Managing Chinese Threat

[ramana]

^^^^

Amazon's Site:

Travels of T Shirt in Global Economy

Does this fit the bill?

More likely this one:

The China Price: The True Cost of Chinese Competitive Advantage

by former FT reporter Alexandra Harney

[Karna_A]

But just as Taliban has turned against TSP, its a matter of time before TSP turns against China.
The more real possibility is TSP just gives up in next 2 decades and becomes an Indian protectorate, so thanks for supplying all the nooks and missiles to TSP.

Right after China collapses economically right? Maybe just before China breaks into 7 different warring regions. Of cause this is years after a resurgence of Indian culture in the Chinese mainstream.

Noone is saying that China will collapse. China would have been what it has become even without helping TSP against India. But giving nooks and India centric missiles to TSP will have long term consequences.

Tony, here is a story for you:
Once upon a time there was a powerful king of a mighty kingdom in a far away land.
As kings do, he had a pet monkey. The monkey was loyal to a fault. He served the king with vigor and protected him from all evil. Nothing and nobody would harm the king as long as he was alive and in service of his master. The king trusted his monkey completely. The monkey was always by the side of the king, waiting for the next order; the next thing he could do for his beloved master.

One summer afternoon, the king, exhausted from shouldering the burden of governance of his vast kingdom, decided to take a nap. The monkey, as always, stood guard. These were the days before electricity or air conditioning so the monkey took a hand held fan and started fanning the king ever so gently. He wanted his master to sleep in comfort undisturbed by the hot afternoon temperature.

The king slept like a baby till a fly entered the room and landed on his chest. The monkey did not want his king disturbed so it swung the fan a little faster so the fly would go away. And the fly went away.
Only to return and take its rightful place on the king’s arm. Again, the monkey swung the fan and the fly took off.

This cycle of landing and swinging went on a few times. The fly would find a different place on the king’s body and the monkey would swing the fan and get rid of it. But with each encounter the monkey got more furious at the fly for disturbing his king. His swings got faster and furious and with each he warned the fly that more severe action was imminent.
But the fly kept coming back. Now, this was war. The monkey had his mind made up. He was going to settle this once and for all. He was going to kill the fly.
So when the next flight brought the fly to the king’s nose, the monkey was ready. In one swift swing it was going to waste the fly. Only this time he had the king’s sword in his hand. It was war you see and in war there is no mercy!

The monkey’s swing was fast and effective. It chopped off the king’s nose. The fly, as always, got away!

Leadership Lessons:
1. There is always a fly that will make your life miserable. Usually, there are more than one!
2. It was the king’s nose that went but it could have been worse!
3. It is better to have a smart enemy than a stupid friend.

No guesses on who the stupid friend is.

In a nook warland with MAD,(Mutually Assured Destruction) what China is doing is very dangerous. The real China is its 5-10 cities. The real India is its 700k villages. After a MAD nook war, CCP may stand for Coal, Charcoal and Pottery, because that's all that will be left there. Its better to have cooperation and collaboration in nook world and not copy British pre-nook strategies.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh
much of the land that china has is useless - to feed or providee employment to its people (the Han), therefore it only serves as a buffer for the core Han state. preserving peace and harmony (under Han guidance) in the buffer zones is what they desire. when it has added benefits like oil and gas, then they want to ensure that the routes are open and favour them.

From a table:

Code: Select all

COUNTRY................................India
AREA (1000) SQ.KM....................3288	
ARABLE IN & OF AREA....................50.5
ARABLE LAND. (1000) SQ.KM............1660
POPULATION PER UNIT ARABLE LAND...508
IRRIGATION IN % OF ARABLE LAND....28.9
IRRIGATION (1000) SQ.KM..............480
POPULATION PER UNIT IRRIGATION.....1759
IRRIGATION IN % OF AREA................14.6

							
COUNTRY........................................China
AREA (1000) SQ.KM..........................9537
ARABLE IN & OF AREA.......................9.6
ARABLE LAND. (1000) SQ.KM..............916
POPULATION PER UNIT ARABLE LAND...1217
IRRIGATION IN % OF ARABLE LAND......53.6
IRRIGATION (1000) SQ.KM.................491
POPULATION PER UNIT IRRIGATION.....2270
IRRIGATION IN % OF AREA................5.1

That means that even though India has more arable land than China, they have more arable land under irrigation than India. Anyway both Indians and Chinese are buying up land in Africa and elsewhere and bringing it under cultivation for their populations. Both Indians and Chinese import grain. (5 million tons vs 12 million tons).

The issue of land is however not only one of arable, irrigated, grain-producing, etc.. As you noted, land connects one part to another land, which may have those qualities. Land could have minerals, oil and gas. Land could make Oil and Gas pipelines possible. Land could be strategically located and help in checkmating other rivals. Land can provide land and air corridors to markets. Land is precious.

The mentality of "not a blade of grass grows there", I find simply abhorrent. India, a land that had land connections to Central Asia, West Asia, South East Asia, today is trapped within South Asia, because of a false sense of satisfaction with what we had/have. How much have we lost because we could not get an IPI pipeline, or TAPI pipeline, or some pipeline from Russia. Even those pipelines that we had a good chance of getting like Myanmar Gas Pipeline from Shwe has been awarded to China due to politics. Control over land matters.

on the sea... they are not open. if you look out from the mainland, their main shipping lanes are effectively flanked by the philippines, vietnam and japan. possession of those regions certainly is a threat to unrestricted chinese shipping. this shipping is vital for the flow of energy in and goods out. on this flow lies the prosperity of the Han core.

That may be true, but it is up to them how to manage these relationships. If they don't manage well, then there would be some danger to their shipping lanes. But it is in their hands. Let's not forget that in Asia, China has the best ability to project power, even nuclear threat, after USA, which is a guest for a limited years. So just the threat from PRC would be enough to keep these countries in line.

there is an arguement that the domestic economy lacks the land to create agrarian wealth, and the population is too great to create industrial employment for all. 400m live in the 'prosperous sea zones' and 900m live in the arid, uncultivable interiors, including parts of the Han. from a chinese perspective, what we see is predatory might be seen as preventative (that doesn't make it right though) - i guess what i am coming around to is that they are mighty scared and acting like the tough guy wannabe who whistles and shouts to hide his fear. we must stand up to this overt bullying

Basically I'm not really interested in their reasons for acting the way they do, from the PoV of justification for their behavior. My interest, as an Indian, would be to know whether they pose a threat or not, whether we can remove that threat, and if not whether we are prepared for it.

Whether they are acting because they're shit scared or because they are over-confident is also only for interest to me, as an Indian, whether I can use that knowledge to influence their behavior. If it is not possible, then I have to face the challenge, the threat head-on, and there comes strategy, and there comes military preparedness.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 08, 2010
China, Turkey to establish strategic cooperative relationship: Xinhua

China and Turkey signed eight pacts on cooperation in areas that included trade, railway construction, infrastructure, communications and cultural exchanges before the press conference.

Erdogan said Turkey planned to build 4,500 to 5,000 km of railways and wanted China's cooperation in those projects.

China had agreed to provide financial support for the railway projects when conditions were appropriate, he said.

Erdogan said Turkey also intended to build a railway connecting Turkey's largest city, Istanbul, and the Chinese capital, Beijing.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 8, 2010
By John Pomfret
History of Huawei illustrates historic distrust between U.S. and China: Washington Post

SHENZHEN, CHINA - Late last year, as AT&T was preparing to buy hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment for its next-generation phone system, one of its senior executives received a call from the National Security Agency.

The subject was AT&T's desire to give a burgeoning Chinese telecommunications firm a contract to supply some of the equipment. The message from the NSA - the nation's electronic spying agency - was simple: If AT&T wanted to continue its lucrative business with the U.S. government, it had better select a supplier other than Huawei, said several people with knowledge of the call. In February, AT&T announced that it would buy the equipment it needed from Swedish-owned Ericsson and Paris-based Alcatel-Lucent.

The NSA called AT&T because of fears that China's intelligence agencies could insert digital trapdoors into Huawei's technology that would serve as secret listening posts in the U.S. communications network, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to maintain their relationship with the companies. Huawei, the NSA and AT&T declined to discuss the agency's intervention in the deal.

[Rishirishi]

"As of now, China's economy is pretty much dependent on the west and in many ways controlled by western companies using China as a production base. Indian economy is based on domestic growth and hence not as dependent upon the west."

This is really interesting. When we read of all these Chinese products that are competing with Indian made goods, how many of them are really "Chinese" in the sense of ownership, management and control of process/technology? And, without letting one's thought run wild, to what extent, if any, is this foreign presence in China designed to counter the more independent, autonomous and autarkic( relatively speaking) countries like India? Atlanticists, far as one can see, have never been thrilled or supportive of the Indian mixed economy with a high degree of autarky for its private and public sector. And its stated goal of being independent and self sufficient.

I read an editorial in Financial Times - London, maybe 3 years ago, which traced a T-shirt from a retail store in US to its creation in China. The T-shirt cost $35 at the store, but when it left China's shores it cost only $5 and the shipping cost went to a Norwegian company. Tracing it further back, it was calculated that labor + material was $1.50 and the manufacturer was a JV of the American company, which repatriated its profit.

Unfortunately, I am not able to find the article online. Can someone help find it.

My family has been in the garment business for 40 years, hence I can give some information.

A typical T-shirt will cost between 1,2 and 1,8 dollars. the 1,8 being the high end (Nike etc).

The brand may have a trading company in say Hong kong, who purchases the t-shirts for 1,8 and sells it to them selfs for 5 dollars, this is to pocket the 3,2 dollars without having to pay tax.

The T-shirt may sell for for anything between 5dollars (very low end) to 35 dollars (high end).
Typical shipping cost will be 0,1 dollars.

At the most China ends up with 20% of the value of goods. But in case of toys etc they may only recieve anything like 5%.

Hence most of the value creation happen in the west. In stead of importing raw materials, they are getting the goods for almost the same cost. This raises the standard in the west and create employment, for the retail industry.

In effect china is a kind of "slavery" put into a system. The Chinese factories have huge dorms, where they keep their migrant workers and pay them very very low wages. I have seen factories that pay something like 100 us dollars per month.

The chiese model has some serious flows.

1 China is too large to survive on the export model alone. There is a limit to how long the west can sustain defecits.

2
The central planned economy, means there are a lot of unproductive activites. The factories may sell below cost, the local government may build too many flats etc.

3
The local and central government is not subject to public scruitiny, There is a massive corruption problem, on a monumental scale.

4
There is a huge demographic problem, with the one child policy. There will be too many old people to look after. The one child policy has also created strange social situation. My Chinese interpretator has a daughter. Firstly she is the only child. Both of them are also single children. Hence 4 grand parents and 2 parents only have 1 Child that they can call their own. Needless to say, the children get too much attention.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 8, 2010
By Wayne Madsen
A nuclear armed Japan may be around the corner: Online Journal

With the U.S. increasingly seen by Japanese military and foreign policy policy-makers as an overextended and failing superpower, some elements in the Japanese government and think tanks feel that the only way Japan can be self-assured over its defense is for the country to amend its constitution and laws to allow for the introduction of nuclear weapons for the Japanese Self-Defense Force.

The recent demotion of Japan below China to a number three world economic power ranking also has some Japanese convinced that Japan must look beyond its security alliance with the United States and provide for its own defense, which in today’s geo-political climate necessitates the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

WMR has learned from Japanese sources that when a green light is given by the government, it will take only three months for Japan to develop and deploy nuclear warheads for its military forces. Japan maintains an independent uranium enrichment capability and is able to use its own rocket technology to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system. There is some speculation that since Japan already possesses nuclear weapons designs details, it merely has to jump to production in order to field weapons. Japan is already the world’s third largest nuclear power producer after the United States and France, both of which are nuclear weaponry powers.

In 2005, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso reportedly told Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington that “India, Pakistan, and the DPRK all have nuclear weapons. If the DPRK continues to develop nuclear weapons, Japan must also arm itself with nuclear weapons.” In 2008, Aso became Prime Minister of Japan. In 2006, former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone floated the notion of Japan acquiring its own nuclear weapons.

Because China has always insisted Japan must not develop nuclear weapons, there is a powerful faction in Japan’s military and political establishment that wants to do exactly what China opposes as a way of throwing down a gauntlet to Beijing’s wider aspirations in Asia.

The word from Tokyo is that it is no longer a question whether Japan will develop a nuclear weapons capability, but when. And “when” would now appear to be very close.

About time!

[sanjaykumar]

Japanese nuclear weapons are only a matter of the correct political context.

Other than the US/USSR, Britain, France, India, China have developed nuclear weapons as a mark of their ascent to great power status. Japan will be the first country to develop nukes as it slides from the peak of its national power and is more akin to NoKo, Pakistan and Israel in having reasons other than aspiration to join the A-list as justification for this step.

[VinodTK]

Intensifying Arms Race Between India and China

[shyam]

Japanese nuclear weapons are only a matter of the correct political context.

Other than the US/USSR, Britain, France, India, China have developed nuclear weapons as a mark of their ascent to great power status. Japan will be the first country to develop nukes as it slides from the peak of its national power and is more akin to NoKo, Pakistan and Israel in having reasons other than aspiration to join the A-list as justification for this step.

Not to nitpik... Britain and France were in decline when they developed nukes. But there was no nukes at the peak of British and French power...

But, it appears that Japanese are a big zero in geopolitical thinking...

[shiv]

shiv saar,
You may have noticed that my comparison of China to India was not made on "People's Republic of China Thread", which could be compared to TSP thread. It was made on "Managing Chinese Threat Thread", which could be compared to "Managing Pakistan's Failure Thread", even as there are differences. Threat presupposes there is something to be worried about for India. Hence my reference to one aspect of that concern.

Fair enough. I would like to take you up on the following statement you have made which got my goat.

India is stuck and boxed in in South Asia, because in PoK not a blade of grass grows and Myanmar is China's backyard.

Past
I want to talk first about history first - specifically how geography affected trade in the past for India and China.
In the last 2500 years India's main trade routes have been via the sea - trading with Arabia, Africa, the far east and Europe. The land route was insignificant. India and China however traded overland, but there was some sea trade as well via the straits of Malacca and the countries of south east Asia. Consumers in Europe strove to find a sea route to India. The Portuguese were first off the mark and their powerful navy came to dominate the Arabian sea and later the Malacca straits and they began to control the trade of spices, silk and horses (from Arabia to India). India's overland trade was insignificant in its reach compared to India's sea trade. Overland trade reached China, Persia and Arabia but for the far east, Africa and Europe it was sea trade. In the first millennium BC there was sea trade from the Indian east coast all the way to Greece. In other words India's reach by sea trade was global. India's reach by land trade was local.

China in the last 2500 years had a land route to Europe. That was indeed the main route to Central Asia, Arabia, Africa and Europe. The Chinese had a sea route as well - but its reach was local. It's sea trade was limited by ships having to go via the straits of Malacca and around Africa to Europe. That sea route was as vulnerable to interception in the past as it is now.

Present:
What has changed is in the last 200 years or so? Geography has not changed but economies have changed.

The three most significant changes in world economy are
1) The Industrial revolution in Europe and the development of sea power by European states to control trade.
2) The emergence of the Americas as a world economic power
3) The need for oil to power the economies of the world.

To cut a long story short and fast forward to the current day you find that for India the sea route is still the most important trading route as it was over millennia. India's land routes are still local and still remain restricted.

For China the sea route, which was only for local trade has suddenly emerged as its most significant trade route. The silk road - which was great for export has become useless for export and is now vital for import of oil. But no oil is coming via the silk road - so the silk road is virtually dead for trade. So China has been greatly affected by changes in world economy. It needs oil which should really come overland from Arabia with which China used to have firm land links. Those links are closed. The vulnerable sea route has become China's Achilles heel.

Future plans and priorities:
A. China
India's and China's changes for the future are quite different when it comes to trade and communication with the economies of the world.

China's trade routes have turned upside down. The land route is insignificant now and the sea route has become vital. China finds it vitally important to reduce the length of its sea trading routes because its most powerful foes can threaten Chinese shipping. Land routes from China have become useless. Export to Arabia and Europe can no longer go overland. But oil needs to come overland and it's not coming overland.

What are the Chinese doing about making their sea routes shorter and less vulnerable and making their land routes better?

1) The are trying to build up a new, previously insignificant land route via China into Burma and on to Bangladesh
2) They are trying to re-open the silk route partially via Pakistan - up to Gwadar

B. India
India retains a "local" sea trade as it used to in the past. What India needs to do is to enhance naval power to reduce dependence on foreign powers for global trade. India's trade overland remains local - mainly with China, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

What can India do to enhance overland trade? For India that depends on where the money is. To the west, what kind of trade can we have "locally, overland" with Pakistan Iran, Iraq and KSA? To the east, what kind of overland trade can we have with the countries of the far East?

In fact improving overland trade with Pakistan is our best bet towards the west - because they have more consumers than Iran, Iraq and Arabia. Access to the far east can be improved via land route from Assam, via Myanmar to Thailand. This is the one area where things have not moved beyond conceptual plans. But I will come to that below.

Politico-military-economic considerations in trade route protection and development:

Should India develop a land route to China? India already has land routes to China

Should India develop a land route to Pakistan and beyond? India has land routes to Pakistan. Political factors prevent their utilization

Should India develop a land route via Myanmar to Thailand? Yes. Plans exist but so do hurdles.

Who will develop a land route via Myanmar from India to Thailand? For India it has to be either the government or private players. What's in it for them? Again for India the route has to be profitable. That means that such a land route should pay for itself many times over by the trade it fosters. A second reason would be to bypass the sea route via the Malacca straits. The primary reason for such a route is economic. The secondary reason would be politico military. The difference is like the difference between Airtel and Fedex on the one hand and BSNL and the Indian P&T dept on the other hand. Airtel and Fedex are private players who operate on profit. No profit. No service. BSNL and P&T are government entities that cannot do that. They have to offer services to remote parts of India - profit or no profit. So an India Thailand route has to have economic significance for private players to build it. It has to have military-strategic significance for the government of India to build it. Building a route is one thing. But if the locals where the road goes do not have a stake then the route will not be secure.

What about routes that China wants to build. To recap:

1) The are trying to build up a new, previously insignificant land route via China into Burma and on to Bangladesh
2) They are trying to re-open the silk route partially via Pakistan - up to Gwadar

China has no "private/public" differentiation despite some freedoms. Like Pakistan China has allowed its Army to start "Private" profitable enterprises where possible. At the same time. China, like GoI has used national funds to subsidize unprofitable projects because of their politico-military significance. And like Pakistan, the Chinese government does not have to be accountable about how state funds are spent. But unlike Pakistan, China has money to throw at unprofitable projects for possible military-strategic importance.

That allows China to throw in all the money needed to build Hambantota, all the money to build a land route to Myanmar and all the money to build a hypothetical route to Gwadar. No expense need be spared whether the route works or not because the route has strategic significance for China and even if that significance is questionable the CPC does not have to answer anyone about how and where money goes.

And remember that for China too, building a land route is one thing. But if the locals where the road goes do not have a stake then the route will not be secure.

[sanjaykumar]

Not to nitpik... Britain and France were in decline when they developed nukes.


I suppose you are right-I guess I meant in the post 'European Enlightenment Conflict II' period, the victors consolidated their status with nuclear weapons.

[RajeshA]

Present:
What has changed is in the last 200 years or so? Geography has not changed but economies have changed.

The three most significant changes in world economy are
1) The Industrial revolution in Europe and the development of sea power by European states to control trade.
2) The emergence of the Americas as a world economic power
3) The need for oil to power the economies of the world.

When we say, Geography has not changed, I'd like to add a qualifier to that. Geography, as far as it is relevant for trade, changes all the time, depending on what control (security, political, diplomatic, annexation) a country exerts on its periphery and beyond to facilitate trade - import and export of raw materials, energy, and finished goods; and travel, as well as what infrastructure is built on that Connecting Geography. At the same time one should keep in mind, that control over environment and geography plays an important role as well as far as security is concerned. So to summarize, we should be talking about "Control over Geography".

What about routes that China wants to build. To recap:

1) The are trying to build up a new, previously insignificant land route via China into Burma and on to Bangladesh
2) They are trying to re-open the silk route partially via Pakistan - up to Gwadar

To add to that list

1. "A railway connection from China, through Russia, the Nordic countries and to the Norwegian port of Narvik might not be far from becoming reality". This route becomes possible if Russia approves. My guess is Russia would do that, simply to profit some and get PRC more dependent on it, but wouldn't be able to because of China's many options. On the other hand, it may simply be another ruse to get more Chinese people into the Russian Far East for demographic changes.
2. "Erdogan said Turkey also intended to build a railway connecting Turkey's largest city, Istanbul, and the Chinese capital, Beijing.". This can just as well be a Chinese plan, for which Ergogan is being asked to take credit for, for obvious reasons. If China builds the railway, through Kirghizstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, China would be stepping upon the toes of Russia, that being their backyard, so Wen goes to Turkey and tells them to take credit for the idea. Russia would understand, that the region has ethnic connections with Turkey, and its involvement in the region is permissible. More than that, Turkey gets to do all the political work of persuasion of all the intermediate countries. China gets to pocket the dividend of having a railway connection between China and Europe.
3. The Northeast Passage through the Arctic. As the Arctic ice melts it becomes all the more possible. Through (the purchase of debt of) Iceland, China has been able to maneuver its way into the Arctic Council as well.
4. Kra Channel: Something you have pointed to. Plans exist.

In fact improving overland trade with Pakistan is our best bet towards the west - because they have more consumers than Iran, Iraq and Arabia. Access to the far east can be improved via land route from Assam, via Myanmar to Thailand. This is the one area where things have not moved beyond conceptual plans. But I will come to that below.

Politico-military-economic considerations in trade route protection and development:

Should India develop a land route to China? India already has land routes to China

Should India develop a land route to Pakistan and beyond? India has land routes to Pakistan. Political factors prevent their utilization

Should India develop a land route via Myanmar to Thailand? Yes. Plans exist but so do hurdles.

Who will develop a land route via Myanmar from India to Thailand? For India it has to be either the government or private players. What's in it for them? Again for India the route has to be profitable. That means that such a land route should pay for itself many times over by the trade it fosters. A second reason would be to bypass the sea route via the Malacca straits. The primary reason for such a route is economic. The secondary reason would be politico military. The difference is like the difference between Airtel and Fedex on the one hand and BSNL and the Indian P&T dept on the other hand. Airtel and Fedex are private players who operate on profit. No profit. No service. BSNL and P&T are government entities that cannot do that. They have to offer services to remote parts of India - profit or no profit. So an India Thailand route has to have economic significance for private players to build it. It has to have military-strategic significance for the government of India to build it. Building a route is one thing. But if the locals where the road goes do not have a stake then the route will not be secure.

China has no "private/public" differentiation despite some freedoms. Like Pakistan China has allowed its Army to start "Private" profitable enterprises where possible. At the same time. China, like GoI has used national funds to subsidize unprofitable projects because of their politico-military significance. And like Pakistan, the Chinese government does not have to be accountable about how state funds are spent. But unlike Pakistan, China has money to throw at unprofitable projects for possible military-strategic importance.

That allows China to throw in all the money needed to build Hambantota, all the money to build a land route to Myanmar and all the money to build a hypothetical route to Gwadar. No expense need be spared whether the route works or not because the route has strategic significance for China and even if that significance is questionable the CPC does not have to answer anyone about how and where money goes.

And remember that for China too, building a land route is one thing. But if the locals where the road goes do not have a stake then the route will not be secure.

Since we are both in agreement that to the West, Pakistan has effectively blocked our path and to the East through Myanmar, we face hurdles, I think you lost a goat for not much reason.

The questions of 'Should': To an extent we return to an argument which has long been answered. What should come first - Growth or Infrastructure? Should one first develop the trade, or should one first pave the road? In reality both go hand in hand, but as Chinese have definitely proven - infrastructure is a must for higher growth. It is not that India does not understand it. We understand it all too well. India has plans to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure in the next 5 years.

India's shabby infrastructure is seen by economists as the main impediment to accelerating growth in the country of nearly 1.2 billion people and closing the gap with neighbouring giant China.

Building routes to other geographical areas abundant in raw materials, energy and markets is a must - whether that involves securing shipping routes, or building highways, or digging channels, or for that matter, encouraging groups/states occupying intermediate lands to allow transit, is critical for expanding trade and thereby prosperity of the country.

Any routes we build through Myanmar to Thailand are also routes which go all the way to Cambodia and Vietnam and Southern China. South East Asia, or Indo-China was a major area of Indian cultural influence and trade. Surely we can reach them through the sea route, but we also want to develop our North-East to its maximal potential. By connecting it to the region and making it a hub for trade would go a long way in doing that. This development may not find too much approval in Beijing, which seems to now have an immense control over Myanmar's policies.

Similarly Central Asia was once mostly Buddhist. Even when it turned Muslim, there was trade between India and Central Asia. Today we cannot even reach Afghanistan, without being dependent on Iran. Pakistan has cut off India to Central Asia. A transit route to Central Asia can be secured with the cooperation of Pakistan or through its demise. But we have not got any cooperation for the last 63 years from the Pakistanis. Now with the rich Chinese in PoK giving another boost of encouragement to Pakistani Establishment, the chances of getting either Pakistan's cooperation or ensuring its demise have both receded.

So as far as securing land routes are concerned, India has been boxed in and that too, I would contend, from now on by design by China. In both Pakistan and Myanmar, the two countries flanking India, China has a hand, which explains my sentence which got your goat. Even if we do get transit routes through these countries, considering the extent to which we would be beholden to good relations with China irrespective of how China behaves with us, would make these routes suspect.

Sure we can wave our hand at it dismissively and say, we don't need these land routes, but let's admit that the loss of gas pipelines from Myanmar to China, as well as may be even the IPI Pipeline becoming IPC Pipeline, is a severe shock for Indian Growth. Also the TAPI is just a wet dream. And we have our constrained Geography to thank us for that.

I found a map of all natural gas pipelines that would be connecting Asian Gas Producers to China and India. All the Indian Pipelines were pipe dreams, while the Chinese pipelines were in development. I can't find that map right now.

Anyway the point was that IOR is a blessing to India, but our two land flanks virtually shut to us, means that China has outpaced us in securing energy and spreading its influence during the time we were virtually boxed in. Even if we break free in the next 50 years, it still means we have forsaken all the fruits that would have entailed to us during this time - fruits of trade, growth and influence.

All this can be read as a whine and a moan or it can be read as a call to do more. It can be the case, that India is still not running at a pace India needs to to secure its place in Asia viz-a-viz China, may be India is not thinking ambitiously enough, may be India is not getting its act together as fast as she should. It is important to make ourselves aware of China's plans for the future, of China's lead over India, of China's designs on India. Indians need to push and put pressure on our Government to do more to close the gap. That is how democracies work. So one needs to tell it as it is to the people, that 'chalta hai' attitude is suicidal. The agenda is to spread an awareness of the current situation in Asia, which I perceive as loaded against India at the moment. NGOs do awareness spreading stuff all the time, and so do BRFites.

[RajeshA]

Published on Mar 08, 2010
China to Build Pan Asia-Europe 17 Country Rail Network: 2point6billion.com

China has announced plans to develop a three-pronged high speed rail network that will expand its own tracks to a further seventeen countries throughout Asia and stretch as far as Europe.

Wang Mengshu, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, has said that China was in negotiations with several countries to develop rail networks developed to China’s national specifications, and that the network would be financed on the basis of trade for the technology.

The plans include Southeast Asia, with a network to run south from Kunming through Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia on the way to Singapore and west across to Myanmar and India.

A western network would run from Urumqi through Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, possibly connecting through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey through to Germany.

The third spur would leave Heilongjiang, cross Mongolia, Russia and head west across Siberia on the way to Europe. China and Russia have already agreed to build a high speed rail line across Siberia.

However, logistics problems still have to be worked out. Not all countries operate the same gauge rail as China’s high speed trains, and the cost would be enormous – high speed track is three times more expensive than conventional rail and all routes would require new track to be laid. In order to take part in the increased trade such routes would bring, some countries are prepared to offer trade incentives in exchange for financial backing on the high speed routes. Myanmar, for example, is apparently prepared to offer rich reserves of lithium, a metal with many industrial applications in computing.

The routes also go hand in hand with some of the oil and gas pipelines heading into China from Siberia and Central Asia. China expects trade and commerce to develop significantly in the Western regions with the establishment of mines, factories, and business centers throughout Xinjiang Province and Central Asia as the routes assist sustainable development in the region.

One way of building a monopoly is to push through one's own standard - in this case the gauge rail, as the accepted world norm. After that one can build one's own products to that standard, something the industry is already attuned to, and conquer the market. Others too would try to get a piece of the cake, but still one has a strong head start.

China would be financing much of the network, but the other countries too would be making their contributions, i.e. co-financing. In the end, China get's the lion share of the resources and markets of these countries, and at the same time China builds the next rail monopoly in Asia.

India has the world's largest rail network, but here we are missing out on a golden opportunity because China would have the first-mover advantage, not to speak of the huge amount of political capital China gets in the capitals of Asia.

[shiv]

Rajesh - I am going to drop the issue. Either you don't want to understand what I am saying or you are unable to follow. We are not actually in agreement - which is another point where you are in error. I think you are wrong on several counts are are hyping certain things to suit your view. That is your prerogative, and I guess I have the liberty to do that too if I wish. Just made my post to register my views.

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

I just think it is better to give Indians hot coffee than hot milk on this issue!

I am not waging some psy-ops war with China on this thread, where I need to show India's internal strength, about which I and in fact most BRFites are fully aware of. I can also talk about the beautiful gardens in China, or about Indian democracy, and talk at length about Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai, but I wouldn't do that on this thread.

What one calls hype here is 'selective focus', and it is selective by design and for an effect. I see NO USE in trying to balance the rhetoric here. Why would that be useful? What would that achieve?

I can understand that an alarm-clock is irritating, but that is in the nature of the alarm-clock!

I'm quite aware of our difference in opinion for quite some time. Our focus is different.

[brihaspati]

Talking of trade is well and good, but then we may need to look at the commodities of that trade. What exactly are the areas that we want to trade with have to offer to India? We can jump and about trade with CAR and Pakistan - but what exactly those countries are to going to pay us with for us to make any profit? Or take it purely as a "service" for larger geo-strategic goals?

Historical trade is a complex issue in that region. For a very long time before the advent of Islamism, it can be shown that the chief import from the region into India was primarily bullion - which meant that those regions produced little that India needed in terms of actual commodities. Only with Islamic imperialism and its use of the horse as a military weapon changed the nature of that trade - where Indians were forced to import more and more horses at exorbitant prices from the very forces which were continually mountings raids. thus the terms of the trade were reversed and the Islamists actually fueled their raids with profits extracted from the horse trade with those very targets of raiding.

Historically both the Chinese and Indians were stopped from actually venturing into these regions as traders deliberately as the Muslim power grew. Subsequently one of the major items of export were of course Indian textiles, slaves, and weapons grade metals. Slaves took an increasing share of the export value as non-Muslims of India were primarily targeted for enslavement and both the Sultanate and the mughals made it a conscious part of their state policy to raise money for their campaigns by selling non-Muslim Indian slaves into the CAR on an "industrial" scale.

Historical lesson shows that unless the trade can be protected with the threat of extinctions and erasure with overwhelming military force, none of the so-called "soft-power" works for CAR or even Paki occupied regions. In every case that trade with CAR had flourished it was under the protective shadow of aggressive military empires capable of proving that they could project power in that region - that with the Mauryas, with the Kushanas, the Guptas and so on. When the imperial projection weakened in the mid-first millenium Indian trade began to turn inwards and more "financial" in nature. Same happened as the Mughal power declined. It rose again with the Brits and declined as their power declined.

Moreover, military capability is not proved by sitting on proverbial arsenal which are added to every year with proverbial fanfare and publicity blitzkriegs - but regularly taking action on ground to prove it.

Eastern India was always an important trade route with China, and became the principal trade route when the Muslims blocked off the CAR trade to non-Muslims in the 10th-13th century. So the eastern trade is nothing new, and is an important clue to the future as and when the CAR descends more and more into chaos. The trans Asian route through teh central highlands have always been highly unstable and only reached periods of stability when climatic conditions as well as continuous centralized empires stretched along the route like under a small time period under the early Mongols. Erdogan and China's wishes may just remain that - dreams into which billions would be sunk and of no long term use.

[RajeshA]

The trans Asian route through teh central highlands have always been highly unstable and only reached periods of stability when climatic conditions as well as continuous centralized empires stretched along the route like under a small time period under the early Mongols. Erdogan and China's wishes may just remain that - dreams into which billions would be sunk and of no long term use.

brihaspati garu,

Central Asia was brought to heel progressively by the Russians from 1813 onwards till 1991 and even after that the region, especially Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have been quite stable. Even the troubles in Kirghizstan were localized to the Ferghana Valley.

If the Turkey-China railroad avoids the instable Ferghana Valley, Southern Uzbekistan and Islamist-prone Tajikistan, there should be no trouble.

There is already works going on the Kazakhstan-China Oil & Gas Pipeline. Most probably the railroad would follow a similar route.

[brihaspati]

RajeshA ji,
that route needs central unified politico-military control. Kazakhstan is simply on rebound from being divorced from the Russian empire. Its troublesome aspects will take time to manifest - primarily because its so sparsely populated. However from there to China is one huge hotbed. Only under Mongols and their successors in the steppes - the tsars and then the USSR, was this area ever really "pacified" for long distance east-west trade. Sooner or later China will have to occupy the area or the regions assert themselves. If such a reassertion is helped along by a neo-Islamist identity - why should they refrain from it? The indications for the non-kazakh states are not very promising for peace. I have some interactions with Kazakhs too, and based on my limited assessment they too are simply waiting for a time when they can throw off the remaining yoke of Russia in the diminishing but still present form. It is not just about cooperating with China - it will also be the traditional driving factor in these regions - controlling the flow to their own advantage and not to the advantage of the end-users.

[Philip]

Why can't we like Vietnam also have a Taiwan "Representative" to India? Or do we at all?

[Arihant]

Why can't we like Vietnam also have a Taiwan "Representative" to India? Or do we at all?

Philip: We actually do - its called the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO). This is the de facto diplomatic post mechanism that Taiwan uses to get around the constraint of having no diplomatic relations with those countries that feel obliged to kowtow to China (we're one of them, but so is the US and other major powers). The trick for us is to upgrade these ties while still sitting short of full diplomatic relations....

[RajeshA]

its called the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO).

Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in New Delhi: Official Portal

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By Venkatesan Vembu
Beijing’s muscle-flexing faces a pushback: Daily News & Analysis

Even the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for imprisoned Chinese political dissident Liu Xiaobo on Friday, despite brazen Chinese attempts to intimidate the prize committee, is “part of a larger pushback against China by the West and also allies in Asia,” says Dr John Lee, research fellow at The Center for Independent Studies in Sydney and a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Pressures building up
That award, the citation for which noted that China’s “new status” entailed “increased responsibility” and drew pointed attention to its breach of international agreements and provisions relating to political rights, compounds the pressures on China on other fronts arising from its continued undervaluation of its currency and its aggressive assertion of its territorial claims on its maritime and land borders, including with India, in recent months.

“It looks like the net around China is closing,” says Jonathan Holslag, research fellow at the Brussels Institute of Contemporary China Studies and author of China and India: Prospects for Peace. “Clearly, there is a widening gap between how China is developing and how several other countries expect it to develop.”

According to noted Chinawatcher Gordon Chang, that gap is leading the world “to run out of patience” with China. Even last year, when Liu had been nominated for the peace prize, which went instead to US president Barack Obama, “there was still a lot of hope of forward progress in China, but now people are starting to realise there won’t be.”

Collects the views of many China-watchers!

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 09, 2010
BY Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun Editor in Chief)
Japan-China relations stand at ground zero: Asahi Shimbun

A Chinese friend of mine, a successful entrepreneur, laughed about my concern and said, "The peaceful rise concept was one that was taken when China's standing was weak."

If that is the case, what will be the principles China employs when it is in a stronger position?

Would it be the position discussed at the Central Economic Work Conference held last winter of being "a superpower that does not have responsibility forced upon it?"

how Japan's views of China would change in the future.

There are still some uncertainties because the emotions of the people are still boiling over. However, if China continues to act as it has, we Japanese will be prepared to engage in a long, long struggle with China.

However, Japan and China now stand at ground zero, and the landscape is a bleak, vast nothingness.

Good article capturing the Japanese sentiments towards the Chinese at the moment.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct. 03, 2010
By Hannah Beech
Asia's New Cold War: Time

Bilateral relations with Vietnam, for example, have blossomed to the point where the countries conducted joint military exercises in the South China Sea in August. That didn't please China any more than did recent naval drills by U.S. and South Korean troops in the Yellow Sea, which borders China's coast. Along with other ASEAN members vying with China over the Spratly and Paracel islands, Vietnam was delighted when Secretary Clinton said in July that a peaceful resolution of territorial spats in the South China Sea was an American "national interest." China hated that too.

There will be a lot of things China will be hating soon.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 08, 2010
By Harsh V. Pant
China-in-Pakistan to hinder India’s growth and power: Daily News & Analysis

As tensions mount in East Asia between China and Japan and Beijing makes it clear that it intends to defy international opinion to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, something seems to be changing in New Delhi too.

Our sage-like prime minister who has previously described China as India’s greatest neighbour has now been suggesting that Beijing could be tempted to use India’s “soft underbelly,” Kashmir, and Pakistan, “to keep India in low-level equilibrium”.

Our ultra-cautious defence minister has admitted that “there has been an increasing assertiveness on the part of China”. After trying to push significant divergences with China under the carpet for years, Indian decision-makers are being forced to acknowledge that relationship with China is becoming increasingly contentious. The challenge now is to understand China and its motivations clearly.

Confirms the constant refrain here on this thread.

[RajeshA]

Warning: Pakistani Site

Published on Oct 09, 2010
By Rupee Wala
Turkey’s growing realignment with China, Iran and Pakistan: Rupee News

The developing ties among Turkey, Iran and China are also reflected in weapons deals, with Iran buying from China mainly missile technology.
A report in western dailes has claimed that the C-802 antiship missile fired by Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War at the Israel Navy’s Hanit missile boat had been manufactured in Iran with Chinese technology.
China has also developed a surface-to-surface rocket-launching system together with Turkey. China’s Prime Minister Wen Jiabao is due to visit Ankara this month and to sign several bilateral cooperation agreements.
Turkey and China are also involved in projects to build oil pipelines from Iran.
The Middle East seems to be experiencing new political orders and the main loser amidst the developments seems to be the United States.
Turkey cooperates with Pakistan in Satellites, and Missiles. Ankara seems interested in importing the JF-17 Thunders.

Now China intends to win some big brownie points for itself with the Muslims by supporting Hezbollah against Israel and supplying them with anti-ship missiles.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By B.S.Raghavan
[retired officer of the IAS, Chennai Centre for China Studies]
Coping with China’s ‘core interests’: Sri Lanka Guardian

Even those who, like this writer, are in favour of friendly and harmonious relations with China, are slowly coming to the conclusion that there is a myopic streak of insensitivity in its make-up leading to its behaviour as the odd person out and that it only understands the language of tit-for-tat. It may have a sobering effect on China if India also draws up its own list of inviolable, immutable core interests and asks China to adhere to them.

An illustrative list: Acceptance of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India, no nuclear trucks with Pakistan, no recognition of Pakistan’s right to part of Jammu and Kashmir in its occupation, respect for borders, no dealings with Bhutan and Nepal without India too at the table, no tampering with established passport and visa procedures, no dumping.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By Gavin M. Greenwood
Why China's Air Force in Turkey?: World Bulletin

The other, more strategic message embedded in the dog fights over Anatolia is nearer to China's core concerns. The deployment will strengthen the agenda of those within China's government and military who are keen to demonstrate Beijing's reach and ability to surprise.

[AKalam]

If we consider the history of EU, one of its biggest motivation was to have a mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution and to stop war between European countries.

As things are moving, it is becoming clear that SAARC is probably no longer a relevant entity for future as China's rise brings its friction with neighboring states to center stage, while the role of the West and Russia in this new cold war conflict keeps evolving.

Can an Asian Union (the part of Eurasia that does not include European Union) be a more appropriate forum for conflict resolution, led by a triumvirate of three powerful states, China, India and Russia and in that order? A regional outlook can be beneficial for the region in many situations:

- management of hot spots like Afghanistan where NATO boots should be kicked out and West should involve itself only in financing and boots of neighbors can become involved, including that of Pakistan, Iran, CAR, China and India
- border resolutions and maritime sovereignty resolutions for deep see islands or maritime economic zones
- infrastructure development for transport (rail, road, oil/gas pipeline etc.)
- establishing 24/7 communication link between regional armed forces and their nuclear deterrence command structure to avoid Nuclear conflict

As conflicts arise, should we not look for mechanisms to solve conflicts? Why limit ourselves to the past onlee and be a nationalist onlee, why not try to be a regionalist (if not a globalist) to solve human problems?

[RajeshA]

AKalam ji,

If one wants China to become a responsible player in Asia, everybody has to come together and ensure that China has no other option. For China to walk through the Door of Responsibility, all other doors would have to be closed for China.

USA has tried to do it, by engaging China and trying to integrate China into the international organizations of power like UNSC, by giving China a stake in the world's market economy, allowing China the full freedom to do business with all of America's business partners and energy providers. USA's efforts have been in vain. In fact, American appeasement of China has produced a monster, that America itself cannot control.

Giving China the milk of one's cow, making China dependent on one's cow, is no guarantee that China would love one as the favorite milkman. China would more likely tend to steal the cow - some milk is not good enough.

China is a big predator on the prowl, finding its hunting instincts, stretching its muscles after a long time, sensing that the lion has become weak and all the deers are for the taking. China is not going to share power with anybody. It will do everything to break the existing order and to neutralize any other big animals in the jungle using its hyenas - the Pakistanis, the North Koreans, the Burmese. And everyday China is collecting ever more hyenas on its side, hyenas who have had a grudge with the old lion - the Iranians, the Turks, and using other old toothless lions like Russians to question the position of the old lion - America.

The present international system is simply there to feed China until it is ever bigger, before China does away with it. There is no responsibility in that.

So if Asia wants to preserve an international system of laws and responsibilities, the current and emerging powers in Asia like India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia would have to provide a consolidated militarily strong and politically nimble front against which China has but no other option than negotiating a détente, which allows all other countries - big and small in Asia and beyond to live in freedom.

[DavidD]

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By B.S.Raghavan
[retired officer of the IAS, Chennai Centre for China Studies]
Coping with China’s ‘core interests’: Sri Lanka Guardian

Even those who, like this writer, are in favour of friendly and harmonious relations with China, are slowly coming to the conclusion that there is a myopic streak of insensitivity in its make-up leading to its behaviour as the odd person out and that it only understands the language of tit-for-tat. It may have a sobering effect on China if India also draws up its own list of inviolable, immutable core interests and asks China to adhere to them.

An illustrative list: Acceptance of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India, no nuclear trucks with Pakistan, no recognition of Pakistan’s right to part of Jammu and Kashmir in its occupation, respect for borders, no dealings with Bhutan and Nepal without India too at the table, no tampering with established passport and visa procedures, no dumping.

That won't work if nobody believes that you have the capability and intent to follow through. It's like with China's claims in the South China Sea. The U.S. and the surrounding nations correctly deduced that China has neither the capability nor the intent(nothing close to Tibet or Taiwan) to follow through with its claims there and judiciously called China's bluff. What can/will China do about it? Nothing. I think India can successfully list the areas it currently occupies(e.g. AP and parts of Kashmir) as part of its core interests, but as far as China's dealings with Pakistan goes, India is fairly powerless at this moment.

[Johann]

The CPC's no.1 goal has always been to stay in power, *and* to do so by maintaining at least the passive support of the majority of the population.

The no.2 goal in Mao's time was to achieve leadership of the Marxist world. In Deng's period it shifted to making China as rich and modern as any of the greatest powers.

The Party is always concerned (perhaps we should say paranoid...) about social turmoil, and popular mood. Even Mao, the totalitarian, indifferent to death of millions understood that the Party has to be seen to be improving people's lives. His quote was that even a single spark can set the entire prairie ablaze, and its something the CPC still takes *very* seriously despite its ability to control all forms of public information dissemination.

I think it is worth pondering *why* the CPC did *not* reverse the one-child policy on its 30th anniversary as had been promised in the beginning, despite the enormous economic strides China has made, and predictions of a labour crisis in another generation when workforce numbers crash. Why?! We should also consider the implications of the fact that China, with some of the world's largest coal reserves and the world's highest coal production rates is now a net coal importer.

China's current economic strategy is NOT politically (or even economically) sustainable for more than another 10-20 years, and its clear the CPC with its sensitive political antennae is coming to understand that. I urge everyone here to watch the documentary "Last Train Home" to understand a glimpse of why that is.

China MUST move up the value chain of services and manufacturing, *and* provide better conditions to its workers, or they will rebel out of sheer frustration and anger. The only reason they've put up with things is that so many of them were so poor for so long before Deng, but the next generation isnt going to feel the same way.

The more factory workers China has, the more people the CPC has to transition/retrain/etc and provide social services for in the coming dislocation, or who might cause trouble for the government. A population crash will ease those challenges - the alternative is facing real worker's revolution of the Solidarity variety.

But no matter what happens, manufacturing costs are going to rise thanks to rising labour costs, and as well as raw materials and energy resources that must be imported from abroad. In the short term China is trying to control the cost of these imports by a) taking control of mines, using Chinese labour wherever possible, setting long term contracts and using barter type deals to build roads etc (again with Chinese labour). The loss of all of this cheap Chinese labour in 20-30 years will bring fundamental shifts in Chinese economic and political behaviour abroad.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By James Dunnigan
China Practices The Long Reach: Strategy Page

China used a recent joint (with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan) anti-terrorism exercise in Kazakhstan to practice long range bombing. Four H-6H bombers and two J-10 fighters, plus an aerial tanker and an AWACS radar aircraft were used. The tanker wasn't really needed, but the practice with aerial refueling in such a long range air strike was.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By Ko Shu-Ling
Taiwanese pride suffers under Ma: poll: Taipei Times

Tung Li-wen (董立文), a professor at the Graduate School of Public Security at Central Police University, said the results of the survey were not surprising because the Ma administration’s policies had made the public anxious about their future and lose their confidence in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) governance.
“People can hardly feel proud when the government talks about the ‘1992 consensus’ and the president of this country does not mind being called ‘Mister,’” he said.

Tung attributed the declining sense of pride to the polarization of ethnic identification and an unclear national spirit.

People also feel less proud because when they wanted to express their patriotism by holding the national flag, singing the national anthem or saying the country’s name out loud, they were prevented from doing so, Tung said.

“Oh, please, it’s Double Ten Day, and we can’t even fly our national flag,” Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明), a political scientist at Soochow University, said, mimicking the tone of former Executive Yuan secretary-general Hsueh Hsiang-chuan (薛香川).

The Chinese team withdrew from a game on Friday when they saw hundreds of ROC national flags from the campus’ parking lots all the way to the bleachers, an initiative undertaken by Taiwanese students in response to Thursday’s incident.

President Ma seems to be a real stooge of PRC and would probably get the boot in the next Taiwanese elections for President possibly in March 2012.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 11, 2010
By Huang Tien-lin 黃天麟
The DPP is the rightful heir to the Meiji period: Taipei Times

It is true that the Meiji Restoration played a significant part in Japan’s transformation.
However, the government at the time wanted to move away from Asian influence — by which they meant China and Chinese culture, dominant at the time — and embrace “the European Powers,” meaning the West, including the US.
In other words, prior to that point in time, Japan had been locked into an Asian cultural world dominated by China, and had fallen behind as a result.

But during the Meiji Restoration, Japanese officials wanted to become more involved in the wider world, giving the country a chance to catch up with the great powers of the time.

Look at the path currently adopted by the various green-camp parties in Taiwan. If you are going to use the Meiji metaphor, you could say that it is they {DPP} who are more interested in extracting the country from Asian influence and becoming more involved with the West, rejecting the influence — political, economic and cultural — of China and those countries that follow.

The KMT, on the other hand is trying to bring Taiwan closer to China, which is precisely what its China-leaning policies and agreements such such as the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) will do, politically and economically. Its goal is eventual unification with China.

The Article lays out the world view of KMT and DPP. The DPP is seems to be keen to take out Taiwan from PRC's shadow.

The current strategic reorientation taking place in East Asia, where Japan comes out of the US shadow and starts reasserting itself in parallel to China's intimidating posture, and other Asian countries find common ground in resisting Chinese aggressiveness, such a situation could give Taiwan the necessary foreign backing to assert its own independence under a DPP regime.

The polarization in Taiwan along ethnic lines would just mean that the native Taiwanese would not allow the 12% Taiwanese who migrated with KMT from the mainland to dictate Taiwanese politics.

[RajeshA]

Human Rights in PRC

Published on Oct 10, 2010
Some cry foul on Nobel winner: AFP

Wei, 60, a former electrician at the Beijing zoo, was sentenced to death row after boldly putting up a poster seeking democracy in 1979. He was finally freed after intervention by then-US president Bill Clinton. Wei was himself often tipped for the Nobel Peace Prize in the past.

He said “tens of thousands” of Chinese other than Liu deserved the award, including Gao Zhisheng (高智晟), a missing human rights lawyer, and Chen Guangcheng (陳光誠), who exposed abuses in Beijing’s one-child policy.

In a controversial move, a group of exiled Chinese — not including Wei — wrote an open letter to the Nobel committee calling Liu unsuitable for the prize.

Diane Liu (劉曉東), who blogs under the penname San Mei (三妹) and helped organize the letter, faulted Liu for not highlighting the treatment of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which she called China’s worst human rights problem.

The Falun Gong says it has suffered systematic persecution, including imprisonment and death, since it was banned in 1999.

“Liu Xiaobo is an important Chinese intellectual because he does two things — he criticizes the government and he lives in China. And in order to do that and not be dead, you have to make compromises,” Cheek said.

“He’s a democrat, he’s a human rights activist — that’s what he’s after, but he’s willing to make tactical adjustments in order to be effective and the most important one has been remaining inside China,” Cheek said.

“Yes, he hasn’t been as emphatic or hasn’t addressed topics we have addressed internationally,” Cheek said. “But we don’t live in China and we don’t have the police coming around the corner.”

[RajeshA]

Originally posted by Pranav
Published on Oct 11, 2010
By M.K. Bhadrakumar
Russia resets with U.S., sprints with China: Hindu

As a detailed critique of the U.S.' Asia-Pacific enterprise, Mr. Lavrov's article merits attention in New Delhi. Besides, Mr. Medvedev's China visit underscored several templates, which have a bearing on the trajectory of the trilateral format known as “RIC” — Russia, India and China. First, for Russia, it is not a question of “either, or”. It will apply itself diligently to the reset with the U.S., but will not allow the strategic partnership with China to be eroded either. The pro-U.S. lobbies in Moscow never tire of dwelling on a “Yellow peril” to Russia in the medium and long term. {This is a jab at Indians who 'hype' about the danger from China} But the Kremlin, which is immensely experienced in managing the ties with Washington, seems to factor in that a strong relationship with China can only strengthen its leverage as an emerging power during negotiations with the U.S. and the West.

The Russian diplomacy is meeting with extraordinary success in dovetailing the country's strategic partnership with China with its core national interests in the strategic, political and economic fields, despite the fact that Russia is cognisant of the great ambivalences in China's rise. Mr. Medvedev candidly told the People's Daily that the Russian foreign policy was based on pragmatism aimed at promoting its national interests and galvanising its multi-directional diplomacy. The Russian approach holds serious lessons for India's approach toward its normalisation with China.

What M.K. Bhadrakumar is trying to say is, India should follow the example of the Russians, and play the China card to get concessions from USA. What he does not say is how India should go about doing that, without compromising on India's national interests, the as the Russians are not compromising them. The problem is the Chinese are fcuking around so much with India, that India does not have a credible China card to play. And a card India cannot play convincingly, India should not play at all.

1. Whereas the Chinese and the Russians have demarcated their boundary, the Chinese are not willing to reach a solution on the Indian boundary.
2. The Chinese are also not proliferating nuclear technology to a key Russian enemy, like they are doing to Pakistan.
3. The Chinese are also happy to buy more advanced weaponry from Russia, and hence are more than willing to be cognizant of Russia's national interests and sentiments. The Chinese have no such compunctions with regard to India.
4. Other than defense equipment, the Russian Oligarchs are mostly happy to sell Russian mineral wealth to power the Chinese economy, making it a supplier-consumer relationship. Indians have wrongly been selling China steel and buying finished goods from China, but other than that India and China are both competitors for world minerals and energy.

M.K. Bhadrakumar likes to give advice to Indians based on some analogies, but those analogies are bogus. It can't be the case that the unsuitability of the analogy is lost upon him, which makes one wonder about his agenda. Is it, that India should rub her nose at the feet of China, at all costs?

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 11, 2010
India expresses concern over China supplying nuclear reactors to Pak: ANI

New Delhi, Oct 11 (ANI): Minister of State for Science and Technology Prithviraj Chavan has expressed concern over China supplying nuclear reactors to Pakistan, and urged the global community to look at the collaboration considering Islamabad's track record on nuclear technology.

"Our concern is Pakistan does not have a good track record as we have. The global community has to very closely look at the collaboration. We have expressed our concerns at the appropriate place, citing previous illegal exchanges of nuclear technology," said Chavan, while talking to the media persons on the sidelines of the silver jubilee celebrations of the Fast Breeder Test Reactor and Radiometallurgy Laboratory at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu on Saturday.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from Arunachal Pradesh: A separate nation on Google Earth

If the Chinese get others to put Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territory, why can't India get MNCs to mark Tibet as disputed territory.

If China disputes Arunachal Pradesh, India should dispute Tibet. That is the way the game is played. That is the way, India should play the game.

Crying over disputed areas doesn't solve problems. Expanding the disputes to other countries could solve the problem.

I agree with Rajesh; India should make all efforts to dispute Tibet. India should not hesitate to cause takleef to adarmic Chinese rulers.

The first principle India needs to learn is that "no war should be fought just in one's own territory." I don't just mean a military conflict. I mean all disputes at all levels. Another way to say it is "offence is the best defense"!

Kargil is one prime example of the current Indian thinking. We still show fear of escalation, when the others have none. The others are more than willing to fight wars in our territories.

Now that Arunachal Pradesh is being disputed by China, what India would do is to try to defend our claims in the court of international opinion, with the MNCs, who have interests in India but also in China.

What we should do is to dispute China's claims over Tibet! But just withdrawing India's recognition of Chinese suzerainty or sovereignty over Tibet would not be enough. China has pulled Arunachal Pradesh into the disputed column by itself laying claims on it, not by not recognizing it as Indian territory.

India would have to say that Tibet is part of India. That is what would be needed. But we would probably not do it, because we fear escalation, even if that is the only way forwards.

I do not understand the escalation part, wouldn't China be concerned about escalation too? China cares about economy and trade as much as India does.

'Escalation' is to be understood in the right context. In military terms, escalation means one thing, in diplomatic sphere, it means something different.

When the Japanese took the Chinese captain of the trawler who rammed his boat into the Japanese navy ships off the Senkaku islands, the Chinese also went for escalation - they took four Japanese construction workers into detention, plus stopped all diplomatic meetings, stopped the export of rare earths, stopped cultural exchanges, etc.

So when China claims 83743 km² of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh, India's correct response would be to lay claims to Tibet (1,228,400 km² of Tibet Autonomous Region and 721,000 km² of Qinghai, etc). After some time one could force China to accept current boundaries, but as things stand now, they have no reason to look for compromises, because the war of claims is being fought on Indian-controlled territory.

One thing to note is that even though the Chinese claim Arunachal Pradesh as their territory, they have not started a war and tried to conquer and hold on to Indian territory. So there is also no pressure upon India to 'liberate' Tibet by force just because we lay claims on Tibet occupied by China.

Agreed. India should do whatever it takes.....

V.simple.Contest China's claim to Tibet and Taiwan.Say that China is encroaching upon Indian territory in Aksai Chin and POK.We needn't go to war,but simply contest it and make it an issue.The Argentinian leader has just accused the RN of being "pirates" and the the Falklands/Malvinas is Argentina's,but says that they won't go to war over it! They're probably waiting for the huge British defence cuts which will make it impossible ever again for any British expeditionary force from retaking the Falklands again.Engaging more forcefully with Vietnam,Taiwan,etc. will keep the Chinese off balance,at least as much as they are trying to with Pak.