Managing Chinese Threat

[Hari Seldon]

There's a rumor going around (would be great to get either confirmation or denial from those in the know) that IPL 4 is set to feature not two but THREE new teams. The third one (after kochi and pune) is the (rumoredly) "Lhasa Lionhearts". Wow, the Lamas leaving their monkish bowls to bowl in the INDIAN premier league......Now who coulda node....... Only.

/Hey, don't blame me..... I'm neither trained for nor paid to propagandize, unlike cheeni lifafas on here. Only

[shiv]

Cross post from PoK thread

Shiv
You have been pointing to the practical difficulties in conquering our own land. You have been saying that with the same level of acceptable loss in lives and financial resources we can have much more significant territory. I got that point too.
What I fail to understand is if PRC does a 62 in 2020 and try grab Arunachal Pradesh, and much of North western states and Kashmir, How are we going to stop it?
This is strategic alignment of assault positions for future conquest. We are completely boxed in from Gujarat in west to Nagaland,Manipur,Mizoram Tripura..in the east by chinese client states. The only place to fight will be the Indian ocean. If PRC starts to attack using clients simultaneously from all these states without crossing the Nuclear threshold, can India hold on to its territory?
If PRC installs Anti ballistic Missiles all around our borders, what is our position?
These concerns must be addressed.
Altair

There can be so many different answers - but I believe you are right in speaking about "all concerns needing to be addressed". There is no shortcut.

At a fundamental level - if you represent India and you are being forced into a situation (by some external party) that tells you "We are going to break you up and gobble your territory" what choice do you have?

Either you suffer being broken up, or make the other party feel pain no matter what happens to you.

This is where nuclear weapons come in. This is where the boiling frog analogy makes me laugh. if you gradually heat up the water the frog will just jump out of the water. If the frog is unwilling to jump then it is as good as dead. If India is forced into the situation that you foresee - I am totally unable to see what dilemma anyone can have in his mind. Isn't the route perfectly clear? Use your nukes or lose them.

What would bother you about this option? Is it that you lose either way? Or would you prefer that it did not get to this stage at all. But you have no choice. You are presented with a fait accompli. A situation in which you lose if you don't use nukes and you lose even if you do. The only difference is that you inflict pain on the other guy before going down and impose a heavy cost on him. I do not want to get into yield arguments now.

If you don't want this the only choices you have are to try to talk sense into the other party by diplomacy while being ready to defeat him in a conventional war, leaving in the background the threat that you will use your nukes before you lose a war. The presence or absence of anti-ballistic missiles, their efficacy, force levels and your capability are technical details that are OT even for this thread.

And once again - let me reiterate - if any small nations around India fall into the China orbit - those natons will need to be threatened and/or punished. But always, diplomacy comes first.

[Altair]

After considerable thought I have concluded that the best way to go about this situation is two pronged approach.
1. Invest in multi billion dollar projects in Nepal, Bangladesh,Myanmar,Sri Lanka.
2. Get a leverage in the political establishment. If they oblige to Indian presence in every sphere of their country,Its fine we get to kick the dragon's ass. If they dont, destabilize the government. Use media or influence opposition to wreck the country.
The struggle with PRC must be fought well outside our boundaries.These countries must pay the price if they are willing to play ball to panda.
It is time we turn the small time states against panda. It can be accomplished with effective diplomacy.

[RamaT]

BR has this attitude that the dissolution of TSP is self-evident however there are major forces keeping it together.. US since 2000 and a lesser degree China but that role is going to flip in the next 3-5 years. Afghanistan is going to be wound down to some degree and US will work on containment but not much more. What is going to change as shown with the current control of Gilgit-Baltistan China is building a foundation for a deep economic relationship.. highways, ports, pipelines will all give China a major reason to be on our northern frontier in ever larger numbers. And once oil/gas start flowing the 'military cooperation' will reach stratospheric levels.. all the while pumping cash into Paki coffers. Northern Areas must be re-acquired before this turns into a gordian knot of interests stretching from Saudi Arabia to Beijing.

This must be stopped, it will cost blood.. but the alternatives are greater pain in the future. An early spring campaign would be best.. after Obama's visit before the thaw sets in so that we can use the weather to our advantage. The strings have to be cut, there can be no common border between the two. Let them run pipes through Tajiki territory if they must.

It is easy to declare war but difficult to stop it and prevent bloodshed. On top of it TSP has new clear weapons. It is at significant disadvantage conventionally - likely to go for the new clear bum. It is irrational in behaviour.
China can put oil pipes etc but they will be at mercy of Indian forces. India can counteract through other means.
India is improving relations with Taiwan. It has Tibet card. It is also making other moves in east and central asia.It takes time to play a game. Diplomacy is in other words war without war. Successful diplomacy can achieve better results than war.

Indeed, there are risks.. but by deferring risk without heed to strategic position is how this problem can turn into an ever larger one. Medicine must be taken before it costs an arm and a leg to stop the disease.

To address your concerns specifically:

1. The pipes - Once oil starts flowing, it is no longer an India/Pak issue.. at that point the Chinese are committed, also soft power/pressure from Iran/Iraq/SA/Turkey will come into play. It is currently a bilateral issue in an area known for war and one which we have claimed for decades, sooner rather than later is the key. Hopefully the news of flooding causing major damage on the KKH is true as that buys us time.

2. The N. option will not be employed by Pakis as long as US is present. India can use back-channels via US to indicate to Pakis that there will be no progress towards their population centers and we will limit ourselves to N.A. Another reason to do this sooner, rather than later.. when US leaves.

Obviously we do not decide one day we are going to invade.. the ground must be made right. This means fomenting a constitutional crisis in Pak from multiple angles..

A. Support Baluchis.
B. Empower Pashtuns.
C. Purchase civilian politicians.
D. Embroil judiciary in corruption cases against major civilian politicians.
E. Push Karachi over the edge.
F. Extinguish Kayani.. by using A or B. (Not necessary.. but buys some distraction as others will step up).
G. Hope for more floods(not necessary but one more thing to distract).

Once a significant combination of the above are done, there must be some crisis in Gilgit.. local population rising up in revolt, etc(Covert assets helping, of course), perhaps involving fighting against the Chinese or not. At this point India can rightly claim to step in to support our brothers and pour troops in, all the while claiming loudly we are not going to do anything other than help the NA people. Once control is established, the local population must be won over by significant aid and a quick election wherein we should position and help India friendly politicians.

The are major large strategic objectives achieved with this:

1. The obvious one is PRC/PAK are severed physically.
2. India regains access to CAR.
3. This is the major one, the Chinese are given ample warning that pushing India with no reaction is not a reality. They must normalize with us or be willing to get into a fight.. they will not fight, there are too many internal divisions that they must manage while continuing economic growth. India should at this point to offer a hand in friendship, return any soldiers found in PoK, and ensure to the CPC that they can have their pipeline, running through India.. if they settle border issues.

[RamaT]

This must be stopped, it will cost blood.. but the alternatives are greater pain in the future. An early spring campaign would be best.. after Obama's visit before the thaw sets in so that we can use the weather to our advantage. The strings have to be cut, there can be no common border between the two. Let them run pipes through Tajiki territory if they must.

Of cause the GoI wouldn't do this. Maybe the management of the Chinese threat must first start at home. India is capable of managing the Chinese threat, but is for some reason unwilling. Maybe any discussion of counter-chinese strategy should be first discussed in terms of how to create a government environment in India that could actually implement these policies. Without the ability or willingness to implement, any strategy that BRF comes up are moot.

India has been working to manage the Chinese since the Look-East policy was incepted. In fact, they are the reason for the N. tests in '98.

The issue here is that diplomacy has severe limits with regards to the PRC, they are not a 'normal state' where public discourse or pressure has effect. In the PRC the PLA/Economy/Citizens all serve the state, which is in fact the elites in the CPC. They are closer to USSR//NoKo/Myanmar than a functioning country where the citizens help conceive and direct policy. With this a given, diplomacy and peaceful management have severe limits.. and the only viable counter is force, both the threat of it and its use.

The Chinese have been under-cutting India for a while and they need to understand that we are not peaceful because we lack the will, that is the biggest outcome of re-taking the NA, causing re-calculation withing the CPC with regards to India.

[shiv]

One consistent theme I find on here and in the media are the prevalence of the following common thought processes:

• India is naive and innocent. What have we done wrong?
• India is perceived by China as naive and innocent and unless India behaves belligerent China will keep taking advantage of this perceived weakness.
• China beat us in 1962. China will beat us again and again. China is to be feared.
• China knows that they can beat us any time. So, like cunning jackals they trap us by quietly surrounding us.
• The Chinese are arrogant. They don't fear us. We need to quickly do something that makes them fear us.

To me it is not at all certain that all these perceptions are accurate. But they soak our thoughts and reactions and we refuse to look at what the world might be like if one or more of the above statements was wrong or completely different. We immerse ourselves in an ocean of the above perceptions and desperately come up for breath wondering what to do about China. I think we need to have radical rethink about our own perceptions of ourselves and China.

I will try and post some thoughts on each of these points:

1) India is naive and innocent: I don't think any other nation view India as naive and innocent. At various times India has put its interest above other countries pressures and concerns

2) India is perceived by China as naive and innocent and unless India behaves belligerent China will keep taking advantage of this perceived weakness: I am certain China does not see India as a naive, innocent pushover. China too sees concerns and threats arising from India. Among these are the Tibetan irredentist threat - with Tibetans being given exile in India. Wrong or right China is welcome to see India as a country that can swallow up its neighbors (such as Nepal) if it wished to do so, in the was India has redrawn boundaries for itself after 1971.

3) China beat us in 1962. China will beat us again and again. China is to be feared.: This is an Indian hang up. It belongs in a genre of Indian perceptions based on poor self esteem and the belief that we have been enslaved, robbed, hoodwinked, cheated and that we cannot handle the world which is too clever for us. Everyone is more clever and scheming and more concerned with their self interest than India.

4) China knows that they can beat us any time. So, like cunning jackals they trap us by quietly surrounding us. This is a funny one. The fallacy in this view is never mentioned. If China can beat us any time why do they have to use all these silly "hints and isharas". China should really be dropping the Indian frog in boiling water to finish it off right away. That is because we, with our poor self image believe that everyone sees us the way we see ourselves. Weak and waffling.

5) The Chinese are arrogant. They don't fear us. We need to quickly do something that makes them fear us: Another way of looking at this "arrogance" is a belief that bravado and bluster get more "respect". It is true. Indians do respect the Chinese for their bravado and bluster. And when we fear their confident talk our thinking processes about their weaknesses are paralysed.

[darshhan]

3) China beat us in 1962. China will beat us again and again. China is to be feared.: This is an Indian hang up. It belongs in a genre of Indian perceptions based on poor self esteem and the belief that we have been enslaved, robbed, hoodwinked, cheated and that we cannot handle the world which is too clever for us. Everyone is more clever and scheming and more concerned with their self interest than India.

Shiv ji , This is one of the biggest problems that we are facing.Not just politicians but it seems even lot of common citizens are psychologically awed by China.For them China is already some sort uber superpower and chinese are all supermen.In fact lot of these people are very aggresive when it comes to Pakistan.But when you talk to them about China it is apparent that they have already been defeated and have no hopes.

This is our biggest weakness if you ask me.Confidence and High self esteem are must for the leadership and citizens both if we want to answer the Chinese challenge effectively.

[Dhiman]

One consistent theme I find on here and in the media are the prevalence of the following common thought processes:

• India is naive and innocent. What have we done wrong?
• India is perceived by China as naive and innocent and unless India behaves belligerent China will keep taking advantage of this perceived weakness.
• China beat us in 1962. China will beat us again and again. China is to be feared.
• China knows that they can beat us any time. So, like cunning jackals they trap us by quietly surrounding us.
• The Chinese are arrogant. They don't fear us. We need to quickly do something that makes them fear us.

To me it is not at all certain that all these perceptions are accurate.

Sir, I don't understand these perceptions as well. Most of Chinese oil supply and most of their european trade pass right off the southern tip of Sri Lanka and then A&N islands. If hostilities break out, forget about Indian Navy, even a bunch of "rouge" fishermen from Kerela or A&N islands could get on their boats with some home made weapons and put a complete halt to Chinese oil supplies. The Chinese should be very concerned about that. If they are not then they are stupid.

[csharma]

Multiple commentators have pointed out that China is concerned about India's rising power.

That is why it will be good to get our hands on the following paper. Costs $30.

Understanding (Changing) Chinese Strategic Perceptions of India

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... =titlelink

This article argues that in contradiction to the conventional wisdom that the Sino-Indian rivalry is one-sided (with only India viewing China as a rival); China has always factored India in its strategic calculus. The Sino-Indian relationship is asymmetric only to the extent that while India regards China as its 'principal rival', China considers India as only one of its (many) 'strategic rivals' as opposed to the principal one. This article also analyses articles related to India published in English-language Chinese journals in recent years. The analysis shows that China has now begun to regard India as a major emerging power and an important player in the emerging strategic architecture of the Asia-Pacific region (as opposed to a mere South Asian player)

[RamaT]

One consistent theme I find on here and in the media are the prevalence of the following common thought processes:

1) India is naive and innocent: I don't think any other nation view India as naive and innocent. At various times India has put its interest above other countries pressures and concerns

Not naive and innocent, cautious and conciliatory.. also pre-occupied. It takes considerable energy to hold the Indian union together.

2) India is perceived by China as naive and innocent and unless India behaves belligerent China will keep taking advantage of this perceived weakness: I am certain China does not see India as a naive, innocent pushover. China too sees concerns and threats arising from India. Among these are the Tibetan irredentist threat - with Tibetans being given exile in India. Wrong or right China is welcome to see India as a country that can swallow up its neighbors (such as Nepal) if it wished to do so, in the was India has redrawn boundaries for itself after 1971.

India is seen more as chaotic and weaker by the Chinese, which is orderly and strong. Also, weaker than China since it lost in 1962, China's economy has skyrocketed comparatively and because there are insignificant push-backs when Chinese increase their belligerence or under-cut Indian interests.

3) China beat us in 1962. China will beat us again and again. China is to be feared.: This is an Indian hang up. It belongs in a genre of Indian perceptions based on poor self esteem and the belief that we have been enslaved, robbed, hoodwinked, cheated and that we cannot handle the world which is too clever for us. Everyone is more clever and scheming and more concerned with their self interest than India.

I don't know if this is true.. the general perception is that since they have grown their economy and military so fast they have an advantage. And frankly, that's true. If they decided to wipe India from existence tomorrow all they would have to do is launch several N. missiles to which India's response would not approach their major population centers.

4) China knows that they can beat us any time. So, like cunning jackals they trap us by quietly surrounding us. This is a funny one. The fallacy in this view is never mentioned. If China can beat us any time why do they have to use all these silly "hints and isharas". China should really be dropping the Indian frog in boiling water to finish it off right away. That is because we, with our poor self image believe that everyone sees us the way we see ourselves. Weak and waffling.

China beat us in 1962, but it's not stupid enough to engage directly now because they are still building their economy. As such, they can't engage in any 'hot' actions and so engage via other routes. Or are you saying the following are imaginary?

• * PoK Occupation.
  * String of Pearls strategy.
  * Support for Maoists in Nepal and separatists in Northeast.
  * Arguing against N. deal with NSG.
  * Denying India support for permanent UNSC seat.
  * Actively de-legitimizing Indian control of Kashmir and NE states.

The weakness that exists in India is in our politicians and their lack of will to build capacity in Indian institutions. One part of governing is to manage risk and plan for them.. a small example: http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/foreign ... artnering/

5) The Chinese are arrogant. They don't fear us. We need to quickly do something that makes them fear us: Another way of looking at this "arrogance" is a belief that bravado and bluster get more "respect". It is true. Indians do respect the Chinese for their bravado and bluster. And when we fear their confident talk our thinking processes about their weaknesses are paralysed.

That's half right, the Chinese are arrogant.. and have gotten more so over the last year. However, they do fear India.. Tibet/Trading Routes/Etc. Their goal is to manage us so that their concerns take primacy and ours are secondary, even in our own land. They have overextended frankly.. as no one, from Vietnam,SoKo,Japan,Malaysia,Philippines is buying their song. That's why the US was invited to smack them for trying to bully by making proclamations at ASEAN and sending N. subs in their neighborhood, they got conciliatory real fast after that and are making happy noises again, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... 7/BUSINESS

The weakness in the PRC lies squarely at its deformed heart, the CPC and its policies. It is these same policies which will cause the majority of ASEAN nations to never really trust the PRC and form a security alliance against it. The same policies which can be used to foment dissension among the local populace that will lead to it's ultimate fall. India's enemy isn't China, it's the CPC.

[shiv]

The one thing the Chinese did long before they started developing economically was to shore up their military strength to levels that were literally the highest in the world, albeit condescendingly viewed as obsolete, ill trained etc. Whether that was all true or not hardly mattered as long as China acted brazenly and aggressively against opponents and built up her nuclear arsenall aggressively. The Chinese calculus about nukes is exactly the same argument I have made about nukes as the ultimate weapon of punishment of an aggressor. China's brazenness followed Mao's totalitarian methods of ruthless elimination/suppression of unwanted elements.

China of course has been fork tongued and treacherous in the way it supplied nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan (and North Korea) but again China's acts were in direct opposition to what the Chinese communists saw as the capitalist pigs and their lackeys. For example the US was a capitalist pig and supplied nukes to its lackey - imperialist Britain while both the US and Britain wore halos round their head and claimed moral superiority. I believe China saw its methods as a mirror image of that.

Among other brazen acts that China has done and continues doing (on an international level) - are wars started to "punish" India and Vietnam, and the open and well advertised test of one antisatellite weapon. (This is apart from the needling of India which I will leave out for the time being). China's brazenness in my view has two possible explanations. One is a very real lack of understanding of international norms of behavior, or a deliberate policy of appearing aggressive to intimidate and act like the international brat to be feared. But in fact both explanations may be correct. A nation that acts like China to provoke fear is nation that also provokes opponents to arm themselves to oppose China. This is hardly a Sun Tzu type of cleverness although the brazenness and intimidation may have some plus points. There are some serious negatives to that behavior.

Having said that it is clear that the US too behaves in exactly this manner - brazenly intimidating or attacking countries and developing weapons that are designed to dominate - so China can hardly be described as the first nation to come up with such international dadagiri. Both China and the US choose to support regimes that they feel will do their work. Both nations arm countries where there is chaos and rebellion. And neither country is unique because the Soviets did that and the British did exactly that in an earlier era.

The take-away lesson is that so called "great powers" are not just economic giants. They need not even be economic giants as long as they are militarily aggressive, net arms exporters and supporters of wars and rebellions in various parts of the world with no conscience or compunction. I keep using the expression used by Prof Mead in his Paki article because it is so appropriate. Global power is not economy or diplomacy or goodness. It is party pooping power on a global scale. All so called great powers have had this and then anointed each other with the title "great power"

This is where I am in disagreement with the general trend to fear China or blame China alone. I believe that we tend to think like Americans and somehow believe that we SDREs represent the free world. The point is that its not just China we need to fear - it is the US as well. It is only the US's great PR skills, far better than China's boorish non-Sun Tzu aggression that have kept moronic countries like India thinking that the US is benevolent and China is aggressive. Both are aggressive. Both are not benevolent. We tend to think "Oh China has no freedom. The US has freedom, so the US is better". Balls. The USs freedom is not for us.

The US is sitting in Pakistan and has grater party pooping powers against India should India choose to attack Pakistan or even PoK. Why, oh why on earth do we seriously believe that a Chinese entry into PoK is a bigger threat? The US will squeeze gangajal out of our testimonials if we touch her prostitute. But why does China cause fear while the US gives us a warm fuzzy? People get irritated if we say the US is a kabab mein haddi in Pakstan but suddenly China is a huge problem. What the fork? Part of the explanation is that we belong to the anglosphere via Macaulay's dream, but in any case we are truly small minded citizens of a small to middling power who are unable to think some things through. We think small as a nation and we have the fears and suspicions of a small time power and blindly admire some powers and fear others while we have no respect for our own power and are unable to imagine that we have any.

If we have any thoughts of punching in our weight class we have to understand that China is only part of the problem. The US is a huge problem too. This is the China thread - but maybe we should have a "manage the US" thread.

[nvishal]

Both the sikh and the maratha empires needs to be re-established and be made nuclear capable.

[JE Menon]

They already have been and made nuclear capable. We need to think bigger.

[Nihat]

If stapled Visas to Tibetns is too big a step for GoI , then we should atleast start to issue people with Tibetan ethnicities Visa on Arrival - not just from Tibet but tibetans from all parts of the world. India should aspire to become the protector of Tibetan heritage , a place where the culture can continue to prosper, unlike china where it is brutally supressed.

[csharma]

How about stopping Huwei from selling equipment to Indian telecom sector. Looks like GoI has allowed Huawei to sell its wares in India. This is indeed baffling.

[RajeshA]

We Indians need a revolutionary change in our thinking about the Tibetans. Till now when we think of Tibetans, we think of Dharamsala and its monks, we think of refugees, or street hawkers. We think of Tibetans in their orange robes.

That is all 20th century. The way Tibetans are, their chances of retaking their homeland is nil. There are around 230,000 Tibetans living outside Tibet. If the Tibetans living in China cannot be both independence-minded and resourceful, than at least those who have come out of Tibet should get that chance.

Tibetans need to be both soldiers and monks, both scientists and monks, both engineers and monks, both weapon-developers and monks, both doctors and monks. Tibetans would have to be much much more than what they are now to reclaim their heritage.

Right now the Chinese can show the Tibetans as some superstitious and underdeveloped folk, and Chinese are bringing them the manna from heaven, true civilization and development.

Tibetans have to show that they are capable of that without Chinese help. Tibetans do have a lot of goodwill around the world, so it should not be much difficult for them to collect the necessary funding to build a 3-4 universities around the world and network them with other prestigious universities, especially in India and the USA, where the next generations of Tibetans are taught both their language, customs and history, but also subjects like modern medicine, engineering, sciences (particle physics, astronomy, etc.). Perhaps the GoI can help them and elevate them from being refugees to being an advanced people (spiritually, scientifically and materially) with a mission in life - to free their homeland.

Only if the Tibetans abroad have patents, doctoral papers, world-wide recognition for their intellectual prowess under their belt, can they tell the Chinese, that the Chinese have not brought development to Tibet, but rather kept their people backward. Then the Chinese would lose their only argument for being in Tibet.

JMTs

[brihaspati]

Maybe start thinking of doing to Tibet in the same way we are discussing about POK in that thread. Instead of using just "Tibet" start using "Chinese occupied Tibet" or COT, or better "Han occupied Tibet" HOT. POK is being discussed for retaking. COT should be discussed as re-establishing a culturally contiguous friendly nation.

"Retaking", "re-establishing" is the key theme where we must change our mindset. Thats the first step of a very long staircase perhaps, but still a first step.

[Arihant]

Maybe start thinking of doing to Tibet in the same way we are discussing about POK in that thread. Instead of using just "Tibet" start using "Chinese occupied Tibet" or COT, or better "Han occupied Tibet" HOT. POK is being discussed for retaking. COT should be discussed as re-establishing a culturally contiguous friendly nation.

"Retaking", "re-establishing" is the key theme where we must change our mindset. Thats the first step of a very long staircase perhaps, but still a first step.

Nomenclature is critical here. "Occupied Tibet" is probably the best name, since there is no doubt on who's doing the occupying. "Han-occupied Tibet" suggests that said occupation is an internal Chinese matter, given the Chinese party line that the Han are only one of several ethnicities making up China.

[shiv]

China started off by opposing the US. China plays games that are designed to squeeze the US, among other nations. I believe that by opposing China alone and not being aware of the threat posed by the US - all we are doing is falling into the position of a US vassal.

Having said that, our choices are limited.

[Raja Ram]

Gentle Rakshaks,

Yours truly is giving a talk on "Solving the China Puzzle" next Sunday (19 Sept) in a venue in Chennai. A closed door purely by invitation event. I plan to use material gleaned from this thread. So first up a thank you to all who have contributed here. I will acknowledge BR in that event and hopefully more of them will start visiting this forum.

Senior gentle BRF gurus, please feel free to provide me with maps, your views, slides, papers etc to my email address which is rajaram_mk at the rate of yahoo dot com.

SSridhar and others from chennai (you all know who u are) I shall share the venue details...in case any of u are interested in listening to the occasional rambler here!

This is the fourth time I am speaking to a varied audience and each time I have ensured to mention BR. My little effort in creating awareness to the best of my limited ability.

Look forward to some inputs and thank you once again.

[svinayak]

What is your email

[Venkarl]

What is your email

rajaram_mk at the rate of yahoo dot com.

[brihaspati]

Maybe start thinking of doing to Tibet in the same way we are discussing about POK in that thread. Instead of using just "Tibet" start using "Chinese occupied Tibet" or COT, or better "Han occupied Tibet" HOT. POK is being discussed for retaking. COT should be discussed as re-establishing a culturally contiguous friendly nation.

"Retaking", "re-establishing" is the key theme where we must change our mindset. Thats the first step of a very long staircase perhaps, but still a first step.

Nomenclature is critical here. "Occupied Tibet" is probably the best name, since there is no doubt on who's doing the occupying. "Han-occupied Tibet" suggests that said occupation is an internal Chinese matter, given the Chinese party line that the Han are only one of several ethnicities making up China.

HOT was suggested deliberately to needle the ethnic conflict angle - painting the Chinese as the "other" - the non-Tibetan.

[svinayak]

What is your email

rajaram_mk at the rate of yahoo dot com.

You are Raja Ram

[RajeshA]

New Warning From Tokyo on China’s Military by Jacob M. Schlesinger and Jason Dean: Wall Street Journal

As Sino-Japanese tensions ratchet up over a fishing boat incident, Japan’s Defense Ministry issued Friday its annual “White Paper,” underscoring Tokyo’s growing suspicions of Beijing — and explaining why the Japanese may be handling the situation this way.

“China has been rather intensifying its maritime activities including those in waters near Japan. The lack of transparency of its national defense policies and the military activities are a matter of concern for the region and the international community, including Japan…”

[Altair]

^^
Why cant we invite the Japanese Emperor to be the chief guest of our Republic Day?
Why dont we give a new look and feel to Indo-Japanese ties?
I mean you scratch my back,I scratch yours!

[RajeshA]

Interview With Japan Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada by Miho Inada: Wall Street Journal

Q: [Chinese Premier] Wen Jiabao said in a recent meeting with you that Japanese firms should pay more for Chinese workers. Does this indicate there is more friction between two countries than we may have realized?

Q: U.S.-Japan relations may be deepening in terms of military cooperation in order to keep China in check. Would you comment on this?

A: I have to be careful in my wording. We don't see China as a threat. We don't need to raise tensions unnecessarily. But China's military spending and capability have been stepped up—notably naval. Its transparency is also questionable. Given this situation, there are recently more aspects over which Japan and U.S. need to cooperate.

There were, for example, some troubles caused by heightened activities by Chinese navy in the East China Sea. We have been discussing this with China to prevent them from developing into major incidents.

[Venkarl]

rajaram_mk at the rate of yahoo dot com.

You are Raja Ram

No I am not.

[Arihant]

Nomenclature is critical here. "Occupied Tibet" is probably the best name, since there is no doubt on who's doing the occupying. "Han-occupied Tibet" suggests that said occupation is an internal Chinese matter, given the Chinese party line that the Han are only one of several ethnicities making up China.

HOT was suggested deliberately to needle the ethnic conflict angle - painting the Chinese as the "other" - the non-Tibetan.

brihaspati: Understand the drivers for that name. It might be more pragmatic, though, to highlight the cross-national aggression/occupation aspects of the Tibet story than the internal ethnic conflict aspect.

[Venkarl]

13 September 2010.

Transactions at Taiwan trade show in India triple from 2009

Added Later

11-July-2010

The impact of Cross-Strait Reconciliation on India interesting scenario

If this{China and Taiwan unification} happens, what could be the impact of cross-strait reconciliations and CBMs on India’s security?

Going by the reports, the reconciliation has already made China to up its ante against India. For example on June 11, 2009 the Global Times (English edition) used extremely aggressive and jingoistic terms when it noted that the ‘Indian politicians seem to think their country would be doing China a huge favor simply by not joining the "ring around China" established by the US and Japan.’ And that ‘India’s growing power would have a significant impact on the balance of this equation, which has led India to think that fear and gratitude for its restraint will cause China to defer to it on territorial disputes. .. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China.’

Exactly a year later, on June 12, 2010, Han Xudong, Professor with China’s National Defense University reiterated in an article published in the Global Times (Chinese edition) that ‘China must use military force to solve the ‘problem’.’ Professor Han argued that during the Korean War, India-China Boundary War, and the Vietnam War, China used it forces timely and decisively, and finally managed to have the ‘solution’ in China’s favor.’ Implying that on all these occasions, China used its forces in a preemptive manner, so as to thwart an ‘invasion’ from the US, India and Vietnam.

In the wake of the cross-strait reconciliations, China could change the gravity of its southeast arsenal deployment towards southwest. Some of the 1200 DF-11 series; 200 DH-10 and DF-15 series; over 80 DF-21 series equipped with nuclear warhead; and DF-21A series missiles with China’s Second Artillery Force (SAF) targeted against Taiwan in Fujian, Jiangxi, Jiangsu, Shandong and Guangdong provinces, could be withdrawn and deployed or stored in the southwest. The reconciliation has already decreased the strategic importance of the SAF; it goes without saying that the CBMs will further diminish its importance as regards the Taiwan. Therefore, in order to maintain and expand the strategic value of the SAF, China will move them southwestward against India in the provinces such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Sichuan and Yunnan.

Secondly, the strategic importance of the SAF has also been replaced by the fourth generation J-10 and J-11 aircrafts of the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and PLA Navy (PLAN). The monolithic nature of the SAF has been limited by the new capabilities of the PLAAF and PLAN. The deployment of PLAAF, which at present maintains 864 aircrafts in Nanjing, 716 in Guangzhou, and over thousand in Jinan, Beijing, Shenyang and Chengdu could also undergo drastic changes, and move the gravity to southwest areas.

.. the question that needs to be pondered by the Indian army and the leadership alike is whether or not there is any strategy in place to deal with the impact of the cross-straits reconciliations, as well as the feverish pace of the PLA modernization?

[Arihant]

13 September 2010.

Transactions at Taiwan trade show in India triple from 2009

Added Later

11-July-2010

The impact of Cross-Strait Reconciliation on India interesting scenario

If this{China and Taiwan unification} happens, what could be the impact of cross-strait reconciliations and CBMs on India’s security?

Going by the reports, the reconciliation has already made China to up its ante against India. For example on June 11, 2009 the Global Times (English edition) used extremely aggressive and jingoistic terms when it noted that the ‘Indian politicians seem to think their country would be doing China a huge favor simply by not joining the "ring around China" established by the US and Japan.’ And that ‘India’s growing power would have a significant impact on the balance of this equation, which has led India to think that fear and gratitude for its restraint will cause China to defer to it on territorial disputes. .. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China.’

Exactly a year later, on June 12, 2010, Han Xudong, Professor with China’s National Defense University reiterated in an article published in the Global Times (Chinese edition) that ‘China must use military force to solve the ‘problem’.’ Professor Han argued that during the Korean War, India-China Boundary War, and the Vietnam War, China used it forces timely and decisively, and finally managed to have the ‘solution’ in China’s favor.’ Implying that on all these occasions, China used its forces in a preemptive manner, so as to thwart an ‘invasion’ from the US, India and Vietnam.

In the wake of the cross-strait reconciliations, China could change the gravity of its southeast arsenal deployment towards southwest. Some of the 1200 DF-11 series; 200 DH-10 and DF-15 series; over 80 DF-21 series equipped with nuclear warhead; and DF-21A series missiles with China’s Second Artillery Force (SAF) targeted against Taiwan in Fujian, Jiangxi, Jiangsu, Shandong and Guangdong provinces, could be withdrawn and deployed or stored in the southwest. The reconciliation has already decreased the strategic importance of the SAF; it goes without saying that the CBMs will further diminish its importance as regards the Taiwan. Therefore, in order to maintain and expand the strategic value of the SAF, China will move them southwestward against India in the provinces such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Sichuan and Yunnan.

Secondly, the strategic importance of the SAF has also been replaced by the fourth generation J-10 and J-11 aircrafts of the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and PLA Navy (PLAN). The monolithic nature of the SAF has been limited by the new capabilities of the PLAAF and PLAN. The deployment of PLAAF, which at present maintains 864 aircrafts in Nanjing, 716 in Guangzhou, and over thousand in Jinan, Beijing, Shenyang and Chengdu could also undergo drastic changes, and move the gravity to southwest areas.

.. the question that needs to be pondered by the Indian army and the leadership alike is whether or not there is any strategy in place to deal with the impact of the cross-straits reconciliations, as well as the feverish pace of the PLA modernization?

Vankarl: Very interesting...

Whether China gets to occupy Taiwan (wouldn't use the word "reunification" - that buys into a Chinese-manufactured history) is, in many ways, ours to permit. We need to decide whether we want to let that happen, because several simple steps on our part can make sure that it won't.

[Venkarl]

... We need to decide whether we want to let that happen, because several simple steps on our part can make sure that it won't.

{did you mean steps to be taken by us to stop China from occupying Taiwan?}

gyaan on the bold part please...this will need a "heavy" diplomatic leverage in both US and Russia.

news report on Pentagon's assessment of Chinese military strength...apologies if posted earlier

China’s Enigmatic Military

[RajeshA]

Gentle Rakshaks,

Yours truly is giving a talk on "Solving the China Puzzle" next Sunday (19 Sept) in a venue in Chennai.

<snip>

Look forward to some inputs and thank you once again.

Raja Ram ji,

Perhaps you could go into how a Pax-Sinica may look like. Some indicators of Pax-Sinica would be

1. what kind of regimes in other countries PRC has supported over the years and to what purpose.
2. how it manages geopolitics, how are China's relations with its neighbors
3. what kind of production systems it has at the moment, and how labor is used - work-time, payment.
4. what kind of goods it imports from other third world countries and what tactics it uses - raw materials, mining contracts, bribing.
5. how it deals with competition - dumping, state subsidies.
6. how it co-opts the various business lobbies in the developed countries
7. what kind of tactics it uses to manage the leaders of developed democratic countries
8. what are its environmental policies
9. what kind of politics does CPC follow at home, how is dissent dealt with

All these are indicators of a world to come, if China establishes its hegemony in Asia, and pushes for a new world order.

Just some thoughts

[RajeshA]

China poised to sue Japan for compensation over dead panda by Peter Foster: Telegraph

China's internet was a whirl with conspiracy theories and yesterday a post on one of the country's leading internet portals said: "The Panda died just one day right after Japan arrested the Chinese fishing boat captain, right?"
"Before that it has been living safely in Japan for ten years. Is the Panda's death really a coincidence? Furthermore, it died of sperm extraction operation isn't it a way the Japanese trying to insult Chinese?"

The Chinese are willing to go to any lengths to put pressure on a foreign government. They pick up perhaps their only ambassador of soft power, the Panda, which is adored the world over, and use the tragic death to put pressure on the Japanese to relent on the issue of the Chinese boat captain taken into custody for ramming a Japanese ship in Japanese waters.

[ramana]

Rajaram,
Which China puzzle are you talking about? Or is it the mystery of China?

Venkarl, If PRC achieves unification with Taiwan without force, then its not the PRC but a transformed one. The challenge from that China is different than from the PRC. If you note the Chinese Prof advocacy of force in taking Taiwan, then its not the new China. So the saag threat assessment is not probable.

[brihaspati]

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/ap/as_ch ... n_backlash

China's plans to vaccinate 100 million children and come a step closer to eradicating measles has set off a popular outcry that highlights widening public distrust of the authoritarian government after repeated health scandals.

[Venkarl]

Venkarl, If PRC achieves unification with Taiwan without force, then its not the PRC but a transformed one. The challenge from that China is different than from the PRC. If you note the Chinese Prof advocacy of force in taking Taiwan, then its not the new China. So the saag threat assessment is not probable.

I would prefer to remain indifferent...be it PRC or New China (PRC+Taiwan) against India..and prepare for any kind of threat..meanwhile it'd be bliss to me if you could elaborate on italicized part..TIA

Added later

I liked Arihant's approach of wedging differences between Taiwan and China..end result being Taiwan as a bogeyman of China...along the lines of his thoughts..If the author of this editorial is convinced with what is quoted below, we have chance of running water under the carpet by raising funds for a Pro-Taiwanese candidate with some favor in return in the form of Intelligence sharing on Chinese military development along the Indo-China border....of course this can turn out to be a gamble..

While his Cabinet has rightly stuck to less problematic, though by no means inconsequential, matters like economics in its dialogue with Beijing, there is no doubt that in the months ahead — especially as we get closer to Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) stepping down as head of state — talks will touch on more controversial issues such as identity and sovereignty. Once those topics are tackled, friction is bound to emerge, which could quickly escalate and spin out of control. Any outcome to the 2012 presidential poll in Taiwan that isn’t to China’s taste could also serve as a catalyst for a military option.

[Prem]

China's assertiveness is increasing, says Antony
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/ ... antony.htm

Recent events in Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] indicate Pakistan's continuing proxy war and China's assertiveness in the region is increasing, Defence Minister A K Antony cautioned on Monday, while asking the armed forces not to drop their guard. Antony, who addressed the two-day Combined Commanders Conference, said there were multiplicity of threats."Our geographical situation and the compulsions of history and geography pose challenges that are unique for any country. At the forefront of these challenging situations are those emanating from neighbours who continue to dwell in the past and are keen to foment threats to our national integrity," he said."A multiplicity of threats poses challenges to us. Events in recent months indicate that the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir continues unabated. While required measures have been taken to prevent the recurrence of acts of terror like 26/11 attacks on Mumbai [ Images ]; intelligence inputs demand that we cannot afford to drop our guard," he added.Noting that India [ Images ] wanted to develop friendly relations with China, Antony, however, said the country could not lose sight of China's increasing military and physical infrastructure along the borders.

[ramana]

X-post....
From Nightwatch, 9/10/2010

Burma (Myanmar)-China: The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has begun construction of China-Myanmar oil and natural gas pipelines, according to Chinese media. The announcement coincided with a ground-breaking ceremony for a 200,000 barrel-per-day oil refinery in Anning city, Yunnan Province, China.

According to the CNPC statement, the company wants to complete the China section of the pipelines, as well as the refinery, by 2013. The oil pipeline, which will have a capacity of 440,000 barrels per day, will wind 771 kilometers (479 miles) through Myanmar, then stretch 1,631 kilometers though China before ending in Chongqing.

The natural gas pipeline will have a 12 billion cubic meter capacity, and will span 793 kilometers in Myanmar and 1,727 kilometers in China before ending in Guangxi region. The company did not disclose whether or when all three projects would receive final approval from China's National Development and Reform Commission, the body in charge of economic planning and pricing.

Comment: The significance of this information plus other recent reports about China building a railroad through Burma is that they reinforce the assessment that Chinese leaders see Burma as a gateway for channeling natural resources to China.

This symbolizes the next step in China's economic imperialism by creating a network of vertical and horizontal monopolies on a global scale that gather and ship back to China the resources from concessions in Third World countries that the Chinese already have secured.

By using Chinese-made Burmese ports and infrastructure, natural resources from Africa and the Middle East can reach hubs in southern China and avoid the hazards of transiting the Straits of Malacca and Singapore and the South China Sea.

[ramana]

The odd thing is both the POK and the Myanmar route brings the PRC lifelines within Indian grasp. Yet it is being touted as a move to hedge for Pacific blocade by US and the Straits of Malacca chokehold!!!