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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Prem » 14 May 2016 09:53 ... th-the-us/
India: openly-allied with the U.S.

Less than a month after U.S Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter declared, during his visit to India in April, that India and the U.S would talk cooperation on the strategically-sensitive issue of submarines and anti-submarine warfare [1], reports suggest the two countries have actually met to discuss the collaboration[2].The speed with which an intent was transformed into action despite the sensitive nature of the subject—submarine capability and warfare are closely-held tactics shared only with allies—-indicate that India and the U.S. have taken a political call to align their strategies more closely, especially in naval matters. For once, the U.S. is taking legislative steps to back its intent. A few weeks prior to Carter’s visit, in March, a resolution[3] was introduced in the U.S. Congress to amend the Arms Export Control Act in order to treat India as a treaty ally similar to NATO and Israel.
On its part, India’s new leanings towards the U.S is reflected in the “in-principle” nod given to actually institutionalizing facilities being provided to the U.S. navy, through a Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) during Carter’s visit. This is a move away from the long and dearly-held policy of being publicly non-aligned with the big powers. Especially as the U.S. continues to be the unchallenged global military power, both in terms of weapons and technology, and the U.S. dollar is the unchallenged reserve currency.There are many signs of this. The India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement of 2005, often cited as proof of India moving closer to the U.S., began to be fast-tracked in the first two years of the Modi government. And the joint strategic vision [4] for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region outlined by Barack Obama and Narendra Modi in January 2015 revealed the growing strategic convergence.This latter document shows how India’s maritime vision has expanded dramatically. For years, India defined its core area of interest in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) as bound between Indonesia to the east and Africa in the west. Now New Delhi holds “safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over-flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea” to be of prime importance.
Meanwhile, the Chinese leadership, too, has directed its military arm to “abandon” the “traditional mentality” that places “control of land as more important than control of sea”, in favour of attaching “great importance” to “protecting maritime rights and interests” [5].What underlies the expansion of maritime interest areas for both China and India? It is the global web of trade ties and investments, especially in energy. That is legitimate enough, but it is Beijing’s focus on militarisation of maritime space, along with grandiose plans like One-Belt, One-Road, that has prompted India to jettison its seven-decade-old policy of turning away from a military embrace with the U.S.China’s disinclination to allay India’s fears of encirclement by the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) along the north and the sea lanes and ports in the south—Gwaddar, Djibouti, and even Colombo—has surely accelerated India’s new, overt maritime relationship with the U.S.Of course, the realisation that a weak and shrinking navy, plagued by accidents and delays in its indigenous vessel-building plan, was unlikely to stand up to the confrontationist Chinese stance in the IOR might have forced India’s hand Washington-ward. So may have India’s experience in securing delivery of its aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya from its all-weather friend Moscow, with years rolling by past the delivery date and costs zooming to $2.3 billion from an initial estimate of $947 million.

The greater willingness of the U.S. to share strategic technology with India through co-development and co-production [6] and pass legislation to welcome India into the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) sharply contrasts with China’s support to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme and its obstructionist attitude towards India’s APEC membership. It also extracted the entry of Pakistan into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in return for giving India a seat at the SCO table, and then refused to put the Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) Masood Azhar on the U.N. sanctions list for “technical reasons” [7].All this has left the Modi government with little option but to side with the U.S. in the hope that Washington will support the necessary United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) reforms India seeks to have passed.The reported decision by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)—where India is the second-largest shareholder—to give its first loan to Pakistan, [8, 9] will surely have deepened India’s doubts about the likelihood of investments from China into its own $1 trillion infrastructure upgrade. China’s level of commitment in India is evident from the fact that, in the last 15 years, capital equity investments from it have been a mere $1.32 billion [10].Not surprisingly, India’s political leadership and strategic community may now be of the opinion that staying non-aligned or covertly aligned in the global power game may actually undermine the country’s strategic autonomy.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 24264
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby SSridhar » 30 May 2016 13:16

Shangri-La Dialogue should not be prelude to China-US showdown - Zhou Bo, Straits Times

This is a Chinese view

The Shangri-La Dialogue is a feast for the media. As an influential security forum, its attraction lies not only in policy deliberations by senior delegates but also in animated discussions, particularly during Q&A sessions. The spotlight is almost invariably cast on the China-United States relationship. Typically, the United States Secretary of Defence will speak first on the first day and a senior Chinese general, usually a Deputy Chief of General Staff of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), will speak first on the second day.

Such an astute arrangement by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the organiser, helps ensure maximum attraction to the delegates and media. It should be no different when the Shangri-La Dialogue, also branded the 15th Asia Security Summit, takes place in Singapore this weekend, from June 3-5.

Since 2013, the dialogue has seen the US Secretaries of Defence steadily stepping up their criticism of China, particularly on the South China Sea issue. This will surely invite a robust Chinese response. In 2014, General Wang Guangzhong, then Deputy Chief of General Staff of the PLA, departed from his prepared speech for 10 minutes to fire back at remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and former US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel, made a day before.

Mistrust in the China-US relationship, especially in the security arena, is self-evident. The US National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2000 restricts the US military's exchanges with the PLA in 12 areas. The fear of the US Congress is that any exchanges in these areas might contribute to the PLA's war capabilities and "create a national security risk". China believes this is discriminatory and maintains that exchanges can only be on an equal footing.

The acrimony at recent Shangri-La Dialogues could mislead people to believe that the China-US relationship is vulnerable, or worse, that a showdown between the two giants is inevitable. Indeed a relationship between two major powers is intrinsically complex, but it is also resilient, partly because each side can ill afford the consequence of a conflict or confrontation. Currently, there are over 90 dialogues plus two hotlines between the two governments and two militaries to make sure the relationship stays on track.

China has accepted an invitation to attend Rimpac 2016, a multi-lateral exercise hosted by the US Navy off Hawaii. This will be the second time Chinese naval ships attend Rimpac.

What is the best hope for the China-US relationship? The answer: good management.

Thanks to joint efforts, confidence-building measures, such as the Notification of Major Military Activities and Rules of Behaviour for Safety of Maritime and Air Encounters, have been concluded. When the USS Lassen sailed close to Chinese Zhubi and Meiji reefs last October, the monitoring Chinese ships stood by, but the Chinese ships and the USS Lassen kept a safe distance in line with the procedures in the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea that both navies have agreed to observe.

True, some differences between the two sides seem difficult to reconcile. Although both China and the US agree on the concept of freedom of navigation, they disagree on the legitimacy of US military surveillance and reconnaissance in China's Exclusive Economic Zone.

Furthermore, the US believes that China is using a salami-cutting strategy for slow but assured militarisation in the South China Sea. China, however, does not believe the US position that it does not take sides and has no position on sovereignty over the South China Sea {In other words, China is not disputing the content of the US accusation, but only the format. China has no answer to the fact that it has no effective claim, indeed no claim, at all to the Indo-China Sea and is militarizing the Sea only to establish a hegemony, establish claim based on possession and bludgeon the small nations into submission} . The United States' increased flights and sails off Chinese islands and reefs confirm to China that the US has finally stepped out from behind the screen. From the Chinese point of view, it is the US that is militarising the South China .

Can China and the US cooperate with, rather than confront each other, at the Shangri-La Dialogue? Why not, if they can cooperate in climate change, nuclear security and denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula? Clearly there is a difference between being frank and being unnecessarily provocative. Few describe China and the US as enemies (yes, some call them "frenemies").

China's 2016 growth rate of the defence budget is the lowest since 1990. It shows not only China's further commitment to peaceful development, but also reflects that China is not gearing up for a conflict with the US.

The ever louder and sharper US voice at the Shangri-La Dialogue is not helpful. It could hoax people into believing that the two nations are slipping into a "Thucydides Trap" that both have vowed to try their best to avoid, that is, an Armageddon between a rising power and an existing power. Believing that a showdown between China and the US is inevitable is certainly wrong. And it is equally dangerous to let people believe that things are irreversibly moving in that direction.

•The writer is an honorary fellow with the Centre of China-American Defence Relations at the Academy of Military Science, a research institute of the People's Liberation Army.

Posts: 560
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Avarachan » 22 Jun 2016 16:26

This is a good, brief introduction to the reality of U.S-China relations.

"Deal With the Devil: How the Global Elite Re-colonized China"

"The "Chinese dragon" of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by many as an economic miracle. Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs."

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2017 22:17

Time to revive this thread as what we are seeing especially after 2016 US elections, is increasing tensions between US and China and need to see what is its impact on India......

Three x-posts....

SSridhar wrote:Beijing seen poised for fresh South China Sea assertiveness - Reuters, ToI
China has quietly undertaken more construction and reclamation in the South China Sea, recent satellite images show, and is likely to more powerfully reassert its claims over the waterway soon, regional diplomats and military officers say.

With global attention focused on North Korea and Beijing engrossed in its Party Congress, tensions in the South China Sea have slipped from the headlines in recent months.

But with none of the underlying disputes resolved and new images reviewed by Reuters showing China continuing to develop facilities on North and Tree islands in the contested Paracel islands, experts say the vital trade route remains a global flashpoint.

Some expect China to land its first deployments of jet fighters onto its runways in the Spratly islands in coming months, while regional military officers say it is already using the new facilities to expand naval and coast guard deployments deep into Southeast Asia.

"They've built these extensive facilities and both Chinese civilian and PLA experts have always made it clear that when the strategic time is right, they're going to start using them more fully," said Bonnie Glaser, a China security expert at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"I think it is a question of when, rather than if, China will start to assert its interests more forcefully in the South China Sea ... and that is likely to be at a time of China's choosing," Glaser told Reuters.

Rival claimant Vietnam, meanwhile, is nearing completion of reclamations and an extended runway on its base on Spratly Island, the satellite images show.

Calm after the storm

The build-up of the Spratlys symbolises China's growing assertiveness over the South China Sea during President Xi Jinping's first term and was highlighted in his address to the Communist Party Congress this month.

"Construction on islands and reefs in the South China Sea has seen steady progress," Xi told the Congress.

The issue is likely to come up during US President Donald Trump's visit to Asia, which begins this week.

"We remain concerned about tensions in the South China Sea, in particular those caused by land reclamation and militarization of disputed outposts and the willingness of some to resort to coercive tactics to assert their claims," said Michael Cavey, a spokesman for the US State Department.

"We have consistently called on China, as well as other claimants, to refrain from any further land reclamation, construction of new facilities, and militarization of the disputed features."

Responding to Reuters' questions, Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Ren Guoqiang reiterated the islands were irrefutably Chinese territory.

"You can't say that the construction on our islands and reefs in the South China Sea and the building of necessary defensive facilities is an expansion of military deployments," he said.

"We believe that at present the situation in the South China Sea is generally good, and all relevant parties should work hard together to protect the peace and stability of the South China Sea."

China's ambassador to Washington, Cui Tiankai, said on Monday the United States should not try to "interfere" in regional efforts to resolve disputes in the South China Sea.

China has been seeking to soothe fellow claimant the Philippines and accelerating talks with the wider ASEAN grouping, amid concerns in Washington about the long-term security of the waterway through which some $3 trillion in trade a year passes.

In a speech in Singapore earlier this month, the most senior US military chief in the region said even while Washington pushed Beijing for help on North Korea, it would still hold China accountable for actions that countered international rules and norms.

"We also want Beijing to do more to stop provocative actions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, where the Chinese are building up combat power and positional advantage in an attempt to assert de-facto sovereignty over disputed maritime features," Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Command, said.

China claims much of the area through its controversial nine-dash line, which overlaps rival maritime claims by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.

Tactics not strategy

A recent study by the US government-linked RAND Corp weighing the risks of a conflict between the United States and China moved the South China Sea up its list of potential flashpoints.

Placing it above Taiwan but below the Korean peninsula
, the study notes the waterway has "become the unanticipated focal point of US-Chinese ... rivalry".

While the Pentagon has embarked on more regular freedom-of-navigation patrols, or FONOPS, to challenge Beijing's claims, some analysts believe Washington is struggling to counter China's creeping domination of the area.

"China appears to be pursuing a well-thought out and long-term strategy to achieve dominion over the South China Sea while America responds with ad hoc tactical manoeuvres," said Ian Storey, a South China Sea expert at Singapore's Yusof Ishak Institute.

"FONOPS are tactics not strategy, and they have not made China rethink its plans for the South China Sea one iota."

Ni Lexiong, a naval expert at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, said there was little need for China to dramatically increase deployments now, but much depended on the actions others.

"As long as others don't intentionally go and provoke clashes, things will be fine," he added. "The issue is that some countries, like the United States, go and stir things up."

Above is a result of XI Jinping elevation to Mao and Deng status. South China Sea is again on the front burner.

Second x-post....

SSridhar wrote:Trump to push for ‘open Indo-Pacific’ - Varghesee K George, The Hindu
U.S. President Donald Trump will “present the U.S. vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region” in a speech in Da Nang, Vietnam on November 10, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEOs meet, the White House said on Tuesday.

Mr. Trump’s visit to the region — from November 3 to 14 — will be the longest by a U.S President in 25 years, and will “underscore the long-standing U.S commitment to the region”, a senior administration official said. Mr. Trump will travel to Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines, and this will be the largest number of countries covered by a U.S. President in a single trip to the region, since George W. Bush in 2003.

The official said Mr. Trump’s visit will make the “message clear to China that for trade relations between the two countries to be sustainable, it has to be free and fair”.

“It is very important to note that the President is making a long term commitment to the region, based on the shared principles of rules-based, high-standard, economic system and reduction of chronic trade deficits,” the official said.

Market principles

The official repeatedly said that countries in the Indo-Pacific region must stick to an economic system based on “market principles”, and accused China of undermining principles of market.

At the recent congress of the Chinese Communist Party, Chinese President Xi Jinping had asked countries to emulate the Chinese model of development, and shun Western liberalism.

“China must provide fair and reciprocal treatment, not just to the U.S. but all countries in the region”, the official said, accusing Beijing of “predatory investment and economic practices”.
He said China’s unwillingness to do so “reflects a slowdown, or even a retreat in China’s progress toward a market driven economy”.

The official said the Chinese economy has become so big that its practices are negatively impacting not only the U.S. but all other countries in the region. The President will press China on these issues, the official said.

US pushes for "Open" policy when they want freedom to intrude. During the 1850s they came up with a bogusly named "Open Door Policy" for China which essentially meant they need access and not be shut out by Europeans.
So similarly Open Indo-Pacific is their intention to stomp in Indo-Pacific region as the global economy is shifting to this waterways.

Third x-post that is India's response....

SSridhar wrote:Extra-regional nations maintaining near permanent presence in Indian Ocean: Nirmala Sitharaman - Economic Times
Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman today voiced concern over increased militarisation and extra- regional nations maintaining a near permanent presence in the Indian Ocean region on "some pretext or the other".

This sort of militarisation increases complexities for the countries in the region, she said.

"The Indian Ocean has been peaceful over past few decades. However, our collective decision to capitalise on this or not and how we counter the emerging challenges will significantly influence the regional peace and security in future," she said.

The minister, who did not name any country, was addressing the inaugural function of the Goa Maritime Conclave, which aims to address the maritime challenges in the region.

An increased militarisation in the Indian Ocean has manifested in two interconnected forms in the region, Sitharaman said.

"We have also witnessed extra-regional nations maintain a near permanent presence within the region on one pretext or the other," she said.

"In order to sustain such a presence through operational turnaround, these countries, which are extra-regional, are creating naval outposts as well as dual use infrastructure in the region. This sort of militarisation increases the complexities for the countries of this region," Sitharaman said.

The defence minister also expressed concern over the emergence of non-state actors in the region.

"The concept of non-state actors is not something new as the countries are dealing with this issue both at land and at sea since time immemorial," she said.

"However, the recent surge in the number of non-state actors, when juxtaposed with the support they enjoy from certain states, their enhanced reach as well as access to the resources has brought the issue to the forefront and demands a firm action," she said.

Referring to the 'blue economy', the Union minister said the sea bed has emerged as a futuristic and abundant source of relatively pure minerals, thereby adding to the ocean's economic potential.

"The progress achieved and the efforts to harness clean and renewable energy sources through off shore energy firms add a whole new dimension to the possible economic and strategic impact of the ocean on countries of this region," Sitharaman said.

While it is good that the compulsion of globalisation has enabled economics to shape relationships between nations, the opaqueness in strategic intent by certain nations is preventing these very relations from evolving beyond a transactional nature, she added.

When the first "Open Door Policy" was announced by the US, India was under British rule and in fact the main source of opium to drug the Chinese. Irony is the source of latest drug epidemic in US is China. A reverse opium war.

Now India is free and needs to develop a nuanced policy that takes care of Indian interests in Indo-Pacific region.

To go there, one needs to define Indian interests in this region.

The first one is open freedom of seas with no one power intrinsic or extrinsic dominating the waterways of Indo-Pacific Oceans.

Now the finer nuance should be Indian Ocean region.
Let US not spill over its confrontation fro Pacific region to the Indian Ocean region.

This needs many steps in many areas.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 3349
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Rony » 11 Dec 2019 18:57

Mistrust and the Hunt for Spies Among Chinese Americans

Su’s ordeal reflects how the U.S. government’s distrust of China, which flared during the Obama administration and erupted openly during President Donald Trump’s trade war, has mutated into distrust of Chinese Americans. Signs of this heightened scrutiny emerged in July when FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the bureau is investigating more than 1,000 cases of attempted theft of U.S. intellectual property, with “almost all” leading back to China. Last year the U.S. National Institutes of Health, working with the FBI, started probes into some 180 researchers at more than 70 hospitals and universities, seeking undisclosed ties to China. Some of the suspected scientists were instructed by their associates in China to conceal their connections to the country while in the U.S., says Ross McKinney, chief scientific officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges. “The presumption of trust is blown by the fact that there’s a systematic approach to lying,” he says.

A Bloomberg News analysis of more than 26,000 security clearance decisions for federal contractors since 1996 demonstrates another facet of the government’s steep loss of faith in Americans with ties to China. From 2000 through 2009, clearance applicants with connections to China—such as family or financial relationships—were denied Pentagon clearances at the same rate as applicants with links to all other countries: 44%. But from 2010 through Oct. 31 this year, the China-related denial rate jumped to 61%, and the rate for all other countries fell to 34%. In other words, more than three-fifths of applicants who have family or other ties to China are rejected for security clearances to work for government contractors, while two-thirds of applicants with ties to other countries are approved.

Some attorneys who specialize in helping applicants get security clearances say they won’t accept Chinese American clients anymore for fear of wasting their money.

“It’s gotten to the point that some of my clients won’t even call or visit their own mother in China to avoid having to disclose the ‘foreign contact,’ ” says Alan Edmunds, who’s practiced national-security law for 41 years. “I’ve never seen the DoD or other three-letter agencies in such a heightened state of sensitivity.”

Too often, distrust of people of Chinese heritage drives decision-making at the FBI and other U.S. security agencies, according to interviews with more than a dozen people who’ve worked as federal investigators. One of them, Mike German, worked as an FBI special agent from 1988 to 2004. In his book, Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide, he argues that FBI leaders have propagated Chinese and other ethnic stereotypes since Sept. 11 as part of an effort to focus more heavily on domestic counterintelligence.

In 2005 the bureau introduced an initiative that used U.S. Census data to map U.S. neighborhoods by race and ethnicity to guide FBI surveillance of potential terrorists and spies, German wrote. In 2009 the bureau justified opening such an assessment of Chinese communities in San Francisco on the grounds that organized crime had existed “for generations” in the city’s Chinatown, according to an FBI memo obtained in 2011 by the American Civil Liberties Union.

FBI internal training materials released at the same time featured presentations on “The Chinese,” which were full of generalizations about Confucian relationships (“authority and subordination is accepted”) and the Chinese concept of saving face.

“The training is a form of othering, which is a dangerous thing to do to a national security workforce learning to identify the dangerous ‘them’ they’re supposed to protect ‘us’ from,” says German, now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. “Even the title, ‘The Chinese,’ imagines 1.4 billion people sharing the same characteristics. It seems more likely to implant bias than to educate agents about the complex behavior of spies.”

LaRae Quy, who worked as an FBI counterintelligence agent for 24 years before retiring in 2006, says she believes the generalizations are justified. People from China, unlike Russians, maintain close ties to the homeland that make them particularly vulnerable to recruiting as spies by Chinese intelligence, she says. “You’re American-born, but you’re Chinese at heart,” says Quy, who is now an author and executive consultant.

In a representative DOHA decision last year, the 61-year-old founder of a machinery-design company sought a security clearance to work on his company’s defense contracts. He immigrated to the U.S. from China in 1985, earned a doctorate, became a U.S. citizen, and has two grown daughters born in America. He also has real estate, retirement accounts, and substantial financial interests in the U.S., wrote DOHA Judge Noreen Lynch. She noted that there’s “no evidence” he or his father and two sisters in China were ever approached for sensitive information by Chinese intelligence agents. And though the businessman used to visit and send money to his 90-year-old dad annually, he stopped that a few years ago as a result of his security clearance investigation.

Siding with the Pentagon, Lynch took “administrative notice” of a U.S. finding that China and Russia are “the most aggressive” sponsors of economic spying. She found the “Applicant’s close relationship to his father and sisters, who are vulnerable to potential Chinese coercion, outweighs his connections to the United States.” Clearance denied.

The idea that having friends or family in China makes Chinese Americans vulnerable to coercion by Chinese agents, directly or through their loved ones, is a premise of most of DOHA’s China-linked denials. In Lynch’s 12-page ruling, the word “coercion” appears 11 times.

National-security lawyers question that notion’s evidentiary basis. “I dare say you will find no evidence of this threat being real. Logical? Yes. Real? No,” says Mark Zaid, who represents numerous security clearance applicants.

The coercion concept is a holdover from the Cold War, when Soviet-bloc governments blackmailed their own citizens to get family members to spy for the Communist regimes, according to a 2017 report published by the Pentagon’s Defense Personnel and Security Research Center. “Threatening to harm a person’s relatives living under Communist control in Eastern Europe, or threatening to publicly reveal one’s sexual identity, have not been effective coercion strategies” since the fall of the Berlin Wall, wrote the report’s author, Katherine Herbig of Northrop Grumman Technology Services.

Of the 141 U.S. convictions for espionage and related crimes from 1980 through 2015—22 of them involving China—coercion was not a “strong motivation” in a single case, the report said. At least 12 of the 22 people convicted of spying for China weren’t ethnic Chinese, according to Jeremy Wu, a retired federal official who has analyzed China-espionage cases for an academic research paper.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 18 Dec 2019 06:42

Looks like the judges come form Count of Monte Cristo genre like Villefort.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby kit » 18 Dec 2019 07:35

The US willingness to share technology is not altruistic but purely commercial. The state department has gone on record saying India needs to demonstrate market access to US goods for tech access. This "competition " of US and China does NOT really help India as they are both interlinked to a great degree . If things can be read into " carving up the world" between them is read right BOTH have a vested interest in keeping India as a low cost consumerist nation of "coolies" literally a docile elephant to be goaded with sticks of Kashmir religious freedom military pushes scaremongering internal strife . The look east policy has not brought much benefit to India except a ballooning trade deficit.

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 19:47

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby mahadevbhu » 26 Dec 2019 11:48

Ya but if we try to access technology which is now accessible to us, and then create a relationship with the US that is similar to the one that China has with Russia..then that will really help us in terms of ToT. The US is mercantile sure. But that helps keep costs down and given what they spend on RnD. They're likely to be far ahead of the rest. So there should be a national thrust from the government of India to access this technology from the US.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby abhik » 26 Dec 2019 20:11

A good primer on land (sea?) grab by in the south china sea. Quite stunning if you really think about it, in the last 10 years they have managed to grab these islands from multiple countries on one hand while simultaneously making them more dependent on China, and slowly removing US hegemony from the region. The 2012 refusal of the US to backup Philippines with military force can probably be tied to Hunter-bin-Joe Biden payoffs the by Chinese (amongst others which I'm sure are yet to be uncovered).

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 21 Jan 2020 21:01

Robert Blackwill is out with a new report on US-China ties.


Meantime his 22 recommendations:


To more effectively compete with China, Blackwill offers proposals starting with modernizing U.S. domestic infrastructure, improving education, and harnessing next-generation technologies. On the foreign policy front, Blackwill recommends spending fewer resources on the Middle East, deepening ties with allies in Asia and Europe, shifting military assets to Asia, and seeking a more constructive relationship with Russia.

“Although the Trump administration is the first to recognize the failed policies of the past toward China, it has developed no such grand strategy toward the country, and thus no integrated and detailed work plan. This puts the United States at a major strategic disadvantage because China does have a grand strategy,” writes Blackwill.

On ratcheting up tensions between the United States and China, the author warns, “If both foolishly continue to actively seek primacy in the Indo-Pacific, few consequential compromises will be advanced or accepted by Washington or Beijing. With little or no willingness by either side to take the other’s vital national interests into account, the road opens to sustained confrontation and perhaps even, in extremis, military conflict.”

“However, such a dangerous outcome is far from inevitable,” Blackwill writes. “Washington and Beijing, through sustained diplomacy, can manage this enduring policy contention in ways that avoid perpetual confrontation. This would require thoughtful and prudent statecraft in both capitals, which is now not the case.”

Such statecraft would advance the following goals for both the United States and China:

“Reach broad understanding over what constitutes their respective vital national interests;”
“Construct off-ramps through diplomacy to avert confrontations over mutually incompatible vital national interests;”
Avoid making minor issues tests of national strength and prestige, and compromise on lower-priority issues where possible;
“Muzzle inflamed government public rhetoric regarding the policies and actions of the other;”
“Search for areas to cooperate intensively on global governance, such as climate change, the world economy, and nonproliferation;”
“Accept that for the foreseeable future the United States and China will have incompatible political systems and two fundamentally opposed concepts about the sources of political legitimacy and how best to organize societies;” and
“Reject regime change as a policy objective in word and deed.”

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2859
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby g.sarkar » 22 Jan 2020 05:16 ... 200121.htm
When a US president wanted Indian minister sacked!
By JAIRAM RAMESH, January 21, 2020.

'Galbraith had a powerful ally in Washington -- not as blunt and direct as the ambassador -- but committed to see Krishna Menon go.'
'This was President Kennedy himself.'
A revealing excerpt from Jairam Ramesh's brilliant new book, A Chequered Brilliance: The Many Lives of V K Krishna Menon.
V K Krishna Menon was India's defence minister when China went to war with this country in October 1962.
The Indian military was routed by the Chinese, a military debacle that was attributed to Krishna Menon's poor leadership at the defence ministry.
Congress and Opposition politicians asked Nehru to sack Menon and take charge of the defence ministry himself.
Pressure was also building on the prime minister from a different quarter, as Jairam Ramesh discloses for the first time:
V K Krishna Menon came back to India in the first week of October 1962. On October 5, 1962, Nehru wrote to the army chief, General P N Thapar:
I have just received a letter from the President which runs as follows:
'I am surprised and pained to see this morning a press report [in the Times of India] that a special task force was being sent to NEFA charged with pushing the Chinese out. Such secret military information is not given out. It will give previous warning to the other and endanger the lives of men.'
I was myself greatly surprised and distressed to see the report in the press this morning ... I am having an investigation made as to how this leakage in the press took place...
We don't know what that investigation revealed, but what we do know is that the same day Krishna Menon got a press note issued officially. The note denied that a special task force had been created to deal with the Chinese intrusion in NEFA, but acknowledged that 'reorganisation of the defence arrangements in the area had been under consideration for some time...', which had led the Indian Army corps in north-east India to be split into two units: One to be led by Lieutenant General B M Kaul, to be responsible for the border facing China, and the other to be led by Lieutenant General Umrao Singh, to be responsible for Nagaland and the border with East Pakistan.
It did not escape attention and comment that it would be the 'first time that Lt General Kaul will be holding a senior command in an operation theatre'. Many years later Major General D K Palit, who was then director of military operations, would reveal that Kaul himself had been the source of the leak of his assignment that had so infuriated the President, prime minister and defence minister.
History will always judge Nehru, Krishna Menon and Thapar most unkindly for Kaul's NEFA appointment. One view is that Krishna Menon and Thapar had orchestrated it, but Nehru had supported them fully.
The situation, from India's point of view, worsened by the day with territory and men being lost -- the latter in substantial numbers. India's defence preparedness and lack of military equipment stood woefully exposed.
On October 25, 1962, the man who had first made Krishna Menon an MP nine years earlier spoke out and echoed the sentiments of a very large number of Congressmen themselves.
C Rajagopalachari suggested that the 'present Defence Minister should be relieved and the Prime Minister should take up the responsibility of the country's defence himself by calling on a suitable General or ex-General to assist him as Minister of State'.
A state of national emergency was declared on October 26, 1962, and urgent requests were made to the US, the UK and Canada for urgent military supplies.
On October 29, 1962, Krishna Menon made a flying visit to Leh and Srinagar to boost the morale of the troops while in New Delhi his ministry put out an official denial that he was resigning.
But on October 30, 1962, Krishna Menon would send in the first of his three resignations to Nehru.
Expensive (for me) at $44.99. But excerpts can be read at Amazon, search "A chequered brilliance the many lives of v.k. krishna menon"
I had barely started to read newspapers during the Chinese attack and VKKM was the great villain of that war.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 14 Feb 2021 05:00

Please use this thread.....

Rudradev wrote:IMPORTANT

Atlantic Council document lays out detailed policy proposal for future US administrations to adopt vis-a-vis China.

Read in full here: ... per_series

Shorter version here: ... ous-463120

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 14 Feb 2021 05:05

On October 25, 1962, the man who had first made Krishna Menon an MP nine years earlier spoke out and echoed the sentiments of a very large number of Congressmen themselves.
C Rajagopalachari suggested that the 'present Defence Minister should be relieved and the Prime Minister should take up the responsibility of the country's defence himself by calling on a suitable General or ex-General to assist him as Minister of State'.

it was not quite for nothing CRR was the original fox and Pawar is just a jackal masquerading as a fox.

Posts: 963
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Cyrano » 14 Feb 2021 14:38

“Accept that for the foreseeable future the United States and China will have incompatible political systems and two fundamentally opposed concepts about the sources of political legitimacy and how best to organize societies;”

Just confirms that US has abandoned all intent of seeing democracy in China, almost immediately after letting it into WTO, hoping market economy greed alone will suffice.

But that mistake was compounded by American capitalist greed which jumped at China's cheap labour (ironically with no worker health or labor law considerations despite its worker state roots) and moved its manufacturing out to China. America turned into a massively credit driven economy and money flowed into companies which invested it in China to do more and more outsourcing. Cheap credit also flowed into American society as they switched to a more services driven economy (a lot of which produces nothing of intrinsic value, and not just in America) and fuelled conspicuous consumption of cheap Chinese made goods to unprecedented levels. (going on even today, just look at Amazon's catalog).

All this was also made possible by successive US Govts acting wilfully blind to the rise of CCP's power, reach, B&RI, IP theft and insidious activity all over the globe. Thus in just about three decades US and created the Frankenstien China monster is has to contend with today.

If it were not for Gulf wars, which were supported -some say instigated- and sustained by the American Military Industrial Complex, whose research investments and innovations inturn fuelled the internet boom and the emergence of big tech companies, which then made almost every economy and country Digital to some extent; if it were not for these wars sustaining US dollar as the currency for oil trade, the world would have been a very different place today.

The American Deep State (mostly MIC + some career Pentagon, State Dept officials, Mil leadership and a few politicians, businessmen, bankers) has a sustained long term world view, not US Prezs who come and go. And ADS is what one important factor to consider in US-China relationship.

Of course the Chinese equivalent to ADS is the CCP itself, with full direct authority and freedom of action which the ADS will never have. And CCP doesnt face elections every for years.

Does India consciously engage with ADS? if not should it? Is there an Indian equivalent of ADS ??!! I don't know for sure...

JMT. Your views will be helpful in understanding this topic better.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 15 Feb 2021 08:16

It's the cost of military that US doing in New Rome just as it did to Old Rome.

The price for 3 month deployment of 40,000 National Guard without firing a shot is coming to $410 million.

They want to extend till year end.

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 09 Sep 2009 01:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby vrbarreto » 19 Feb 2021 15:19

China admitted that 4 troops died in the border clash

Full of the usual bluster and hyperbole.

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Prem » 20 Feb 2021 02:40

Deleted, old news

Posts: 980
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby V_Raman » 20 Feb 2021 03:28

Why are they releasing videos now?! They are withdrawing....

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2859
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby g.sarkar » 01 Mar 2021 02:19 ... 9-n1258844
U.S. diplomats in China subjected to anal swab testing for Covid-19, State Department says
The U.S. had "received assurances from China that the tests were done in error," a Department of State spokesperson said.
Feb. 25, 2021, Abigail Williams and Adela Suliman

U.S. diplomats in China were subjected to anal swab tests for Covid-19, a Department of State spokesperson confirmed Thursday, adding that a protest had been lodged with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The United States had received assurances from China that the tests were done in error and that diplomatic personnel were exempt from this specific testing requirement, the spokesperson said.
"The Department is committed to guaranteeing the safety and security of American diplomats and their families while preserving their dignity, consistent with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as well as other relevant diplomatic law provisions," the spokesperson said.
The story was first reported by The Washington Post.
However, Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told a news conference Thursday that he had checked with his colleagues and as far as he knew, "China has never asked U.S. diplomats stationed in China to have anal swab tests."
Some health experts say the anal swab tests are more accurate than nasal and mouth swabs to detect virus traces.

Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balaji, Karan M, milindc and 42 guests