Managing Chinese Threat

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby svinayak » 01 Jul 2014 19:56

vijaykarthik wrote:
merlin wrote:Very good summation SSridhar. The last para especially sets out just what we must do. Now to wait and watch if the Modi government follows an assertive policy or is as much or even more subservient to China than the UPA one.

Don't think the Modi govt will be any different from any other govt wrt China. If anything, they might end up being slightly more stupid. I will love to see my words being proven wrong. But Modi doesn't seem like the fairest of guys when it comes to geopolitics. Edited to remove negative stereotyping. Kindly do not repeat - JE Menon

These policies are not done by one person or one PM

Geopolitics is an entire nation including its culture.

Just by inviting the Tibet govt in Exlie during the ceremony, the GOI has changed the future of Tibet

Future of Tibet will tied to 'South Asia'

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2819
Joined: 07 May 2009 16:49

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby muraliravi » 01 Jul 2014 19:56

The best and 1st step should be to go back on India's acceptance of Tibet being an integral part of China. India in fact should not manage the chinese threat, they should actively counter it. Start showing huge parts of tibet (especially parts of manasarovar and kailash) as part of india. And show the rest of tibet as an independent nation.

The 1st step in geopolitics is perception. 10 Years back, google maps or any international map showed arunachal as integral part of india, now we all know the situation.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby svinayak » 01 Jul 2014 20:01

muraliravi wrote:
The 1st step in geopolitics is perception. 10 Years back, google maps or any international map showed arunachal as integral part of india, now we all know the situation.

PRC paid money to Google company and changed the map

India has to create its own google company and also publish its own map.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2819
Joined: 07 May 2009 16:49

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby muraliravi » 01 Jul 2014 20:08

svinayak wrote:
muraliravi wrote:
The 1st step in geopolitics is perception. 10 Years back, google maps or any international map showed arunachal as integral part of india, now we all know the situation.

PRC paid money to Google company and changed the map

India has to create its own google company and also publish its own map.

But PRC claims arunachal in its official govt map also. At least the GOI can make a start by claiming parts of tibet in its official map and also start issuing stapled visas to people from inner mongolia, tibet and xinjiang.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4449
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby sanjaykumar » 02 Jul 2014 05:22


Australia and India to strengthen military ties

Officials say Mr Modi signalled his more assertive stance on the day of his swearing-in ceremony, on May 26, when his staff guided the Tibetan prime minister in-exile and Taiwan representative to the front and fourth rows, respectively.

Read more: ... z36GaZ4Vxl

Posts: 1108
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby vijaykarthik » 02 Jul 2014 09:17

muraliravi wrote:The best and 1st step should be to go back on India's acceptance of Tibet being an integral part of China. India in fact should not manage the chinese threat, they should actively counter it. Start showing huge parts of tibet (especially parts of manasarovar and kailash) as part of india. And show the rest of tibet as an independent nation.

The 1st step in geopolitics is perception. 10 Years back, google maps or any international map showed arunachal as integral part of india, now we all know the situation.

Agreed. I feel the same too. Fairness should come from both ends. We have a dangling carrot too. If China doesn't accept Arunachal as a valid state, time we actually discreetly support Tibetan autonomous region support a bit more... if possible, slightly more overtly. And also go back on Tibet being a valid bit of China. Perhaps also build more roads to reach the border zones quicker and also fwd deploy defensive troops?

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 02 Jul 2014 11:04

Coalition agrees on scrapping pacifist post-war defense policy - Japan Times
The administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Tuesday authorized a reinterpretation of war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution, allowing Japan for the first time since World War II to come to the aid of an ally under attack.{Collective self-defence}

The authorization marks a landmark shift in the postwar defense posture, which has prevented the country from waging wars on foreign soil.

Nevertheless, administration officials say the new policy emphasizes that Japan remains defense-oriented and will follow the path of a peaceful country, seeking to resolve conflicts through diplomatic means.

But the reinterpretation is certain to anger China and South Korea, which see it as a sign of resurgent Japanese militarism.

Abe offered reassurances that Japan will not launch a war against other countries and not become embroiled in warfare waged by other countries.

“We will not resort to the use of force (solely) with the aim of defending other countries,” Abe told a news conference following the Cabinet meeting to authorize the move. “By being fully prepared to deal with any situation, Japan can foil any attempt to wage war against Japan.”

Even though collective self-defense is an inherent right granted to member nations by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, previous governments maintained that the Constitution forbids the use of force in all cases except when the nation comes under direct attack.

To fend off criticism for changing the defense posture without holding a national referendum to revise the Constitution, the Abe administration has broadened the definition of self-defense to include the defense of allies.

The administration has introduced three new conditions by which Japan can resort to force under the banner of preserving the nation’s survival and the lives and rights of its people.

According to the new conditions, Japan can come to the aid of a friendly nation if:

The attack on that country poses a clear danger to Japan’s survival or could fundamentally overturn Japanese citizens’ constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no other way of repelling the attack and protecting Japan and its citizens.

The use of force is limited to the minimum necessary.

Pacifist coalition member New Komeito, which is backed by the lay Buddhist group Soka Gakkai, still advocates not exercising the right to collective self-defense. For this reason, the statement approved Tuesday avoids clearly stating Japan can exercise the right. Instead, it asserts that some of the newly permitted actions could be perceived as exercising the right to collective self-defense under international law.

“This is about defending Japan, not about defending other countries,” New Komeito Vice President Kazuo Kitagawa said. “Collective self-defense under international law means defending other countries without considering if that would infringe on one’s own security, but we see this as part of the self-defense of Japan.”

Abe has given assurances that Japan will not join military operations by coalition forces authorized by the U.N., such as the Gulf War. However, this runs counter to the recommendation of his own handpicked panel, which recommended in its defense report in May that Japan should take part in such operations.

For all Abe’s assurances, the public is fearful that the conditions by which Japan might be perceived as under threat will end up giving the government a free hand to expand Self-Defense Forces involvement abroad.

But the two ruling parties counter that the conditions cannot be interpreted overly loosely.

“We have applied the brakes sufficiently to prevent Japan from doing what Abe said Japan will not do, even in the future,” said LDP Vice President Masahiko Komura.

Yet the two parties appear to differ on what constitutes a clear danger to Japan.

Abe is eager for Japan to join international minesweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz to help secure sea lanes used by 80 percent of the tankers that deliver oil to Japan. {India should provide berthing and R&R facilities for these Japanese minesweepers} New Komeito executives, on the other hand, argue action taken so far away from Japan is not easy to justify as protecting the nation from clear danger.

For its part, the U.S., which has called on Japan to assume a greater security role amid sharp cuts in its own defense budget, is likely to hail Abe’s initiative. The two countries will revise by the end of the year their guidelines for defense cooperation, which will be the first revision in 17 years.

Abe wants the new guidelines to reflect his updated defense strategy, giving Japan a bigger role in any regional contingencies, namely on the Korean Peninsula. The SDF could also be authorized to defend American warships on the high seas or shoot down missiles heading for U.S. territory.

The ruling coalition still must hold talks on necessary legislation. The administration will have to submit bills to revise related laws such as the Self-Defense Law and the Japan Coast Guard Law to accommodate the changes at an extraordinary Diet sessions in the fall.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 02 Jul 2014 11:09

What defines the conditions for military use - Japan Times
Japan is at a historic crossroads in amending its long-held pacifist defense posture, a move that it may never reverse. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet formally reinterpreted the war-renouncing Article 9 on Tuesday, reading the Constitution as permitting at least partial use of the right of collective self-defense.

Administration officials and New Komeito lawmakers defend the decision by saying Japan will only use the right under strict conditions.

But many critics, including uncounted numbers of ordinary citizens, doubt the conditions will in reality serve as restraints. They suspect Abe’s aggressive constitutional reinterpretation could eventually allow Japan to wage a war that has far less relevance to the nation’s self-defense.

“What is critical is the fact that it is the government that would judge” whether the self-imposed conditions are met, said Koichi Nakano, a political science professor at Sophia University in Tokyo.

“The administration didn’t even observe the Constitution; it won’t be restrained by the conditions contained in the Cabinet decision,” Nakano said.

Collective self-defense is a right granted to member nations by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which allows them to aid allies under military attack. But previous governments have maintained that Article 9 prohibits Japan from exercising that right because it exceeds the “minimum necessary” use of force for self-defense mandated by the war-renouncing Constitution.

Abe maintains that Japan can use “minimum necessary” force in collective self-defense if “there is a clear existential threat to Japan and if people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness could be fundamentally overturned.”

The ambiguous wording has fanned fears that the government might greatly expand the scope of oversea Japanese military operations to support an ally — most likely the United States — even if Japan itself was not under attack.

Indeed, senior administration officials have suggested that the government could cite the right of collective-self defense in joining a battle, and presumably a war if Japan’s sea lines of communications are threatened — in other words, threats to supplies of oil, gas or food heading to Japan.

Japan’s sea lines of communications for oil imports stretch thousands of kilometers from the Middle East to Tokyo via many potential military flashpoints, including the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea.

“Overseas supplies of oil, gas, and food are vital interests for Japan. If cut, they would have a huge impact on Japan’s safety and existence,” Abe told an Upper House session on June 9, without elaborating further.

Masahiko Komura, who has chaired the policy discussion for the ruling bloc, declined to comment on what kind of emergency situation along Japan’s sea lines of communication would induce Japan to use the right of collective self-defense. Komura said only “it is impossible to assume” all possible scenarios in advance.

“It depends on how many (supplies) would be cut. . . . (The government) would make a judgment only after something takes place in reality,” Komura said, underlining the ambiguous nature of the conditions set by the Cabinet.

So far, the public has shown mixed reactions to Abe’s drive to expand the scope of Japan’s overseas military operations.

On Monday and Tuesday, hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the prime minister’s office, demanding that Abe step down.

On Sunday, an unidentified man believed to be in his 60s mounted a solitary protest in front of crowds outside JR Shinjuku Station in Tokyo before pouring gasoline on himself and lighting it. The act shocked many people both at home and abroad.

But most Japanese people lack such extremes of feeling about the change, and surveys show a more nuanced assessment.

A poll by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun last weekend found that 50 percent of the 1,029 respondents expressed opposition to the change in interpretation, and only 34 percent supported it. But the same poll showed that the approval rate for Abe’s Cabinet remained unchanged from last month at 53 percent — still impressive compared with other recent Cabinets — while the disapproval rate increased by 4 points to 36 percent.

Japanese people have long known of Abe’s ambition to pull the teeth from Article 9 and make Japan more militarily active.

Still, a majority of people have supported Abe, probably thanks to the tentative success of his aggressive economic and financial policy measures, making him one of the most popular prime ministers in years.

At the same time, many people, in particular the younger generations, support Abe’s drive to expand the role of Japan’s military as collective memories of World War II fade and many Japanese have instead become spooked by China’s rapid military rise.

Until the 1990s, it was an untouchable taboo for any politicians to discuss revising any article of the war-renouncing Constitution.

But now many politicians openly discuss revising the Constitution, including the war-renouncing Article 9, and the pacifist, pro-Constitution Social Democratic Party — once the largest opposition party — has shrunk to a minor party with only five members in the Diet.

Retired Adm. Koichi Furusho, former chief of staff of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, has welcomed Abe’s drive to change the constitutional interpretation, saying Japan may finally be becoming a “normal country,” whose military can engage in missions that are fully accepted under international law, including those involving the use of the right of collective self-defense.

Indeed, Japan is the only country in the world struggling with such legal and technical issues over the right of collective self-defense, which all U.N. member states possess.

“It’s good. It will increase (Japan’s) deterrent power and further improve Japan-U.S. relations,” Furusho said.

He argued that Japan should more actively contribute to international security missions to protect maritime trade cargoes, pointing out that commercial cargo ships transport nearly 1 billion tons of goods to and from Japan every year. Total cargo movements worldwide amount to only 9 billion tons.

“If that (maritime trade) stops, (Japan’s) electricity, gas and even water supplies would halt. Current livelihoods would not be maintained,” Furusho said.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 02 Jul 2014 18:01

Army Chief begins 3 day China visit today - Atul Aneja, The Hindu
Chief of the Army Staff, General Bikram Singh, is heading for Beijing on a visit that has been upgraded to a political level after China decided that their Indian guest should also have a dialogue with top functionaries of the powerful Central Military Commission (CMC).

Gen. Singh, who is also currently the Chairman of the tri-service Chiefs of Staff Committee, will meet Gen Fan Changlong, Vice-Chairman of the CMC, during his three-day visit beginning on Wednesday. President Xi Jinping heads the CMC, which steers the 2.3-million strong Chinese armed forces. He will also meet Vice-President Li Yuanchao and Executive Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Zhangye Sui.

Analysts said Gen. Singh’s visit is part of the recent high-level interactions between the two countries. In the space of one month Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India and Vice-President Hamid Ansari went to Beijing. These visits have set the stage for a meeting next month between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi during the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) summit in Brazil.

Defence sources said the annual defence dialogue at the level of defence secretaries of India and China has charted a roadmap for high-level military interaction to quickly contain possible border flare-ups in the future. The two countries are now expected to exchange around 10 military delegations this year. Besides, India is likely to post a naval and air attaché at the Indian embassy in Beijing, apart from a more senior representation from the Army, possibly at the level of Brigadier.

For the first time, Chinese military officers who serve as nodal points for their media are set to arrive in New Delhi on Wednesday.


Gen. Singh is expected to focus on the activation of a hotline between the two Army headquarters.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jul 2014 11:14

How Japan might use its military in future - Japan Times
The Abe administration’s reinterpretation of the war-renouncing Constitution to allow greater use of military force in defending other countries is one of the biggest changes ever to Japan’s postwar security policy.

The administration has given a range of examples as to how the Self-Defense Forces might used when related laws are updated later this year. They include scenarios in which troops might:

Defend U.S. warships.

Troops could protect U.S. warships under attack from a third country near Japanese waters, before an imminent, direct attack on Japan, because cooperation with the U.S. military is considered essential to secure Japan’s own survival.

Intercept ships for inspection.

Troops might forcibly stop vessels for inspection when they are believed to be carrying weapons to a third country that is attacking U.S. warships in the region, when the battle seems likely to spill over to Japan — a step currently considered unconstitutional and prohibited as use of force.

Shoot down a missile fired at the U.S.

The SDF could intercept a ballistic missile that is flying over the Japanese archipelago heading toward Hawaii, the U.S. territory of Guam or the U.S. mainland, and when requested by America to do so.

Protect peacekeepers abroad.

SDF personnel could rescue civilians engaged in U.N.-backed peacekeeping operations that come under attack, using weapons if necessary to defend those civilians.

Minesweeping in the Middle East.

A plan still being contemplated would allow Japanese forces to participate in U.N.-led multinational minesweeping efforts to secure sea lanes in the Middle East, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, arguably crucial lifelines for resource-poor Japan.

Japan is trying to cool down reaction from China and South Korea.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jul 2014 11:17

Beijing takes aim at the Japanese defence move - Japan Times
China on Tuesday criticized Japan for loosening decades-old restrictions on its military, and warned the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe not to take any action that could threaten stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

“We oppose Japan’s move of deliberately fabricating the China threat so as to serve its domestic political purposes,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters during a daily briefing.

He warned Tokyo that regardless of how it interprets its Constitution, Japan “must not infringe upon China’s sovereignty and national security nor undermine regional peace and regional stability.”

The Cabinet approved the reinterpretation of the Constitution on Tuesday afternoon, opening the door to the armed defense of the country’s allies, as well as increased participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities. According to some critics, the move also places the country on a slippery slope toward allowing the Self-Defense Forces to participate in full combat operations.

“It’s only natural for us to wonder if Japan is going to change the path of peaceful development that it has long been pursuing,” Hong said.

He also criticized the Abe administration for steamrolling the “strong (domestic) opposition” to the changes. According to some polls, more than 50 percent of the population opposes the move.

The Abe administration has cited China’s increasingly assertive behavior, along with the threat of a nuclear North Korea, as the primary reason for reinterpreting the Constitution to allow the country to use force in defense of its allies.

In particular, Tokyo has expressed concern over China’s sovereignty claims over the Senkaku Islands.

China’s state-run media launched a broadside Wednesday against Japan’s move to loosen the constraints on its military, casting the move as a threat to Asian security.

“The Japanese government is eager to break through the postwar system,” wrote the ruling Communist Party’s flagship People’s Daily newspaper.

It called the Abe government’s move “a dangerous signal, as well as a wake-up call.”

In commentary late Tuesday, China’s official Xinhua news agency challenged Tokyo with the question: “Is China on your military agenda?”

“Japan has a history of making sneaky attacks, as it did in launching wars with China, Russia and the United States in the last 100 years,” Xinhua wrote. “Now, Japan, with greater freedom to use military force, is making the world more worried.”

China, home to the world’s largest military, far outnumbers rival Japan in manpower, ships, aircraft and defense spending.

The country’s official defense budget last year ran to $119.5 billion. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance 2014 report, Japan’s total was $51 billion.

China’s nationalistic Global Times newspaper ran a cartoon on Wednesday depicting Abe as American action hero Rambo, with a Japanese flag bandanna tied around his forehead and wielding a large machine gun.

“Both Tokyo and Washington wish to see more disturbances in Asia, as the U.S. hopes it will hinder China’s rise and Japan wants to seek opportunities to realize its rise both politically and militarily,” the paper wrote.

“China needs to expose the Japanese rightists’ evil intent.”

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby merlin » 03 Jul 2014 13:49

He also criticized the Abe administration for steamrolling the “strong (domestic) opposition” to the changes.


Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jul 2014 13:50

NSG divided over ties with India - ToI
An influential global body that controls atomic exports is divided over establishing closer ties with India, meaning the nuclear-armed Asian power may have to wait a while longer before joining.

Diplomatic sources said different opinions were voiced in a debate on relations with India - a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - at an annual meeting of the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) last week in Buenos Aires.

The United States, Britain and other members have argued in favour of India joining the trade body, established in 1975 to ensure that civilian nuclear trade is not diverted for military aims.

Diplomats have said that China was among those countries to have been doubtful. Beijing's reservations may be influenced by its ties to its ally Pakistan, India's rival, which has also tested atomic bombs and is also outside the NPT, analysts say.

It is time India firmly tells China that it must delink Pakistan from its India equation and stop the zero-sum game.

Posts: 196
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby chandrabhan » 03 Jul 2014 15:23

Nobody can get Chinese knickers in twist like the Japanese. Dragon comments resemble more like rant of a neighbourhood bully who came across a mafioso.

Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SanjayC » 03 Jul 2014 15:29

Government allocates Rs.5,000 crore to settle locals along China border

Read more at: ... 67670.html

Posts: 263
Joined: 23 May 2004 11:31
Location: BRF's tailgate party, aka, Nukkad thread

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby gashish » 03 Jul 2014 19:36

chandrabhan wrote:Nobody can get Chinese knickers in twist like the Japanese. Dragon comments resemble more like rant of a neighbourhood bully who came across a mafioso.

Plus North Korea, a pet nurtured by Dragon, has become an irritant now. NK tests missiles when Xi was visiting South Korea.

China leader snubs North Korea in visit to Seoul

There were smiles, cheering schoolchildren and red carpets as Chinese President Xi Jinping began a two-day visit to Seoul.

North Korea, meanwhile, welcomed the leader of its only major ally and crucial source of fuel and food to the Korean Peninsula with a flurry of recent rocket and missile tests, the latest on Wednesday. The launches, as well as a vow Thursday by North Korea’s military to conduct more tests, are seen in part as the North demonstrating its anger at being jilted for its archrival.

China will remain distracted with Japan, NK, & skirmishes in 9-dashes, not to forget, ego tussles with unkil. It is time for India to make up for the lost decade- grow economy and build infra on the border with zeal.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 3151
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby Rony » 03 Jul 2014 20:39

For Weekend Reading

Download : Encyclopedia of India-China Cultural Contacts ... _Vol-1.pdf ... _Vol-2.pdf

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jul 2014 10:41

Army Chief's China visit seen as a positive signal - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu
Army Chief Bikram Singh’s visit to China was on Thursday hailed by the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) top officials as “a positive signal,” taking place weeks after the election of a new government in Delhi.

General Singh on Thursday met the seniormost ranking PLA officer, General Fan Changlong, who is one of two Vice Chairmen on the Central Military Commission headed by President Xi Jinping.

Hailing the visit as “a positive signal from India to interact with China’s political and military leaders,” the official Xinhua news agency quoted General Fan as saying the two militaries should “take the occasion as an opportunity to advance military-to-military ties.”

He called on both countries to “strengthen strategic mutual trust, practical cooperation and properly manage differences.”

“Our common interests far outweigh our differences,” he said. “Both countries have sufficient wisdom and capability to deal with historical problems.”

General Singh also met his effective counterpart, General Fang Fenghui, Chief of General Staff of the PLA. He called on both countries to “increase trust” and “reduce suspicion.”

On the agenda for General Singh’s visit is reviewing the implementation of last year’s Border Defence Cooperation Agreement, aimed at expanding communication along the border and formalising patrolling rules, and firming up plans for defence exercises set to take place in India later this year.

General Singh will address the PLA’s National Defence University on Friday, before travelling to Shanghai to visit a PLA naval base.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jul 2014 11:48

From NightWatch for the night of July 03, 2014
South Korea-China: South Korean President Park and Chinese President Xi met for summit talks in Seoul today. Press coverage indicates security and trade dominated the meeting.

According to Xinhua, Xi said, "All parties concerned should jointly and properly manage and control the situation, avoid causing tension, prevent the situation from losing control, and creating no more stirs."

Xi told Park that China upholds an objective and impartial position on the Korean Peninsula issue, and is firmly committed to pushing for a nuclear-free Peninsula, maintaining the peace and stability on the Peninsula, and resolving the issue through dialogue and consultation.

"We hold that the concerns of all sides should be treated in a balanced way, and a synchronized and equivalent method should be sought to bring the nuclear issue on Korean peninsula into a sustainable, irreversible and effective settlement process," Xi said.

Comment: This was a significant event in northeast Asian history because it is the first time a Chinese president visited South Korea before visiting North Korea. Plus South Korean President Park already has visited China, but Kim Jong Un has not, despite his repeated pleas for an invitation.

President Xi varies the language in his statements of Chinese policy towards the Korean Peninsula, but the underlying message is consistent: no war, no instability and talks. In that respect, the meeting broke no new ground in international security policy.

Xi's description of China's position as objective and impartial, however, confirms that the Chinese leadership persists in keeping distance between China and North Korea. Chinese press no longer describes the relationship as being "as close lips and teeth." That is the traditional formula, which was used as recently as 16 months ago.

China took a middle position on the issue of resuming Six Party Talks on denuclearization. While firmly supporting the goal of a nuclear-free Peninsula, Xi called on all parties to work towards resuming the talks. He made no promises to exert pressure on North Korea.

As for economic and trade cooperation, Xi said the two sides should further expand mutual beneficial cooperation in this field.

To raise the bilateral trade volume to $300 billion by 2015, he said the two countries should nurture new cooperation growth points in fields such as new energy, telecommunications, intelligent manufacturing, among others. He invited Korean investment in central and western China.

Comment: Xi's most innovative economic proposal was to set up a clearance service for Chinese currency in South Korea to facilitate trade and investment. He also wants to complete free trade talks by the end of the year.

Chinese economic linkages promote the peace, but they also perpetuate division. Xi repeated the words of supporting peaceful reunification, but China does nothing to accelerate its achievement. China's economic and political actions actually reinforce the status quo and keep South Korea as a rich source of trade and investment, an updated version of an Asian tributary state. China's long term strategic interests are not served by a unified, rich and powerful Korea, despite the charm offensive and the temperate language.

President Park and her team seem to appreciate the hard core of Chinese policy because, at one point, she mentioned President Xi's Chinese Dream in the context of her own Korean Dream. The two dreams are not compatible.

Christopher Sidor
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby Christopher Sidor » 05 Jul 2014 07:10

chandrabhan wrote:Nobody can get Chinese knickers in twist like the Japanese. Dragon comments resemble more like rant of a neighbourhood bully who came across a mafioso.

All of the talk about Japan's militaristic urges returning, misses the point. How come Japan, which had the most pacific constitution in post WWII era, excluding UK, Germany or Italy and especially PRC, did this? What drove it to revise its constitution? Was it the urge to reestablish the greater economic co prosperity sphere? Or was it the actions carried out by certain neighbours of Japan?

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jul 2014 09:00

Xi set for historic Sri Lanka visit - Ananth Krishnan, Meera Srinivasan, The Hindu
China’s President Xi Jinping will this year become the first Chinese head of state to visit Sri Lanka in three decades, underlining Beijing’s renewed push to deepen its strategic and economic presence in the neighbourhood and in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Xi’s visit was discussed in Beijing this week as Sri Lankan Minister of Economic Development Basil Rajapaksa, as the President’s Special Envoy, met with the Chinese leadership.

The Chinese leader will become the first President to visit Sri Lanka since former leader Li Xiannian in 1986. His visit assumes significance in the context of strengthening ties between the two countries, with China investing heavily in the island nation.

A $500 million- built port built by the Chinese was inaugurated in Colombo last year giving Beijing a strong foothold in one of the busiest international shipping routes in the world. With heavy investment in infrastructure, including in a massive port it helped build in Hambantota along Sri Lanka’s southern coast, China is said to have surpassed Japan and India as the biggest contributor to investments in the island nation.

‘The China card’

Foreign policy experts have often pointed to Sri Lanka playing the “China card” against India, which has invested in some key projects in the neighbouring country, including a massive housing project targeting 50,000 homes in the war-torn north that it is currently engaged in.

For Chinese President Xi, Sri Lanka has become a particularly important country as a crucial point on his government’s signature “maritime silk road” economic initiative, which the President unveiled in October in a bid to boost maritime connectivity and economic ties in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Xi is likely to stop in Colombo as he visits India later this year.

Pakistan is also an expected destination, according to analysts, as Chinese leaders usually do not visit India without stopping in Pakistan subsequently {The Indian PM when he visits China next must also visit ROC and before that upgrade the diplomatic status between the two countries}, as Premier Li Keqiang did last year. Mr. Li’s visit to India last May was his first overseas visit after taking office.

On Wednesday, Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang discussed with Sri Lankan Minister Basil Rajapaksa on-going talks over a free trade agreement. He called on both sides “to begin negotiation on their proposed free trade agreement as soon as possible, encourage Chinese enterprises to expand investment in Sri Lanka and strengthen the strategic partnership of cooperation between the two countries”, the official Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying.

Mr. Wang also said that the upcoming visit by Mr. Xi would be “a diplomatic landmark” for both countries, the Sri Lankan Embassy in Beijing quoted him as saying in a statement.

Mr. Basil Rajapaksa hailed China’s contribution to Sri Lanka’s development, telling Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng that Colombo was willing to fast track free trade negotiations with China emerging as “the largest single development partner”. He also noted that there was a 140 per cent increase in tourist arrivals from China in the past year.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jul 2014 10:23

China's propaganda team orders media to take tough stance on Japan - Japan Times
China’s propaganda authorities have ordered its online media firms to take a tough stance on Japan following Tokyo’s historic decision this week to allow greater use of its armed forces in defending other countries, sources familiar with the situation said Friday.

The directive says that the media must keep “criticizing” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government for approving the reinterpretation of Japan’s pacifist Constitution, which will permit its military to assist allies under armed attack by legalizing the use of “collective self-defense,” sources close to the authorities said.

The authorities have asked the media to “guide the public to have the right view” on Japan, the sources said, adding that the order was issued after Abe’s Cabinet decided Tuesday to reinterpret war-renouncing Article 9 of the post-war Constitution.

As for their print counterparts, it is most likely that the Communist Party’s spin control team and the government have issued a similar order to China’s newspapers.

The instructions also refer to Abe’s planned visit to Australia and New Zealand later this month, saying “there will likely be some remarks from him (about China) but they should be treated in a way not to stand out.”

Since Abe’s visit in December to controversial Yasukuni Shrine, China has mounted large-scale, anti-Japan media campaigns at home and abroad, alleging that Tokyo is returning to its militaristic ways and that Abe’s government has failed to show genuine repentance for the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army before and during World War II.

The directive points to the possibility that China’s leadership, led by President Xi Jinping, might use the loosening of the constraints on the Self-Defense Forces as an additional factor to condemn Abe’s government.

Xi, on his first trip to Seoul after becoming China’s president in 2013, expressed concerns with South Korean President Park Geun-hye on Friday about Abe’s decision to lift the government’s ban on using collective self-defense, according to South Korean media reports.

In the latest series of attacks linked to Japan’s war of aggression, China on Thursday started posting online what it claims are the written confessions of 45 Japanese who were convicted there as war criminals.

The State Archives Administration said the original texts with Chinese translations and abstracts in English would be released once each day for 45 days.

The release started as China on Monday observed the 77th anniversary of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the clash between Chinese and Japanese troops that is considered the starting point for Japan’s entry into World War II.

Posts: 1576
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby schinnas » 05 Jul 2014 22:54

SSridhar wrote:Xi set for historic Sri Lanka visit - Ananth Krishnan, Meera Srinivasan, The Hindu
China’s President Xi Jinping will this year become the first Chinese head of state to visit Sri Lanka in three decades, underlining Beijing’s renewed push to deepen its strategic and economic presence in the neighbourhood and in the Indian Ocean.
China is said to have surpassed Japan and India as the biggest contributor to investments in the island nation.

[b]Mr. Basil Rajapaksa hailed China’s contribution to Sri Lanka’s development, telling Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng that Colombo was willing to fast track free trade negotiations with China emerging as [u]“the largest single development partner”
. He also noted that there was a 140 per cent increase in tourist arrivals from China in the past year.

It is very easy for Indian government to turn the table here. Just needs a little imagination. The moment India and srilanka has road and rail connectivity between each other, the trade will increase 5x and tourism and people to people contacts will increase 10x. indian corporates will triple their investments in sri lanka. you heard it here first, folks. i must concede that the credit for road connection with SL goes to the visionary Tamil poet Mahakavi Bharathi.

Given the geographical proximity, historical, religious and civilizational ties between two countries, it is a shame that we are sweating Chinese influence in SL. Unlike Nepal, China does not share a border with SL and there are limits to any China card that SL can play against India. However, ensuring a peaceful future for SL Tamils will need to be part of the plan. Direct road and rail connectivity will actually help the plight of SL Tamils and if the PR is dextrously handled and the key players such as JJ and Vaiko are roped in constructively, it is possible to make substantial win-win progress in our plans with SL. SL population, both Tamil and Singhalese will appreciate the access to Indian educational institutions for their kids and sophisticated health care access to their population. SL can substantially boost their tourism revenue from Indians.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jul 2014 07:01

China-Japan tensions will harm the region: Singapore Foreign Minister - The Hindu
For Asia to progress in the way it had done over the last 50 year, it is essential that the United States and China, and China and Japan sort out their problems and ease the tensions in the region, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, K. Shanmugam told The Hindu .

“Basically, as a small country we want peace and stability. That’s how Asia has progressed in the last 50 years. For that to happen, you need the relationship between Washington and Beijing to be on good footing. They have to sort it out and work out something. They are going to be competitors and they are going to be cooperative in some fields. They need to sort it out in such a way that it doesn’t lead to tension,” Mr. Shanmugam said in an interview here.

The relationship between Beijing and Tokyo, which Mr. Shanmugam described as the “second most important relationship” in the region was also under stress “because there are disputes which had long been put aside which have now taken centre stage ”

The “considerable trust deficit between China and Japan” had increased the tension in the region, he said.

“We can only sit back and say that this is not good for the region. And it’s not in China’s interest and it’s not in Japan’s interest.

As well as being the largest investor in China last year, Singapore, he said, had “excellent” relations with the Asian superpower for “obvious cultural and historical reasons”. The people of the two countries are also linked by Singapore’s 74% ethnic Chinese.

The 2003 India-Singapore Defence Co-operation Agreement, Mr. Shanmugam was emphatic, was no attempt by the tiny country to balance China with India.

Under the agreement, India provides land-short Singapore facilities for training its Army and Air Force.

The two countries also participate in joint bilateral and multilateral naval exercises.

Singapore valued the Indian assistance, the Minister said.

“We cooperate with those countries in defence where we think they are able to cooperate with us — India and others. These are our good close trusted partners, but we don’t even start thinking in terms of balancing India and China. That’s too big a game. It’s not really a game we can play,” Mr. Shanmugam said.

Singapore does not “see [its relationship with China] as being held hostage to any other relationship,” whether that was the U.S., Japan or India, with all three of which the country has “excellent” ties, the Minister said.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jul 2014 17:05

First Japanese arms-export set for approval under new rules - Japan Times
Japan is set to approve its first arms export following the relaxation of a self-imposed ban as the nation seeks to boost its global military and economic stature, a report said Sunday.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries plans to export a high-performance sensor to the United States, where it will be used in the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) missile defense system due to be exported to Qatar, the Nikkei business daily said, without providing sources.

Tokyo’s decision — likely to become official later this month — comes after the government in April amended a long-standing ban on arms exports, particularly in cases where the products might be re-exported to countries engaged in conflict.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet eased the rules to allow exports of military products in a move aimed at allowing the country to participate in international weapons-development programs as well as expand its domestic defense industry.

The government has concluded that the planned transfer of U.S. missile defense technology to Qatar was unlikely to escalate any conflicts, the Nikkei said.

Mitsubishi Heavy produces the PAC-2 sensor for Japan’s Self Defense Forces under license from U.S. defense giant Raytheon Co., the Nikkei added.

Raytheon, however, is scaling back its production of PAC-2 components to focus on the next-generation PAC-3 missile interceptor system, according to the report.

The sensor is a key component of the infrared seeker set into the tip of the missile that identifies and tracks incoming targets, the report said.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jul 2014 17:07

Abe to create a new minister's position in cabinet for security - Japan Times
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe unveiled Sunday his plan to create a ministerial post in charge of national security legislation under his government’s new defense policy to broaden the scope of Self-Defense Forces’ activities.

Before departing on his three-nation Oceania tour, Abe told reporters at Haneda airport his Cabinet will introduce a package of legal measures to redefine SDF roles, allowing the military to engage in collective self-defense missions, cope with “gray zone” situations short of full-blown military clashes, and do more in U.N.-led peacekeeping operations.

“Because it will be a major change in Japan’s legal framework for national security, I want to name a minister in charge,” Abe said.

The minister, to be named in a planned cabinet reshuffle in early September, will be tasked with answering questions during parliamentary deliberations on those bills, Abe said.

Asked about the Cabinet decision Tuesday to change the government’s interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution, and allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense, Abe said he intends give parliament a full explanation of how the reinterpretation will help protect the lives of Japanese nationals.

The prime minister did not specify when bills will be introduced. But analysts said the government is likely to submit the package, expected to contain more than 10 bills, to an ordinary Diet session next year.

The security legislation minister will be a concurrent post because the Abe Cabinet already has 18 ministers, the maximum allowed under current laws, they added.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jul 2014 17:40

Japan reluctant to join China-led Infrastructure Investment Bank - Japan Times
Japan has told China that it is reluctant to accept an invitation to be one of the founding members of a new infrastructure investment bank Beijing aims to set up in Asia this autumn, Japanese government sources said Saturday.

Tokyo’s stance on the envisioned “Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank” may affect how other countries respond to Beijing’s bid to expand its influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

With the United States warning against China’s growing regional assertiveness, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe might urge Australian counterpart Tony Abbott not to take part in the AIIB during their planned summit Tuesday, the sources said.

At a meeting in Tokyo last month, Jin Liqun, head of the working group for setting up the AIIB, asked Japan’s then top finance diplomat, Mitsuhiro Furusawa, to provide capital for the project, which is aimed at improving infrastructure in developing Asian economies, the sources said.

But Furusawa, the vice finance minister for international affairs, told Jin that Tokyo is “not convinced.” He also cast doubt on the necessity of the bank, given that the Asia Development Bank already plays that role, they said.

Jin asked Furusawa to continue talks on the matter, saying the AIIB would be launched even if Japan does not sponsor it, they added.

“The ADB has worked well so far. There is skepticism about whether we need to create a new (international) body,” one of the sources said.

Japan and the United States are the largest shareholders in the ADB, which has provided financial support to industrializing countries in Asia for around 50 years. Since the ADB was established in 1966, the presidency has traditionally been held by a Japanese.

Tokyo has apparently decided to act together with Washington to maintain the status quo in the 67-member ADB, in which China has roughly 6 percent of the shares. The ADB tripled its capital base from $55 billion to $165 billion in 2009.

Since voting rights are allocated to ADB members in proportion to their contributions, China is trying to challenge the leadership of the United States and Japan in the Asian finance sector by creating the AIIB, which is expected to have initial capital of $50 billion to $100 billion, the sources said.

Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the AIIB plan last October. Beijing has since been stepping up efforts to invite many countries, including members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to fund the venture.

From January to June, Beijing held a series of events to prepare for the bank’s establishment. At an event on June 10, the number of participating countries hit 22, up from 15 at separate event on March 28.

China has told Japan that around 20 nations, including those in the Middle East and Central Asia, have been eager to engage in the Beijing-led project, the sources said, but some major countries in the Asia-Pacific region are unwilling to do so.

The United States has applied pressure behind the scenes on ally South Korea to refrain from joining the AIIB, a U.S. government official and a diplomatic source said.

India, Asia’s third-largest economy, is reluctant to become a member of an institution in which China would have more than half of the shares, but Australia may be interested in it as a way to boost infrastructure investment in Asia, the Japanese sources said.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jul 2014 20:03

Worry for India as Chinese mobile signals hold sway in North East - Economic Times

What is there to worry ? Return the favour. We cannot keep worrying without doing anything in return.

A top Union Home Ministry official was in for a surprise on a trip to the remote areas of Arunachal Pradesh when he could not use his mobile phone as it picked up signals only of Chinese telecom firms on the other side of the border.

The Joint Secretary-rank officer says that to his dismay, he found he could not make any calls through the available Indian networks in the area which is in the northeastern part of the country.

The officer wrote a three-page letter to the Secretary of the Department of Telecom, saying he "had personal experience of getting Chinese signal in Arunachal Pradesh but was unable to make use of any Indian facilities to make mobile calls".

The note alleged that private telecom operators had not installed telecom towers in the rural areas of the Northeast and also claimed that some companies, under the "influence" of Chinese telecom firms, did not want such facilities to be ever set up, particularly along the India-China border.{Prosecute these guys. What are you waiting for?}

There "seems to be a nefarious design of the outsiders who seem to be influencing Indian decision-making in order to keep the vulnerable areas vulnerable forever," the letter said.

The note claimed that certain private telecom companies have taken DoT for a ride "by not commissioning thousands of towers" in rural areas and alleged that subsidies have been extended without any physical verification on the ground.

"Since Northeastern India is a sensitive border zone, the government should decide to have full control over networks and that can only be ensured by nominating a government PSU to execute the task of rolling out new networks," the note said.

It reasoned that this would also make the task of security agencies easier as they have time and again warned that in border areas, security of imported equipment can be compromised with "disastrous consequences".

The Telecom Commission, which met last month, has approved investment of about Rs 5,000 crore to augment telecom connectivity in the northeast and the proposal has been sent to the Union Cabinet for its approval.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 08 Jul 2014 17:07

Beijing's South China Sea Claim problematic, senior US official - Japan Times
Beijing’s claim to almost the whole of the South China Sea is “problematic” and the Asian giant’s actions have raised tensions, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday on the eve of high-stakes talks.

China is also involved in a dispute over the Senkaku Islands with Japan — a U.S. security ally that Washington is treaty-bound to defend if attacked — and officials traveling with Secretary of State John Kerry said they had “heightened concerns” about “the readiness of claimants to utilize military, paramilitary, coast guard forces in furtherance of their claims.”

Kerry arrived in Beijing Tuesday for the sixth Strategic and Economic Dialogue, billed as the main annual meeting between the world’s two largest economies.

The two days of tough discussions will seek to chart a path ahead in turbulent China-U.S. ties roiled by differences over Asia-Pacific maritime tensions, Internet hacking and trade issues.

China’s claim to the strategic South China Sea — also claimed in part by the Philippines and Vietnam, among others — is based on a line drawn on 20th-century maps.

“The ambiguity associated with the nine-dash line is problematic,” said a U.S. official traveling with Kerry.

China and its neighbors have stepped up their patrols of disputed areas, and recent spats in the South China Sea have led to boats ramming each other, the use of water cannon and arrests of fishermen.

The heightened tensions are “very relevant to the United States as a Pacific power, as a major trading nation, as an important consumer of the sea lanes and as a long-term guarantor of stability in the Asia-Pacific region,” the senior U.S. administration official said.

The official spoke anonymously in order to discuss the talks frankly, and added that the conversation will be held in “a very direct, candid, and constructive way.”

The U.S. stresses that it takes no sides in the territorial claims, but has accused Beijing of destabilizing acts and urged it to uphold freedom of navigation in the key waterways.

China has said it is committed to diplomatic, peaceful means to address the claims, the U.S. official said. “We want China to honor that and live up to its word.”

Other issues high on the agenda include nuclear-armed North Korea, following a “significant” visit last week by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Seoul.

“There is a steady convergence in the views between the U.S. and China on both the importance and the urgency in moving North Korea to take irreversible steps to denuclearize,” the official said.

But while Beijing’s patience with the brinkmanship of its wayward, unpredictable ally appears to be wearing thin, it has not publicly shown any willingness to take any action toward the regime.

Kerry is to meet with Xi on Thursday.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby harbans » 08 Jul 2014 17:36

Jaitley says Henderson Brookes report cannot be made public.
Now if they made so much noise of making it public while in opposition, i think they own an explanation why exactly it's contents are so 'secret'?

BRF Oldie
Posts: 21143
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby Prem » 09 Jul 2014 02:53 ... .html?_r=0
New Leadership Style in China Complicates American Diplomacy
( Obama meeting China's Regan: India's Regan Just got Elected)

BEIJING — Complicating matters is the one-man leadership style of President Xi Jinping, who appears to make the big decisions on national security — meant to challenge American primacy in the Asia-Pacific region and establish a China-centric alternative — without much consultation with others, Chinese and American experts say.China’s push against two of America’s major allies, Japan and South Korea; its thrust into the South China Sea, which threatens freedom of navigation; and the sudden imposition of an air defense zone near Japan all reflect Mr. Xi’s thinking about China’s rightful place in Asia, analysts say.Both China and the United States have set low expectations for progress on the issues scheduled to be discussed at the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue, intended as a venue for the two sides to hash out difficult topics.
The atmosphere between Beijing and Washington has deteriorated to such an extent since Mr. Xi and President Obama met at the Sunnylands estate in California a year ago that even pressuring a nuclear North Korea, the one area they agreed to pursue at that time, has almost vanished from the agenda, American officials said.The Chinese decided to link the question of how to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons to other big issues, like China’s territorial ambitions in the East and South China Seas, and several months ago, the officials said, Beijing suspended working-level meetings on that matter.
In a sign of the divisions, the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, told an audience in Washington that persuading North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, at the behest of the United States, was “mission impossible.”On the Chinese side, Mr. Xi is making decisions based on his interpretation of “China’s national greatness and military effectiveness,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University of China in Beijing who has advised the government on occasion.
“Power concentrated in one man’s hand means foreign policy will be decided by his strategic personality and his political beliefs,” he said.
Mr. Xi’s sense that Mr. Obama is a lame-duck president propels his inclination to “push and push again” in the South China and East China Seas, Mr. Shi said.
Mr. Xi reigns supreme on the Standing Committee
, which consists of the seven top leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, and none of the others appear to be involved with foreign policy, Mr. Shi said. Mr. Xi almost certainly takes the advice of the military, but the “decision is his making,” Mr. Shi said.Another Chinese academic, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, described Mr. Xi as the “emperor” on the Standing Committee, with “six assistants.”
Senior Obama administration officials say they believe that Mr. Xi made all the major strategic decisions since the Sunnylands meeting virtually single-handedly.
These include the imposition of the air defense zone in air space claimed by Japan last November and the dispatch of a billion-dollar oil rig belonging to a Chinese energy company into waters also claimed by Vietnam in May, they said.
Mr. Xi appears to rely on Wang Huning, director of policy research of the office of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, who accompanies the president almost everywhere and almost always sits at the head of the Chinese delegation, as he did during Mr. Xi’s visit to the South Korean capital last week.The policy preferences of Mr. Wang — whom one Chinese academic referred to as “merely a desk officer” — are little known. When Mr. Wang served as a more junior officer he was careful to avoid shaking hands with American officials and cautious about talking to them, a former senior American official said.
A Navy admiral, Sun Jianguo, appears to have the blessing of Mr. Xi, or at least the top levels of government, to communicate the president’s ideas about an Asia-only regional security arrangement that would replace the 60-year system of American alliances, said Evans J.R. Revere, a former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia.Admiral Sun, who is deputy chief of the general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, delivered a stirring rendition of Mr. Xi’s ideas for a new order in Asia, with China at the center, before an international audience in Beijing last month.There is little chance that the current negative tone between Beijing and Washington will change much as a result of the dialogue this week, or even before Mr. Obama leaves the White House, Mr. Shi said.“I don’t think either side has the intention of reversing the trends,” he said.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 09 Jul 2014 13:37

Japan, Australia OK free trade, defense deals
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Australian counterpart, Tony Abbott, signed bilateral accords to boost free trade and cooperation on defense equipment and technology research and development, during summit talks in the Australian capital Tuesday.

On the second leg of his three-nation tour of Oceania, Abe said in a speech to the Australian parliament that he hopes to make ties between Japan and Australia a new “special relationship,” and stressed the importance of the international rule of law, a veiled criticism of China. He became the first Japanese leader to address Australia’s parliament.

Abe also spoke of his administration’s recent move to reinterpret the Constitution to allow the Self-Defense Forces to defend allies under armed attack through collective self-defense.

The defense deal signed Tuesday would enable the transfer of defense equipment and technology, as Japan overhauled its arms embargo and eased its export rules in April. Australia has shown strong interest in buying Japan-made submarines. Models with stealth technology are regarded as being among the best in their class.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 10 Jul 2014 08:46

harbans wrote:Jaitley says Henderson Brookes report cannot be made public.
Now if they made so much noise of making it public while in opposition, i think they own an explanation why exactly it's contents are so 'secret'?

Then Jaitley must own up that demanding the release of the report during his earlier avatar was a mistake since he did not completely understand the implications thereof. But, it may not be politically suitable (though it would set up a high moral precedent) for the BJP. Anyway, political discussion is OT here.

Govt. may look for CCS direction on Henderson-Brooks Report - Atul Aneja, The Hindu
Confronting a firestorm generated by its position not to declassify the Henderson Brooks report on the 1962 India-China war, the government on Wednesday signalled room for flexibility, by pointing out that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) could be involved in taking a final call on the subject.

The controversy over the report was triggered by remarks of Defence and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the Rajya Sabha, while responding to a written question.

Mr. Jaitley said the release of the report “fully or partially or disclosure of any information related to this report would not be in national interest”. The government’s position contrasts sharply with the BJP’s stance, espoused strongly by Mr. Jaitley, ahead of the general elections, that the report should be de-classified.

In a blog post in March, Mr. Jaitley had said, “Any society is entitled to learn from the past mistakes and take remedial action. With the wisdom of hindsight, I am of the opinion that the report’s content could have been made public some decades ago. Was the Himalayan blunder of 1962 in fact a Nehruvian blunder? Are we willing to learn the lessons from 1962?”

Government sources told The Hindu that while Mr. Jaitley had on earlier occasions suggested that the report must be declassified, he was now bound by the institutional wisdom on the issue which was against declassification.

“It is not about his personal opinion. The Army is against it, the Ministry is against it, and there have been more than one Cabinet decision not to declassify it. The Defence Minister cannot unilaterally decide to declassify it,” he said.

Australian-British writer Neville Maxwell, whose 1970 book India’s China War , apparently using material from the classified report, had pinned the blame for the 1962 debacle on New Delhi’s “forward policy.”

He had posted portions of the document on the Internet in March, but Mr. Jaitley in his blog had called for a full de-classification of the report beyond the 111 pages that had been made public.

Congress’s reaction

Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi accused the government of hypocrisy and doublespeak. “You now realise that responsibility and accountability should be exercised as much when you are in Opposition as when you are in the saddle. The vociferous demand for disclosure then is matched by an equally vigorous but double-faced denial now,” Mr. Singhvi said.

Posts: 269
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby Dumal » 10 Jul 2014 09:20

Having been the ruling party earlier, the BJP could have easily understood the issues around this then. Besides if it is about national interest issues, even while the BJP was in the Opposition, as LoP couldn't they have been briefed enough for this not to be brought up like this now? What gives?

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 10 Jul 2014 09:55

X-posted from the Geopolitical thread.

Asia alliances in flux as expedience, pragmatism shape the region - Eric Talmadge, AP
Moscow is cozying up to its old rival China. China is holding hands with Seoul. Tokyo is striking deals with Pyongyang.

In the ever-shifting game of Asian alliances, where just about everybody has a dispute over something or can actually remember a shooting war with their neighbors, past grudges run deep. But expedience and pragmatism often run deeper.

While U.S. President Barack Obama tries to develop his pivot to Asia policy, the region is rapidly spinning ahead in its own direction, energized by dynamic economies, expanding trade relations and a plethora of long-standing disputes and rivalries.

For sure, the world’s mightiest countries, themselves Pacific powers, still throw a lot of weight around. But as they jockey for advantage in the world’s most populous region, relations across Asia are fluid. Many countries, both at the center of the power game and on the sidelines, have both a chance to capitalize and a risk of getting frozen out:
Turning east

Washington was long able to capitalize on Cold War rifts between Russia and China, but Dmitry Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, recently wrote that the two are rebuilding a relationship likely to grow significantly stronger. This trend has accelerated in part because of Moscow’s frustration with the West over its Ukraine sanctions.

“They are not in a clear alliance, and have a number of diverging, even partially colliding, interests. But they both challenge the global order in which the United States is the norm-setter and the sole arbiter,” he wrote. “The Chinese do this in a much subtler way than the Russians, but both appear to have come to the conclusion that working one’s way into the U.S.-dominated system is not worth it.”

Symbolic of Moscow’s moves toward Beijing is a $400 billion deal they signed last month, after decades of negotiations that went nowhere, to supply China with natural gas through a new pipeline. President Vladimir Putin called the deal “epochal,” though he reportedly had to accept a price lower than hoped for.

In Russia, the effort to improve relations with China is called Putin’s Pivot.

“A strong Russian-Chinese connection has taken shape on the international arena. It is based on a coincidence of views on both global processes and key regional issues,” Putin said earlier this month.

Trenin noted that U.S. relations with China and with Russia are substantially worse than bilateral relations between Beijing and Moscow. He said that is in part because Washington has failed to take Russia seriously as a strategic player in the region. Beijing, meanwhile, may come out with access to more resources and a more secure northern front.

“The unique position that the United States has held since the 1990s as the dominant power in Eurasia is now history,” Trenin concluded.

Trading partners

Here is a puzzle. Why would the president of China, North Korea’s closest thing to an ally, snub Kim Jong Un and go to Seoul to woo his archrival, South Korean President Park Geun-hye, which he did to many a raised eyebrow last week?

Fact is, China is not getting a lot of love from its Asian neighbors these days.

Major trading partner Japan is outraged over what it sees as China’s increasingly assertive claim to a set of small, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. Vietnam and the Philippines have similar beefs over islands in the South China Sea. North Korea, though still reliant on Chinese aid, trade and political backing on the international stage, continues to develop nuclear weapons, and to sidle up to Moscow, regardless of Beijing’s grumblings.

So, while recalibrating its own relations with Moscow, why not try to sneak a kiss from one of Washington’s better friends?

China’s overtures to South Korea — including the Seoul visit — play into its larger ambitions to build a China-centered network of alliances that sidesteps the U.S. and Japan, said Willy Lam, a political science professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He added that China is already South Korea’s No. 1 trade partner.

Beijing is also trying to show the South that China, and not the U.S., is the solution to the North Korea crisis, said Christopher Johnson, a former China analyst with the CIA who is now chairman of China studies at U.S. think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Obviously, (the South Koreans) are never going to break away from their alliance with the U.S.,” he said. But he added that China has been “trying to convince the South that they, and not the alliance with the U.S. and Japan, are the key to Seoul’s North Korea problem.”

Increasingly, that is seen as a persuasive argument — China’s rise has unmistakably changed the power equation in Asia. Seen in that way, Johnson says, Beijing’s choice of Seoul over Pyongyang makes perfect strategic sense.

“Different tactics, different approaches for different partners,” Johnson said.

Breaking ranks, a little

Washington has had no closer and more reliable ally in Asia than Japan, which depends on the U.S. for protection and trade.

But Japan’s increasingly angry reaction to its territorial spat with Beijing, its fears of increased Chinese military might and its stalemate with Russia over a different set of disputed islands up north have made many in Tokyo wary.

Breaking ranks with Washington and Seoul, hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has revived bilateral negotiations with North Korea over the matter of Japanese abductees in the North. The issue is of key interest to the Japanese public but decidedly back-burner to Japan’s allies, who would prefer to isolate the North over its nuclear weapons policy.

Abe also led the charge last week as Japan decided to reinterpret its constitution to allow greater use of military force to defend its allies. The move was welcomed by Washington, which is bound by a security treaty to aid the country if Japan ever comes under attack. But it also underscored fears in Japan that it cannot simply expect Washington to come to the rescue anymore, along with hopes among some Japanese leaders for a bigger say in regional security.

“Countries in the region are increasingly concerned about tension over China’s high-handed approach, and showing high expectations for Japan’s role,” said Narushige Michishita, director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. “Previously, Japan could have said, ‘We cannot contribute to the region because we cannot exercise the right to collective self-defense.’ Japan now has lost that excuse.”
Playing the field

For those who cannot throw their weight around like Moscow, Beijing or Washington, India has some words of wisdom — hedge your bets.

India has long maintained a policy of nonalignment, deliberately keeping itself away from strong, exclusive alliances in favor of playing the field and pushing for a multipolar world order that would give India more say in global governance. In the unsure waters of Asia, hedging your bets is not a bad idea.

“It’s a ‘frenemy’ kind of relationship,” said Sreeram Chaulia, dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs in New Delhi. “Everyone is a frenemy to everyone else. It’s a much more complex world. No one can clearly say ‘I’m an ally of so-and-so.’

“Our strategy is a hedging strategy — and every other player is also doing this. These days, the economy has been separated from security issues. You can have booming trade and healthy investment alongside territorial disputes,” Chaulia said.

India has more potential to be a major player than most in Asia, and good cause for worry about China. Its main concern — shared in many Asian capitals — is whether the Chinese military will become so mighty that Beijing can effectively dictate orders. India’s most obvious partner in this is Japan, and the two have always been friendly.

“India wants to counterbalance China to some extent. India believes that will give it some breathing space strategically,” Chaulia said.

“Despite its apparent political stability, China is a powder keg with no outlets for expression and an authoritarian regime,” he said, echoing a concern held widely throughout Asia. “It could remain stable and keep on growing, as everyone seems to assume it will. But if it becomes unstable, it will have a huge effect on the region.”

Forum Moderator
Posts: 23835
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby SSridhar » 10 Jul 2014 16:41

Chinese hackers pursue key data on US workers - NY Times
Chinese hackers in March broke into the computer networks of the United States government agency that houses the personal information of all federal employees, according to senior American officials. They appeared to be targeting the files on tens of thousands of employees who have applied for top-secret security clearances.

The hackers gained access to some of the databases of the Office of Personnel Management before the federal authorities detected the threat and blocked them from the network, according to the officials. It is not yet clear how far the hackers penetrated the agency’s systems, in which applicants for security clearances list their foreign contacts, previous jobs and personal information like past drug use.

In response to questions about the matter, a senior Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the attack had occurred but said that “at this time,” neither the personnel agency nor Homeland Security had “identified any loss of personally identifiable information.” The official said an emergency response team was assigned “to assess and mitigate any risks identified.”

One senior American official said that the attack was traced to China, though it was not clear if the hackers were part of the government. Its disclosure comes as a delegation of senior American officials, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, are in Beijing for the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the leading forum for discussion between the United States and China on their commercial relationships and their wary efforts to work together on economic and defense issues.

Computer intrusions have been a major source of discussion and disagreement between the two countries, and the Chinese can point to evidence, revealed by Edward J. Snowden, that the National Security Agency went deep into the computer systems of Huawei, a major maker of computer network equipment, and ran many programs to intercept the conversations of Chinese leaders and the military.

American officials say the attack on the Office of Personnel Management was notable because while hackers try to breach United States government servers nearly every day, they rarely succeed. One of the last attacks the government acknowledged occurred last year at the Department of Energy. In that case, hackers successfully made off with employee and contractors’ personal data. The agency was forced to reveal the attack because state disclosure laws force entities to report breaches in cases where personally identifiable information is compromised. Government agencies do not have to disclose breaches in which sensitive government secrets, but no personally identifiable information, has been stolen.

Just a month ago, the Justice Department indicted a group of Chinese hackers who work for the People’s Liberation Army Unit 61398, and charged them with stealing corporate secrets. The same unit, and others linked to the P.L.A., have been accused in the past of intrusions into United States government computer systems, including in the office of the secretary of defense.

But private security researchers say the indictments have hardly deterred the People’s Liberation Army from hacking foreign targets, and American officials are increasingly concerned that they have failed in their effort to deter computer attacks from China or elsewhere. “There’s no price to pay for the Chinese,” one senior intelligence official said recently, “and nothing will change until that changes.”

The indictments have been criticized as long on symbolism and short on real punishment: There is very little chance that the Chinese military members would ever see the inside of an American courtroom, even if the F.B.I. has put their pictures on wanted posters.

“I think that it was speaking loudly and carrying a small stick,” said Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence during President Obama’s first term, who was a co-author of a report last year urging that the United States create a series of financial disincentives for computer theft and attacks, including halting some forms of imports and blocking access to American financial markets.

Not long after several members of Unit 61398 were indicted, security researchers were able to pin hundreds more cyberattacks at American and European space and satellite technology companies and research groups on a second Shanghai-based Chinese military unit, known as Unit 61486. Researchers say that even after Americans indicted their counterparts in Unit 61398, members of Unit 61486 have shown no signs of scaling back.

The same proved true for the dozen other Chinese military and naval units that American officials have been tracking as they break into an ever more concerning list of corporate targets including drone, missile and nuclear propulsion technology makers.

The intrusion at the Office of Personnel Management was particularly disturbing because it oversees a system called e-QIP, in which federal employees applying for security clearances enter their most personal information, including financial data. Federal employees who have had security clearances for some time are often required to update their personal information through the website.

The agencies and the contractors use the information from e-QIP to investigate the employees and ultimately determine whether they should be granted security clearances, or have them updated.

A representative of the Office of Personnel Management said that monitoring systems at the Department of Homeland Security and the agency office allowed them to be “alerted to a potential intrusion of our network in mid-March.”

In the past, the Obama administration has urged American companies to share intrusion information with the government and reveal breaches to consumers in cases where their personal information was compromised and could be used without authorization.

But in this case there was no announcement about the attack. “The administration has never advocated that all intrusions be made public,” said Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the Obama administration. “We have advocated that businesses that have suffered an intrusion notify customers if the intruder had access to consumers’ personal information. We have also advocated that companies and agencies voluntarily share information about intrusions.”

Ms. Hayden noted that the agency had intrusion-detection systems in place and notified other federal agencies, state and local governments about the attack, then shared relevant threat information with some in the security industry. Four months after the attack, Ms. Hayden said the Obama administration had no reason to believe personally identifiable information for employees was compromised.

“None of this differs from our normal response to similar threats,” Ms. Hayden said.

Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby rajrang » 10 Jul 2014 19:20

Some thoughts:

1) Long term Japan ALONE with 1/10 th the population of China will be no match for China. Soon (20 years?) China will have similar per-capita GNP to Japan, which will give it a 5 or 10 times bigger GNP than Japan (PPP terms).

2) India's foreign policy based on neutrality relative to China might (??) work for India because India is a big country. For small countries such as Vietnam, it will not. I do not see much wisdom here. Simply taking advantage of circumstances, i.e. enlightened (or is it?) self interest.

3) Japan, Australia, S. Korea and the Phillipines are protected by the US via explicit arrangemments - treaties. Further none of these countries share a common border with China and so do not have to face the PLA (separated by oceans similar to Britain in Europe during the world wars). India, Russia and Vietnam on the other hand do not have defense treaties with the US and in addition have to face the PLA. The US conveniently does not have defense treaties with countries that border China. Surely this has been noted in Beijing.

Long term, the unfolding Great Game of the 21st century, could see Europe join the US and "pivot" to Asia. Who, knows Japan and the US could encourage political unification of ASEAN and become a major player. India would prefer to watch the game from the stands.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 54247
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby ramana » 10 Jul 2014 22:07

neel wrote:{quote="svinayak"}One more guy comparing India with China ... z34kyO9pB3

June 15, 2014 11:34 pm[b][b]
India also has too many mouths to feed

From Mr Bachu Biswas.
Sir, David Pilling does an excellent job in listing Narendra Modi’s challenges in leading India that is more urbanised now than many people realise (“India must accept it is urban and reap the benefits”, June 12). However, the single most long-term challenge – India’s explosive population growth – was only briefly mentioned in Mr Pilling’s article. India has a landmass that is one-third of China’s; yet, its total population is catching up. According to each country’s census, India in 2011 had a population of 1.21bn versus 1.34bn for China in 2010.

In 1980, India’s population was nearly 300m less (687m vs 981m in China). However, over the next 30 years, India’s population grew by 76 per cent as compared to only 37 per cent for China. This development, in the context of each country’s landmass, reveals something quite alarming: India is a very crowded country, indeed.
China has made the transition very successfully from an agriculture-based economy to a rapidly industrialised country, where the mass migration of its citizens to urban centres seeking employment have created megacities, which have also created a whole new set of challenges. Notwithstanding, the overall poverty alleviation has been remarkable in China. Market-based economic policies in India since the 1990s (despite the malaise during the last term of Manmohan Singh’s administration) have also generated significant economic benefits. India now boasts a middle class that is, by some estimates, about 200m strong. The BJP’s absolute majority in last month’s election, without the support of this new middle class, would not have been possible.
China’s political leaders recognised early in the economic development process (in the 1980s) that no matter how efficiently they were able to allocate resources, these resources were still not enough as China had too many mouths to feed. Slowing the population growth was absolutely essential for the aggregate benefits of the market economy to reach a greater number of citizens. It is true that China is not a democracy as India is. Yet, the political leaders in India need to square with its citizens that India too has too many mouths to feed.
Mr Modi’s electoral victory provides a unique opportunity to have this conversation with the citizenry about the nation’s explosive population growth. Without an appropriate agreement (policy), India’s sustainable growth prospects in the long run are questionable at best.
Bachu S Biswas, New York, NY, US

This gets it absolutely backwards. China's restrictions on population growth are one major factor driving the slowing of the rate of Chinese GDP growth, as their "demographic dividend" is almost exhausted at this point. The trick is not to reduce the growth rate of population, but to ensure the educational attainment of that growing cohort, so that at it's peak productivity based on lifecycle considerations the level of the peak is high enough to lift the entire country.

Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby member_19686 » 11 Jul 2014 01:29

China has already lifted the 1 child policy and that policy has little to do with the fall in TFR. East Asian countries with no 1 child policy also have below replacement TFR's. TFR was already falling fast before the policy was implemented and its only achievement has been to skew the sex ratio. China has a low birth rate because of urbanization etc, same reasons as other developed countries (except Israel which has a very healthy birth rate due to religious Jews & Arabs). The only difference is that China will get old before it gets rich where as the other East Asian countries all got rich before they got old.

China's rapid aging and soon to be declining population are seen as major reasons by Mark L. Haas, Timothy Beardson and others on why PRC will not replace the US and why the US will continue its position as the dominant power.

Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat

Postby member_19686 » 11 Jul 2014 01:50

Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Hearing on China’s Military Modernization and its Implications for the United States
30 January 2014
Prof. Andrew S. Erickson, Ph.D., Naval War College

...These factors may
now be sending China along the “S-curve” faster than any other major power has gone before. Any
relaxation of the one child policy is probably too little, too late for averting demographic slowdown. A
new Chinese Academy of Social Sciences report projects that by 2030, China will have world’s highest
proportion of people over 65, higher than even Japan.6
China is already approaching a labor shortage
A 2012 OECD report even forecasts that India and Indonesia will surpass China’s growth rate
by 2020.7
China may thus be further along the S-curve than many realize.

Can China achieve an economic rebalance to avoid the “middle-income trap” that typically plagues
developing economies before S-curve factors develop overwhelming momentum of their own? It seems
unlikely that the leadership’s goal of transitioning to a domestic consumption-based economy sufficient
to support a new growth model can be achieved. A true transition from government investment and
manufacturing toward an innovative service economy would require reforms that vested interests—
unusually potent given rapid resource-intensive development within a closed political system—are
likely to block. Leaders are likely to view breaking this policy logjam as too politically risky, too close
to home. The heart of the problem is that China’s leaders know what they need to do from an economic
standpoint, but cannot do it fully because this would undermine their authority. Faced with this dilemma,
short-term stability to preserve existing power structures seems poised to prevail. Even the vigorous Xi
Jinping is likely to muddle through some of the most difficult areas, leaving insufficient progress before
S-curve slowdown factors become increasingly limiting.

Moreover, even if implemented with the greatest success conceivable, some of the key reforms that Xi is
proposing—and many of those most likely to garner popular support sufficient for their successful
implementation—can themselves strengthen potent S-curve headwinds, and will even accelerate and
deepen their impact. Some challenges stem from societal patterns that the U.S. and other Western
nations are already suffering from, and which even China cannot escape—and may well narrow the gap
quickly, before China is well-prepared. An aging society with rising expectations, burdened with rates of
chronic diseases exacerbated by sedentary lifestyles, will probably divert spending from both military
development and the economic growth that sustains it. Expanding China’s welfare state, in particular,
will crowd out other forms of spending, yet the floodgates appear already to be opening.

One of China’s greatest strengths in recent years has been its ability to allocate tremendous resources
rapidly to programs for security, infrastructure, and technology development. Many of these programs
are seen as extremely inefficient. As competition for resources intensifies, the leadership’s ability to
allocate increasingly scarce funds effectively will face unprecedented tests.

Domestic challenges may place increasing demands on, and funding claims by, China’s internal security
forces, whose official budget already exceeds the PLA’s8
if funding for the paramilitary People’s Armed
Police is counted as internal (in keeping with China’s own budget structure). Potential drivers include
unrest in ethno-religiously-restive borderlands such as Xinjiang and Tibet as well as disaster relief,
exacerbated by environmental degradation and climate change. Rising living costs and societal
expectations may greatly increase the expense of current security approaches, which rely in part on large
numbers of relatively low-paid individuals to provide physical security, surveillance, and monitoring of
data from security cameras and other sources.

This has a special significance for China’s ability to continue developing its external military
capabilities. Beijing has judged that it can sustain multiple overlapping advanced programs
simultaneously. China’s shipbuilding industry—which, aside from its missile and electronics industries,
produces China’s most advanced indigenous defense products—has already proven able to do this with
its simultaneous construction of multiple modern submarine and warship classes. Now China’s military
aviation industry, which has traditionally lagged, also appears to be making this important strategic
breakthrough. In many key areas, China’s number of multiple simultaneous programs is rivaled only by
the U.S. But how long such dynamic investment can be sustained is unclear... ... .30.14.pdf

And here is a tidbit from history, in recorded human history no new power ever replaced the dominant power while having a declining population (but we do have evidence from the time of ancient Greece of a new power conquering the old power due to population decline. For example Polybius wrote that in his time Greece was suffering from declining population due to hedonism and the new power i.e. Rome had an expanding population). Smaller countries may have conquered larger one's but at the time they did, they had expanding populations.

Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sum and 26 guests