Managing Chinese Threat

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2010 16:19

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By J. Michael Cole
PRC belligerence brings Taiwan in from cold: Taipei Times

For his part, David Arase, professor of political science at Pomona College and co-editor of the book The US-Japan Alliance: Balancing Soft and Hard Power in East Asia, did not think the “abandonment” scenario was ever feasible, mostly for reasons of US credibility vis-a-vis Japan.
“I’m pretty sure no one is thinking about handing Taiwan over to China. If it did, why should Japan trust the US with its security?” he said.
Those views held even before Beijing, for reasons that have yet to be fully understood, miscalculated, claiming sovereignty over the South China Sea in its entirety and turning an incident close to the -Diaoyutais into a major war of words with Tokyo. To these we can add Beijing’s taking Pyongyang’s side in the Cheonan sinking incident, harassment of India over Arunachal Pradesh state and the browbeating by Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) of Singaporean Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo (楊榮文) at an ASEAN security forum in July. All of a sudden, the dragon that for the past two decades had been rising peacefully began turning into a menacing beast for the entire region, and its growing military power, hitherto seen as focused on a Taiwan contingency, was increasingly seen as a threat to all regional powers. As a result, Beijing has created a self-fulfilling prophecy: A region that was uncertain of China’s intentions and that feared the emergence of a hegemon was more likely to seek reassurances from the US or to form a coalition to help contain China.

“Washington is beginning to entertain the possibility that China is not going to be the stakeholder and partner that had been envisioned,” Waldron said.
This would also seem to apply to Asian countries, which up until now had looked to China as an emerging regional leader.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2010 16:43

Published on Oct 08, 2010
By Rajeev Sharma
Intensifying Arms Race Between India and China: Open Democracy

What transpired last month was an eye opener for China-watchers in the Indian government. On 5 August 2010, The People’s Daily reported that two days previously “important combat readiness materials” (read missiles) of the Chinese Air Force were transported safely to Tibet via the Qinghai-Tibet Railway – the first time since such materials were transported to Tibet by railway. It is a clear demonstration by China of not just its technological competence but also its capability to mobilise in Tibet in the event of a Sino-Indian conflict. China already has four fully operational airports in Tibet (the last one started operations in July 2010) while the fifth is scheduled to be inaugurated in October 2010.

China knows very well that it is not dealing with the India of 1962, when the two countries fought a one-sided war. Then India had deliberately not used its air force against the Chinese to minimize loss of territory and restrict Chinese military gains to the far-flung border areas. Though China retains a decisive lead, New Delhi is determined to stay on Beijing's heels.

The whole country would have to harness its resources, financial, technological, diplomatic and human to build our military strength.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 11 Oct 2010 16:55

Russia seeks to align with China

M K BhdraKumar CHINDU 11.10.2010

The two disconnected occurrences actually formed sequels to the Sino-Russian summit. Mr. Medvedev's decision to visit the Kurile Islands comes in the wake of Japan's acrimonious row with China over territorial disputes. Tokyo, unsurprisingly, went ballistic. Prime Minister Naoto Kan promptly reminded Russia that the Kuriles form an integral part of Japan. Tokyo made a diplomatic demarche. Foreign Minister Seiji Meihara warned of “serious obstacles” for Japan-Russia relations. Yet, Moscow's body language has been explicit — it gently drew attention to its disapproval of Japan's belligerence vis-à-vis China over the disputed East China Sea. While in China, Mr. Medvedev celebrated the 65th anniversary of the Soviet-Chinese alliance in the war against Japan (1936-45) and used strong language to convey Russia's solidarity — “Friendship with China is Russia's strategic choice, it's a choice that was sealed by blood years ago”; “The friendship between the Russian and the Chinese peoples, cemented by the military events, will be indestructible and will do good for our future generations.”

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. 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.

Russia has finally taken the plunge to explore the frontiers of energy cooperation — the world's number one oil producer combining with the world's biggest energy consumer. Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin put it succinctly: “There are practically no limits to the growth of gas consumption in China. Russia has enough gas for the development of the Chinese economy.”

This is where the trilateral format, RIC, has some catching up to do. The new thinking in New Delhi creatively manifest on many fronts of foreign policy in the recent period should also pay attention to the raison d'etre of the RIC in the regional and international environment.

so is it CRI or CIA or AIR or JIA.??

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Oct 2010 18:45

This leverage argument is interesting! By that logic India should tie up with someone to get leverage with Russia and China. That means India should shake beards with Washington and Japan. Why should Russia not also shake beards and tails with India for that matter for leverage against China? So catching up more with Russia and USA should be good strategy for India - no?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2010 18:59

Published on Oct 10, 2010
By Ashok Tuteja
Top Chinese leader arriving to ‘mend ties’: Chandigarh Tribune

New Delhi, October 10
After months of tension over a plethora of issues, China is showing a keen desire to mend fences with India. In a move to put the relationship back on the track, the Chinese President is sending to India one of his key strategists to meet the Indian leadership and clarify Beijing’s position on certain contentious issues.

Zhou Yongkang, who is number seven in the hierarchy of the all-powerful Politburo of the Communist Party of China (CPC) {so seven in rank is top man} and is in-charge of security related issues, is expected to be here towards the end of the month.

In fact, the two sides are also learnt to be exploring the possibility of a visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to India towards the end of the year. However, talks on the subject were at a preliminary stage, sources said. The two countries had started 2010 on a positive note celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between them on a grand scale. However, the aggressiveness displayed by China on a host of issues in the last few months has caused anxiety in New Delhi.

The denial of visa by China to Lt Gen BS Jaswal to visit Beijing at the head of a high-level defence delegation just because Jammu and Kashmir is under his area of responsibility annoyed India no ends, forcing it to suspend all defence exchanges with China. The Chinese move was clearly seen by India as an attempt to question the status of Jammu and Kashmir, thereby supporting its ‘all-weather friend’ Pakistan’s position on the state.

China has been issuing visas on separate sheets to Indian nationals from Jammu and Kashmir for the past two years instead of stamping them in their passports. The sources said the two countries were also in discussion on the ‘complicated’ issue of stapling visa for J&K residents and hoped it would be resolved amicably. The sources said the Chinese often complain that the Indian media goes ballistic over even a small issue between India and China. {Last I heard, it was the Chinese going ballistic about a Norwegina prize}

“The Chinese feel the Indian media goes overboard on any differences between India and China...after all we are two big sovereign countries which can always differ on issues. But it does not warrant portraying a negative picture of the relationship,” they added.

The Chinese also blame the West for ‘outdated’ views and ‘overly exaggerating’ differences between India and China. “Some Western media agencies have hyped the so-called competition between the dragon and elephant and dragon and the tigers and fabricated the prospects for conflicts,” said the website of the ‘People’s Daily’, China’s official party newspaper, in an editorial recently.

Welcome to the world where nobody is ready to buy snake oil anymore from China.

If the CPC guy is serious, let's see a verifiable dismantling of all offensive weaponry on the Tibet Border, which includes the IRBMs directed at India. Also all Chinese personnel should be verifiably removed from Gilgit-Baltistan. Both are non-negotiable issues.

Otherwise it is all snake-oil peddling. Neither are the Indians going to believe the Chinese nor their own Government that all is well.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2010 23:53

Published on Oct 11, 2010
By Harsh Pant
On China, India needs to think strategically: Rediff

Against this backdrop of China's rise and relative US decline, it is imperative that India contributes to the Asian security dynamic to bring greater stability to the region especially as Sino-Indian relations become turbulent with each passing day.

The emerging security environment in the Asia-Pacific is likely to revolve around China and the US and each of these powers will have a military with significant offensive capability and unknown intentions.

The US is investing in new geopolitical partnerships and India is already viewed as a critical balancer in the region.

While the Obama administration will have to court India with a new seriousness of purpose, New Delhi will also have to demonstrate that it is capable of thinking strategically.

Ninety years ago, Halford Mackinder, the father of geopolitics, wrote that democracies, unless they are forced into war, simply couldn't think strategically.

India will have to prove Mackinder wrong if it wants to emerge as a major global player in its own right.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 12 Oct 2010 00:42

RajeshA wrote: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.

RajeshA ji,

As I stated my views in earlier posts, I am in agreement with your views.

The target of the world about PRC should be to end its one party system where a short sighted CPC reigns supreme. The military parity of neighbors to bring balance will be necessary in conventional and Nuclear means, but I believe the tool to bring down CPC will be to rouse the Han Chinese rable, the majority losers, while CPC cronies get rich and powerful.

The problem of CPC leadership is its opacity where everything is hidden and done in secret without accountablity, it should be made transparent under a multi-party system. Hopefully that change will transform the rogue power into a responsible power.

But an Asian Union can only help to accelerate that process as the Chinese nation gets more integrated with other neighboring economies and people interact more on a personal level with others for business and tourism, I would think.

The main point, I was trying to make was that SAARC has become too small and lost its relevance in the Asian scene, just as other smaller regional groups will also become meaningless such as ASEAN, GCC, CAU etc.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Oct 2010 01:35

AKalam wrote: But an Asian Union can only help to accelerate that process as the Chinese nation gets more integrated with other neighboring economies and people interact more on a personal level with others for business and tourism, I would think.
.

Considering that all the extant integration has not changed the current Chinese behavior one bit (other than make it more offensive) what makes you think that Asian integration will work wonders?

There does not appear to be anything more solid that your "opinion" in hoping that Chinese nations integration will cause internal changes in China in some mystical way.

It may be that we are missing something, but then at least it does not come across from your posts on why it should be so.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 01:56

RajeshA, As far as I know India has been strategic in its relations with PRC. I don't understand what the writers wants India to do with respect to the visitors.

By not reacting to Western reports of PRC's intentions, India is contributing to the Asian stability. India is doing its own thing and not in concert with other powers especially those who turn blind eyes selectively.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 02:04

AKalam wrote:RajeshA ji,

As I stated my views in earlier posts, I am in agreement with your views.

The target of the world about PRC should be to end its one party system where a short sighted CPC reigns supreme. The military parity of neighbors to bring balance will be necessary in conventional and Nuclear means, but I believe the tool to bring down CPC will be to rouse the Han Chinese rable, the majority losers, while CPC cronies get rich and powerful.

The problem of CPC leadership is its opacity where everything is hidden and done in secret without accountablity, it should be made transparent under a multi-party system. Hopefully that change will transform the rogue power into a responsible power.

But an Asian Union can only help to accelerate that process as the Chinese nation gets more integrated with other neighboring economies and people interact more on a personal level with others for business and tourism, I would think.

The main point, I was trying to make was that SAARC has become too small and lost its relevance in the Asian scene, just as other smaller regional groups will also become meaningless such as ASEAN, GCC, CAU etc.

AKalam ji,

My opinion on what format of PRC would be best suited to Asian stability is still in evolution. I am not going to say, a democratic PRC would be the best solution, simply because that is ideological and not gamed out.

What I do believe is that CPC/PLA would not lose power as long as they have the mandate of heaven - around 10% growth rate, territorial integrity and equality with the main superpower in people's perception.

I am also tending towards an opinion that just as the best way to bring down Pakistan, the fortress of Islam, is through an overdose of Talibanism, the way to bring down the other fascist regime, the CPC, the one with the mandate of heaven, is through an overdose of Han Nationalism, because both movements are carriers of much grievance and anarchy. Both Talibanism and Hyper-Han Nationalism can break the contract on which both of these regimes and states rest - American financial support and export markets respectively.

Just as one could not do away with the authoritarian streak in Russia through the break-up of Soviet Union, similarly a simple regime change in either Pakistan or China would not produce a qualitatively different set up - the people in power would remain the same, albeit with new clothes and new slogans and some shuffle.

These countries need not a reform but rather a total new invention of themselves from a clean slate. These countries need to be reborn with a different DNA, a DNA which is compatible with coexistence and peace with the rest of the world. It is this 'clean state', that poses the challenge to the world community, especially the other Asian powers.

Bringing in PRC into an Asian Union, an Asian Family as a 'son-in-law', does not necessarily mean that China would reform would fit in better with the rest of the family, but it is more probably that it would break up the family from within. I fear, PRC's predatory nature cannot even be tempered by the whole world community together, say through UN, much less some Asian Union made up of middle-weights and light-weights. As things stand, give China any system of laws and courtesy, and it would use it and abuse it, and then throw it away once it outgrows it.

If the world community cannot build a strong enough cage for the beast, then one needs to weaken the beast a bit.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 12 Oct 2010 02:32

RajeshA wrote: Just as one could not do away with the authoritarian streak in Russia through the break-up of Soviet Union, similarly a simple regime change in either Pakistan or China would not produce a qualitatively different set up - the people in power would remain the same, albeit with new clothes and new slogans and some shuffle.

Good to see we agree on something.

RajeshA wrote: These countries need not a reform but rather a total new invention of themselves from a clean slate. These countries need to be reborn with a different DNA, a DNA which is compatible with coexistence and peace with the rest of the world.

You want a 5000 year old civilisation to change their core values to suit Indian interests?
Maybe it's easier to work on that orbital defence laser.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 02:34

ramana wrote:RajeshA, As far as I know India has been strategic in its relations with PRC. I don't understand what the writers wants India to do with respect to the visitors.

ramana garu,

In case you refer to the article by Ashok Tuteja in Chandigarh Tribune, then I think the writer is not really giving any advice on policy or dealing with visitor.
B.S. Raghavan is saying "India also draws up its own list of inviolable, immutable core interests and asks China to adhere to them."
M.K. Bhadrakumar is saying "a strong relationship with China can only strengthen its {India's} leverage as an emerging power during negotiations with the U.S. and the West."
Harsh Pant is saying "it is imperative that India contributes to the Asian security dynamic to bring greater stability to the region."

ramana wrote:By not reacting to Western reports of PRC's intentions, India is contributing to the Asian stability. India is doing its own thing and not in concert with other powers especially those who turn blind eyes selectively.

India has to choose when she reacts and how she reacts, and that should not be determined by any external party.

A lot more effort has to go in before similar minded countries and countries in a similar situation viz-a-viz China start to coordinate security and policy with each other. We are still far away from that. For the current generations of India, most countries in East Asia are still relatively strangers, and much work needs to be done to have first a vibrant contact and then trust. But in the end, containment of China would have to be a group effort.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 02:37

TonyMontana wrote:
RajeshA wrote: These countries need not a reform but rather a total new invention of themselves from a clean slate. These countries need to be reborn with a different DNA, a DNA which is compatible with coexistence and peace with the rest of the world.
You want a 5000 year old civilisation to change their core values to suit ~~Indian interests~~?
Maybe it's easier to work on that orbital defence laser.

Orbital Defence Laser - piece 'a cake!

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 12 Oct 2010 03:08

RajeshA wrote:
Orbital Defence Laser - piece 'a cake!

It's the only way to be sure!

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 12 Oct 2010 08:56

Johann wrote:T
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.

There are Chinese that will disagree with you. They say that the PRC doesn't really enforce the one child policy universally, only against those who cannot afford to raise a second child. The vehicle being to enforced is some form of tax penalty for getting a second child. The litmus test is that if you can make enough money to raise a second child, you can pay the tax or penalty fine.

No, the real reason is that China's population is aging rapidly and if it doesn't get new sources of labor to sustain the social net for old people, China will run into major problems.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Oct 2010 10:20

Hi Hitesh,

Most Chinese, even many professionals like university professors can not afford to pay the punitive tax, and only a few others have the connections to avoid paying the tax. The result is that your additional child becomes in effect an illegal migrant, with no rights to higher education or social services. This is similar to the lack of rights of migrant workers in cities, most of whom lack resident permits. What we have is in effect a new class system in China.

Minorities get exceptions, as do parents in rural areas, but there are still enforced limits on procreation.

No, the real reason is that China's population is aging rapidly and if it doesn't get new sources of labor to sustain the social net for old people, China will run into major problems.

Again, consider the fact that China has chosen to renew the one-child policy despite the anticipated demographic shrink, and the earlier promise that the policy would only last one generation. The decision to continue the policy says a lot about the Party's concerns about sustaining both growth and what they euphemistically call "social stability".

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 10:31

Could it be, that, they are looking at reducing their population and not just stabilising it. Cause if they are, then they are not paying attention to the problems of a rapidly aging population.

The norm will have to be relaxed in the very near future (10 years max), if the PRC is to have a "sustainable future".

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 12 Oct 2010 10:34

Hitesh wrote:
Johann wrote:T
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.

There are Chinese that will disagree with you. They say that the PRC doesn't really enforce the one child policy universally, only against those who cannot afford to raise a second child. The vehicle being to enforced is some form of tax penalty for getting a second child. The litmus test is that if you can make enough money to raise a second child, you can pay the tax or penalty fine.

No, the real reason is that China's population is aging rapidly and if it doesn't get new sources of labor to sustain the social net for old people, China will run into major problems.

That's basically the case. If you have some money(doesn't even need to be rich, just need a few thousand dollars), you can easily have a second child.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Oct 2010 10:37

Once social habits get ingrained its very hard to change. CPC will find that it has not takers for its have many child policy amongst its core supporters, the people who will have many children will not necessarily be anything like CPC wants them to be.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 13:34

The CPC has some very good reasons for sticking to their one-child policy, besides the usual reasons given for population control.

Would the youth of a nation, where each young person has two parents, four grandparents to support really go out and put their lives at risk in some anti-CPC demonstrations, or for that matter even put one's career, one's job at risk, when the CPC can influence the prospects of one's employability?! Once they marry, each family would have a two sets of parents, and four sets of grandparents to support.
Secondly the gender gap in PRC means there would be over 40 million Chinese men unable to find any mates. These men would be readily available to the PLA for its adventures in Tibet, Xinjiang and further abroad. The CPC would have enough coal for the engine of expansion.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 13:44

Published on Oct 11, 2010
By B. Raman
India & China in Europe: Sri Lanka Guardian

17. EU-India trade doubled from €28.6 billion in 2003 to over €50 billion in 2007. EU investment in India more than tripled since 2003 from €759 million to €2.4 billion in 2006. Trade in commercial services more than doubled from €5.2 billion in 2002 to €12.2billion in 2006. The figures for 2009 were as follows:

Trade in goods
• EU goods exports to India : €27.5 billion
• EU goods imports from India : €25.4 billion
Trade in services
• EU services exports to India : €8.6 billion
• EU services imports from India : €7.4 billion
Foreign Direct Investment
• EU outward investment to India : €3.2 billion
• Indian investment to EU : €0.4 billion

18. During the first eight months of this year, China-EU trade exceeded 300 billion U.S. dollars---- a growth of 36.2 percent compared with the same period last year. The total value of India-EU trade in 2009 was about one-fourth of China-EU trade. According to China's Ministry of Commerce, 5.8 percent of Chinese overseas direct investment in 2007 was directed at Europe, behind Asia at 62.6 percent, Latin America 18.5 percent and Africa 5.9 percent, but ahead of North America at 4.3 percent. There were 252 investments by Chinese companies in Europe in the 10 years up to 2007, according to the international business consultancy firm Ernst & Young. Of these, the largest number, 101, went to the UK followed by 40 going to Germany, 24 to France and 15 to Sweden.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 14:21

Published on Oct 12, 2010
By Imanuddin Razak
The Hanoi defense talks: For permanent or short-term goals?: The Jakarta Post

The region is also prone to similar tension and potential disputes due to competing claims on the Spratlys Islands, which are claimed in whole or in part by four ASEAN members — Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam and Vietnam — plus China and Taiwan; and on the Scarborough Shoal, claimed by the Philippines and China.

Apart from the disputes in the greater Asia-Pacific region, territorial claims and disputes within ASEAN member countries also still threaten cohesion in the smaller Southeast Asian regional grouping. Indonesia, for instance, beside having border disputes with India, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and Australia, also has such disputes with Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Is anyone aware of any border dispute between India and Indonesia?
"Wikipedia: List of Territorial Disputes in Asia and the Pacific" says nothing on this.

In any case, it is best to solve border disputes while the relations between India and others are good, and the resolution of disputes can be based on historical claims, geography and vital access, than on emotionally charged agendas. Otherwise such disputes can be exploited by third parties and and political groups, especially at a time when cooperation between two nations is direly needed.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2010 14:24

Indonesia have previously grumbled about andaman and nicobar islands as being closer to sumatra than India, but these are not serious grumbles

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 14:43

RajeshA wrote:The CPC has some very good reasons for sticking to their one-child policy, besides the usual reasons given for population control.

Would the youth of a nation, where each young person has two parents, four grandparents to support really go out and put their lives at risk in some anti-CPC demonstrations, or for that matter even put one's career, one's job at risk, when the CPC can influence the prospects of one's employability?! Once they marry, each family would have a two sets of parents, and four sets of grandparents to support.

Somehow, I am not very convinced by your reasoning, If the CPC has that level of control over the lives of its citizens, then its all the more reason why it will be over thrown. Simply we need to follow the hierchy of needs, and it becomes clear why it will be so. After the needs of food and shelter are fuilfilled the need for self actualisation kicks in. How will the CPC be able to maintain control over the masses who have a need to actualise them selves. Human nature being what it is. there are bound to be some people who are not going to be satisfied by the control excersised by the CPC. They ar ebound to rebel. If that happens in a cuntry like China. That cannot happen in a peacefull way. The only way it will happen in will be in a voilent and destructive way.

Secondly the gender gap in PRC means there would be over 40 million Chinese men unable to find any mates. These men would be readily available to the PLA for its adventures in Tibet, Xinjiang and further abroad. The CPC would have enough coal for the engine of expansion.

An inability to find mates doesnot automatically prresuposes that the PRC will have 40 million men readily available for PLA. The age distribution will be such that in terms of actual numbers the manpower available to PRC. The single male population of PRC will not make a great dieal of diffrence to the military balance in favour of PRC.

There is an incentive for the PRC to do away with the one child norm. AS its population matures. The population tree has to be thickest in the 25 to 45 age bracket for in order to make sue that the economy will continue to grow as the economy will continue to gain productive workers will keep on getting added to the economy. More over the workers have to support both the young and the old segments of the population. If the younger population is hugely smaller then the worker population and the retired population is substantially larger then the worker population. Then worker population cannot really support the retired population.

Such an economic system is not very productive in the long term.

If they continue on with the one child rule then in the next 50 years we can be looking at a senerio where for every one worker there could be upto 11 dependents (Worker+ spouce(could be house wife)+ worker's parents and grandparents both sets+ spouce's parants and grandparents both sets.) as life expectancy improves. This is not counting the dependent child. The social stresses this will create will be enormous.

If the PRC wants to succeed in the long run then it is imperative that they relax the one child norm in the near future. The time line is some thing that the CPC has to decide.

Having said so, I as an Indian I will wish that the CPC never relaxes the one child rule. As it will greately improve our ability to compete with the PRC in all areas.

JMT

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2010 14:47

pratyush, you are presupposing that the chinese people WANT free will
they may not

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 14:53

A majority may not, but what about the militant few? I may be naively optimistic to put my hopes on the few, but they may succeed in pushing their agenda for greater personal freedoms. The net result being a kinder and gentler China. Which was India's neioughbour for mellinia.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 14:55

Published on oct 12, 2010
By Anshu.Dubey
Chinese ‘Superbug’ Targeted India?: Reporters Live

A cyber specialist has exposed that the deadly bug was most likely developed by China targeting India.
Jeffrey Carr, a renowned cyber warfare expert in America has given a turn to the investigations claiming that China could be the developer of the malware program that has threatened the governments of many nations.

Carr is a well-known cyber-crime investigating expert who said that Chinese always try to hack Indian govt. websites. He added that there is a possibility that other countries, such as US and Iraq could also have plotted the attack.

When asked what led him to the clues, Carr said that Stuxnet might be the reason after the partial failure of ISRO’s INSAT 4B satellite. The failure of this satellite was most beneficial for China.

He added that he has not confirmed the conclusion but just tryied to figure out a substitute apart from Iran that could attract other nations and whose websites work on Siemens software.

“Further, the satellite in question (INSAT 4B) suffered the power `glitch’ in an unexplained fashion, and it’s failure served another state’s advantage — in this case China,” he said.

Don't know how much credence one can give to this theory, as it is based only on circumstantial clues.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 15:57

Pratyush wrote:
RajeshA wrote:The CPC has some very good reasons for sticking to their one-child policy, besides the usual reasons given for population control.
Would the youth of a nation, where each young person has two parents, four grandparents to support really go out and put their lives at risk in some anti-CPC demonstrations, or for that matter even put one's career, one's job at risk, when the CPC can influence the prospects of one's employability?! Once they marry, each family would have a two sets of parents, and four sets of grandparents to support.
Somehow, I am not very convinced by your reasoning, If the CPC has that level of control over the lives of its citizens, then its all the more reason why it will be over thrown. Simply we need to follow the hierchy of needs, and it becomes clear why it will be so. After the needs of food and shelter are fuilfilled the need for self actualisation kicks in. How will the CPC be able to maintain control over the masses who have a need to actualise them selves. Human nature being what it is. there are bound to be some people who are not going to be satisfied by the control excersised by the CPC. They ar ebound to rebel. If that happens in a cuntry like China. That cannot happen in a peacefull way. The only way it will happen in will be in a voilent and destructive way.

If there are say X positive effects, that accrue to PRC due to a one-child policy, and there are Y positive effects, that accrue to CPC due to a one-child policy, and Z negative effects on PRC due to a one-child policy; would the Chinese people really protest if CPC only sings virtues of the policy - only X effects are presented to the people, whereas the Y effects are never spoken of, and the Z effects are shouted down and explained away as necessary compromises, bureaucratic policy inertia, agenda for the future, etc.

After the needs of food and shelter are fulfilled, the need for hanging on to these kicks in, not necessarily self-actualization. If a PRC citizen can lose his employment if he raises his head against the state, and the ability to feed his 2 parents, 4 grandparents and one child, then self-realization is a distant dream. Anyway self-realization consists primarily of roti, kapda, makaan, sadak, bijli, paani and naukari.

As long as China does not have laws to protect the citizen against the CPC, and as long as CPC can make anybody lose his job at a moment's notice, self-realization beyond the basics and material luxury would not necessarily be on any Chinese's five-year plan.

Pratyush wrote:
Secondly the gender gap in PRC means there would be over 40 million Chinese men unable to find any mates. These men would be readily available to the PLA for its adventures in Tibet, Xinjiang and further abroad. The CPC would have enough coal for the engine of expansion.
An inability to find mates doesnot automatically prresuposes that the PRC will have 40 million men readily available for PLA. The age distribution will be such that in terms of actual numbers the manpower available to PRC. The single male population of PRC will not make a great dieal of diffrence to the military balance in favour of PRC.

Well those who wouldn't get any mates, would most probably be from the poorest section of the population and probably the most aggressive due to sexual frustration. That is just the sort of people that the PLA would find attractive, especially as that becomes a plausible way to improve one's chances. Desperate times require desperate measures.

Pratyush wrote:There is an incentive for the PRC to do away with the one child norm. AS its population matures. The population tree has to be thickest in the 25 to 45 age bracket for in order to make sue that the economy will continue to grow as the economy will continue to gain productive workers will keep on getting added to the economy. More over the workers have to support both the young and the old segments of the population. If the younger population is hugely smaller then the worker population and the retired population is substantially larger then the worker population. Then worker population cannot really support the retired population.

Such an economic system is not very productive in the long term.

If they continue on with the one child rule then in the next 50 years we can be looking at a senerio where for every one worker there could be upto 11 dependents (Worker+ spouce(could be house wife)+ worker's parents and grandparents both sets+ spouce's parants and grandparents both sets.) as life expectancy improves. This is not counting the dependent child. The social stresses this will create will be enormous.

If the PRC wants to succeed in the long run then it is imperative that they relax the one child norm in the near future. The time line is some thing that the CPC has to decide.

Having said so, I as an Indian I will wish that the CPC never relaxes the one child rule. As it will greately improve our ability to compete with the PRC in all areas.

JMT

Well if there is a steady increase in computerization and automation of industrial processes, then a country would need fewer workers. China could get to such a stage.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 12 Oct 2010 16:13

Just observe. ALL the statements of China's hostility towards India are coming from western 'scholars'. Even Stuxnet, which clearly targeted Iran (an Israeli area of concern) was attempted to be fathered upon China (for the purpose attacking India). I am afraid that western governments may just used a false flag operation to provoke hostilities betwee India and China.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 16:14

^^^ I will only address the last point at this time, (As it is the simplest to do so

)the increase in automation will not really help the one worker who has to take care of his 11 dependents ie if he is married. Unless his income goes on to match the Income of the US workers and his expences remain those of the PRC worker. (This out of my musharraf is not possible ).

Moreover an increase in automation will invariably increase the cost of production. By adding to the capital costs.

In the event both the wages and the automation levels go up the PRC will lose it competitive advantage, and India or the next low cost producer will have take the job of the PRC worker. In a globalised world.

So which everway you look at it the PRC is facing a catch 22. Dammed if they do dammed if they don't.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 16:41

Published on Oct 07, 2010
By Madhav Nalapat
How China Plays the Great Game: The Diplomat

It’s hardly a secret that the PLA would like the US military to exit from Asia, and what better way of hurrying this along than by ensuring that NATO is defeated in Afghanistan, the way the USSR military was? The best way of achieving this objective is through the Pakistan Army, which has perfected the science of professing compliance with US commands while apparently doing very little to carry them out. Indeed, it has shown considerable skill in doing the reverse, sabotaging US interests through ‘retired’ and ‘on leave’ personnel, so that deniability can be maintained. Both the Pakistan Army and the PLA evidently believe that a US victory in Afghanistan would entrench US forces in that country, while a defeat would send them packing, leaving the country as low-hanging fruit for the intrepid duo to dominate.

Small wonder, then, that the many ‘operations’ against the Taliban that are being conducted by the Pakistan Army seem to be having zero success in checking the progress of that ragtag band, this despite the fact that—unlike in 1994-95—the Taliban is feared and loathed by the overwhelming majority of Pashtuns.

This is why the PLA is even willing to make a foe of India—riling Delhi over Kashmir, including by rejecting visas to Indian army commanders who they had themselves invited to visit, and stationing thousands of uniformed personnel in the Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir, ostensibly to build roads.

So what would the prize be should China prevail in this 21th century version of the Great Game? It would be nothing less than the replacement of the United States by China as the pre-eminent military power in Asia. It would look much, in fact, like the defeat of the Soviets in 1988, which ultimately led to the eclipse of Moscow by Washington across the globe.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 17:07

abhischekcc wrote:Just observe. ALL the statements of China's hostility towards India are coming from western 'scholars'.

I wouldn't say that. Many Indian strategic thinkers have spoken up on China lately. There are many Indian writers whose articles have also appeared in East Asian newspapers critical of China.

abhischekcc wrote:Even Stuxnet, which clearly targeted Iran (an Israeli area of concern) was attempted to be fathered upon China (for the purpose attacking India). I am afraid that western governments may just used a false flag operation to provoke hostilities betwee India and China.

There is of course a vested interest in the West or USA to stoke the fires between India and China. One would be foolish to overlook this tendency.

So what Indians should do is to look for intelligence coming out of USA regarding Chinese moves in our surroundings. GoI knew about the 11,000 PLA soldiers in Gilgit-Baltistan and did not make it public. Neither did Indians really see any Indian retaliation against the Chinese on this score. This knowledge came from the Americans, through Selig Harrison. Now India is a democracy, and while it is to be expected that GoI would not put everything out there in the public sphere and would like to deal with some complex issues in the background, it is important that some public pressure is generated on the GoI to take a tough stance when our territorial integrity is on the line and our strategic space is being constrained. That is how democracies work. There is a part of strategic affairs that needs to be discussed in public, where the experts and 'scholars' have to give their input and educated the public.

So Indian public would have to depend on Western sources for information related to India's strategic environment, considering GoI lack of transparency (which is understandable). Of course, this information would sooner or later be confirmed or denied by GoI, but at least a direct question on the issue would be put to the GoI.

Where we have to be very careful is taking American advice on any policies - how India should react to a certain strategic move by some other power - China or Pakistan. That thinking should be our own.

Third thing is that whenever India is being nudged into a direction which is to the benefit of both India and USA, we have to find out beforehand how much of the water USA is willing to carry. Any strategic cooperation has to be based on the nature of benefit and the relative strength and capacity of our militaries and states. USA should get no free lunch.

Under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to be dragged in into a conflict at the instance of USA purportedly out of any obligation to USA arising out of some 'alliance' with USA or 'out of some moral obligations to some abstract values of freedom, democracy, and human rights. It has to be on the basis of national interests of India.

We should however not deny the danger that originates from Pakistan or China, just because we think America is trying to play with our insecurity. That danger we should try to analyze objectively. If the danger is real, then some cooperation with USA, should not be discounted out of hand due to some ideological thinking that if America is trying to influence our decision, then we should automatically say no.

Just some thoughts!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 17:12

Pratyush wrote:^^^ I will only address the last point at this time, (As it is the simplest to do so )the increase in automation will not really help the one worker who has to take care of his 11 dependents ie if he is married. Unless his income goes on to match the Income of the US workers and his expences remain those of the PRC worker. (This out of my musharraf is not possible ).

Moreover an increase in automation will invariably increase the cost of production. By adding to the capital costs.

In the event both the wages and the automation levels go up the PRC will lose it competitive advantage, and India or the next low cost producer will have take the job of the PRC worker. In a globalised world.

So which everway you look at it the PRC is facing a catch 22. Dammed if they do dammed if they don't.

Automation of some industrial processes of production need not increase the cost of production. That depends on the process.

Secondly, competitive advantage can still be ensured if one ensures a monopoly or favorable conditions for inputs of raw materials, energy, technical knowhow, and market stranglehold.

That is why manufacturing again needs to become distributed in the world, and not be limited to China only.

hshukla · Post by **hshukla** » 12 Oct 2010 17:30

DavidD wrote:
Hitesh wrote:
There are Chinese that will disagree with you. They say that the PRC doesn't really enforce the one child policy universally, only against those who cannot afford to raise a second child. The vehicle being to enforced is some form of tax penalty for getting a second child. ....
That's basically the case. If you have some money(doesn't even need to be rich, just need a few thousand dollars), you can easily have a second child.

few thousands every year or one time?

I came to know a Chinese couple who were reasonably well placed...maybe Middle to upper middle and they used to say that they cant have 2nd kid...donno whether its as simple as few grands.
The reason they gave was since the guy's parents had more than one kid he cannot do so; though the wife was an only kid.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2010 18:27

Hersh wrote: I came to know a Chinese couple who were reasonably well placed...maybe Middle to upper middle and they used to say that they cant have 2nd kid...donno whether its as simple as few grands.
The reason they gave was since the guy's parents had more than one kid he cannot do so; though the wife was an only kid.

Some answers here see page 1174
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833

Apparently in urban areas couples who are both only children are allowed to have 2 children. But this is not allowed if either of them has a brother or sister.

China is doing some really weird stuff with its population. Need to see where this goes. Of course the CPC is "daddy" and every one must listen. The paper linked above is a medical paper in a prestigious journal (The New England Journal of Medicine) in which SDRE medicos of my generation would give and arm and a leg to get a paper published - but that has not prevented the authors from doing a classic case of petitio principii by which a proposition that requires proof is assumed without proof. Chinese couples, having had only one child for generations are now said to prefer only one child.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 18:30

Published on Oct 12, 2010
By Bharat Verma
China's 'New Cold War' puts democracies in danger: India Defence Review

The spread of two authoritarian streams, Chinese communism and the Islamic fundamentalism, in combination or otherwise, threaten the survival of democracies in Asia.

First, Beijing deftly sucked in most of the democracies in its economic orbit by making China a very cheap manufacturing destination of the world. This simultaneously created gigantic hard currency reserves and vast political influence. Second, from the inflow of foreign direct investments, a modern lethal military machine was forged. Third, Beijing skillfully invested in dictatorial or Islamic fundamentalist regimes in Asia like North Korea, Pakistan, and Myanmar.

Accretion of extraordinary power allows China to escape unscathed, bringing to an end, the phase of ‘Peaceful rise of China’!
On one hand, this boosts Pakistan and North Korea’s capability to tie down democracies like India, South Korea and Japan without the necessity of China being involved overtly. On the other, by transferring sensitive technologies to these countries, China deflects the attention of major powers from itself and conveniently shifts the debate to the rogue nations clandestinely supported by it. Thus the energies and resources of the other big powers are consumed handling the fall out in Pakistan, Myanmar, Iran and North Korea.

I think BRF is being avidly read!

In any case there is a great overlap of theories, either by coincidence or by design, but overlap nonetheless and that is what counts.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 19:11

Published on Oct 12, 2010
By Kerry Brown
How China is Weaker than it Looks: The Diplomat

There’s an old Chinese fable that was the inspiration behind Andrew Nathan and Robert Ross’s 1990s book, The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress.

Centuries ago, a king whose city was about to be attacked decided the only thing he could do to save it was to order the gates be flung open. He then told the attacking force that the city was empty and that they were welcome to enter. Suspicious that the king’s words were a trick to tempt them into an ambush, the enemy forces decided to move on and the king’s empty city was saved.

These days, many looking at China from the outside see its towering economic statistics and assume that this growing wealth isn’t just about money—that it’s about power as well.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 20:00

Published on Oct 12, 2010
By Leo Hindery Jr.
China's latest powerplays - more unfair trade, now grave threats to US security: Huffington Post Blog

With China's trade and real guns pointed at our heads - and at the heads of a lot of other citizens of the world - what should the U.S. government do in response?

To start, we need a much fuller picture of China's commercial policies, business practices and rule of law, and their relationship to China's military aspirations. We need to 'update' this picture on a real-time basis, with a lot better analysis than attaches to infrequent Congressional hearings held usually on only one issue. To achieve this, the White House should establish, as a complement to the National Security Council's "China Directorate", an Office dedicated to understanding China's commercial activities at all levels. This Office would specifically not make U.S.-China policy of any sort, rather it should be structured to fully understand China's manufacturing and industrial strategies and policies and then communicate its findings and analysis to the NSC's Directorate, State and Defense, and the relevant Committees of Congress.

At the same time, while the USG shouldn't discard single-issue WTO cases, it must better appreciate their often too-narrowly-tailored limitations and too-protracted timeframes. (The only recent exception to this generalization is the brilliantly crafted pending 'clean energy' subsidies case brought by the United Steelworkers.) Instead, the USG should mostly concentrate on the six broad issues that if aggressively pursued would bring great value back to the American-side of U.S.-China trade relations:

1. Mitigate the role of China's centralized approval authority which forces foreign companies to go to the authority for just about anything they do in China, including notably foreign imports into China. In the process, mitigate China's deplorable record on transparency and its dramatic overuse of vague and draconian "State Secret" laws to restrict foreign competition.

2. Seek to balance the de minimus labor and environmental requirements that China places on "State Owned Enterprises", or SOEs, with the responsible ones placed on non-state owned enterprises operating outside China.

3. Go after all of China's illegal subsidies, not just its currency manipulation, while also putting a quick halt to China's persistent theft of America's hard-gained, valuable intellectual property or IP. Many of China's practices provide its companies with obvious "counteravailable subsidies" and they need to be treated as such.

4. Bring what's called a Section 301 case at USTR against China's "Indigenous Innovation Production Accreditation Program.". This Program limits all Chinese central and provincial government procurement to companies that have "indigenous" - or Chinese - "innovation", and embedded in it are China's two so-called 'trade advantages', namely, (i) regulations to block non-Chinese firms from selling their products to Chinese government agencies and (ii) rules that force Western companies to give up technological secrets in exchange for access to China's markets.

5. Establish strong "Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States" (or CFIUS) type reviews of any planned investments by China in our nation's ports and transportation industry, natural resources, financial markets, "Advanced Technical Products" manufacturing, and items deemed by Defense to be "militarily critical". In these instances, however, before a controlling or influencing investment is made, there should be a "national security impact statement" prepared jointly by Commerce and Defense for the Congress and the administration which considers the investment's defense, security and infrastructure implications.

The author speaks out on something that is equally important to India. At the moment, Indians read about China only on the labels stitched to stuff we buy in the market - "Made in China"! Other than that, China flies under our radar.

Even in China, PRC is picky about what news it puts out. Abroad, China does everything to show that either it is invisible or it is the cute panda waiting for a hug! We too need to tear off the invisibility cloak that China wears, even as it goes around doing business worth billions and making deals in back-rooms. China needs to made totally naked. All its immoral business practices, all its manipulation needs to find the light of day. Without understanding the ins and outs of China, we won't be able to protect ourselves against its practices, by tightening our laws and their implementations, by strengthening our security.

Now that China is the second-biggest economy in the world and has allures of superpowerdom, China has earned the right of our interest, and we should be pointing the biggest spotlight on its warts and deeds.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 20:39

Published on Oct 12, 2010
By Pepe Escobar
China’s Pipelineistan “War”: Tom Dispatch

Future historians may well agree that the twenty-first century Silk Road first opened for business on December 14, 2009. That was the day a crucial stretch of pipeline officially went into operation linking the fabulously energy-rich state of Turkmenistan (via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) to Xinjiang Province in China’s far west. Hyperbole did not deter the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, Turkmenistan’s president, from bragging, “This project has not only commercial or economic value. It is also political. China, through its wise and farsighted policy, has become one of the key guarantors of global security.”

The bottom line is that, by 2013, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong will be cruising to ever more dizzying economic heights courtesy of natural gas supplied by the 1,833-kilometer-long Central Asia Pipeline, then projected to be operating at full capacity. And to think that, in a few more years, China’s big cities will undoubtedly also be getting a taste of Iraq’s fabulous, barely tapped oil reserves, conservatively estimated at 115 billion barrels, but possibly closer to 143 billion barrels, which would put it ahead of Iran. When the Bush administration’s armchair generals launched their Global War on Terror, this was not exactly what they had in mind.

Somebody said TAPI?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 22:19

Published on Oct 12, 2010
By Bernice Camille V. Bauzon
Philippines-China bonds safe from Spratly Islands fallout: Manila Times

Although Beijing is inclined to slightly disrupt flow of its investments to Manila as leverage in the two nations’ dispute over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, an official of United States-based think tank Stratfor told The Manila Times during a recent exclusive interview that the row will have no long-term economic effects on Philippines-China relations.

Jennifer Richmond, China director for Stratfor, said that any threats that China made against the Philippines, such as pulling out of investments and trade, “would not be binding.”

“That’s how China uses its power economically,” Richmond told The Times. “[But] as much as China threatens to decrease investments, one of its primary objectives in their official development assistance is to secure its supply lines to the [Philippines’] natural resources.”

The only thing standing between South East Asian countries and the wrath of China is the natural resources China procures from there.