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.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Prem »

Border talks: How India plays into China's hands
By staying engaged in the useless border talks, knowing fully well that Beijing [ Images ] has no intent to settle territorial issues, India [ Images ] gives greater space to China to mount strategic pressure and gain leverage, notes strategic expert Brahma Chellaney
What does India gain by staying put in an interminably barren negotiating process with China?
By persisting with this process, isn't India aiding the Chinese engagement-with-containment strategy by providing Beijing the cover it needs? While Beijing's strategy and tactics are apparent, India has had difficulty to define a game-plan and resolutely pursue clearly laid-out objectives. Still, staying put in a barren process cannot be an end in itself for India.
India indeed has retreated to an increasingly defensive position territorially, with the spotlight now on China's Tibet-linked claim to Arunachal Pradesh than on Tibet's status itself. Now you know why Beijing invested so much political capital over the years in getting India to gradually accept Tibet as part of its territory. Its success on that score has helped narrow the dispute to what it claims. That neatly meshes with China's long-standing negotiating stance: What it occupies is Chinese territory, and what it claims must be on the table to be settled on the basis of give-and-take -- or as it puts it in reasonably sounding terms, on the basis of 'mutual accommodation and mutual understanding'.As a result, India has been left in the unenviable position of having to fend off Chinese territorial demands. In fact, history is in danger of repeating itself as India gets sucked into a 1950s-style trap. The issue then was Aksai Chin; the issue now is Arunachal.
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/jul/ ... -talks.htm
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Sanjay M »

"What's mine is mine, what's yours we negotiate"
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by DavidD »

Sanjay M wrote:"What's mine is mine, what's yours we negotiate"
Same for both countries, no? I don't get why the two countries don't just say "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours."
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6116
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by sanjaykumar »

You mean India should give them Mughalstan with Kashmir? :)
VenkataS
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 03:38

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by VenkataS »

Devesh wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:"What's mine is mine, what's yours we negotiate"
Same for both countries, no? I don't get why the two countries don't just say "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours."
No Sanjay it is not same for both countries. By conceding the fact that Tibet is chinese territory India has lost a valuable negotiating tool. The point that "Brahma Chellaney" is trying to make is that we have been conceding ground even during this protracted negotiations/discussions cycle which has lasted for 30 years now and that the discussions are not doing us any good.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by DavidD »

VenkataS wrote: No Sanjay it is not same for both countries. By conceding the fact that Tibet is chinese territory India has lost a valuable negotiating tool. The point that "Brahma Chellaney" is trying to make is that we have been conceding ground even during this protracted negotiations/discussions cycle which has lasted for 30 years now and that the discussions are not doing us any good.
Wait, did India ever claim Tibet? Why would China have to negotiate with India for Tibet? All I'm suggesting is that wouldn't it be great if India and China just accepted the LOC?
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Rony »

Devesh wrote:
Wait, did India ever claim Tibet?
That was a mistake. That's the whole point. Just because we did a mistake in the past does not mean we need to continue with that mistake. If we did not claim Tibet in the past, we should claim it now.If china claims Tawang, there is no reason why we should not claim Lhasa.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Sanjay M »

Just get more Agni-III rockets in place, while we switch back to ambiguity on Tibet.
Then when we have enough, we can say that the matter is re-opened, just like Pak cast off the Shimla Accords.

Obviously relations are going to have to get worse before they can get better.
Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Karan Dixit »

Devesh wrote:
VenkataS wrote: No Sanjay it is not same for both countries. By conceding the fact that Tibet is chinese territory India has lost a valuable negotiating tool. The point that "Brahma Chellaney" is trying to make is that we have been conceding ground even during this protracted negotiations/discussions cycle which has lasted for 30 years now and that the discussions are not doing us any good.
Wait, did India ever claim Tibet? Why would China have to negotiate with India for Tibet? All I'm suggesting is that wouldn't it be great if India and China just accepted the LOC?
You are wrong on two counts at least.

1. There is no LOC between India and China. However, there is a LAC between India and China. It is because large portion of India's border with China is through China's illegal occupation of Tibet and hostile takeover of Indian territories such as Aksai Chin.

2. Since China has invaded and occupied Tibet, a sovereign neighbor of India, it becomes India's business to raise the issue. Especially, since it creates a LAC vs LOC problem for India.
aqkhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 03 Jul 2010 09:02
Location: United States

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by aqkhan »

US and PRC interests vis a vis India
a) Prevent India from solving Kashmir and ending the Paki menace (up until now, changed recently)
b) Prevent India from engaging in the middle east (compete for resource) by letting Pak flag the islam card in the middle east.
c) Curtail Indian influence in Indian Ocean to enable any threat to blockade of trade/oil.

India and US interests vis a vis PRC
a) Keep PRC on its toes over Taiwan to portray it as an evil communist country throughout the world
b) Keep PRC from engaging in Vietnam, Myanmar etc
c) Prevent China from influencing Pak (so that US doesn't lose ground in Af-Pak and India don't want China in Kashmir)
d) Prevent China from establishing a foothold in resource rich Central Asia.

India and PRC interests vis-a-vis US
a) Systematically reduce US influence in middle east to prevent threat of oil blockade
b) Reduce US political meddling in Asia (kashmir and Taiwan)
c) Dislodge US out of South Asia and Central Asia
Last edited by aqkhan on 03 Jul 2010 09:30, edited 1 time in total.
aqkhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 03 Jul 2010 09:02
Location: United States

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by aqkhan »

Karan Dixit wrote:
You are wrong on two counts at least.

1. There is no LOC between India and China. However, there is a LAC between India and China. It is because large portion of India's border with China is through China's illegal occupation of Tibet and hostile takeover of Indian territories such as Aksai Chin.

2. Since China has invaded and occupied Tibet, a sovereign neighbor of India, it becomes India's business to raise the issue. Especially, since it creates a LAC vs LOC problem for India.
India officially recognized Tibet as part of China
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Sanjay M »

The water issue alone will force India to reverse this decision

As soon as China begins to dam up some major rivers, then India should use this as grounds for questioning China's control over Tibet

Once we have enough Agni-III's, then China's fulminations won't matter a bit
aqkhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 03 Jul 2010 09:02
Location: United States

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by aqkhan »

China has begun to dam up Brahmaputra. India didn't question China's control over Tibet.
Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Karan Dixit »

aqkhan wrote:
Karan Dixit wrote:
You are wrong on two counts at least.

1. There is no LOC between India and China. However, there is a LAC between India and China. It is because large portion of India's border with China is through China's illegal occupation of Tibet and hostile takeover of Indian territories such as Aksai Chin.

2. Since China has invaded and occupied Tibet, a sovereign neighbor of India, it becomes India's business to raise the issue. Especially, since it creates a LAC vs LOC problem for India.
India officially recognized Tibet as part of China
You are wrong. India recognized Tibet as an autonomous region. Tibet was supposed to have full control on its trade and commerce. It was supposed to have its own currency. It was supposed to have its own government. Those were the assurances given to India by China.

Since China did not carried out any of those agreements, China's presence in Tibet is illegal.

Last but not least, it is the Tibetan people who get to decide whether they want to live under brutal Chinese occupation. No one has right to impose that decision on them.
aqkhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 03 Jul 2010 09:02
Location: United States

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by aqkhan »

Karan Dixit wrote: You are wrong. India recognized Tibet as an autonomous region. Tibet was supposed to have full control on its trade and commerce. It was supposed to have its own currency. It was supposed to have its own government. Those were the assurances given to India by China.

Since China did not carried out any of those agreements, China's presence in Tibet is illegal.

Last but not least, it is the Tibetan people who get to decide whether they want to live under brutal Chinese occupation. No one has right to impose that decision on them.
India never said that Tibet should have its own currency. India did want Tibet to have complete autonomy, while advocating a one China policy. That is definitely missing. However, China's presence it Tibet is defined by the actions of the world community however, and they don't see the occupation as illegal at all.
naren
BRFite
Posts: 1139
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 07:45

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by naren »

^^^ Forget the world community. Any attempts by China to steal Tibetan water must be construed as an act of war. About time India scraps this One China nonsense. China's actions are already dangerous to the fragile eco system. If India does not act NOW, it might affect the lives of about 400M people in India within few decades.
aqkhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 03 Jul 2010 09:02
Location: United States

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by aqkhan »

Are you suggesting that India should plan a mission to bomb the brahmaputra dam?
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Sanjay M »

We can let the Tibetans bomb the dam - just as Pak justifies sending jihadis across the LoC because they claim we'll cut off their water. If Chinese try to send troops across LAC in hot pursuit, or if they mass their forces on the border, then we start doing Agni missile tests.

We're going to have to resort to brinksmanship with the Chinese, because they sure as hell won't stop damming rivers if we leave them alone.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by DavidD »

Sanjay M wrote:We can let the Tibetans bomb the dam - just as Pak justifies sending jihadis across the LoC because they claim we'll cut off their water. If Chinese try to send troops across LAC in hot pursuit, or if they mass their forces on the border, then we start doing Agni missile tests.

We're going to have to resort to brinksmanship with the Chinese, because they sure as hell won't stop damming rivers if we leave them alone.
And how do you suppose Tibetans are gonna bomb the dam? I'm sure terrorist around the globe have tried to bomb a dam somewhere, yet you expect the Tibetans, who've never been known to be terrorists to accomplish this? Do you know who's gonna be flooded if the dam breaks? Do you know how hard it is for people to cross the Himalayas, especially presumably with helicopters/warplanes in pursuit? In the 60's, the Americans could airdrop anything they wanted any time they wanted to Tibet to support a failed insurgency, but now that would be much harder.
naren
BRFite
Posts: 1139
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 07:45

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by naren »

aqkhan wrote:Are you suggesting that India should plan a mission to bomb the brahmaputra dam?
I'm not talking about the tactical issues, but policy issues. So far, whatever GOI is doing is not reassuring in any way. Once we have framed a clear policy on how to deal with the Chinese, the strategic/tactical issues will naturally fall in place. (ie) What deals can we make with the Chinese without letting the sheet hit the fan ? India does have a stake in Tibet - in terms of environment & water. What happens there affects us (& other countries in the subcontinent). Me thinks GOI is resorting to "let the next guy deal with it" approach - a disease of democracy. If every govt is resorting to this, it will be too late. An issue which affects about 400M people in India alone, about 1bn in total, should not be treated lightly.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Bade »

For those who keep saying "India recognized Tibet as an integral part of China", I ask then why did the GoI allow HH Dalai Lama to setup an administration in exile at Dharmasala. The Tibetan movement is not over by any means and India has left the door wide open for future change in policy on Tibet.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Sanjay M »

DavidD wrote:And how do you suppose Tibetans are gonna bomb the dam? I'm sure terrorist around the globe have tried to bomb a dam somewhere, yet you expect the Tibetans, who've never been known to be terrorists to accomplish this? Do you know who's gonna be flooded if the dam breaks? Do you know how hard it is for people to cross the Himalayas, especially presumably with helicopters/warplanes in pursuit? In the 60's, the Americans could airdrop anything they wanted any time they wanted to Tibet to support a failed insurgency, but now that would be much harder.
I don't expect Tibetans to be terrorists, I expect them to be freedom fighters.

Yes, Tibetans are notoriously pacifist, and yet you saw them riot against the Chinese.

Tibet is a country of wide open spaces, so nobody's going to be flooded if a dam breaks.
But again, you're focusing on tactics rather than on policy. The thing is that Han are trying to overrun everybody else's population with their own, and that needs to be reversed.

Naxalites have shown how easy it is to blow up rail tracks, and likewise in Tibet's vast spaces, the same is possible. Taliban have shown how easy it is to IED convoys, and likewise the same is possible in Tibet.

I suspect that China is already backing the Naxalites anyway, just like Nepalese Maoists.
There's no way such groups can have surged forward so successfully and suddenly in militant tactics without outside support.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by DavidD »

Sanjay M wrote:
DavidD wrote:And how do you suppose Tibetans are gonna bomb the dam? I'm sure terrorist around the globe have tried to bomb a dam somewhere, yet you expect the Tibetans, who've never been known to be terrorists to accomplish this? Do you know who's gonna be flooded if the dam breaks? Do you know how hard it is for people to cross the Himalayas, especially presumably with helicopters/warplanes in pursuit? In the 60's, the Americans could airdrop anything they wanted any time they wanted to Tibet to support a failed insurgency, but now that would be much harder.
I don't expect Tibetans to be terrorists, I expect them to be freedom fighters.

Yes, Tibetans are notoriously pacifist, and yet you saw them riot against the Chinese.

Tibet is a country of wide open spaces, so nobody's going to be flooded if a dam breaks.
But again, you're focusing on tactics rather than on policy. The thing is that Han are trying to overrun everybody else's population with their own, and that needs to be reversed.

Naxalites have shown how easy it is to blow up rail tracks, and likewise in Tibet's vast spaces, the same is possible. Taliban have shown how easy it is to IED convoys, and likewise the same is possible in Tibet.

I suspect that China is already backing the Naxalites anyway, just like Nepalese Maoists.
There's no way such groups can have surged forward so successfully and suddenly in militant tactics without outside support.
Terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever, same thing. They did riot, but it wasn't nearly as violent as the Uighur one. You're right, it's all open spaces, so where are the fighters gonna hide? How will they sneak a large load of explosives to the dam? If it's so damn difficult for terrorists around the world, who are way better financed, trained, experienced, and numerous than what Tibet can organize, to blow up dams in much more crowded places, how would Tibetans do it?

If India offers direct support to Tibetan fighters, I think you can expect some retaliation with Chinese support of Naxalites, no? Which one do you think would be more damaging to the country those fighters are in? You can argue that China is currently providing tactical and/or financial support to the Naxalites, since there's no proof either way, but you can't argue that China sets up training camps and provides weaponry to them. It can start, and it can also escalate. While Tibetan troubles will be in what's essentially a buffer province, Naxalites operate in the heart of India. I don't think you want to go down that road.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by chaanakya »

China Sentences American Geologist
SHANGHAI—Spurning a personal appeal from President Barack Obama, a Chinese court on Monday sentenced an U.S. geologist to eight years in prison for trying to buy data about the Chinese oil industry, a heavy penalty that legal experts said is a warning to foreign businesses and a rebuke to Washington.

The Beijing Number One Intermediate Court fined 44-year-old Xue Feng 200,000 yuan, or about $29,850, in addition to the prison sentence, for attempting to obtain and traffic in state secrets.

Tong Wei, Mr. Xue's lawyer, termed the sentence "harsh" and said few details of the allegations against Mr. Xue were made public.

In a statement issued shortly after the sentence, which came as the U.S. was celebrating its Independence Day holiday, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said Washington is "dismayed" at Monday's sentence. It called for Mr. Xue's "humanitarian release" and deportation.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by svinayak »

DavidD wrote:
If India offers direct support to Tibetan fighters, I think you can expect some retaliation with Chinese support of Naxalites, no? Which one do you think would be more damaging to the country those fighters are in?
What do you think they invaded Tibet for. You think India created any insurgency inside China. China made the first move by invading Tibet. They have to face the consequence
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by svinayak »

DavidD wrote:
Wait, did India ever claim Tibet? Why would China have to negotiate with India for Tibet? All I'm suggesting is that wouldn't it be great if India and China just accepted the LOC?
India has to negotiate with the Govt of Tibet over the LAC just as it had relationship for 100 of years.
China cannot come in between India and Tibet
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by chaanakya »

DavidD wrote:
Terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever, same thing.
[snip]
So you think Gandhi and perhaps Nelson Mandela were a terrorist or freedom fighters...same thing
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Prem »

China presses ahead with Pakistan nuclear deal – and contemplates U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan

In Beijing last week to catch up with Chinese security experts on Afghanistan and Pakistan, with two issues the main focus.

Having talked on-and-off with people there about the Chashma-3 and 4 deal since it was first announced, this was the first occasion where I was greeted with disciplined – and largely unapologetic – talking points on the subject. Once the predictable lines were out of the way – the deal has no military application, Pakistan needs energy, the plants will be under IAEA safeguards – the Chinese analysts I spoke to were entirely explicit about the fact that it was a tit-for-tat strategic response to the India-U.S. deal. No-one, however, suggested that there would be anything comparable to the U.S. campaign to win approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Instead the expectation was that it would simply be allowed to slip by – as one put it: “Obama needs China’s help on Iran and Pakistan at this stage; the United States will not really oppose it”.

I was also struck by the emergence of a different conversation about Afghanistan: “We are talking about withdrawal now – we think that’s where it’s headed – and we are saying to the Americans that if you do withdraw, it will be a disaster for you”. Neither of those claims represents a settled consensus: many in the strategic community are more than happy to see the United States pull out, “as long as it’s responsible”, and plenty of other analysts expect only a minor drawdown of American presence in the coming years. But the topic is now firmly on the agenda, and there is a degree of frustration about China’s options: “In the event of withdrawal, we can work with Russia and we can work with Pakistan. We can’t do anything ourselves, it’s too dangerous to risk”; “We don’t have so many instruments in Afghanistan – we only have economic tools – this is why we support reconciliation with the Taliban and a neutral Afghanistan. All the other regional countries have the groups that they can work through – we don’t”. And while there were some gleaming eyes about mineral deposits, the mood among Chinese companies appeared somewhat sour: “Security is always the number one issue. Why is the Aynak investment proceeding so slowly? China Railway Group admitted that they underestimated the cost and risk of their road-building project…and MCC Group [which runs Aynak] pulled out of the Hajigak bidding process”. One way to mitigate that – Chinese security presence. Reports persist of “decommissioned” Chinese military personnel at the Aynak facility. “Sure, if they’re wearing plain clothes, what’s wrong with that?” quipped one Chinese former diplomat. All those people asking for Chinese troop contributions may already have their wish.

http://blog.gmfus.org/2010/07/05/china- ... ghanistan/
naren
BRFite
Posts: 1139
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 07:45

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by naren »

Prem wrote:the Chinese analysts I spoke to were entirely explicit about the fact that it was a tit-for-tat strategic response to the India-U.S. deal.
India needs to hurt, or atleast bully, China at the core. Without pointing the spear at the heart of the bully, you cannot expect him to back down.

For starters, India can gift few Tejas/Agnis to Taiwan. May be also sell BMD tech to them. If the bully still doesnt back down, then we can "help" Taiwan in their "energy needs", nookular ofcourse.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by DavidD »

chaanakya wrote:
DavidD wrote:
Terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever, same thing.
[snip]
So you think Gandhi and perhaps Nelson Mandela were a terrorist or freedom fighters...same thing
If they'd start targeting infrastructure and civilians, yea. I mean, what do you call the palestinian fighters?
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Prem »

Zardari in Beijing: Dilemmas of a nuclear world
The Sino-Pakistan nuclear pact underlines a number of issues. It highlights once again the growing assertiveness of China in global politics and its willingness to take on Washington. It also showcases China's penchant for viewing Pakistan as an important asset in countering India. Sections of the Indian policy-makers have been dreaming about a Sino-Indian rapprochement and have not shied away from blaming the Indian government for a downturn in China-India ties.
But China will keep relying on Pakistan to counter India's growing regional and global profile. Meanwhile, the global non-proliferation regime is virtually dead. Sino-Pakistan nuclear relationship has been the single most important factor in wrecking the foundations of NPT. China's nuclear programme was the reason why India initiated its own nuclear programme and Sino-Pakistan nuclear and missile duopoly in the 1990s forced India to go overtly nuclear in 1998.
If Beijing believes that helping Pakistan, a country that has never shied away from illegally exporting nuclear technology, to serve its strategic agenda is not problematic, then there is little hope that it will ever become a guarantor of a regime that seeks to stabilise the global nuclear order.
Not surprisingly, an arms race is underway in West Asia between a Shia Iran intent on acquiring the nuclear capability in response to a Sunni Pakistan-Saudi Arabia collaboration on nuclear issues. No prizes for guessing who is supplying missiles to Iran even while providing nuclear capability to Pakistan: China, of course!
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/jul/ ... -world.htm
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by ramana »

Its silly to think that TSP can balance India. India is self balanced.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by ramana »

Masaru
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 05:46

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by Masaru »

No more neat strategies about partitioning of the Pacific into Western and Eastern domains then?

U.S. Missiles Deployed Near China Send a Message

Alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms were likely sounded when the U.S.S. Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day. And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the U.S.S. Florida surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood. "There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."
...
The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st century.
...

China is absent from both exercises, and that's no oversight. Many nations in the eastern Pacific :?:, including Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam, {Are these countries not on the western Pacific coast? }have been encouraging the U.S. to push back against what they see as China's increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. And the U.S. military remains concerned over China's growing missile force — now more than 1,000 — near the Taiwan Strait. The Tomahawks' arrival "is part of a larger effort to bolster our capabilities in the region," Glaser says. "It sends a signal that nobody should rule out our determination to be the balancer in the region that many countries there want us to be." No doubt Beijing got the signal.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by ramana »

Its all related to the failed NoKo "fusion" test which is being dismissed as reactor leak from Japan.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:Its all related to the failed NoKo "fusion" test which is being dismissed as reactor leak from Japan.
It is more than that. The PRC PAKISTAN deal, assertiveness of PRC is showing up when the trade and currency is still under cloud. So the PRC juggernaut is coming to an end.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by chaanakya »

DavidD wrote:
chaanakya wrote:
So you think Gandhi and perhaps Nelson Mandela were a terrorist or freedom fighters...same thing
If they'd start targeting infrastructure and civilians, yea. I mean, what do you call the palestinian fighters?
I call them freedom fighters just as I would call Uighurs of New frontier( Xinxiang, lost territory) as freedom fighters. But by your definitions Mao was/is a terrorist.

BTW , there are evidence of Chinese support to Maoists but there is a limitation to what China can do on this front. Scourge of Maoists has been eliminated once and will be done again. But Tibet being a separate country China will have a problem in perpetuity , given that Indian borders Tibet. If you remember your history, you would know that Uighur /xinxiang was occupied by PRC only in 1949 and have since tried the policy of ethnic domination by resettlement of Hans.

China has indeed tried tricks of setting up training camps and weaponry to NE militant groups but with limited success. I suspect the only place where China had more success was in Nagaland, but that too is over with Muivah turning coats.
naren
BRFite
Posts: 1139
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 07:45

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by naren »

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:Its all related to the failed NoKo "fusion" test which is being dismissed as reactor leak from Japan.
It is more than that. The PRC PAKISTAN deal, assertiveness of PRC is showing up when the trade and currency is still under cloud. So the PRC juggernaut is coming to an end.
Sounds like we are going to have a drunk bully in our neighbourhood. The question is, who manages to shoo him away to where ? The missile deployment, seems to me, is to shoo the bully towards India. May be we could adopt the same strategy and shoo them to Taiwan ?
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Post by DavidD »

chaanakya wrote:
DavidD wrote:
If they'd start targeting infrastructure and civilians, yea. I mean, what do you call the palestinian fighters?
I call them freedom fighters just as I would call Uighurs of New frontier( Xinxiang, lost territory) as freedom fighters. But by your definitions Mao was/is a terrorist.

BTW , there are evidence of Chinese support to Maoists but there is a limitation to what China can do on this front. Scourge of Maoists has been eliminated once and will be done again. But Tibet being a separate country China will have a problem in perpetuity , given that Indian borders Tibet. If you remember your history, you would know that Uighur /xinxiang was occupied by PRC only in 1949 and have since tried the policy of ethnic domination by resettlement of Hans.

China has indeed tried tricks of setting up training camps and weaponry to NE militant groups but with limited success. I suspect the only place where China had more success was in Nagaland, but that too is over with Muivah turning coats.
The Japanese certainly considered Mao as a terrorist, even though that term might not have been coined just yet. Any group that targets civilians and infrastructure targets may be considered as terrorists, it just depends on what your vantage point is. Are the Maoists in India freedom fighters or terrorists, for example? I'm sure you'll say they're terrorists, but I'm equally sure that they consider themselves freedom fighters.

As for how effective these movements can eventually be, we can probably argue to no end. The fact is that right now, neither country wishes to get into that type of fight and neither country is engaged in that type of fight.
Post Reply