I was so excited about the article because it looks at that perspective as well as America's Guidelines.....vsudhir wrote:The following passage is ostensibly from Sun Tzu's classic The Art of War. Helps explain much of PRC actions w.r.t. India and others thus far.
How Will China's Ascendancy Affect Other Asian Nations?
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 61019.html
The global power balance is shifting rapidly. China, a country once so poverty-stricken and the subject of scorn due to the country's backwardness, is also emerging as a world power to the degree that its media uses the term "G2." The term means that the United States and China are currently the two foremost world powers. It also connotes that although 20 world leaders are gathering in London to combat the global economic crisis, everything depends solely on what China and the U.S. do.
Is it a stretch to use the term G2? It may be not when we examine the words exchanged between Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama during their first summit, which took place at the U.S. Embassy in London on Wednesday afternoon. Obama said the U.S. and China have the most important bilateral relationship in the world, and that China is a major power developing as the world watches. The U.S. president added that the two countries not only hold close economic ties, but they also share common interests in international issues and regional conflicts. Hu went even further in his response. The Chinese leader said China-U.S. relations stand at a new starting point and that both sides should ensure their ties become more active and comprehensive, in order to build the 21st century together.
Comparing the G2 concept with the words exchanged by the two leaders, it becomes clear that the implications of the term are not a stretch. What’s more important is the fact that G2 is not a term created by Chinese seeking to exaggerate their power. The term was actually coined by World Bank President Robert Zoellick in a column he wrote for the Washington Post last month. "These two economic powerhouses must cooperate and become the engine for the Group of 20," Zoellick wrote. "Without a strong G2, the G20 will disappoint," he added.
Chinese media have begun referring to the U.S.-China summit in London as a "Hu-O" meeting, using the first letters of the names of both leaders. They may continue to use that term to refer to future summits with Obama, and it may eventually replace the term G2. A high-ranking official at the Chinese Communist Party said we now live in a world where the United States and Europe are scrutinizing how much money China will contribute to the International Monetary Fund. In other words, the official was saying that Europe's financial clout has diminished.
Michael Green, special assistant to former president George W. Bush for Asian affairs, is worried that China's ascendancy is not necessarily healthy for other Asian countries. Green even said that China, perched on top of the hill, would look down on other countries that come to pay tribute. The term G2 implies that China must play an important role in resolving the global financial crisis, but as China's voice gets stronger, the voices of its Asian neighbors may become increasingly muffled.
We need to take a good look at whether the U.S. government paid more attention to our input or to Chinese opinion when it came to formulating its stance on North Korea's looming missile launch. Washington, which vowed to shoot down the missile, suddenly reversed its stance by saying it has no plans to do so, adding that the launch will most likely involve a satellite. We need to question the possibility that China may have played a role in Washington's shift in stance. If China's voice on the international stage becomes equal to that of the United States, then our voice will inevitably shrink. This is something we need to think about.
By Park Sung-joon from the Chosun Ilbo's News Desk
englishnews@chosun.com / Apr. 03, 2009 11:36 KST
Whatever happened to "Two tigers cannot live on the same mountain" ?is also emerging as a world power to the degree that its media uses the term "G2."
Exigencies explain it all quite well.Gerard wrote:Whatever happened to "Two tigers cannot live on the same mountain" ?is also emerging as a world power to the degree that its media uses the term "G2."
Or is China the Tigress? Or an overgrown feral house cat?
Practice looking cross-eyed so they don't know where you are looking
Eventually you will control your bowel movements.
Sino-Indian cooperation on such issues has, however, been overshadowed by some disturbing policies adopted by China in recent days. Quite evidently bolstered by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's comments that US-China relations are the most important bilateral relationship in the 21st century and by a realisation that the US needs its cooperation to revive its crisis-ridden economy, China has become more assertive in recent days in flexing its muscles across the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. It has overridden the concerns of its neighbours on its territorial claims in the South China Seas by extending its maritime boundaries with Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines unilaterally.
This has been combined with a continuing barrage against India, not only denigrating India's economic development and its approach to neighbours like Pakistan, but also issuing not too thinly veiled warnings about its territorial claims to Arunachal Pradesh, which it refers to as "Southern Tibet".
But both our service officers and defence scientists would be well-advised to remember that mature nations do not speak strongly or publicly about military deployments on disputed borders. Statements and leaks to the press about troop and air power deployments in Arunachal, or about development of China-specific Agni 3 and Agni 5 missiles, are uncalled for and appear to forget the old adage that actions speak louder than words. There are areas where we can and should cooperate with China on the global stage. At the same time, proactive diplomacy can deal with the strategic challenges that China poses in our Indian Ocean neighbourhood.
Er, well, I wouldn't get all triumphalist just yet. Dilli door ast.China's angry because it selfishl wants to rise alone. It hates India-China comparison. Well sorry CCP lurkers. We're in he game. And will beat you. Nice and easy.
China and India will likely defy the economic malaise in Western economies and grow at more than 7% this year. But that is where the comparison should end. Contrary to popular hype, India is actually outpacing China where it counts most -- the economic growth of the rural poor.
Half of China's population and two-thirds of India's still live in rural areas -- roughly 700 million people in each country, most of whom remain poor. In China, the urban-rural income ratio has become increasingly disparate; it was 1.8 times more in the mid-1980s, 2.4 in the mid-1990s, 2.9 in 2001 and now around 3.5.
This trend starkly contrasts with the early years of Chinese economic reform. Over 80% of the poverty reduction in China occurred during Deng Xiaoping's reforms, between 1978 and 1988. Although per-capita incomes have risen since then, the net incomes of about 400 million people have declined over the past decade.
India started from a lower economic base but has made greater gains: Its urban-rural income gap has slowly but steadily declined since the early 1990s. Over the past decade, economic growth in rural India has outpaced growth in urban areas by almost 40%. Rural India now accounts for half of the country's GDP, up from 46% in 1993. Unlike the Chinese, rural Indians do not have to migrate to already crowded urban areas to earn a better living.
These trends mirror the path of economic reform in both nations. China had a huge head start in alleviating poverty. It began free-market reforms in 1978, while India only started on its current journey away from socialism toward a market-based system in the early 1990s. Since the turn of the century, India has been rapidly improving, but China has been getting worse. And since 2000, poverty and illiteracy in India have halved, while the same figures doubled in China. Now is this true? Have been hearing that Chinese poverty levels have always been going down
The role of domestic consumption in the economy also demonstrates the divergent paths of these two developing giants. In China, domestic consumption as a proportion of GDP has fallen to 35% from around 60% in the 1980s. The Chinese "economic miracle" depends mostly on exports and state-led fixed investment. Even Beijing consistently admits this is an unbalanced, unsustainable strategy. (when did that happen?) Moreover, depressed consumption levels and correspondingly high levels of savings by the citizens of a still-poor country mean growth is uneven and benefits relatively few. In contrast, domestic consumption composes more than two-thirds of the Indian economy. India has a lot of catching up to do, but its poor are rising with the tide, unlike in China.
China's emphasis on state-led fixed-investment growth in urban areas may have fostered this trend, exacerbating inequality and heavily favoring a relatively small number of well-placed insiders. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Beijing decided the state should reassert its control of economic growth, which had rested on private-sector entrepreneurship. Before Tiananmen, private-sector investment growth in rural China was growing at 20% annually. After Tiananmen, it dropped to 7%. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have since missed out on the fruits of the country's spectacular growth.
The Chinese and Indian development models are not actually in competition, despite what newspaper headlines and books may suggest. But as magnificent as Shanghai now is, its shiny buildings have been built on the backs of peasants forced to deposit their savings into state-owned banks and receiving little in return. In contrast, India started its reforms 15 years later than China but is quietly and gradually building its base. Now that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is starting his second term, he will do well to reject the dangerous appeal of the Chinese approach. Jai Ho MMS!
Mr. Lee is a foreign-policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington and the author of "Will China Fail?" (CIS, 2008).
I assume you wanted to be sarcastic. And I read the blog posted by you as well. I must say you are one of those pessimists around, who like to be called as 'realistic'.sanjaykumar wrote:Yes India will overtake China, India will lift the masses out of poverty, India will fix Pakistan, India will get a seat on the security council, India will fly a hypersonic TSTO mission, India will.......
Thanks for posting this, i was unable to download it.Ashoka wrote:Found this exciting article on WSJ & thought it was worth sharing. Looks like the Chinese juggernaut is not so much of an irresistable force.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124647192463381625.html
Sorry can't help you with either querykshirin wrote:Thanks for posting this, i was unable to download it.Ashoka wrote:Found this exciting article on WSJ & thought it was worth sharing. Looks like the Chinese juggernaut is not so much of an irresistable force.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124647192463381625.html
BTW where is the Russia-Pak defence relationship breakthrough being discussed on BRF? This is very sad...
I wonder if that is so.the socialist era of Indian regime was a wasted period
I beg to differ.Socialism did great damage to India by stiffling enterpreneaurship and innovation.RayC wrote:I wonder if that is so.the socialist era of Indian regime was a wasted period
It laid the foundation to the industrialisation and power growth in the country.
If we had gone the Pakistan's way, we would have been floundering.
We sowed and now we are reaping!
Entrepreneurship is not the sole index to success. While metros maybe showing ‘progress’, the large majority of the country i.e. the rural areas remain in the doldrums. For instance, the automobile industry of today is practically state of art. How does it in anyway help the farmer or the rural folks? One might say that they have the money to buy cars. True. But how have they achieved that wealth – through socialist policies of yore and even now. Today, we have state of the art hospitals in the private sector. It is what one would declare as progress. However, progress for who? How many Indians can afford these hospitals? Malls are crowded, but how many Indians can afford the price of Malls? Consumerism is not the sole index to progress and emancipation is what I believe, but then it need not be the same perception for many.darshhan wrote:
I beg to differ.Socialism did great damage to India by stiffling enterpreneaurship and innovation.
Rather than promote industrialisation it actually destroyed the industrial potential of India.India is still not an industrial powerhouse.Countries like Japan,South korea and Taiwan can be classified as industrial powers.Remember South Korea and Taiwan started at around the same time as India.Even the current high growth rates that are being managed by India is due to its Services sector which suffered from less socialist regulation.You can check the industrial output statistics of the asian countries.Last time I checked it India was behind even south east asian countries such as thailand.
In fact if we were such an industrial powerhouse why we would still be importing 70% of our defence requirements.
We are improving no doubt about it.But this improvement comes inspite of socialim rather than because of it.Also let us not forget that we really started growing economically only after 1991 when economy was opened and socialist policies were replaced.
Why are we even comparing with Pakistan.Pakistan is not exactly a country known for Free Enterprise and a vigorous Private sector.In fact it follows its own form of socialism where most of the country's economy is controlled directly or indirectly by Military instead of civilian govt.In fact there was a book written on it.I think it was named Military Inc or something like that.
Socialism only brings misery.You can look at the example of Air India.
ISRO is another example.Air India is an example of poor management. How about ONGC, SAIL, GAIL and others?
China riots: death toll from Xinjiang unrest rises
More than 100 people have been killed and 800 injured in a riot which broke out in the ethnically sensitive far-Western Chinese province of Xinjiang.
By Peter Foster in Beijing
Published: 6:58AM BST 06 Jul 2009
Riot in Urumqi: The disturbances come after a year of rising tensions between the dominant Han Chinese authorities and the Uighur ethnic minority Photo: REUTERS
The death-toll, which stands at 129, marks a major escalation in the casualty figures from the disturbance which broke out on Sunday night after police tried to disperse a demonstration by members of the Uighur Muslim minority in the provincial capital, Urumqi.
Initial reports said that just three people had been killed in running battles with police that left burned-out cars and buses and several smashed shop-fronts.
Related Articles
Uighur Muslims clash with police in China
Nearly 100 Tibetan monks arrested as riots break out
Xinhua, the state-operated news service, did not provide any further details as to the composition of the casualty-list between the Uighur minority and ethnic Han Chinese.
Hundreds of arrests had been made, including 10 "key figures" it said were involved in the unrest, while authorities were now looking for 90 others responsible for "fanning" the protests, the agency added.
Authorities said all traffic was cleared from the streets on Monday morning to retain order. Another witness said the city of 2.3 million which is 2,000 miles west Beijing residents was now effectively "on lockdown".
The disturbances come after a year of rising tensions between the dominant Han Chinese authorities and the Uighur ethnic minority - the historical ethnic majority in Xinjiang - who say they have been socially and economically marginalised by Beijing's development policies.
Officials said the riot began when Chinese police tried to break up a sit-in protest calling for an investigation into the deaths of two Uighurs during a fight between Uighur and Han workers at a toy factory in Guangdong province, Southern China last month.
The riot has echoes of clashes last March in the neighbouring province of Tibet where there are similar simmering ethnic tensions between the historic Buddhist population and Han Chinese who have migrated to the region in recent decades.
The Chinese government accused the exiled groups including the World Uighur Congress, of fomenting the violence, a claim which was adamantly denied.
"The violence is a pre-empted, organized violent crime. It is instigated and directed from abroad and carried out by outlaws in the country," said a statement carried by Xinhua.
However Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uighur Congress in exile in Sweden, blamed police heavy-handedness for the riot, saying the protests were peaceful until the authorities began to forcibly remove protestors from the city's main square.
"This anger has been growing for a long time. It began as a peaceful assembly. There were thousands of people shouting to stop ethnic discrimination, demanding an explanation ... They are tired of suffering in silence."
Adam Grode, an American Fulbright scholar studying in Urumqi, told the Associated Press that he heard explosions and also saw a few people being carried off on stretchers and a Han Chinese man with blood on his shirt entering a hospital.
He said police used tear gas, fire hoses and batons to suppress the riot as protesters knocked over police barriers and smashed bus windows.
"Every time the police showed some force, the people would jump the barriers and get back on the street. It was like a cat-and-mouse sort of game," added Mr Grode, 26.
Alim Seytoff, general secretary of the Uyghur American Association, based in Washington D.C., said police and officials were going through university dormitory rooms looking for students involved in the protest that gave way to the riot.
"Urumqi is a tightly controlled city, but the students have access to all sorts of information on the Internet," he said, "There will be a harsh crackdown, but the basic problems won't disappear."
This year marks the 60th anniversary of Chinese troops entering Xinjiang, an act which Beijing describes as a "peaceful liberation" that brought development and economic benefits to the historically poor region which is China's gateway to Central Asia.
Uighur groups however say they have been systematically edged out of society by the influx of Han Chinese that have moved into the region to exploit Xinjiang's oil, natural gas and agricultural resources as part of Beijing's "develop the West" policy.
Last year on the eve of the Beijing Olympics Uighur separatist groups attacked a Chinese police post killing 17 police, according to figures released by state media. Two men were executed for the attacks in the Silk Road city of Kashgar last April.
Beijing said that Uighur separatist groups were running terrorist cells in Xinjiang which have received training from Islamist militant groups in neighbouring Pakistan.
The Uighur issue returned to top of US-China relations last month after Washington refused to send four Uighur men released from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp back to China.
Despite Beijing's objections the men were relocated to Bermuda as U.S. officials have said they feared the men would be executed if they were returned to China. Officials are trying to transfer 13 other released Uighurs to the Pacific nation of Palau.
Just BTW, Taiwan - as the true China - ALSO claims Arunachal Pradesh.If China dares to talk about Arunachal Pradesh,then the whole issue of Tibetan sovereignity and Taiwanese independence will be opened afresh.