US and PRC relationship & India

[TonyMontana]

I think our establishent consistently underestimates what Taiwan has to offer us. In part, I fear that our establishment has written off Taiwan as a lost cause (a Han-majority nation - ultimately doomed to sign up with China). I think we are not reading the situation correctly (and I've said this multiple times in the past on this forum). A very large proportion of Taiwan's would never accept annexation by China (by most accounts, at least 70%, and possibly upto 90%). There is a business lobby that has been co-opted by the goodies the China market has to offer, but that state of affairs is as fragile as the Chinese market....

I'm sure there is contact and activity under the radar, but a calibrated set of _public_ moves (possibly well short of establishing full diplomatic ties) would provide us another point of leverage. The Taiwanese oppostion (now looking likely to win power in the next election) would welcome such moves, and even the ruling KMT would be open to some ...

What exactly do Taiwan have to offer India? That's a serious question. What is this leverage that you speak of?

A well armed Taiwan would tie up more military resources perhapes. But would you expect the Chinese to shift focus from India to Taiwan?

The key word regarding Taiwan is "status quo". There will not be conflict unless Taiwan declears independence. China won't unilaterally attack because it's bad for business and there is no need. So it's gonna be more of the same for a long time.

I just don't see the BIG benefits you expect from these "closer-relationships", that some of the India posters seems to believe in.

There's no point in just saying we have to do this. You have to ask why? And for how much? From my world view, it seems it will only piss off the CCP with no real gains for India. Unless pissing off the CCP is the point of the exercise.

[Sanjay M]

Taiwan is under pro-mainland KMT rule anyway, so they won't be of any help to India.

Atlanticist-leaning USA had gone out of its way to reprimand pro-autonomist Chen Shui-bian, who is now in prison. So that has allowed pro-mainlander Ma to take over and let China have its way. Other than imprisoning Chen and perhaps trying to bring in EVMs, he'll have to pull some more stunts to be able to keep riding the tiger.

The best regional fallback for India might be Vietnam.

[ramana]

Cant let status quo keep us down. Its not enough to say cant bell the cat. Need to find a way. What alternatives do you both have?

[Pratyush]

Ramana,

Unless India has the developed the ability to underwrite botu the prosperity and security of ASEAN members. Status quo cannot be modified in our favour.

That is the problem.

Ultimately India must develop the economic and military muscle to gurantee the security of different nations. At its perephery, till that time India must live with the Current economic and security situation.



JMT.

[Christopher Sidor]

I think our establishent consistently underestimates what Taiwan has to offer us. In part, I fear that our establishment has written off Taiwan as a lost cause (a Han-majority nation - ultimately doomed to sign up with China). I think we are not reading the situation correctly (and I've said this multiple times in the past on this forum). A very large proportion of Taiwan's would never accept annexation by China (by most accounts, at least 70%, and possibly upto 90%). There is a business lobby that has been co-opted by the goodies the China market has to offer, but that state of affairs is as fragile as the Chinese market....

I'm sure there is contact and activity under the radar, but a calibrated set of _public_ moves (possibly well short of establishing full diplomatic ties) would provide us another point of leverage. The Taiwanese oppostion (now looking likely to win power in the next election) would welcome such moves, and even the ruling KMT would be open to some ...

What exactly do Taiwan have to offer India? That's a serious question. What is this leverage that you speak of?

A well armed Taiwan would tie up more military resources perhapes. But would you expect the Chinese to shift focus from India to Taiwan?

The key word regarding Taiwan is "status quo". There will not be conflict unless Taiwan declears independence. China won't unilaterally attack because it's bad for business and there is no need. So it's gonna be more of the same for a long time.

I just don't see the BIG benefits you expect from these "closer-relationships", that some of the India posters seems to believe in.

There's no point in just saying we have to do this. You have to ask why? And for how much? From my world view, it seems it will only piss off the CCP with no real gains for India. Unless pissing off the CCP is the point of the exercise.

I agree with Tony. We are separated from Taiwan by two oceans. And in one ocean, we will go perilously close to Chinese owned territories. So unlike Pakistan, with which China shares a land border, we do not share any border with Taiwan. And there is a question of what help can Taiwan give us in return? Whereas Tibet and Xinjiang are considered, Taiwanese considers them to be an inalienable part of china.
Taiwan has never said that it wants independence from china as a separate state. It was known as "Republic of China", till a few years ago for a reason. Its orientation is overwhelmingly Chinese.

Let Taiwan be the headache of the Americans. Let us not get into it.

[Manishw]

India, even if it would successfully manage to fend off PRC from it's own border's has to insure that not only it becomes powerful enough to take the fight to the heartland of P.R.C but also to insure that Japan, Soko, Afg., Taiwan, Vietnam, SL and BD, Nepal etc do not fall into the Chinese orbit which IMHO is a process which has started.All countries require a different approach but thinking of what's in it for us is taking a very narrow view.Hence the present status quo is not sustainable.Two big power's like India and china in Asia cannot coexist and to the best of my knowledge has never happened in history?One of us has to downsize sooner or later.

[hshukla]

just to show that its not pleased...maybe India could launch under some pretext...a few hits at the terrorist training camps..with a few Brahmos going wayward and hitting the upcoming Infra projects at PoK.

JMT

[Manishw]

Last night Shiv Ji was talking of India blowing a hole through Pakistan to Afghanistan in the POK thread.I would just offer a half baked Idea that the best way to do that is through P.O.K(two of many reason's are that it is sparsely populated and less legal problems).We have to keep that hole open also, blasting is not enough.Now the problem is that PRC is already there.Fine get ready to take them on.Unkil if he is ready to help , by all mean's take his help but if not get ready to do it on our own.These thing's are now vital to India's Natinal security.No dilly dallying should take place, otherwise the price would be too heavy for us to pay.India can't afford to play a 'frog in the well' role anymore.

[Hari Seldon]

Am reminded of a quote by Sri Lee Kuan Haw, former S'pore PM in one of his less guarded moments....

In all of Asia, India alone can look China in the eye.

Or something like that.

Sadly, Des has underperformed both promise and potential in both prosperity and power projection spheres only.

Maybe someday a few decades hence we will be able to catch up, maybe not. Time will tell.

[Manishw]

Am reminded of a quote by Sri Lee Kuan Haw, former S'pore PM in one of his less guarded moments....

In all of Asia, India alone can look China in the eye.

Or something like that.

Sadly, Des has underperformed both promise and potential in both prosperity and power projection spheres only.

Sadly I do agree.

Maybe someday a few decades hence we will be able to catch up, maybe not. Time will tell.

Hari ji No! A few decades hence we will be balkanized if we continue on the same path.Thing's have to move on a war footing from now on.

No 'Jai Ho's' Hari ji only 'Jai Hu' this time.

[Christopher Sidor]

Hari ji No! A few decades hence we will be balkanized if we continue on the same path.Thing's have to move on a war footing from now on.

No 'Jai Ho's' Hari ji only 'Jai Hu' this time.

Come on, don't be so despondent. India has lots going for it. "The night is darkest just before the dawn". We are going through our night, vs China. The dawn will come. Take solace from the fact, that in spite of china being composed of 70-80% ethnic Hans, it has in its history been equally fragmented, if not more, than India with its diversity has been. India has been wiser than chinese, in first getting the social matrix right first, and then concentrating on economic growth. The Chinese have believed that social matrix will be reformed along with economic growth or can be taken up after wards. Whether it will work or not, is a big question mark.

Also like I have said before, China is like Japan on Steroids. We know what happened to Japan, after 1988-91, when the Japan rising was at its peak. It was a period, i.e 1988-91, when Japan was lecturing America on a balanced budget. It was also a period, when Japan bought up "half of California", when books were being written about the superiority of the Japanese work ethic and what not. Hopefully China, will avoid the same fate.

[RajeshA]

India should play the US card jus as PRC is playing the US card. Let me explain. The PRC proliferates to US allies in India's periphery and the US does nothing but issue platitudes and wring hands about treaty obligations, great power compulsions and other BS all the while Indian security is singed. India should identify US allies in PRC neighborhood who have issues with PRC and bolster them. The other thing is to support those powers who are neighbors of PRC rogues: NoKo and TSP.

So I suggest supporting SoKo, Japan and Afghanistan.

Vietnam and Iran are different category.

South Korea
Mostly the only tension between PRC and SoKo, IMHO, is with regards to some historical reinterpretation of the Goguryeo Kingdom. This however is being used by China to justify retaining its territories in Manchuria within PRC, and have less to do with occupying current lands within North Korea and South Korea.

It is unclear whether Koreans, say after the collapse of North Korea, would lay claims on these territories or not. Most probably not, considering that South Korea would already be under stress integrating the North Korean territories within Korea, than with reclaiming age-old territories in other countries.

Beyond delivering a little injury to Korean pride, this issue, IMHO, does not hide any potential of a war between South Korea and PRC.

Another dispute between PRC and South Korea is over an underwater reef called Socotra Rock. This, IMHO, does not hold the potential for a conflict.

South Korea's biggest challenges is to keep up with China as a marine power, is to ensure a smooth integration with North Korea whenever the time is ripe, and the other is to ensure that there is no war with North Korea.

Generally speaking South Korea does enjoy good relations with Beijing.

There is not much India can offer South Korea in dealing with its security challenges. India did stop a North Korean ship once carrying missile components to Pakistan. India can nevertheless help South Korea in securing its ships passing through the Indian Ocean.

Indian Ocean Security

For the cargo passing through the Indian Ocean, security from pirates is the main challenge. Where India can make a substantial contribution to the security of South Korea, Taiwan and Japan is in securing their ships passing the coast of Somalia.

May be the pirates can play the same role for India as the jihadis play for Pakistan - as a means of blackmail & gaining influence.

Anyway India can reach some arrangement with these countries to aid them in curbing piracy on their ships. Of course, these countries should dole out some payments for these security services - that would include South Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese investments in India, especially in infrastructure.

Technological Leap
All three, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are bastions of technological innovation. This is where India can partner with all of them, to design and manufacture new breed of weaponry. It will benefit these countries as well as India.

There ought to be more intensive exchange of Students with these countries.

Containment of PRC
The only two credible vectors of putting pressure on the Chinese is in my opinion through Vietnam (conventional power) and through Afghanistan and Central Asia (sub-conventional power).

India should see to it that Vietnam receives sufficient cooperation to make it as strong a military and economic power as possible. India should also proliferate nuclear weapons technology to Vietnamese. India can start by setting up nuclear plants in Vietnam and giving Vietnamese critical knowledge of nuclear tech.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it is one of the most efficient generator of Jihadism, and Uighur Jihadism can be nurtured there with sufficient plausible deniability. First order of the day would however be retaking PoK and breaking up Pakistan.

[krisna]

Among the countries which can help the most in unravelling china is the TSP-Afghanisthan combo.( I mean the POK access to Indian union which can occur only by dissolution of bakistan)
Other countries are second best - ASEAN nations are helpful in trade and commerce. also defence cooperation particularly around malacca straits. It also helps them to keep china at bay(defensively) with India helping them. They will try to balance the 2 powers rather than outrightly go against any one of them.

Why TSP-Afghanisthan combo is crucial and easiest of all (relatively speaking compared to the other options available)-

1) china is growing economically and requires oil and gas for it. its imports are growing day by day. Now it is more than 50%. At present it is through IOR that the oil passes and thru malacca staits.
2) India by nature of its unique geography is bang in the centre and it has the reach from gulf to malacca straits from Indian mainland.
3) Only India can handle china other than of course uncle in IOR. (Russia will not attempt any mischief at present).chinese ships will be sitting ducks to Indian navy. it is also expensive and difficult for chinese forces to come around china to defend their ships.(china will take time to develop a true blue water navy)
4) India is the only dominant power(relative to others) in asia to hinder china's ascendancy to high table (resented by china).

How does china aim to achieve this--
1) To bypass Indian control of IOR it wants access to gwadar. this is the most important consideration of china wrt India. pakistan is sworn enemy of India by virtue of its genes(is). So chinese best bet (also cheapest) is pakistan (helped by fortuitous circumstances of J&K issue in 1947 with POK under pakistan control).--Enemy's enemy is my best friend policy.
2) By developing gwadar ,investing in economy, roads in KKH and elsewhere and railways, weapons etc. Honestly it is easy to keep pakistan happy-- anything to keep India under check- China gives weapons including new clear proliferation, J&K issue noises and visas issues etc to boost their standing among pakis. it also gives a handle to bakis to cock a snook at India. Oil will eventually pass thru pure land to china via POK. It in a way legitimises POK in baki eyes and responsibility to protect it as a jewel in the hope that china will go to war if anything happens to POK as it is their jugular with time to come in future. In return china will give J&K to bakis in case India suffers.
In the outbreak of hostilities between India & china, pakistan will have to be involved as goods are transported transported to china. Hence the need for two front war for India. if it was IOR alone only India china is involved without pakistan.(anyway pakistan involving itself in this war is always there)
3) Developing ports in SL/burma etc to surround India- IMHO this is secondary in case gwadar/pakistan fails. this is not a very effective way but better than nothing in IOR. mostly it will be used for refuelling facilities etc for ships. these can easily be bombed but again involves sovereignty of SL and Burma. This will expand the circle of operations against India by involving SL and Burma .

How can India break this-
We should proclaim that IOR is our neighbourhood to china and it is our core interest. Our interests should be from Afghanisthan to Burma. No questions or arguments here. It is our sphere.
1) By asserting its claim on J&K completely. Already it has parliament resolution on it. It has to be strong and keep making noises on it at every instance.
2) It has to undermine Pakistan and hasten its balkanisation asap. Pakistan is already going down the tubes despite uncle and china making efforts to prop it up with KSA and UK.
3) Having POK , cuts off china completely from bypassing IOR. China has to rely on oil pipes from central Asia/Afghanistan etc to Uighur. No access to gulf.
4) POK helps us to access central Asia/Afghanistan. Also we can develop Afghanistan to improve its conditions. Pakistan and china will not allow this to happen. Also balkanistaion of bakistan will reduce its nuisance potential to Afghanistan and India.
5) Develop ASEAN nations relations w rt defence trade and commerce. It can help both economies. How significant it will be in developing a counter to china is difficult to say. At best it is a distant second to POK access.
6) SL /Nepal/BD should be in our orbit. We should help them develop economically. They should look to India for market access etc. they should also be informed nicely of the problems if china is present in their lands which threatens our nation. By developing them they will be less susceptible to inducements from china.
7) Burma has a long border with India. India has to develop relations with it – damn the western world about the rights etc. Burma can be the sea port for eastern India economy. Mainland India is too far for the seven sister states. We can develop Burma by increasing our trade with it. It will also check china.
8 ) ASEAN nations are building a road from Vietnam to Burma, we should make it traverses to our part also. The economy should be intertwined to our eastern India so it benefits all our nations. So less incentive for them to play against India(thru china).

Less desirable--
1) In case POK is not in India's control- we can still bomb the roads and infrastructure of POK going to china but it will draw in bakistan which can be unpredictable and new clear threat is always there. OTOH both china pakistan are new clear states and unpredictable so it does not matter.

Overall whatever the scenario,
2) Developing relations with the ASEAN nations is important.
3) Keeping SL/Nepal/BD in our orbit. Bhutan is already in our orbit.
4) Balkanising bakis so that 2 front war potential is diminished (not completely) because rump pakjabi can still attack India if hostilities break out with china.
5) Keeping Iran on our side despite uncle asking us otherwise.
6) Raising Tibet issue is important and keep china on tender hooks.
7) Some noises about Taiwan is also imortant. Whether it helps or not is moot. But to keep their mischief potential under check. China raises J&K issue to keep bakis happy. They have no intention of claiming it.
8 ) Develop close relations with uncle without getting suffocated in its embrace.

What India has done so far-
1) Reaching out to ASEAN /Japan/Australian nations- good move
2) Helping BD/SL/Nepal- good moves but not enough. India should do more so that china dose not end up looking better. India's interests dictate it spend and look after them as their our buffer peripherally.
3) Helping Afghanisthan- brilliant move in the long run especially if it helps in breaking bakis. Otherwise it is ok move as pakistan will undo all our work thru talibs unless talibs can be defeated or coopted?????
4) Iranian relations to develop further despite uncle sanctions. India has to bypass them without breaking them.

Quoting KS

India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa and Arthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.

[krisna]

US India should counter china's maritime influence

With China increasing its military power and influence in the strategically crucial Indian Ocean, a noted American expert has urged the Obama Administration to partner India to balance and counter Beijing's increasing influence in the region.

As the Indian Ocean is becoming increasingly important to China's economic and security interests, Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation said that Beijing appears to be pursuing what has been widely known as a "string of pearls" strategy of cultivating India's neighbours as friendly states, both to protect its economic and security interests
and to balance a "rising India".

n the short term, Beijing is concerned about its growing dependence on the sea lanes of communications for sustaining China's economic growth.
In 2010, for the first time, China imported more than 50 per cent of its oil consumption. Chinese President Hu Jintao has already raised the issue of the Malacca Strait.

Part of China's interest in developing alternative ports and pipelines, such as in Pakistan and Burma, would seem to be motivated by a desire to reduce the criticality of the Malacca Strait," he said.

The growth of the Indian navy means that Chinese economic development is potentially at the mercy of India, as well as the United States. The forging of Indian security links with Japan and the United States is therefore a source of concern," he noted. This is likely an essential part of what is driving

That is, China is more intent on cultivating close ties, including but not limited to military ties, with the various South Asian states than necessarily focusing on surrounding and isolating India. The latter is simply a byproduct of the larger goal of ensuring that China's southern flank and the attendant oil lifeline are secure and populated by friendly states," he said.

The article is self explanatory in the behaviour of chinese wrt India.
Developing relations with bakis and using POK is tantamount to screwing India's core interests. bakis help them as anything against India is good for them.
China is roughshoding India's concern. It should be kept in its place by a combination of deft diplomatic moves aimed at breaking china-pakistan friendship which is possible by dissolution of TSP. some of which is enumerated in previous posts.
JMTs.

[Sanjay M]

China has already shown its ability to bleed the Vietnamese through unconventional power - ie. Khmer Rouge - with a little help from their ally Brzezinski.

China's interests in relation to Afghanistan have been protected by its surrogate Pak - again with a bit of help from ally Brzezinski.

This kind of help allowed China to avoid Soviet encirclement during the 1980s. There's no reason why it wouldn't continue to work in the future.

[svinayak]

Asia's Giants: Comparing China and India
Edward Friedman , Bruce Gilley

In the mid-1990s, a writer for the Economist concluded: “China
faces its crucial test in developing an institutional structure to sustain
a modern market economy. India has that skeleton in place but so far
lacks the dynamism and market-friendly policies that have given
China so much economic energy” (Rohwer 1995, 70). That comparison
holds true today. But India is finding it easier to implement marketfriendly
policies than China is to develop an institutional structure.

As a result, China’s future remains more unstable than India’s.
Even if China had achieved some sort of short-term “developmental
miracle” compared to India since 1975, there would be real reasons
to doubt its long-term feasibility. In the event, it has done nothing of
44 Bruce Gilley
the sort.

The idea that China took a better route to modernity by
delaying political reforms contains two falsehoods: one is that it has
outperformed democratic India so far, something that we have seen
earlier is untrue, judged in terms of welfare, freedoms, and procedural
justice. The second is the assumption that its constitutional transition,
when it happens, will be as painless as the passage of a new stock
market law. That is almost certainly wrong. China has end-loaded its
transition costs and those costs may be quite significant.

In any case, it may be that China simply should never have paid the
transition costs that India did. China does not face the degree of ethnic
diversity, the harmful anticolonial obsessions, or the web-like local
social powers that India did. China is peopled by a culture famous for
its entrepreneurial flair, attention to education, and political pragmatism.
To have paid as heavy a price as India for the passage to modernity
seems wasteful. To pay more would be pure folly.

[ramana]

krisna and RajeshA, You are getting my drift.The goal has to be to untangle the PRC-US nexus and the way to do is strategy and tactics. Right now they (PRC-US) both can have it bothways: heads or tails India loses. So the goal has to be such that they both find it best to untangle for their own good which is also good for India.

Thanks for quoting KS garu to support our line of thinking.

While at it realise containment is a defensive strategy. Building a fence round the bad guys and hoping they reform or leave us alone is not going to cut it. There have to be pressure points for the bad guys to pull a Bhasmasura.

The US way they did to FSU was a five decade project.

Forties they came up with containment.
Fifties they built up the defeated powers of WWII Germany and Japan to prevent further fall.
Sixties they sowed the first seeds of Muslim consolidation. They consciously chose Muslim fundamentalism over Arab Nationalism for the later is not sufficient and had FSU leanings due to modernism. This led to a soft spot in the Western Central Asian belly of FSU.
Seventies they untangled the PRC from the FSU orbit. Earlier it was unravelling but not yet firmly in US camp. This led to the Eastern Central Asians of spot.
Eighties they escalated the Afghan jihad and ramped up defense spending. And helped control the oil prices to reduce the revenue stream to FSU.

Nineties they reaped the benefit and lost it in the 2000 decade.

(On the other hand the FSU became Russia and dropped all its problem areas and resurged in the 2000 while US was engaged in Af-Pak and Iraq.)

We are now where we are as you know.

So untanglement is needed to create strategic space for India. Saying SOKO etc are not enough is not acceptable.. Then what is proposed?
After a lot of thought I think SoKo is the one.

Let us see.

[svinayak]

The US way they did to FSU was a five decade project.

Forties they came up with containment.
Fifties they built up the defeated powers of WWII Germany and Japan to prevent further fall.
Sixties they sowed the first seeds of Muslim consolidation. They consciously chose Muslim fundamentalism over Arab Nationalism for the later is not sufficient and had FSU leanings due to modernism. This led to a soft spot in the Western Central Asian belly of FSU.
Seventies they untangled the PRC from the FSU orbit. Earlier it was unravelling but not yet firmly in US camp. This led to the Eastern Central Asians of spot.
Eighties they escalated the Afghan jihad and ramped up defense spending. And helped control the oil prices to reduce the revenue stream to FSU.
Nineties they reaped the benefit and lost it in the 2000 decade.

Geo graphy was used to contained FSU. Geo-politics was the method used and alliance was made made on what those countries provided as part of the master plan.

India has to devise similar plan and create an alliance based on geo politics. Ideology or race or religion should not be a limiting factor.

[RajeshA]

So untanglement is needed to create strategic space for India. Saying SOKO etc are not enough is not acceptable.. Then what is proposed?
After a lot of thought I think SoKo is the one.
Let us see.

South Korea is not the game-changer in East Asia. North Korea is the free radical. If India wants to change the game, then India would have to go through North Korea.

How many countries in the world would rather have North Korea to point their nuclear missiles someplace else other than at South Korea or Japan?!

The question is, can India come close to North Korea without jeopardizing India's relations with Japan and South Korea?! If yes, then India should consider helping the North Korean Supertanker change its course towards animosity with China.

North Korea is perhaps the state under most pressure in the world, and would be grateful for any help. In fact Indian bonhomie with North Korea could piss off China even more than some gesture towards Taiwan. Maybe North Korea would be happy to get another friendly country to balance off Chinese influence over them.

JMTs

[Sanjay M]

Didn't NoKo give Pak missile tech to create Ghauri, etc?

I don't think we should be doing them any favours after what they did to us.

[ramana]

RajeshA, The idea is to do the same as PRC i.e. support those US allies who are against PRC. How does supporting NoKo work from this Point of View? It doesn't.
Having said that I support Korean re-unification as NoKo is one of the last holdouts of Asian Socialism. Supporting SoKo achieves the secondary objective of Korean Re-unification which has its own dynamics in the North East Asia.

[James B]

China and the New World Order

By Noam Chomsky

As every Mafia don knows, even the slightest loss of control might lead to unraveling of the system of domination as others are encouraged to follow a similar path.

Amid all the alleged threats to the world’s reigning superpower, one rival is quietly, forcefully emerging: China. And the U.S. is closely scrutinizing China’s intentions.

On August 13, a Pentagon study expressed concern that China is expanding its military forces in ways that “could deny the ability of American warships to operate in international waters off the coast,” Thom Shanker reports in The New York Times.

Washington is alarmed that “China’s lack of openness about the growth, capabilities and intentions of its military injects instability to a vital region of the globe.”

The U.S., on the other hand, is quite open about its intention to operate freely throughout the “vital region of the globe” surrounding China (as elsewhere).

The U.S. advertises its vast capacity to do so: with a growing military budget that roughly matches the rest of the world combined, hundreds of military bases across the globe, and a huge lead in the technology of destruction and domination.

China’s lack of understanding of the rules of international civility was illustrated by its objections to the plan for the advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington to take part in the U.S.-South Korea military exercises near China’s coast in July, with the alleged capacity to strike Beijing.

By contrast, the West understands that such U.S. operations are all undertaken to defend stability and its own security.

The term “stability” has a technical meaning in discourse on international affairs: domination by the U.S. Thus no eyebrows are raised when James Chace, former editor of Foreign Affairs, explains that in order to achieve “stability” in Chile in 1973, it was necessary to “destabilize” the country—by overthrowing the elected government of President Salvador Allende and installing the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, which proceeded to slaughter and torture with abandon and to set up a terror network that helped install similar regimes elsewhere, with U.S. backing, in the interest of stability and security.

It is routine to recognize that U.S. security requires absolute control. The premise was given a scholarly imprimatur by historian John Lewis Gaddis of Yale University in “Surprise, Security, and the American Experience,” in which he investigates the roots of President George W. Bush’s preventive war doctrine.

The operative principle is that expansion is “the path to security,” a doctrine that Gaddis admiringly traces back almost two centuries—to President John Quincy Adams, the intellectual author of Manifest Destiny.

When Bush warned “that Americans must `be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives,”’ Gaddis observes, “he was echoing an old tradition rather than establishing a new one,” reiterating principles that presidents from Adams to Woodrow Wilson “would all have understood … very well.”

Likewise Wilson’s successors, to the present. President Bill Clinton’s doctrine was that the U.S. is entitled to use military force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources,” with no need even to concoct pretexts of the Bush II variety.

According to Clinton’s defense secretary, William Cohen, the U.S. therefore must keep huge military forces “forward deployed” in Europe and Asia “in order to shape people’s opinions about us” and “to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security.” This prescription for permanent war is a new strategic doctrine, military historian Andrew Bacevich observes, later amplified by Bush II and President Barack Obama.

As every Mafia don knows, even the slightest loss of control might lead to unraveling of the system of domination as others are encouraged to follow a similar path.

This central principle of power is formulated as the “domino theory,” in the language of policy-makers, which translates in practice to the recognition that the “virus” of successful independent development might “spread contagion” elsewhere, and therefore must be destroyed while potential plague victims are inoculated, usually by brutal dictatorships.

According to the Pentagon study, China’s military budget expanded to an estimated $150 billion in 2009, approaching “one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent to operate and carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” in that year, which is only a fraction of the total U.S. military budget, of course.

The United States’ concerns are understandable, if one takes into account the virtually unchallenged assumption that the U.S. must maintain “unquestioned power” over much of the world, with “military and economic supremacy,” while ensuring the “limitation of any exercise of sovereignty” by states that might interfere with its global designs.

These were the principles established by high-level planners and foreign policy experts during World War II, as they developed the framework for the post-war world, which was largely implemented.

The U.S. was to maintain this dominance in a “Grand Area,” which was to include at a minimum the Western hemisphere, the Far East and the former British empire, including the crucial energy resources of the Middle East.

As Russia began to grind down Nazi armies after Stalingrad, Grand Area goals extended to as much of Eurasia as possible. It was always understood that Europe might choose to follow an independent course—perhaps the Gaullist vision of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was partially intended to counter this threat, and the issue remains very much alive today as NATO is expanded to a U.S.-run intervention force responsible for controlling the “crucial infrastructure” of the global energy system on which the West relies.

Since becoming the world-dominant power during World War II, the U.S. has sought to maintain a system of global control. But that project is not easy to sustain. The system is visibly eroding, with significant implications for the future. China is an increasingly influential player—and challenger.

[TonyMontana]

India, even if it would successfully manage to fend off PRC from it's own border's has to insure that not only it becomes powerful enough to take the fight to the heartland of P.R.C but also to insure that Japan, Soko, Afg., Taiwan, Vietnam, SL and BD, Nepal etc do not fall into the Chinese orbit which IMHO is a process which has started.

What did they say about land wars in Asia?

Two big power's like India and china in Asia cannot coexist and to the best of my knowledge has never happened in history?One of us has to downsize sooner or later.

Indic domination of East Asia? Can we please have just East Asia? I kid I kid.

Also like I have said before, China is like Japan on Steroids. Hopefully China, will avoid the same fate.

The problem is you can't write the Japanese off just yet. Japan on Steriods, with it's many problems, is still JAPAN ON STERIODS!!!11one!1

India should see to it that Vietnam receives sufficient cooperation to make it as strong a military and economic power as possible. India should also proliferate nuclear weapons technology to Vietnamese. India can start by setting up nuclear plants in Vietnam and giving Vietnamese critical knowledge of nuclear tech.

This is always an interesting option. The real contention between China and Vietnam is the Spartly Islands.etc That is more a naval showdown. I don't think it's an existential threat to Vietnam where nuclear weapon are required. In my opinion America will try to muscle in first to sell the Vietnamese naval weapons and I just don't see the nuclearisation of Vietnam anytime soon.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it is one of the most efficient generator of Jihadism, and Uighur Jihadism can be nurtured there with sufficient plausible deniability. First order of the day would however be retaking PoK and breaking up Pakistan.

With the brutal PLA, I just don't see terrorist doing significant damage in heartland China. There was a few car bombs before, but the response was disproportional and effective.

As for PoK and Pakistan, wasn't that India's agenda for the last long while? USA want Pakistan to exist. How does India go around that big road block?

So untanglement is needed to create strategic space for India. Saying SOKO etc are not enough is not acceptable.. Then what is proposed?
After a lot of thought I think SoKo is the one.

What do you mean by this? The magic bullet that will break up US-PRC entanglement?

[Arihant]

Cant let status quo keep us down. Its not enough to say cant bell the cat. Need to find a way. What alternatives do you both have?

Taiwan offers a range of options. We might look at the spectrum - on the one extreme, we might slightly upgrade up diplomatic ties (very slightly, and still short of full diplomatic relations). On the other extreme, Taiwan might someday be a part of our own "String of Pearls" strecthing throughtthe Straits of Malacca, Vietnam, Taiwan through to Japan. We have to work and plan towards the day the US departs Asia and we become the military couter-weight to China. because that day will surely come.

If we cannot contain China, the alternative is too horrble to contemplate....

[svinayak]

If we cannot contain China, the alternative is too horrble to contemplate....

China is not infinite. It has limitations too. It has severe problems in some areas.
Indians have to figure it out and find a way.

[svinayak]

With the brutal PLA, I just don't see terrorist doing significant damage in heartland China. There was a few car bombs before, but the response was disproportional and effective.

As for PoK and Pakistan, wasn't that India's agenda for the last long while? USA want Pakistan to exist. How does India go around that big road block?

Can you tone down your response. We are trying to get some few folks to think and come up with a thought process. Your questions interrupt this thing.

[Arihant]

I think our establishent consistently underestimates what Taiwan has to offer us. In part, I fear that our establishment has written off Taiwan as a lost cause (a Han-majority nation - ultimately doomed to sign up with China). I think we are not reading the situation correctly (and I've said this multiple times in the past on this forum). A very large proportion of Taiwan's would never accept annexation by China (by most accounts, at least 70%, and possibly upto 90%). There is a business lobby that has been co-opted by the goodies the China market has to offer, but that state of affairs is as fragile as the Chinese market....

I'm sure there is contact and activity under the radar, but a calibrated set of _public_ moves (possibly well short of establishing full diplomatic ties) would provide us another point of leverage. The Taiwanese oppostion (now looking likely to win power in the next election) would welcome such moves, and even the ruling KMT would be open to some ...

What exactly do Taiwan have to offer India? That's a serious question. What is this leverage that you speak of?

A well armed Taiwan would tie up more military resources perhapes. But would you expect the Chinese to shift focus from India to Taiwan?

The key word regarding Taiwan is "status quo". There will not be conflict unless Taiwan declears independence. China won't unilaterally attack because it's bad for business and there is no need. So it's gonna be more of the same for a long time.

I just don't see the BIG benefits you expect from these "closer-relationships", that some of the India posters seems to believe in.

There's no point in just saying we have to do this. You have to ask why? And for how much? From my world view, it seems it will only piss off the CCP with no real gains for India. Unless pissing off the CCP is the point of the exercise.

The whole point of leverage is the range of negotiating fallbacks that would be on offer. For instance, sooner or later China will stop recognizing India's sovereignty over all of the North-East. In subsequent negotiations, it might offer to relent, but only if given control over Tawang.

We might similarly upgrade military links with Taiwan, then offer to reverse that situation as a negotiating position...

[Arihant]

Taiwan is under pro-mainland KMT rule anyway, so they won't be of any help to India.

Atlanticist-leaning USA had gone out of its way to reprimand pro-autonomist Chen Shui-bian, who is now in prison. So that has allowed pro-mainlander Ma to take over and let China have its way. Other than imprisoning Chen and perhaps trying to bring in EVMs, he'll have to pull some more stunts to be able to keep riding the tiger.

The best regional fallback for India might be Vietnam.

The suggestion that Taiwan is a lost cause to us because it is under "pro-Chinese KMT rule" is a gross over-simplification. While there are some within the KMT who would welcome eventual annexation by China, the bulk of the KMTs support base is composed of people who favour the status quo, driven by fear of openly crossing swords with China. There is also some institutional continuity in Taiwanese "pro-Independence" thinking - as evidence, observe that Taiwan continues to heavily arm itself against China under the current KMT regime, and continues to lobby Washington for more and better weapons.

[Arihant]

I think our establishent consistently underestimates what Taiwan has to offer us. In part, I fear that our establishment has written off Taiwan as a lost cause (a Han-majority nation - ultimately doomed to sign up with China). I think we are not reading the situation correctly (and I've said this multiple times in the past on this forum). A very large proportion of Taiwan's would never accept annexation by China (by most accounts, at least 70%, and possibly upto 90%). There is a business lobby that has been co-opted by the goodies the China market has to offer, but that state of affairs is as fragile as the Chinese market....

I'm sure there is contact and activity under the radar, but a calibrated set of _public_ moves (possibly well short of establishing full diplomatic ties) would provide us another point of leverage. The Taiwanese oppostion (now looking likely to win power in the next election) would welcome such moves, and even the ruling KMT would be open to some ...

I agree with Tony. We are separated from Taiwan by two oceans. And in one ocean, we will go perilously close to Chinese owned territories. So unlike Pakistan, with which China shares a land border, we do not share any border with Taiwan. And there is a question of what help can Taiwan give us in return? Whereas Tibet and Xinjiang are considered, Taiwanese considers them to be an inalienable part of china.
Taiwan has never said that it wants independence from china as a separate state. It was known as "Republic of China", till a few years ago for a reason. Its orientation is overwhelmingly Chinese.

Let Taiwan be the headache of the Americans. Let us not get into it.

We need to get a better understanding of the subtleties of the Taiwanese situation. For starters, Taiwan is still known as the "Republic of China". Much as the majority of Taiwanese would like to see that changed, they are bound by some complex historical binds that prevent them from changing their own nation's name. That name is one of the "red lines" that China has identified - if Taiwan changes that name, it will be treated bythe Chinese as a trigger for war.

The claims to Tibet and Xinjiang are similar historical leftovers, form the time when the "Republic of China" government was actually the government of China. They are currently constitutionally bound to accept these, because any change to amend even a part of it would lead to a cascade of changes, eventualy crossing the Chinese "red line".

[krisna]

China can be co opted or the threat can be reduced diplomatically and economically onlee.
It has its faultlines.
Militarily is out of question.
China and India have to buy peace or else will be in cold war for years, with US supporting one side against the other depending on its interest to maintain itself as the dominant superpower.
China has a long long way to dethrone US from its superpower status, but already US is making some deft moves diplomatically.

[putnanja]

China is raking up issues by calling J&K disputed and issuing stapled visas. Just declaring that India intends to normalize relations with China will be a major snub to the chinese and they will be irked to death. Two can play this game.

Look at the audacity of China trying to take over Taiwan if they declare independence! If the people don't want to be ruled by China, what right does China have over their people based on distant past!

[TonyMontana]

Can you tone down your response. We are trying to get some few folks to think and come up with a thought process. Your questions interrupt this thing.

To say questions are bad for thinking seems...Islamic to me. You don't give the posters enough credit if you think they can't hold a thought and scoll down at the same time.

The whole point of leverage is the range of negotiating fallbacks that would be on offer. For instance, sooner or later China will stop recognizing India's sovereignty over all of the North-East. In subsequent negotiations, it might offer to relent, but only if given control over Taiwan.

Does India have a say in that? If not, where's the leverage?

We need to get a better understanding of the subtleties of the Taiwanese situation. For starters, Taiwan is still known as the "Republic of China". Much as the majority of Taiwanese would like to see that changed, they are bound by some complex historical binds that prevent them from changing their own nation's name. That name is one of the "red lines" that China has identified - if Taiwan changes that name, it will be treated bythe Chinese as a trigger for war.

Thus the status quo. Do you see it changing anytime soon?

China can be co opted or the threat can be reduced diplomatically and economically onlee.
It has its faultlines.
Militarily is out of question.

Totally agree. But then again, I would, wouldn't I?

China and India have to buy peace or else will be in cold war for years, with US supporting one side against the other depending on its interest to maintain itself as the dominant superpower.
China has a long long way to dethrone US from its superpower status, but already US is making some deft moves diplomatically.

Again. Look at what the US is doing to both China and India. There is a pattern there.

China is raking up issues by calling J&K disputed and issuing stapled visas. Just declaring that India intends to normalize relations with China will be a major snub to the chinese and they will be irked to death. Two can play this game.

You mean Taiwan right? China has something to gain from issuing stapled visas. What could India gain from normalising relationship with Taiwan besides irking the Chinese to death? When was last time someone was irked to death?

[csharma]

KS uvacha.

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/Artic ... 5Sep10.pdf

What should we do to prevent a 1962 to be repeated, or even to attenuate the possible
pressures on India by China? At present we are in a position to deter China by projecting
an adequately powerful airpower and mobile land forces with appropriate firepower.
India has the resources to do it unlike in 1962 and the whole world is prepared to sell the
most sophisticated weapons to India. Some countries attach conditionalities to weapons
sale. In 1971 Indira Gandhi confronted a similar problem with respect to the Indo-Soviet
Treaty. Delhi rejected Moscow’s standard draft for a peace and friendship treaty which
the Soviet Union had concluded with a number of states. In 1971 faced with US-Sino
covert alliance backing Pakistan, Indira Gandhi offered to Moscow an Indian draft of the
Treaty different from the standard Soviet drafts. Moscow accepted it.

Therefore it is not beyond Indian ingenuity to find a solution to such problems provided
our approach is realpolitik; one to ensure Indian national security without being
encumbered by ideological shackles. When Nath Pai asked Nehru in 1963 in the
Parliament how he could accept foreign military aid after all his earlier criticism, Nehru
replied that he would do all that was necessary to safeguard the national security when it
was threatened. Our politicians are so adept in the practice of realpolitik in domestic
politics. Therefore, it should not be difficult for them to adopt that approach in the
interests of national security.

[Sanjay M]

The suggestion that Taiwan is a lost cause to us because it is under "pro-Chinese KMT rule" is a gross over-simplification. While there are some within the KMT who would welcome eventual annexation by China, the bulk of the KMTs support base is composed of people who favour the status quo, driven by fear of openly crossing swords with China. There is also some institutional continuity in Taiwanese "pro-Independence" thinking - as evidence, observe that Taiwan continues to heavily arm itself against China under the current KMT regime, and continues to lobby Washington for more and better weapons.

Good points - nevertheless, there are signs of Taiwan's new tilt towards China in supporting mainland's border claims against India. That should be relevant to our perceptions, if nothing else. I would prefer to see autonomists like Chen in power, rather than the unreliable KMT, whose lack of a domestic support base would only increase their dependency on ties to the mainland.

[svinayak]

Can you tone down your response. We are trying to get some few folks to think and come up with a thought process. Your questions interrupt this thing.

To say questions are bad for thinking seems...Islamic to me. You don't give the posters enough credit if you think they can't hold a thought and scoll down at the same time.
?

Politely I am saying - get your own forum

[Sanjay M]

China is not infinite. It has limitations too. It has severe problems in some areas. Indians have to figure it out and find a way.

They have a large population that could turn on their leaders in the face of high unemployment. In a democratic country, the leaders get voted out of office. In a dictatorship like China's, the leaders could face the gallows. US and Japan can survive a lost decade, but China's CCCP cannot. And that's the next thing - China's rulers are more loyal to their party than to their country, because it is through the party that they maintain their privileges and their status. There is a lot of overhead in maintaining the party's control over society.

China's breakneck economic growth has led to a lot of inefficient spending - ie. bubble conditions. If the bubble bursts, then the leaders will be in the soup. So they are riding the tiger right now.

[Sanjay M]

India, even if it would successfully manage to fend off PRC from it's own border's has to insure that not only it becomes powerful enough to take the fight to the heartland of P.R.C but also to insure that Japan, Soko, Afg., Taiwan, Vietnam, SL and BD, Nepal etc do not fall into the Chinese orbit which IMHO is a process which has started.All countries require a different approach but thinking of what's in it for us is taking a very narrow view.Hence the present status quo is not sustainable.Two big power's like India and china in Asia cannot coexist and to the best of my knowledge has never happened in history?One of us has to downsize sooner or later.

It's an absolute fantasy to think that Indian Army could take the fight into the Chinese heartland when that heartland is located on the eastern side of China's landmass. You're saying that Indian Army should be able to fight its way across Tibet and into Central China. We would be slaughtered long before we get there.

The best we can do is mount a holding operation against China on our side of the Himalayas, assuming that our nukes can't deter them. We'd have to use the terrain in our favour - ie. bomb Chinese supply routes to the border, since the terrain on their side makes it difficult for them to get there. We, on the other hand, have a large population near our side of the border.

I'm imagining that a sizeable section of the population of Uttar Pradesh would end up in refugee camps, if a border war were to spread.

[Manishw]

What did they say about land wars in Asia?

Sorry could not understand either the humor or the question.Kindly elaborate.

Indic domination of East Asia? Can we please have just East Asia? I kid I kid.

Who talked about Indic domination.Only talked about helping them stare the dragon(PRC) back in his eye's.Kindly do not indulge in selective posting without proper context.Of course giving certain countries another option besides U.S is on the card's.

[svinayak]

China is not infinite. It has limitations too. It has severe problems in some areas. Indians have to figure it out and find a way.

They have a large population that could turn on their leaders in the face of high unemployment.

China's breakneck economic growth has led to a lot of inefficient spending - ie. bubble conditions. If the bubble bursts, then the leaders will be in the soup. So they are riding the tiger right now.

Any discussion of the future has to begin with a discussion of China. One-quarter of the world lives in China, and there has been a great deal of discussion of China as a future global power. Its economy has been surging dramatically in the past thirty years, and it is certainly a significant power. But thirty years of growth does not mean unending growth. It means that the probability of China continuing to grow at this rate is diminishing. And in the case of China, slower growth means substantial social and political problems. Dont share the view that China is going to be a major world power. Don’t even believe it will hold together as a unified country.

China’s geography makes it unlikely that it will become an active fault line. If it were to become an area of conflict, it would be less China striking out than China becoming the victim of others taking advantage of its weakness. China’s economy is not nearly as robust as it might seem, and its political stability, which depends heavily on continuing rapid growth, is even more precarious. China is important, however, because it appears to be the most likely global challenger in the near term—at least in the minds of others.
Again, using geopolitics as our framework, we will begin by considering
the basics.

First, China is an island. It is obviously not surrounded by water, but it
is surrounded by impassable terrain and wastelands that effectively isolate it
from the rest of the world .

To China’s north are Siberia and the Mongolian steppe—inhospitable,
lightly settled, and difficult to traverse. To the southwest are the impassable
Himalayas. The southern border with Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam is simultaneously mountains and
and jungle, and to the east are oceans. Only its western border with Kazakhstan can be traveled by large numbers of people, but there too, movement involves a level of effort not frequently justified in Chinese history.

The vast majority of China’s population lives within one thousand miles
of the coast, populating the eastern third of the country, with the other two-thirds being quite underpopulated
SEE MAP


China, then, has three possible future paths. In the first, it continues to grow at astronomical rates indefinitely. No country has ever done that, and China is not likely to be an exception. The extraordinary growth of the past thirty years has created huge imbalances and inefficiencies in China’s economy that will have to be corrected. At some point China will have to go through the kind of wrenching readjustment that the rest of Asia already has undergone.

A second possible path is the recentralization of China, where the conflicting interests that will emerge and compete following an economic slowdown are controlled by a strong central government that imposes order and restricts the regions’ room to maneuver. That scenario is more probable than the first, but the fact that the apparatus of the central government is filled with people whose own interests oppose centralization would make this difficult to pull off. The government can’t necessarily rely on its own people to enforce the rules. Nationalism is the only tool they have to hold things together.

A third possibility is that under the stress of an economic downturn, China fragments along traditional regional lines, while the central government weakens and becomes less powerful. Traditionally, this is a more plausible scenario in China—and one that will benefit the wealthier classes as well as foreign investors. It will leave China in the position it was in prior to Mao, with regional competition and perhaps even conflict and a central government struggling to maintain control. If we accept the fact that China’s economy will have to undergo a readjustment at some point, and that this will generate serious tension, as it would in any country, then this third outcome fits most closely with reality and with Chinese history.

[TonyMontana]

Politely I am saying - get your own forum

I would thought Indians out of all people would appreciate freedom of speech. So politely I'm saying - learn to deal with difference in opinion without resorting to "don't know, don't care, go away." We might all learn something.

What did they say about land wars in Asia?

Sorry could not understand either the humor or the question.Kindly elaborate.

"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha..."
--Vizzini, The Princess Bride (1987)

Sorry, my bad. I thought everyone was familar with this meme. Must be living with the white man for too long.

It's an absolute fantasy to think that Indian Army could take the fight into the Chinese heartland when that heartland is located on the eastern side of China's landmass. You're saying that Indian Army should be able to fight its way across Tibet and into Central China. We would be slaughtered long before we get there.

This. As a serious answer to your question.

Who talked about Indic domination.Only talked about helping them stare the dragon(PRC) back in his eye's.Kindly do not indulge in selective posting without proper context.Of course giving certain countries another option besides U.S is on the card's.

Two big power's like India and china in Asia cannot coexist and to the best of my knowledge has never happened in history? One of us has to downsize sooner or later.

When you talk about a zero-sum game between China and India in ASIA, as in "cannot coexist". Indic domination is kinda implied, isn't it? But I digress, my opinion has always been Asia should be shared between India and China. (Only in terms of spheres of influence)