US and PRC relationship & India

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 06:01

We need to read and understand Henry Kissinger's views on China to decode the next decade.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Jun 2011 07:04

Kissinger's oft proclaimed brilliance was overcoming the American aversion to communist #2 to face communist #1. China was a cannibalistic political enterprise run as a bedlam by the mentally unstable, perennially unwashed Chairman Mao.

And here was Kissinger, a megalomaniac equal to the Great Helmsmen; he would be obsessive about taking an object from junior state department employees, insisiting it be handed first to someone of higher status in the hierachy.

Anything Kissinger states about China is highly dubious-given his need to preserve his 'legacy' and also given his business interests in China via Kissinger Associates.

Do savour the 'brilliance' of the man's exculpation of China's Great Leap Forward as preparation for its 21st century role as superpower.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jun 2011 09:06

Acharya wrote:In the Prologue of the book - On China has some interesting quote by Mao during the 1962 war.

Mao says that China does not need to wage war against India since it is peaceful

He quotes war with India 1000 years ago and says now it is needed for peace

But the reason for brining India into a China book for the first time by HK is signalling

From his talk show he says that upto 2014 US will work with China on trade and cooperation
There is continuity and stability on the economic front. US is just making sure that China is stable after the shock of the fin crisis and can handle the internal problems

but after that it will back the containment and trade tariff on China.
This may be the period when China will go independent and work with Pakistan against third country.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 09:11

Also TSP is dyslexic and divided between jihadis and statists. How can they survive as a nation with this duality. The statists need external help to manage the jihadis. The world order is in paralysis and need to break the logjam.

Its like Ottomon Turkey however armed with nukes which are symbols of power in this militaristic society. Both the groups want them to assert their primacy in the kabila. So how do the managers mange this tussle?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 21:10

A book review on On China

On China by Henry Kissinger_Review

On China by Henry Kissinger: review

On China, Henry Kissinger’s account of his diplomatic role in the Far East is fascinating but flawed in its reverence for Mao Tse-tung, says Jon Halliday.

By Jon Halliday

Early in Richard Nixon’s presidency, Henry Kissinger mused about the long-term effect of an opening to China, asking presciently “whether we really wanted China to be a world power like the Soviet Union, competing with us. Rather than their present role, which is limited to aiding certain insurgencies.” Forty years on, he suggests that decades of engagement have not secured a safe future.

On China has a fascinating analysis of Kissinger’s encounters with the Chinese leaders. I enjoyed his take on Mao’s exchanges with Stalin and Khrushchev. But there are frustrating omissions.

We get plenty on Chinese tradition, but much less about the legacy of Stalinism. The claim that the Chinese Communist Party was only “loosely aligned with the world communist movement” is not tenable. The Party was set up and funded by Moscow, and Mao proclaimed himself a disciple of Stalin. The Chinese Constitution emphatically enshrines both Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-tung Thought.

Kissinger has unwisely called Mao a “philosopher”. Mao rejected all the attributes of true philosophy, especially freedom of thought and debate. He had contempt for the rule of law and for human dignity, and the main reason Beijing is such a difficult customer is his legacy, not Chinese tradition.

Nixon and Kissinger tried to de-link China’s domestic behaviour from foreign policy. A week before Nixon went to China, Kissinger advised him: “For the next 15 years we have to lean towards the Chinese against the Russians.”

But “leaning towards the Chinese” could have awful implications. In November 1975, shortly after all of Indo-China had fallen to Communism, Kissinger told the Thai Foreign Minister Chatichai that “our strategy is to get the Chinese into Laos and Cambodia as a barrier to the Vietnamese”. Chatichai was in contact with the Khmer Rouge. “Tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way.”

The Americans knew very little about China’s secretive policy-making. In December 1971, as Bangladesh was breaking away from Pakistan, Washington tried to coax China into the fighting. Kissinger met the Chinese “to suggest Chinese military help”, by which he meant “military intervention”. He expected the Chinese were going to move, and later told them that if they had taken “military measures [and] the Soviet Union moved against you, we would move against the Soviet Union”.

This, he wrote, was “the first decision to risk war in the triangular Soviet-Chinese-American relationship”. Encouraging an unknown and unreliable state to take military action, with uncontrollable and unforeseeable consequences (it turned out the US duo had no idea how they would have implemented their rash offer) was breaking all the rules of realpolitik. And doubly unwise, as it gave Mao vital information about how far the US would go for him – in return for nothing. Kissinger gives us a lot about decoding Mao on co-operation, but not one word here about this, the key test case.

Kissinger seems to harbour protective feelings towards Pakistan and in On China he mentions Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation, but goes out of his way to say, bizarrely, that it “does not meet the formal criteria of a rogue state”.

But Pakistan is, along with North Korea, one of the two most unreliable nuclear-armed states, and it is not by chance that both are heavily supported by China. But just here, where we most need insight, Kissinger seems short of ideas. His passages on North Korea and Pakistan are extremely brief.

{For starters he doesn't want to tip off India.}

His reluctance to factor in the nature of the Chinese Communist Party regime is a pity. Beijing’s domestic behaviour has implications for foreign policy. The regime bases its claims to “legitimacy” on fabricated history and unpleasant nationalism.

I was glad to see Kissinger can change his mind. In 1975, he called Deng Xiaoping a “bureaucrat… not a leader”. Here he acknowledges Deng’s achievement. He originally called the biography of Mao I wrote with my wife, Jung Chang, “grotesque”; here it is “one-sided but often thought-provoking”. “One-sided” I take to mean it is more critical of Mao than Kissinger is.

But his praise of Mao produces contortions worthy of Mao’s aide Zhou Enlai. “Mao,” he writes, “destroyed traditional China and left its rubble as building blocks for ultimate modernisation.” But rubble is just rubble.

[I}{See Mao's Communism was to destroy old China, just as French Revolution destroyed the ancien regime. In preparation for what we don't know as history chooses its path!}[/i]

Mao made horrific remarks about nuclear weapons and the value of human life. China’s Constitution says these “thoughts” are still valid. The world would sleep easier if Kissinger could encourage China’s leaders to disavow them.

* Jon Halliday is the co-author, with Jung Chang, of Mao: the Unknown Story (Vintage)

On China

by Henry Kissinger

608PP, Allen Lane, £30

Buy now for £26 (PLUS £1.25 p&p) from Telegraph Books

The most telling thing is the first para. Four decades of engagement has not yielded any assurance of China's path. This could mean a troubled new world order as it adjusts to this.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Jun 2011 21:20

I fail to understand why people like Kissinger have been consulted and feted till today despite their colossal failures. Kissinger could hardly be considered an intellectual in any sense. His vision was extremely short sighted and whenever he envisaged something for the long term it did'nt happen that way. A fundamental mistake was the certainty that events would follow their limited vision. A person who could'nt even see Bangladesh's emergence as an independent nation and who believed the Yahya Khans were the liberal epitomes of South Asia is to be felicited maximum as a colossal failure and nothing else. The worst strategy is to rely on 'cunning' and 'guile' forsaking Truth as a weapon. It's a sure way to lose sight of the plot.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 21:25

Harbans, he was at the center stage of the US foreign policy since the early 1960s. He theorised and implementd it. Even after demitting office he still shaped the policy towards China to date. So it gives us one window on the future.

Don't go by his rhetoric. Go by what he did and suggest doing and doesn't suggest.

The fact that he refuses to recognize TSP real state of affairs, means there is still some use for that kabila.

Makes you marvel at the challenges that India faced and saw them whither away due to her action/inacion as needed.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jun 2011 21:33

harbans wrote:I fail to understand why people like Kissinger have been consulted and feted till today despite their colossal failures. Kissinger could hardly be considered an intellectual in any sense. His vision was extremely short sighted and whenever he envisaged something for the long term it did'nt happen that way. A fundamental mistake was the certainty that events would follow their limited vision. A person who could'nt even see Bangladesh's emergence as an independent nation and who believed the Yahya Khans were the liberal epitomes of South Asia is to be felicited maximum as a colossal failure and nothing else. The worst strategy is to rely on 'cunning' and 'guile' forsaking Truth as a weapon. It's a sure way to lose sight of the plot.

I am now beginning to understand his grand strategy and for PRC in the last 40 years. It is complex but the nature of this strategy is gigantic the size of China.

International relations are not done on "Truth or reason" but on national interest.

"who believed the Yahya Khans were the liberal epitomes of South Asia"
this is a non issue in international relations. India faced problems due to the proximity in the region.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 21:35

Naresh Chandra's "Tough neighborhood" remarks which stumped US Admin/Talbott after 1998 tests.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 03 Jun 2011 21:42

harbans wrote:I fail to understand why people like Kissinger have been consulted and feted till today despite their colossal failures. Kissinger could hardly be considered an intellectual in any sense.

Many in the US revile Kissinger as the worst incarnation of Cold Warrior.

Christopher Hitchens has been on a crusade against him & Mother Teresa for a while.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Jun 2011 22:13

I am now beginning to understand his grand strategy and for PRC in the last 40 years. It is complex but the nature of this strategy is gigantic the size of China.

With due humility Acharya Ji, i understand his 'grand strategy' hidden behind 'real politik' pitching China with the USSR, engaging it and ultimately thinking what Japan is to US the same the US can mould China into. Thats the same stream of thought in the US that led to engaging Jihadi's to take on USSR in Afghanistan. Pleading Mao to open a 3rd northern front against India and sending in the 7th fleet in 71, was never in US national interest. It still suffers as a result of those decisions taken by the Nixon-Kissinger duo. There 'real politik' decisions supposedly taken in 'national interest' are failures of US foreign policy.

Kissinger may have been central to US FP since the 60's but to me he was and represents US FP failure. There is NOTHING called National 'self interest'. Repeat NOTHING. Self Interest is always a Doctrine. You always protect Doctrine, value systems within your geographical borders or evolve on those value systems using constituted processes. The moment you engage with entities national or otherwise that don't share or won't evolve to your value systems and strengthen them, you are working against your self interest and thus notionally against the State that supposedly runs on that basis.

To understand why 'National self Interest' == Nothing, imagine India under Sharia. Imagine Musharaff India's leader leading from the Red Fort. Do you think he would work against India's 'National Interest'? No he would protect it every way. The British still think and are convinced they worked to the national Interest of their colonies in Africa and Asia. Some think that a dictatorship in India crushing fundamental rights and civilizational values unique to India, but bringing development is in 'national self interest'. Thus national self interest does not really imply anything at all if it can be literally anything, unless and until it is linked very specifically to a value system. Kissinger's hallmark was delinking national interest and value systems. That's a fundamental failure in approach to any 'national interest'.

The closest i can approach to our national self interest is our national motto. Stick to it and most of ones battles will be converted to subsequent victories. Some may be hard but the win is assured. Back up false systems, you'll win for some time, but the repurcussions will be there and your standing only amongst the thieves. India has so much civilizational history that somehow it was just not able to avoid putting that as it's national motto. But our Psecs are managing to shut their eyes to pain much evident in our neighbourhood, Tibet for example.

To study Kissinger for FP initiative, is studying a case of failure. JMT/

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jun 2011 22:41

harbans wrote:I am now beginning to understand his grand strategy and for PRC in the last 40 years. It is complex but the nature of this strategy is gigantic the size of China.

With due humility Acharya Ji, i understand his 'grand strategy' hidden behind 'real politik' pitching China with the USSR, engaging it and ultimately thinking what Japan is to US the same the US can mould China into. Thats the same stream of thought in the US that led to engaging Jihadi's to take on USSR in Afghanistan. Pleading Mao to open a 3rd northern front against India and sending in the 7th fleet in 71, was never in US national interest. It still suffers as a result of those decisions taken by the Nixon-Kissinger duo. There 'real politik' decisions supposedly taken in 'national interest' are failures of US foreign policy.

US used the 1971 war to its advantage and due to PM Indira Gandhi both Pakistan and Mao came closer to US in geo political terms. For the first time US could get close relations with two authoritarian countries which it could never get before. This served US national interest during the cold war against the soviet union. US gained a lot by Pleading Mao to open a 3rd northern front against India and sending in the 7th fleet in 71, and was in US national interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Sovie ... ooperation
US knew that PRC would never do a thing against India with Soviet breathing down its neck after the Indo-Soviet agreement signed in 1971 Jul. Indian economy was out of the orbit of the western economy after the Soviet deal.
US had to take measures in the economic front with the new global alignment. They had to get PRC to coopt mostly for the global stability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

To stabilize the economy and combat the 1970 inflation rate of 5.84%[2], on August 15, 1971, President Nixon imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze, a 10 percent import surcharge, and, most importantly, “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold. The President and fifteen advisors made that decision without consulting the members of the international monetary system, so the international community informally named it the Nixon shock. Given the importance of the announcement — and its impact upon foreign currencies — presidential advisors recalled that they spent more time deciding when to publicly announce the controversial plan than they spent creating the plan.[3] He was advised that the practical decision was to make an announcement before the stock markets opened on Monday (and just when Asian markets also were opening trading for the day). On August 15, 1971, that speech and the price-control plans proved very popular and raised the public's spirit. The President was credited with finally rescuing the American public from price-gougers, and from a foreign-caused exchange crisis.[3][4]
By December 1971, the import surcharge was dropped, as part of a general revaluation of the major currencies, which thereafter were allowed 2.25% devaluations from the agreed exchange rate. By March 1976, the world’s major currencies were floating — in other words, the currency exchange rates no longer were governments' principal means of administering monetary policy.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jun 2011 22:52

harbans wrote: There is NOTHING called National 'self interest'. Repeat NOTHING. Self Interest is always a Doctrine. You always protect Doctrine, value systems within your geographical borders or evolve on those value systems using constituted processes. The moment you engage with entities national or otherwise that don't share or won't evolve to your value systems and strengthen them, you are working against your self interest and thus notionally against the State that supposedly runs on that basis.

Thus national self interest does not really imply anything at all if it can be literally anything, unless and until it is linked very specifically to a value system. Kissinger's hallmark was delinking national interest and value systems. That's a fundamental failure in approach to any 'national interest'.

Well explained. But these countries will pay a price. I cannot explain how.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Jun 2011 23:11

US used the 1971 war to its advantage and due to PM Indira Gandhi both Pakistan and Mao came closer to US in geo political terms.

The US got mud in it's face 1971. India hardened it's resolve to make the nuke. It pissed generations of Indians off. Nothing i see in US National interest here

For the first time US could get close relations with two authoritarian countries which it could never get before.

The results of which again went against US national interests as we know today.

Well explained. But these countries will pay a price. I cannot explain how.

Acharya Ji, no explanation is needed. Adharma will always have repercussions. Our civilizational history tells us that, BGs main theme is that. This is supposedly to be internalized civilizationally by Indics. This is the concept of Karma. The rest of the world who don't have the civilizational history will have to repeat mistakes and cannot be taken as example for us to learn from. Last of all schemers like Kissinger.

Words like Global stability, National interest all sound high flying. They mean little or next to nothing. I hear many Indians talk about how indisciplined our society is and i tell them examples of disciplined societies: Nazi Germany, Fascist Japan, NK, SU, Maoist China: All failures. These are big words which have no defined meaning really if you look at it. People like Kissinger have doe more disservice to think tanks and well meaning folks interested in understanding relationships between nations and working towards global conflict resolution. There vision and what happened are completely unrelated. Look at it simply: What they planned for never really happened. Nature ran it's natural course. SU collapsed because of it's internal contradictions than Afgh. or US engagement with China. All this is god for bland academic study, but to understand why today is today, we don't and should not give relevance to HK and ZB.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jun 2011 23:19

harbans wrote:US used the 1971 war to its advantage and due to PM Indira Gandhi both Pakistan and Mao came closer to US in geo political terms.

The US got mud in it's face 1971. India hardened it's resolve to make the nuke. It pissed generations of Indians off. Nothing i see in US National interest here

India was least of the issue for them then and Indian sentiments was not their problem

For the first time US could get close relations with two authoritarian countries which it could never get before.

The results of which again went against US national interests as we know today.

Their choice

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 03 Jun 2011 23:23

^ harbansji Such thinking is too one dimensional. How then did India with its values get to this state? It was a long term plan onlee spanning 1200 years that will culminate in the year 2350?

We have to admit trusting in karma to work itself out has not helped our civilization, by sitting back and admiring our own dharmic nature. Sure completely delinking national interest from values is one extreme that should be avoided all costs, but the opposite extreme of getting straitjacketed by values is also to be avoided. There is nothing wrong with carving out a sphere of influence and working it to our advantage.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 23:24

Harbans, When HK came on scene US and USSR were in locked with total nuke response. He came up with the escalatory doctrine which finally led to detente and reduced the threat of mutual annhilation. While doing this split the Communist camp by detaching PRC from USSR. The Afghan war started and eventually led to collapse of FSU. He was the main architect of this turn of events.

Forget the past and prepare for the future. he gives an ide of what he sees. Where it sbenfical embrace it and wher its not be ready.

BTW, AKA ordered Agni V tests by year end. No more delays.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 03 Jun 2011 23:39

Well said Harbans! Truth and its evolutes work themselves out in the cycles of time by a higher power. Those who make a slogan out of truth and instead focus on the retributive aspects of temporal justice run the risk of going astray - gahanaa karmaNo gatiH.

Kissinger's and America's strategies are one important aspect of action - like a strong and agile but blind man, who reacts to what's closeby. Indic civilization has the eyes to see, but at present it is lame and bound up.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2011 23:42

Harbans, If the Pandavas had understood Shakuni and taken steps, the Mahabharat could have been averted.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Jun 2011 23:48

harbansji Such thinking is too one dimensional. How then did India with its values get to this state? It was a long term plan onlee spanning 1200 years that will culminate in the year 2350?

We have to admit trusting in karma to work itself out has not helped our civilization, by sitting back and admiring our own dharmic nature.

No we accepted Adharma in our midst. We did'nt defend Dharma strongly enough. We divided ourselves and how we landed in that state we have nothing but ourselves to blame. Read my earlier post on what National interest can mean and only imply for us. Lose sight of that and then anything goes. To understand defense of national interest you don't need to read Arthashastra, you read to read the BG at least a dozen times over.

Karma is not being helpless, this is a false reading again. Action is essential. Crediting results to machinations of schemers is different from the intentions of their actions.

When HK came on scene US and USSR were in locked with total nuke response. He came up with the escalatory doctrine which finally led to detente and reduced the threat of mutual annhilation.

Ramana Ji, you and i will be kidding ourselves if we think escalation was anything but a natural process. It had to happen. THe natural course with 2 nuke powers confronting each others is escalatory not otherwise. Irrespective if HK was not around it would have happened. HK was just a player in the course.

While doing this split the Communist camp by detaching PRC from USSR.

The PRC was already detached from the USSR commie camp. HK tried to drive a wedge where there was none required. If at all China wanted to join camps with the USSR, there was no carrot or stick dangled by HK, that really seduced China otherwise.

The Afghan war started and eventually led to collapse of FSU. He was the main architect of this turn of events.

Ramana Ji, the collapse of the SU had hardly anything to do with the war in Afghanistan. SU collapsed because of it's inherent contradictions. I would even credit Star wars than Afghanistan. No one planned for the events in the USSR late 80's. No one imagined or schemed towards that.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Jun 2011 23:53

Truth and its evolutes work themselves out in the cycles of time by a higher power. Those who make a slogan out of truth and instead focus on the retributive aspects of temporal justice run the risk of going astray - gahanaa karmaNo gatiH.

Kissinger's and America's strategies are one important aspect of action - like a strong and agile but blind man, who reacts to what's closeby. Indic civilization has the eyes to see, but at present it is lame and bound up.

Absolutely well put!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2011 00:01

OK if you want for you are convinced and dont want to listen.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 04 Jun 2011 00:25

OK if you want for you are convinced and dont want to listen.

Ramana ji, with due respect, i have only disgust for HK and ZB types. No i do not believe that schemers like HK are instrumental to intended change in a big way. THey can at best be catalysts for events beyond their ability to see or scheme towards.

If you can refer me to material that actually shows that HK dangled Carrot or stick drove a wedge between the USSR and China i would be glad to know. The Chinese CPC IMHO looks only after the interest of the command integrity of it's one party system. They'd have seen through HK and RN right through and been careful and cautious dealing with them.

An article for example discussing the SU collapse here gives many reasons:

Another factor was the lack of honest information, the secrecy and propaganda that is central to the culture of war. As contradictions mounted the Soviet people became more and more cynical about the propaganda of government-controlled media. It was common to hear the Russian people say that you could find truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news anywhere except in Izvestia. This was exacerbated by the propaganda warfare carried out by the West in Radio Free Europe and by dissidents in self-published Samizdat.

Secrecy and distortion of information have disastrous economic as well as political effects. As explained in a 1991 article "Secrecy and restricted movement, the hallmarks of militarism and bureaucracy, pervaded Soviet society when I was working there. They hampered the work of the scientific institutes where I was located, even though they were not doing military research. As a result, I found that all levels of the system, from institutes to ministries, were isolated from each other, both by barriers to communication and by an attitude that one should mind one's own business."

The command-administrative model of war-communism hobbled economic development. As the article by Latsis put it, "The glitter of [the war-time economic] miracle blinded us for decades, and the command-administrative methods of the extensively developing economy took firm root in the country."

When, at the end, the Gorbachev administration realized that they would have to convert military industry to civilian production, they could not even get the Defense Ministry to give them an accurate list of defense industries (See Agaev remarks to the United Nations). In other words, the Soviet Union had developed its own military-industrial complex.

Economic indicators were routinely suppressed or falsified to the point that when the final economic collapse was imminent there were no published figures to indicate the points of weakness. For example, as Latsis remarks, the government did not even admit until 1988 that it was running a budget deficit. As a result the government had no way to take remedial action.

All of these factors accumulated on top of a profound alienation of the Soviet people that had grown up over the years as the country remained in the grips of the culture of war. In the Stalin years, not only was the economy devoted to the arms race, but information was controlled in the form of propaganda and dissidents were sent to labor camps. People did not feel free to discuss this, and most people did not participate in governance. Although women were more equal in the work force than in the West, at the top the Communist Party was all men. Photos of the ruling Politburo showed old men covered with war medals like so many old military generals.

http://sfr-21.org/collapse.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jun 2011 08:35

Inside the U.S.-China meeting in Singapore

Gates: Despite budget woes, U.S. military commitment to Asia will increase

CNAS conference hits (VIII): Things I learned about Chinese foreign policy

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jun 2011 08:45

Dam if you do, dam if you don't

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Jun 2011 03:19

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opini ... ef=general
Advice to China

The second trend we see in the Arab Spring is a manifestation of “Carlson’s Law,” posited by Curtis Carlson, the C.E.O. of SRI International, in Silicon Valley, which states that: “In a world where so many people now have access to education and cheap tools of innovation, innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but dumb.” As a result, says Carlson, the sweet spot for innovation today is “moving down,” closer to the people, not up, because all the people together are smarter than anyone alone and all the people now have the tools to invent and collaborate.

But this is not about technology alone. As the Russian historian Leon Aron has noted, the Arab uprisings closely resemble the Russian democratic revolution of 1991 in one key respect: They were both not so much about freedom or food as about “dignity.” They each grew out of a deep desire by people to run their own lives and to be treated as “citizens” — with both obligations and rights that the state cannot just give and take by whim.

If you want to know what brings about revolutions, it is not G.D.P. rising or falling, says Aron, “it is the quest for dignity.” We always exaggerate people’s quest for G.D.P. and undervalue their quest for ideals. “Dignity before bread” was the slogan of the Tunisian revolution. “The spark that lights the fuse is always the quest for dignity,” said Aron. “Today’s technology just makes the fire much more difficult to put out.”

We need to keep that in mind in China, sir. We should be proud of the rising standard of living that we have delivered for our people. Many of them appreciate that. But it is not the only thing in their lives — and at some point it won’t be the most important thing. Do you see what I mean, sir?

Finally Pakistan hits the headlines in America
They know in detail how Pakistan works.

Our Fantasy Nation?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Jun 2011 03:24

SINGAPORE — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie held a 55-minute meeting Friday behind closed doors on the sidelines of the IISS Shangri-La Security Dialogue. Both sides claimed progress in U.S.-China military relations, while largely avoiding contentious issues such as U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and growing competition in Southeast Asia.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 06 Jun 2011 06:58

from a super kaanspiracy site..but hope it is just that and we aren't found being super dumb to let this unaccounted for.

How the Empire will Prevail: Will Washington Foment War Between China and India? by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 06 Jun 2011 07:35

Satya_anveshi wrote:from a super kaanspiracy site..but hope it is just that and we aren't found being super dumb to let this unaccounted for.

How the Empire will Prevail: Will Washington Foment War Between China and India? by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts sounds like a clueless loony.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 06 Jun 2011 07:40

^ Website is a tool of the radical-left Canadian establishment. Similar to radical leftists everywhere.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Jun 2011 07:50

^^^

regardless of the website's background, we need to watch out for any diabolical and convoluted schemes coming out of Washington. types like Kissinger and Brzezinski are known for this. megalomaniacs all of them. and they scare me. these ******** don't care for millions of people dying if required, and will use any nation, any people as pawns on a chessboard. Kissinger, Brzezinski, and later Scowcroft, along with the aide of Presidents and other top leadership, were all instrumental in Iran-Iraq war of the 80's. that war should be mandatory reading for anybody who wishes to understand the lengths to which US will go to ensure their dominance. that model gave rich dividends for US domination. and will be used again at the first opportunity. India and all of Asia needs to watch out.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 06 Jun 2011 09:34

devesh wrote:^^^

regardless of the website's background, we need to watch out for any diabolical and convoluted schemes coming out of Washington.

Absolutely. However it helps to maintain a semblance of discretion when it comes to sources. There are plenty of real sources out there without descending into the overtly foolish and the actively dishonest.

Furthermore, it also helps to do an in-depth study of conflicts like the Iran-Iraq war that includes all the players- instead of seeing it as the result of top-down puppet-play by a single malevolent actor. There were many angles to this conflict, including the Gulf, the Soviets, the Euros, the US, and the bilteral dynamics- it doesn't pay to adopt a simplistic, easy approach. For example this top-down simplification neatly excludes the massive financing channels developed through the Gulf- as well as the fact that the Soviets were the single biggest suppliers of arms and aid to the Iraqis.

The conflict does give a very stark window into the cynicism of Kissinger & his fellows in the US foreign policy establishment. That is very accurate.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Jun 2011 03:47

India's and China’s uncomfortable dance

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Jun 2011 07:13

Chinese Defense Minister’s charm offensive falls flat

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 07 Jun 2011 20:34

^^^
I hope the Chinese do some soul searching on this. their problem is that they follow US agenda. Gates sets the "tone," and PRC faithfully follows.....PRC should realize that they are being taken for a ride. US goads them by releasing "reports" of how China will act, and PRC generals thump their chests and start copying that behavior. and even at meetings, they are obediently following US agenda.....this is PRC's fundamental problem. without even knowing it, they are following in Western footsteps, doing exactly as the Western imperialists want them to do...

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 07 Jun 2011 21:28

PRC simply wants to get in on the great imperial game... The narrative in China is about how they were humiliated and weak under the old system, and how they need to carve out a place for themselves under the new system. They are not content to sit back and sit self-absorbed like they did at some earlier times.

Similar to Japan's own narrative a century ago.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jun 2011 21:33

India doesn't feel the victimhood syndrome.

The victimhood syndrome is a psychological disease and will lead to mis-steps just as Nazi German, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan did.

TSP is on that path right now.

It was a delibrate decision by the Indian freedom struggle pioneers to deny the victimhood syndrome after Independence.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Jun 2011 21:53

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts312.html
( PVNR's Chela)

Will Washington Foment War Between China and India

What is Washington’s solution for the rising power of China?
The answer might be to involve China in a nuclear war with India.
The staging of the fake death of bin Laden in a commando raid that violated Pakistan’s sovereignty was sold to President Obama by the military/security complex as a way to boost Obama’s standing in the polls. The raid succeeded in raising Obama’s approval ratings. But its real purpose was to target Pakistan and to show Pakistan that the US was contemplating invading Pakistan in order to make Pakistan pay for allegedly hiding bin Laden next door to Pakistan’s military academy. The neocon, and increasingly the US military position, is that the Taliban can’t be conquered unless NATO widens the war theater to Pakistan, where the Taliban allegedly has sanctuaries protected by the Pakistan government, which takes American money but doesn’t do Washington’s bidding. Pakistan got the threat message and ran to China. On May 17 Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, as he departed for China declared China to be Pakistan’s "best and most trusted friend." China has built a port for Pakistan at Gwadar, which is close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. The port might become a Chinese naval base on the Arabian Sea. Raza Rumi reported in the Pakistan Tribune (June 4) that at a recent lecture at Pakistan’s National Defense University, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, asked the military officers whether the biggest threat to Pakistan came from within, from India, or from the US. A majority of the officers said that the US was the biggest threat to Pakistan.
China, concerned with India, the other Asian giant that is rising, is willing to ally with Pakistan. Moreover, China doesn’t want Americans on its border, which is where they would be should Pakistan become another American battleground.
Therefore, China showed its displeasure with the US threat to Pakistan, and advised Washington to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, adding that any attack on Pakistan would be considered an attack on China The US has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans’ jobs. Recently, there have been massive US weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.
Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the "shining city on the hill" that is "bringing freedom and democracy to the world" by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France’s Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington’s will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.
With China and India eliminated, that only leaves Russia, which is already ringed by US missile bases and isolated from Europe by NATO, which now includes former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire. A large percentage of gullible Russian youth admires the US for its "freedom" (little do they know) and hates the "authoritarian" Russian state, which they regard as a continuation of the old Soviet state. These "internationalized Russians" will side with Washington, more of less forcing Moscow into surrender.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Jun 2011 08:51

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... -says.html
China Prepares to Counter U.S. Defense of Taiwan, Panetta Says

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- CIA director Leon Panetta, who has been nominated to succeed Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said China appears to be building the capability “to fight and win short-duration, high-intensity conflicts” along its borders.Its near-term focus appears to be on preparing for potential contingencies involving Taiwan, including possible U.S. military intervention,” Panetta said in a 79-page set of answers to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee in advance of his confirmation hearing, scheduled for June 9.
China’s efforts to modernize its military “emphasize anti- access and area capabilities,” Panetta said in his written answers. China also is modernizing its nuclear forces and improving its space and counter-space operations as well as its computer network operations, Panetta said.In addition, China is expanding its missions to include humanitarian assistance, non-combat evacuation operations, and counter-piracy support, according to Panetta.The U.S. should continue to “monitor closely” the growth of China’s military capabilities while designing a strategy “to preserve peace, enhance stability, and reduce risk in the region,” Panetta said.“The complexity of the security environment, both in the Asia-Pacific region and globally, calls for a continuous dialogue between the armed forces of the United States and China to expand practical cooperation where we can and to discuss candidly those areas where we differ,” Panetta said.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jun 2011 09:59

When China says border there is only one border it means
Taiwan is an excuse for preparation against India