highway that runs between Islamabad and China. Photograph: David Samuel Robb/Corbis
Miles away from the war on terror being fought in Pakistan's north on the border with Afghanistan is another insurgency whose hub is the port city of Gwadar, located near Iran on the Makran coast. Unlike the battle against the Taliban, this uprising receives little international attention, although it is set against the backdrop of competing superpower interests, reminiscent of the Great Game when Russia and the British empire fought for control over this region.

Eight years ago, the dream was for the small fishing port of Gwadar in Pakistan's Balochistan province to be transformed into a duty-free port and a free economic zone. The hope was that Gwadar would become a regional hub of shipping, commercial and industrial activities, providing a link between Pakistan and the vast oil and gas reserves of central Asia.

A real estate frenzy followed as land was bought from locals at exorbitant prices. Billboards proclaiming future housing estates and resorts were put up overnight and work began on the port with Chinese help. A two-lane highway linking Gwadar with Karachi was completed in record time. Today, the port has been finished and is ready for ships but Gwadar looks more like a ghost town than a gold-rush town. Empty plots of land still await the buildings that were promised but never built. Oddly enough, instead of handing the port over to the Chinese government, it was leased out to the Singapore government three years ago. It is only used at half its capacity and the cranes are already getting rusty from lack of use.

Located near an important shipping lane, the deep seaport was built by the China Harbour Engineering Company Group. The Chinese government invested heavily in this project, up to $200m some say, so that landlocked western China could benefit from access to the sea. As an emerging superpower hungry for energy, China needs access to the oil and gas rich Central Asian states. The Chinese have also been keen to assist Pakistan in building other roads to acquire a 3,500km link between Kashgar (near the border with Pakistan) and Gwadar.

They are currently helping the Pakistan government to widen the Karakoram highway that connects Islamabad to China through Pakistan's high mountain ranges. It appears that there is a long-term plan to eventually connect the Karakoram highway with Gwadar. This is upsetting the other emerging superpower of the region, India, who does not want China's security establishment to have safe passage to the Arabian Sea. The fear they have been articulating is that Gwadar might become a naval outpost for the Chinese.

The local people, who hoped to benefit from the construction of the port, are crushed by the disappointing turn of events. "We were expecting change to come," says Asghar Shah, a local resident who works for an NGO. "But it was a big let down – we are victims of the new Great Game." The government of Pakistan was allegedly pressured not to hand the port over to the Chinese. In fact, the Americans eye Gwadar as a potential military base, given the proximity of Iran. The locals are reluctant to criticise their government's handling of Gwadar, though. "People disappear in Gwadar – their bodies are found dumped in a remote area a few days or weeks later. No one knows who is behind it," says Asghar Shah, refusing to speculate further.

There is a more immediate problem at present. The Baloch nationalists are opposed to any development in Gwadar because they say these mega projects will marginalise the local Baloch population. Balochistan's development record is dismal. Covering nearly 350,000 square kilometres, it is by far the largest province in the country but houses less than 7% of Pakistan's population. The basic quality of life indicators are abysmal. On-tap drinking water is available to less than 5% of the population. The female literacy rate is under 15%.

The Baloch people are demanding more autonomy for the province. For decades, Pakistan's Balochistan province has been the scene of sporadic clashes between government troops and guerrillas who are fighting for autonomy. In the past few years, the rebels have again stepped up their attacks. Government troops and installations across the province have come under rocket attack and bombings, especially Gwadar town. Last month, seven army personnel and three labourers building a road near the Iranian border were killed by unidentified gunmen. The Baloch nationalists fear that if Gwadar grows into a modern city, the Baloch people will become a minority in their own province. No one is quite sure who is funding them, but there are rumours that they get support from India.

Gwadar is today a deserted town where outsiders are looked upon with suspicion. Most of the educated young people have moved out to look for jobs in the other big towns and cities of Pakistan. The new and luxurious Pearl Continental Hotel built on a cliff overlooking the port and the town below is empty – it has been closed down for "renovations". The road leading to the small airport outside the town is heavily guarded by security forces. There are no tourists now – most have been scared off by the attacks. Foreigners do not dare to venture here either.

For centuries, Gwadar has also been a smuggler's paradise – it was once infamous for its human trafficking in slaves and it is still a place where illegal immigrants are smuggled into the Middle East and beyond. The idea had been to capitalise on its location, but the dream of Gwadar remains just that. Pakistan's strategic location as a gateway to the oil and gas riches of central Asia means that it will remain a battleground for competing interests for the foreseeable future. The Great Game continues well into the 21st century.

[svinayak]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/MC05Ag01.html

Historical backlog
A lot of history needs to be digested if this thesis is to be fully grasped, and it all goes back to the heyday of the Chinese revolution of 1949 and the indomitable political skills of Joseph Stalin as a manipulator par excellence, China's blundering into the Korean war (incited by Stalin) and the premature death of the great prospects of a US-China alliance in 1950 (which both Washington and Beijing keenly desired and Stalin dreaded).

Now, Pilko writes:
The current strategic status quo in the Pacific Region is not at all suited to China's national interests, deriving its of free access to the ocean and placing its military activity essentially under US control ... [Taiwan's] unification with mainland China will give Beijing free and uncontrollable access to the Pacific Ocean ... In this respect, a vital ingredient in resolving the Taiwan issue is the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, as it would give China a chance to enter into a major geopolitical deal with the US ... Therefore, North Korea is an ideal bargaining chip in China's talks with the US.
Beijing could even approve the introduction of harsh sanctions against North Korea or maintain neutrality during any punitive military operations against it, provided the US agrees to China's unification with Taiwan which could, for example, follow the Hong Kong scenario ... this kind of "exchange" could well be the only possible option for the US. It cannot allow an all-out war to erupt in Korea.

True, if Pyongyang continues with its nuclear program at the current tempo, it is a matter of time before Japan and South Korea follow suit, which, of course, changes the Asia-Pacific security scenario dramatically and heavily damages the US' regional influence and its capacity to play a leadership role.

Nor is Beijing mighty thrilled with North Korea's archaic and unviable regime and its strange ways. In fact, China disfavors North Korea's efforts to build nuclear bombs. Therefore, Russian thinking is that a 'geopolitical exchange' of Taiwan for North Korea would be seen in both Washington and Beijing at some point as a mutually beneficial trade-off that allows the US to resolve the North Korean problem while at the same time creating solid and lasting foundations for the development of constructive US-Chinese relations.

In short, such a scenario harks back to the pre-Korean War geopolitics when both communist China and the US desired a new relationship between the two great powers.

There is much angst in the Russian mind about a possible US-China concord becoming the dominant theme of the East Asian geopolitical stage. Russian commentators are putting a brave face on it and are insisting that Moscow would welcome such a concord as in its own interests.

But one can never quite tell the Russian thought processes in this direction. All that can be said with some degree of certainty is that if the strategic dialogue in the Asia-Pacific takes a new turn and the rules of the game do change, then realpolitik demands that Russia places itself in advance to take advantage of the new realities rather than be caught napping, or at the very least, to cut its losses.

The Russian angst cannot be dismissed lightly. Last week Moscow unveiled a $650 billion rearmament plan through 2020, which includes adding 20 submarines including eight nuclear submarines and more than 600 warplanes, 100 new ships and 1,000 additional helicopters.

"The main task is the modernization of our armed forces ... We are not interested in purchasing any foreign weapons or military equipment," Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said. The new strategy specifically aims at regaining naval capabilities of the Soviet era and creating next-generation anti-missile defenses to replace the S-300 system.

In the post-Cold War years, the locus of Russian strategic capability continued to stay put in the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's expansion and the US's containment policies left Russia with hardly any alternative. Meanwhile, Russian capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region progressively got degraded - and that too, when other countries like China and Japan and South Korea began surging militarily, Russia began lagging behind.

Thanks to Medvedev's "reset" policies with US President Barack Obama and particularly the proximity over the missile defense issue, Moscow has gained the respite and a possible window of opportunity to turn attention to its vulnerable east. Indeed, China is taking note, too. A recent commentary in the Global Times summed up: "Russia's actions, from Medvedev's visit to the [Kuril] islands to the current plans for rearmament show that the nation's strategic purpose is to rebuild its strategic position in the Asia-Pacific."

It then added somewhat ominously: "If Russia enhances its naval and air abilities in the Southern Kuril islands, and expands its Pacific fleet to strengthen the ability to launch marine attacks, the military forces in the islands will be capable of working in concert with military bass in Vladivostock and the Kamchatka Peninsula. This will certainly affect the security of neighboring countries, and even intensify the potential arms race in Northeast Asia."

Welcome to the new great game in the faraway lands where the sun rises.

[brihaspati]

Bj, There is something here. Look for word which say - Buddhist majority state with Hindu influence
This is new image creation of Myanmar and social engineering

Highlighting that in the current milieu is like the proverbial waving of the red flag before the enraged bull. Not at all comfortable with the tone of Hindi-chini bhai bhai that is supposed to be inevitable across the to-be-non-existent-borders from Kolkata to Yangtze.

Burma rejected its Indian past under guidance from the Brits, changed sides opportunistically in the last leg of the war, and then played games with the communist movement and leaning over backwards towards China.

Sorry, China and any of its hoping to be satellites are unfinished business for us. There will be no common borders between India and China, unless Tibet dissolves its sovereignty and decides to join the Indian union.

[svinayak]

My question is - Is PRC handling its foreign policy or is there another power behind Chinese foreign policy plans wrt sub continent

[Klaus]

Is there a likelihood that PRC will accept Indian transit routes from Mizoram to the Gulf of Siam in exchange for IN keeping out of the Indo-China sea?

Such a quid pro-pro still does not sort out their involvement in the Northern Areas, POK, Tibet and Isthmus of Kra. And why do we keep hearing opposing PoV's about Gwadar quite often these days?

[abhischekcc]

Klaus, simple answer - no.

Right now, China is in a huge state of hubris - just like Germany before the start of WW1.

They will not take no for an answer.

[RajeshA]

My question is - Is PRC handling its foreign policy or is there another power behind Chinese foreign policy plans wrt sub continent

Acharya garu,

at one level it is pertinent, what you ask, and at another level it is immaterial.

It is pertinent because it enables us to understand whom we can influence, how we can influence, who would be a partner in our pursuit of strategic interests and who would be a hindrance.

At the same time it is also immaterial, because if we think, that we have to effect a paradigm change in the geography and influences around us, and basically we have to do this alone, then it is clear that we will face resistance, from some place or another, and we will have to overcome that resistance through our own strength. In this view, we keep only our aim in mind and work towards it, regardless of how the rest of the universe is arranged.

The aim is clear: Dharmic dominance over the geographical regions defined by British India, Southeast Asia, Tibet,
Iranian region and Indian Ocean Rim.

[svinayak]

At the same time it is also immaterial, because if we think, that we have to effect a paradigm change in the geography and influences around us, and basically we have to do this alone, then it is clear that we will face resistance, from some place or another, and we will have to overcome that resistance through our own strength. In this view, we keep only our aim in mind and work towards it, regardless of how the rest of the universe is arranged.

The aim is clear: Dharmic dominance over the geographical regions defined by British India, Southeast Asia, Tibet,
Iranian region and Indian Ocean Rim.

India will have to do all things by itself. China is the country which India can influence the most in the long run.
India has to make geo graphy immaterial in the relationship with Chinese nation.

[abhischekcc]

India will have to do all things by itself. China is the country which India can influence the most in the long run.

How is this?!

[abhischekcc]

My question is - Is PRC handling its foreign policy or is there another power behind Chinese foreign policy plans wrt sub continent

The same question could be asked for India as well.

Could the recent aggresive moves by India be part of a grand western strategy to make India and China butt heads?

[svinayak]

Indian interest is supreme and we need to find out about all other countries.
Totalitarian countries lose their face quite easily

[svinayak]

India will have to do all things by itself. China is the country which India can influence the most in the long run.

How is this?!

This is long story and will be for some other time

[devesh]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 334895.cms

OVL gets 25% in Kazakh field

Flagship explorer ONGC's overseas investment arm, ONGC Videsh , on Wednesday sealed the deal to take a 25% stake in Kazakhstan's Satpayev acreage in the Caspian Sea, marking India's first firm foothold in the hydrocarbons-rich Central Asia.

The company also signed an agreement with Vietnam's national oil company PetroVietnam to hunt for oil in that nation as well as in third countries. The deal was signed here by OVL MD D K Sarraf and Petro-Vietnam chairman Phung Dinh Thuc as part of Vietnam president Truong Tan Sang's visit here.

OVL's agreement with the Kazakh government for amending the contract formally makes it a stakeholder in the concession. It had on April 16 signed joint operating and assignment agreements with Kazakhstan's KazMunaiGas Exploration Production for the stake. OVL has an option to raise its stake by a further 10% in case of a commercial discovery.


The agreement was signed by ONGC Videsh director (exploration) Joeman Thomas during the ongoing Indo-Kazakh Joint Council meeting in the Kazakh capital Astana. Minister of state for petroleum R P N Singh is leading the Indian delegation. OVL paid $13 million as a signing amount to Kazakhstan. In addition, it will pay $80 million as a one-time assignment fee to KazMunaiGas.

what to do? we want to stay where we are. but we are forced to go out b/c of energy needs. but that is not enough.....we need to be able to "secure" them and ensure guaranteed gas supplies under any circumstances. to do that, we have no option but to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses from Caspian to Pak and strengthen the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses.

the necessity to secure energy is inexorably pushing India to look outward. to go out and make a space for itself. the Indo-Afghan pact is the first step in that direction.

[SSridhar]

what to do? we want to stay where we are. but we are forced to go out b/c of energy needs. but that is not enough.....we need to be able to "secure" them and ensure guaranteed gas supplies under any circumstances. to do that, we have no option but to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses from Caspian to Pak and strengthen the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses.

the necessity to secure energy is inexorably pushing India to look outward. to go out and make a space for itself. the Indo-Afghan pact is the first step in that direction.

A very astute observation, devesh. Compulsions way beyond our control are making us take decisions which we might otherwise have not taken.

[devesh]

SSridhar ji,
India has been "inward" for a long time, and even now our first instinct is "inward" development. but the NEED to secure energy supplies is forcing us. I don't see any grand chankyan "forward thinking" here. it is simple necessity that is forcing us. we have been dealt a hand. we have no choice but to expand our options based on the constraints imposed on us. eventually, a day will come when we will get the opportunity to "change the rules" of the game, so to speak. until then, we have to be in expansion mode and create as much favorable space as possible for the future when we will write the rules.

[svinayak]

http://maritimesecurity.asia/free-2/mar ... an-region/

india-pillar-of-stability-in-indian-ocean-region

Washington: Observing that Washington sees New Delhi as a pillar of stability and prosperity in the Indian Ocean and beyond, a top American official on Wednesday said the Obama administration visualizes great promise in bringing China, India and the US together.

“We see great promise in bringing China, India and the United States even closer together, in formal capacities,” Robert Blake, the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia said.

Speaking on, “Looking Ahead: US -India Strategic Relations and the Transpacific Century” at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, he said “harmony in the Asia-Pacific region will ensure that the US, India, and China will guide the world towards a golden age of safety, prosperity, and innovation a vision that is welcome news to the region and the world”.

Blake argued that increased dialogue is key. Noting that as the centre of geopolitics moves toward Asia and India plays a critical role in US strategy, Blake said Washington sees India as a pillar of stability and prosperity in the Indian Ocean and beyond. He said India has long been a maritime power in Asia in its own right and only India itself can charter a path to navigate the geopolitical currents unfolding before us.

“But we believe that India can leverage its democratic traditions, strong cultural influence, people-to-people ties, and booming economy, to help ensure the Asia of the 21st century is one defined by open markets, open societies, and open governments,” Blake underlined.

In fact US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said “if we want to address, manage, or solve some of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, India, China, and the United States will have to coordinate our efforts.

“Twenty first century global peace and security may well be defined by the level of harmony achieved by these three great powers,” he said.

The Assistant Secretary of State made it clear that just as global trade and commerce was made secure by the Royal Navy in 19th century, and by the American Navy in the 20th century, “perhaps it will be the cooperation of the American, Indian, and Chinese navies that ensure global commercial routes are protected and enhanced”.

It is for this very reason that eliminating the scourge of piracy could be a natural way for the United States, India, and China to cooperate at sea, Blake said.

[svinayak]

http://www.newsreporter.in/india-should ... -australia

India should play greater role in Asia to ensure stability: Australia
July 28th, 2011J Abitha


Melbourne, Jul 28 : Australia wants India to play a greater role in Asia to ensure stability, the country’s Defence Minister has said, labelling New Delhi as a positive force in the region, where China’s military build-up is causing concern.

“It is in all our interests that India plays the role it could and should as an emerging great power in the security and stability of the region,” Defence Minister Stephen Smith said, echoing similar appeal made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently.

He said, “Our region needs to look west, as well as east.” The minister who spoke on security in the Asia-Pacific region, said Canberra sought co-operation with Beijing, but devoted much of his speech to dwell on rising India, AAP reported.

Calling India as the largest democracy in the world, he said, New Delhi’s role and significance could not be under-appreciated.

“India is the largest democracy in the world. As India assumes the mantle of global influence accorded to it by its democratic status, economic size and strength, its strategic weight in the world is naturally increasing,” Smith said.

PTI

[svinayak]

'US considers India as an anchor of stability in Asia'
Posted: Tue Mar 15 2011, 09:15 hrs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-co ... a/762624/2


For the US, India is not only an ally in shaping emergence of a peaceful and cooperative China but also an anchor of stability in the region stretching from the Suez Canal to the straits of Malacca, a noted Indian American scholar has said.

"What is new in this relationship is their growing partnership in delivering the common good, ensuring safety of sea lanes and trade routes, participating in peace keeping operations and rescue missions following natural disasters or civil wars," said Dr. Maya Chadda, professor of political science at William Paterson University of New Jersey.

Speaking at a function organized by the Connecticut Chapter of the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO-CT), Chadda, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, said India's expanding ties with the US as a reflection of the emerging world order and shifting balance of power from west to east.

"What is new in this relationship is their growing partnership in delivering the common good, ensuring safety of sea lanes and trade routes, participating in peace keeping operations and rescue missions following natural disasters or civil wars," Chadda added.

On its own, India had provided the common good by forging a transnational bloc of non-aligned nations and legitimizing liberation of countries emerging from the colonial yoke but in the post-Cold war era, India is fashioning a new role for itself alongside the US: as a conventional power with the full complement of military and economic strength to maintain stability and the global common goods, the scholar said.