Managing Chinese Threat

[panduranghari]

6 wars China wants to fight over next 50 years

Its google translation.
The country is a no unified the country, which is China national shame is shame descendants. For country house of unity, national dignity, the next 50 years, China must make six wars, war is perhaps the whole nation, perhaps local wars, but no matter what a war, all that China must be unified war.

First War: Unified Taiwan (2020 - 2025)
Although the two sides have now become peace , but do not delusional Taiwan governing authorities (whether the KMT or DPP) peaceful reunification with the mainland, because it does not comply with the ruling authorities campaign needs, so long will maintain the status quo with the mainland (so for two benefit both parties, the DPP a bustling downtown, the Kuomintang and the one and, each derive more political chips), "independence" not true "independence", you can stir, "integration" will not really "integration", Tan Tan can. Taiwan is not uniform, which is China's a big mishap, anyone can look from infiltration and increased cooperation with China in all negotiations in chips.
So in the next 10 years, ie 2020, China must come up with a unified strategic approach to national reunification with Taiwan announced the latest deadline is 2025, either accept the peaceful reunification of Taiwan (This is the world of Chinese most want to see the results) either by force unification (which is the only choice in China forced), in order to unify, China ill-prepared in three to five years, when the time comes, no matter what kind of uniform way, but necessary unity, which is the China nation an explanation.
According to the present situation analysis, necessarily reject reunification of Taiwan, mainland China only force to achieve reunification. And this China's unification war, after the founding of New China's first truly modern sense of the war, was a full inspection Chinese military modernization war fighting force. In this, the Chinese could easily win, there may be tough to win. Why do you say that? We may all know about the US-Japan war arms case. Assistance from the United States and Japan to Taiwan, and even sent troops to retake the mainland, China must be give the power to resist the United States carried out difficult and slow day long war, so the war of course difficult; if not with China against the US-Japan and let mainland China recovered Taiwan, Taiwan's armed forces, of course vulnerable, can fully control up to three months in Taiwan. Even US-Japan war, will win a maximum of six months in Taiwan.

Second war: to regain South Sea Islands (2025 - 2030)
After the reunification of Taiwan in China, rest up to two years, and in the rest period of the neighboring countries to the South China Sea, South China Sea islands announced Chinese armed recover the deadline in 2028, invaded the South China Sea around the island and all Asian countries and China during this period can be negotiated, but also invaded the island in China, Chinese spirit of good-neighborliness and big country style as a starting point, but also to ensure that countries surrounding the South China Sea has been invested in the South China Sea islands part of the economic interests of the total, or China to use force to recover once the South China Sea islands, the islands occupied by countries to invest in China's economy will be confiscated.
This is also the time of the South China Sea neighboring countries after the reunification with Taiwan by force in China Although terrified, but countries sit together and negotiate with China on the one hand, on the one hand but will not hand over the hand of interests, are waiting and watching, are procrastinating, China in the end to see what action will be taken until after the war was also made that choice. Below is the South China Sea islands were invaded neighboring countries the status of the island.
And, at this time the United States would never be willing China Sea Islands to recover this, because the first war, the United States entered the war, or less than, or the war but can not stop the Chinese reunification with Taiwan, known China's strength lies, so it will not have dare not openly hostile to the front with China, but it will certainly support the South China Sea around secretly in some countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines; only dare to challenge China Vietnam and the Philippines, but it can also weighed again, and China will not dare to use force, it will In negotiations with the Chinese can not get the maximum benefits, and dare the U.S. military assistance when a war with China.
China at this time the best choice to attack Vietnam, because Vietnam is the South China Sea around the largest and most powerful countries, to attack Vietnam, is "killing monkey watch chickens." in the invasion of Vietnam, the countries surrounding the South China Sea in Vietnam is not going to help, it will only match . Vietnam defeated, put occupied by reefs returned to China, China defeated, then learn Vietnamese, at a war with China.
Of course, China will defeat the occupation of Vietnam and recovered the island. At this point, one defeat in Vietnam, share the island do regained, and serious economic losses, the South China Sea, China's neighboring countries on the one hand awed by Yu Wei, the other wants to keep part of the benefit, had to think twice about negotiating the return of the islands and reefs invaded China , surrender to China. China then repair Kong Garrison, squat defensive Pacific.
At that time, China completely break through the first island chain, and break into the second island chain, China's aircraft carrier really can freely enter the ocean, the Chinese even more to expand their interests and concerns of the.

Third war: to regain possession of the South (2035 - 2040)
China and India have a long border line, but the real cause of conflict and confrontation between the two countries in southern Tibet, only this one place. India has always been regarded China as the imaginary enemy, more than the development of China-India strategic objectives. India, on the one hand self-development, on the one hand from the United States, Russia, Europe and other countries and vigorously the introduction of highly sophisticated weapons and military technology, military, economic development followed by Chinese sky.
In India, its official, the executives and the media more pro United States, Russia, Europe, contrary to China more exclusive, even hostile, China and India it is difficult to resolve the territorial issue one of the causes; hand, India official, a high-level view of its military in the US-Russian help solve the case, arrogant, that war with China can be used China, which is also printed another source of protracted territorial issues.
After 20 years, India's military strength, although more than China, but it also is the time the world is one of the few big countries, China regained its head-southern Tibet, many have some loss of their own, so I personally think it is best China from now on, trying to lure Indian division, split into several small countries, unable to compete with China for India;
Of course, the split plot does not necessarily succeed in India, but it should at least make the bordering southern Tibet and China to help Assam and Sikkim by India misappropriated independent, weakening the strength of India's rival China, this is the best policy.
The second choice is to enter the advanced military weapons in Pakistan, in 2035 or so, secretly helped Pakistan attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir in the southern region, to help Pakistan complete reunification. Of course, when India and Pakistan battle it forward, China with lightning speed fast attack India invaded southern Tibet.
India can not afford both at the same time fighting two wars are inevitable defeat, so that you can easily recover possession of southern China, Pakistan can be completed entirely controlled Kashmir. This is the second choice is entirely implemented in a significant merit. This can not be realized, only be an unwise move, that is a frontal attack India, regained possession of the South.
When the first and second end of the war, China has been recuperating decade, when China is whether military or economic power worldwide that time, only the United States and Europe (if Europe is to achieve integration time being true to form, then the same country Otherwise, not gold enough grid, should be Russia, but I observe and analyze the European integration then it is entirely possible) with China among the top three, rival, equal shares it.
Because China recovered Taiwan and the South China Sea islands, the military technology has made great progress, land, sea, air, space weapons has been a qualitative leap in military technology are in many international advanced level, which is second only to China's military might in the United States, living in the world's second and India in this war is doomed to defeat.

Four wars: recover the Diaoyu Islands and the flow of the ball (2040 - 2045)
Time of the twenty-first century, China is the real world power, when it is, the Russo-Japanese fading, not before the US-India, Central resurgence, it is recovered by the Japanese occupation of China's Diaoyu Islands and the flow of the ball the best time. The figure is the Diaoyu Islands and the flow of the ball past and contrast.
Here comes the Diaoyu Islands and the flow of the ball, many people may only know the Diaoyu Islands are China's inherent territory, but do not know the Japanese occupation of flow of the ball (ie today's "Okinawa," the U.S. military bases). Now, whether civil or central level, referring to the Sino-Japanese East China Sea issue, talking about the Japanese delineated so-called "middle line", talking about "Okinawa" (that is to say the flow of the ball) issues have been introduced in Japan History and political misunderstanding - namely that the flow of the ball is Japanese territory.
This is how ignorant shame ah! Read Chinese, streaming balls and rest of the world (including Japan) history, current ball Islands has always been China's Fan vassal state, which is China's territory. I ask that the Japanese delineated so-called "median line" also set it? East China Sea off Japan also what happened? (Unclear on this matter who can go and see what I wrote, "Flow Ball - Chinese territory since ancient times, indivisible part ")
Since the Japanese occupation of the Diaoyu Islands and the flow of the ball for years, illegally steal the wealth of the East, it is time to come back to Japan. Because the United States wants to pipe and weak pipe, Europe is not related to their business, desert but asked Russia to sit spectacular. Up to six months, you can end the war, Chinese victory, Japan had to admit defeat consequences - the unconditional return of the Diaoyu Islands and the flow of the ball. The East China Sea, China's inland sea, who would dare to touch?

Race War: a unified Mongolia (2045 - 2050)
Although there are people who want to return to China advocating Outer Mongolia, but realistic? Chinese guy in those unrealistic self-deception, misleading the Chinese strategic thinking, which is to regain Mongolia no one benefits.
We only after the reunification of Taiwan to the ROC Constitution and layout as the basis (here maybe someone will ask, why should the ROC Constitution and based on territory it? Do not mean that the Republic of China Republic of China was unified yet? What nonsense, People's Republic of China, the Republic of China is China, Hugh matter who unified Who, as the Chinese people, as long as the reunification of the motherland strong, free from bullying best.
And to know that the PRC is the recognition of the independence of Outer Mongolia, such as the territory of the People's Republic is based on the Constitution and to the unity of Outer Mongolia, which is aggression, so only the ROC Constitution and layout as the basis of foreign Mongolia unified, this apprenticeship famous; here also note that I said things after the reunification of Taiwan Republic of China, then say who unified Who meaningful?), Monty out a unified framework, while making foreign Mongolia regression atmosphere of public opinion; also willing to return to Mongolia seeking ethnic, and vigorously support, try to make it close to the power level, to prepare for the reunification of Outer Mongolia; and regain possession of the South (estimated in 2040) to the world after States announced that Mongolia is China's core interests, who also untouchable.
Of course, Mongolia to conditionally return, naturally the best, however, than I do not know how many times a unified force; if external interference or reject reunification, China is ready to do all armed, unified Mongolia. I think China can still apply the reunification of Taiwan model, limited return deadline for 2045, giving Mongolia a few years time to think, time to return to the post if not active, and finally to force reunification.
By this time, the first four games of war has ended, China has the force unified Mongolia's political, military and diplomatic strength. Weak to go the United States and Russia, dare war, only a diplomatic protest, but the EU was ambiguous, noncommittal, India-silent, Central silence. Less than three years, China can complete all unified absolute nature of Outer Mongolia. Unified Mongolia, the frontier Chen heavily, monitor Russia, and within a decade, and vigorously carry out basic, military facilities as construction, and later recovered by the Russian occupation of our territory to prepare for.

Sixth war: to regain territory occupied by Russia (2055 - 2060)
Now seemingly good-neighborly friendship between China and Russia, but in order to fight against the United States and had to come together, in fact Anchaoyongdong, mutual alert, wary of China's powerful Russian rise against them, China has not forgotten the Russian occupation of China's territory, one has the ability , China is bound to recover.
Five games War (2050), using the Qing Dynasty territory prior to intimidate Russia also invaded my homeland (the same reason the ROC territory to unify Mongolia, as here, not much to say) in the world, which would be conducive our opinion and to the best lure Russia again disintegration, as many small countries.
Old China, Russia invaded our territory before and after a total of about 1.6 million square kilometers of land, the occupation of the land is equivalent to our existing land area sixth, Russia really is my enemy nation feud, so five wars after the end of the Qing Dynasty is the territory with Russia in order to calculate the time of reckoning.
How could Russia obediently returned, when only a war. At a time when China by sea, land, air and space forces aspect has far exceeded Russia, but this is the first war against nuclear power, so China must now have anti-nuclear move all of its capabilities, such as with the destruction of their nuclear weapons in the front, middle and end capabilities. Russia unable to fight back when the army arrives will understand that Russia is far from Chinese rivals, had sacrificed their dismay of the land occupied by its acts of aggression when strong pay a heavy price.


Where will the oil needed to fight these stupid wars come from?

[SSridhar]

Man Mohan Singh to address future CPC leaders - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

During his visit to China next week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is scheduled to address students at the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) secretive Party School in the suburbs of western Beijing — an elite institution that trains the country’s future leaders.

Dr. Singh’s visit to the Party School is being framed by Chinese officials as underlining the importance they are attaching to the visit. Only few visiting foreign dignitaries, they say, have addressed the 80-year-old institution, which has trained a number of leaders and teaches more than one thousand cadres.

Before last year, the school hosted only very few top foreign dignitaries. In an attempt to open up, the school played host to three serving Prime Ministers last year — Mario Monti of Italy, Yingluck Shinawatra of Thailand and Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore, according to the official China Daily newspaper.

Dr. Singh will arrive in Beijing on October 22, and meet top leaders on October 23. The event at the school will allow him to address the question of the future of India-China relations in an atmosphere that will be far less constrictive than his other engagements, officials say.

Foreign leaders had often used their Party School messages to go beyond diplomatic language and send frank messages to the leadership.

For instance, Singapore’s Prime Minister in his speech — which received much attention among Chinese elites — called for a reality check about China’s position in the world, telling his audience of Party officials and up-and-coming cadres that “the U.S. would remain the dominant superpower for the foreseeable future”.

“All eight Nobel Prize winners in science who are of Chinese descent either were or subsequently became American citizens,” he said. “We should never under-estimate the US’ capacity to reinvigorate and reinvent itself.”

The former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was even more direct during a 2005 visit, emphasising the need for political openness and warning that isolating people and denying them information could lead to “dramatic” consequences.

Beijing had initially asked Mr. Rumsfeld to address a gathering at Peking University, where many visiting foreign leaders usually make public speeches. But Mr. Rumsfeld had insisted on speaking at the Party School, according to Chinese State media reports.

“So many foreign leaders want to visit our school now. I’m afraid we have to give priority to high-ranking officials and top scholars because of the busy schedule,” said Gong Li, director of the school’s Institute of International Strategic Studies, told the China Daily last year.

Since its establishment in 1933, the school has trained 60,000 officials. The school is usually headed by a top member of the Politburo. The current President is Liu Yunshan, the fifth-ranked leader of the seven-member Politburo Standing Committee who heads propaganda.

His predecessor as President was Xi Jinping, the current CPC General Secretary and President of China. Earlier Presidents of the Party School include Mao Zedong and Hu Jintao, the former leader. State media reports say the highest levels of the Party decide — and approve — visits from foreign leaders.

Reflecting the school’s unique status, a recent media report recounted a popular joke circulating in the school, which asks why the Party School is home to China’s safest drivers: “Why? Because who knows which passer-by might become the future General Secretary of the CPC.”

[SSridhar]

India's widening trade deficit with China - Ananth krishnan, The Hindu

India’s trade deficit with China this year is likely to surpass even last year’s record $28 billion, according to new trade data released this week.

After nine months of this year, the trade imbalance in China’s favour has reached $24.7 billion, with India’s exports to China down by as much as 22.5 per cent last month. Overall bilateral trade reached $48.5 billion, down by 4.5 per cent in September.

The new figures, released only a week before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s scheduled arrival in China on October 22 on a two-day visit, have underlined the increasingly skewed trade relationship, which has alarmed officials and cast a shadow on once-prospering ties that propelled China to become India’s biggest trading partner.

Booming trade — largely driven by Indian imports of machinery, and power and telecom equipment, and Chinese appetite for iron ore — reached $73 billion in 2011, before falling to $66 billion last year. Both sides have set a target of $100 billion by 2015. The slump in trade has been triggered primarily by mining bans in Karnataka. With India struggling to diversify exports in other sectors, and power and telecom imports from China under a cloud following moves to impose duties and security concerns, the future of the trade relationship has appeared increasingly uncertain.

Both sides are consequently exploring new avenues to revive flagging ties. One proposal, made during May’s visit to India by Premier Li Keqiang, suggests setting up dedicated industrial parks — an issue expected to figure during next week’s talks between Dr. Singh and Chinese leaders.

“We have agreed to engage in cooperation to build industrial parks,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on Tuesday.

“The aim,” she said, “is to develop clustered development platforms for the businesses of the two countries. China stands ready to strengthen cooperation with the Indian side to expand the market for our respective businesses and to facilitate investments.”

[SSridhar]

Eye on business, India to ease visa norms for Chinese - ToI

While looking to reduce border tensions, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will seek to prioritize investment and business by easing norms for business and tourist visas during his visit to China next week.

Increasing the tenure of business visas to one year from the current six months with multi-entry provision and ensuring home ministry security clearance within 30 days for "project visas" are key aspects of the agreement.

The emphasis is significant as security concerns dog Chinese investments in several sectors like telecom and the PM's visit is expected to have a strong business focus at a time when the economy has become an electoral hot button issue.

The proposal, to be considered by the Cabinet on Thursday, refers to increased FDI inflows from China and a burgeoning Chinese role in infrastructure projects to back a liberalized visa regime that eases rigors of doing business in India.

In weighing the security versus investment debate, the government seems to have prioritized growth and pared the arguments put forward for stricter scrutiny of Chinese visa applicants although it does not do away with the requirements for clearances from the home ministry.

Before he reaches Beijing next week, the PM will be in Moscow where he will have less security related concerns with regard to boosting economic ties. In both capitals, business will be high on his agenda.

The mandatory two-month gap between exit and re-entry for tourist visas is also sought to be done away with a view to attract more Chinese visitors to India.

The government sees a 5% GDP rate as the "political" threshold and estimates that anything below this marker will prove electorally prohibitive. Singh can be expected to do his bit to drum up business during his visits.

The Cabinet proposal seeks to revisit the 2003 protocol in the light of a massive expansion of India-China trade and also bats for an expansion of people-to-people ties. It refers to demands by Indian businesses, particularly the information technology sector, for easier visa rules for Chinese.

The easier visa rules will also help a greater exchange of delegates attending academic or business meetings and conferences.

The longer term business visa will, however, be available to regular visitors with the tenure being just three months in the first instance. The decisions are expected to be reciprocated by the Chinese side.

[SSridhar]

China's 'Three Warfares (3Ws)' and India - Abhijit Singh, IDSA

Some excerpts

As is now well known, the Chinese regime’s 3Ws strategy refers to psychological, legal and media warfares

While the Airawat incident drew attention on account of the involvement of an Indian naval ship transiting the waters of the South China Sea, the Indian Navy has not been the central focus of Chinese attacks. That distinction, in fact, lies with the Indian Army, which has borne the brunt of China’s 3Ws over the past few years. The Chinese Army’s routine incursions into the Indian side along the Line of Actual control (LAC) have mostly been symbolic. But, while there have been no violent exchanges, the transgressing PLA troops have marked their presence clearly for Indian soldiers to see, before withdrawing

The message to New Delhi from Beijing, however, was again unmistakable: China’s national interests are supreme: respect our ‘redlines’ or else, prepare to face the consequences.

Pertinently, China’s psychological warfare operations have been characterized by coercion, which take the form of intimidation achieved through demonstrations and shows of force.

Over the next decade, China can be expected to target three regions on India’s periphery: Arunachal Pradesh; the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; and the smaller South Asian states. While China’s interest in Arunachal is well known, its 3Ws may be played around India’s geographical periphery too. In recent times, writings in the Chinese media have raised questions about the Indian Navy’s efforts to militarize the regions close to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It can reasonably be surmised that China
will continue to give importance to maintaining a presence in the Indian Ocean and will increasingly resort to 3Ws when establishing its outposts in the region.

[SSridhar]

Top Chines official secretly visited Japan for Senkaku talks - Japan Times

A top Chinese official secretly visited Japan earlier this month to hold talks with senior Japanese counterparts over how best to address simmering tensions over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, Chinese government sources said Tuesday.

The Chinese official is in charge of Japan-China relations at the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Asian Affairs. Officials from both nations also discussed the groundwork for holding a bilateral summit meeting, the sources told Jiji Press.

The Chinese side rejected holding a Sino-Japanese meeting when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Chinese counterparts, President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang, attended the East Asia Summit and other gatherings in Southeast Asia earlier this month.

Abe has repeatedly said the door remains open for dialogue.

China is willing to mend the bilateral relationship, a diplomatic source said. In late September, some 10 business leaders from the country visited Japan, while a meeting of Japanese and South Korean culture ministers was held in South Korea.

Beijing, however, has been frustrated with Abe’s hard-line stance toward China, a Chinese government source said.

No senior Chinese official has visited Japan since a trip by the chief of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Asian Affairs in October 2012, soon after Tokyo nationalized the Senkakus, which are located in Okinawa Prefecture. China claims the islands as its own.

From Japan, Vice Foreign Minister Akitaka Saiki and Junichi Ihara, director-general of the Foreign Ministry’s Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, visited China in late July and early August, respectively.

[harbans]

Once India is Nehruvian ideology (which essentially negates our historical cultural, religious identity and links with Tibet) mukth, the best solutions to manage the Chinese threat will emerge. Make an arrangement with the Tibetans and Govt In Exile that Kailash-Mansarover/ Shiv Bhoomi will be a Dharmic sthal under a Dharmic federation managed by Tibet-India- Nepal jointly and environmental sustainability maintained. This area about 500k plus sq km area is also the life of the entire subcontinent being the supplier of all the major river systems here. In return for this endorsement and agreement with the Govts of Nepal and Tibet (in Exile) we endorse in Official policy documents 2 steps for China:

1. Return of Kaislah-Mansarover/ Shiv Bhoomi as first step to the Dharmic trio of Tibet, Nepal, India.
2. Return of Tibet to Tibetans and discussions on the Northern and Eastern borders of Tibet-China.

China will obviously laugh it off when India declares this as Official policy. It may even try for some military gains in our Northern borders which we must then as well as now be fully prepared to counter. A military engagement may also mean a full scale Indian deployment in many areas of Tibet, a thing that is not in consideration under a Nehruvian setup. If military engagement post Nehruvian mukht Bharat is considered, that deployment, cutting of Chinese positions in large swathes of Tibet will become a reality. Blocking Malacca and supplies in addition to full scale thrusts into Tibet will entail a possible military loss in Tibet or large tracts of China mukth Tibet. Whatever the scenario there is a major risk to China in a military conflict with a Nehruvian mukht Bharat or a Dharmic backed Bharat. The rules change. No longer will it be drive the invaders from some indistinct boundary at our northern borders. It will become drive the Chinese out from the Dharmic soil of Tibet, Kailash-Mansarover/ Shiv Bhoomi.

Once Chinese realize military options will not help, may even destroy whatever economic progress it has made it will be pragmatic. But what certainly will happen is India's change of stance will reverberate in millions of mainstream articles around the world and clearly disassociate Chinese claims on Dharmic soil. Clamor will grow for Chinese to vacate. India holds the key to freeing Tibet and Shiv Bhoomi. Nepal will join in as a tract of land much larger than itself beckons for joint management. Nepal will wean away from Maoism and immediately join the Dharmic federation as proposed by India. The only way to change things on the ground is to change our stance on KM/ Tibet. It cannot be done by a setup that has been brainwashed by perverse Nehruvian fundamentals that negate India's soul. Once that changes all else changes, the paths are clear and visible. The options are many and point to inevitable struggle yet victory.

[Prem]

http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/impact-grow ... dia/p31626

What is the impact of growing Pakistan-China relations on the United States and India?Question submitted by Shreedhar K. Powar, from Shivaji University, October 15, 2013

Relations between China and Pakistan are indeed growing, but must be considered in a wider context to understand their potential implications for the United States and India.Close Sino-Pakistani relations are nothing new. Especially with respect to military and nuclear ties, Beijing and Islamabad have have been friendly since the 1960s. In recent years, bilateral trade and investment have increased. Looking to the future, China's expanding influence in Central Asia and its interest in overland access to the Arabian Sea could motivate even stronger links with Pakistan.
From that starting point, add the following: Pakistan's deeply rooted hostility toward India, Washington's post-Cold War courtship of New Delhi, and the potential for a future global order characterized by competition between the United States and China.If these were the only pieces of the regional puzzle, it would be reasonable to expect a competitive two-bloc formation to take shape in South Asia: China and Pakistan versus India and the United States. But the puzzle is actually much more complicated. Four trends cut "cross-bloc."First, China-India trade is now larger than both trade between China and Pakistan and trade between India and the United States. Whereas during the late Cold War China had good reasons to unite with Pakistan in undermining India, today Beijing profits from regional stability and normal working relations with New Delhi.Second, India is not entirely sure that it wants to place all its eggs in the U.S. basket; longstanding nonaligned tendencies die hard, and "strategic autonomy" is more popular in Delhi than is playing for Washington's team.Third, Pakistan's future is a real wildcard. In a worst case scenario, internal violence and instability would even scare off its Chinese ally. In a best case, Islamabad would act to realize its own economic interests through normalized relations with India.Finally, if future U.S.-China relations are cooperative more than conflict-prone, then Chinese involvement in Pakistan offers little to fear; it may even promote stabilizing economic development that would serve everyone's purposes.

[member_19686]

Arun Shourie, India's most respected public intellectual, speaks on 'What will it take to face up to China?' at Manthan Samvaad 2013, at Hyderabad, India. Oct 2, 2013.

[SSridhar]

If the proposed BDCA stops "tailing of each other's patrols", what does it mean ? Normally, the 'border perception differences' lead only to intrusion by the Chinese into traditional Indian areas (strangely it has not been the other way around where such perception differences lead to Indian troops venturing into traditional Chinese territories). Does it mean that Indian troops will not tackle such such intruders ?

[SSridhar]

Just saw a ticker in a news channel that India has decided to scrap the liberalized visa agreement that was to be signed during PM's visit next week as a protest against the incident involving the two Arunachal Pradesh archers. A welcome decision.

[harbans]

Sridhar Ji, it might be a welcome decision, but all these basic moves are happening only after massive public pressure. There is no resistance to stupidity in the MEA. Only after massive public pressure that it reacts. We have Raj Babbar as the Chariman of the standing committee of Defense..what can you expect. Last time he walked away from a presentation being made by the 3 Chiefs in the midst of the 1st presentation by the COAS..said we have flights to catch. Our Ministers are completely disinterested. If tomorrow China walks into ArP and Sikkim/ Bhutan..and there is no public pressure, this GoI will just keep quiet in the name of peace and harmony.

[SSridhar]

harbans ji, there is no doubt, in my mind, that no Indian government, none whatsoever, had any clue about how to handle Pakistan, leave alone a more wily and powerful China. I was worried that the latest visa denial issue would go unchallenged. I would therefore say that if any good decision is taken, even if only under public pressure, it is still welcome. I would be happy, as I said before, if GoI issues a circular to the effect that if any member of any group that is travelling is given only a stapled visa, then the entire group must abandon their trip.

[SSridhar]

Japan Minister's war shrine visit draws China's ire - The Hindu

A cabinet minister was among scores of Japanese parliamentarians to pay tribute at a controversial war shrine Friday, drawing a rebuke from Beijing which said the visit was a bid to “whitewash” history.

Yoshitaka Shindo, Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications, insisted he was paying homage at Yasukuni Shrine as an individual, and played down the potential for diplomatic fallout.

“I don't think this will develop into a diplomatic issue at all,” he said.

Mr. Shindo was contradicted hours later in Beijing, where Tokyo’s envoy was called in to the Foreign Ministry.

“Vice Chinese Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin has summoned the Japanese ambassador to China for a solemn protest and a strong condemnation,” Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters.

The visit to the shrine “is a blatant attempt to whitewash Japanese militarism’s history of aggression and to challenge the outcomes of the Second World War and the post-war international order”, Ms. Hua added. “China is resolutely opposed to that.”

Seoul’s response was more muted, with a Foreign Ministry official bemoaning the shrine’s role as one that “justifies the history of Japan’s aggression”.

On Friday, about 160 members of Parliament — approximately 20 per cent of the nation’s lawmakers — were at Yasukuni as part of the autumn festival, which runs until Sunday. A record 166 made the trip during April's spring festival.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Thursday donated a symbolic gift to the shrine, in what was taken as a sign that he would not be there in person.

Yasukuni is the believed repository of the souls of about 2.5 million war dead.

The shrine is controversial because of the inclusion of 14 of the men held responsible for Japan’s often-brutal behaviour as it invaded a swathe of Asia in the 1930s and 1940s. In addition, the museum attached to the shrine peddles a largely unapologetic view of WWII that is not widely accepted. — AFP

[Pratyush]

The Government of Japan, needs to tell the PRC, that, the shrine is a monument to all the Japaneses war dead from all the wars. That, being the case, the PRC needs to shove it.

[SSridhar]

Chinese Commerce Ministry Officials in India - Business Line

The Foreign Secretary said today that a team from the Chinese Commerce Ministry and Development Bank is in India now to discuss trade deficit and come up with a five-year trade development plan.

The team will also be shown some sites for the Chinese industrial park. The Foreign Secretary added that Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra and Tamil Nadu are among those States that have shown interest in having the park.

China is setting up industrial parks in many Asian and South American countries.

[SSridhar]

All Chinese Journalists Ordered to Censor Supportive Stances Towards Japan - Japan Times

One of the '3 Ws' of China is 'War through media'. This is an example.

China’s Communist Party has begun ordering all Chinese journalists not to take supportive stances toward Japan when writing about territorial and historical issues between the two countries, participants of a mandatory training program revealed Saturday.

Around 250,000 journalists who work for various Chinese media organizations must attend the nationwide training program to learn about such topics as Marxist views on journalism, laws and regulations and norms in news-gathering and editing, in order to get their press accreditation renewed. The unified program started in mid-October and will run through the end of this year.

It is believed to be the first time the ruling Chinese Communist Party, which tightly controls the country’s media industry, has carried out this kind of training program before renewing press credentials.

On Japan, the instructors denounced Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s “right-leaning” policies and urged reporters from newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and online media to refrain from concessionary comments regarding China’s claims over the Japan-held Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, the participants said. China claims the islets as Diaoyu.

But at the same time, they warned participants not to adopt overly belligerent positions vis-a-vis Japan.

In addition to Japan, the instructors said the United States is “trying to undermine our country” and criticized the Philippines and Vietnam, which are mired in territorial disputes with China, the participants said.

They were also told to reject democracy and human rights, as these values, the instructors said, are claimed by “the West as universal (but) are targeting China’s Communist Party.”

One group of instructors praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, as the Chinese government has been trying to promote images of close relations with him, according to the participants.

After taking the program, Chinese journalists are required to pass an exam, seen taking place between January and February, to obtain press cards.

[SSridhar]

Sino-Myanmar Gas Pipeline Becomes Fully Operational - Business Line

The 2,520 km Sino-Myanmar gas pipeline has become fully operational with completion of the final section connecting Lufeng and Guigang cities in southwestern China, authorities said here today.

Some 793 km of the trunk line are in Myanmar, while the rest is in China.

It is expected to send 12 billion cubic metres of natural gas annually to Myanmar and southwest China, which will reduce coal consumption by 30.72 million tonnes per year, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) said.

Wu Hong, general manager of the CNPC’s pipeline construction department, said the China—Myanmar gas pipeline will be linked with the pipeline that sends gas from China’s remote northwest to the east coast, hence greatly increase the reliability of supply to customers, particularly in case of emergency, state—run Xinhua news agency reported.

Construction of the gas pipeline began in 2010. It is part of a so-called Myanmar—China Oil and Gas Pipeline project, which also includes building a crude oil pipeline.

The Myanmar section of the gas pipeline started to deliver gas to China in late July.

The CNPC is the parent company of China’s top oil and gas producer —— PetroChina.

[Prem]

India, China to sign defense accord, but problems persist even as economic ties grow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ind ... story.html
NEW DELHI — Six months after a military standoff on their disputed border, the leaders of China and India are expected to sign a defense cooperation agreement this week to limit the risk of further confrontations.But experts say it will be difficult for Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to make much progress on other key issues, such as the trade imbalance and concerns about Pakistan and regional security.he old dilemmas that bedevil India with respect to China are still intact,” said Ashley J. Tellis, an India expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. “I don’t think either side is in a position right now to get to the heart of the matter.”
Singh’s swing through Russia and China this week, along with last month’s meeting with President Obama at the White House, is a farewell tour for the prime minister, who at 81 is seen as frail and ineffectual by his domestic critics as his second term wanes. India’s parliamentary elections are slated for the spring, and he is facing criticism from the opposition that he is being too soft on China.
Singh, a quiet economist, was the architect of many of the reforms that propelled India’s economy forward over the past two decades. But as the country’s growth has slowed and the government has become mired in corruption scandals, his popularity has plummeted.“I think, for Singh, this trip to Beijing is his legacy lap,” Tellis said. “There is a certain quality of nostalgia that is wrapped into this visit.”Stopping in Russia on Monday, Singh met with President Vladimir Putin — but a hoped-for agreement to build two more reactors for a Russian-backed nuclear power plant in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu never materialized, bogged down in concerns about liability.
That leaves China.
In April, Chinese soldiers set up a campsite not far from an Indian military base in the mountainous region of Ladakh in a disputed part of Kashmir. Indian forces took up positions, resulting in a standoff that lasted for three weeks before the Chinese soldiers retreated.“The relationship has been quite frosty this year because of the incursion that happened in Ladakh in April,” said Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. “I don’t think the relationship is sustainable. Unless the Chinese are willing to pursue a more balanced relationship, this turbulence will persist and intensify.”The new agreement aims to avoid conflicts by setting up communication hot lines for senior officers and establishing stricter rules for troop behavior along the border, including a prohibition against “tailing” — when a patrol from one country tails another after an encounter.The two nuclear-armed powers have other long-standing political differences, including disputes over natural resources and China’s growing alliance with Pakistan. Still, China and India have increasingly strong economic ties. Bilateral trade rose to $66 billion last year, with hopes for $100 billion by 2015, officials have said. India would like to export more of its pharmaceutical products and information technology to China, but China’s appetite is for raw materials such as iron ore, resulting in a trade deficit of about $30 billion.Singh said in an interview with Chinese news media this week that the imbalance was “unsustainable” in the long term.Chinese leaders have pledged more openness on the trade front, and they would like to be more involved in building needed infrastructure projects in India, said Ye Hailin, a South Asia expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank. But the Chinese government is awaiting the results of the spring election in India to see “whether these policies will stand,” Hailin said.Tensions continue to flare between the countries over the more than 2,000 miles of disputed border stretching from the Indian-controlled territory of Kashmir in the north to the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls South Tibet.China angered India this month when it gave “stapled” visas — issued on separate pieces of paper, rather than on the passports — to two archers from Arunachal Pradesh trying to get into China for a competition. In recent years, China has given these controversial stapled visas to Indian residents from areas that it thinks are in dispute, such as Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.

[SSridhar]

China blames Dalai Lama for border dispute with India - ToI

China on Tuesday blamed Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama and his supporters for creating border problems between India and China.

"After the failure of their armed rebellion in 1959, they fled abroad and began to harass China's borders for years," said a white paper, issued as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh landed in Beijing for a three-day visit.

Observers said the link indicates China would raise the issue of the Dalai Lama's presence in India with the Prime Minister and seek curbs on his "anti-China" activities.

The paper said the Tibetan leader's main purpose is to "overthrow the socialist system and the system of regional ethnic autonomy that is practiced in Tibet''. It added he wants "to rock the systemic foundations that have ensured the development and progress of Tibet''.

The document cited the Dalai Lama's suggestions like "Greater Tibet" and "a high degree of autonomy" and said they were against "China's actual conditions and violate the Constitution and relevant laws".

It said 94% adult Tibetans had voted to elect local leaders to suggest support for the government's stand and little backing for the Dalai Lama.

"There are some others in the world, who intentionally distort the past and present of Tibet due to their ideological bias or out of consideration for their self interests. They created a 'Shangri-La' myth, wishing to keep Tibet in a backward primitive state forever," it said.

[SSridhar]

Border Incidents Need Quicker Resolution - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

Zhou Gang, who served as China’s Ambassador in New Delhi between 1998 and 2001, is one of the senior-most advisers to the Chinese government on relations with India. A former Ambassador to Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, the retired career diplomat today serves as Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Zhou also sits on the elite Foreign Policy Advisory Group (FPAG), a select body of former diplomats that advises top leaders.

As the only member of the FPAG who specialises on India-China relations, Mr. Zhou is in the unique position of knowing how China’s new leaders, who took over in March, view the future of the relationship. In an interview with Ananth Krishnan conducted over an hour at a Beijing teahouse, Mr. Zhou answered questions about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to China, which begins on Wednesday. He discussed prospects of resolving the boundary question, the future of ties under the new Chinese leadership, and why China is yet to back India’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Excerpts.

Q: What are the expectations in Beijing ahead of this week’s visit?

This is the first time since 1954 that we have had two visits by Prime Ministers in one year. Back then, Premier Zhou Enlai travelled to India, followed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru coming to China. Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to your country in May, his first overseas visit after assuming the Prime Ministership, was of great importance, because it shows the new leadership in China values relations with India.

The volume of bilateral trade between our two countries has been reduced to some extent last year, but still registered about $66 billion. India is today one of the biggest markets for Chinese companies for contracting projects. The volume of signed contracts has exceeded $60 billion. This relationship of a new type between two neighbouring countries is extremely positive for stability in our region and in the world as a whole. During the next few days, you will witness the importance Chinese leaders attach to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Q: If you look at China’s periphery, you are currently involved in territorial and maritime disputes in the east with Japan, in the south with more than 10 countries over the South China Sea, and in the southwest with India. Some have seen the recent disputes as reflecting a newly assertive China.

As far as the China-India border dispute is concerned, it was left over by history. Our two countries have conducted talks on the border issue starting from the 1960s. We continued in the late 1970s in different forums. I think both of us are of the view that it is important to address the border issue. The final settlement of the boundary issue will greatly promote bilateral relations.

Talks between the two Special Representatives of China and India during the last eight years have achieved a lot in reaching agreement on guiding principles during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India in 2005, and in setting up a new working mechanism on consultation on boundary issues [last year]. At the same time, generally speaking, the two countries have maintained peace and tranquillity on the border. I think that is not easy. This means the two countries are quite prudent, and have done the most to avoid incidents on the border. As the border issue is very complicated, I think we must take a positive attitude to push the talks to go forward. At the same time, we must be patient. When the time is ripe, the leadership of our two countries must take the political decision and reach consensus on a settlement which will be accepted by both of us.

Of course, we have some maritime differences and disputes with some of the neighbouring countries, namely Japan and some ASEAN countries. As far as the dispute over the Diaoyu islands (or Senkaku islands as they are known in Japan) is concerned, it is Japan which violated the consensus between the leaders of the older generation in the 1970s. Japan tries to change the status quo by declaring the so-called purchase of the islands. I think the responsibility is entirely with the Japanese side, so it is quite different from our [dispute], where we are trying… to ease the situation and maintain peace and tranquillity. But the Japanese are doing otherwise.

As for the Nansha [Spratly] islands dispute between China and some ASEAN countries namely Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, I think China wants to maintain friendly relations with these countries. I think we have achieved some results during the recent visit by President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang to Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Thailand. You may have noticed the recent step forward between China and Vietnam [on joint exploration in the South China Sea].

Q: India and China are expected to sign a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement during Dr. Singh’s visit. In April, the two armies were involved in a tense stand-off along the border in Depsang, in Ladakh, triggered by a Chinese incursion, which took three weeks to be resolved. How do you see the current situation on the border?

The agreement you mentioned will be one of the significant results of this visit. If anything happens, it should be resolved more quickly, [but] also in a patient way and pragmatic manner. That is the common objective of our two countries because we learned lessons from the past. What happened in April this year will rarely happen in the future.

We must also let the people know about the importance of maintaining peace and tranquillity on the border, on the importance of settling the border issue through patient talks and negotiations. The attitude must be positive but we must let people know the difficulty and complexity of the issue. It is more important that we pay more attention on the economic relationship. If more people visit each other, they will have more knowledge about each other. Last year, we had only seven lakh people travelling. This is very low. You can see the huge exchanges between China and the Republic of Korea [South Korea]. There are over 200 flights a week, six million people travelling. With the U.S., it is around four million. I think the two governments should further ease the visa procedures. In these things, India must learn from the ROK, and other Asian countries. Your relevant departments must have a positive attitude.

Q: You spoke about the two countries’ common interests on global issues. But on United Nations Security Council reforms, China is the only P5 country not to back India. What is behind the reluctance?

U.N. reforms are a big question. It is a common consensus of ours to have reforms in the U.N., including the Security Council. But the reforms involve the interests of the vast member states of the U.N., and the important interests of the big powers. They have differences. At one recent seminar, I told Indian scholars, I personally think it is not good for India to push your application for permanent membership of the UNSC together with other countries.

Q: Do you mean Japan specifically? [India has allied its bid with Japan, Germany and Brazil.]

You may ask, is it good for a country that challenged the anti-Fascist war, challenged the post-war situation, are they qualified to be a permanent member of the UNSC?

We understand and respect your aspirations and support India to play a more important role internationally, including at the U.N. and the UNSC. It is what China can do at the present, because we know the difficulties of reaching consensus and we know the differences between different members of the U.N.

Sometimes I advise my Indian friends, do you think the attitude of the U.S. is positive? Do you think the U.S. really, from the bottom of its heart, supports India’s application? The U.S. knows the record of voting by India in the U.N. in the past! After President Obama’s visit to India and his statement of support, one U.S. scholar told me what President Obama promised to India is the easiest commitment as the U.S. will spend nothing, but the public announcement will be welcomed. If there is more developing countries’ representation in the UNSC, it will be helpful [to China]. So I told my Indian friends, you must see China’s positive attitude on this issue, but at the same time you must understand their difficult position to publicly voice support.

[SSridhar]

India-China May Sidestep Thorny Issues - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

It definitely suits China o sidestep (or brush aside) these issues because it has created these issues in the first place, but should India sidestep them too ? If China wants to expand trade with us or if wants to improve its image from being considered that as a bully etc, then it should be made to sweat it out, rather than being meekly allowed to do so. Indian thought process seems to be (it is a trait that applies to all political parties) that appeasement, more ND more of it, would somehow 'soften' the tough stance of our adversary and we would be able to overcome difficulties without having to encounter and tackle uncomfortable bilateral issues. For how long, can this approach work, especially with a greedy and assertive China that uses such an approach to incrementally up its ante and grab more and more ?

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets his Chinese counterpart, Li Keqiang, for talks at the Great Hall of the People here [Beijing] on Wednesday, the two leaders are expected to largely focus their discussions on economic issues and steer clear of more challenging political and strategic problems, such as the boundary dispute.

The focus on the economic reflects the measured expectations, both in Beijing and New Delhi, ahead of what will be Dr. Singh’s last visit to China during his current term.

There will likely be no landmark agreements or grand announcements, Indian and Chinese officials say, barring a number of trade and investment deals and a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA). The latter deal will only marginally expand the confidence-building measures in place along the border, rather than offer any new ideas to resolve the boundary question, over which talks remain deadlocked after 16 rounds.

One reason for the cautious approach, according to Chinese officials and analysts, is the perception in Beijing that elections in India, next year, may very well herald significant changes.

“In India, it is the remaining year of the government, so big steps would be difficult,” said Han Hua, a leading South Asia scholar at the elite Peking University, in an interview to The Hindu .

In China, too, she added, the leadership under President Xi Jinping and Mr. Li, the Premier, was still “new” in office, having taken over in March this year. “As it is not easy for the two governments at this moment to take any big step, this leaves the agenda for the visit to focus on economic issues,” Ms. Hua said.

Consequently, the visit is unlikely to have landmark agreements such as the move in 2003, during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Beijing visit, to set up the Special Representatives mechanism to negotiate on the boundary question; or the agreement on political parameters and guiding principles announced in 2005 when former Premier Wen Jiabao visited New Delhi.

Since that agreement, the wide perception is that boundary talks have remained deadlocked. The 2005 agreement marked the conclusion of the first of three stages. The second stage, to decide a framework to settle the dispute in all sectors, has proved to be the most difficult.

In a written interview to Chinese State-run media, Dr. Singh said he had, during the past nine years as Prime Minister, “attempted to put India-China relations on a stable growth path.” “Working together with the Chinese leadership,” he said, “my attempt has been to create a forward looking agenda for our bilateral relations.”

Dr. Singh also said India welcomed larger flows of Foreign Direct Investment from China, and the proposal to set up industrial parks, to help address the trade imbalance. He said there was “a great deal of concern” in India about the deficit when asked about the prospects of a Regional Trading Arrangement.

Persisting obstacles

Both sides are unlikely to make headway on issues seen as their “core interests”, such as the boundary dispute, management of transboundary rivers or the ongoing Chinese projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told reporters on Tuesday that China wanted to put in place “consultations with the Indian side to improve efficiency of mechanisms” to maintain peace along the border.

On India’s concerns about the three new dams China is building on the Brahmaputra, in addition to one 510 MW dam already being constructed, Ms. Hua reiterated China’s position that it was sharing hydrological data and would “accommodate each other’s concerns.” On Chinese investments in PoK, Ms. Hua repeated China’s official stand that the Kashmir issue was for India and Pakistan to resolve {but, that is not answering the question, is that ?} .

Strains on the border were evident in April when troops were involved in a three-week-long stand-off in Depsang. The BDCA agreement, while adding confidence-building measures, will not resolve the underlying causes of the April incident — persisting ambiguities about each sides’ claim lines and the anxiety caused in India by China’s rapid border infrastructure investments.

Hu Shisheng, a strategic expert at the China Institutes for Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), said the BDCA would be “very important in controlling border crises”. “If they can have this legally binding agreement there will be a double guarantee,” he told China Daily .

Ms. Hua, however, said “the basic reason” for the incident — triggered by the Chinese putting up a tent in a disputed area — was a reaction to “too much construction along the border” by India. The Chinese, she acknowledged, did not have to build closer to the disputed border because their infrastructure, as well as more favourable terrain, enabled quick mobilisation. “If we don’t have the overall collaboration of the military, policymakers and decision makers on both sides,” she said, “it will be difficult to avoid such incidents.” {So, essentially, the Chinese are saying that "if you guys do not stop construction activities, we will continue to hit you. Don't mind the infrastructure we have developed or our natural advantages etc". But, this is only one part of the story. In the three flag meetings at Depsang, the PLA put several demands such as the Indian Army destroying certain structures, calling off of night patrols, not tailing Chinese patrols and reducing troop levels in return for Chinese troops to vacate Depsang valley in DBO sector. All of these have been now accepted by GoI. This is most deplorable.}

[SSridhar]

Visa Pact with China Put on Hold - Nirupama Subramanian, The Hindu

“We were close to a visa agreement but when [China] did the stapled visas [to the archers from Arunachal Pradesh] we said we will do it slowly. Let them sweat it out,” an official said, describing China’s move, days before the agreement was to come up before the Union Cabinet, as “very silly”. As a result, the agreement was pulled from the Cabinet’s agenda last week. However, officials conceded that India may not be able to delay it for long as Indian companies are lobbying hard for the new visa regime to enable their Chinese business partners to visit more easily. {So, the same Narayanamurthy corporate syndrome playing out once again ?}

[SSridhar]

I see a lot of confusion on the agenda for the summit meeting in Beijing. Some reports speak of sidestepping 'thorny issues' while others include every 'thorny issue' in the talks. Is this a media confusion, or a confusion planted by the MEA or is there a confusion at the highest levels of the PM and the FM ?

[SSridhar]

Push for Improving Balance of Trade - Nirupama Subramanian, The Hindu

India will seek to press its case for improving the balance of trade with China during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit here.

Though trade between India and China slowed down last year, it is around $ 66 billion, and is tilted heavily against India. Officials said both sides are already engaged in finding ways to redress this.

Signalling India’s seriousness on this issue, Planning Commission chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, who heads a strategic economic dialogue with his Chinese counterpart to identify and diversify economic co-operation between the two countries, is to join Prime Minister Singh’s delegation here.

India wants to push for greater market access in certain sectors such as pharmaceuticals and Information Technology, and government sources said the Chinese have promised to consider this positively.

In turn, the Chinese are said to be interested in setting up a Special economic Zone in India{India's demands on pharmaceuticals & IT have been there for nearly seven years now and the Chinese have stonewalled while their corporate intrusion into India grew unhindered. Now, the Chinese are demanding more concessions in order to consider these seven-year-old demands ?} , and a team visited earlier this month to scout for sites. The Chinese side is also suggesting they set up manufacturing in India, so that they can sell in the Indian market and also abroad, officials said.

Some of the imbalance, officials said, was inevitable after India stopped exporting iron ore. The Indian private sector, on the other hand, imports heavy equipment from China. The Indian private sector, for instance, has imported equipment for nearly 60000 MW of power production.

“We don’t have an equivalent on our side,” said an Indian official. {very true also}

But the Indian side has proposed that the Chinese source goods and services from India, and “things that India does well” for the infrastructure projects they undertake back home and in other parts of the world.

Aside from the strategic economic dialogue, there is a CEOs’ forum which is also looking at improving the trade balance.

[JE Menon]

Apparently a border pact has been signed. So says ndtv

[SSridhar]

India-China Border Agreement to Reduce Tension Along LAC - ToI

It also stipulates that the two countries agree that if border defence forces of the two sides come to a face-to-face situation in areas of no common understanding, both sides exercise maximum self-restraint, refrain from any provocative action and not to use force or threaten to use force against either side, treat each other with courtesy and prevent exchange of fire or armed conflict.

The above is very advantageous to an aggressive and intrusive China. When they intrude next, which is only days away now, it will now become even more difficult to expel them from Indian territory.

[harbans]

^ My thoughts too. The basics from what this Govt is working as far as International relations and FP goes are rooted in disillusioned axioms and mundane cliches. Why do they say "One can't change neighbours"? Why do we base multiple FP decisions on "A Stable Pakistan is good for India", why do we base multiple foreign policy decisions on " We won;t interfere in another's internal affairs, even when genocide is happening next door", why do we put our heads in our ar..se and bray "We have no options but to talk". Amazing Drawing room chitter chatter cliches are running our FP. We will be left with mud on our faces and no backbone to defend anything, because we don;t stand for anything.

[VenkataS]

Chinese will only change their behavior if they feel that their behavior is detrimental to their interests.
They will keep issuing stapled visas because they can do so without any consequences to their interests.

The only effective way to deal with them is to do something similar to what they are doing. India if it has any spine left has to immediately de-recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Make Tibet an area of dispute which has to be resolved to the benefit of all parties concerned, Tibetans, Indians and lastly Chinese. Start issuing stapled visas to Tibetans. As long as China claims any Indian territory as its own including Aksai Chin make it clear that we will only issue stapled visas to Tibetans (including resettled Han Tibetans).

[Bade]

What's up with the change in color for the Indian flag ? Did no one object to it officially.


China and India Try to Paper Over Their Differences

[Prem Kumar]

India-China Border Agreement to Reduce Tension Along LAC - ToI

It also stipulates that the two countries agree that if border defence forces of the two sides come to a face-to-face situation in areas of no common understanding, both sides exercise maximum self-restraint, refrain from any provocative action and not to use force or threaten to use force against either side, treat each other with courtesy and prevent exchange of fire or armed conflict.

The above is very advantageous to an aggressive and intrusive China. When they intrude next, which is only days away now, it will now become even more difficult to expel them from Indian territory.

Our de facto stance has become a de jure one. Why couldnt India insert a clause that stated that "both sides would respect the sanctity of the LAC and make best efforts to not violate them?"

Not that any agreement matters to China. India seems to be the only one following these agreements (& even going beyond them) in letter and spirit

[rajrang]

^ My thoughts too. The basics from what this Govt is working as far as International relations and FP goes are rooted in disillusioned axioms and mundane cliches. Why do they say "One can't change neighbours"? Why do we base multiple FP decisions on "A Stable Pakistan is good for India", why do we base multiple foreign policy decisions on " We won;t interfere in another's internal affairs, even when genocide is happening next door", why do we put our heads in our ar..se and bray "We have no options but to talk". Amazing Drawing room chitter chatter cliches are running our FP. We will be left with mud on our faces and no backbone to defend anything, because we don;t stand for anything.

The present Indian Government has a lot of economics expertise, but in the area of international politics is somewhat less so, especially in comparison to someone like former PM Indira Gandhi. I am afraid, the present Government is in a hurry to sign as many international deals as possible in its last few months (PM MMS visits to US, Russia and China). This is in contrast to actions on the domestic front which are on a go slow mode until the elections. Perhaps foreign policy actions should also be left to the next Government in a similar manner.

[PratikDas]

^ My thoughts too. The basics from what this Govt is working as far as International relations and FP goes are rooted in disillusioned axioms and mundane cliches. Why do they say "One can't change neighbours"? Why do we base multiple FP decisions on "A Stable Pakistan is good for India", why do we base multiple foreign policy decisions on " We won;t interfere in another's internal affairs, even when genocide is happening next door", why do we put our heads in our ar..se and bray "We have no options but to talk". Amazing Drawing room chitter chatter cliches are running our FP. We will be left with mud on our faces and no backbone to defend anything, because we don;t stand for anything.

The present Indian Government has a lot of economics expertise, but in the area of international politics is somewhat less so, especially in comparison to someone like former PM Indira Gandhi. I am afraid, the present Government is in a hurry to sign as many international deals as possible in its last few months (PM MMS visits to US, Russia and China). This is in contrast to actions on the domestic front which are on a go slow mode until the elections. Perhaps foreign policy actions should also be left to the next Government in a similar manner.

Sorry for this OT post but the text in bold is a common misconception that has been stoked by the media in favour of the UPA government simply because the great honorable PM who once was the Finance Minister, but isn't now - a fact that doesn't seem to dawn on many, has a doctorate in economics from the University of Oxford which evidently isn't a panacea for all of India's economic woes.

This is what the RBI Governor, Duvvuri Subbarao, had to say about this government's economics expertise:

Outgoing RBI governor Subbarao blames govt for sinking rupee

Another regret expressed by the governor was that he chose 'baby steps' to hike rates in 2009. "I will probably be remembered as baby-steps Subbarao, but if the RBI had acted more decisively, inflation could have been brought under control much sooner." Subbarao attacked proponents of the theory that the RBI had no role to play in inflation caused by supply side shocks. "In a $1500 per capita economy—where food is a large fraction of the expenditure basket—food inflation quickly spills into wage inflation and therefore into core inflation. In rural areas where MGNREGA wages are indexed to inflation such transmission is institutionalized," he said, adding that MGNREGA had pushed up rural incomes without commensurate increase in productivity.

"In 2008 there was enormous pressure on the RBI to emulate central banks in America and the UK, which resorted to quantitative easing to loosen monetary conditions, raise inflation expectations and lower real interest rates. We realize that the strategy was effective in the short term, but the excess liquidity has raised inflation pressures," said Subbarao. On the attempt to clip the RBI's wings by restricting its mandate to only monetary policy, he said, "We must ask repeatedly if reducing the mandate of central banks, when everywhere else their mandate is being expanded, is the right way to go." The governor also said that the government cannot use financial stability as an excuse to override the authority of financial regulators. "The governor must normally leave the responsibility to the regulators, assuming an activist role only in time of crisis."

Sorry, rajrang ji, but this government neither has any expertise in handling the economy nor foreign policy, nor defence.

[Philip]

The MGNREGA scheme is the nation's biggest disaster since Partition! It has decimated the human resources available to till the land and enhance agricultural productivity,provide the construction and other labour intensive industries suffering from affordable labour shortages and has actually seen a decline in agricultural growth barring a few states where there has been a lot of modernisation and mechanisation.

For this unmitigated disaster,we have to thank the ruling dynasty and its puppet regime for its total incompetence and cretinous economic concepts,led by the Sancho Panza of finance,Montek SA.said the Bard,"A plague upon all their houses"!

[SSridhar]

Guys, let us stick to China. A stray comment need not derail the entire thread.

[SSridhar]

19 Chinese Satellites Scanning Indian waters: DRDO - ToI

As many as 19 Chinese surveillance satellites are monitoring the Indian waters as the region is emerging as one of the world's most strategic areas in the 21st century, secretary to defence minister and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) director-general Avinash Chander said here [Kochi] on Wednesday.

[SSridhar]

India-China Seal Border Pact, talk Pak-based Terror - ToI

There seems to be an unwanted exuberance among Indian officials and the media about the so-called 'success' of our PM's visit to Beijing. The signing of several pacts is claimed as proof of the success. The above ToI report lists the following successes.

1. Significant pact to curb use of force on the borders
2. Open a dialogue on dams on the Brahmaputra
3. Enhance cooperation on terrorism with China.
4. An ambitious Bangladesh-Myanmar-India-China economic corridor along the south Silk Route

But, are the above really to be termed as successes of Indian diplomacy ? Absolutely not.

Significant pact to curb use of force on the borders
Use of force, which excludes firing, will not be curbed in any way. In fact, BDCA means that permission has been now given by India that the intruding Chinese forces would neither be confronted (no eyeball-to-eyeball) nor be tailed (that is, ensuring that they retreated to LAC). This means that they will have to retreat on their own will, not though 'use of force'.

Enhance cooperation on terrorism
This, to me at least, looks the most laughable 'success'. China is the only P-5 country that blocked *twice* the UNSC’s Taliban-Al Qaeda group from declaring Jama’at-ud-Dawah and its Emir, Prof. Hafeez Saeed from being included in the list of entities and persons proscribed under Resolution 1267. It put a technical hold on all these occasions demanding to see ‘more evidence’. In May 2009, after JuD and Hafeez Saeed were eventually placed on the list in Dec. 2008, China blocked Indian move to place Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammed on the same UN 1267 Committee list. Later, when India engaged China in counter-terrorism talks in July, 2011 and presented evidence about JeM and Maulana Masood Azhar, it summarily refused to re-visit that issue. It also rejected Indian requests to place Azzam Cheema and Abdul Rehman Makki of the LeT under the Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions list. In the UNSC, China remained the only country not to accede to this Indian request. The usual Chinese excuse has been “there is no single definition of terrorism” and hence China has avoided taking a clarified stand on it. Similarly, China also firmly rejected looking into details of Chinese arms suppliers provided by Anthony Shimray of the NSCN (IM). The Chinese officials insisted the information was still insufficient. The Indian side passed on information provided by Shimray in his statements before the court that the NSCN (IM) had arranged arms and ammunition worth nearly $2 million from TCL, a subsidiary of Chinese arms company China Xinshidai. However, even names of individuals, the agents in Bangkok and other such details did not seem to impress the Chinese side. The Chinese interlocutors are believed to have told their Indian counterparts that they could not act on a mere “confessional statement” — regardless of whether it had been admitted in a court of law.

Today, China needs Pakistan for three reasons at least, among many others. One, as usual, containing and shackling India within the South Asian paradigm. Two, complete the Karakoram Corridor (Highway, Railways and Oil&Gas pipeline) and takeover the Gwadar port. Three, expand into Afghanistan in a big way post-2014. All it wants in return from Pakistan is its unstinted support to China and containing / eliminating terror linkages between Xinjiang and the Terrorist State of Pakistan. Both states are willing accomplices in the goals they have set for themselves. What tactical or strategic benefit does China get from collaborating with India on countering terrorism, either against Pakistan or the various Indian entities warring with India in the North East ?

Dialogue on dams
The pact on river waters does not open a dialogue on dams as erroneously reported. The pact allows for greater sharing of information on flood flows during certain 'extended' (extended over the previous agreement) periods of the year. That's all. It is India's one-sided interpretation that the clause, "discuss other issues of mutual interest" would allow India to raise deeper questions on the various projects or act as a platform to settle Indian concerns etc. China makes such bland, non-binding statements now and then which, an Indian mind, unwilling for confrontation, amplifies and attributes 'convenient' interpretations that were not intended by the Chinese. It is also reported that the Chinese Priem Minister has promised Man Mohan Singh that China would keep India's interests in mind. Such vague promises are not enough as we know having experienced the issue of the maps in 1958 or the plattitudes of Panch Sheel followed by back stabbing etc. China has been promising to open up the IT & pharmaceutical sectors for Indian investments for close to a decade now without any movement beyond fine words at all.

Bangladesh-Myanmar-India-China economic corridor
This corridor would be another opportunity for lop-sided trading and manufacturing activities in favour of China.

Thus, while China has not given away anything tangible at all, it has got a BDCA that would be used to its advantage in the days and months and years to come. It has extracted a promise that Visa liberalization would happen soon (something I thought earlier that a sudden surge of libido has resulted in a rare tit-for-tat riposte by India)

[SSridhar]

It is time to get closer to Colombo - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line

A persistent Indian diplomatic effort and growing trust and confidence between New Delhi and Colombo eventually led to Provincial elections being held in the Northern Province last month.
. . . .
Emotive and partisan electoral considerations should not guide the conduct of India’s relations with Sri Lanka. India needs a policy of diplomatic and economic engagement and not self-inflicted estrangement with Colombo, as China increases its influence and naval presence across the Indian Ocean Region.

[SSridhar]

China to Continue Stapled Visas for Arunachal Pradesh Citizens - Ananth krishnan, The Hindu

India will have to bear with China’s policy of issuing stapled visas for people from Arunachal Pradesh while both sides seek to build on the momentum generated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Beijing earlier this week, said diplomatic sources on Friday.

Before 2009, when China decided to relax its policy of not issuing travel documents to Arunachal Pradesh residents and dole out stapled visas, it was impossible for Indians from the State to travel to China.

China has dropped its practice of giving stapled visas to people from Jammu & Kashmir. But it won’t be possible to accommodate India’s request to do away with stapled visas for its people from Arunachal Pradesh, said the sources.

India had decided not to go ahead with an MoU on further simplifying visa procedures during Dr. Singh’s visit following the controversy generated by the inability of two young archers from Arunachal Pradesh to leave for a junior world championship in China last month after they were issued stapled visas. {But, reports have already appeared that in a few weeks' time, India will have to switch to liberalized visa regime because of pressure from Indian corporate sector. China will continue to stick to the stapled visa regime as it has made its stance very clear at the highest levels. So, Indian 'resistance' will, as usual, evaporate very soon and China will be further emboldened by Indian meekness and timidity}

“The two archers are of my children’s age. It broke my heart that they couldn’t go. It is being said [by former Bharatiya Janata Party MP from Arunachal Pradesh Kiren Rijiju] that the archers could not go because of China’s policy. It is the immigration authorities [at Delhi airport] who stopped them. China issues stapled visas to citizens from some other countries as well,” said diplomatic sources. {What s submissive diplomat this person, whoever that is, is ? Isn't he ashamed to justify the Chinese position ? This can happen only in our country. He prefaces his shameful justification by sympathizing with the plight of archers ! He feels that the two archers should have gone with the stapled visa and he finds fault with the immigration authorities, another wing of the GoI.}

Beijing took India’s decision not to sign the MoU in its stride by arguing that the move to allow visa-free entry to spouses of diplomats was anyway a small step. “We can live with that,” said the sources, pointing out that Beijing too was looking to ease visa norms.

As many as six lakh Indians visited China last year as against one lakh Chinese to India.

To encourage more travel to India, China wants India to ease a two-month bar on second entry applied to all foreigners after David Coleman Headley was found to have entered India several times in quick succession to conduct reconnaissance for the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

[member_19686]

Japan will stand up to China, says PM Shinzo Abe

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says other countries want Japan to adopt a more assertive leadership role in Asia to counter the growing power of China.

Mr Abe told the Wall Street Journal there were "concerns that China was trying to change the status quo by force, rather than by the rule of law".

Relations between China and Japan have been strained over recent years.

China said on Saturday that if Japan shot down Chinese drones, this would be considered "an act of war" by Beijing.

The statement was referring to reports that Mr Abe had approved defence plans that envisaged using air force planes to shoot down unmanned Chinese aircraft in Japanese airspace.

Another contentious issue between the two countries is the dispute over a group of islands.

The islands, in the East China Sea, are controlled by Tokyo, but claimed by Beijing.

But analysts say the nations' rivalry reflects the power shift created by China's meteoric economic and diplomatic rise while Japan has been mired in a two-decade economic slump.

China has warned against Japanese nationalism in a region where Japan's colonial expansionism is still bitterly remembered.

'Act of war'
In the interview, Mr Abe said he had realised that "Japan is expected to exert leadership not just on the economic front, but also in the field of security in the Asia-Pacific".

He promised policies to counter Japan's waning influence.

Other countries wanted Japan to stand up to China, Mr Abe said without naming any.

"There are concerns that China is attempting to change the status quo by force, rather than by rule of law. But if China opts to take that path, then it won't be able to emerge peacefully," Mr Abe says.

"So it shouldn't take that path, and many nations expect Japan to strongly express that view. And they hope that as a result, China will take responsible action in the international community."

The interview comes days after Mr Abe was reported to approved defence plans to intercept and shoot down foreign unmanned aircraft that ignore warnings to leave Japanese airspace.

On Saturday, China's defence ministry responded saying: "If Japan does resort to enforcement measures like shooting down aircraft, that is a serious provocation to us, an act of war.

"We will undertake decisive action to strike back, with every consequence borne by the side that caused the trouble," spokesman Geng Yansheng said on the ministry's website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24684683