US and PRC relationship & India

[ramana]

And avoid nouveau containment.

[ramana]

So the game is US is trying to contain PRC by playing the old UNSC card just as it did 40 years ago with PRC and FSU. Since PRC knew that paly it is itself supporting India to see how far US will go. PRC might up the ante and support a rotating veto to put US in a fix.

Already TSP is complaining about incomprehensiblity of the US support. Wonder if they will hit their head on hearing about PRC's views.

[svinayak]

Already TSP is complaining about incomprehensiblity of the US support. Wonder if they will hit their head on hearing about PRC's views.

Have you realised that US announced UNSC support only after US congress has cancelled all the loan payment and put fresh loans to Pak elite and govt. It has the leverage on Pak elite and the behavior of the Pak govt and PA. This will take time to notice but watch for retractions and accommodations.

[DavidD]

India deserves a seat as a permanent member of the UNSC, the UK, as the U.S.'s lapdog, doesn't.

[RajeshA]

India deserves a seat as a permanent member of the UNSC, the UK, as the U.S.'s lapdog, doesn't.

Thanks! And so does a democratic China!

[SriSri]

Chinese Song Submarine Breaches Security, Gets Within Firing Range of USS Kitty Hawk Aircraft Carrier

[Pranav]

India deserves a seat as a permanent member of the UNSC, the UK, as the U.S.'s lapdog, doesn't.

Thanks! And so does a democratic China!

Sir jee, why needle the fellow. He wants to play nice.

[RajeshA]

Sir jee, why needle the fellow. He wants to play nice.

For Pakistan and China, those who play nice, are screwed a bit more. So that language is understood.

[Gerard]

China upgrades its diplomatic relations with India

China on Nov 8 upgraded the rank of its Ambassador to India Mr Zhang Yan to that of a government Vice-Minister, the level of diplomatic relations Beijing maintains with the five permanent members of the UN security Council

[krisna]

CHINA : PUTTING OUT A FIRE IN ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD

China befriending the distant while alienating neighbors?”
2. That was the question posed by Li Hongmei, the columnist of the Chinese Communist Party controlled “People’s Daily Online”, in an article carried by it on November 12,2010. The theme of the article was that while China’s relations with distant countries such as those in the European Union have been steadily improving, its relations with its Asian neighbours are not cordial.

3. The article quoted a Chinese saying that “a distant water supply is no good in putting out a nearby fire” and added: “To wit, China will never bend its consistent determination to seek after the good-neighborly mood in its vicinity.”

worried about deteriorating relations with its neighbours and the US role in the region--

In an interview with the Government-controlled “China Daily” on November 12, Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said that Beijing was dedicated to a peaceful resolution of all maritime disputes -- so long as outside parties were not involved in the talks. "The security environment around China is very complicated, with traditional and non-traditional security challenges intertwined. A new security concept should be established with mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination at its core." After rejecting any US role in the matter, he said: “It is important to refrain from expanding, complicating or internationalising the disputes. We believe that disputes in the South China Sea should be resolved peacefully through bilateral negotiations between the parties directly involved."

after effects of its ownactions---

After having spurned the Japanese initiative for a bilateral summit between Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in the margins of the recent East Asia summit at Hanoi, China, worried over its negative image, agreed to a summit between Prime Minister Kan and President Hu in the margins of the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum) summit at Yokohama in Japan on November 13.

( to keep H&D intact)

WRT INDIA

Concern over the possibility of the US exploiting the differences of China with its neighbours has definitely introduced a re-thinking in the Chinese policy towards its neighbours. This does not mean any Chinese concessions on the question of territorial sovereignty. The Chinese give indications of toning down their rhetoric and restoring harmony in their relations with their neighbours. It is interesting to note that the recent writings in China on the need for a more accommodating policy towards its neighbours in order to pre-empt the perceived US designs to drive a wedge between China and its neighbours does not make any reference to China’s pending border dispute with India. India’s policy of bilaterally settling its disputes with China and Pakistan without allowing any third party role has given confidence to the Chinese that despite the closer strategic relations between the US and India, Beijing does not have to fear any US meddling in the border dispute. ( 15-11-10)

[abhishek_sharma]

India has its way, fends off pressure from China on US

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/India ... -US/711937

[Christopher Sidor]

India Trades a Pakistan-India hyphen for China-India hypen
A good article to read. Especially when put in light of Obama's recent visit to India.

The world financial crisis had increased the clout of China and there was much breathless talk of ‘G-2', a new Sino-American compact to stabilise the global economy. “So China today appears, at least to me, to be on a substantially higher plane in U.S. diplomacy than India, which seems to have been downgraded in administration strategic calculations,” Mr. Blackwill noted. One consequence of this downgrading was the role the Obama administration appeared to encourage China to play in South Asia. The joint statement issued at the end of President Obama's visit to Beijing in November 2009 spoke about the two countries increasing their cooperation towards the goal of “bringing about more stable, peaceful relations in all of South Asia.”

Isn't it ironic that after Obama's visit China was more assertive? Not only w.r.t to India but also towards the South China Sea countries. Till date America has not given a satisfactory explanation, for the wording of the joint statement.

American attitudes towards Beijing appear to have become a better predictor of temperature on the Indo-U.S. front than anything intrinsic to the bilateral relationship. And that can't be a good thing.

It is not a good thing when we base our relationship with any nation on an opposition/hedge against a 3rd nation. This applies to Japan/Taiwan/Mangolia/Vietnam/etc, too. Relations have to be developed independent and on their own merits.

“If there were no China,” a U.S. Navy officer is quoted as saying in the unclassified report, “we would still engage [India], but maybe not to the same extent. There are plenty of opportunities for cooperation, but China drives a lot of what we are doing”.

It is not only India which sees a US through a Chinese prism, US is also does the same.
So what happens when this so called "threat" from China directed towards US disappears? The nightmare scenario would be for India to have unresolved issues with China while China resolves its outstanding issues with US. This is precisely the reason why I have never advocated a Indo-US engagement which seeks to balance China and perpetuates or supports US hegemony. We have to be concerned with China's as well as US hegemony too.

The fact that the U.S. hopes to benefit from increased Indian engagement in East Asia can hardly be an argument against India looking east. But the hyphenation with China that the American policy towards India is predicated on should make us pause for thought.

Not pause for thought, it should make us see red. I certainly hope that we are not assumed to replay the role which Britain forced us to replay till 1947.

I am not advocating an adversarial relationship with America. But I am advocating that India not base any part of its relationship with US on some China threat.

[ramana]

X-posting

nvishal wrote in Obama visit thread!

Sanku, Its like the Zamindar(US and West) who maintains the goonda/dacoit (PRC) in the forest to make the villagers (India and others) run to his protection.

The game can be broken once the goonda gets trashed (economically, militarily or politically-culturally) in an ambush. The Zamindar will be forced to act on goonda side and expose himself or let the goonda get beat up.

Excellent summary of the great game going on for the past few decades.

It was always on the back of my mind but never found the words to understand it correctly.

[Hari Seldon]

^^What if said goonda has a mind and behind of his own and wants to swap places with the zamindar, eh?

What if goonda starts offering 'protection' for free to said villagers against zamindari imperialism and neo-colonism dialectic, eh? Heck, when even the cheapest of hores (i.e. papistan) can harbor dreams of going from dada to raja, who says the Han are incapable of ambition, eh? And so on and so forth. Let the games begin onlee.

[ramana]

Its already happening with the axis of evil gang. What do you think the nuke proliferation is all about?

[svinayak]

^^What if said goonda has a mind and behind of his own and wants to swap places with the zamindar, eh?

What if goonda starts offering 'protection' for free to said villagers against zamindari imperialism and neo-colonism dialectic, eh? Heck, when even the cheapest of hores (i.e. papistan) can harbor dreams of going from dada to raja, who says the Han are incapable of ambition, eh? And so on and so forth. Let the games begin onlee.

There are around 2000 chinese employees in India of Hwa Hwa and ZTE. One Indian I know interacts with some of them and they are pretty sure that PRC will be able to take care of US and provide stability in Asia. That kind of talk has already started.

[Prem]

We should wait to come to any conclusion till Japan, Vietnam and then SOKO go Nuclear. Old wounds will be opened again and so forth.

[ramana]

We should wait to come to any conclusion till Japan, Vietnam and then SOKO go Nuclear. Old wounds will be opened again and so forth.

The P-5 wont let that happen. Japan is the key. It will be under US umbrella to protect the PRC and there will be riling but no movement.

[krithivas]

India seeks demands release of detained traders in Shenzhen

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 890279.ece

[svinayak]

India uneasy with Obama’s Chinese checkers
By Saurav Jha
Column: The Estranged AnalystPublished: November 17, 2009
http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2009/11 ... kers/4395/

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) and China's President Hu Jintao attend a joint press conference in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Nov. 17, 2009. "The major challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic recovery, are challenges that touch both our nations and challenges that neither of our nations can solve by acting alone," Obama said. (UPI Photo/Stephen Shaver)

Kolkata, India — There is no capital in Asia where U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to China is being watched more closely than in New Delhi. In the lead-up to his visit, some Indian analysts in the past week have been calling for Obama to communicate a firm message to China in support of India’s legitimate interests on the Asian stage.
However, a number of reports suggest that Obama is likely to adopt a “neutral” stand on issues such as the Indo-China dispute over the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.

Naturally, Indian officials are concerned over what they see as a climb down in U.S. commitment to the Indo-U.S. strategic alignment. In the worst case, there are fears that something similar to the 1970s, when a change in the U.S. administration saw a sudden turn to China at the expense of India, is in the offing.

During the era of former U.S. President George W. Bush, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government had grown used to timely support from the U.S. administration on a number of issues of geopolitical importance. However, the financial meltdown in the United States and the new presidency may now leave New Delhi somewhat shortchanged, if recent U.S. posturing is anything to go by.

The pusillanimous U.S. position on Tibet is worrying New Delhi. Obama’s refusal to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington prior to his China visit was a huge disappointment for exiled Tibetans, who had come to expect this as a bare minimum from the world’s most powerful democracy. It only shows that the United States is no longer in a position to even make symbolic gestures toward promoting freedom, lest they annoy China.

[VinodTK]

Tibet isn't Kashmir

It is the first time that India has equated Jammu & Kashmir with Tibet. This happened during a 70-minute bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Russia-India-China trilateral conference.

After the meeting, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao was more explicit: “Our Minister referred to the need to show mutual sensitivity and that the Chinese side needs to be sensitive to our concerns in Jammu & Kashmir like India has been sensitive to Chinese concerns on Taiwan and Tibet.”

[csharma]

Acharya that is a one year old article. Quite a few things have changed since then.

[svinayak]

Sorry. did not realise it

[Vivek Raghuvanshi]

Open sources opine that: CHINA has the following Milk Adulteration problem. I do NOT think that India is far behind. What is the GOI thinking to curb this menace?

POISON ADULTERATION IN MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS

1.What really is poisoned milk?

It is milk powder mixed with 'MELAMINE'

2.Why is Melamine added to milk powder?

The most important nutrient in milk is protein.

And, Melamine has this same protein that contains 'NITROGEN'

Adding Melamine into milk reduces the actual milk content required,

and therefore it is cheaper than all milk. So it lowers the capital required

in the production of milk products. Therefore it earns the business man more profit!

Melamine looks like milk / milk powder.
It doesn't have any smell, so cannot be detected.

3.When was it discovered that it had been added to milk products.

In 2007, US cats and dogs died suddenly, they found that pet food from China contained Melamine.

Early in 2008, in China , an abnormal increase in infant cases of kidney stones was reported.

In August 2008, China Sanlu Milk Powder tested for Melamine

Sept. 2008, the New Zealand government asked China to investigate this problem

Sept. 21, 2008, they found that many food products in Taiwan tested for Melamine

4.What happens when Melamine ingested and digested?

Melamine remains inside the kidneys. It forms into stones blocking the tubes.

Pain will be imminent and the person cannot urinate. Kidney(s) will then swell.

Although surgery can remove the stones, it causes irreversible kidney damage.

It can lead to the loss of kidney function and will require kidney dialysis or lead to death because of uremia.

What is dialysis? In fact, it should be called 'blood washing'; it is filtering all of the body's blood into a machine and then returning the blood back to the body.

Why is it much more serious in babies?

A baby's kidneys are so very small and they drink a lot of milk powder.

It does not matter how much Melamine a human being ingested (ate) (took).

The important point is: 'MELAMINE CANNOT BE EATEN!'

5.What foods are to be avoided?

Foods from China that contain dairy products should be avoided.

BUT WHAT ABOUT MILK ADULTERATION IN INDIA?

WILL GOI BE RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE?

[Christopher Sidor]

This is from the wiki leaks, courtesy Guardian newspaper
US embassy cables: China reiterates 'red lines'

A very insigthfull cable. Some things which can be gleamed are
1) India is not mentioned anywhere. This is good. India should seek to stay away from the tangle that is US-PRC.
2) This cable is all about Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Af-Pak, Iran.
3) US has requested China to open a transit to Afghanistan, the so called "Northern Distribution Network", for non-leathal goods and material.
4) China wants to preserve the P-5 hegmony and wants to remain the sole Asian nation with the veto power. It opposes UNSC reforms because of Japans candidature.
5) It appears that the US views Tibet as a part of China and does not officially contemplate an independent Tibet.

Some of the excerpts are given below

....
....
8. (C) In the first two G-20 Financial Summits, U.S. and Chinese positions had been close, closer even than the United States and Europe, VFM (Chinese Vice Foreign Minister) He noted.
....
....
VFM He felt that the U.S.-U.K.-China "troika" had been effective: Beijing could persuade the developing countries, Washington could influence Japan and South Korea, and London could bring along the Europeans. (again we see China positioning itself as the natural leader of the so called 3rd world)
....
....
9 D) Reforming the international monetary system, vis-a-vis the dollar and an alternative reserve currency such as Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
10. (C) Expounding on this last topic, VFM(Chinese Vice Foreign Minster) He stated that a stable U.S. dollar was good for China, and Beijing had no interest in "destabilizing the system." The system, however, was "not perfect and needs reform." He said China had a huge stake in how the United States managed the dollar. Further, VFM He suggested that the RMB could become a component of the SDR. Mentioning that the RMB could compose two percent of the SDR value, VFM He noted that this was more of a symbolic than practical change.
....
....
The Charge (i.e. US Representative in China) stated that China still had an opportunity to contribute to the security and stability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. One way to do so would be to agree to a re-supply route via China for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
....
....
VFM He said the critical question was whether both sides would agree to "take care" of each other's "core interests." (i.e. Taiwan and Tibet)
....
The question was whether the key interests for each side would be accommodated. The United States had its core interests, VFM He asserted, such as U.S. naval vessels that had operated near the Chinese coast. Both sides agreed to "step down" over that issue.
....
Regarding the Dalai Lama, China hoped the United States would deny him a visa, and if not, then agree to hold no official meetings with him, including no meeting with President Obama.
....
The Charge (i.e. US Representative in China) expressed concern with China's defining Tibet as a "core issue" with the apparent expectation that others would "step back."
The Dalai Lama is a respected religious leader and Nobel Laureate, and U.S. officials meet with him in that capacity. Future meetings by U.S. officials with the Dalai Lama could not be ruled out. China should take steps to address Tibetans' legitimate grievances and engage the Dalai Lama's representatives in productive dialogue. Denying a visa to the Dalai Lama was not being contemplated.
....
....
17. (C) Another issue that could "derail" relations was arms sales to Taiwan, VFM He said.
....
....
21. (C) China was concerned by "momentum" that was building on UN Security Council reform, which was "not good" for the P-5, VFM He said. China wanted the United States to maintain its position on UNSC reform and not be "proactive" on the matter, which the PRC feared could result in a UN General Assembly resolution on the subject. The P-5 "club" should not be "diluted". Moreover, it would be difficult for the Chinese public to accept Japan as a permanent member of the UNSC. The Charge replied that...it was hard to envision any expansion of the Council that did not include Japan, which was the second-largest contributor to the UN budget.

[Rupesh]

The return of G-2?

a newspaper run by the Chinese Communist Party published a plan for an alternative world order, based on a mutuality of interests between China and the US.It asserted, though, that the article, in the November 22 edition of People’s Daily Online, represented only the views of the authors — who include John Milligan-Whyte and Dai Min, authors of China and America’s Leadership in Peaceful Coexistence, and Thomas P.M. Barnett, the author of The Pentagon’s New Map, and leading Chinese policy experts.The article describes the benefits of the grand strategy they propose: “[it] will promote US economic recovery, increase US exports to China, create 12 million US jobs, balance China-US trade as well as reduce US government deficits and debt. Furthermore, it will stabilise the US dollar, global currency and bond markets. It will also enable reform of international institutions, cooperative climate change remediation, international trade, global security breakthroughs... The essence of the grand strategy is that the United States and China will balance their bilateral trade and never go to war with each other, and the US will refrain from seeking regime change and interference in China’s internal affairs with regard to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, the Internet, human rights, etc and China will continue its political, legal, economic and human rights reforms.”There are, of course, flashpoints there. On Taiwan and North Korea, the article says that “the Taiwan situation will be demilitarised by an informal US presidential moratorium on arms transfers to Taiwan, China’s reduction of strike forces arrayed against it, a reduction of US strike forces arrayed against China and ongoing joint peacekeeping exercises by US, Chinese and Taiwan militaries. The strategic uncertainty surrounding the nuclear programme in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) will be de-escalated by the US eschewing DPRK regime-change goals and China ensuring that the DPRK adopt policies along the lines of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms and terminate its nuclear weapons program.”And, meanwhile, on Asian regional security, “China will negotiate the eventual resolution of sovereignty disputes on the basis of the ASEAN Code of Conduct and... the United States and China will harmonise and coordinate their roles... and relations with Asian nations to ensure the peaceful coexistence and the economic stability

It also holds out certain assurances that China will accommodate the US’s concerns on Southeast Asia as well as on North Korean and Iranian proliferation, provided the US reciprocates on Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and human rights. The US must also forget down its desire for regime change in North Korea and Iran. And, in return for the US lifting its high-technology trade ban, China will invest $1 trillion in the US, presumably in new technologies, as well as help in balancing trade and enabling the US to manage debt reduction. But the glaring gap in the proposals is that there is no mention of Pakistani proliferation and Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism. While all the other issues listed by China are important to the US, casualties are being incurred by the US on the Pakistan front, and the US homeland is under threat from Pakistani terrorist organisations that are fielded by the Pakistan army behind the nuclear-missile deterrence shield that China provides to Islamabad. This may have one of two implications: either Pakistan, unlike North Korea and Iran, is not under Chinese influence; or Pakistan, in Chinese strategic interests, is a non-negotiable factor. There is also no mention of US interests in India — even after the development of the Indo-US strategic partnership. Does this mean that China hopes to wean the US away from its strategic partnership with India, as part of the price for the deal? Or do they hope to frighten India into a non-aligned submission to China’s hegemony over the mainland of Asia

China’s, and the authors’, value systems are evident from their advocacy that such a Sino-US deal should be outside the purview of the US Congress purview: they say it should be “agreed upon by the presidents of both nations through an ‘executive agreement’ not subject to US Senate ratification.” Surely, now that these ideas have been publicised, the present US president — with two years to go before seeking re-election — will find it difficult to move in this direction, as there will be accusations of his selling out to China. It is also clear that there are sections in China who are of the view that, just as the US helped China’s rise to second position in the world so that its resources and cheap labour could benefit US multinationals and US consumers — both by way of cheap consumer goods and credit expansion in the US — now the US will help China by releasing high technology, and thereby help themselves, benefiting through job creation and debt reduction

This article — published, significantly, on the eve of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s visit to India and Pakistan — holds out the possibility that China thinks it is possible to use the US to attain hegemonic power. Let us wake up to reality!

[shynee]

India still weighs Chinese demand for Nobel boycott

BEIJING/NEW DELHI: With just a week to go before the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 is formally conferred, in absentia, on Liu Xiaobo, a prominent Chinese dissident, at Oslo City Hall on December 10, India is yet to take a call on a Chinese demarche asking countries around the world to boycott the ceremony.

A number of senior officials told The Hindu that their own view was that India should attend the ceremony this year, just as it has been doing in the past. But a careful review of the issue is, nevertheless, being conducted at the highest levels of the government before a decision is taken. One complicating factor is the planned arrival in New Delhi of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao a few days after the Oslo function.

Chinese Foreign Ministry officials recently told Indian Ambassador to China S. Jaishankar that China wanted India to boycott the ceremony. Chinese officials have met with diplomats from almost every country in recent weeks, conveying the same message. Among those who have said they will stay away are Russia and Pakistan.

‘Will damage ties'

The Foreign Ministry did not directly respond to questions on how the bilateral relationship would possibly be affected if India sent a representative to the ceremony. But diplomats from several countries have told The Hindu that they had been warned by Beijing that attending the ceremony would “damage” ties. In some instances, diplomats were also told that Chinese companies would be instructed to either cut or reduce trade links.

China has suspended negotiations over a free trade accord with Norway over the issue. “It is difficult to maintain friendly relations with Norway as in the past,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said on Thursday.

One option the Norwegians are reportedly considering is awarding the prize to two empty chairs, symbolising the incarcerated Liu and his absent wife.

[VinodTK]

China’s sensitivity to India’s core concerns needed: Rao

[RajeshA]

China’s sensitivity to India’s core concerns needed: Rao

Considering how long the Chinese have not relented on something as simple as this, the Indians must learn some lessons on how to deal with China. Imploring China to respect Indian core concerns is stupid. lndia should give Taiwan full diplomatic recognition and openly say that India sees no reason to support the "One-China Policy".

[ramana]

X-post....

Lee Kuan Yew sees the inexorable draw or gravitational pull of the PRC economy. What he is saying is the creation of giant economic blob with PRC. Despite his Chinese origins he doesn't want to be part of that economic blob. He sees the other giant economic blob as US. The US run econ blob is much bigger even if demographically weaker. (As an aside if it weren't for US immigration it would be much smaller!)

Yew wants to merge the US econ blob with the Indian demographic blob to create a duality. However he ignores the fact that the Chinese blob depends on the US econ blob for its sustenance. And US policies are to sustain G-2.

The Brits built on the Indian Ocean trading system which is an Indian run trading system. Industrial revolution changed the dynamics and made interanl consumption greater than trading in the 19th century. The US started industrialization in late 19th century andsurged ahead such tat it took over the leadership from the British system. It is still a consumption system and survives on cheap goods from China. So Lee Kuan Yew's advice even if its rational will not be implemented for G-2 are Siamese twins or Janus faced. They cannot survive if they are de-coupled.


India needs to revive the Indian Ocean trading system and revive the British Empire trading system to create India wealth as acharya said elsewhere. The GOI intiative to create a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is a step in the direction. Also to transform the Commonwealth relationship there is a need for rotating the Commonwealth head among the Commonwealth Heads of State in order for the group to feel valued and not get poached by tempting offers from either of the two blobs...

[Venkarl]

China’s sensitivity to India’s core concerns needed: Rao

Considering how long the Chinese have not relented on something as simple as this, the Indians must learn some lessons on how to deal with China. Imploring China to respect Indian core concerns is stupid. lndia should give Taiwan full diplomatic recognition and openly say that India sees no reason to support the "One-China Policy".

I am not being defensive or defeatist in attitude....I guess every diplomat works out all possible scenarios and responses before his/her meeting with a foreign diplomat..Taiwan is beyond our diplomats and Indian political establishment have to work out on that...unfortunately{for India} Chinese have aggressive diplomacy with strong undiplomatic counter-steps like proliferation of nuclear and missile systems...Can we be or develop such aggression in our diplomacy with a smile on our face? ..Geopolitics and diplomacy are a chess like game where we need to have counter-reaction procedures for every action we take while retaining status quo atleast if not upper hand. We all(including me) want India to establish full diplomatic ties with Taiwan...but after that what? I believe that Taiwan and Tibet should remain as a part of our objectives but not the only objective w.r.t China....so Indian Leadership should first work on their objectives w.r.t China? Only then our diplomacy can be worked out accordingly......AFAIK...Indian Leadership has no clue about handling Chinese adventures and look up to US which is why Mrs.Rao talks of hyphenating India with China to Holbrooke....

JMT

[DavidD]

China’s sensitivity to India’s core concerns needed: Rao

Considering how long the Chinese have not relented on something as simple as this, the Indians must learn some lessons on how to deal with China. Imploring China to respect Indian core concerns is stupid. lndia should give Taiwan full diplomatic recognition and openly say that India sees no reason to support the "One-China Policy".

So, will you recognize Taiwan as an independent country even though the Taiwanese have not declared independence, or will you recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of the whole of China?

[Pratyush]

David,

Would be kind enough to educate the posters, as to exactly what is considered a soverigen and indipendent nation? Where the Nation of Tiwan fails in that classification as a soverigen nation.

[putnanja]

So, will you recognize Taiwan as an independent country even though the Taiwanese have not declared independence, or will you recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of the whole of China?

Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back

[TonyMontana]

So, will you recognize Taiwan as an independent country even though the Taiwanese have not declared independence, or will you recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of the whole of China?

Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back

I reject this in the strongest sense possible. Taiwan was, is and always will be an integral part of the People's Republic of China. The will of the Taiwannese people and the Chinese people can not be defied. Reunification is the only resolution of the Taiwan issue.

[Arihant]

Considering how long the Chinese have not relented on something as simple as this, the Indians must learn some lessons on how to deal with China. Imploring China to respect Indian core concerns is stupid. lndia should give Taiwan full diplomatic recognition and openly say that India sees no reason to support the "One-China Policy".

So, will you recognize Taiwan as an independent country even though the Taiwanese have not declared independence, or will you recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of the whole of China?

Educate me here, DavidD - I thought that Taiwan was always independent. How exactly do the 24 or so UN member states that have full diplomatic relations recognize Taiwan? The debate in Taiwanese politics is all about the subtle matter of changing the name of the government to a "Republic of Taiwan" or some such, and ditching the quixotic KMT fantasy of militarily conquering China again (but who knows, that might not be a bad idea ). As some in the free world know (but most living behind the bamboo curtain don't), the KMT in Taiwan actually maintained a fictitious "legislature" representing all of China, but that was abolished more than a decade ago. Taiwan is constitutionally entirely indepedent - I would be curious if any of our Chinese brethren could offer proof of any de jure "dependence" of Taiwan on China (discounting of course the manfactured news and history that often emanates from China).

[Arihant]

Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back

I reject this in the strongest sense possible. Taiwan was, is and always will be an integral part of the People's Republic of China. The will of the Taiwannese people and the Chinese people can not be defied. Reunification is the only resolution of the Taiwan issue.

Tony-bhai: I reject your rejection in an even stronger sense. Taiwan was never an integral part of the People's Republic of China, and even the PRC historians tasked with manufacturing a fictional history of Taiwan would balk at such a proposition (seeing how the history of the PRC only goes back to 1949).

I agree entirely that the will of the Taiwanese people cannot be defied (and congratulate you on acknowledging that very important point). The will of the Chinese people is another matter altogether - given that they are a people foreign to Taiwan, I don't see how their will is germane to Taiwan's deliberations on its future.

I think the world is tiring of the Chinese strategy of manufacturing reality by repeating falsity ad nauseum. You could say that "Taiwan is an integral part of China" and I could say that "the Hubei province is an integral part of India", but neither of us would be right....

[Arihant]

So, will you recognize Taiwan as an independent country even though the Taiwanese have not declared independence, or will you recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of the whole of China?

Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back

Putnanja: You've made a good point by drawing the analogy with Pakistan and Bangladesh (one could also note that a similar claim would hold for the UK vis-a-vis the US, or Australia vis-a-vis New Zealand, or France vis-a-vis Quebec).

On a minor factual note, Taiwan and China were not one nation 50 years back. Between 1892 and 1945, Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire. Prior to 1892 Taiwan was at various points self-governing, part of the Portuguese Empire, the Dutch crown and for a while under British control (none prior to the Japanese managed to establish administrative control over the entire island). For some decades in the late 1700s, Taiwan was ruled by a personage (Koxinga) of mixed Chinese-Japanese ancestry. For a period of about 30 years prior to 1892, the Manchu dynasty in Peking sent tax collectors to a couple of urban centres in Taiwan (where they met with mixed tax collection success), but consistently refused to include Taiwan in their maps of China.

Interestingly, none of the early maps of China put out by the Communist Party of China under Mao Tse-Tung included Taiwan. The desire to acquire Taiwan appeared at a pretty late stage of the game.

From 1945 to 2000, Taiwan was ruled by a regime (the KMT) that controlled in the first 4 years (1945 - 1949) a small (and rapidly decreasing) fraction of Chinese territory, and post-1949, none at all.

So Taiwan and China were not one nation 50 years back.

[putnanja]

Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back

I reject this in the strongest sense possible. Taiwan was, is and always will be an integral part of the People's Republic of China. The will of the Taiwannese people and the Chinese people can not be defied. Reunification is the only resolution of the Taiwan issue.

Why? If China was so sure about the will of Taiwanese people, why do they raise such a hue and cry and threaten Taiwan if it tries to go for a referendum on the issue? You will surely agree that a referendum in Taiwan on whether to re-unite with China or not is important to determine the fate of Taiwan?

[TonyMontana]

Tony-bhai: I reject your rejection in an even stronger sense. Taiwan was never an integral part of the People's Republic of China, and even the PRC historians tasked with manufacturing a fictional history of Taiwan would balk at such a proposition (seeing how the history of the PRC only goes back to 1949).

I agree entirely that the will of the Taiwanese people cannot be defied (and congratulate you on acknowledging that very important point). The will of the Chinese people is another matter altogether - given that they are a people foreign to Taiwan, I don't see how their will is germane to Taiwan's deliberations on its future.

I think the world is tiring of the Chinese strategy of manufacturing reality by repeating falsity ad nauseum. You could say that "Taiwan is an integral part of China" and I could say that "the Hubei province is an integral part of India", but neither of us would be right....

You rejection is duely noted. I must condemn this rejection without reservations. Taiwan, since the recapturing of island by the Most Mighty and Magnificant Admiral, remain by right and mandate an integral part of the rightful desendants of the Old Empire. The People's Republic.