Managing Chinese Threat

[RajeshA]

So as USA walks into the sunset over the next 20 years or so, India should use USA's current strength and technological lead to strengthen ourselves. What India wants is a Duopoly in Asia.. India is lagging at least a decade behind China but that is an enormous drawback, because it means China has already started to carve up Asia as it wants, and by the time, if at all, we come closer, China would have established an Asian Order adverse to our interests, to keep us down.

The reason, why I am not so keen about going after America is simply because I think India is in a position to extract major concessions from USA as USA starts losing ground to China and becomes frightful of it. When USA really wants something, they start throwing money and other concessions at it as if there is no tomorrow. Just look at how much they have already thrown into the Iraqi ands and the Afghanistan quagmire, not to speak of Pakistani pit of snakes. Once they get nervous about the Chinese, there are a lot of goodies for the taking.

Frankly Rajesh - there may be something wrong with me but I am deeply offended by what seem to me to be idiotic summaries of the world by analysts who speak of China wanting a monopoly and in turn people like us internalizing that distracting handwave and concluding that India wants a duopoly.

As I speak of monopoly or duopoly, I'd like to clarify that I mean it in Asian Geo-political Sphere. In other areas, there may be a stronger competition between USA, PRC, Russia and the EU.

When you say, Western commentators hint at Chinese monopoly in Asia and India's desire for duopoly, and the notion is stupid, then one could infer the following about your meaning:

1. China should be allowed to create its monopoly. China is a threat to India but what to do. India has already lost the race.
2. India should align herself with the new upcoming Asian Superpower China. India need not compete for Asian Leadership, as we should be satisfied and remain within our 'aukaat'. Chinese hegemony would be benign and be no reason for alarm.
3. China cannot build the monopoly, as USA using its camp-followers in South-East Asia, India, Pakistan and West Asia would not allow Chinese domination. As such India need not fear any Chinese monopoly, since USA with its presence ensures the duopoly.
4. Or China is not strong enough to achieve domination in Asia or to threaten anybody, and as such nobody needs to worry.

For me, it is not clear which case you mean. But whichever case you may mean, IMHO the implications are the following.

1. India is showing the white flag.
2. India is showing the Chinese flag.
3. India is showing the American flag.
4. India exists in an unlikely universe showing the Global Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité flag.

If there are other cases I fail to perceive, where India should not strive for at least an Asian Duopoly, I'll be interested.

One may ask, why I do not consider the scenario, where India stays equidistant from both China and USA and plays them against each other, profiting from both.

The reason is because I don't think it is a sustainable equilibrium. We would then be pushing USA to look for a détente with PRC in the world, where PRC would claim Asia as its bounty (with Africa still highly contested). This global carve up would mean a Chinese hegemony over Asia - a direction in which G2 would go over the long term, should it be allowed.

We are talking about a China with an economy larger than that of USA in the next 30 years, and still be willing to accept American presence leave alone domination in Asia! Why would PRC be willing to allow USA to continue with its 'tempering' and 'mischief' in its own backyard?

Equidistance is possible between a regional hegemon and a global hegemon, but if PRC pushes USA out of Asia, USA ceases to be a global hegemon, in which case equidistance falls flat, and we have a regional hegemon on our hands with no love lost for us.

Of course, today equidistance is possible, and we are engaged with both sides. The question is of the future.

I would like to be shown any (translated) Chinese documents in which the Chinese say that they want a monopolar China based world or Asia so I can change my mind and start thinking differently.

When do Chinese words speak louder than Chinese actions?!

What I have seen so far is non Chinese analysts seeing Chinas rapid expansion and rapid moves to corner resources for her expansion as signs that China wants to dominate the world. And that, I have been told is bad.

Why do we tend to forget Chinese territorial expansion, intimidation of neighbors through border disputes, support and proliferation to irredentist and dictatorial regimes, when we read the tea leaves about Chinese intentions?

China is cornering resources all over the world, in Africa, in India, in South-East Asia, in Latin America, in Australia. That however would not have been seen as a threat for India, but merely an economic challenge, were it not for the fact, that we have major issues of contention on the security front with PRC.

So what is good? When the US of 20 years ago used to consume more than the next 20 countries put together - it was good.

Today, when the US alone consumes as much oil as the next 6 countries - China, Japan, Russia, India and Germany - it is called a "decline". And with Chinese oil consumption becoming 1/3 of that of the US - China is seen as a greedy grabber. The US remains "good".

The USA will never reduce its avarice for world resources. Any other nation that makes even remotely similar demands on the world is seen as bad. If India joins the US and China among the top 3 oil consumers - the US will still be up in front and the US will be playing off China and India and promoting talk like "Have a duopoly or else China will want monopoly". heck how blind are we. The monopoly is the US. Not China. The US consumes 6 times more oil per capita than China. The fact that the China oil consumption figure has risen from 1% of US consumption in the past to its current 12 % is being portrayed as a threat to the world - and China is stupid enough to fall into the US's trap.

But screw China and the US. What of pipsqueak India? India's per capita oil consumption is less than 6% of the US figure

No look at this situation:

US per capita oil consumption : 100 units
China oil per capita oil consumption: 12 units
India per capita oil consumption: 6 units

The US has no intention of cutting down its consumption but the "duopoly" is between India and China? The US will oppose India and China tooth an nail as they try to develop independent sources for their energy.

As noted earlier, India would have been less worried about China cornering the oil supplies of the world, were it not for the fact, that those oil supplies boost Chinese growth, and that makes China all the more threatening to India on the security front.

In fact, India has lost out to China in a big way. Indian companies have been involved in Oil and Gas Exploration in the world, but in the end PRC has taken away the supply contracts from right under our noses in Kazakhstan and Myanmar even though Indian companies explored for the deposits there. USA had already cornered much of the world's energy, but in the next wave of capture of remaining energy resources of the world, it is China that has outbid India, and not USA. So India has had to take in a lot of losses at the hands of the Chinese.

But as said earlier, this makes it all the more grimmer as China is a major security threat to India.

Secondly we should not forget that Oil will remain with us not for that long a period. We are already past Peak Oil, and some other energy sources would have to be tapped. So in 20-30 years either we will all be living in a Mad Max world or we would have an alternate energy source, and this whole question of energy consumption would be mute and irrelevant.

In order to keep their oil costs down the US will agree for India to have nuke power plants but imposes restrictions if the nuke power can be used as coercive power to threaten the US.

Exactly what is this lungi dance we are setting up with China? Oh I accept the Chinese are a threat. But the Chinese are also stupid. I cannot see Sun Tzu anywhere on the horizon. Not even Moon Tzu. They got a development edge in this world by allowing themselves to move to the side of the greedy and powerful US in the cold war. The Chinese have made a few people wealthy and made a few glass and concrete cities and think they are equal equal to US now. But the minute they started getting a bit too big for their shoes the US has started "balancing" them - exploting their fights against Japan, Taiwan, Vientam and India. And the Chinese have been fed with too much info about their own greatness so they see all these pipsqueak nations as a threat while the big bad boy USA remains "engaged with China".

I think it would be unfair to China if we play down their achievement of hitting double digit growth rates consistently for the last 30 years. In dollar terms, its GDP has jumped from $147.3 billion in 1978 to $4.9 trillion in 2009. PRC holds 1.0134 trillion dollars (25.6%) of US debt. Today China is the world's second largest economy. Now these are numbers and facts. It is not simply Western propaganda to make PRC feel better.

The fights between China on the one hand and Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and India are not new. These are old feuds and America has not started 'exploiting' them now after PRC 'became too big' for their shoes.Characterizing Chinese perception of the pipsqueak nations as a threat to it is absurd. The Chinese are not threatened. They are the ones threatening others. They are the ones who constantly keep on making spurious claims on all sorts of islands in the Pacific and Indian lands.

Hey, the USA was "engaged" with Indian in 1962. But they gifted Pakistan with 10 squadrons of Sabres and several hundred Patton tanks. And the US is engaged with India now - while Pakistan gets AMRAAMs and F-16s and AWACS and aid to pay China for Chinese arms.

And China is our main threat?

Pakistan is not the only threat in town. Both USA and PRC have utilized Pakistani services and paid them their price. While USA's main projects were fighting the Soviets and Al Qaeda and the price was cash and military equipment to Pakistan, PRC's biggest project with Pakistanis was the containment of India itself. Both service and payment were India-driven.

So even if America's projects may change because of changing perceptions of threat or focus and the payment to Pakistan due to those services rendered may also vary, in the case of PRC that would not change.

At the moment, it may be a consideration in USA to keep India under Pakistani threat. That however is tactical, useful only to make India dependent on USA. It is IMVHO not strategic. That in my view is a difference. The gurus here tend to disagree with that though.

We are going to be satisfied with a "duopoly equal equal" with China?

Do we want more than that right now?

The USA has the power to tilt the balance any which way.

In a few years when Chinese military strength starts matching that of USA, any one of the 3 - USA, PRC and India would have the ability to tilt the balance.

In an India-China conflict India has the power to stop Chinese shipping in the Indian ocean. But the US can stop India from doing that.

In a few years, PRC too would have the ability to stop Indian shipping in the Indian Ocean. With Naval bases in Gwadar, Marao, Sittwe, PRC too would have many options.

As far as US's ability to stop India and its preference for intervention in favor of PRC is concerned, it is not more or less probable than the coming of the Mahdi.

In a US-China conflict the US can stop Chinese oil supplies in the Indian ocean. And India cannot stop the US.

And the implication being, that we should stop USA!!!! How is that beneficial to India???

All of us have internalized and accepted the benevolent goodness of the west and the USA. The USA was already the prime world power by 1947 and rose even higher after that. It had already cornered most of the world's resources and we didn't need much. So the US was benevolent.

Now, as India grows and needs more resources we are playing ourselves off against China, with both countries being egged on by psyops from the US.

This seems to be a very strongly held view - "Indians are too stupid to think for themselves and their national interests. We are all puppets and USA is the puppeteer."

It is natural that India and China would compete for natural resources which have not been cornered already. Both countries accept the inevitability of the competition. India however has shown a streak of losing out to PRC on this. American psyops and egging-on are really irrelevant and useless. The facts speak for themselves.

If the US and China conspire to form a duopoly they will keep India down as they have done in the past. The Chinese threat is only a blindfold that hides the sharp edge of the US sword.

I wonder in what way, has the USA hit the jackpot when it allowed PRC to establish itself as a rival superpower, creating a de-facto US-China Duopoly in Asia.

I also wonder what sharp or otherwise edge of US sword would reach India once USA has been banished from the Asian theater by the Chinese in the next 20-25 years.

I don't think the Chinese threat can be taken in isolation any more than the Pakistani threat can be taken in isolation. We ignore the US and speak of the US as an old man at our peril.

American policies are a challenge to India, because India needs to change the current course of the supertanker. A future is visible where USA supertanker would have to make a course change out of necessity. So we are hopeful. They are prone to lobbying by India, as they are from many others as well.

The Chinese supertanker on the other hand is charging right at us, and hoping that the fog would hide its course and arrival. As such the extensive use of so many proxies.

We stand in the way of the Supertanker. We are the hurdle in Chinese hegemony in Asia.

For me, that is as clear as the sun in the sky. For you, who have a different opinion on the issue, the above arguments may not suffice.

[Arjun]

The US's consumption is more than twice that of India and china together, for a population that is 1/8th of India and China together.

Whichever way you cut it, the US's wealth and luxury and lifestyle are dependent of squeezing more from the world than anyone else. If I was a beneficiary - I would demand from my senator that my lifestyle does not take a hit just because some Chinese gooks and Indian niggers are grabbing more oil.

That senator will have to implement that via US power. That means ensuring safe, uninterrupted and sustained flow to the US. That means control over sources. As long as India and China are fighting, China can never get safe access via the overland route. If India and China cooperated to get oil for both nations - the gooks and niggers would be a threat to freedom, democracy and the American way (So help me God)

Wow. +1 only.

If there are three major powers, and any two of them fight the third benefits. Nothing earth-shaking in that deduction...

This line of thought does not address the core of the problem this thread was supposed to address:
- China's support and nuclearisation of Pakistan against India
- China's repeated questioning of Arunachal status
- Stapled visa policy for J&K
- Opposition to India's security council seat

If these point to a policy of bluff from China and not leading to actual war, we need a strategy on how to call this bluff. If these really portend war, we need a strategy to counter China. Everything else is pure digression as far as this thread is concerned.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By: Mohan Malik
Initially posted by Arihant
China Unveils "The Kashmir Card": Jamestown Foundation

Even as the Chinese navy signals its intent to enforce sea denial in the "first island chain" in the East (comprised of the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea and the South China Sea of the Pacific Ocean), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is reportedly on the move along China's southwest frontier in Pakistani-held Kashmir. In late August, media accounts reported the presence of thousands of Chinese troops in the strategic northern areas (renamed Gilgit-Baltistan in 2009 by Pakistan) of Pakistani-held Kashmir bordering Xinjiang province. A Western report suggested that Islamabad had ceded control of the area to Beijing, prompting denials from both capitals (New York Times, August 26). Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson Jiang Yu denied the story, saying the troops are there to help Pakistan with flood relief work" (China Daily, September 2). Nonetheless, credible sources confirm the presence of the PLA’s logistics and engineering corps to provide flood relief and to build large infrastructure projects worth $20 billion (railways, dams, pipelines and extension of the Karakoram Highway) to assure unfettered Chinese access to the oil-rich Gulf through the Pakistani port of Gwadar. As China’s external energy dependency has deepened in the past decade, so has its sense of insecurity and urgency.

"The Kashmir Card"

While China and India have long sparred over the Dalai Lama and Tibet’s status, border incursions and China’s growing footprint in southern Asia, a perceptible shift in the Chinese stance on Kashmir has now emerged as a new source of interstate friction. Throughout the 1990s, a desire for stability on its southwestern flank and fears of an Indian-Pakistani nuclear arms race caused Beijing to take a more evenhanded approach to Kashmir, while still favoring Islamabad.

Yet, in a major policy departure since 2006, Beijing has been voicing open support to Pakistan and the Kashmiri separatists through its opposition to the UN Security Council ban on the jihadi organizations targeting India, economic assistance for infrastructure projects in northern Kashmir, and the issuance of separate visas by Chinese embassies to Indian citizens of Kashmiri origins.

Amidst the current unrest in the valley, Beijing has also invited Kashmiri separatist leaders for talks and offered itself as a mediator, ostensibly in a tit-for-tat for India’s refuge to the Dalai Lama. Yet, China is actually the third party to the dispute in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). While India holds about 45 percent and Pakistan controls 35 percent, China occupies about 20 percent of J&K territory (including Aksai Chin and the Sakshgam Valley ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963). The denial of a visa in July 2010 to Indian Army’s Northern Command General B. S. Jaswal who was to lead the 4th bilateral defense dialogue in Beijing because he commanded "a disputed area, Jammu and Kashmir," is said to be the last straw that broke the camel’s back.

Consequently, a new chill has descended on Sino-Indian relations. India retaliated by suspending defense exchanges with China and lodging a formal protest. New Delhi sees these moves as part of a new Chinese strategy with respect to Kashmir that seeks to nix its global ambitions and entangle India to prevent it from playing a role beyond the region. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Indian media, "Beijing could be tempted to use India’s ‘soft underbelly’, Kashmir, and Pakistan ‘to keep India in low-level equilibrium'" (Times of India, Sep 7).

Resurrecting old issues and manufacturing new disputes to throw the other side off balance and enhance negotiating leverage is an old negotiating tactic in Chinese statecraft. The downturn in Sino-Indian ties since the mid-2000s may be partly attributed to the weakening of China’s "Pakistan card" against India, necessitating the exercise of direct pressure against the latter. Beijing fears that an unrestrained Indian power would eventually threaten China’s security along its southwestern frontiers. One Chinese analyst maintains, "Beijing would not abandon its ‘Kashmir card’. The Kashmir issue will remain active as long as China worries about its southern borders" (Asia Times online, December 4, 2009). China and Pakistan have been allies since the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict. This enduring alliance was formalized with the conclusion of the China-Pakistan "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and Good Neighborly Relations" in April 2005.

Likewise, the sharper focus on Tawang is part of a shriller claim over Arunachal Pradesh in the east, which Beijing now calls "South Tibet" (a new Chinese term for Arunachal Pradesh since 2005), ostensibly to extend its claim over the territories [3]. It is worth noting that prior to 2005, there was no reference to "Southern Tibet" in China’s official media or any talk of the "unfinished business of the 1962 War." Nor did the Chinese government or official media ever claim that the PLA’s "peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1950 was partial and incomplete" or that "a part of Tibet was yet to be liberated." Taking a cue from the Pakistanis, who have long described Kashmir as the "unfinished business of the 1947 partition," Chinese strategists now call Arunachal Pradesh, or more specifically, Tawang, the "unfinished business of the 1962 War" (Global Times, November 9, 2009). China also sought to internationalize its bilateral territorial dispute with India by opposing an Asian Development Bank loan in 2009, part of which was earmarked for a watershed project in Arunachal Pradesh [4].

Chinese strategic writings indicate that as China becomes more economically and militarily powerful, Beijing is devising new stratagems to keep its southern rival in check. Some Chinese economists calculate that within a decade or so India could come close to "spoiling Beijing’s party of the century" by outpacing China in economic growth (Bloomberg News, Aug 15). From Beijing’s perspective, India’s rise as an economic and military power would prolong American hegemony in Asia, and thereby hinder the establishment of a post-American Sino-centric hierarchical regional order in the Asia-Pacific.

The last decade has, therefore, seen the Chinese military bolstering its strength all along the disputed borders from Kashmir to Burma (aka Myanmar). Beijing also prefers a powerful and well-armed Pakistani military, as that helps it mount pressure, by proxy, on India. China continues to shower its "all-weather" friend with military and civilian assistance from ballistic missiles to JF-17 fighter aircraft, from nuclear power plants to infrastructure. Having "fathered" Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, China is now set to "grandfather" Pakistan’s civilian nuclear energy program as well (The Telegraph, June 21; The Diplomat, June 17; Nuclear Energy Brief, April 27). Chinese and Pakistani strategists gloat over how Beijing is building naval bases around India that will enhance Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean. However, the best-laid plans might come unstuck if Pakistan fails to pacify Balochistan Province, where Gwadar is located. The growing Balochi independence movement, which has repeatedly targeted Chinese engineers since 2004, makes the Chinese nervous about implementing their proposals for investment in the construction of a petrochemical complex, a pipeline and a railway line.

Mutual suspicions, geopolitical tensions, and a zero-sum mentality add to a very competitive dynamic in the China-Pakistan-India triangular relationship. Beijing and Islamabad are concerned over the growing talk in Washington’s policy circles of India as emerging as a counterweight to China on the one hand and the fragile, radical Islamic states of Southwest Asia on the other, viewing a potential U.S.-Indian alignment with horror. The U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and India’s growing footprint in Afghanistan cause alarm in Beijing and Islamabad. Some Chinese strategists worry about the destabilizing consequences of a prolonged U.S. military presence in "Af-Pak" on the future of Sino-Pakistan ties, as well as on Pakistan’s domestic stability. While the remarkable upturn in Indian-American security ties has exacerbated the security dilemma, the post-9/11 U.S. military presence in Pakistan has sharpened the divide within the Pakistani military into pro-West and pro-Beijing factions.

A geopolitical crisis of Himalayan proportions may well be in the making from Afghanistan to Burma. The Chinese state-run media have begun to attack India for supposedly hegemonic designs, with some hinting at the merits of a confrontation. Beijing perceives India as the weakest link in an evolving anti-China coalition of maritime powers (the U.S.-Japan-Vietnam-Australia-India) inimical to China’s growth. The real irony is that China and India could stumble into another war in the future for exactly the same reasons that led them to a border war half-a-century ago in 1962.

New railroad infrastructure projects in Pakistani-held Kashmir and Tibet are aimed at bolstering China’s military strength and intervention options against India in the event of another war between the sub-continental rivals or between China and India. Most war-gaming exercises on the next India-Pakistan war end either in a nuclear exchange or in a Chinese military intervention to prevent the collapse of Beijing’s "all-weather ally" in Asia. Although the probability of an all-out conflict seems low, the China-Pakistan duo and India will employ strategic maneuvers to checkmate each other from gaining advantage or expanding spheres of influence (The Telegraph, Sep 14). According to one Chinese analyst, Dai Bing: "While a hot war is out of the question, a cold war between the two countries is increasingly likely" (China.org.cn, February 8 ).

Beijing’s nemesis: Islam and Buddhism

Having said that, Beijing’s new Kashmir activism goes beyond the strategic imperative to contain India. China’s relationship with Pakistan is also aimed at countering the separatist threats in its western Muslim-majority Xinjiang province. Much like Tibetan Buddhism, Beijing views radical Islam as a strategic threat to China’s national integrity, particularly in Xinjiang (formerly East Turkestan), where the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is fighting for an independent homeland for several decades. Frequent disturbances and protests in Xinjiang and Tibet make the issue more acute insofar as they show how vulnerable the Chinese hold is over its western region.

The spillover effects of rabid Talibanization of Pakistani society worry the Chinese (The Australian, July 25). The past few years have seen Chinese civilians working in Pakistan kidnapped and killed by Islamic militants, partly in retaliation against Beijing’s "strike hard" campaigns against Uyghur Muslims and partly in protest against Beijing’s resource extraction and infrastructure development projects in Pakistan’s Wild West. Beijing has repeatedly impressed on Islamabad the importance of tightening control over its porous border with China (Pak Tribune, July 18). Should Islamabad fail to stem the radicalization and training of Uyghur separatists on its territory, it risks undermining the strategic relationship with China. Significantly, the Gilgit-Baltistan in northern Kashmir is where the predominantly Sunni Pakistan Army is faced with a revolt from the local Shiite Muslims.

For its part, Pakistan has always been extraordinarily sensitive to Chinese interests. Islamabad essentially "carries the water" for China in the Islamic world. Pakistan played a key role in selling China’s point of view on the July 2009 riots in Xinjiang, which resulted in 183 deaths. Pakistan has ensured that the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) does not pass any resolution condemning China’s "strike hard" campaigns (including curbs on the observance of Ramadan) against its Uyghur Muslim minority. In return, China has repeatedly used its UN Security Council seat to ensure that no harm comes to Pakistan for sheltering anti-Indian terrorist groups (Pak Tribune, July 8; The American Interest, May-June 2010). Further, Islamabad offers unequivocal support for Beijing’s position on every single issue in international forums, from Tibet and Taiwan to trade and the U.N. Security Council reforms.

Tightening embrace

A high degree of mistrust and conflicting relations between India and its smaller South Asian neighbors provide Beijing with enormous strategic leverage vis-à-vis its southern rival. China’s strategic leverage thus prevents India from achieving a peaceful periphery via cross-border economic, resource and transportation linkages vital for optimal economic growth. Interestingly, Chinese strategic writings reveal that Pakistan and Burma have now acquired the same place in China’s grand strategy in the 21st century that was earlier occupied by Xinjiang (meaning "New Territory") and Xizang (meaning "Western treasure house," that is, Tibet) in the 20th century [8]. Stated simply, following the integration of outlying provinces of Xinjiang and Xizang (Tibet) into China, Pakistan is now being perceived as China’s new "Xinjiang" (new territory) and Burma as China’s new "Xizang" (treasure house) in economic, military and strategic terms. Beijing’s privileged access to markets, resources and bases of South Asian countries has the additional benefit of making a point on the limits of Indian power.

Conclusion

Both enmity and amity between India and Pakistan have significant implications for China’s grand strategy. A hostile stance toward India reassures the Pakistani establishment of China’s unstinted support in Islamabad’s domestic and external struggles. It also throws a spanner in the works of any U.S.-facilitated India-Pakistan accommodation over the Kashmir imbroglio. In the triangular power balance game, the Sino-Pakistan military alliance (in particular, the nuclear and missile nexus) is aimed at ensuring that the South Asian military balance-of-power remains pro-China. Nurturing Pakistani military’s fears of Indian dominance helps Beijing keep Islamabad within its orbit.

However, Pakistan today is facing a "perfect storm" of crises, with its U.S.-backed fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban faltering and the country lurching toward bankruptcy. The linchpin of Beijing’s South Asia strategy is potentially a "wild card" because Pakistan’s possible futures cover a wide spectrum: from the emergence of a moderate, democratic state to a radical Islamic republic to "Lebanonization." If it does not implode or degenerate into another Iran or Afghanistan (a radical Islamic and/or a failed state), and gets its house in order, Pakistan could emerge as a pivotal player in the U.S.-Chinese-Indian triangular relationship. Despite Beijing’s disenchantment with the current state of its "time-tested ally," China remains committed to supporting Pakistan. If anything, Pakistan’s transformation from being an ally to a battleground in the U.S.-led War on Terror has forced Islamabad into an ever-tighter embrace of China.

Pakistan's future is much more important to China than to USA.

[RajeshA]

In a 3-way tussle between USA, China and India, China has made it more than clear that it does not see India as an ally. It is not India's decision to make any more. The train has left. So for India the only two alternatives are to go it alone or to look for an understanding with USA.

The question is how USA plays the game. But it has become more than apparent, that despite all the economic cooperation between USA and PRC, there is a lot of strategic competition between them. So there can be a convergence of interests between India and USA, just on the basis of the common Chinese challenge, without there even being any need to go into an overlap of values like democracy and freedom, even though such expressions help the atmospherics of an alliance (one-point alliance).

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 26, 2010
By Jaswant Singh
China and India: the great game's new players: Guardian UK

Two "great games" currently roil South Asia. In the west, Afghanistan – and what Henry Kissinger calls "Islamist jihadists" – challenges the international order. In the east, a large number of Chinese troops have entered Pakistani-held territory high in the mountain fastness of the Kashmir Karakorams, in the picturesque Gilgit-Baltistan region, not far from the glacial battlefield of Siachen, where India and Pakistan confront each other.

Senge Hasan Sering, from Skardu, the director of the Gilgit-Baltistan National Congress, believes that the number of Chinese People's Liberation Army troops now present "could be over 11,000", as there are also additional "PLA construction corps personnel" deployed. It is here that China is currently investing "billions of dollars in mega projects like expressways, tunnels, and oil and gas pipelines". This, Sering says, is "surely not on account of any overflowing altruism".

The Chinese say that some of their troops are present in Pakistan because of another sort of "overflowing", of which there has been a great deal in this part of Kashmir and in the rest of Pakistan. This year's heavy monsoon rains have wrought havoc in the area, severing road connections, washing away bridges and rendering over half a million people homeless in these mountains – without "dwellings, farmlands, moveable assets" or even "graveyards". This is over and above the many thousands in the Hunza region, who in January lost everything on account of a cloudburst that wiped out several villages and created a highly unstable artificial lake.

Rudyard Kipling's old "great game" now has new contestants. Instead of an expansionist Russian empire confronting imperial Britain, it is now a China hungry for land, water and raw materials that is flexing its muscles, encroaching on Himalayan redoubts and directly challenging India.

China's incursion reaffirms the ancient strategic axiom that "geography is the real determinant of history" – and, as a result, of foreign and security policy, too. Robert Kaplan wisely observes that "Indian geography is the story of invasions from a northwesterly direction" and "India's strategic challenges still inhere in this fact" – which is why Afghanistan, to Indian eyes, is linked to the subcontinent's history, and thus our future.

It is also why there exists an "organic connection of India to Central Asia", the key to that link lying in the Himalayas, which is where the India-China rivalry is currently focused. Fortunately, at least for the present, this rivalry is far less emotional than India-Pakistan relations, having not been born of historical grievances.

The Chinese urge is to break from the confines of their country's history, and thus China's own geography. An assertive and relatively stable China, it seems, must expand, lest pent-up internal pressures tear it apart. A strong and stable India, on the other hand, will always be a status quo power.

It is against this backdrop that the latest contest between India and China must be assessed. Several thousand PLA troops are indisputably stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border to protect the Karakoram highway, which PLA soldiers are now repairing in several places. The road, after all, is a vital link in China's quest for direct access to the Arabian Sea. But this is also Indian territory, wherein lies the rub, for the region is now victim to a creeping China acquisitiveness, with Pakistan acquiescing as a willing accomplice.

Despite India's historically established territorial claims to the region, China terms the area "disputed" – a description it has now begun to extend to the whole of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This sort of verbal trickery to hide a strategic objective has been seen before. Indeed, some years back, a planned visit to Indian Ladakh by the PLA's commander of the Lanzhou Military Region was cancelled on the grounds that Pakistan had protested – implying that Pakistan had a legitimate claim to the area.

It would be a mistake to presume that the vast expansion of trade between India and China, currently worth more than $60bn (£38bn) annually (with China now India's largest trading partner), must lead to improved bilateral relations. Even while trade expands, China is attempting to confine India within greatly foreshortened land and sea borders through its so-called "string of pearls policy".

This effort to encircle India by sea with strategically positioned naval stations from Hainan in the east to Gwadar in the west, and on land by promoting bogus Pakistani claims that undermine India's territorial integrity, takes the "great game" to a new and more dangerous level. Indeed, the pincer of Afghanistan and Gilgit/Baltistan poses the gravest challenge to India's statecraft since independence.

More than that, the struggle now underway at the top of the world may well determine whether this will be an "Asian century" or a "Chinese century".

This is indeed a welcome development. Indian Leaders have now started to talk openly about the Chinese threat.

[Kanson]

Nice articulation by both Shiv & RajeshA.

If i like to coagulate points from both, US is an enemy to India and China is also an enemy to India but US & China are also enemy to each other. So all are enemy to each other.

In this triangle game, India can keep equidistant from both as long as hostilities from them are manageable. If hostility from one increases more than its size & means then India can take a decision of siding with another one entity which can be convinced to reduce its hostility towards India in the name of enemy to enemy is a friend. India once sided with Soviet Union to balance such hostility in the same game of enemy to enemy is a friend.

Now the Question is more related to who is more hostile to India at present? Who can grow more hostile in the long term?

My comments: India is not only looking for a partner to balance the hostility. It is also looking for a benefactor to help its growth. Now who could do both? US? or China?

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 25, 2010
By Naveeta Kapoor
The New Cold War?: iNewp

[Kanson]

What India fears in playing the "enemy to enemy is a friend" game is what happens when other two play the same game towards us. So it is not only she is looking for a helping hand, suppose she needed to have one, but also a benefactor who can see India's rise in beneficial terms. So India was improving trade with both US & China. Can China play the role of benefactor?

[Kanson]

In which way China can help India ? One major help of Strategic proportion could be accepting the territorial integrity of India. Other one could be in bypassing the trade & hi-tech sanctions from the West. Second point is not of much use unless it can guarantee the first one.

[Arjun]

In which way China can help India ?

1. Accept territorial integrity of India
2. Stop aiding proxies (Pakis, naxals) working against Indian interests
3. Support India in UN security council bid

[RajeshA]

In which way China can help India ? One major help of Strategic proportion could be accepting the territorial integrity of India. Other one could be in bypassing the trade & hi-tech sanctions from the West. Second point is not of much use unless it can guarantee the first one.

This I fear holds no credibility. Any Chinese acceptance of the border means only playing for time. China retains the attitude to question the border at any time in the future again. China has already played its card. It has shown that it is willing to call J&K a disputed state, and call PoK Northern Pakistan. It has shown by its behavior that it is willing to intervene in the Kashmir Valley politics. What more evidence does one need of its intentions? It has arrived at this behavior not all of a sudden or upon provocation. No! This is an age old policy which has been sharpened now that PRC feels more confident.

Would a per forma platitude, or some expression of finding peaceful solution to the boundary question carry any credibility with India? It is just playing for time. India has given PRC more than half a century to make peace with India, and PRC has refused to. So where is the realism, that PRC considers us a geo-strategic rival with which there can be no peace, or at least no just peace.

PRC is making facts on the ground - PoK, Tibetan defense fortifications, Border infrastructure, IRBMs in Tibet, Navy bases in Indian Ocean, China-friendly governments in Pakistan and Nepal, Virtual takeover of Myanmar, Red Menace in India.

Talks and words would not solve these issues. India has to start making facts on the ground, and start taking down the Chinese pawns in the region.

[Kanson]

>>Talks and words would not solve these issues. India has to start making facts on the ground.....

Correct. Since we started from the premises that both US & China are not acted in a friendly way to India before, lets ask the question whether US is making facts on the ground? I mean whether it moved from mere words to actions in safeguarding the territorial integrity. We must also remember that it was US which egged China against India in 1971. Is there enough instances, proof, facts on the ground to prove that US made a U turn in accepting the territorial integrity of India?

I can see one, i.e. Kargil. Is anything more can be added?

[RajeshA]

Compared to how PRC is disputing Indian territory across the board including actively questioning J&K's status, here is American stand on the issue.

Published on Sep 25, 2010
By C. Raja Mohan
Kashmir unrest India’s internal issue, says Obama Administration

As Jammu and Kashmir continues to draw international attention, the Obama Administration has said it has no intention to inject itself into the latest round of arguments between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

“Our position has been consistent for many years. We regret the loss of lives in the current unrest and view it as an internal issue of India”, Under Secretary of State William Burns told The Indian Express here.

“We welcome the efforts of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has courageously sought to improve relations with Pakistan”, Burns said in an exclusive conversation. “The pace, scope and character of the dialogue is for India and Pakistan to define.”

Burns, the principal US interlocutor with India in recent years, has overseen the implementation of the civil nuclear initiative and is currently negotiating the substance of US President Barack Obama’s visit to India in November.

[Kanson]

Yes, RajeshA, in the crisis, as India was asking US to show them in action to remove any trust deficit, this can be taken as one positive development. It can be viewed as stand against Pak and in favour of India. Whereas China preferred to the bete noire of India in every issue. I couldn't see China supporting India in any instance. That sums up the outcome of this debate, i guess.

[Kanson]

Published on Sep 25, 2010
By Naveeta Kapoor
The New Cold War?: iNewp

Notwithstanding this, the new cold war has truly begun and it is for nations and regions to form quite and not so quite alliances with or against China. If 21st Century is to be the century of Asia then the only way to keep Asia dividied is to keep it’s two super powers on either side of the fence.

India needs to follow the path of Pragmatic realism and charter a deliberate and long thought out path towards it’s rightful destiny – that path does not envision conflicts with neighbours and allies – at least not for now.

Good Point. Can China see this pragmatism? It takes two to tango.

[Kanson]

In which way China can help India ?

1. Accept territorial integrity of India
2. Stop aiding proxies (Pakis, naxals) working against Indian interests
3. Support India in UN security council bid

I didnt see China supporting India even in single instance. From Kashmir to UNSC it is standing against us.

[RajeshA]

India needs to follow the path of Pragmatic realism and charter a deliberate and long thought out path towards it’s rightful destiny – that path does not envision conflicts with neighbours and allies – at least not for now.

Good Point. Can China see this pragmatism? It takes two to tango.

I think this is the wrong way to look at it.

India should use the most appropriate means to effect desired change at the most opportune time for success.

The questions for India to ask are

1. What are the things happening in India's neighborhood right now?
2. How would these happenings influence India in the coming years, if these are allowed to its own devices?
3. If something negative is taking place, what are India's options at the moment (all options) to prevent it?
4. Can India reverse the negative effects of these happenings at some point in the near future?
5. If yes, then under what conditions, and whether those conditions are likely to come about? If not, can we live with the adverse effects for the foreseeable future?
6. If a reversal is not possible, and living with the conditions is also not possible, then we should consider whether now is the best time to effect change.

[Arjun]

1. Accept territorial integrity of India
2. Stop aiding proxies (Pakis, naxals) working against Indian interests
3. Support India in UN security council bid

I didnt see China supporting India even in single instance. From Kashmir to UNSC it is standing against us.

Exactly. We have had a series of China apologists appear on this thread with the one point argument that the US is the puppeteer in the background and we should be concerned about the 'bigger evil'. That might very well be, but its obvious that every effort from India's side to turn this into a China-India cooperation game to balance the US has been rebuffed handily from China's side, and they have shown nothing but contempt for India's concerns.

Its a close call as to who is the more nauseating - the China apologists of whom I had no idea there were so many in our country even after having our face rubbed in the sand by them in the past...or the massa-apologists which we, of course, are very much more aware of.

[krisna]

Internal factors are playing a huge role in the behaviour of dragon's quest for economic development.
1) Most of the development has occurred in the core of china( south eastern part of china). 40% of chinese population exists in other areas occupying more than 60% of the current chinese political map. Tibet and Xinjaing are a major portion of this area.
2) Outer chinese areas are relatively under developed with 2-3 times the population growth than the core china where one child policy is in force. The people in these areas have not accepted chinese rule which brutally suppresses peoples' revolt. It hardly reaches media due to its tight control.
3) To prevent the revolts here it is kick starting economic development in theses areas by investing billions -- the best and cost effective way of doing it is thru TSP and Burma as it reduces distances a long way in accessing natural resources.(intruding into India' security)
4) Core chinese areas are also not fully well developed though it is far better than outer areas. But the pollution is taking its toll so also its one child policy with 4-2-1 pattern emerging. Demographers are painting a grim future here in the next couple of decades. Social unrest due to worsening economic situation if economic growth splutters.
5) Being a manufacturing economy geared for the exports. It is artificialy under cutting prices in other countries. IOW it is also reducing the purchasing power of mango chinese. Once other countries retaliate( either due to weak economy or by countermeasures) the mango chinese will agitate.
6) To protect the core china and continue economic development it is claiming islands of japan(recent incidents) paracel islands and spratyl islands which are suspected to have oil and minerals in the sea bed. This is nearer the core china areas hence no need to depend on far off areas for natural resources. This could explain the belligerence of the chinese to these areas causing consternation to its neighbours.
7) To protect its economic interests it has to develop its military to be strong against anyone.(again corollary to economic development to prevent social unrest)
8 ) Fighting with India uncle and its neighbours is a corollary to the internal problems facing the dragon. Hence the need to bully nations into accepting its sovereignity in the disputed areas.
9) With dragon breathing fire and snapping at american interest, uncle is mending its ways( again it is national interets onlee).Uncle is rightly calling the bluff by re invigorating its policies in east asia/asean and courting India.
in this context,WRT America saying that J&K is internal matter of India is welcome. However US has always tried in the past to insert itself into the issue as a party indirectly thru its whore. India refused to tag along(having SU in the past was a boon till its collapse).But because of India growing economically and strengthing itself(with the whore losing its way) has changed the whole game.


Whore fight between uncle and dragon--
a) whore is closer to dragon, america is losing its importance. Also because of TSPians terrorist actions in america, its role is being re assessed. America is a democracy which makes it more difficult to help TSP due to its dynamics. America easily changes its position on whore depending on its interests. If uncle finds India irresistible then it can dump TSP and back India. This may happen in near future as costs of propping TSP vs dumping it becomes prohibitive.
b) Meanwhile TSP has its own insecure feelings about Uncle. It prefers dragon due to geographical continuity and dragon is not a democracy. TSP also holds cards wrt xinjaing. Dragon wants TSPA to control islamic terrorists in TSP. With waning of TSPA power dragon is forced to reveal its hand in POK. Its huge investments in TSP in is big trouble(already invested and in future ones).


I feel having democracy is a boon in India because even if economic developments did not occur in India, democracy (political and economic freedom) releases its pent up pressures and reduces significantly the chance of breaking away. Ex the govt may be dismissed every 5 years etc etc.
This is not seen in china because of no democracy. The CCP is destined forever to rule mango chinese( sort of divine rights in olden times). hence it has to continuously indulge in economic development to prevent mango chinese from revolting. It equates CCP = national interests cleverly. There are no pressure valves to release the frustrations of chinese. hence if CCP collapses it is curtains for China and vice versa as there are no other parties to take over the failure of CCP. The political institutions are weak to take over. PLA is strong only in maintaining brutal suppression but may not work for long as soldiers are also mango chinese. With no effective leadership it will also fail.

[shiv]

If there are three major powers, and any two of them fight the third benefits. Nothing earth-shaking in that deduction...

This line of thought does not address the core of the problem this thread was supposed to address:
- China's support and nuclearisation of Pakistan against India
- China's repeated questioning of Arunachal status
- Stapled visa policy for J&K
- Opposition to India's security council seat

If these point to a policy of bluff from China and not leading to actual war, we need a strategy on how to call this bluff. If these really portend war, we need a strategy to counter China. Everything else is pure digression as far as this thread is concerned.

Imagine 3 powers A,B and C interacting with each other in a very simple "for" and "against" scenario. There are at least 12 different scenarios involving all 3:

• A opposes B and C
  A supports B opposes C
  A supports C opposes B
  A supports B and C
  
  B opposes A and C
  B supports A opposes C
  B supports C opposes A
  B supports A and C
  
  C opposes B and A
  C supports B opposes A
  C supports A opposes B
  C supports B and C

With only 2 powers A and B. You have only 4 possibilities.

• A opposes B
  A supports B
  
  B opposes A
  B supports A

Other than analytical laziness why would anyone want to leave out more than half the possibilities that arise? Reducing the number of possibilities combined with a reductionist classification of people as A or B apologists is a serious attempt at dumbing down the discussion.

[shiv]

Ashley Tellis 2008
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events ... il&id=1172

Sino-Indian relations are marked by old conflicts centered on border disputes, the new fight against terrorism, differing concepts of state sovereignty, the desire for recognition at the international level, and the search for natural resources beyond Asia to support their economic growth. Mutual economic interests have led to Chinese and Indian state oil companies establishing joint ventures to explore new oil fields in Africa.

To help maintain a balance in its relationships with the two countries, the U.S. has attempted to strengthen its relationship with India in recent years. The civilian nuclear agreement both countries reached in 2006 remains the crowning achievement of this effort. Tellis explained that because the U.S. and India share a common interest in preserving the balance of power in Asia, every U.S. administration will protect the relationship with India as a hedge in case U.S. – China relations deteriorate.

Tellis concluded the discussion by presenting three precepts for future U.S. foreign policy. First, preserve strong relations with both China and India with weighted priority towards the latter. Second, encourage continued interdependence as a means to encourage economic growth. And third, maintain a robust military capacity to protect American interests in case globalization fails to produce solutions that resolve conflicts.
Source: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events ... il&id=1172
Related Events

[shiv]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/20 ... 411882.htm
Feb 2010

The International Energy Agency predicted that China and India's foreign oil dependency will be 61 percent and 85 percent respectively by 2010. At present, China is the world's second largest consumer of oil. India is the world's fifth largest consumer but soon to become the fourth largest. By 2030, India will likely pass Japan and Russia to become the world's third largest energy consumer.

This is why the two governments of China and India have begun a dialogue and cooperation on energy. In April 2005, during Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India, the two governments issued a joint declaration. Article 9 of the declaration states that the two countries have agreed to cooperate in energy security and energy savings. It also encourages a collaboration to explore and exploit oil and natural gas resources in the third country.

In December 2005, oil companies from the two countries teamed up for the first time to purchase 37 percent of oil assets in Syria that belonged to the Canadian Oil Co at a cost of $573 million. India Oil and Natural Gas Corp is also working with China Petroleum and Chemical Corp in Iran to exploit Aveda Varan oil field, of which China holds 50 percent and India holds 20 percent in shares.

On Feb 22, 2005, India Gas Co signed an agreement with China that India would invest $243 million in China Gas Co. It became the first-ever cooperation between listed companies of the two countries. In August 2006, China and India worked again to buy 50 percent of the shares of an oil field in Colombia.

[Arjun]

Imagine 3 powers A,B and C interacting with each other in a very simple "for" and "against" scenario. There are at least 12 different scenarios involving all 3:

• A opposes B and C
  A supports B opposes C
  A supports C opposes B
  A supports B and C
  
  B opposes A and C
  B supports A opposes C
  B supports C opposes A
  B supports A and C
  
  C opposes B and A
  C supports B opposes A
  C supports A opposes B
  C supports B and C

With only 2 powers A and B. You have only 4 possibilities.

• A opposes B
  A supports B
  
  B opposes A
  B supports A

Other than analytical laziness why would anyone want to leave out more than half the possibilities that arise? Reducing the number of possibilities combined with a reductionist classification of people as A or B apologists is a serious attempt at dumbing down the discussion.

To be mathematically precise, if you assume that two parties either simultaneously oppose each other or simultaneously support each other, then with 2 nodes you get 2 possibilities and with 3 nodes you get 2^3=8 possibilities. If you assume that one party can be supportive of another while the other is actually opposed to the former, then with 2 nodes you get 4 possibilities, and with 3 you get 4^3=64 possibilities.

But bottomline is all of this calculation does not mean a thing.

In the India-China-US equation, any two parties ganging up would be a big setback to the third. As a matter of fact I would support India and China coming to a consensus that the two work together, and work towards a multi or bi-polar world where the two dominate globally if nothing else simply because of their respective populations. Obviously that would imply both China and India working as equals and being sensitive to each other's core concerns, while agreeing to cooperate and resist US domination. Again the push for this kind of thinking has primarily come from the Indian side - and China's responses on the 4 four fronts listed below makes obvious what China's thinks about our approaches....

1. Arunachal issue
2. J&K stapled visa issue
3. Support and aid for known anti-Indian nations and elements
4. UNSC seat

When you have these repeated rebuffs from China to what are obviously India's core concerns, and the utter insensitivity shown to India's feelings - what would you term a person who opposes any attempts by India to explore alternate containement mechanisms of China and tries to derail the discussion away from a China-containment policy. Without ascribing any sinister motives, the only way I would describe such a person is as an apologist and appeaser. This is a guy who is going to be kicked in the shins again and again, and actually deserves it for not having learnt lessons from the past.

[RajeshA]

Published Sep 26, 2010
China's Asian Charm Offensive in `Shambles' Over Disputes With Neighbors: Bloomberg

China set up a regional forum, flooded Malaysia and Thailand with tourists, boosted economic aid to countries including the Philippines and participated in Association of Southeast Asian Nations security dialogues.

“China has tried to establish an image in the region as a nice guy, but all of this could be in a shambles right now,” said Huang Jing, a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. “The real issue here is whether Beijing cares.”

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters Sept. 21 that “China enjoys indisputable sovereign rights over the South China Sea islands and adjacent waters” and opposes the U.S. discussing such conflicts with Asean.

Vietnam, whose president Nguyen Minh Triet co-chaired the meeting with Obama, disagrees and is selling rights to oil and gas fields that conflict with China’s claims. China arrests Vietnamese fishermen caught in disputed waters.

Seems to be the right time to talk about an Asian Security Alliance with Japan, Vietnam and others.

[shiv]

The point to note is that there is competition and cooperation in India's relationship with China. It can be stated that the irritants in the relationship are largely China provoked. However like Pakis you can expect that China feels that the irritants are India provoked.

China of course is more likely to be relaxed an sanguine about its needling of India. India off the rebound from imperialism, recognized China's occupation of Tibet while China turned around and decided to reject a British era India-China agreement about the border with Tibet that makes China claim Arunachal Pradesh.

In the meantime India China trade has increased vastly ( from a 2008 article)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Vie ... 697720.cms

First, trade between the two countries has grown very robustly. Each country’s aggregate international trade is expanding by 23-24% annually. In comparison, India-China trade grew at a 50% rate during 2002-2006 and will increase by a further 54% during 2007 to reach $37 billion.

Second, after adjusting for partner GDP (i.e., bilateral trade divided by the trading partner’s GDP), India’s trade with China is greater than that with Japan, the US, or the entire world. After similar adjustments, China’s trade with India is only slightly below that with Japan, the US, or the entire world.

Third, China already is (or will shortly become) India’s number one trading partner. From China’s side, India already is one of its top ten trading partners. Also, China’s trade with India is growing much faster than with any of the other nine. Thus, India is rapidly becoming an increasingly important trading partner for China.

The following image shows how India has overshadowed Pakistan as china's buggest trade partner in the 1993 to 2003 period
http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/doc ... /img-2.jpg

India's trade balance became a deficit by 2006 or so, but that was the time India launched a ban on imports of cheap Chinese toys being dumped on India - toxic and of very poor quality.

Other areas of India China cooperation have been in climate negotiations and some in oil exploration.

Apart from being militarily prepared to punish any Chinese misadventure what else can India do about Tibet and the Arunachal issue?

I have read somewhere that if India declares Tibet as a disputed territory, it will also have to agree that Aruncahal Pradesh is disputed. China's claim of "greater Tibet" including Arunachal Pradesh is based on the excuse that Tibetans are part of the ethnic peoples in Chinese national consciousness and that all areas with Tibetans should be Tibet. Having said that the fact is that you can describe "Greater Tibet" as including regions that include parts of Qinghai and Xinjiang province also.

Map of greater Tibet


China's treatment of Kashmir as disputed and "stapled visas" should not come as any surprise to anyone. I have read that India was unofficially keeping quiet about Tibet in exchange for China unofficially not making noise about Kashmir. I am not sure where I read this - but it sounds like the "gentleman's agreement" between India and Pakistan to vacate posts in Kargil in winter. It won't work and there is no sense in being surprised if anyone thought it would work. My personal feeling about POK is that India should destabilize/split Pakistan because it is Pakistan that has the links to sea ports.

It is in Pakistan that US efforts to check India are the most powerful and detrimental to India. The US makes, and has made no effort to stop nations (like China) who help Pakistan, but protects Pakistan against its sworn enemy India. Pakistan is one place where China-US cooperation is directed against India. With regard to Pakistan - India is on its own - all alone. Making war with China may be fine for anyone but India as the US will ensure that its whore remains untouched. Ultimately it is the US, and not China or India that controls the sea lanes via Pakistan

[shiv]

1. Arunachal issue
2. J&K stapled visa issue
3. Support and aid for known anti-Indian nations and elements
4. UNSC seat

When you have these repeated rebuffs from China to what are obviously India's core concerns, and the utter insensitivity shown to India's feelings - what would you term a person who opposes any attempts by India to explore alternate containment mechanisms of China and tries to derail the discussion away from a China-containment policy. Without ascribing any sinister motives, the only way I would describe such a person is as an apologist and appeaser. This is a guy who is going to be kicked in the shins again and again, and actually deserves it for not having learnt lessons from the past.

Sorry. I happen to think that your list above is a laughably naive and child-like depiction of India's "core concerns"
"Stapled visas" and UNSC seat are hardly "core concerns. They are mere irritants being blown up and listed as "core concerns"

Indian territorial integrity is a definite core concern, Arunachal is one of the areas of concern, but Aksai Chin and POK are equally core concerns. POK is the central area where the US, China and Pakistan are arrayed against India. And while people wring their hands about Arunachal Pradesh, others want to attack and take over POK. This is what I would describe as stupidity. So the core issue is "territorial integrity", and great power rivalry to India's detriment, not just "Arunachal Pradesh". US support to Pakistan against India allows China to do a "pincer" on India - poking at Arunachal and POK simultaneously. At least in Arunachal we can hit back at China directly. in POK - whatever we do leaves Chian unscathed while the Pak army enjoys US suppport.

Support and aid for known anti-India elements again is a core issue. But here again the major havens are in third party nations, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Even Bangladesh and Myanmar have been somewhat receptive, but Pakistan once again brings in the US. I am astounded at how, on this forum. people forget that less than 10 years ago even the US looked at terrorism in Kashmir as "freedom fighters". This is what comes from dumbing down things and deciding to ignore the role of the US and making inane "core concern" lists that pretend that China alone is the prime mover.

And the Naxals? Communist inspired? Definitely. But China instigated? Tell me more. I'm listening.

Manipur is a sad sad story. China? What is the China connection?

Dumbing down a multifactorial problem into a two sided issue is not the way I see things. By all means go ahead and make your classifications of apologists and non apologists. Once things are dumbed down to black and white, white is good and black is bad no?

[Arjun]

The point to note is that there is competition and cooperation in India's relationship with China.

Agreed. Trade need not be mixed up with geopolitical concerns, and climate negotiations are an area of cooperation.

It can be stated that the irritants in the relationship are largely China provoked. However like Pakis you can expect that China feels that the irritants are India provoked.

I don't question the Pakiness here. But when there is absolutely no moral equivalency between India's actions and what China has provoked, its clearly apologism on your part to parrot the China line. Can you propound on the moral equivalence that you see out here, in terms of provocation thus far?

India's trade balance became a deficit by 2006 or so, but that was the time India launched a ban on imports of cheap Chinese toys being dumped on India - toxic and of very poor quality.

India is running a $20 Billion trade deficit with China !! And you are linking this to a ban on imports from China? A ban on imports should reduce the trade deficit if anything. Can you explain?

China's treatment of Kashmir as disputed and "stapled visas" should not come as any surprise to anyone. I have read that India was unofficially keeping quiet about Tibet in exchange for China unofficially not making noise about Kashmir. I am not sure where I read this - but it sounds like the "gentleman's agreement" between India and Pakistan to vacate posts in Kargil in winter. It won't work and there is no sense in being surprised if anyone thought it would work.

Ok, so now you are not surprised that China decided to unilaterally revoke this 'gentleman's agreement'. But yet you are opposed to India reciprocating this by not recognizing Tibet. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander?

It is in Pakistan that US efforts to check India are the most powerful and detrimental to India. The US makes, and has made no effort to stop nations (like China) who help Pakistan, but protects Pakistan against its sworn enemy India. Pakistan is one place where China-US cooperation is directed against India. With regard to Pakistan - India is on its own - all alone. Making war with China may be fine for anyone but India as the US will ensure that its whore remains untouched. Ultimately it is the US, and not China or India that controls the sea lanes via Pakistan

Both China and the US have a lot to answer for wrt Pakistan. But again, is there any moral equivalence between the actions of the US and China in this regard? Nothing the US ever did can remotely compare to the nuclear proliferation from China to Pak. Or do you see the hidden hand of the US behind this event too????

[csharma]

Jaswant Singh article is ominous. Essentially what he is saying is that if India loses to China in the great game, it will be a Chinese 21st century.

He also calls the challenge the gravest since Independence.

Indeed, the pincer of Afghanistan and Gilgit/Baltistan poses the gravest challenge to India's statecraft since independence.

While the American angle should be kept in mind, China's independent actions to be Asia's sole hegemonic power are most concerning.

[Arjun]

Sorry. I happen to think that your list above is a laughably naive and child-like depiction of India's "core concerns"
"Stapled visas" and UNSC seat are hardly "core concerns. They are mere irritants being blown up and listed as "core concerns"

Indian territorial integrity is a definite core concern, Arunachal is one of the areas of concern, but Aksai Chin and POK are equally core concerns. POK is the central area where the US, China and Pakistan are arrayed against India. And while people wring their hands about Arunachal Pradesh, others want to attack and take over POK. This is what I would describe as stupidity. So the core issue is "territorial integrity", and great power rivalry to India's detriment, not just "Arunachal Pradesh". US support to Pakistan against India allows China to do a "pincer" on India - poking at Arunachal and POK simultaneously. At least in Arunachal we can hit back at China directly. in POK - whatever we do leaves Chian unscathed while the Pak army enjoys US suppport.

Support and aid for known anti-India elements again is a core issue. But here again the major havens are in third party nations, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Even Bangladesh and Myanmar have been somewhat receptive, but Pakistan once again brings in the US. I am astounded at how, on this forum. people forget that less than 10 years ago even the US looked at terrorism in Kashmir as "freedom fighters". This is what comes from dumbing down things and deciding to ignore the role of the US and making inane "core concern" lists that pretend that China alone is the prime mover.

And the Naxals? Communist inspired? Definitely. But China instigated? Tell me more. I'm listening.

Manipur is a sad sad story. China? What is the China connection?

Dumbing down a multifactorial problem into a two sided issue is not the way I see things. By all means go ahead and make your classifications of apologists and non apologists. Once things are dumbed down to black and white, white is good and black is bad no?

The core concerns I had in mind were territorial integrity, support and aid for anti-Indian nations and elements, and UNSC issue.

The UNSC seat is very much a core issue, despite all your attempts to denigrate it as non-core. For once the government is in line with this thinking. From a newspaper report that came out today:

India this week reiterated its calls for “greater understanding” from China of its bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), underscoring that the issue was central to any future cooperation between the two countries on the global stage.

China's dismissive attitude to India's territorial integrity was what I had broken down and listed as points 1 & 2, i.e. the J&K and Arunachal concerns.

The real issue is not that you are a China apologist, but that while you have attempted to deflect criticism of China to the US you are not simultaneously coming up with concrete suggestions as to what needs to be done to address a resolution to the core issues above. Many posters have discussed reciprocal measures on China, so that we have greater negotiating leverage to address our core issues - those are concrete suggestions on the table. You are attempting to derail that thought process, and yet have no alternatives to offer.

[Pulikeshi]

Shiv,

Perhaps it is easy to forget the uneasy relationship US and UK enjoyed before the formal
transition of the mantle post WWII. Heck, to look at US and UK relationship now, one would
think the battle of Bladensburg, which saw the British burning down major sections
of Washington D.C. in 1814 as a hallucination. Now who would have thunk!

Why do you think it is any different between India and the US?
India, even if it ever became the sole power of Asia is probably not going to be locked into an
ideological battle with the US, only geo-political regional ones.
On the other hand, with China it seems, slowly but surely, India may not have a choice.

The Chinese set a trap - one for India and one for Japan. We know which fish took the hook!
That was a pure tactical move tied to the rising Yuan, not a strategic end game in or itself.
Perhaps, the Chinese delude themselves the Japanese are chicken and other monkeys will behave.
What is more important is for India to realize that China, historically, has never respected any
nation-state that arose in the Indian subcontinent, except perhaps the British Empire.
India, historically, has influenced China culturally, but never as a nation-state.
There can be only one in Asia, sooner India realizes that there is no choice the better.
Modern India has inherited the burden of Curzon, but wants to deal with China culturally!

Any alliance between India and China, will be brain dead at birth.
Like merlin said elsewhere, there is a better chance for US to side with China...

[csharma]

India has to be careful about bandwagoning with US on China as well. The talk of G2 is very recent. First of all, US is capable of dealing with China on its own. That is something Ashley Tellis said in an interview. He said US does not need India to deal with China.
Secondly, a declining US might do a G2 (condominium) with China like it tried to in 2009 but was rebuffed by China.

[RajeshA]

USA will go for a G2 only if USA feels it has no option. Unless one gives USA options, it might feel tempted to carve out the world with China.

That is why it is necessary, that the progressive countries in Asia - India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, 'Vietnam', Indonesia, Australia, Singapore come together and build the Asian Security Alliance.

[csharma]

This alliance of democracies in Asia may not fly if these countries are not confident that their alliance will be able to contain the Chinese. There are doubts whether the coalition is capable of taking on the Chinese. IIRC, one Singaporean scholar said something like that.

If the US joins the alliance there is better chance of it working. But US might cut deals with China and give it free hand in Asia. This is purely speculative but not outside the realm of possibility.

From India's point of view, it has to keep growing at 8-10%, increase the potency of the military through technology, make tactical moves on the ground to take on PLA and keep working on the potential partners.

[Pulikeshi]

Take my poor characterization of two scenarios:

Uncle, if in decline, needs to give away the control to one of the two - India or China.
India says I have patience, the broader family (countries) would support such a move...
China says, heck if I am going to let Uncle get away with it. Need to take out India.

Uncle, if in temporary setback, sees India and China as powers that can be played with...
If I keep playing these two punks, I can keep getting the benefits and stay at helm longer.

Some are worried it is the former and others are worried it is the latter.
I think it is neither

PS: If India were Yudhistra, China were Duryodhana and US were Krishna

[svinayak]

Good Point. Can China see this pragmatism? It takes two to tango.

What's in it for China. They dont care. They are going for what it wants.

[svinayak]

Modern India has inherited the burden of Curzon, but wants to deal with China culturally!

It is not a burden but the destiny of India to expand its religious manifest destiny.

Like merlin said elsewhere, there is a better chance for US to side with China...

Two major powers will always keep the next one down by cooperating. It is easy and no brainer.
It is all about geo politics.
This was discussed 5 years ago.

[RamaY]

^+1

Indians should stop expecting others to give (started from Britishers "giving" Independence) and start taking what is theirs...

[Pulikeshi]

This was discussed 5 years ago.

Oh! This will be discussed for another 20 - but what if any conclusion came out 5 years ago?

Forget the investment bankers and their reports.

1. China perceives it can go alone and dominate Asia and buy time to take on the US
2. China perceives its internal strife and figures best way to keep China intact is to focus out...

On the other hand

1. India perceives it needs 10 year 8-10% growth to be in a duopoly with China
2. India perceives its internal poverty and decides to remain a status quo power

[svinayak]

This was discussed 5 years ago.

Oh! This will be discussed for another 20 - but what if any conclusion came out 5 years ago?

That was not the point. My point is that this discussion will keep going.

[shiv]

Why do you think it is any different between India and the US?
India, even if it ever became the sole power of Asia is probably not going to be locked into an
ideological battle with the US, only geo-political regional ones.
On the other hand, with China it seems, slowly but surely, India may not have a choice.

Pulikeshi - I see a lot of clever phrases here that in the end may not carry as much meaning as they are supposed to carry.

The first is "sole power" - an expression that has to be taken in conjunction with other similar words like "superpower" and related concepts like "monopoly" and "duopoly". There is no such thing as "sole power". People like to hold up the example of the US - but that example itself is wrong. No matter how many centuries you go back you find that the world has had several prominent powers. If at all the US was "sole, unquestioned power" it was for a period of 11 years from 1990 till 2001. So let us dismiss these useless phrases.

I made a point earlier that I would like to be shown Chinese statements or documents that indicate China's ambition of being "sole power. The reply I have received is "Look at China's action, not statements". Fine. China's actions are one of growth, but that growth has not stifled the growth of India, or Bangladesh, or Thailand, Vietnam or Korea. China has grown. So how does that indicate that it wants to be "sole power" of Asia. China is the biggest country in Asia and the most populous. It is not the richest country in Asia by a long shot using many parameters. Talking of the size of the Chinese economy being second is a silly trick used by economists to "follow the money". The slum at Dharavi for instance has a bigger economy than the wealthy industrialist patron who drives up to the Taj hotel in his Rolls. The situation of India is similar, but even lower on the scale. India is the second biggest country in Asia and the second biggest population. The size of it's economy will - in due course be second to China - like the slum that is second to Dharavi in economy.

China is growing and India is growing. India has to grab whatever resources that it can - primarily oil. China is doing exactly that. India's demand for ores has not yet gone to the levels China has reached. But we too will soon star feeling the pinch.

The other phrase I have a problem with is "ideology". The only ideology is self service and to make oneself better, fatter, wealthier. The "lack of ideological differences" between the Angloshpere and India hinges on India accepting their suzerainty and accepting that India is moving away against many ancient and eminently useless Hindu societal practices like "caste" and other social evils that the western world does not have and India is moving towards the western ideals of equality, gay rights, individual freedoms (as opposed to family restrictions of India). In my view India and Indians have sold their souls to indicate their closeness to the western world. They have only one advantage over China here - i.e a knowledge of English. But when it comes to geopolitical alliances and trade all this "ideology-shydeology" becomes utter tripe. China is a fair partner for the US and to hell with the lack of freedom and democracy.

I am trying to point out that India's perceived closeness to the west and ideological differences with China are western proposed mental constructs. The China threat too is part real, part mental construct. Those who are ideologically different from us are a threat if they become powerful. The unlimited power of those whose ideology is the same as our ideology (such as the US) is non threatening to us. For my own education I would like to be told of all the ideological similarities Indians have with Americans.