Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 23 May 2015 11:25

SS-ji,
Is it possible that Doval excluded PoK while arriving at the 2500 km border?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 May 2015 12:52

schinnas, no. It is not possible. POK has nothing to do with this.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 May 2015 12:59

It is typo ...

Settling border issue critical for India-China ties: NSA Ajit Doval

Border issue 'critical' to Indo-China ties says National Security Advisor Ajit Doval

"We have got a very long border we have got 3,488-km long border, a very difficult and mountainous terrain snow-clad...now for the bilateral relations with China, border is the critical and vital issue," he said speaking on the topic 'Challenges of Securing India's Borders; Strategising the Response'.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 May 2015 16:20

RKumar, thanks.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 23 May 2015 18:39

Without retaking PoK and Shaksgham valley, it does not look like India can press on Chinese nuts to negotiate on the eastern front too. If the current govt's focus on the economy for the next decade is taken as of higher priority, then I see no reason to push forward on a border settlement as a prerequisite for anything we do with the Chinese in the meantime. Only after PoK is settled can even Aksai Chin come to the table for negotiations. Right now they have the upper hand with a presence even in PoK, thanks to Pakistan. To connect to Kashgar they really do not need to hold Aksai Chin in its entirety all the way up to the LAC.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 May 2015 18:52

Probably more significance w.r.t. China than Bangladesh (sign of a slowing economy?)
http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... ers/75007/
"As imports by China drop, CCI eyes Bangladesh buyers"

China had been the largest importer of Indian cotton over the last three years. Commerce minister Nirmala Sitharaman had told the Rajya Sabha that China had imported cotton worth $696.5 million in the first 11 months of FY15. In FY14, India had exported $1,912.95-million cotton to China and $2237.38 million in 2012-13. In April-February 2014-15, India’s total export of cotton stood at $1707.59 million. Among India’s neighbouring countries, Bangladesh was the next largest importer. In 2014-15 till February, India exported cotton worth $510.26 million against $698.88 million in entire FY14. In 2012-13, Indian cotton exports to Bangladesh stood at $610.06 million.

Vietnam was in third place as cotton importer from India.

Mishra said the response from Bangladesh had been good and if the sale is successful, CCI plans to tap Vietnam market, too.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 May 2015 18:54

http://www.eurasiareview.com/22052015-i ... -analysis/
An overall context within which to place India-China relations.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 May 2015 19:37

India’s Renewed Interest in Chabahar: Need to Stay the Course - Ashok K. Behuria, M. Mahtab Alam Rizvi, IDSA

The petrochemical investment zone [in Chahbahar] has drawn the attention of many foreign companies from China, Oman and some European countries. Some eight Iranian companies have already invested in the zone. China has shown active interest in the heavy oil refinery sector. A new Chinese refinery is coming up opposite the upcoming petrochemical zone. During a recent visit to Chabahar, one could see familiar Chinese squat barracks coming up on the refinery site. China has also started taking interest in the port itself. A Chinese dredger, probably leased to Iran and flying the Iranian flag, was seen anchored in the Saeed Beheshti terminal of Chabahar port. Chinese businessmen are making a beeline for investing in Iran in general and in the port city in particular. Some Chinese businessmen have already set up a special market complex to sell Chinese items.

Gratified as the Iranians look upon being courted by Chinese investors, one could also mark a sense of unease about long-term association with China among Iranian interlocutors. In Tehran’s educational institutes, there was neither much interest in China nor enthusiasm about the prospects of Chinese investment, even though one could sense a quiet appreciation of “Chinese courage” in courting Iran despite American sanctions. There is a growing feeling among some Iranians that China’s approach is not only overly mercantilist – seeking to exploit Iran’s economic isolation – but also opportunistic. When the US and EU imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and on key financial institutions, including the Iranian Central Bank, China cut its imports of Iranian oil by almost 50 per cent. This means that China might seek more concessions to import Iranian oil, as it stays engaged with Iran in the coming days.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 May 2015 19:45

Bade wrote: To connect to Kashgar they really do not need to hold Aksai Chin in its entirety all the way up to the LAC.

Very true. The NH219 passes through the easternmost part of Aksai Chin. Almost four-fifths of Aksai Chin are unnecessary for that road.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 May 2015 07:38

Doval to hold border talks with Chinese official - Indrani Bagchi, ToI

Days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to China, Ajit Doval, national security adviser will hold talks with his Chinese counterpart on the sidelines of a preparatory meeting for the BRICS summit.

Doval travels to Moscow on Sunday, with the official agenda looking forward to the July BRICS summit, scheduled to be held in Ufa. But his meeting with Chinese officials would continue the process of high-level consultations on the boundary question. India may use the opportunity to have a separate conversation on Afghanistan with Doval's counterparts from China and Russia.

The Modi government has injected some urgency in looking for closure on the boundary dispute. High level interactions are part of efforts to persuade the Chinese to continue the conversation. India is hoping to get China to resurrect the old process of clarifying the LAC as a precursor to a boundary settlement. The two sides had exchanged maps on the middle sector over a decade ago.

But there has been no movement on exchanging maps on the western and eastern sectors. India is pushing to exchange maps in the western sector, which New Delhi believes would help manage the recurrent problem of Chinese incursions into Indian territory that has become an obstacle in bilateral relations. In the eastern sector, India is expected to maintain a tough stand on Tawang, which China claims. {I interpret this to mean that India is willing to concede some territory in the western sector for a resolution in the east. For example, India may not agree to the entire Aksai Chin to go to China, but enough of it to contain Highway219 and a buffer to protect it from possible Indian interdiction}

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 24 May 2015 09:49

Does anyone know why Modi has started "recognizing Tibet as part of China" again. I thought UPA-II didn't mention it for about 3-4 years as a customary gesture?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 24 May 2015 16:53

They can build the highway as close to the claim line of India in Aksai Chin, or they can pay India tax as part of their Economic corridor for trade route

through Indian land. If they can dig under Everest they can even avoid the Aksai Chin route and drill under the ranges there to avoid glaciers, as it is much narrower and they get protection from the two ranges running in parallel in the east-west direction and connect above the Shaksgham valley.

Sitting at Siachen/Oldie we can still cutoff their links to Kashgar. So there are a few cards that we hold too to bring them to the table, till PoK is resolved.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 24 May 2015 19:08

Always nice to see this Nehruvian wanker Srinath Raghava pretend he is all very strategeric, just like his moron of an Idol, Nehru.

In this article, he wants India to remain silent about the McMahon line because it makes settlement of the border issue with China "problematic" -- being silent is what the IFS babucracy have been doing all these years, and we can see where that has gotten us.

http://thewire.in/2015/05/24/why-ajit-d ... na-border/

Mr. Doval was pointing out that the chinese stance on the mcmahon line is not consistent when he said this:

. The Chinese, he added, “have accepted the McMahon Line while settling the border with Myanmar and then they say that the same line is not acceptable in case of India, particularly in Tawang.”

This is what srinath raghava has to say about that:

Clearly too stupid to see that china's inconsistent stance means they use the mcmahon line as an excuse to take over territory whenever convenient -- GoI/AD is just making that a sticking point to ensure that we delay resolution until the time is right.

Both China’s negotiating stance and the agreed border underscored Beijing’s refusal to give any credence to the McMahon Line. This is because the McMahon Line had been defined in a set of notes exchanges between British Indian and Tibetan representatives in March 1914. Accepting the line would amount to accepting that Tibet was practically independent back then—a position that was, and remains, totally unacceptable to China.

and then goes on to expose his idiocy a little bit further:

As the Chinese Foreign Minister, Chen Yi, explained to Swaran Singh: “If the Chinese government recognised the Simla Convention and the McMahon Line, there would be an explosion in China and the Chinese people would not agree. Premier Chou has no right to do so.” If the nuances of the Chinese stance on the McMahon Line continue to elude the government, it can only be put down to an unwillingness to carefully read its own historical records.

Since when is taking the chinese at face value a smart play in any game with the chinese? If the chinese do not have a consistent stance on the McMahon line, why should the Indian view be consistent rather than self-serving?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 May 2015 19:20

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/chi ... 00730.html
"China warms up to Japan, Xi receives big Japanese delegation"

In an indicator of warming ties between China and Japan after three years of tense relations, President Xi Jinping has welcomed an unusually large Japanese delegation even as he cautioned Tokyo against any attempt to distort its wartime history.

The delegation of about 3,000 people, headed by Toshihiro Nikai, chairman of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party's General Council marked the largest mission between the two nations since relations turned frosty in September, 2012.

Receiving the delegation at the Great Hall of the People yesterday, Xi said the root of China-Japan friendship comes from the public, and the future of the relationship is in the hands of the people.

China attaches great importance to the relationship and would like to work with the Japanese side to promote friendly neighbourhood and cooperation, based on the four political documents between the two countries, he said.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 May 2015 20:50

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 811089.ece
Bad Policy, Geostrategics Will Go against India
By Bharat Karnad
Published: 13th May 2015

Prime minister Narendra Modi goes to China weighed down by traditionally bad geostrategics and even worse policy.

Consider the underway Chinese initiatives in India’s neighbourhood—the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to access the warm water port at Gwadar, submarines and combat aircraft to Pakistan, the Qinghai-Lhasa railway with a loop-line to Xigatze on the Nepal border, the “maritime silk route” and the “string of pearls” in the Indian Ocean, the old silk route connecting China with Central Asia and Russia majorly through Kazakhstan, investment in infrastructure and extractive industry in Afghanistan, and the BCIM (Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar) scheme worked out of Kunming to provide the fast industrialising western provinces an opening on the Bay of Bengal. These developments are enveloping India in a geostrategic mesh—the essence of Wei-qi, an ancient Chinese board game and template for Chinese statecraft.

In Wei-qi, the objective is to fill as many of the squares on the board with one’s pieces, the corners inwards, to crowd the adversary and leave him little manoeuvring space and freedom of action. Using trade, aid, military assistance, and cultural exchanges with countries around India and farther afield, China means to influence India’s policies by influencing these states that otherwise fall naturally within the Indian strategic penumbra.

What is the Indian geostrategic model to compete with Wei-qi? From ancient times the Hindu sense of the subcontinental space bounded by the mountains, deserts, and the seas is that of Jambudwipa—the great big island state. It is hardly surprising that its outlook has been insular, and friends and foes conceived on the basis of geometric determinism dictated on the basis of a simplistic formulation of the mandala, codified in the Arthashastra. The mandala concept of concentric circles—the inner-most circle comprising adversaries, followed by a tier of friends, the next outer circle again of enemies, and so on has ensured maximally-riled neighbours. Whatever its utility in pre-historical India of perpetually warring kingdoms, the mandala scheme virtually disabled rulers from envisaging distant threats, because vast intervening spaces made perceiving nations far from the homeland as friendly or adversarial difficult, whence the preoccupation with smaller, weaker, adjoining states—a foreign policy affliction to this day. Wei-qi obviously scores over the less engaged mandala-infused approach (non-alignment, strategic autonomy).

Against a more equal rival such as the United States, however, Wei-qi turns, in effect, into a classical balance-of-power game, with moves countered by corresponding moves to deny the opponent spatial domination. Against a strategic vision deficient-India that, for instance, did not respond with alacrity to China’s nuclear missile arming Pakistan by prompt transfers of nuclear and conventionally warheaded missiles and major armaments to Vietnam, the Philippines, and other countries on the Chinese periphery, Beijing will always have the upper hand.

The new thing Modi brings to the table is his boundless confidence and ready wittedness. An impactful incident of Modi’s diplomacy that few know about occurred during Chinese president Xi Jinping’s visit last September. With the intrusion of an armed unit of the People’s Liberation Army in the Chumar sector of the disputed Aksai China region as backdrop, Modi asked Xi if the PLA in China dominated the political leadership in the manner the army does the government in Pakistan. Cut to the quick Xi professed ignorance of the intrusion, but PLA troops pulled back the next day.

This little episode no doubt induced in Xi respect for Modi, particularly for the manner in which the message was conveyed, complete with the derisory allusion, and in light of the history of PLA provocations as accompaniment to high-level meetings. Recall that China invaded Vietnam in February 1979 on the day external affairs minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee reached Beijing, a symbolic slap and a warning to India that it may be next! But can the personal regard Xi has for Modi be converted into real benefits for India? Doubtful, because Chinese leaders, pickled in the brine of China’s centrality in the world, are not swayed by flummery. For them the strategic end-state matters, not small profit from marginal attributes.

The larger picture is still more worrisome. Deng Xiaoping’s 1991 guideline—“hide your capability, bide your time”—has been given the heave-ho. Xi has apparently determined that China’s economic and military capability is sufficiently muscled to flex it and that now’s the time to begin challenging the United States for supremacy in Asia. This is evident in the growingly aggressive military measures—naval patrolling in far-off waters, announcement of the air defence identification zone in the South China Sea, embedding of sonar buoys around the disputed Senkaku Islands to monitor Japanese and US warship traffic, and by rendering potential partners of the US, such as India, less effective once Beijing starts acting decisively in Asia-Pacific.

This is the reason why despite Modi prioritising the resolution of the border dispute, the 18th meeting in late March this year of the Special Representatives—National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and the former Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi—achieved nothing. This outcome was preordained, because keeping a border solution dangling keeps New Delhi in check. Then again Beijing has had to do little for Indian governments to unilaterally cede ground on the Tibet issue—surrendering of inherited Indian rights in Lhasa, recognition of Chinese suzerainty, then sovereignty, “One-China” policy, stapled visas, in return for zilch (unless Beijing’s infirm acceptance of Sikkim as part of India is considered a big deal). But this is the recessive China policy the ministry of external affairs has flogged, and Modi has not retracted.

Modi will get investment but only if India stays with the Chinese line on Tibet, and the lopsided, neo-colonial, $75 billion trade—Indian minerals for Chinese finished goods—and a skewed balance-of-payments problem that cost this country $37 billion last year. This imbalance will not be dented by increased Indian exports of vegetables, fruit and, ironically, in the face of the brouhaha over cow slaughter, of beef. The fact is the China-assisted infrastructure build-up, a rousing welcome for Modi in Xian, and a hall full of screaming Indians in Shanghai do not compensate for India’s strategic reduction.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 25 May 2015 07:50

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 50639.aspx

For China watchers, Doval’s statements are an echo of what Prime Minister Narendra Modi conveyed to his counterpart Li Keqiang in Beijing on May 15. It is understood that Li tried to assure Modi that Chinese activities in PoK were confined to development and designed to wean the populace from fundamentalism.

He rather condescendingly said India should not be unduly worried about China’s activities in PoK as they are harmless in nature.

Signalling that New Delhi, like Beijing, will not move an inch on its core interests, Modi made it clear that PoK is Indian territory under dispute with Pakistan and expressed his serious concern over China developing a $46 billion corridor linking Kashgar to Gwadar via PoK.

Modi apparently went a step further when he asked Li how Beijing would feel if New Delhi allowed Pakistan to build a hospital in Arunachal Pradesh, which China has been claiming without recognising the McMahon Line that demarcates the border.

Why would Modiji equate PoK which is an occupied territory of India with Arunachal Pradesh which is an integral part of India? Is it DDM-ities or did Modiji had a slip of the tongue when he meant to say Tibet?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 May 2015 09:21

schinnas, IMHO, there might never be an exact analogy if a point needs to be driven. Approximations have to be accepted in order to convey a point. The question is whether this articulation conceded anything more than the normal, well-known Indian position on Arunachal Pradesh. Again, IMO, no. Modi is alluding to the Chinese reaction, and nothing else, were hypothetically Pakistan to build a hospital in AP. Constructing a hospital is a developmental activity just like what the Chinese claim CPEC is in POK. Just as Pakistan claims POK, China claims AP. China has always objected to developmental activities in AP especially funded by foreign governments, financial institutions etc. Recent example being by the Japanese. Earlier, it stopped ADB funding for a hydel project. By saying this, Modi has not diluted India's stance. This is not a Sharm-el-Sheik moment. I would have been gladder if Modi had asked Xi or Li as to why do they object to ADB or JICA funding of developmental work in AP while they claim otherwise of similar activities by themselves in POK. This question was asked earlier to the Chinese FO spokesman who gave the usual longwinded answer laden with normal Chinese cliches that in fact made matters worse for the Chinese.

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 May 2015 10:31

Folks, watching VK Singh at AajTak Manthan respond to questions on China trip, I'm getting hugely nervous on many counts.

The primary one though is that we might have made a strategic blunder by having terrorism as a topic. While we mean terrorism out of TSP and while we think China will consider it as islamic terrorism in Xinjiang, by not properly defining it so, we run the risk of that getting twisted to Uttar Arunachal Pradesh and HHDL as a terrorist and we accused of harbouring him. Silly mistake to keep the hole open.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 May 2015 17:11

McMahon Line illegal: China responds to Ajit Doval
While we go about doing a dance around friendly relations, trade and a "desire" to solve the boundary question, PRC is quite clear - no settlement is on the table that both sides can expect. It is time NOT to half the MSC but double down.

Sticking to its stand that McMahon Line on India-China boundary is "illegal", China Monday said it is ready to work with India to resolve the vexed border issue at an early date through "friendly consultations" to create more favourable conditions for bilateral ties.

"The Chinese side holds a consistent and clear position on the eastern section of the China-India boundary," foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said, reaffirming Beijing's claims on Arunachal Pradesh, which it says is a part of 'Southern Tibet'.

"The Chinese government does not recognise 'the McMahon Line', which is illegal," she said, reacting to national security advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval's remarks made at the KF Rustamji lecture in New Delhi recently.

"The Chinese side is ready to work with the Indian side to resolve the boundary question through friendly consultation at an early date and create more favourable conditions for the development of the bilateral relations," she said in a written response to a PTI query.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2015 17:21

It is high time that this govt made it clear to the Chinese govt that it not involve itself in PoK or face action there via any means possible. I am yet to hear a clear statement directed at PRC, it is always couched indirectly as being addressed to Pakistan.

RM's talking openly about MSC having no money when raised by previous govt is another faux pas. What if the previous govt sensed the pressures on the eastern front and had to bluff, even if there was no money. Why do you need to call our bluff ourselves. Let them figure it out if it is for real or not.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 May 2015 23:04

This new item makes it clear that the stupid twat Srinath Raghavan is pushing the chinese line in India by pretending to teach the NSA lessons on the Mcmahon line. The chinese know damn well that they use the McMahon line as an excuse to usurp territory where it suits then and ignore it when it doesn't, but the likes of Srinath Raghavan are too frigging stupid to see the obvious, clearly, assuming his view stem from incompetence and not malice.

http://www.outlookindia.com/news/articl ... ina/898608

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 26 May 2015 06:52

Tuvaluan: By all means, disagree with the substantive points of Srinath Raghavan. But, why the abuses and utterly unsubstantiated charges? In fact, between your abuses, I cannot even understand what is your objection? Your abuses for him just on this page.

Nehruvian. moron. babucracy. idiocy. stupid, "pushing the chinese line in India" frigging stupid.

Also, you did not quote the substantive part of his objection to Ajit Doval's assertions.

Wrong on Myanmar and China

Let’s start with the facts. In their boundary agreement with Burma in October 1960, the Chinese did not accept the McMahon Line. For one thing, the section of the agreed Sino-Burmese boundary that was part of the original McMahon Line of 1914—Burma was an administrative unit of British India until 1937—departed slightly from the McMahon alignment. The difference was minor, but significant from China’s perspective. Further, as part of the negotiations the Burmese explicitly disavowed the McMahon Line, and at Chinese insistence they negotiated on the basis of a “customary” alignment.

The author even linked this paper as the reference to the above.

Burma – China Boundary
A relevant portion from the paper:

Sino - Burmese conversations on the border problem began in 1954. In 1956, while on a
visit to China, the Burmese premier suggested that the two states accept the boundaries in
effect at the time of Burmese independence (1948). The communist regime, after a brief
period, countered with the suggestion that a) the "traditional line" including the portion of
the McMahon line in the north be accepted, b) the Namwan lease be abrogated, c) the
1941 line be validated, and d) Hpimaw, Gawlam, and Kangfang villages be returned to
China. The Burmese Government took the offer seriously and even discussed the
proposed territorial transfer with leaders of the Kachin State. The border problem had
become increasingly troublesome as a result of military operations by Nationalist Chinese
troops. These troops, cut off from the main force of the Republic after its evacuation to
Taiwan, had crossed over the boundary and established bases of operations in Burma (as
well as in Laos). Frequent incursions into Burma by communist Chinese troops followed.

In spite of the initial favorable reaction of Burma, the border settlement did not attain a
successful conclusion until 1960. By the provisions of the newly-negotiated treaties, 132
square miles of Burmese territory was transferred to China (59 miles at Hpimaw and 73
miles at Panglao-Panghung) while Burma gained full title to the 85 square miles of the
Namwan leased territory. The precise timing of the treaty appears to be related to the
difficulties the Chinese communist regime were having maintaining a good image in Asia.
The Sino - Burmese treaty was followed shortly by a Sino - Nepali boundary treaty and still
later by additional ones with Pakistan and Afghanistan. These, when combines with the
established boundaries with Vietnam and Cambodia, leave only the Indian boundary in
dispute along China's southern borderlands.

Srinath Raghavan is a soldier scholar, who has served in the Indian Army!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2015 07:09

Baah!

If China doesn't accept McMahon line, it's even better. Srinath Raghavan, if not Nehruvian Moron, would have left China's border outside Tibet where it was in 1914. My gift to that moron : http://www.miklianmaps.com/images/1914% ... 0china.jpg

He would also be knowing another "fact" that the Tibetan Govt in exile still exists & is fighting China's illegal occupation of Tibet.

Some Soldier-Scholor indeed!

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 26 May 2015 07:19

ShauryaT wrote: Srinath Raghavan is a soldier scholar, who has served in the Indian Army!

I know his history -- he writes utter sh!t still. So what if he served in the Indian army? Does not give him a license to writter utterly worthless cr@p. Well he can, but no reason anyone has to buy any of this nonsense. Does he really think Mr. Doval would have addressed the Chinese by misreading history as he claims? Mr. Doval is openly pointing out to chinese double standards in how they "resolve" boundary issues, and this Srinath is giving him advice on how to read history?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 26 May 2015 07:32

^Sure, it only gives you a license to abuse and cast aspersions on his loyalty. Anyways, my point, was do you have a point, beyond your assertions that he writes utter shit and worthless crap and nonsense? For clearly, there are many who may disagree with his points but cannot reasonably claim that what he writes is not valued enough for he is not only paid and is employed for his writings but is valued enough by the government to continue to receive his advise?

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 26 May 2015 07:50

shauryaT wrote: Anyways, my point, was do you have a point, beyond your assertions that he writes utter shit and worthless crap and nonsense?

Did you read his article? and did you pay attention to what Mr. Doval said.

he writes is not valued enough for he is not only paid and is employed for his writings but is valued enough by the government to continue to receive his advise?

Oh, the govt. actually pays attention to his cr@p, that's just fantastic -- though going by the current GoI's way of dealing with China, I would wager no one is listening to this Srinath Raghava since that is at odds with all of this "Advice" to the GoI. He works for Center For Policy Research, an institution that pretends Nehru was India's founder, so it is not really surprising that his writing does not meander too far from the typical Nehruvian worldview. If Srinath Raghavan can pretend that the NSA is a moron who can't read, then surely others can judge him for his dim-witted naivete. Anyway, you can believe whatever you want about him, as will I.

Since you seem to be fascinated by him, here is his latest steaming pile in the Hindu. His political leanings are quite evident from the last paragraph, so we can quit pretending he is some sort of objective scholar when he isn't. He is politically compromised like most of those operating from New Delhi think tanks.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/s ... 241633.ece

Recall that the first United Progressive Alliance government chalked up rather more impressive accomplishment after just over a year in office: the joint statement with the U.S. on the nuclear deal and the agreement on parameters for settling the boundary with China.

Fat lot of good all this "agreeing on parameters" with China does, when they keep shifting the goalposts, is it not? And this guy touts that as some sort of massive achievement, and which is why he pompously advices the NSA on how to deal with China -- the subtext there is that he believes that the UPA dealt with China better than the current regime, a laughably partisan claim.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2015 11:53

Southeast Asia accelerates its maritime buildup amid tensions with China - Reuters, Japan Times

Southeast Asian nations are prioritizing spending on their navies and coast guards amid rising tensions in the South China Sea, but as their capabilities grow, so does the risk that any confrontation in the contested waterway will be harder to contain.

Annual defense spending in Southeast Asia is projected to reach $52 billion by 2020, from an expected $42 billion this year, according to IHS Janes Defence Weekly.

The 10 nations of Southeast Asia are expected to spend $58 billion on new military kit over the next five years, with naval procurement comprising a large chunk, it said.

Much of this equipment is likely to be used in and around the South China Sea, where Beijing’s creation of artificial islands has alarmed some Asian countries and stoked tension between China’s navy and the U.S. air force.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also have overlapping claims.

“As their capabilities in the maritime space expand, it means the range and lethality of (Southeast Asian) strike forces will also increase,” said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Asia.

“If there is a confrontation and it escalates, there is a potential for a more lethal conflict.”

The interest in beefing up maritime capabilities was apparent last week at the IMDEX Asia maritime defense show in Singapore, where regional naval chiefs and defense procurement officials mingled with contractors from the United States, Europe, Israel and other parts of Asia.

Mock-ups of state-of-the-art submarines and warships, patrol vessels and amphibious boats as well as surveillance aircraft and drones were all on display.

“I had no free time. Several senior officers visited our stand and were keen on what we had to offer,” said an executive from a major European defense contractor.

It is not all about geo-politics. Regional governments are also concerned about piracy and the smuggling of goods and people.

Malaysia and Indonesia have sent their navies out to search for thousands of migrants from mainly Myanmar and Bangladesh who are believed to be adrift at sea.

But while the maritime wish-lists are long, Southeast Asian budgets are tight everywhere except Singapore.

“Military officers are being told to repair and keep using equipment that should have been replaced decades ago,” one regional military source, who declined to be identified, said on the sidelines of the IMDEX show.

An Indonesian military source said the new government of President Joko Widodo was focusing on maritime defense, but that the build-up would take time.

Southeast Asian government sources said there had been a deliberate move to acquire capabilities that allow naval forces to operate more effectively in coastal zones.

After Singapore built six Formidable-class multirole frigates in partnership with France’s state-controlled naval contractor DCNS, others followed suit, said Richard Bitzinger, a security expert at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

Malaysia has ordered six corvettes worth around 9 billion ringgit ($2.5 billion) from DCNS. Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand are also in talks with suppliers from Russia and Europe.

Submarines are also popular. Vietnam has taken possession of three Russian-built Kilo-attack submarines and has three more on order, something experts say underscores Hanoi’s determination to counter China’s more powerful navy.

Singapore, which has four secondhand submarines, has ordered two from Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. Indonesia has ordered three from South Korea’s Daewoo Shipbuilding.

“Submarine force development suggests the navies are wary of maritime power projection capabilities in the region,” said Rukmani Gupta, senior armed forces analyst at IHS Janes.

Amphibious ships that can carry tanks, helicopters, troops and perform search and rescue missions are also in vogue.

Singapore’s ST Engineering is building four Endurance-class vessels for Singapore’s navy and one for Thailand, while Indonesia and the Philippines are looking to add similar ships to their fleets.

“These multipurpose vessels can be fitted for a range of missions. They are ideal for Southeast Asian navies, which have small budgets but a range of needs,” said Huxley.

The Philippines hopes to get by year-end the first of 10 coast guard vessels Japan is building for it. Japan is also supplying used navy patrol boats to Vietnam.

There has also been renewed interest in fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that improve maritime patrol capabilities.

Earlier this year at a Malaysian defense show, Boeing promoted its Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, which includes the radars and sensors that are on its P-8 Poseidon planes but not its antisubmarine warfare capabilities.

“As Southeast Asian navies add new capabilities for warfighting, any future conflict in the region is likely to be faster, more intense and more lethal, and therefore perhaps more devastating,” Bitzinger wrote in a research paper this month.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2015 12:29

China to project its military further and stronger - Agencies

China said Tuesday it will project its military power further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air, defending the construction of artificial islands which sparked concerns in Washington.

The People's Liberation Army navy will put a greater emphasis on "open seas protection", rather than "offshore waters defence" alone, the State Council, China's cabinet said in a white paper. At the same time its air force will shift focus "from territorial air defence to both defence and offence", it said. The army will increase its global mobility and artillery forces will strengthen capabilities for "medium and long range precision strikes", it added. The paper was released with China and the US at loggerheads over. Beijing's rapid island building in contested parts of the South China Sea, which Beijing claims almost in its entirety.

China on Friday declared that its military "drove away" a US surveillance aircraft flying near the artificial islands, after US media witnessed a tense radio exchange. A CNN television crew aboard a P-8 Poseidon plane recorded the Chinese navy issuing eight warnings and American pilots replying in each case that they were flying through "international airspace". China has protested to Washington over the flight, calling it "highly irresponsible and dangerous" and warning that such actions could cause "unwanted incidents".

Beijing has increased annual spending on its military the largest by personnel in the world by double digit annual percentages for several decades as it seeks to modernise its forces. It has focused on increasing its naval power, commissioning its first aircraft carrier 2012 and rapidly adding to its submarine and surface fleets.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2015 12:34

Taiwan proposes plan to ease South China Sea tensions - Japan Times

Taiwan proposed a peace initiative Tuesday to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea that its says will reduce tensions that have put Beijing at odds with its neighbors and the United States.

The South China Sea Peace Initiative announced by President Ma Ying-jeou called on claimants to temporarily shelve their disagreements to enable negotiations on sharing resources.

Ma’s plan is similar to a 2012 proposal for the East China Sea, which allowed Taiwan and Japan to jointly fish in the contested waters.

However, it appeared unlikely the plan would be accepted by China, which claims most of the South China Sea and has rebuffed earlier attempts at multilateral negotiations.

Taiwan has so far played a marginal role in disputes between China and its neighbors in the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year.

China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei all have overlapping claims in the South China Sea. China said on Monday it had lodged a complaint with the United States over a U.S. spy plane that flew over parts of the disputed sea.

Ma’s remarks in a keynote speech at an international law conference in Taipei were the most public comments by Taiwan since the United States, its biggest ally, raised concerns over the speed and breadth of China’s land reclamation in the area.

“We demand that freedom of navigation and overflight be respected in the South China Sea,” said Ma, who urged a peaceful resolution “before a major conflict breaks out.”

Taiwan normally maintains a low-key approach to such issues but has coast guard and military facilities in the area, including an airstrip and soon-to-be-completed port on Taiping Island, also known as Itu Abu, the largest natural land mass in the disputed Spratlys archipelago.

“I believe the mainland side understands the spirit and principle of our South China Sea peace initiative,” Taiwan Foreign Minister David Lin told reporters after Ma’s speech.

The United States wants the sea to stay open to shipping and flights, while Beijing has said Washington wants to keep a presence there to contain Chinese maritime expansion. Taiwan is keen to get along with the United States as its staunchest informal ally.

Ma’s initiative “is not enough for China and it’s not enough for the United States, so you just end up not meeting everyone’s expectations,” said Lai I-chung, vice president of Taiwan Think Tank.

The peace plan may also be calculated to bolster Taiwan’s ruling Kuomintang ahead of the January 2016 presidential election as their chief opposition candidate develops a competing plan for the South China Sea, said Joanna Lei, chief executive officer of the Chunghua 21st Century Think Tank in Taiwan.

Ma has been criticized at home for lack of foreign policy achievements.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 26 May 2015 13:07

ShauryaT wrote:^Sure, it only gives you a license to abuse and cast aspersions on his loyalty. Anyways, my point, was do you have a point, beyond your assertions that he writes utter shit and worthless crap and nonsense? For clearly, there are many who may disagree with his points but cannot reasonably claim that what he writes is not valued enough for he is not only paid and is employed for his writings but is valued enough by the government to continue to receive his advise?

The question I would have is: Why is it necessary for an Indian soldier-scholar to go to so much trouble to attempt to make China's case for it? Even if you think of the dispute as a judicial proceeding (which it is obviously not), a lawyer who goes out of his way to help the opponent's case is considered guilty of malpractice. So, it is fair to ask, exactly which side is the author on?

I think a lot of Indians, perhaps even soldier-scholars, when it comes to power play with India's adversaries, naively behave as though God will decide who gets what, therefore we have to be scrupulously fair and honest, even to the extent of concocting a principled rationalization for the adversary 's obviously cynical power play which is meant to gain maximum advantage. Where the adversary invokes principle, it is also to gain a propaganda advantage for his side, nothing more or less.

I am tempted to say that this is a stereotypical Hindu trait: an unholy obsession with treating the adversary with heartfelt and needless fairness and generosity, even when doing so gives us no discernible benefit, in fact quite the opposite usually happens.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2015 13:44

Despite Beijing Bonhomie, China stalls India's move on Salahuddin: Officials - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu

Despite commitments on fighting terror in the joint statement between India and China during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Beijing, officials say they are “concerned” over a series of moves by the Chinese government to stall India’s proposals at the United Nations.

Since December 2014, India’s Permanent Mission to the UN has filed at least three separate proposals on Pakistan-based terrorists, each of which has been reportedly delayed or stopped by China at the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee on Al-Qaida and associated entities. “We are concerned about China’s persistent opposition to our terror proposals,” a government official said.

Official sources also confirmed to The Hindu that China has put a “technical hold” on India’s request to list Hizbul Mujahideen chief and head of the ‘United Jihad Council’, Syed Salahuddin. The “technical hold” amounts to a veto on going ahead with the listing process for at least three months, as the UN Committee on al-Qaeda and associated entities, (also called the ‘1267 Committee’ for the UN Security Council resolution of 1999 that banned Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders), as the committee can only decide by “consensus”. All 1267 committee meetings are “closed-door sessions” between the 15 Security Council members, so officials depend on other diplomats to tell them which country opposes and supports a proposal.

Sources said the hold was put on Salahuddin’s listing during a meeting of the committee in April this year, but even the discussion on India’s proposal had been delayed for months after the original request was made in September last year. During that time, the 1267 committee met more than 15 times, and agreed to add about 30 new names to the sanctioned list. The listing means all member States must cut off the entity’s finances, travel and access to arms.

The request is a part of an Indian government initiative for years against Salahuddin, who is wanted for several Hizbul Mujahideen attacks. The United Jihad Council that he heads includes the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. In 2008, just two weeks after the Mumbai terror attacks, Salahuddin was photographed praying along with 26/11 key accused Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi. The Indian request to list him came after a public speech by Salahuddin in Muzaffarabad in July 2014, where he called on al-Qaeda and Taliban cadres “to fight Indian security forces in Kashmir”. Diplomats said they are puzzled by China’s move in the case as it has asked for more proof of Salahuddin’s links with the Al-Qaida. “Why should China have any opinion in the Salahuddin case, if it isn’t to help Pakistan,” one official asked, while speaking to The Hindu.

While Chinese officials seldom speak directly on the issue, the Chinese government has long maintained its close ties with Pakistan and coordination at the UN. In an interview last September, Chinese Ambassador to India Le Yucheng had told an agency, “Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism… China, India and Pakistan ought to work together to deal with the problem of terrorism and root out the cause of terrorism.”

Meanwhile, Salahuddin’s case is not the only one in which Indian proposals have faced resistance from China, sources said. In December 2014, India had issued several letters both to the UN and to the Pakistani government asking how LeT and Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed, who is on the 1267 list, was able to fund massive rallies in Lahore and Karachi. Most recently, last month, India’s Permanent Representative Asoke Mukerji had written a letter to the then Chairman of the Committee James McLay (since replaced), asking the 1267 committee to investigate who had paid or stood guarantee for Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi’s bail, as he too is on the sanctions list, and can have no recourse to funds. The issue is also pending with the 1267 committee, which has met twice already in May, without taking up the Indian proposals, allegedly after interventions by the Chinese Permanent Representative.

In the joint statement between Mr. Modi and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang issued on May 15, both sides committed to fighting terror and “urged all countries and entities to work sincerely to disrupt terrorist networks and their financing, and stop cross-border movement of terrorists”. The words gave hope, one official said to The Hindu: “But we are yet to see China’s words translating on the ground in the UN.”

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2015 13:51

China has at least on two earlier (2006 & 2008) occasions blocked the UNSC’s Taliban-Al Qaeda group from declaring Jama’at-ud-Dawah and its Emir, Hafeez Saeed from being included in the list of entities and persons proscribed under Resolution 1267. It put a technical hold on all these occasions demanding to see ‘more evidence’. In May 2009, after JuD and Hafeez Saeed were eventually placed on the list in Dec. 2008, China blocked Indian move to place Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammed on the same UN 1267 Committee list. Later, when India engaged China in counter-terrorism talks in July, 2011 and presented evidence about JeM and Maulana Masood Azhar, it summarily refused to re-visit that issue. It also rejected Indian requests to place Azzam Cheema and Abdul Rehman Makki of the LeT under the Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions list. In the UNSC, China remained the only country not to accede to this Indian request. The usual Chinese excuse has been “there is no single definition of terrorism” and hence China has avoided taking a clarified stand on it. Because of its close proximity to Pakistan, China has been non-cooperating in counter terrorism issues even though the bilateral dialogue has been going on annually since c. 2002. It was during the Indian Foreign Minister Ms. Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Beijing in February 2015 that some change was visible in the Chinese stand. A joint statement issued by the three foreign ministers of Russia, India and China (RIC meeting) “underlined the need to bring to justice perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of terrorist acts. The ministers reiterated that there can be no ideological, religious, political, racial, ethnic, or any other justification for acts of terrorism,”. China and Russia also decided to back India for moving a proposal at the United Nations that essentially goes against Pakistan on the issue of terrorism. The three foreign ministers called for early conclusion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a resolution passed by India in 1986 but which has been languishing since then. And, now the Betal has once again climbed the tree.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 May 2015 20:13

Analysis: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/jhinuk-cho ... 18840.html
"How 'Act East' Can Be India's Key To Managing China".

Quite evidently Beijing's insistence about common points of convergence between the two countries is to spare China of any friction with India in its Act East policy. This is perhaps a point India should leverage. China is working with Pakistan to construct a Sino-Pakistan Economic Corridor across the Karakoram ranges into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and connecting with the Arabian Sea at Gwadar.

But read the whole piece.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 May 2015 22:05

This is one war I will not mind seeing in my lifetime:

China-plans-blunt-move-into-open-seas-warns-foreign-powers-not-to-meddle

China outlined on Tuesday a strategy to expand the reach of its military, as it continues to press its territorial claims in the South China Sea. The strategy came amid a series of louder warnings to the United States to divert its military presence in the area.

The Chinese Navy will shift its focus to "open seas protection" rather than "offshore waters defense" alone, according to a policy document issued by the State Council, China’s government cabinet. Meanwhile, China's air force will shift its focus from territorial air defense to "both defense and offense.”

The new plan threatens to escalate tensions in a region already closely watching the extent of Beijing’s maritime ambitions. The State Council criticized neighboring countries that take “proactive actions” on reefs and islands claimed by China.

Recommended: Asia's troubled waters: What's going on in the South China Sea? Take our quiz.

While the document highlights four key areas of China's national security – the ocean, outer space, nuclear force, and cyber space – its naval strategy carries the greater sting, given its recent activity in the South China Sea. Satellite images released last month show the construction of a runway on Fiery Cross Reef, part of the Spratly Islands, an archipelago claimed by at least three other countries.

Test your knowledge| Asia's troubled waters: What's going on in the South China Sea? Take our quiz.

Photos of the Day| Photos of Memorial Day weekend

China building islands and bases

The construction on Fiery Cross Reef is part of a larger Chinese reclamation project on at least five islands in the South China Sea, reports The New York Times. China is converting tiny reefs into islands big enough to handle military equipment.

US officials say China has created about 2,000 acres of dry land since 2014 that could be used as airstrips. State news agency Xinhua reported Tuesday that two lighthouses are under construction on the Spratly Islands.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun defended China’s reclamation work by claiming that it was no different to building roads or bridges on the mainland. "Looking from the angle of sovereignty, China's development of construction on its islands is no different,” he said, according to The Associated Press.

China threatens to 'engage'

Mr. Yang added that island building was "beneficial to the whole of international society" because it aided China's search and rescue, and environmental protection work. He also delivered a strong message to the United States, as Reuters reports:

“
Some countries with "ulterior motives" had unfairly characterized China's military presence and sensationalized the issue, he said. Surveillance in the region was increasingly common and China would continue to take "necessary measures" to respond.

"Some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs. A tiny few maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China," the strategy paper said in a thinly veiled reference to the United States.

Yang’s comments followed an incident last week in which a Chinese navy dispatcher warned off a US spy plane as it flew over Fiery Cross Reef. On Monday, the official Communist Party newspaper Global Times warned in an editorial that Washington should not test Beijing's restraint or China would have "no choice but to engage."

China has overlapping claims with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Brunei in the South China Sea, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. An estimated $5 trillion in trade passes through every year.

The US Navy regularly patrols waters in the region to monitor the shipping lanes and keep them open and undisturbed.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 26 May 2015 22:10

Mr. Yang added that island building was "beneficial to the whole of international society" because it aided China's search and rescue, and environmental protection work. He also delivered a strong message to the United States, as Reuters reports:

“
Some countries with "ulterior motives" had unfairly characterized China's military presence and sensationalized the issue, he said. Surveillance in the region was increasingly common and China would continue to take "necessary measures" to respond.

They must think everyone else is as stupid as their little red book worshiping subjects.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2015 22:21

The Cocos in Bay of Bengal probably already has a air-strip, and we let them sit there.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 26 May 2015 23:10

This is the second King's Institute (UK) "expert" to push the chinese line in the Indian media with respect to the border issue with China -- the first one was Srinath Raghavan.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/twi ... aga/294406

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 May 2015 02:49

Bade wrote:The Cocos in Bay of Bengal probably already has a air-strip, and we let them sit there.

Bade: There is not a shred of evidence available to Indian sources that any such military surveillance site on the island exists, let alone an air strip that a 9 year old can search for these days. Myanmar has flatly denied any Chinese presence.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 May 2015 03:03

Tuvaluan wrote:This is the second King's Institute (UK) "expert" to push the chinese line in the Indian media with respect to the border issue with China -- the first one was Srinath Raghavan.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/twi ... aga/294406

An excellent article, that only someone who understands PRC leadership could write. Thank you for posting. Put up some points you want to rebut on their works?

.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 27 May 2015 03:33

ShauryaT wrote: An excellent article, that only someone who understands PRC leadership could write. Thank you for posting. Put up some points you want to rebut on their works?

It is really wonderful that you loved this article -- I am so pleased. Please first respond to the problems pointed out in Srinath Raghava's writing. I am not interested responding to troll bait when earlier points have been ignored. As for you claims of "understanding chinese leadership", China is a closed society run by the CCP that only reveals what outsiders want to see, so any claims of "reading the mind of the chinese leadership" is just bluster, so if you are going make up stuff about someone understanding chinese leadership, please do expound on what exactly amounts to "Reading the chinese leadership" -- you are the one here pretending to understand the chinese leadership, so go ahead and spell it out, failing which it can be assumed that you just bullsh1tting people with such claims

To recap, Mr. Doval's statement is that the chinese positions on McMahon line is arbitrary and inconsistent, in line with their overall tactics of confusing their intentions deliberately while they steadily fortify capability, so that they defacto take what they want, even as they distract Indians with their pretense of "resolving border issues". The response to such a openly duplicitous adversary is to play a similar game, not to go around talking about "congenially resolving issues".

Their actions speak louder and their consistent gap between their actions and their rhetoric is what is of interest -- what is the utility of divining their leadership is thinking, if it does not allow one to predict their actions down the line? The only constant over the decades has been their changing of their positions tactically and making random claims on territory as a cover for their real motives on some other territory they claim -- this externality is what India has to deal with, and "working hard to honestly resolve issues" is not the correct approach. The larger point is that responding effectively to a hostile adversary can be done purely based on their overall behavior without necessarily divining what their "leadership" (which is not monolithic and is run by a committee) is thinking.