US and PRC relationship & India

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby abhischekcc » 02 Oct 2012 10:34

Original thought is not a problem for Indian students - our problems are lack of systems thinking and inability to work in teams. It is a reflection of the secular education that has cut us off from our roots.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4079
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Lilo » 19 Oct 2012 20:35

x- post

Suppiah wrote:I think I read in Deccanherald print...gotta search..

here is it..quoted by Kuldip Nayyar

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/283 ... chief.html

Gadkari does not like China. Even during his visit to the country, he said, he was unhappy because “they think no end of themselves.” He has been hurt by some anti-India remarks he had heard. “We can become friends of Pakistan, but not China which has unlimited ambitions,” said Gadkari. These were, more or less, the words which Lal Bahadur Shastri had used when he, as home minister, visited the forward areas after the India-China war in 1962. I was his press officer


Interesting the little man so many years ago, had the foresight..

Talking of anti-Indian agenda, it is interesting how unkil himself has an anti-hindu agenda, although it is more pro-EJ agenda that manifests itself as anti-hindu. But its friends in India are not just not anti-hindu, but very much pro-hindu. On the contrary, Beijing, being godless commies, have no specific anti-hindu agenda, but its 'friends' in India have a visceral hatred for anything hindu...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 05 Dec 2012 02:36

Should have been posted here first....

Don wrote:http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/china-overtaking-u-s-as-global-trader

China overtaking U.S. as global trader


By JOE McDONALD and YOUKYUNG LEE

World Nov. 29, 2012 - 07:15AM JST ( 23 )


SEOUL —

Shin Cheol-soo no longer sees his future in the United States.

The South Korean businessman supplied components to American automakers for a decade. But this year, he uprooted his family from Detroit and moved home to focus on selling to the new economic superpower: China.

In just five years, China has surpassed the United States as a trading partner for much of the world, including U.S. allies such as South Korea and Australia, according to an Associated Press analysis of trade data. As recently as 2006, the U.S. was the larger trading partner for 127 countries, versus just 70 for China. By last year the two had clearly traded places: 124 countries for China, 76 for the U.S.

___

In the most abrupt global shift of its kind since World War II, the trend is changing the way people live and do business from Africa to Arizona, as farmers plant more soybeans to sell to China and students sign up to learn Mandarin.

The findings show how fast China has ascended to challenge America’s century-old status as the globe’s dominant trader, a change that is gradually translating into political influence. They highlight how pervasive China’s impact has been, spreading from neighboring Asia to Africa and now emerging in Latin America, the traditional U.S. backyard.

Despite China’s now-slowing economy, its share of world output and trade is expected to keep rising, with growth forecast at up to 8 percent a year over the next decade, far above U.S. and European levels. This growth could strengthen the hand of a new generation of just-named Chinese leaders, even as it fuels strain with other nations.

Last year, Shin’s Ena Industry Co. made half his sales of rubber and plastic parts to U.S. factories. But his plans call for China, which overtook the United States as the biggest auto market in 2009, to rise fivefold to 30% of his total by 2015. He and his children are studying Mandarin.

“The United States is a tiger with no power,” Shin said in his office, where three walls are lined with books, many about China. “Nobody can deny that China is the one now rising.”

___

Trade is a bit like football — the balance of exports and imports, like the game score, is a neat snapshot of a jumble of moves that make up the economy, and both sides are apt to accuse each other of cheating from time to time. Also, the U.S. and China are both rivals and partners who can’t have a match without each other, and a strong performance from both is good for the entire league.

Trade may get less publicity than military affairs or diplomacy, yet it is commerce that generates jobs and raises living standards. Trade can also translate into political power. As shopkeepers say, the customer is always right: Governments listen to countries that buy their goods, and the threat to stop buying is one of the most potent diplomatic weapons.

China has been slow to flex its political muscle on a large scale but is starting to push back in disputes over trade, exchange rates and climate change.

“When a German chancellor or French president goes to China, right at the top of the list, he’s trying to sell Airbuses and other products and is being sensitive to China’s political concerns, like on human rights,” said C. Fred Bergsten, a former U.S. Treasury Department official who heads the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

The United States is still the world’s biggest importer, but China is gaining. It was a bigger market than the United States for 77 countries in 2011, up from 20 in 2000, according to the AP analysis.

The AP is using International Monetary Fund data to measure the importance of trade with China for some 180 countries and track how it changes over time. The analysis divides a nation’s trade with China by its gross domestic product.

The story that emerges is of China’s breakneck rise, rather than of a U.S. decline. In 2002, trade with China was 3 percent of a country’s GDP on average, compared with 8.7% with the U.S. But China caught up, and surged ahead in 2008. Last year, trade with China averaged 12.4% of GDP for other countries, higher than that with America at any time in the last 30 years.

Of course, not all trade is equal. China’s trade is mostly low-end goods and commodities, while the U.S. competes at the upper end of the market.


{There is space in the middle for India if savvy indian traders understand}

Also, even though Chinese companies invest abroad and employ thousands of foreign workers, they lag behind American industry in building global alliances and in innovation, which is still rewarded in the marketplace. China’s competitive edge remains low labor and other costs, while the U.S. is the world’s center for innovation in autos, aerospace, computers, medicine, munitions, finance and pharmaceuticals. The Chinese have yet to build a car that will pass U.S. or European emission standards.

And the United States still does more trade overall — but just barely. If the trend continues, China will push past the U.S. this year, a remarkable feat for a country so poor 30 years ago that the average person had never talked on a telephone.

“The center of gravity of the world economy has moved to the east,” said Mauricio Cardenas, the finance minister in Colombia. Like most of Latin America, his country is still more closely tied to the U.S., but its trade with China has risen from virtually nothing to 2.5% of GDP, a more than tenfold increase since 2001. “I would say that there is nothing comparable in the last 50 years.”

In one sense, China’s growing presence in trade is just restoring the Middle Kingdom to its historic dominance. China was the biggest economy for centuries until about 1800, when the industrial revolution propelled first Europe and then the U.S. into the lead.

China began its return to the global stage in the 1990s as a manufacturer of low-priced goods, from T-shirts to toys. Factories in other countries slashed costs to meet the “China price” or were pushed out of the market.

As the new millennium dawned, the U.S. remained by far the world’s dominant trader, rivaled collectively by Europe but no single nation. However, from 2000 to 2008, China’s imports grew 403% and exports 474%, driven in part by its entrance into the World Trade Organization and its move to higher-value production.

China’s imports of oil and raw materials for its factories propelled resource booms in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. China’s demand for steel for manufacturing and construction grew so fast that its mills now consume half the world’s output of iron ore.


Zambia, a major copper producer, switched to the China column in 2000. Australia, a coal and iron ore exporter, followed in 2005. Chile, another copper supplier, moved in 2009.

Meanwhile, exports surged as Apple, Samsung, Nokia and other electronics giants shifted final assembly to China. Shipments of mobile phones, flat-screen TVs and personal computers have jumped sevenfold over the past decade to nearly $500 billion. That made China a major customer for high-tech components supplied by countries such as South Korea, which swung into China’s column in 2003, followed by Malaysia in 2007.

In the U.S., Vermont-based manufacturer SBE Inc started exporting capacitors — energy-storage devices used in computers, hybrid cars and wind turbines — in 2006. The company now gets 15 to 20 percent of its revenue from China, and has hired 10 employees there.

As China grew richer, its people spent more.

Chinese ate more pork, fried chicken and hamburgers, rapidly sending up the demand for soybeans to make cooking oil and feed for pigs and cows. Some cattle ranchers in Latin America turned grazing land into fields of soy, a crop few in their region consume. Soybean exports helped push Brazil into the China column in 2010, and put China neck and neck with the U.S. as Argentina’s top trading partner.

In the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, some 10,000 miles (17,000 kilometers) from Beijing, farmer Agenor Vicente Pelissa and his family raise cattle and soy on 54,300 acres, a farm twice the size of Manhattan. Half their 21,000-ton annual soybean harvest goes to China.

“We’ve invested more in technology and in better machines and equipment to meet this rising demand,” Pelissa said. “If it hadn’t been for China, we would not have not modernized our operations, at least not as quickly as we did.”

Even in the U.S., better known for manufacturing, farmers are rushing to sell to China. The United States is the largest exporter of soybeans to China, followed by Brazil and Argentina. China’s purchases of American soybeans have risen from almost nothing 20 years ago to a quarter of the crop: 24 million tons worth $12.1 billion, America’s largest export to China.

The boom is having a profound effect on farming communities, said Grant Kimberley, whose family farm near Des Moines, Iowa, now grows 4,000 acres of soybeans, up from 3,500 eight years ago.

“It’s provided more revenue for these farmers than they’ve ever seen in their lives,” said Kimberley, who is also director of market development at the Iowa Soybean Association. He said he sees more young people returning to the farm. “People can see there’s an opportunity to make nice livings for their families.”

___

It was the 2008 global crisis that showed the resilience of China’s exporters.

The recession set everyone back, but China less so than the U.S. or other major traders such as Germany. China does a bigger share of its trade with developing countries that suffered less and rebounded faster, while the United States sells to rich economies that are struggling. Chinese companies have boosted exports by 7% this year despite anemic global demand.


During the recession, Shin, the South Korean auto parts manufacturer, saw his sales fall 50%. He shut one of three production lines, and banks stopped lending him money.

But China’s auto market was powering ahead. So Shin hired an employee in China, and is now making plans for his first factory there. On a business trip to Germany, clients told him their Chinese factories would be larger than those at home.

Parents like Shin, who work at companies doing business with China, in turn fed enrollment growth at schools such as Teacher Ching, a Chinese-language kindergarten in Seoul.

Nancy Ching, the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan, opened the school with 15 students in 2004, the year after South Korea first moved from the U.S. column to the China column. Today she has 60.

“Mothers who send their kids here believe our children’s generation is the China generation,” she said in Chinese-accented Korean. “In the future, without learning Chinese, one won’t be able to get a job.”

China resumed its upward trajectory in the last two years. Even with key Western markets in a slump, exports are up 58 percent since 2009. Imports are up an even sharper 73%.

Rising incomes have driven demand for wine and other luxury goods, making China a lifeline for European and American vineyards when the global crisis battered traditional markets.

The Chinese have “helped Bordeaux a lot these past three years,” said Florence Cathiard, owner of Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte in the Pessac-Leognan area of France’s southwest, home of high-end Bordeaux wine.

France’s wine exports to China first surged in 2009, and by last year, China had surpassed the U.S. as a customer by volume. Americans still spend more, because they buy more expensive wines. But China is developing a taste for grand cru wine, the “great growths” that are considered exceptional and command higher prices.

Cathiard acknowledged that she was initially wary of China as a reliable market for her high-end wines. But the turning point for her came around 2008, when she was blown away by the number of people showing up for a master class by her chateau at a wine expo in Hong Kong.

China now accounts for 25% of Cathiard’s sales, making it her largest market.

The owners of Chateau Haut-Bailly, also in Pessac-Leognan, first traveled to China to test the waters in 2000, and it was too early.

“At the time, they didn’t know what a cork or a corkscrew was,” said Veronique Sanders, the chateau’s general manager.

Chinese sophistication has since advanced rapidly, she said.

“The difference with other emerging markets we’ve gone into in the past is the size of the country, which means it has an absolutely incredible potential.”

___

The next step in China’s trade evolution is to move beyond exporting TVs and lawn furniture to selling services and investing abroad.

The investment trend started with state-owned companies that bought stakes in foreign mines and oil fields. Smaller and private Chinese companies followed, acquiring foreign enterprises to gain a bigger foothold in overseas markets, more access to resources and better technology for their own development.

China is now pushing into construction and engineering, where U.S. and European companies have long dominated.

In Algeria, Chinese state-owned companies pushed aside established French and German rivals to win contracts to build a $12 billion cross-country highway and the $1.3 billion Great Mosque of Algeria. The Chinese have also built highways, dams and other projects in developing countries and are starting to win contracts in the U.S. and Europe.

On a new 50-kilometer (30-mile) highway leading north of Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, dark asphalt stretches across six to eight lanes.

The $300 million road was built by three Chinese companies and financed by the African Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China. It has cut a trip that took several hours 18 months ago to 10 minutes, said Joseph Makori, a professional driver.

“When we see the people from America, they say, ‘We want to assist Kenya’,” said Makori as he looked for work at an interchange about 10 kilometers from downtown. “But I don’t see it. China comes and I see one thing: the road.”

Chinese companies are starting to win government contracts in Kenya, which has ports that offer access to landlocked Uganda, South Sudan and Rwanda. Governments in Africa are keen to work with China because it does not tie development to human rights or democracy, said Stephen Mutoro, secretary general of the Consumer Federation of Kenya.

“China appears to have a long-term plan based on increasing its commercial interests where governance issues are given a back burner,” Mutoro said. The experience of Congo might foreshadow a more complex approach that Beijing envisages for other African nations. In 2008, the two governments signed a $9 billion deal for Chinese companies to build 177 hospitals and health centers, two hydroelectric dams and thousands of miles of railways and roads. In exchange, Congo was to provide 10.6 million tons of copper and 600,000 tons of cobalt.

The deal has since been scaled back to $6 billion under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, which felt Congo was taking on too much debt.

China’s outbound investment totaled $67.6 billion last year — just one-sixth of America’s nearly $400 billion — but it could reach $2 trillion by 2020, according to a forecast by Rhodium Group, a research firm in New York City.

As a result, Chinese companies are using a new export — jobs.

Employees at Volvo Cars worried after Chinese automaker Geely Holdings bought the money-losing Swedish brand from Ford Motor Co. in 2010. But two years later, instead of moving jobs to China, Geely has expanded Volvo’s European workforce of 19,500 to about 21,500.

Majority-owned U.S. affiliates of Chinese companies support about 27,000 American jobs, up from fewer than 10,000 five years ago, according to Rhodium.

In Goodyear, Arizona, Stacey Rassas was laid off in May 2010 after a 16-year career in quality control for aerospace and aluminum manufacturers. By late autumn, she and her husband were worried they might lose their house.

She finally landed a job that December at a new factory that makes solar panels for one of the world’s biggest solar manufacturers.

“It was the best day ever,” she said.

Her new employer? Suntech Power Holdings Co, a Chinese company.


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21195
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Prem » 05 Dec 2012 04:23

Chinese State Firm Pleads Guilty In U.S. Over Pakistan Nuclear Exports
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014325236
A Chinese state-owned company has pleaded guilty in the United States and been fined $3 million for conspiring to violate U.S. nuclear export restrictions on Pakistan.
The China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction company was charged with supplying U.S.-manufactured high-temperature coatings to a Pakistani nuclear power plant, using a distributor in China to evade U.S. regulations. The firm pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington on December 3. U.S. authorities have imposed a $2 million criminal fine on the company.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 05 Dec 2012 23:55

Can be x-posted to Foreign Policy thread also:

Why Nehru failed to woo US-Jaswant Singh

Will comment later.


Why Nehru failed to woo America

Saturday, 01 December 2012 19:14

Ppioneer ..

There was everything in favour of a strong, vibrant relationship between India and the United States when the former became independent. But it didn’t happen. Jaswant Singh looks for answers in one of the articles in his new book. Excerpts

In the shaping of independent India’s foreign policy three main, often conflicting, themes came into play. The primary impulse was, of course, anti-imperialistic. After all, the quest for Independence had been a struggle against the British empire. This strongly influenced the formulation of ideas as far as foreign policy was concerned. There was an undefined but not too unnatural affinity felt towards all the Asian and African countries struggling to attain independence. India, and more particularly Jawaharlal Nehru, its first Prime Minister, felt that the natural and right course for it was to articulate this desire. In its very embryonic form this is what gave birth to the concept of non-alignment. Here, somewhat at odds with the primary impulse, the second strand came into play. This, paradoxically enough, was the British legacy itself.

Independent India did not inherit a machinery for the structuring and conduct of its foreign policy. That had all along been the domain of Whitehall. Upon achieving Independence what India did inherit was a handful of civil servants and a host of British prejudices. Then as if to compound the situation, policy-making became individualised. The formulation of foreign policy was unilaterally adopted by India’s first Prime Minister as his sole prerogative. This was perhaps inevitable as none else in the Congress had either the ability or the desire to involve themselves in the unknown intricacies of this discipline. Specially when so much more was available elsewhere. Inevitably, therefore, India’s foreign policy came more to represent Nehru’s personal predilections and prejudices than to reflect the distilled formulation of alternative options based on a rational assessment of the short- and long-term criteria of ‘national interest’.

As has been mentioned earlier, amongst the most important factors contributing to the structuring of independent India’s foreign policy was its struggle for Independence. Inevitably, therefore, anti-imperialism became one of the cornerstones of independent India’s foreign policy. The original duality started from here. On the one hand, India had struggled and achieved independence from Great Britain. On the other, simultaneously India inherited Great Britain’s reservations about the US. But more important was the inheritance by leaders of independent India of the views, thoughts and prejudices of the era. This, combined with the absence of an institutional frame for policy formulation, was to have a telling effect from which India is yet to free itself.


{Actually it was rest of India that struggeld against the British while JLN was a brown British elite}

On the formation of the interim government in September 1946, Nehru, while asserting that India would develop an active concern in world affairs and pursue an independent foreign policy, simultaneously recognised that India’s foreign policy would be to “some extent a continuation of British foreign policy; to some extent a reaction against it”. This is perhaps one of the earliest statements that Nehru made on foreign policy as Prime Minister. The continuation of the British foreign policy, it ought to be recognised, then had an anti-American bias built into it. The bias was undefined and came across more as a prejudice than anything more substantial. This is an oft-made observation and finds an echo in Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He says: “The second general point about Socialist doctrine as it developed in Britain was that it was anti-American. More anti-American, surely, than it was ever anti-Soviet. The reasons for this are not that obscure. The British were not very much admiring of Americans in that era, nor we of them. In part, their attitude began as aristocratical disdain.” (An intimate of Nehru’s described once asking India’s first Prime Minister why he was so anti-American. This was in 1961. Nehru’s first reaction was a rather huffy denial of any such predispositions but he then became reflective and after a moment admitted that, yes, it was true, and that principally it all dated back to his days at Harrow. There was one American boy there at the time — filthy rich, and much too pushing.) The bias was thus that of a ‘Socialist’ viewing America as quintessentially ‘Capitalist’. :rotfl:

These suspicions were not unidirectional. Just as India had inherited its British legacy of reservations about the US, so had the US an inheritance to carry. George Ball speaks of an advice tendered by Sir Harold Nicholson. Admittedly, the advice was more with reference to the Far East, but in its effect it covered the whole of Asia. It ran as follows: “Do not waste your time trying to discover what is at the back of the Oriental’s mind; there may, for all you know, be nothing at the back; concentrate all your attention upon making quite certain that he is left with no doubt whatsoever in regard to what is at the back of your mind.”

Independent India had started with abounding goodwill and faith in the US. To a large generation of Indians, America represented a support for its independence struggle, an ability to stand up to the British and a commitment to the freedom of the individual. This was no mean basis on which future relations were to be structured. Unfortunately, just below the surface, as Prof Norman Graebner has pointed out, there always lay a latent ‘American isolationism’. “Whenever this tended to assert itself, there was always concern for domestic economy, an over-estimation of US power, a belief in the US’s moral superiority and a tendency towards unilateralism in diplomacy.”

Repeatedly, over time, with the onset of the Cold War and the emergence of the Calvinism of the Dullesian era in the US, these characteristics were to manifest themselves in one form or another. To John F Dulles, and to the ‘nationalism-anti-Communist-warfare coalition’, Nehru’s reasoning and advocacy of non-alignment, seemed both over subtle and immoral. This was when “propaganda was set afoot claiming that India was inclined to communism and was encouraging its spread, that she and in particular her Prime Minister were arrogant, sought the leadership of Asia and were striving to develop into a strong and dominating power, and that India was opposed to Arab interests”. There were even scurrilous attempts made during this period to denigrate Nehru’s family. Even the wise old man of Indian politics, C Rajagopalachari, who in later life founded a conservative US-oriented party, was forced to advise Nehru: “Sometime or the other you will have to take the great step of not taking American aid. I hope I am not becoming a visionary, but it seems it is inevitable we take this step to complete the moral structure of our system.” To which a completely unembittered Nehru was to reply: “Will it help from moral or other points of view for us to take up a line which makes us appear to be actually hostile to the US...”


Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Cosmo_R » 06 Dec 2012 01:44

Why Nehru failed to woo the US etc ^^^

Many reasons, but chief among them and I lived through them first hand, albeit as a young kid watching from the sidelines and remembering the conversations:

JLN, VLP, VKKM and the various Dhars and Kauls set the tone. Best way to describe it is that the splendor of the Raj that mesmerized the Indian elite seemed top pale in comparison to the riches and affluence of the average American. One joke, endlessly repeated was: The Indian Ambassador to DC's chauffeur (an American) would drive to the Embassy every day in his Cadillac and then drive the Ambassador in the official Buick.

The odd result of this insecurity was that this lot reverted to hiding behind the veneer of British hauteur that had been previously directed at them: derision about American accents, spellings and lack of 'general knowledge' etc. Basically 'Americans may be rich but they are stupid.' As well as 'We are a 5000 year old civilization etc.' All of this was poorly received by the intended audience. Unlike British folklore, a Terry Thomas accent which works well in movies, did not work so well coming from Indians when aimed at GOTUS officials.

JLN's fascination for all things Soviet and Chinese did not make things any better. I remember that when Stalin died, it was declared a holiday in India and the flags were flown at half mast--and the grief in Delhi at the time was officially sanctioned at 7 Jantar Mantar. I did get the day off from school though. :)

The Americans had an agenda and still do. The trick is to leverage their needs to get what we want. That's where the JLN and coterie dropped the ball IMHO.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3348
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Rony » 15 Dec 2012 09:59

How the Rise of India and China Will Affect U.S. Foreign Policy

Cold Warrier Eric Heginbotham and Rollie Lal debate whether India in the future will also be a threat to US like china and should US hedge against such scenario ! Rollie lal simply outshined the cold warrior in the debate. At one point the cold warrier compares India with Taliban and says that US should not repeat the same mistake it did with the Taliban and hedge against its current ally so that it does not become a threat in the future.


Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Christopher Sidor » 16 Dec 2012 18:11

The recent NoKo's test and the predictable reponse by China was hardly surprising. China defends NoKo and says that it does not want to "disturb" the NoKo regime due to the fear of "refuges" over flowing into PRC proper. The population of NoKo is 24 million. Even if 10% or shall we say 20% of the population, i.e. 2.4 or 4.8 million people, were to cross over to China, one would hardly see an impact on a 1 billion plus country. And off course we have to assume that North Koreans would somehow seem to favor the PRC, with its different language and culture, over South Korea for refugee.

Basically the idea that PRC does not want or cannot handle or some how adding 2-5 million more people in a billion plus population would be destabilising, is bum. The real reason why PRC does not want NoKo to go is that it does not want American troops near its border and that too, so close to its national capital. All the rest that China does really not like NoKo or there is some sort of tensions between them is all theater, meant for outside consumption. And that is why NoKo survives. Otherwise this country would have been discarded in the dustbin of history long ago.

Where India is concerned it should draw appropriate conclusions.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3348
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Rony » 08 Jan 2013 09:21

U.S. pivot in response to both China and India’

A former top official in the Obama administration has sought to allay rising Chinese concerns about the American ‘pivot’ to Asia, telling an audience in Beijing that the move to strengthen U.S. presence in the region was directed not just at China but also at India.Jeffrey Bader, who as senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council of the Obama administration played a key role in shaping China policy between January 2009 and April 2011, said in a speech at Beijing’s elite Tsinghua University that the pivot, announced in November 2011, was a response to concerns voiced by many Asian governments about a lack of U.S. attention to the region amid the rise of China and India.

“When I became involved, in 2009, I heard repeatedly from senior officials from throughout Southeast Asia and also in the region that they were unhappy with what they saw as lack of American attention to the region, particularly Southeast Asia,” he said. “They see China rising. They see India rising on the other side. And if you’re a small country in that situation, your natural instinct is you want more big countries involved rather than less,” said Mr. Bader in the lecture last month, according to a transcript that was recently made available.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 08 Jan 2013 09:28

That should put an end to nonsense peddled by MMS and his coterie about US favoring India because they kowtow!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 10 Jan 2013 21:51

A related subject from Nightwatch. The point is for PRC total war means total no holds barred.

Japan-China: Bloomberg has published an excellent report that describes the economic consequences of Japan's dispute with China over ownership of the Senkaku Islands. No other news outlet has published a comparably insightful and detailed account.


The first point the journalists made is that trade relations between China and Japan multiply the costs of a territorial dispute. Japan's trade with China is valued at more than $300 billion per year, which is potentially at risk.


A Chinese boycott of Japanese imports would hurt China but might already have resulted in a reduction of GDP, according to Bloomberg citing JPMorgan Chase, because of reduced Chinese purchases of Japanese goods.


Ripple effects in China from boycotts of Japanese manufactures put at risk the jobs of millions of Chinese who work in Japanese industries in China. Japanese auto sales declined. Air travel cancellations increased in both countries. One Japanese department store retailer closed 60 of 169 stores because of anti-Japanese vandalism and threats.

Comment: The key point is that global economic integration magnifies the consequences of international disputes. Interdependency means both sides seriously suffer economically, although security incidents result in no casualties. Japan might have sustained a .5 per cent decline in GDP in the last quarter of 2012, essentially because of Chinese hostile, nationalistic responses to the islands dispute.

Both sides got hurt, but China can absorb the consequences more than Japan.

Another key point is that the dispute shows how the Chinese fight in every kind of battle space - at sea, in the air, on the land, in cyber space, in international political space and in economic space. Total warfare means total to the Chinese. They are experimenting with that in the Senkakus dispute.



It would be interesting to see the top two get into such a slug fest. US is allowing PRC to take out the other dogs in the pack.


Another point is trade will not prevail over national interests as argued by WKK idiots.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Christopher Sidor » 12 Jan 2013 02:19

Rony wrote:U.S. pivot in response to both China and India’

A former top official in the Obama administration has sought to allay rising Chinese concerns about the American ‘pivot’ to Asia, telling an audience in Beijing that the move to strengthen U.S. presence in the region was directed not just at China but also at India.Jeffrey Bader, who as senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council of the Obama administration played a key role in shaping China policy between January 2009 and April 2011, said in a speech at Beijing’s elite Tsinghua University that the pivot, announced in November 2011, was a response to concerns voiced by many Asian governments about a lack of U.S. attention to the region amid the rise of China and India.

“When I became involved, in 2009, I heard repeatedly from senior officials from throughout Southeast Asia and also in the region that they were unhappy with what they saw as lack of American attention to the region, particularly Southeast Asia,” he said. “They see China rising. They see India rising on the other side. And if you’re a small country in that situation, your natural instinct is you want more big countries involved rather than less,” said Mr. Bader in the lecture last month, according to a transcript that was recently made available.


Deeply indebted to you Rony. This is clearly need of the hour. Many of my countrymen have gone overboard with the so called India-US relationship, far more than "sweeter than honey, higher than mountains and deeper than oceans" crap. A reality check would be great for all of these people. Currently our interests to the East of India are aligned with US. But only to a certain extent. Our and US interests to the west of India are totally mismatched and in many places they clash.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Agnimitra » 06 Feb 2013 05:21

Ang Lee shows China the way forward
Three scenarios are possible for China in 20 years. One is that China manages to overtake the US and become the world’s number-one economy. A second possibility is that it fails to do so and spirals into a deep crisis, possibly breaking the country into many rival fiefdoms. A third is that China manages to avoid a major crisis, but also fails to overtake America while many aggressive neighboring countries compete with China for primacy in Asia.

Each scenario has multiple possibilities. There is little doubt that Beijing would prefer the first scenario, but that scenario is also the scariest for many countries in the world. It is the one that would meet with the greatest resistance for the simple reason that it is totally new, and in the past a China-dominated East Asia, including Korea and Vietnam, never cast its shadow over the whole world.

This is a political issue, but also very much a cultural one. America's present domination, as well as English colonialism before it, was and is created by culture and secondarily supported by soldiers. Hollywood movies, pop music, the international press, and world-class universities are the stuff that built the soft power of superpowers. And their works of art - Shakespeare, but also the imperialist Kipling - are voices that dominated countries like India's still appreciate. Hollywood went further, calling on talent from all over the world to build its imagery, which represented the world and not just America.

In the next 20 years, no matter which scenario occurs, will China try to impose its culture on the world, or will it do something else? The rigid political and administrative systems suggest it would be simpler to just push for more homegrown cultural production. But the experience of Li An tells a different story: China needs to hire talent from abroad and also fully understand different cultures. This is in a nutshell the secret of US success. Without this, China is unlikely to pull it through.

But there is also religion, which Life of Pi is about. Just-published research from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, "China Today: Challenges And Prospects For The New Evangelization" by Yan Kin Sheung Chiaretto, addresses some of these questions. Dr Yan explains the present Chinese social necessity for religion.

Traditional Taoism and Confucianism are not real religions, and do not satisfy the present search for a new meaning of life in China. Catholicism and Christianity could be an answer to this, argues Yan. Moreover, China may be the real, true new frontier for the Catholic Church. India, the other super-country population-wise, is extremely religious, as the Life of Pi also demonstrates.

It is hard, Yan argues, for other religions to make inroads in India, despite the presence of Christianity dating from the time of St Thomas in the 1st century AD. The Hindu religion is part of Indian identity, and with the birth of Pakistan, the massive spread of Islam, a different religion from abroad, broke the subcontinent.

China is different: traditional Taoism and Confucianism are not religions, and Buddhism, like Christianity, is a foreign religion, which didn't break the country but took a new life in China. The long-term question is why Christianity, which arrived in China shortly after Buddhism and at the same time of Islam, didn't manage to take root in China.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 06 Feb 2013 05:53

Carl,

Do look up what Octavio Paz says about the Madonna of Guadalupe!
If so bachke khaan jaaon ge Chini log?

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby D Roy » 06 Feb 2013 15:26

Chini log are very clever.

They will never let xtianity be used to meddle with them again. the ****** writing the above article does not know that dealing with xtianity or rop is nothing new for the Han.

After the taiping rebellion of the 19th century the chinese have no interest in letting the anglo-saxons ( who love to play both sides) meddle with their people again.

The Hui have also been dealt with by the Han in the past.

Anybody who has gone to china will know that there are very many young people who go to temples, light agarbattis and pray.

The han are presently in deep talks with the hindus on spiritual matters. BKS Iyengar is deeply respected by some chicom urbanites.



Ramana,

In case you don't know this already. Our relations with the briturds have nosedived. The briturds and the pro-briturd faction in Yamrika are trying to meddle too much of late using the Abduls as pawns (as usual). They won't succeed.

Chicom is drawing closer to India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby SSridhar » 06 Feb 2013 17:20

renukb, please use the quote tag while posting

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 23 Feb 2013 07:46

From Ram Narayanan:


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e_kuan_yew



FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE


Will China Ever Be No. 1?
If you want to know the answer, ask Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew.
BY GRAHAM ALLISON, ROBERT D. BLACKWILL |FEBRUARY 16, 2013

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/imag ... 488848.jpg

Will China continue to grow three times faster than the United States to become the No. 1 economy in the world in the decade ahead? Does China aspire to be the No. 1 power in Asia and ultimately the world? As it becomes a great power, will China follow the path taken by Japan in becoming an honorary member of the West?

Despite current punditry to the contrary, the surest answer to these questions is: No one knows. But statesmen, investors, and citizens in the region and beyond are placing their bets. And U.S. policymakers, as they shape the Obama administration's pivot to Asia, are making these judgments too. In formulating answers to these questions, if you could consult just one person in the world today, who would it be? Henry Kissinger, the American who has spent by far the most time with China's leaders since Mao, has an answer: Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee is the founding father of modern Singapore and was its prime minister from 1959 to 1990. He has honed his wisdom over more than a half century on the world stage, serving as advisor to Chinese leaders from Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping and American presidents from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. This gives him a uniquely authoritative perspective on the geopolitics and geoeconomics of East and West.

Lee Kuan Yew's answers to the questions above are: yes, yes, and no. Yes, China will continue growing several times faster than the United States and other Western competitors for the next decade, and probably for several more. Yes, China's leaders are serious about becoming the top power in Asia and on the globe. As he says: "Why not? Their reawakened sense of destiny is an overpowering force." No, China will not simply take its seat within the postwar order created by the United States. Rather, "it is China's intention to become the greatest power in the world -- and to be accepted as China, not as an honorary member of the west," he said in a 2009 speech.



Western governments repeatedly appeal to China to prove its sense of international responsibility by being a good citizen in the global order set up by Western leaders in the aftermath of World War II. But as Kissinger observes, these appeals are "grating to a country that regards itself as adjusting to membership in an international system designed in its absence on the basis of programs it did not participate in developing."

In Lee's view, "the Chinese are in no hurry to displace the U.S. as the number one power in the world." As he told us in an interview, some Chinese, "imagine that the 21st century will belong to China, others expect to share the century with the U.S. as they build up to the Chinese century to follow."

China's strategy to achieving preeminence, according to Lee, is "to build a strong and prosperous future and use their huge and increasingly highly skilled and educated workforce to out-sell, and out-build all others." Militarily, China's leaders do not envision a confrontation until the country has "overtaken the U.S. in the development and application of technology," an area in which it still lags.

As Lee says, "the Chinese have figured out that if they stay with 'peaceful rise' and just contest for first position economically and technologically, they cannot lose." But when it comes to hard power, Chinese leaders are primarily still heeding the maxim of Deng Xiaoping: "Hide your strength, bide your time."

Are we thus entering a Chinese era? Lee expects so, though he notes that "the chances of it going wrong in China are about one in five." If Lee is correct, leaders in both China and the United States will face a huge challenge in coming decades as a rising power rivals a ruling power. Historically, statesmen have failed this test: 11 of 15 such cases since 1500 ended in war. Today's leaders must bear this grim statistic in mind, learn from the success stories, and brace themselves for the fact that massive adjustments of attitudes and actions will be required by both sides to avoid violent conflict in the future.
Graham Allison is director of Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Robert D. Blackwill is Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. They are co-authors of Lee Kuan Yew: the Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States, and the World.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby pankajs » 28 Feb 2013 15:55

China is happy with John Kerry because it thinks he’ll drop the ‘pivot to Asia’
John Kerry’s first weeks as secretary of state, and even the weeks before he took the job, certainly gave the impression that he would focus on the Middle East– on restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, on nuclear negotiations with Iran, on the Syrian civil war–and he has. But he so far has not showed much enthusiasm for the Obama administration’s first-term “pivot to Asia.”

It’s not just Washington foreign policy analysts who’ve noticed Kerry’s pivot back to the Middle East. China appears to have taken note as well. And, judging by Chinese state media, the country is pretty pleased.
Kerry himself sort of predicted this when he said of the pivot during his confirmation hearings, “You know, the Chinese take a look at that and say, what’s the United States doing? They trying to circle us? What’s going on?”
If a goal of Kerry’s pivot-away-from-the-pivot is to improve ties with China, it looks like that plan might already be succeeding. But if it’s just about Kerry having more interest in the Middle East, where he has deeper experience, then that could be China’s gain.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby SSridhar » 28 Feb 2013 17:39

I do not think that the US can take the pivot back to West Asia. The sequence of events in East Asia has forced the US to take this pivot decision. Countries like Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and Philippines will not let the US slacken its focus in this part of the world and a 'peacefully rising' aggressive dragon will do everything to retain the US focus here. It is also trying to cleverly entice Russia on its side. It is not the US decision alone that matters anymore.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6935
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby shyamd » 28 Feb 2013 19:50

Agree with your assessment SS. The US has made commitments in the region - moving troops there, constructing a base in Aus.

Enticing Russia has always been the goal - its just that they have done a shite job of it in the last 2 decades. But I think we'll hear more on this front - if you notice Obama sent NSA Donilon to Moscow after elections - so I think Obama means business with Russia and try and get them on their side.
Ukraine will be the bridge

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby RamaY » 28 Feb 2013 20:02

shyamd wrote:Agree with your assessment SS. The US has made commitments in the region - moving troops there, constructing a base in Aus.

Enticing Russia has always been the goal - its just that they have done a shite job of it in the last 2 decades.


The west secured the west-asia using their hold on GCC by eliminating or checkmating their competitors (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Egypt and now Syria) in the region and making peace with the Sunni-Jihadi elements in the GCC periphery.

Sooner than later the entire west-asia will become a fortified sunni-empire under the name of OIC. It will receive technical and military support from West and trained slaves from Asia.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 28 Feb 2013 20:12

Try to get the main concepts of Thomas Kuhn's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions

and apply to other areas than science to get where things are going.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Agnimitra » 04 Mar 2013 09:25

X-post from Iran thread:

Raid on Iran boat reveals new Chinese missiles
An Iranian boat seized off the Yemeni coast was carrying sophisticated Chinese anti-aircraft missiles, a development that could signal an escalation of Iran's support to its Middle Eastern proxies, alarming other countries in the region and renewing a diplomatic challenge to the US.

Among the items aboard the dhow, according to a review of factory markings on the weapons and their packing crates, were 10 Chinese heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles, most of them manufactured in 2005.

The missiles were labelled QW-1M and bore stencils suggesting they had been assembled at a factory represented by the state-owned China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation, which is sanctioned by the US for transfers of missile technology to Pakistan and Iran.

The analysis of the weapons' markings and origins was based on photographs taken when Yemeni officials briefly displayed the weapons to journalists.

In 2008, late in the Bush administration, the US complained to China about two similar anti-aircraft missiles that were recovered from Shiite militants in Iraq, according to a diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks.

''We have demarched China repeatedly on its conventional arms transfers to Iran, urging Beijing to stop,'' a cable noted.

The Chinese missiles were part of a larger shipment interdicted by US and Yemeni forces in January, which US and Yemeni officials say was intended for Shiite Houthi rebels in north-western Yemen.

The shipment, which officials portray as an attempt to introduce sophisticated new anti-aircraft systems into the Arabian Peninsula, has raised concerns in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen, as the weapons would have posed escalated risks to civilian and military aircraft alike.

And it has presented the Obama administration with a fresh example of Iran's apparent transfer of modern missiles from China to insurgents in the larger regional contest between Sunni-led and Shiite-led states, in which the US military has often been entwined.

The US has previously accused Iran of sending weapons to the Houthis, who follow an offshoot of Shiite Islam. Saudi Arabia, a US ally, is considered the leading Sunni power in the region.

Both sides have aided and equipped groups or governments they deem aligned with their interests, helping to fuel violence in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Sudan and elsewhere.

Iran has rejected the allegations as ''baseless and absurd''. Neither the Iranian government nor the Chinese company that markets QW missiles answered written requests for comment.

The government of Yemen has asked the United Nations to investigate the shipment and report the findings to the Security Council. Yemeni news media reported that UN experts were in Yemen last week.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 08 Mar 2013 22:11

Nightwatch on NoKo belligerence. Am posting is this thread for I think NoKo wouldn't be doing this without PRC support. To use Rudradev's analogy, NoKo is a PRC "hool" to persuade US to give up in East Asia.

My concern is will TSP use this technique to aborgate Shimla Pact? And get emboldened by NoKo play if it succeeds and what will GOI in its ever present scam/crisis mode do?

Nightwatch 8 March 2013


Administrative note: This edition addresses in lengthy detail North Korean actions in the past 48 hours through this Watch. The statements and actions to dismantle the Armistice are unprecedented and historic because they officially restore an active state of war.


NightWatch's review of events since 1 January indicates that the North Koreans have been preparing this breakout since 2 February when Kim Jong Un began a series of meetings, starting with the Military Central Commission.

NightWatch judges the actions are deliberately planned because of their breadth, coherence and consistency. The North's depiction of itself as a victim reacting defensively is part of its deception strategy.


Readers not interested in North Korea will want to skip this lengthy treatment.


North Korean Actions on 7 March Before the UN Vote: North Korea's Foreign Ministry joined the official chorus with an official statement that stressed three points, according to the Korean Central News Agency.


"First, now that the U.S. is set to light a fuse for a nuclear war, the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country."


"The Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army declared that it would totally nullify the Korean Armistice Agreement (AA) from March 11 when the U.S. nuclear war rehearsal gets into full swing. This meant that from that moment the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will take military actions for self-defence against any target any moment, not restrained by AA."


"Second, the farce for the adoption of "resolution on sanctions" against the DPRK being backed by the U.S. at the UN Security Council will compel the DPRK to take at an earlier date more powerful second and third countermeasures as it had declared.


"Third, given that it has become difficult to avert the second Korean war, the DPRK strongly warns the UN Security Council not to make another big blunder like the one in the past when it earned inveterate grudge of the Korean nation by acting as a war servant for the U.S. in 1950….


"Justice can be defended only when strength is reacted with strength and nuke with nuke." It also called on the UN to disband the UN Command.


Comment: This statement was made in anticipation of the UN Security Council Resolution which had not yet been passed. It completes the set of statements by government and party groups who have responsibilities for maintaining the Armistice. It means that ending the Armistice is a unified party and government operation.

The reference to 1950 is particularly ominous because it betrays an inaccurate view of the situation today. The message is that the UN is acting today as it did in 1950. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

That is what is known as an incongruity, in propaganda analysis. It means the North Korean leadership is not reading the current situation accurately and that is extremely dangerous.

In Pyongyang, on 7 March, North Korea staged a large rally as a show of support for the 5 March statement by the Supreme Command.

The party daily, Rodong Sinmun published the remarks by Colonel General Kang Pyo Yong who addressed the rally, as reported by South Korea's Yonhap. This statement did not mention the UN sanctions resolution.

"According to Rodong Sinmun, Colonel General Kang said soldiers are already positioned to launch a war of reunification if the order is given by its leaders. The paper said the general made clear at a speech given at a rally in Pyongyang that intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other rockets capable of attacking pre-set targets have been armed with various types of atomic warheads."

"He claimed that missile warheads have been made lighter and smaller, and can turn Washington and other lairs of forces that collaborate with the U.S. imperialists into a 'sea of fire.'"

"Kang also said that with the Korean War Armistice Agreement having become null and void, the North Korean military can now launch preemptive strikes against the country's enemies without warning or restraint."

In a separate article, the Daily NK reported that the same issue of Rodong Sinmun carried a front page editorial that said "Our battle strategy has already been approved. Our ten million soldiers and citizens are full of the will to destroy the enemy."

The Daily NK reported that the 7 March issue of the party daily contained 15 articles threatening the US and South Korea because of the ongoing allied exercises in the South.

Comment: Colonel General Kang's speech indicates that North Korea is maintaining its missiles in a ready condition with warheads fitted. That is an essential condition for a pre-emptive attack and is believed to have never been stated in public before. Kang also accurately described the implications of no armistice.


The excerpt from the Rodong Sinmun editorial adds the information that the battle strategy has been approved already. North Korean leaders never tell the North Korean public about war plans or strategic weapons... until now.


Based on North Korean propaganda trends in past crises, six articles or broadcasts with variations on a single theme in a single day directed at the North Korean population is the threshold that indicates the North is in crisis mode. Rodong Sinmun published 15 in a single issue.

The intensive indoctrination of the North Korean public is more worrisome than specific announcements or actions. Through public statements, speeches and official news reports about actions at Panmunjom, North Korean leaders are generating a national perception that North Korea is under threat and that war is coming.

{Same as TSP is always warning its people that it is under threat.}

United Nations-North Korea: The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to punish North Korea for last month's nuclear test with a toughened sanctions regime.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, said the resolution "sent an unequivocal message to that the international community will not tolerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

North Korean reaction: The first known North Korean media reaction to the UN vote is a statement in English by the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland and published by the Korean Central News Agency at about 0900 on 8 March.

This statement contains a single paragraph that refers to the UN sanctions vote, which looks like a last minute insertion of a text already prepared for publication. Most of the content repeats the message of the Korean People's Army Supreme Command on 5 March. This statement, however, adds details that are focused on communications and crisis management channels with South Korea.

- "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) abrogates all agreements on non-aggression reached between the North and the South…"

"The South Korean puppet forces are working with bloodshot eyes to invade the DPRK in collusion with the U.S. This situation reduced to dead papers the north-south agreements on nonaggression which calls for nonuse of force against the other party, prevention of accidental military clashes, peaceful settlement of disputes and the issue of nonaggression demarcation line.


Therefore, the DPRK officially declares that from the moment the Korean Armistice Agreement is made totally invalid on March 11 all the said agreements will be completely nullified. …."


-"Second, the DPRK totally nullifies the joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula…."

"The U.S. and the puppet forces' nuclear war moves against the DPRK virtually put an end to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula long ago and rendered the joint declaration on its denuclearization totally meaningless. "


"Hence, the DPRK re-clarifies that the joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has become totally invalid."


"From now on, no one is allowed to utter such words as the DPRK's 'dismantlement of nukes' and 'no-use of nuclear weapons.'"


-"Third, the DPRK will close the Panmunjom liaison channel between the north and the south."


"There is nothing to talk to the puppet group of traitors hell-bent on the moves for a war of aggression against the north, blinded with confrontation and hostility towards compatriots."


"What remains to be done is to settle accounts with them by physical force only. "


"It is a mockery and insult to the noble Red Cross spirit to discuss compatriotism and humanitarian issues with those who consider confrontation with compatriots as a means for their existence."


Comment: What is curious about the above statement is that part of the justification for cutting communications with South Korea is that the US and South Korea are not taking the North's threats seriously. As a result, the Kim leadership group has ordered more actions. Senior military officers appear to be the public face of the leadership.

After the North Koreans complete the actions stated above, they will have cut all direct channels of communications with South Korea as well as the US, including the Red Cross channel.

Closure of direct communications channels is a classic indicator of general war. If North Korea recalls diplomats, closes the borders and airport and discloses more actions indicating it is in a semi-war state of readiness, the Allies must prepare for a North Korean military incident, if not an attack by fire.


Kim's visit. South Korean and North Korean media reported that Kim Jong Un visited the southwest coastal artillery units that shelled the South Korean offshore islands in November 2010. That shelling, along with the sinking of the patrol ship Cheonan, also is attributed to Kim's military genius.

Comment: A visit by Kim and his entourage always signifies that the host unit is in a high state of readiness. South Korea should have detected a buildup of artillery and supplies, as it did before the shooting in 2010.


Warning: The North's creation of a crisis atmosphere is driven by its decision to terminate the Armistice. This will create a fundamental change in the security situation. The decision to terminate the Armistice probably was made by the leadership in late January and discussed in the extensive and expanded Party and Government leadership meetings in early February.

This decision contains two immediate imperatives. One is offensive and the other is defensive. The offensive imperative is to show the US and South Korea that the Armistice is truly ended and the security situation on the peninsula has changed fundamentally. This creates conditions for negotiations based a very different set of assumptions about security.

The challenge is to do this without starting a general war, which North Korean leaders have long known they cannot survive. That explains Kim's trip to the southwest. In November 2010 North Korea fired on South Korea, ostensibly at Kim's direction, but the situation did not escalate to general war. He might judge that he can repeat that performance and the US and South Korea will understand that he is making a point, not starting a war.

{Classic hool to use RD's words}

This is an enormous gamble, which brings into focus the defensive imperative. The people must be ready for war in the event the gamble fails. Kim and his advisors exude confidence but they cannot know for sure how the US will react. The absence of an Armistice also means the US and the South can shoot at will.

That explains the intense indoctrination of the civilian population about the threat and the civil defense preparations. They are aimed at preparing the population to expect deprivation and hardship and to make exceptional exertions. An editorial on 7 March was entitled, "DPRK People Determined to Rise up in All-Out Action." In it , a farm leader said the agricultural workers are in full readiness for a sacred war for national reunification. That is not normal.


In the NightWatch experience, the last time North Korean media and behavior were so bellicose was prior to the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul. The key language in propaganda at that time, delivered by a Vice Marshal, was a statement, in paraphrase, that the situation is like that prior to the Korean War.

(Note: North Korea had partially mobilized at that time, but apparently was deterred from taking action by the presence of a US battleship task group and an aircraft carrier task group.)

The Foreign Ministry's statement on the 7th was comparable.

The South Korean offshore islands along the Northern Limit Line northwest of Seoul appear to be obvious targets to show that there is no armistice and that a permanent peace is urgently needed.

However, all North Korean forces will be at high readiness, especially along the Demilitarized Zone, to be ready for possible escalation. They can maintain a semi-war state of readiness for at least six months.

At this time, the North's civilian population does not yet appear fully ready for war, but they can be within two weeks.


And hence posting in this thread....

If this is a "hool" expect PRC to offer their good services to defuse the situation.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby RamaY » 08 Mar 2013 22:50

I strongly recommend two things

South Korea, in the interests of world-peace, should unify with North Korea without any preconditions and come under Kim Jong's rule.

China should be warned that any nuclear/missile attack from TSP/NK will be considered as a preemptive attack from China and will be responded accordingly.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Agnimitra » 10 Mar 2013 11:02

Moving from periphery to the core?
Good Lord: In China, Christian Fundamentalists Target Tibetans
When Dawa said yes to a party held by American friends in the city of Xining, she expected music, drinks, and a chance to practice her English. But it soon transpired that there would be more to the evening’s activities.

“When we arrived one person said loudly: ‘Lord!’ and started to cry,” Dawa, an earnest Tibetan in her late 20s, recalls in a café in Xining, the capital of China’s Qinghai province. “Some people came and touched me and cried. We were so afraid. We thought, Why are they crying?”

For Dawa and her friend Tenzin (names have been changed to protect their identities), both Tibetans from nomadic families trying to make it in the big city, the situation was not only potentially dangerous if they had been caught by police but humiliating. “We were upset,” explains Tenzin. “They had told us we could learn English. We felt like fools.”

The pair had been roped into an evangelical Christian gathering. For missionaries, places like Xining provide rich pickings among so-called unreached peoples.

Tibet is one of the most coveted locations for nondenominational American and Korean Christian groups angling for mass conversion. Most are fundamentalist Christians who prioritize preaching and winning converts over the charitable works traditionally performed by mainstream missionaries. The more radical evangelists believe in the biblical notion of the “Great Commission” — that Jesus can only return when preaching in every tongue and to every tribe and nation on earth is complete.

On websites like the U.S.-based Joshua Project, ethnic minorities are seen as “the unfinished task.” Of these, “Tibet has long been one of the greatest challenges,” reads a summary. “In 1892 Hudson Taylor said: ‘To make converts in Tibet is similar to going into a cave and trying to rob a lioness of her cubs.’”

Missionary work remains illegal in China and is viewed as a tool of Western infiltration. In 2011, officials issued a secretive 16-page notice ordering universities to counteract foreigners suspected of converting students to Christianity. But in parts of Qinghai proselytizing is being quietly tolerated, according to Robert Barnett, a Tibet scholar at Columbia University. He cites estimates that as many as 80% to 90% of the few hundred foreigners living in Xining are fundamentalist Christians.

Barnett believes the reason for the government’s tolerant attitude is twofold. First, American missionaries, often funded by their churches, provide a valuable service teaching English for scant pay. Second, by targeting Tibetan Buddhism, missionaries might just help the government erode this integral part of Tibetan identity. Keeping a lid on restive Tibet, which China invaded in 1949–50, is paramount. Under Chinese rule, self-immolations by Tibetans protesting religious and political subjugation have become common in recent years. Tibetan-language schools have been closed down, nomads resettled in towns and cities, and monasteries subject to close police surveillance. Images of the exiled Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, are banned.

“There is a certain underlying commonality of purpose between the evangelizers and the new modernizing Chinese state. It’s just convenient for them to use each other,” explains Barnett. “[Today missionaries] have greater opportunities coming in on the coattails of the Communist Party.”

Jason compares the Kingdom of God to an outstretched hand available for anyone to “grab.” But for most Tibetans grasping the hand of Jesus is a moot point. Some might adopt him as one of a pantheon of gods; others simply find his story unimpressive. “[Missionaries say,] ‘Well, look at the miracles Jesus is able to perform, to turn water into wine and to heal the sick,’” Elizabeth Reynolds, a Fulbright scholar researching Tibetan culture in Xining, explains. “The Tibetan goes: ‘Is that all he can do?’ It’s believed that such special phenomena [already] occur around high lamas.” :rotfl:

To combat such indifference, radical Christians in the past have employed tactics such as tract bombing — undercover distribution of thousands of leaflets in Buddhist areas. In one blog, published in 2006, a young zealot gives a blow-by-blow account of tract bombing among Tibet’s “satanic” monasteries. After his mission is complete, he observes: “Man how blinded these people are.”

Many missionaries today are subtler. Many become Tibet scholars in their own right. Most entrench themselves in local life. Much of the informal English instruction in Xining is run by missionaries as are the majority of the foreign cafés. They translate the Bible into Tibetan, distribute flash drives containing their beliefs and rework Tibetan folk songs with Christian lyrics. Some help run orphanages. Targeting the young is key. When a South Korean missionary asked Tenzin which Tibetans needed help, he suggested the elderly. According to Tenzin, the Korean replied: “Not old people — [we want] children.”

Aggressive tactics persist, however. In a quiet Tibetan town three hours drive from Xining, one local describes seeing a missionary throw coins into the air. “This comes from Jesus,” he declared to the astonished crowd. The same Tibetan remembers with an incredulous laugh being told that Christianity brings cash. “All Buddhist countries are poor,” the missionary said. “If you believe in Jesus, you will be rich.”

If conversions are to be found, it is among those who stand to benefit the most from missionary-led charities and social enterprises. Tibetans in Xining reported knowing at least one convert, an uneducated teenage Tibetan given a job and board by missionaries. According to sources, he hangs around hospitals, spreading the word of God and translating for nomads who do not speak Mandarin.

Open conversion, however, remains rare. Few would risk the wrath of family members by abandoning their own faith. Barnett describes hearing about one case in which relatives threatened to kill a missionary who had converted their kin. As such it is impossible to know how many converts there are. Barnett says: “I think we are going to wake up one day and see these people have made serious inroads into a culture already under threat.”

For Jason, it is about providing choice. If a Tibetan travelled to America to share Buddha’s teachings, he reasons you “have a right” to hear their views. It is misguided to think that “Tibetans are too stupid to make decisions about their own life,” he says. “Personally, I would like for all people in the world to have access to the teachings of Jesus.” Asked how he envisions Christianity in China, he insists: “I don’t think it is building big gaudy churches and having people wear suits and changing their culture.”

Back in the café, Dawa is not so sure. Religion is essential to her Tibetan identity. “I know my way,” she says resolutely. “I believe in Buddhism. They cannot change me.”

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby RajeshA » 10 Mar 2013 16:09

Carl ji,

this is very interesting. Christianists are offering PRC that Christianity can solve the Tibetan problem for China, and so China should embrace Christianity.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Agnimitra » 11 Mar 2013 07:47

RajeshA wrote:Carl ji,

this is very interesting. Christianists are offering PRC that Christianity can solve the Tibetan problem for China, and so China should embrace Christianity.

PRC is not saying that "China" will embrace Christianity, they're still wary of Ej's infiltrating Han China to some extent. But rather that China is prepared to invite Evanjihadi's in to make Tibet embrace Christianity. This reminds me of the way Czarist Russia invited Persian/Turkish mullas in to make their Kazakhs, etc embrace Islam, because they believed Islam would "tame" them, deracinate them from their original religion that worshipped their native land and its ways and diminish its value by making them look towards a foreign punyabhoomi as more sacred, and therefore make them more pliant to neighboring imperial command, too. Similar case here IMHO.

China itself may make some pretense of adopting Christianity just like many Chinese do in the US, for its benefits. The core of Han culture thinks it can remain aloof from these external adaptations...at least to begin with.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby abhishek_sharma » 11 Mar 2013 08:30

Spector, Ronald In the Ruins of Empire: The Japanese Surrender and the Battle for Postwar Asia Random House, Inc.

Happily unaware of the larger implications of their mission, the Marines settled in for what they believed would be a fairly short period of occupation duty in northern China. Although they had heard many stories, most Marines were totally unprepared for the new world they would encounter in China. “A mysterious country full of people and strange smells,” recalled Corporal Jack McManus, “especially for a young Marine who grew up in a village of 95 people.”38 Corporal Edmund J. Bardy, a machine gunner in the 5th Marines, succinctly expressed the principal reactions of most Marines: “filthy, poverty stricken, unhealthy sanitary conditions, backward, plenty of history.”39 Many found the smells and crowded conditions in the cities disconcerting, but what impressed the Americans most was the desperate poverty. “We would have young children trying to sneak into our barracks to raid the garbage cans so they could get something to eat,” recalled Sergeant Warren Beaster. “Also, the mothers with young girls came up to our guard stations to offer these little girls of theirs and trade them for candy bars and cigarettes.”40 “The vast majority of Chinese were poor beyond [our] comprehension,” wrote Corporal Harold Henneman. “Being poor in the U.S. is no comparison. You could purchase almost anything for 5 to 10 cents. A young woman could be purchased for $20.00 including ownership papers.”41 Even when they failed to purchase anything, the Marines could be of economic value to the Chinese, as Sergeant Earle discovered when he moved into former Japanese barracks in Peiping. “It was very disconcerting to be using the head and to look down between the slit in the floor boards and see a Chinese man standing there with a shovel in his hand waiting for you to do your do,” observed Earle. “They would fill up their ‘honey wagons,’ usually drawn by mules, and off they would go to their farms…human manure was the richest in those qualities needed to produce fine fruits and vegetables.”42

While they found these practices appalling, or simply incomprehensible, most Marines recognized that the Chinese were engaged in “a struggle for survival.”43 Corporal Louis R. Weibl observed that Tsingtao had “very proficient thieves,” but that was “due to their circumstances and need to survive.”44 The Marines’ attitude toward Chinese civilians—though not always Chinese soldiers—was generally positive.45 Recalling their experiences decades later, the Americans used words such as “friendly,” “hard-working,” “cooperative,” “polite,” and “efficient”46 in describing their encounters with the Chinese. “Very cooperative and pleasant,” “I never met an unfriendly person in my tour in China,” “They were delightful people even with all their hardships” were representative comments. Paul Nolan of the 1st Marines “found most of the people quite warm and friendly. The soldiers were also pleasant…that is until we met them again in Korea.”47 Many Marines expressed admiration for Chinese ingenuity and industry. Master Sergeant William Hill was impressed by how a Chinese man “could perform any task with his hands that the average American would require power tools and numerous special [equipment] to even begin.”48

There are, of course, good reasons not to take these statements at face value. Most, although by no means all, of the Chinese civilians with whom the Marines had any extended contact were servants, girlfriends, shopkeepers, or prostitutes, for whom friendliness toward Americans was an essential survival trait. In addition, the Marines, like most of their contemporaries, tended to view China and the Chinese in ways that reflected common American racial stereotypes and categories. Donald C. Behrens of the 11th Marines recalled that Marines regularly used racial epithets in referring to the Chinese.49

A widespread view was that Chinese society was “backward,” “centuries behind ours,” and had “always been that way.” In case the Marines had any doubts about the general hopelessness of Chinese society, they were quickly reassured by the White Russians and members of the other various derelict foreign communities in Tsingtao and Peiping for whom the universal inferiority and dishonesty of the Chinese was an article of faith.50 Nevertheless the generally positive feelings of the Marines toward China and the Chinese, which persisted even among Marines who later faced the Chinese armies in Korea, provide a significant contrast to the rancor, animosity, and contempt that GIs manifested toward Koreans and Vietnamese in later wars. This positive view helped to keep morale high all through the Marines’ difficult four-year stay in northern China.

Evidence is lacking about whether ordinary Chinese reciprocated the relatively friendly feelings of the Marines, but there is reason for doubt. Constant squabbles between Marines and rickshaw pullers over fares created an atmosphere of mutual annoyance and distrust between American servicemen and the Chinese workingmen with whom they were most often in contact. Chinese students and intellectuals in Peiping resented the stationing of foreign troops in China’s traditional center of culture and learning. All Chinese complained of numerous deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents involving American military vehicles. (In China the traditional practice gave the right of way to slower-moving vehicles like rickshaws and carts, but the Americans seemed to remain ignorant of this custom.) Accident victims often received compensation from the Americans, but both sides expressed anger and impatience at what they saw as the gross carelessness of the other. “In reality our life is treated as having less value than grass,” complained one citizen of Tsingtao. “The tragedies resulting from traffic accidents cannot be explained away as accidental; if so why is there no end of them?”51 Chinese intellectuals and members of the upper classes believed that Americans conducted themselves like barbarians because of the generally lower standards of civilization in the United States.52



pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby pankajs » 14 Mar 2013 11:24

A U.S. Naval Blockade of China?
Now there's another emerging theme in American open-source speculation about how a U.S.-China conflict could unfold – a naval blockade.

In one recent article, Sean Mirski sets forth what he sees as the elements of a potentially successful U.S.-led blockade strategy to impose huge economic costs on China in a hypothetical future confrontation or war.

Of course, a recognition of China's massive seaborne oil-supply vulnerabilities has influenced Beijing's defense, energy and foreign policies for a decade. Whether or not the U.S. Navy has serious plans for the possibility of blockading China, through the Malacca Strait and other chokepoints, there are presumably those in the Chinese security establishment who assume it does.
Likewise with the blockade idea. Mirski acknowledges that any attempt to strangle the Chinese economy as a conflict strategy would be "deeply embedded in the mire of global politics" and would exact great costs on the United States and other participants. And those participants, he argues, would need to include India and Japan, along with collaboration from Russia in refusing to provide emergency energy relief overland.

Where his analysis on this score is far from complete is the question of how far Washington and its allies would be willing to go in damaging the global economy – and their own economies – in order to prevail against China by using blockade as a principal weapon of war.

This leads to an even bigger question. If a reliance on nuclear deterrence against China is disproportionate or simply not credible, if conventional Air-Sea Battle is based on uncertain judgments about risk and political will, and if a blockade would be prone to global economic and diplomatic blowback, then what are the arrows that really count in America's strategic quiver in a contested Asia?


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 15 Mar 2013 03:17

Nightwatch, 14 March 2013
China: During this Watch, Xi Jinping has been elected President of China.


Xinhua reported on 13 March that "The Chinese Dream" is a new hot topic among Chinese and has drawn international attention from scholars and foreign policy experts.


"China's new Communist Party leader Xi Jinping said during a museum tour last November the Chinese dream meant for him the 'great renewal of the Chinese nation.' He has pledged to pursue the shared Chinese dream of national rejuvenation," Xinhua reported.


Comment: For the benefit and support of the billion plus Chinese, sophisticated national strategies are always reduced to easy-to-remember slogans or motivational statements. This was a trait of Soviet communism. The North Koreans have refined it into something they consider an art form.


"The Chinese dream" is being introduced on the margins of the National People's Congress (NPC) as the new strategic concept that replaces "China's peaceful rise."


Today's Wall Street Journal contains an insightful and detailed article on the background and some of the implications of the new strategic concept. The publicity it is receiving in Xinhua and on the web site of the NPC indicates "The Chinese Dream" is the concept that will guide Xi Jinping's tenure as Party General Secretary and President.


Comment: The Journal article establishes that idea of The Chinese Dream is not necessarily new and not only applicable to international affairs. It has many domestic implications as well.


What is new is that Xi appears to be making it the theme of his term of office. It implies that he and the collective leadership judge that the period of China's rise is over. They perceive a new situation.


This is a strategic inflection point for China. The rise will be replaced by pursuit of "The Chinese Dream" of national renewal or rejuvenation.


Xi made some of those points in a speech to the Politburo Standing Committee last November. He made them clearer on the 11th , when he spoke to the armed forces delegates of the NPC.


Xi Jinping and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Chinese media coverage of the National Peoples' Congress posted a photo spread of Xi delivering "an important speech" on the 11th. A search of multiple data bases found only snippets of his actual text.


Excerpted below is a circular that the PLA sent to the armed forces after the speech, as reported in Chinese media. (Note: NightWatch added the bold text to highlight a few significant statements.)


"The circular points out: On 11 March, Chairman Xi (Xi is Chairman of the Central Military Commission) made an important speech at the plenary meeting of the PLA delegation to the first session of the 12th NPC. Chairman Xi's important speech pertains to an important theme, expresses the lofty ideal ... scientifically answers a series of important questions, that is,

why to strengthen the military under the new situation,

what to be the goal of military strengthening,

how to take the path of military strengthening with Chinese characteristics."


"The speech is of great long-term political, strategic guiding significance for the handling of specific issues of great importance. It represents a solemn declaration of our party on quickening the process of national defense and military modernization from a new historical starting point. It is a programmatic document for guiding our national defense and armed forces building."


"Military units at all levels should take the study and implementation of Chairman Xi's important speech as an important political task at present …. truly strive to deeply study, thoroughly understand, comprehensively digest and grasp, and fully put into practice the spirit of the speech."


"The circular emphasizes: In studying and implementing the spirit of Chairman Xi's important speech… it is necessary to deeply understand the important status and role of national defense and armed forces building in the fulfillment of the "China dream", fully and clearly realize the opportunity and the challenges that our country's security and development is facing, keep a stronger sense of mission and responsibility for more quickly pushing forward the process of national defense and military modernization, provide strong power guarantee for the fulfillment of the "China dream" by doing down-to-earth work, stepping up efforts, and quickening progress."


"It is necessary to deeply understand that the party's goal of military strengthening under the new situation is to build a military force of the people that obeys the party's orders, is able to win in war, and keeps a good behavioral style; fully and clearly understand that obeying the party's orders is the soul, being able to win in war is the core, keeping a good style is the guarantee…."


"It is necessary to deeply understand the strategic idea about the integration of enriching the nation and strengthening the military, fully and clearly understand the relationship between economic development and national defense building, clearly understand that effecting civil-military integrated development is an important way of realizing the integration of enriching the nation and strengthening the military … further improve the work of effecting civil-military integrated development, further consolidate and develop military-government and military-civilian relations under the new situation."


"Through in-depth study and education, truly bring the thinking of the entire military personnel into line with Chairman Xi's strategic judgment on the international strategic pattern and our country's security situation … and into line with Chairman Xi's requirements for various parts of military force building.


Comment: Xi presented the military applications of the strategic concept to the PLA delegation before he presented the entire concept to the NPC.


The circular makes the point that there is a new situation. Xi has scientifically evaluated it as requiring integration of economic and military strength in order to fulfill The Chinese Dream. In The Chinese Dream concept, Xi explicitly connects economic growth with military modernization and links them to Chinese renewal.


His speech is called a programmatic document which means that it is not cheerleading, but guidance. An intense study period for the entire armed forces is prescribed in order to explain the purpose and direction of a more rapid development of national defense and military modernization.


In the 1990s, indoctrination about "fighting wars under modern conditions" disrupted normal armed forces training and reshaped the training that followed the indoctrination period.


The new situation requires military obedience to the Party; the ability to win wars; and good behavior. Obedience to party orders and behaving well are longstanding issues in the PLA. The new requirement is "to win in war," which replaces, "fighting wars under modern conditions."


In the circular the PLA was instructed that the PLA is expected to provide the "strong power guarantee" for national rejuvenation.


This appears to portend a more muscular and militarily assertive China during the next five years at least. China remains committed to peace, but not at the expense of its national interests and claims. The pace of military modernization will quicken.


Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Virupaksha » 15 Mar 2013 03:43

Carl wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Carl ji,

this is very interesting. Christianists are offering PRC that Christianity can solve the Tibetan problem for China, and so China should embrace Christianity.

PRC is not saying that "China" will embrace Christianity, they're still wary of Ej's infiltrating Han China to some extent. But rather that China is prepared to invite Evanjihadi's in to make Tibet embrace Christianity. This reminds me of the way Czarist Russia invited Persian/Turkish mullas in to make their Kazakhs, etc embrace Islam, because they believed Islam would "tame" them, deracinate them from their original religion that worshipped their native land and its ways and diminish its value by making them look towards a foreign punyabhoomi as more sacred, and therefore make them more pliant to neighboring imperial command, too. Similar case here IMHO.

China itself may make some pretense of adopting Christianity just like many Chinese do in the US, for its benefits. The core of Han culture thinks it can remain aloof from these external adaptations...at least to begin with.

Isnt this a repeat of the goth- roman empire, where christianity and the emperors combined so that they could tame the far reaches and then christianity with its new converts overwhelmed the empire.

Chinese would be foolish to do this, but history repeats itself.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby pankajs » 16 Mar 2013 13:13

The American response to Chinese cyberespionage is going to backfire

That same day, Gen. Keith Alexander, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, announced in testimony before Congress that CYBERCOM is creating 13 offensive teams “to help defend the nation against major computer attacks from abroad” while “twenty-seven other teams would support commands such as the Pacific Command and the Central Command as they plan offensive cyber capabilities.” The specific mention of Pacific Command was clearly intended as a message for the Chinese government.

These are just the latest attempts by the Obama administration, Congress, and the Defense Department to portray China as the primary villain in the rampant theft of America’s intellectual property.

Unfortunately, this cascade of enmity directed against China doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. Yes, China does engage in these activities. But a) so do many other nations including Russia, France, and Israel and b) we still haven’t solved the attribution problem—that is, determined who is actually attacking us. Any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would conceal their cyberespionage operations by making it look like they came from Chinese IP addresses since China is everyone’s first guess anyway and since Chinese-based servers are so easy to gain access to.

Furthermore, the anti-China rhetoric clashes with the current practices of many U.S. businesses. For example, the U.S. government rails against Huawei as a security threat, but it has purchased thousands of Huawei-made products under the brand name Huawei-Symantec that are in use today across the federal government, including Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. If Huawei is such a threat, why are we buying their products under the Huawei-Symantec brand? They’re still made in China by the same company that the U.S. government has blocked purchases from.

While Mandiant builds its business on defending companies against Chinese hackers who reportedly work for the People’s Liberation Army, GE (for whom Mandiant does data forensics and incident response) continues to expand its presence in China, including R&D on the smart grid—an essential part of U.S. critical infrastructure. This is one of the most surprising and troubling examples of this anti-China direction. The PLA has contingency plans to attack U.S. critical infrastructure if they believe a military strike by the United States is imminent. Yet here’s GE building a key component of our critical infrastructure in China, using Chinese engineers who have trusted access to GE’s network. Who needs hackers when you work for the target company?

Dell, Intel, and HP have also made major investments in China, and both have acquired information security firms—SecureWorks, McAfee, and Fortify, respectively. So these U.S. multinationals not only see China as a required region of the world to do business in; they also have intimate knowledge of the security risks, thanks to their acquisitions of SecureWorks, McAfee, and Fortify.* Yet neither is leaving China—both have indicated their commitment to expand their presence there, which includes operating their R&D labs. In fact, more than 1,200 foreign R&D firms operate inside China, which means that they hire Chinese engineers; use China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile for all of their communications (which the state supervises and monitors); use Chinese vendors to clean their offices, shred their documents and provide other services, which grant them trusted access; and essentially lay bare their intellectual property and trade secrets for the taking.

China and Russia have long advocated for a treaty that would establish an international code of conduct for information security—something that the United States has always opposed. Now, in light of increased U.S. accusations that China is engaging in massive amounts of cyberespionage, China has offered to “have constructive dialogue and cooperation on this issue with the international community including the United States to maintain the security, openness and peace of the Internet.” If accepted by the United States—and it’s hard to imagine that after all this saber-rattling, America would say no to the offer—China will have finally gotten what it has wanted for several years: an international code of conduct that would really be used to control dissent under the guise of attacking illegal activities (like hacking) in cyberspace.

A better approach might be for the federal government to quietly encourage U.S. companies to take steps to harden their networks against low-level attacks (which will shrink the attack surface); identify, segregate, and monitor their crown jewels (which will make it harder for any adversary, including China, to steal them); and engage with China and Russia against a mutual enemy (mercenary hacker crews). This eliminates the rhetoric and focuses on collaboration—a requirement, since the U.S. is never going to make good on threats against the single biggest holder of U.S. debt and a vital market for U.S. multinationals.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby pankajs » 16 Mar 2013 13:25

China in Iraq: winning without a war
Not long ago, Robert Kaplan, the well-known American writer, “complained” in The Wall Street Journal, saying: “... We have liberated Iraq so that Chinese firms can extract its oil.” The sentiment that was expressed by Kaplan was in fact reflecting the evolution of the situation in Iraq, where the Chinese presence was rising strongly. Tellingly, Beijing’s position in Iraq evolved quickly, from among the most outspoken of critics of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, to emerging as one of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the war in Iraq.
Within this context, IHS Global Insight argue that Iraq is extremely important for Chinese companies’ growth strategy, especially given that Iran is likely to face much of a standstill for years if not decades. Iraq’s production increases have matched the relative production decreases in Iran. As a result of Iranian oil production declines, Iraq became the second largest OPEC producer (after Saudi Arabia) in late 2012.
CNPC currently holds a 37.5% stake in the Halfaya field, a 75% stake in the al-Ahdab field and a 37% stake in the Rumaila field. Wang Dongjin, vice president of CNPC, estimates that Chinese state companies are currently helping in the production of some 1.6 million barrels a day in Iraq, more than half that country’s total output.
The IEA also predicts that China will become the main customer for Iraqi oil by the 2030s, with Baghdad overtaking Russia to become the world’s second-largest oil exporter by then. The IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, recently said that: “Iraq will emerge as a major new oil producer by the 2030s. Its main customer will be China, and half of Iraqi oil production will go to China.”
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) expects the political situation in Iraq to remain unstable, while the Global Insight argues that “Iraq’s delicate security condition poses the greatest downside risks to economic growth in the short term, as it could severely undermine development plans, cause a political gridlock, and erode consumer demand.” More worryingly, the increasingly civil war in Syria could spill over into Iraq creating dangerous sectarian conflict.

However, the EIU does not expect a repeat of the sectarian conflict that engulfed Iraq in 2006-07. Indeed, despite the gloomy political outlook, the IMF projects that Iraq to register the highest economic growth rates in the world, where the GDP is expected to expand rapidly in 2013 by more than 14% and Iraq’s economy to grow by a robust 10-11% on average during 2013-2017, driven primarily by rising oil production. This provides enormous opportunities for Chinese companies to expand in Iraq’s markets.

Questions:
1. How reliable is Al-Arabia, the source of this report?
2. How is this oil going to be transported, via pipelines or via the sea route?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 18 Mar 2013 20:37

Follow-up to Nightwatch March 14th report linked on previous page:

March 18 2013

China: The National People's Congress ended on the 17th with a press conference by Premier Li Keqiang. Before the closing, however, President Xi Jinping delivered his first address to the Congress. The central theme was The Chinese Dream.

Eight of the 17 paragraphs of the text were devoted to, or carried forward the application of, the dream. One of them reiterated the guidance Xi gave to the People's Liberation Army delegates on the 11th: obey the party, win wars and behave well.


Xi introduced the dream immediately after four paragraphs of thanks and preamble. The concluding, sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction is significant.

"Today, our people's republic is standing on the East of the world with a spirited posture."


Comment: The point is that Xi did not describe China's posture as rising, but as standing. The period of rising has ended.

After the fourth paragraph of introduction, Xi began the discussion and for the Chinese dream.

"To actualize the goal of the struggle to build a well-off society in an all-around manner; to build an affluent, strong, democratic, civil and harmonious modern socialist country, and to actualize the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, is to make the country affluent and strong, the nation prosperous, and the people happy. This deeply embodies the ideals of the Chinese people today, and deeply reflects our ancestors' glorious tradition of persistent struggle in pursuit of progress."


"Faced with the vast and mighty trends of the times, faced with the people's ardent expectation for a better life, we cannot be self-satisfied of slacken in the slightest; we must continue to persevere and move forward bravely, continue to push forward the endeavor of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and continue to work hard to actualized the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation."

Xi's remarks about Taiwan stressed working together and pushing for the peaceful development of cross-strait relations. He called the Chinese on Taiwan "compatriots across the strait."

Concerning foreign policy, he stressed continuity in devotion to peace and friendly cooperation with every country in th4e world. He said China will carry out our due international obligations and duties.

In the second last paragraph, Xi addressed Party values and the issues of corruption, formalism, hedonism and extravagance. He urged the cadres to combat all negative and corrupt phenomena.

In the closing paragraph, Xi restated the importance of all rallying around the Communist Party to realize great aims, "and continuously make new and greater contributions to mankind."

Comment: With this address, the dream is the national theme. China's posture is erect. Realization of the dream will take a long time because China is still in the initial stages of socialism but achievement of Chinese national rejuvenation is a contribution to mankind, according to Xi.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 20 Mar 2013 21:14

A whole lot of x-posts which should be posted here....

Jhujar wrote:Japan Joins the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- Finally!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 17496.html
( Pacificasia uniting Sans China and Taiwan)

Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s statement of his country’s willingness to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations is good for the U.S., Japan and the TPP. It follows former Japanese Primate Minister Noda’s announcement at the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) in 2011 of Japan’s interest in the TPP negotiations, which came after almost two years of discussions between the Japanese government and the other TPP parties on their expectations should Japan join the trade agreement. The TPP parties currently include the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.Japan’s participation in the TPP will boost the agreement’s economic and strategic significance. The TPP aims to be the 21st century trade agreement that sets the rules for trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region going forward. Achieving this goal will require other major economies in the Asia-Pacific region to join the agreement with the intention of the TPP ultimately becoming a Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), and Japan’s participation in the TPP will give added momentum towards this goal. For one, with Japan the TPP will cover 8.6 percent of global trade and almost 40 percent of global GDP. Japan’s entry into the TPP is also likely to give further impetus to other countries joining. In particular South Korea, Prime Minster Abe’s decision to commit Japan to joining the TPP should also be understood as a necessary compliment to his efforts to stimulate the Japanese economy with monetary easing and the related depreciation of the Yen. These efforts alone, without the type of economic reform the TPP will lead to, are unlikely to produce long-term improvements in Japan’s growth prospects.


( Thailand, Indonesia , Burma and India joining the group will complete the picture)


SSridhar wrote:Xi's Russia Visit will be a Landmark - China Daily
Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled to visit Russia on March 22. By all accounts, his visit will boost Russia-China cooperation and partnership.

Xi's visit to Russia will be a landmark, because it will be the first country he travels to after becoming president. His decision to visit Russia also reflects the high mutual regard and confidence the leaders of the two countries have. And in more ways than one, the importance accorded to Russia by Xi mirrors the stance of Russian leaders toward China.

Signed recently by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Russian foreign policy concept lays special emphasis on good-neighborliness, friendship and all-sided cooperation with China. The historical Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation, signed between Russia and China on July 16, 2001, plays a significant role in international relations for the two countries.

Built through mutual efforts, the Russian-Chinese friendship and cooperation serve the vital interests of the two countries, creating favorable conditions for peaceful development and ensuring mutual security, territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Another feature of Sino-Russian relations is that neither side pursues an expansionist agenda or targets another country. Sino-Russian good-neighborly relations have become a visible example of true friendly coexistence, cooperation and close interaction between countries with different social systems. There is, thus, no reason for any one to allege that Sino-Russian partnership and interaction are targeted at the United States or any other country. On the contrary, the efforts Russia and China have made to resolve regional and international issues demonstrate their preparedness for interaction and cooperation with the US and other countries.

US Secretary of State John Kerry's remark that the strategy to strengthen Washington's presence in Asia is not aimed at containing China (thus disavowing the statements made by his predecessor Hillary Clinton) did not go unnoticed either in China or Russia. But only time will tell whether Kerry's remark reflects a positive change in US policy or whether it signifies a shift in its strategy to contain China.

Neither a China-US alliance, as promoted by some, nor getting involved in an alliance-type game will help China gain strategic advantage, because the US' main objective has been and will be to contain China by every possible means. The same goal has prompted the US official propaganda machinery to try and sow the seeds of discord between China and its neighbors - from Russia and Vietnam to India and Japan - and even Iran.

It would be a mistake to measure the role and importance of Russian-Chinese comprehensive interaction and partnership only in terms of trade and economic cooperation. Quite often, political interaction between two countries aimed at protecting their vital national interests is more valuable than increasing the volume of bilateral trade.

Top Russian and Chinese leaders have in the recent past discussed the need to further strengthen Russian-Chinese strategic interaction and partnership. The two countries do still have weak links in their comprehensive cooperation, which sometimes create difficulties and lead to frictions. But it should not be forgotten that the process of normalization and elevation of Sino-Russian relations took place within a short time, which was preceded by more than 20 years of complex, dramatic events.

Therefore, the two countries' efforts have been mainly aimed at boosting mutual confidence not only at the highest level, but also between their people, especially youths.

The insufficient knowledge both countries have about each other's real situations and lack of total understanding about their mutual benefit make it necessary for the two sides to expand their cooperation, and increase their contacts, trade, and people-to-people and cultural exchanges.

Russia is certainly interested in a practical and mutually beneficial partnership with China for joint large-scale projects aimed at developing its Siberian and Far Eastern regions. The two countries could jointly work in the fields of energy, space, transport, education, science and technology. Russia and China both have historical "cushion-stocks" and real experience in these fields, and much will depend on their political will to make their joint efforts a success.

Xi's scheduled visit to Russia and his meeting with Putin are bound to intensify Russian-Chinese cooperation and take it to a new level, as well as consolidate the friendship and deepen the understanding between the two nations.


SSridhar wrote:Russia Unmoved by US Missile Shift - Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu
To be read in conjunction with the above post.
Russian experts said the U.S. plans to set up additional 14 missile interceptors on its Pacific Coast on top of 30 interceptors already deployed in Alaska and California were really aimed at China, not North Korea.

“The missile defences the U.S. is building in the Pacific will be capable of intercepting a retaliatory strike from China, which has 50 to 75 intercontinental ballistic missiles,” said Academician Sergei Rogov of the Institute of U.S. and Canada.

The fact that Moscow articulated its strong objections to the U.S. missile defence “pivot” to Asia two days ahead of a visit by new Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s state visit to Russia is another indication of stronger political bonds between the two countries.



and

SSridhar wrote:Strategic Embrace - Vladimir Radyuhin, FrontLine
RUSSIA’S new push for closer strategic ties with China is gaining momentum. Major deals in two critical areas, energy and defence, are already in the pipeline.

When China’s new leader Xi Jinping visits Moscow this month, the two sides are expected to sign an agreement to increase Russian oil deliveries to China by more than 60 per cent from the current level of 15 million tonnes. Russian officials said crude shipments to China could eventually grow to 50 million tonnes.

Going by official statements in Moscow and Beijing, the two countries are close to breaking the deadlock over price in the long-winding talks on the supply of Russian natural gas to China. The two sides hope to sign a contract by the end of the year for the transport of 38 billion cubic metres of gas through a pipeline along the Pacific coast. Russian supplies will account for 30 per cent of China’s gas needs.

In another major development, Russia is resuming the supply of advanced weapons platforms to China. In December 2012, Russia concluded a framework agreement with China for the sale of four Amur-1650 diesel submarines. Earlier this year, the two countries signed an intergovernmental agreement for the supply of Russia’s latest Sukhoi Su-35 long-range fighter planes. If the deals go through, for the first time in a decade Russia will deliver offensive weapons to China.

Relations between Russia and China have followed an upward trajectory ever since they were normalised in the late 1980s under Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev after a long period of hostility triggered by an ideological split in the mid-1950s. In 2008, Russia and China removed the last major irritant in their relations, settling the long-running territorial dispute along their 4,300-kilometre-long border.

A new stage in strategic ties between the two countries began with Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin for a third presidential term almost a year ago. Beijing was the first capital outside the former Soviet Union that Putin visited soon after assuming office. The choice of China was loaded with symbolism since it came shortly after Putin skipped a G8 summit in the United States, demonstrating his reluctance to make the U.S. his first overseas destination. For Xi, Moscow will be the first foreign capital he visits as President.

Russia and China are driven closer by economic and geopolitical compulsions. Russia hopes to benefit from China’s insatiable thirst for energy and other resources and diversify its oil and gas export routes away from stagnating Europe. China considers Russia to be part of “strategic rear” along with Central Asia, and its value for Beijing is especially high today when the U.S. is mounting its “pivot” towards Asia.

Russia and China are drawing closer at a time when their relations with the U.S. have run into rough waters. Moscow is deeply disappointed with U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy of “reset”, seeing it as an instrument for winning unilateral concessions from Russia on Iran, Afghanistan and Libya, while refusing to heed Russia’s concerns over the U.S. global missile defence, tone down criticism of Russia’s human rights record, and ease access to high technologies of the U.S.

Beijing sees Obama’s strategic redeployment in the Asia-Pacific region as aimed at containing China. The U.S. support for Japan in its territorial dispute with China has only strengthened Chinese suspicions. Moscow and Beijing have achieved unprecedented coordination on all major issues of global politics, including Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea. It is in the sphere of defence that strong Russian-Chinese relations come out most graphically.

ARMS EXPORT

In the 1990s and early 2000s, cash-strapped Russia sold aircraft, ships and other weapons worth $26 billion to China. The sales were dictated by economic necessity rather than strategic considerations. Without the Chinese and Indian contracts, the Russian defence industry would have died as the Russian army had no money to buy weapons. In later years, Russian arms sales to China declined because the Chinese industry mastered the production of clones and the modification of Russian systems. For its part, Moscow became far more cautious about supplying cutting-edge defence technologies to China and turned down Beijing’s requests for more advanced weapons.

However, today Russian experts tend to think that China’s ability to copy critical technologies, such as aircraft engines, has been overrated in Moscow. “Chinese aircraft engines, which are essentially modified versions of Russian engines, are way too inferior to the originals, and China continues to depend on the supply of Russian engines,” Vasily Kashin, an expert on China, said.

he sale of Amur-1650 and Su-35 marks a turnaround in Russia’s China arms export policy.

“When and if China succeeds in copying Russia’s new weapons platforms, the Russian industry will hopefully move ahead with new technologies,” Kashin said.

Resumption of large-scale weapons sales to China is essentially a political decision, as the Russian defence industry today has its books full with orders from the Russian armed forces under a $700-billion rearmament programme launched two years ago. It is part of a foreign policy strategy Putin formulated for his new six-year term in the Kremlin in an election campaign manifesto a year ago, about which he said:

“I am convinced that China’s economic growth is by no means a threat, but a challenge that carries colossal potential for business cooperation—a chance to catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy.” The Russian leader explained why Russia stood to gain from deeper ties with China. First, China’s potential would help Russia “develop the economy of Siberia and the Russian far east”. Second, China “shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order”, and the two countries “work together to solve acute regional and global problems”. Lastly, Russia and China had resolved “all the major political issues” between them, including the border disputes.

China has already overtaken Germany as Russia’s top commercial partner, with bilateral trade expected to touch $90 billion this year and soar to $200 billion by 2020. There is a geopolitical aspect to the Russia-China axis, which Putin chose to omit. “The balance of power between America and China will to a large extent depend on whether and on which side Russia will play,” the foreign policy analyst Fyodor Lukyanov said.

The renewal of Russian sales of advanced weapons to China may be an indication on whose side Moscow has decided to stay. American analysts are already ringing the alarm bells. “The sales of advanced new equipment, otherwise unavailable from local Chinese industry, could have serious implications for U.S. security commitments in the region,” Wendell Minnick, Asia Bureau Chief of Defence News, wrote in the Washington-based defence weekly newspaper. Quoting Dean Cheng, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, Minnick warns of an “enormous and fundamental strategic shift” the Russian arms sales could trigger in the region. “…The introduction of new, quieter subs and the more advanced fighter aircraft calls into question the ability for the U.S. to control the ‘commons’ —that is, airspace and sea space. Future conflicts may not see American dominance of air and sea, and certainly should not be assumed as a given,” Minnick quoted Dean Cheng.

Ironically, the new Russian arms sales to China could ricochet against India, Russia’s most trusted defence partner. For the first time, Russia is going to sell China more powerful weapons platforms than those it has supplied to India. The Amur submarine is far more silent and powerful than the Kilo-class submarines the Indian Navy has in its inventory. India’s Su-30MKI will be no match for China’s Su-35, which is powered by a higher thrust engine and possesses more sophisticated radar, avionics and weapons, according to Konstantin Makienko, a leading Russian military expert with the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

For the same reason, China’s acquisition of Su-35s will knock down the value of India’s planned purchase of the French Rafale, Makienko said. At the same time, he believes that India is in a position to retain its edge in military aviation vis-a-vis China if it speeds up the development of a fifth-generation fighter plane with Russia and goes for in-depth upgrade of its fleet of Su-30MKI fighters.

Some analysts think that the Russia-China camaraderie poses far greater risks for Russia itself. They argue that demographic pressures and the growing need for resources may push China to turn the Russian-built weapons against Russia. “We should stop selling them the rope to hang us with,” said Alexander Khramchikhin of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis.

Other experts believe that China will not need to resort to arms to conquer Russia through demographic and economic expansion. The Russian far east, which constitutes 40 per cent of the country’s territory, has a shrinking population of 6.5 million, whereas three contiguous regions of China have more than 100 million people.

DEMOGRAPHIC THREATS

In a rare recognition of demographic threats, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned in August 2012 that the sparsely populated far-eastern region should be protected “from the excessive expansion of people from neighbouring countries”.

The structure of trade between Russia and China prompts fears of Chinese colonisation. Russia ships oil, timber, metals and other commodities to China, and imports machinery and consumer goods.

“If the current economic trends persist, it is very likely that Russia east of the Urals and later the whole country will turn into an appendage of China—first as a warehouse of resources and then economically and politically. This will happen without any ‘aggressive’ or hostile efforts by China, it will happen by default,” wrote the respected political scientist Sergey Karaganov.

There has been little evidence so far of any serious effort to change the prevailing pattern of economic ties. In 2009, Russia and China signed a nine-year economic cooperation agreement, which provides for stepped-up supplies of Russian raw materials to China, where they would be processed into manufactured goods for export back to Russia.

Alexei Yablokov, a prominent Russian environmentalist, denounced the pact as “humiliating” for Russia and said it would reduce eastern Siberia and the far east, which constitute roughly half of Russia’s territory, to a “raw material appendage of China”.

Russian strategists have criticised the Kremlin for pursuing a China-centrist policy after the break-up of the Soviet Union and urged Moscow to balance its tight embrace of China with active engagement of other Asia-Pacific nations.

Last September, Russia announced its own pivot to Asia by hosting a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Vladivostok. Moscow is trying to reach out to Japan, strengthen relations with South Korea and revamp strategic bonds with Vietnam. In early March, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu visited Myanmar and Vietnam, vowing to boost defence ties with both countries.

Russia must rediscover itself “as a Euro-Pacific nation and look not only across the river to China, but also across the sea to Japan and Korea as well as across the ocean to North America and Australia,” Dmitry Trenin of the Moscow Carnegie Centre said.




There is one more about the PRC NSA calling SS Menon during the conference to select the Chinese President Xi Jinping. I will comment after posting that here.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 20 Mar 2013 21:20

Vipul wrote:BRICS and premature obituaries.

Global trade arrangements are experiencing far-reaching developments that could significantly impact the economic prospects of the BRICS countries. These changes could provide the trigger for their closer co-operation. A transatlantic free trade zone with the US and the European Union is already under negotiation; if successful, this would create an economic zone encompassing virtually half the world's GDP and trade flows. On the other side of the world, the trans-Pacific partnership is steadily making headway (Japan is virtually certain to join), creating another parallel and powerful trading bloc. None of the BRICS nations finds place in these emerging giant trade conglomerations. The US has championed both projects with China's relentless economic ascendance in mind, but other BRICS members will suffer heavy collateral damage as a result of their exclusion. The new groupings will set norms and standards for economic exchange with little or no input from emerging countries. They will inevitably evolve into non-tariff barriers. The serious implications of these developments should drive the BRICS nations to consider effective coping strategies. Reviving the multilateral WTO process could be one such collective response.



and

shyamd wrote:Dai Bingguo Holds Telephone Conversation with India's National Security Advisor Menon

2013/03/11
On March 11, 2013, State Councilor Dai Bingguo held a telephone conversation with India's National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, exchanging views on China-India relations.

Dai said China attaches great importance to Sino-Indian relations. Over the past 10 years, Sino-Indian relations have made great progress, which brings great benefits to the two countries and their peoples and makes important contributions to the peace and prosperity of the region and the world at large. The two countries have explored an effective way of maintaining friendly co-existence, which has not only laid a sound foundation for the future development of bilateral relations, but also provided a good example for big powers and neighbouring countries to properly handle differences and seek common development. We are confident that with the joint efforts of both sides, China and India will embrace a better tomorrow for their relations.

Menon agreed with Dai's positive comments on bilateral relations, saying the development of Sino-Indian relations embodies the painstaking efforts of the leaders of the two countries and people from all walks of life, and the hard-won results should be cherished. The Indian side is willing to make joint efforts with China to push forward the strategic cooperative partnership.


India, China agree to stop tailing each other’s border patrols
Anirban Bhaumik, NEW DELHI: , March 10, 2013 DHNS
In a move to avoid occasional flashpoints in India-China border areas, New Delhi and Beijing have agreed that the soldiers of one country will not tail the patrols of the other along the disputed stretches of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Tailing of the patrols of one country by the soldiers of the other along the LAC had often heightened tension between the armed forces of India and China, particularly in the areas where the two countries have different perceptions about the alignment of the LAC.

According to diplomatic sources in New Delhi, the two countries discussed the proposal to avoid tailing of patrols when the first meeting of the “Working Mechanism” was held in Beijing in March 2012. Both countries agreed that tailing of patrols might disturb “peace and tranquility” along the LAC and lead to a flashpoint.

When senior diplomats and top military and security officials of India and China met again in New Delhi in November 2012 for the second meeting, they firmed up an agreement for avoiding tailing in the areas where the two countries had no common perception about the LAC.

Transgressions of Indian or Chinese patrols in each other’s territory are often caused by conflicting perceptions about the LAC.

Sources told Deccan Herald that when Indian soldiers patrolling the LAC had earlier transgressed into what China claimed as its territory, they had been stopped by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) personnel. The PLA soldiers had then tailed the Indian patrol as long as it had been in the territory they perceived as Chinese. Indian soldiers had done the same when they had spotted Chinese troops coming into the area they perceived as part of India.

“There was always a risk that such actions by each other’s soldiers might result in a confrontation,” said a senior official. He added, “What has now been decided is that the soldiers of one country would not tail, but just ask the transgressing patrol of the other to stop and go back.”

Minister of State for External Affairs Preneet Kaur recently informed the Lok Sabha that India and China have reached an agreement to put an end to the practice of tailing of the soldiers after setting up the “Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on Border Affairs.”

“This measure contributes to the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the India-China border area,” she stated in a written reply to a question in the House.

India and China agreed to set up the “Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on Border Affairs” in January 2012, when the Special Representatives of the two countries—National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon and his counterpart Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo—had the 15th round of talks on the boundary issue in New Delhi.



Peace and Tranquility agreement was a P V N Rao contribution and is in place since 1993.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 20 Mar 2013 22:19

One quiet member wrote to me that the dilli-billi mantra is "Aag ko paani se darna aur pani ko aag se!" Fire must fear water and vice versa.

After fifty years fianlly India has chance to use the mantra abroad.

Ten years after 9/11 and the 2008 global financial crisis, PRC is now "aag"(rising) and US is "paani"(status quo to declining). Each is encroaching on each other and feeding their fears and same time showin gtheir hopes. Both of them need India to exist or retain their basic nature of fire and water.


All those Trans Pacific and Trans Atlantic free trade zones will be gatherings of bhooka non-entities with decling population and resources. This century will be a knowldege based and we already see signs of this. Hence promote Indian knowledge/educational resources.

Open joint IITs in Beijing, Shangai etc.

To hedge India should promote the BRICs free trade zone as a first step.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby pankajs » 21 Mar 2013 21:55

China "extremely concerned" about U.S.-Japan island talk
(Reuters) - Japan and the United States have started talks on military plans in case of armed conflict over a group of East China Sea Islets claimed by Tokyo and Beijing, Japanese media said on Thursday, prompting China to complain of "outside pressure."

The Pentagon confirmed talks were being held on Thursday and Friday between Shigeru Iwasaki, head of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces' joint staff, and Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific, but said they were meant to discuss "the overall security environment in the Asia-Pacific region."
"China is extremely concerned by these reports ... The Chinese government has the determination and ability to maintain the nation's territorial sovereignty," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said.

"No outside pressure will affect the resolve and determination of the Chinese government and people to maintain territorial sovereignty."

The rocky, uninhabited islets, called the Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are located near rich fishing grounds and potentially huge oil and gas reserves.

Senior U.S. officials including State Secretary John Kerry have said in recent months that the islands are covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cyrano, nits, shivatar, souravB and 57 guests