US and PRC relationship & India

[svinayak]

China hits out at U.S. “double standards”

Like the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, this deal, too, has been perceived in China as part of a greater American “containment” strategy. “[The deal] means the U.S. is strengthening cooperation with Vietnam to contain China,” said Fan Jishe, a researcher of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in an interview with the official China Daily. “To Washington, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

Like the China-Pakistan civilian nuclear deal, this deal, too, has been perceived in India as part of a greater Chinese “aggressive” strategy. “[The deal] means the China. is strengthening cooperation with Pakistan to contain India,” said somebody,. “To Beijing, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

[RajeshA]

“To Beijing, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

Did I miss a something? When did Beijing ever have considerations of nuclear non-proliferation?

As China wants to step outside its commitments to NSG, I think it is time, that Australia stops selling Uranium to China!

[svinayak]

“To Beijing, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

Did I miss a something? When did Beijing ever have considerations of nuclear non-proliferation?

As China wants to step outside its commitments to NSG, I think it is time, that Australia stops selling Uranium to China!

If China is concerned about nuclear non-proliferation and US commitment to it then it is expected that it will also show the same level of commitment in its policy.

[RajeshA]

If China is concerned about nuclear non-proliferation and US commitment to it then it is expected that it will also show the same level of commitment in its policy.

China never really makes a hue and cry about nuclear proliferation! It is the Americans who can't stop crying hoarse about it. PRC is merely pointing out to USA, that their actions and their words do not coincide. It is the Americans that set the bar high for themselves and the world. It is they who were supposed to live up to it.

PRC believes in geo-strategic considerations only. Period. They hardly have any ideals to live up to.

[James B]

“To Beijing, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

Did I miss a something? When did Beijing ever have considerations of nuclear non-proliferation?

As China wants to step outside its commitments to NSG, I think it is time, that Australia stops selling Uranium to China!

And also Vietnam is a member of NPT, so it has every moral and legal right to get nuke power plants. On the other hand, Pakis are not a member of NPT and have no IAEA & NSG approval for Chinese nuke transfer to Pakis. Talk about double standards.

[Christopher Sidor]

I just come back to my original question. India declares Indian ocean Indias Ocean and bans all chinies ships from it what are they going to do about it.[

Pratyush ji,

The problem, with your suggested line of action, is how it will be perceived by the rest of the world. A non Chinese, non - Indian will think, if India can ban chinese ships today, it will ban my ships tomorrow. This will be adverse impact on us. We would not be able to antagonize the whole world, just to stop Chinese ships. Also it gives out an impression, that India is a hegemonic power. Something which we should avoid.

The problem, is how it will be perceived by the rest of the world. A non Chinese, non - Indian will think, if China can sell WMD to Pakistan today, it will strike WMD on India tomorrow. This will be adverse impact on us.

Can India not try to stop this. India will do whatever to protect itself. What will the world say

Will the world stop India from protecting itself.

We have to compete and defend against china as well as Pakistan. We already have two enemies. There is no point in adding countries to the list of our enemies. We have to be smart. Not go ahead recklessly antagonising all the countries of the world just to prove a point to china. We dont have to proove anything to anybody, least of all to the chinks and the pakis.
We will block the ocean which bears our name to chinese ships. But there is no need for us to declare it now or do it now. In fact we need not declare it at all. We just do it in case of conflict with China.

[ramana]

What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander!

Correction make it
Sauce for Peking Duck, is Sauce for the Peking mallard!

[Sanjay M]

We didn't even do anything when NKorea proliferated its missile tech to Pak, and it's not like NKorea has any power projection capability against us.

Before taking on Chinese directly at sea, we should have been more willing to at least take on their flunkies like NKorea. We should be regularly stopping their ships for inspection, as punishment for their gifting of delivery systems to Pak.

Otherwise, if we can't even do that, then we're just full of hot air - all talk and no action.

[abhishek_sharma]

America must find a new China strategy

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c9ec504-a32e ... abdc0.html

[Sanjay M]

America must find a new China strategy

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c9ec504-a32e ... abdc0.html

This link seems to work better for me:

http://gonzaloraffoinfonews.blogspot.co ... ategy.html

[Sanjay M]

US engineer sold military secrets to China
By Peter Bowes BBC News, Los Angeles


Noshir Gowadia risked a lifetime in jail for a mortgage in Maui

A jury in Hawaii has convicted a former US engineer of selling military secrets to China.

Noshir Gowadia, who helped design the propulsion system for the B-2 bomber, was found guilty on multiple counts - including conspiracy and money laundering.

He could be sentenced to life in prison as a result.

The case is one of a series of major prosecutions targeting alleged Chinese spying in the US.
'Basic stuff'

According to prosecutors, Noshir Gowadia, who is 67, helped China to design a stealth cruise missile.

It involved an exhaust nozzle that would evade infrared radar detection and US heat-seeking missiles.

Mr Gowadia was accused of travelling to China between 2003 and 2005 while designing the missile.

He was said to have been paid $110,000 (£69,000) - money that was used to pay off a mortgage on a luxury home on the island of Maui.

In his defence, lawyers said it was true that Mr Gowadia had designed an exhaust nozzle for China - but that it was "basic stuff" based on unclassified information that was publicly available.

Mr Gowadia, who was born in India, moved to the US in the 1960s and became a citizen about a decade later.

He has been in custody for nearly four years and faces life in prison when he is sentenced in November.

He was found not guilty on three counts of communicating national defence information to help a foreign nation.

http://goldsea.com/Text/index.php?id=7398

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Indian-Am ... 84568.aspx

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002436.html

[Sanjay M]

A Chinese Rival to S&P, Fitch, and Moody's?
Dagong Global Credit Rating wants to go global and take on its rivals' bias toward debtor countries in the West

--

India should do something like this too, otherwise it's hostage to the ratings issued by others. It would be upto an Indian ratings agency to earn its own credibility with the marketplace, or otherwise be discounted.

If we can go for the cosmetic stuff, like a Rupee symbol, then we can go in for something more substantive, like a ratings agency.

[ramana]

A realistic assessment of PRC's capabailities.....

X-posting....

Manishw ji,
please don't say I have great insights. I too am an explorer, and my knowledge too is incomplete. Then the issue:

The north-west is a place where the plains Chinese regimes have always floundered. Right from the very beginnings of their claimed history, the dynasties go down when a combination of climatic adversities and steppe "barbarians" force the plains Chinese domains to shrink drastically. The very concept of the "wall" is pretty old for China, and the very first grand emperor practically ruined the country and his successors in trying to build the wall.

If we study the ways in which "barbarians" won, it was always initially a long period of skirmish when the north-western nomads raided and destroyed the trade networks and settlements or Chinese outposts, and then withdraw when the Chinese armies went forth. It was not sustainable in the older periods to maintain huge armies in the region, and even with modern upgrades, it may still not be possible to maintain a huge army in the north west for a significantly long period.

Whenever the Chinese are under stress, say as in Japan's invasion, the first area from which the plains authority goes away is again the NW. This is the reason that the "Red army" or the 8th route army as it was then known, made a dash for the region on the pretext of fighting the nationalist war against Japan and to escape encirclement and erasure in their southern base. Mao survived here by making treaties and tactical alliances with the Muslim nomadic tribes, and this is reflected also in Mao's flattering outlining of Islamic doctrine as closely compatible with that of Communism.

How many wars have the modern Chinese won? Not the war with Japan. A stalemate in Korea with huge loss of lives. A quick border skirmish with deceptive aggression in the Himalayas which was tactically a victory but again not a full scale territorial penetration and frontal war. Practically losing third party wars in Kampuchea to the vietnamese, and losing again in third party war through Pak against India. Only third party war that was a success was the Vietnamese one, but it is a complicated story of playing the "protesting lady" until the groom coughs up the dole - in the form of the secret dealing between Mao with Nixon and his aide.

How successful have they been in combating ethnic militancy? Have they at all faced any serious challenge here? Apart from a brief attempt by the CIA to put up a Tibetan resistance which was again betrayed by Nixon's patch up, there has not been any serious attempt at using the religious discontent against Chinese regimes from the usual suspects.

But now the Islamist engine has got its own driving fuel, and a network that has spanned the CAR through to the Saharas. Ample scope to generate income from trafficking of both human and drug type, and supply arms and ammunitions. Islamists will look for expansion here by raiding, damaging and in general bleeding by a thousand cuts. The Chinese cannot do much about it. Wait for greater Taliban power in AFG and a generally spreading civil war in Uzbekistan. Then will come the recognition of Chechnya and Uyghuristan.

By the way, the Chechen problem is not entirely gone. It has simply gone underground locally and spread out into the "neighbourhood".

Something to mull over when talking about the majestic sweep of PRC.

[svinayak]

We have to compete and defend against china as well as Pakistan. We already have two enemies. There is no point in adding countries to the list of our enemies. We have to be smart. Not go ahead recklessly antagonising all the countries of the world just to prove a point to china. We dont have to proove anything to anybody, least of all to the chinks and the pakis.
We will block the ocean which bears our name to chinese ships. But there is no need for us to declare it now or do it now. In fact we need not declare it at all. We just do it in case of conflict with China.

China by providing Pakistan with WMD has become an enemy of India. It has chosen to be the enemy of India.
India did not create this relationship. They have chosen to be this way

[Sanjay M]

And Nehru, by providing UN Security Council seat to China, also became an enemy of India.

Such a crime, that the man who was supposed to be India's George Washington was actually its Benedict Arnold.

[Sanjay M]

x-posted from the Perspectives on Global Meltdown thread:

I was thinking about The Opium Wars, whereby Britain greedily sought to sell great quantities of opium to China at the cost of the latter's ruin.

Today, China is now providing the opiate of cheap capital to the US, which has now become so addicted to this unlimited cheap lending that it cannot bring itself to break its dangerous debt habit.

The Americans just can't seem to get that monkey off their back.

If they aren't successful in doing so, then it will lead to their ruin, just as surely as it did for China.

[Christopher Sidor]

Let us draw a picture over here.
In a decades time, chinese continue growing at the break neck speed at which they are growing. While US has, a lost decade, comparable to the Japanese one. This is an unlikely sceanrio because without the yanks buying chinese products, there is no way china can grow fast. But for the case of simplicity let us assume this to be true.
So after a decade some conflict breaks out in east asia, either over taiwan (the most likely case), or over the South China Sea Islands (a second more distinct possibility) or over the korean peninsula. In this conflict US gets involved, not because it wants to, but because if it does not, it looses credibility and support over the entire north-east asia, east asia and south-east asia. In such a case where does india stand? Does India gravitate automatically to those countries which are in conflict with China or does it analyse each incident/conflict on its own merit ? Ideally the second option should be preferred. But what should India do ? Should India stay neutral (while secretly helping one party or the other), an active participant, a passive participant, or indifferent ?

Please do not assume that we have to help to sustain america's power in the pacific and/or in the world. Ditto for America's interest in the pacific and world. It is neither in India's interest to do so nor should we even volunteer for such a cause.

[abhishek_sharma]

Will Washington and Beijing be mature enough to cooperate?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... _cooperate

[AKalam]

While I was going through above article, I came across the link to the original Mearsheimer article:

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/as ... 100804.pdf

This opinion seems to me to be more sensible, measured and closer to reality than the fantasy 100 year prediction of Friedman of Stratfor fame.

China will lock horns with the US at some point. The question is who among these two G2 countries will come up with the winning team. IMHO, geography plays an important role. China being a neighbor, today or tomorrow, economies of South Asia will become integrated with PRC. Even though Han Chinese behavior and antics will be unbearable for the short and medium term, in the long term, one needs to come to terms with its neighbor. So I would predict that even though the West will try to create divisions within Asia, it may be wiser for Asian countries as well as Russia to stay united or at least neutral, during a power struggle between China and the West. I am not a big fan of China, but looking at the whole scenario, this seems to me the right approach, considering all of us have been victims of the West in the last few centuries. This also means that China needs to stop undermining Indian interest and take a more cooperative attitude, as a price for this approach. Sorry if I sound way too simplistic.

[RajeshA]

India needs a military alignment with USA, a political neutrality towards both USA and PRC, an economic leap over PRC, and a strategic consolidation of our neighborhood.

[chanakyaa]

... an economic leap over PRC...

This is a tough one. I started thinking about how the relationship with PRC will evolve over next 15 to 20 years, purely from the perspective of "bilateral trade". If the trade deficit with PRC continues, we are heading for some serious trouble. And, this time we can not blame the babus for our trouble. The responsibility lies on us, yes, WE THE PEOPLE.

To keep things in perspective, lets look at the trade numbers between India and PRC. For last several years we have been running trade deficits with PRC. In 1999, the bilateral trade was merely $2 billion. In 2008, the bilateral trade jumped to $39 billion. India sold $11 billion worth of goods to PRC and PRC sold $27 billion to India. The difference, i.e. $15 billion, was paid to the Cheenies from our pockets and nation's coffers. At the end of the 2010, the trade deficit between PRC and India will reach $20 billion. The way our growing middle class is consuming Cheenie goods, the deficits will continue and the Cheenies will get rich at our expense. The government is wary of this, but can not do anything about it.

So, babus in New Delhi respond….

NEW DELHI: The government is closely monitoring the Chinese response to its concerns over the widening trade gap, which is expected to cross $20 billion in the current financial year. If the northern neighbour fails to take adequate steps in the next few months to reduce the deficit and move towards a more balanced trade ties, India would take retaliatory measures, a senior government official said.

“Our embassy in Beijing is watching the developments in China and has been asked to give us regular reports,” he said, requesting anonymity. India had asked Chinese government last month to address its concerns. While the official refused to list the retaliatory steps the government might consider, analysts say various restrictions could be imposed on imports from China.

GoI can monitor the trade all they want and play all the tariff game, the amount of transfer of wealth from India to PRC is going to grow as we spend more and more money on the stuff made by Cheenie.

(PRC Thinking) Why attack India when Free Trade can destroy the country with minimal loss?
If I was a Cheenie premier, my goal would be to get the GoI to sign the Free Trade agreement. With a Free Trade agreement 30% of the jobs in India will be destroyed within 5-7 years. What a powerful weapon (something that can not be measured in MT/KT). In fact, Cheenie "goods" are much better soldiers that the PLA. Why kill the goose that would lay Golden eggs for the future Cheenie generation..

(From a WSJ article) Both countries have talked about a free-trade agreement, though China has appeared more eager than India to get it sealed. India has been concerned that it has more to lose than China from such an agreement. India's economy is protected by high tariff rates, which on average are about 10 percentage points higher than the tax levied on most Chinese goods. India would have to get rid of these tariffs -- and lose the tax revenue its government could otherwise collect -- under a free-trade agreement
.....
Countries with Biggest Trade Surplus (exports larger than imports) latest 12 months, in $ billion

1. Germany, 210.8 (June)
2. China, 174.7 (July)
3. Russia, 152.6 (June)
4. Saudi Arabia, 104.4 (2009)
5. Japan, 81.7 (June)

Countries with Biggest Trade Deficit ( exports smaller than imports) latest 12 months, in $ billion

1. US, 592.4 (June)
2. Britain, 135.0 (June)
3. India, 110.2 (June)
4. Spain, 69.5 (May)
5. France, 62.4 (June)

Although, free trade between the two countries will not happen in the near future, the direct and indirect transfer of goods from PRC will take a serious toll on the economy, jobs and the morale.

[Sanjay M]

China Editorial Takes Aim at U.S.

[Sanjay M]

China Seeks to Exert Power Outside Region, U.S. Says

The Chinese Air Force is developing longer-range versions of a bomber that can be equipped with a land-attack cruise missile to enable strikes in the western Pacific, the Pentagon said. The weapons would extend China’s operational abilities to a chain of islands it considers as a kind of second defensive perimeter, extending from off Japan’s eastern coast west and south through the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and Palau to Indonesia, according to the report.

So the Chinese have a long-range strategic bomber, and we Indians have no comparable weapon.

[Christopher Sidor]

India needs a military alignment with USA, a political neutrality towards both USA and PRC, an economic leap over PRC, and a strategic consolidation of our neighborhood.

We will not be able to keep the military alignment and the political neutrality simultaneously. We should not be aligning with another country, which invades a country on a false accusation of WMDs, just so that it can access its natural resources. If we align ourselves militarily with America, we will be part and parcel of all the adventures which america under takes, be it in pacific or africa or west asia or worse in south asia. Something similar happened in World War II, when Indian troops were sent to fight along with british, american and australian troops in northern africa. This was despite the fact that India's defense against imperial japan was severely depleted. Also we were made party to a war, a war which was not ours to fight, without taking our permission.

What we should aim for is neutrality between PRC and US and cordial relations with both of them. Along with this, we need to build a capability to deter Chinese, which has to be independent of US. Also we need to make sure we are well insulated from US blundering in asia, like what happened to afghanistan.

Enhancing Americas power or defending its interest is not in India's interest.

[RajeshA]

India needs a military alignment with USA, a political neutrality towards both USA and PRC, an economic leap over PRC, and a strategic consolidation of our neighborhood.

What we should aim for is neutrality between PRC and US and cordial relations with both of them. Along with this, we need to build a capability to deter Chinese, which has to be independent of US. Also we need to make sure we are well insulated from US blundering in asia, like what happened to afghanistan.

Enhancing Americas power or defending its interest is not in India's interest.

I disagree here.

A military alignment between India and USA is to be seen as PRC specific. It is not a carte blanche for Indian help to America's various adventures.

What India cannot allow is for the US to withdraw itself from Asia giving China permission to do whatever they want in Asia. Should China start flexing its muscles now in Asia, India would be at a disadvantage. India needs another couple of decades to gets its act together. Even then India would need the support of another power to keep China in check.

What India should strive for is to inherit America's military-industrial complex and American technology, and be able to use it for India's own military strategy in Asia.

India and USA have real differences on Pakistan, Iran and Myanmar. Those differences however do not justify, in a strategic sense, to wish for American withdrawal from Asia. Right now USA is the only country which can keep PRC in check. Keeping PRC in check is India's primary strategic necessity.

[Pratyush]

China Seeks to Exert Power Outside Region, U.S. Says


So the Chinese have a long-range strategic bomber, and we Indians have no comparable weapon.

They need to replace the aging Tu clones that they have.

[Pratyush]

What India should strive for is to inherit America's military-industrial complex and American technology, and be able to use it for India's own military strategy in Asia.

Well said..

[Christopher Sidor]

What we should aim for is neutrality between PRC and US and cordial relations with both of them. Along with this, we need to build a capability to deter Chinese, which has to be independent of US. Also we need to make sure we are well insulated from US blundering in asia, like what happened to afghanistan.

Enhancing Americas power or defending its interest is not in India's interest.

I disagree here.

A military alignment between India and USA is to be seen as PRC specific. It is not a carte blanche for Indian help to America's various adventures.

What India cannot allow is for the US to withdraw itself from Asia giving China permission to do whatever they want in Asia. Should China start flexing its muscles now in Asia, India would be at a disadvantage. India needs another couple of decades to gets its act together. Even then India would need the support of another power to keep China in check.

What India should strive for is to inherit America's military-industrial complex and American technology, and be able to use it for India's own military strategy in Asia.

India and USA have real differences on Pakistan, Iran and Myanmar. Those differences however do not justify, in a strategic sense, to wish for American withdrawal from Asia. Right now USA is the only country which can keep PRC in check. Keeping PRC in check is India's primary strategic necessity.

Borrowed strength is fragile. If India depends on others, especially those of US, we will be dumped unceremoniously once we have outlived its utility. And for American support we will have to pay a price somewhere else. For example the Indo-US Nuclear deal, was all about bringing India into the non-proliferation fold or giving access to India to those technologies which were denied to it. In return we were placing 18 of our domestic nuclear plants into perpetual safeguards. In the middle the deal took a turn, where we were forced to vote against Iran at IAEA. It is an academic exercise, but India would never have voted against Iran or would have abstained, if the Indo-US nuclear deal was not there. Same would happen with this Indo-American military alignment . We will not be able to isolate the military alignment with America to only PRC.

In the next two-three decades, China is not going to remain static. And the prospectus for its decline are rather remote.

America's withdrawal from Asia will not be bad thing. In fact it will compel india to focus on things that are important, namely out growing the paki-centric approach and thinking big term. Something similar happened in the period 1962-1971. We basked in the umbrella of american protection against China. Assuming that if push came to shove we could always count on the yanks. Then came 1971, and we were rudely awakened from this delusion of ours. America teamed up with china to threaten us. Our so called protector was teaming up with our biggest threat. They, i.e Americans, even indirectly threatened us with the nuclear option. We had the backing of the soviets then, but wisely the then Indian leadership realized, that the soviets would not get involved in a nuclear conflict with US over India. 3 years later india exploded its first nuclear bomb.
Not many people appreciate of what happened in 1971. It was as if the most important event of 1971 was victory over pakistan and birth of bangladesh. It was not. We did not test our nuclear capability after 1962. We did not feel compelled to test our nuclear capability after 1964, the year when china tested its first nuclear weapon. We did not test our nuclear capability before the 1971 war. But after it.
We are currently living in a delusion similar to the one which we lived through 1962-1971. America is there to contain China. We will help America to balance china and so on. Last time our delusion was shattered, i.e in 1971, the soviets were there. Next time our delusion will be shattered, we will be all alone.

We do not need to go head-to-head against PRC in all the fields. Just on things that are important. With US withdrawal from Asia, Irans power will rise dramatically, while that of the saudi arabia's, uae, etc will decline dramatically. With this decline, Pakistan's one important leg of support will be gone. Then pakistan will be whole solely dependent on China. We can have a deal with China, Taiwan for Pakistan.
With American withdrawal, some countries in asia will buckle under china, like korea, mongolia and taiwan but certain others like vietnam and possibly japan would become nuclear and full fledged powers. We would not be alone in Asia.



We should not forget, that Britian was hardly a super power, when it defeated the spanish armada. But once the spanish armada was defeated, Spain went into a decline and the british setup their own empire. Ironically the British empire was the 2nd empire on which the sun never set. The first such empire was the spanish.

[Manishw]

^^^ Agreed. America has an unblemished record of using, twisting and throwing out their allies when it suits them.Charting a path Independent of U.S while not being confrontational is imperative for us.

[RajeshA]

Borrowed strength is fragile. If India depends on others, especially those of US, we will be dumped unceremoniously once we have outlived its utility. And for American support we will have to pay a price somewhere else. For example the Indo-US Nuclear deal, was all about bringing India into the non-proliferation fold or giving access to India to those technologies which were denied to it. In return we were placing 18 of our domestic nuclear plants into perpetual safeguards. In the middle the deal took a turn, where we were forced to vote against Iran at IAEA. It is an academic exercise, but India would never have voted against Iran or would have abstained, if the Indo-US nuclear deal was not there. Same would happen with this Indo-American military alignment . We will not be able to isolate the military alignment with America to only PRC.

In the next two-three decades, China is not going to remain static. And the prospectus for its decline are rather remote.

India's strength is India's strength. Anything extra is something extra.

India would follow some curve of development of national power. At any point on this curve, what is important is to make decisions that one thinks, takes India further on a trajectory of empowerment.

Decisions were made on IUCNA and the vote against Iran, to arrive at something which a section of Indian establishment felt were essential for India's rise. They negotiated and they reached a compromise with USA. The general feeling was of course, that we did not negotiate hard enough. But it is equally true, that without any compromise, the USA would not have taken India out of the dog-house in which we had allowed ourselves to be maneuvered. Iran vote was part of that compromise. This was not the first strategic loss, even if it is seen to be a loss.

We have bungled many times - Partition 1947, Kashmir 1948, Tibet 1950, Indo-Chinese War 1962, Tashkent 1966, Simla Agreement 1971, Delayed Nuclear Testing 1974, Article 370, ....So IUCNA is still a small strategic loss in comparison, if at all.

Any suggestion in favor of a military cooperation between India and USA to contain China, is not to be interpreted as favoring India giving away the keys of its strategic analysis, policy and strategy to USA.

At the moment India is still too weak militarily to act as an equal military partner to USA, so I too would not suggest entering any sort of military alliance with USA. Secondly China is also not in a position to command preeminence in Asia. Even today, USA is the foremost power in Asia. So there is not hurry for India to enter into an alliance with USA prematurely.

In the next 20 years the strategic landscape in Asia and the world would look different, and then it could be advisable for India to rethink its distance from USA.

Saying that India is there only to be taken for a ride by the USA, is a bit simplistic. Of course, USA is not to be trusted. Strategic Games are of course played with an open mind. I think India has outgrown the mentality of 'all weather friendships'. In fact how America pushes around its allies, is the reason, why I don't want India to go too close to USA before we can withstand US pressures on us.

America's withdrawal from Asia will not be bad thing. In fact it will compel india to focus on things that are important, namely out growing the paki-centric approach and thinking big term. Something similar happened in the period 1962-1971. We basked in the umbrella of american protection against China. Assuming that if push came to shove we could always count on the yanks. Then came 1971, and we were rudely awakened from this delusion of ours. America teamed up with china to threaten us. Our so called protector was teaming up with our biggest threat. They, i.e Americans, even indirectly threatened us with the nuclear option. We had the backing of the soviets then, but wisely the then Indian leadership realized, that the soviets would not get involved in a nuclear conflict with US over India. 3 years later india exploded its first nuclear bomb.
Not many people appreciate of what happened in 1971. It was as if the most important event of 1971 was victory over pakistan and birth of bangladesh. It was not. We did not test our nuclear capability after 1962. We did not feel compelled to test our nuclear capability after 1964, the year when china tested its first nuclear weapon. We did not test our nuclear capability before the 1971 war. But after it.

One cannot outgrow the region just because we think we want to. India would have to deal with the regional problems as well. Secondly one of the reasons, India is not being allowed to move on to the world stage is simply because, China would not let India do that, and would use all means to its ends, including Pakistan, nukes, insurgences, etc. Thinking big is not enough.

We are currently living in a delusion similar to the one which we lived through 1962-1971. America is there to contain China. We will help America to balance china and so on. Last time our delusion was shattered, i.e in 1971, the soviets were there. Next time our delusion will be shattered, we will be all alone.

As mentioned by me above and also in the Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II Thread, I don't think India is there as yet to forge a military alliance with USA. We will need another 20 years or so, before India becomes ripe for such a role.

We do not need to go head-to-head against PRC in all the fields. Just on things that are important. With US withdrawal from Asia, Irans power will rise dramatically, while that of the saudi arabia's, uae, etc will decline dramatically. With this decline, Pakistan's one important leg of support will be gone. Then pakistan will be whole solely dependent on China. We can have a deal with China, Taiwan for Pakistan.
With American withdrawal, some countries in asia will buckle under china, like korea, mongolia and taiwan but certain others like vietnam and possibly japan would become nuclear and full fledged powers. We would not be alone in Asia.

I think, it is delusional to think that China would take away its support for Pakistan, if we give them Taiwan. We have no locus standi on Taiwan. It is almost already theirs. Of course Pakistan at some point in time would cease to be the factor holding India back, but that would not be a gift from China.

I'm afraid PRC is not going to start behaving because Japan, Vietnam or India tells China to do so, regardless of whether we are nuclear armed or not.

Only as long as a power is in the neighborhood that can fatally threaten PRC, there is a chance for it to display good neighborly behavior. You take away this power, and PRC would be unleashed on Asia.

In 1962 we made a mistake in judging that PRC would not attack India. I think you are suggesting something similar on those lines here. You are being overly confident that China is contained, that China will not start going aggressively after all its interests in Asia, at the cost of other countries in Asia, that India can push back China in Asia.

The fact is nobody in Asia really can keep China on a leash. Nobody can guarantee Chinese good behavior and adherence to the norms of international conduct. At the moment only America can. They have a reason to. They don't want to lose their preeminent position in the world. The other country in the region has the balls to counter China, not even collectively.

We should not forget, that Britian was hardly a super power, when it defeated the spanish armada. But once the spanish armada was defeated, Spain went into a decline and the british setup their own empire. Ironically the British empire was the 2nd empire on which the sun never set. The first such empire was the spanish.

Yes the Brits played their cards well. Asking USA to leave Asia right now, is in my view, not playing one's cards well.

[Christopher Sidor]

Decisions were made on IUCNA and the vote against Iran, to arrive at something which a section of Indian establishment felt were essential for India's rise. They negotiated and they reached a compromise with USA. The general feeling was of course, that we did not negotiate hard enough. But it is equally true, that without any compromise, the USA would not have taken India out of the dog-house in which we had allowed ourselves to be maneuvered. Iran vote was part of that compromise. This was not the first strategic loss, even if it is seen to be a loss.

We have bungled many times - Partition 1947, Kashmir 1948, Tibet 1950, Indo-Chinese War 1962, Tashkent 1966, Simla Agreement 1971, Delayed Nuclear Testing 1974, Article 370, ....So IUCNA is still a small strategic loss in comparison, if at all.

Any suggestion in favor of a military cooperation between India and USA to contain China, is not to be interpreted as favoring India giving away the keys of its strategic analysis, policy and strategy to USA.

With the vote against Iran, we did just that, we gave away the keys of our strategic analysis, policy to US. We in fact outsourced it to US. We took a decision which was not in our interest. We could have told US that, we will abstain. But no, due to US pressure which we did not resist, we voted against Iran. That will happen more frequently, if we align, militarily with America. Either now or 20 years later on.
About the dog-house which India found itself in, was not created by NPT. Rather it was NSG, an entity created by US, which put us in the dog-house. So pulling us out of the dog-house was entirely in self-interest of US. Our relationship with Iran should not have been at stake.

In the next 20 years the strategic landscape in Asia and the world would look different, and then it could be advisable for India to rethink its distance from USA.

Then also India should not align with US. We should stand separately from US and not aligned or linked to it in any way. We should stand for our interest and not American interest.

In 1962 we made a mistake in judging that PRC would not attack India. I think you are suggesting something similar on those lines here. You are being overly confident that China is contained, that China will not start going aggressively after all its interests in Asia, at the cost of other countries in Asia, that India can push back China in Asia.

I agree with you. In 1962 we placed great store in the value of International censure. We forgot to consider that Chinese might not place any value in international censure. The only way force can be detered is by equal or excessive opposing force.
I have always maintained that India will have to fight PRC on its own. That is why I cautioned against Borrowed strength. We have to develop our capability to deter China Independent of US or any other country.

[Manishw]

^^^ Christopher though I agree with your overall argument in the above post.I think we can keep china at bay ourselves but widely speaking we cant project power on other countries where china is making inroad's.I talk specifically of Vietnam and other such countries .If such countries enter into the china orbit , Asia is handed to them on a platter.I am not disagreeing with you only trying to find alternatives to any U.S alliances.I have my own thought's which I will bring later on.

[RajeshA]

I have always maintained that India will have to fight PRC on its own. That is why I cautioned against Borrowed strength. We have to develop our capability to deter China Independent of US or any other country.

The American military-industrial complex is their jewel in the crown. However the American tax-payer cannot finance the military machinery on his own.

The Americans have only a limited market in Europe, which on the one hand has its own production of military wares, and on the other is simply not interested in investing too much money in military acquisitions. Two huge economies in Europe - Italy and now Britain, have become second-rate economies. Europe's engine - Germany is not interested in arming itself to the teeth because of its past experiences. The only other big economy - France, is itself a producer of arms, and it too has both economic difficulties and limited cash for military toys.

The Americans cannot sell to Russians, as Russians themselves are competitors to America, and neither can America sell to China, which is America's future strategic rival. America does not want to sell such wares in its neighborhood. The less militarized the neighborhood is, the more stable it is for USA.

Then there is the East Asian market - Japan and South Korea. Japan at the moment has only modest military requirements of its own military, mostly for self-defense and would rather contract its security to USA. South Korea can digest only so much in terms of weapons.

The one big market is the Gulf Arabs with their Oil Money. They do buy American toys but even here America has to be careful. If a country goes the way of Iran, then American enemies could get access to these weapons. Pakistan has no money to buy any weapons and is dependent on dole. Turkey can only be armed modestly as it should not become a power to rival Israel in West Asia.

The only other big market for selling American weapons is India, a country that does not threaten America and as it grows would have plenty of security requirements and money to go along with them.

What I propose is, that we should do the same thing to their military-industrial complex, that we have done to their IT industry. India should develop and produce military equipment and platforms jointly with USA. This should help India to get the necessary jump, that India needs if India has to play catch up with China. Any Indo-American military hardware partnership would cut costs for both countries.

The other thing that I proposed was, that a China encircled by USA in the East, Vietnam in the South, and India in the South-West would show a much higher regard to proper behavior than a China which is a couple of decades ahead of India militarily, with no restraints either in the Pacific nor in the Indian Ocean, willing to pump millions of dollars, weapons and ammunition to finance various insurgencies in India and willing to support Pakistan or some rump state there with nukes and international support. A China which every now and then intimidates India on the border, can prove to be a menace to India's rise.

What India needs is for USA to carry the flag of stability in Asia (as far as India and other East Asian countries is concerned) until India is ready to carry that burden, because if it doesn't, India may not get any chance to carry that responsibility.

[Hari Seldon]

What India needs is for USA to carry the flag of stability in Asia (as far as India and other East Asian countries is concerned) until India is ready to carry that burden, because if it doesn't, India may not get any chance to carry that responsibility.

Chance? India will have no choice but to carry that responsibility, despite the best efforts of our neta-babu-dom to wriggle out of it. And in fact, given our instinctively reactive nature, its best if circumstances force us to do the right thing (and thereby force consensus on action against the default stance - inaction) rather than our pinning hopes on forward looking decisive action against status quo all on our own.

Like twas said:

Some are born great (khanate, Israel), some achieve greatness (Japan, PRC) and some have greatness thrust upon them (Yindia 15 yrs down).

My addendum:

Some lose greatness (Russia), some lose it permanently (UQ) and some lose even the potential for greatness itself (TSP)

Jai ho.

[Sanjay M]

China and the US battle to assert presence in South China Sea

[ramana]

[quote ="RajeshA"]What India should strive for is to inherit America's military-industrial complex and American technology, and be able to use it for India's own military strategy in Asia.

Well said..
[/quote]

Sandy Gordon the Australian scholar and doyen says in his book "India a rising power", program for program India is the only power that has plans to match the US in its defense labs.

[svinayak]

What India should strive for is to inherit America's military-industrial complex and American technology, and be able to use it for India's own military strategy in Asia.
Well said..

Sandy Gordon the Australian scholar and doyen says in his book "India a rising power", program for program India is the only power that has plans to match the US in its defense labs.

It is just a question of money and some time.

[Sanjay M]

^^^ It looks like China's indigenous programs are way ahead of India's, based on what they are churning out.

[RajeshA]

It is just a question of money and some time.

Which is the crux of every problem!

[svinayak]

It is just a question of money and some time.

Which is the crux of every problem!

It has been 60 years. Another 20-40 years to go