Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jan 2017 14:03

Two Chinese companies hit roadblock with Indian investments - Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, Economic Times
Big-ticket investment plans of two Chinese firms appear to have hit the Great Wall of India’s home ministry over apparent security concerns.

Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co’s $1.4-billion deal struck about six months ago to acquire 86% stake in Hyderabad’s Gland Pharma Limited is yet to fructify, as is the Bank of China’s move announced in 2015 to open its first branch in India.


The ministry is yet to give its assent in both cases, according to people aware of the matter, triggering concerns that this may deter potential investors who had expressed interest in the country as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s announcement in 2014 to invest $20 billion in India in five years.

“Fosun Pharma’s proposal, marking the first billiondollar takeover of an Indian company by a Chinese firm, is among the biggest Chinese investments in India, that too in a sector which does not pose any security concerns,” {What a naive argument. India is well ahead of China in pharma sector and a backdoor entry by China in the Indian pharma sector is certainly a security concern. Some people do not understand the full spectrum of 'security'} said one of the persons, who did not wish to be identified. “Yet, the ministry of home affairs is not clearing the Chinese company’s investment proposal.”

Such an approach is detrimental to plans of other Chinese investors at a time when India is actively seeking investments from the neighbouring country to boost its economy and create jobs, the person said.

In the case of Bank of China, a second person said, the ministry is not granting permission due to the roadblocks that the State Bank of India is facing in China. “The refusal to give permission to Bank of China to open its India chapter beats all logic,” the person said, citing the launch of Indian operations by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the world’s largest bank in terms of market capitalisation, in 2011 by opening a branch in Mumbai.

Although India does not encourage Chinese investments in sensitive sectors such as ports and areas such as bordering states owing to security concerns, the government last year liberalised business visas in non-sensitive areas and removed China from the list of countries requiring prior referral. In June 2016, India allowed automatic approval for foreign investments up to 74% in pharmaceutical manufacturing.

A senior home ministry official said on condition of anonymity that the ministry has received Shanghai Fosun Pharma’s proposal recently and it will be processed. The Bank of China’s proposal is, however, not pending with the ministry, the official said.

The delay on the part of the ministry is inexplicable, another person said, because India wants to attract Chinese investments across non-sensitive sectors to build confidence to tide over political differences as much as strengthen bilateral trade.

The Minister of State for External Affairs VK Singh, at a press meet on Wednesday, outlined India’s interest in attracting Chinese investments and highlighted progress in the industrial parks that China is setting up in Gujarat and Maharashtra.

China is the 17th biggest investor in India, lagging smaller economies such as Italy and Spain. Between April 2000 and September 2016, India received $1.587 billion from China as foreign direct investment, according to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion.

‘SELF-DEFEATING EXERCISE’

Shanghai Fosun Pharma is part of Fosun International, headed by Guo Guangchang, which has been active in mergers and acquisitions across the globe in sectors ranging from property to finance. The company wants to integrate Gland Pharma with its current business to tap into markets in India, Europe and the US, besides expanding its manufacturing network in India.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had on his visit to China in 2015 announced the Bank of China’s plan to open a branch in Mumbai, its first in India.

“Erecting hurdles in granting permission in sectors allowed by the government is a self-defeating exercise in terms of not only economy but also goodwill with a neighbour that is aggressive than ever before,” said an expert, who did not wish to be identified.

Chinese real estate firm Wanda is hoping to make progress with its projects in India, though, having finally acquired land in Gujarat for the industrial park that was announced during Xi’s visit in 2014.

India has said that it wants to increase Chinese investment in the proposed coastal manufacturing zones, high-speed rail networks, clean energy and urban development while ensuring greater access to Indian IT firms in China.


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jan 2017 14:06

Bheeshma wrote:US just needs to move THAAD shield to Japan and SoKo.

THAAD is indeed in South Korea. Japan has been negotiating for THAAD as well.

deWalker
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby deWalker » 07 Jan 2017 03:20

kittoo wrote:Either China is extremely stupid (at least vis a vis India) or the Agni tests have kicked them in the balls. Why do we care if they provide more range to the Pakis? Paki missiles already cover whole of India. If the Chinis want to give the Paki headache to many more countries too, please go ahead.


I see Chinese comments as a strategic mistake (on their part). Their normal modus operandi is to let TSP do the dirty work, while maintaining a distance from that fray. With these comments, now if they really do arm TSP with missiles, AND if TSP launches / threatens, the Chinese are now directly in the firing line. India would be well justified to tell the PRC that any aggression from TSP will be viewed as aggression from PRC. China loses their distance and are now acknowledging the open secret - that the real conflict in Asia is going to be India vs. China, not any other smaller turf wars.


And by God if there is one guy whose name gets my blood boiling, its that blithering idiot Nehru. That a$$hole screwed India on both Pakistan and China front.

Indeed he was in the drivers seat for way too long. He should have hung up his boots 10 years in and allowed LBS, Patel or others to lead. He was a good figurehead but not a strategic thinker.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 07 Jan 2017 04:09

Masood Azhar is a terrorist, Beijing should 'adjust' its stand, says ex-Chinese diplomat - PTI
In a rare case of dissent against official policy, a former Chinese diplomat who served in India has sought a change in China's repeated efforts to block India's bid to slap a UN ban on Jaish-e-Muhammad leader Masood Azhar.

Mao Siwei - who previously served as China's Consul General in Kolkata - has argued that Azhar is a terrorist and Beijing should "adjust" its stand accordingly.

In his lengthy blog on social media WeChat public account about the India-China stalemate over Azhar, Siwei said China should take advantage of India's complaint against Azhar and "get rid of the passive diplomatic situation" between the two countries.

The blog was published on December 28, two days before China refused to lift its technical hold+ on India's application
, allowing it to lapse, Siwei highlighted the history of Pakistan-based terror organisations Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e- Muhammad and how they carried out violent attacks whenever India and Pakistan made efforts to normalise their relations.

"As a result of (China's technical hold), the issue of sanctions against Azhar became a major issue affecting Sino- Indian relations and constitutes an important factor for the decline of Sino-Indian relations in 2016+ ," he wrote.

Referring to the Indian evidence furnished against Azhar in Pathankot terror attack, he cited the chargesheet that the evidence included Facebook and telephone records as well as DNA samples obtained from food wrapping paper and a walkie-talkie.

"In the light of the above, I deeply feel that now is the time China should take India's complaint as an opportunity to seriously study and adjust the position, get rid of the passive diplomatic situation, on the listing of JeM chief in the (UN) 1267 list," he wrote.

"First, is Azhar a terrorist? Second, was the Pathankot attack perpetrated by the Jaish-e-Mohammed group? To the first question, the answer should be yes," he said.


Siwei's appeal went unheeded. But it reflected a different opinion among sections of China's diplomatic community, which is concerned over the negative fallout of the issue on India- China ties and Beijing's claims that it followed a "very objective, just and professional attitude"+ in blocking India's application at the UN.

Responding to remarks made by External Affairs Minister of State MJ Akbar+ on the Azhar issue, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters here yesterday that "we have taken a responsible and constructive part in relevant discussion in a professional and objective way".

Siwei's comments are a rare instance of public expression of differing opinions in China.

PTI's efforts to reach Siwei, a prolific commentator on India-China ties in the Chinese social media, weren't immediately acknowledged.

Siwei has served as Consulate General of China's Consulate in Kolkata between 2007 to 2010. Before that, Mao also worked as a diplomat in Chinese Embassy in New Delhi and served as a visiting scholar at JNU, Delhi.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19805
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Prem » 07 Jan 2017 07:11

SSridhar wrote:Two Chinese companies hit roadblock with Indian investments - Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, Economic Times“Fosun Pharma’s proposal, marking the first billiondollar takeover of an Indian company by a Chinese firm, is among the biggest Chinese investments in India, that too in a sector which does not pose any security concerns,” {What a naive argument. India is well ahead of China in pharma sector and a backdoor entry by China in the Indian pharma sector is certainly a security concern. Some people do not understand the full spectrum of 'security'} said one of the persons, who did not wish to be identified. “Yet, the ministry of home affairs is not clearing the Chinese company’s investment proposal.”

To Welcom chinese investment at this juncture will tentamounts to showing wekness and eagerness for Chinese money. Delaying,refusing will send the right signal that they air not friend thus not welcomed .

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8589
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby arun » 07 Jan 2017 09:50

P.R. Chinese reaction to our demand that the PRC cease and desist from preventing the inclusion of Masood Azhar, the Mohammadden Terrorist sheltering in the Terrorist Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in the Terrorist list of put out by the UN's 1267 Committee:

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson GengShuang's Regular Press Conference on January 5, 2017 ……………………..

Q: Yesterday, two Indian Ministers of State for External Affairs held a press briefing on China-India relations. One talked about differences at the 1267 Committee with China, saying that as a responsible and mature country, China should not apply "double standards", and called on China to take a relook on its stance on the listing matter. Another minister spoke positively of China-India relations, saying that India should expand ties with China over a wide range of areas, especially people-to-people connections, despite the differences. What is your response?

A: The allegation that China adopts "double standards"on the UN Security Council 1267 Committee listing matter does not stand. Because China uses one standard only on this matter, which is taking solid evidence as the basis, and China has been participating in a positive and constructive way in the relevant discussions in the 1267 Committee following the spirit of objectivity, fairness and professionalism.

Members of the committee differ on the listing application submitted by the relevant country. China once put forward a technical hold so as to create more time and conditions for the committee to deliberate on the matter and the relevant parties to have further consultations. Regrettably, no agreement has been reached so far. The actions we have taken at the committee, out of a sense of responsibility, fully comply with the resolution of the Security Council and the rules of procedure of the committee, and will safeguard the authority and effectiveness of the committee on the listing matter.

China will stay in touch and coordination with relevant parties including India on this issue in accordance with the resolution of the Security Council and the rules of procedure of the committee.

I also want to add that China and India both suffer from terrorism. We share the same counter-terrorism goals and have been working together in this field. We are willing to enhance our cooperation with India on fighting terrorism and jointly maintain regional peace and security.

As for China-India relations, China and India are two largest developing countries and major emerging economies. Forging a more closely-knit partnership serves the interests of the two countries and peoples as well as regional peace and stability. We stand ready to improve our strategic partnership for cooperation with India. This position has not changed.

Follow-up: they also said that 14 out of the 15 members of the 1267 Committee support India's listing application, China being the only exception. What is your comment?

A: As I just said, the committee has yet to agree upon this issue. China's actions, which are objective, unbiased and professional, are in line with the resolution of the Security Council and the rules of procedure of the committee. China will stay in touch and coordination with relevant parties including India on that.


See here:

FMPRC

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8589
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby arun » 07 Jan 2017 09:59

“On social media account Mao Siwei said China should take advantage of India’s complaint against Azhar and “get rid of the passive diplomatic situation” between the two countries.” :

Masood Azhar is a terrorist, China should ‘adjust’ its stand accordingly, says former Chinese diplomat

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 07 Jan 2017 13:26

Eye on China, India to base first squadron of Rafale fighter jets in Bengal - Rajat Pandit, Economic Times
India will base its first squadron of Rafale fighter jets, which are also capable of delivering nuclear weapons, in the eastern sector as part of the overall policy to gradually build nuclear as well as conventional deterrence against China.

With Sukhoi-30MKI fighters already operating from Tezpur and Chabua in Assam, the IAF has now finalised plans for the first 18 Rafales to be stationed at the Hasimara airbase in Bengal from late-2019.
This comes at a time when India is also conducting final trials of the nuclear-capable Agni-IV and Agni-V ballistic missiles after the Strategic Forces Command inducted the AgniIII a couple of years ago.

Under the Rs 59,000 crore (7.87 billion euro) deal inked with France in September last year, the IAF will get 36 Rafales in batches by mid-2022 or so. With 14 India-specific requirements, including the capability for “cold start“ from high-altitude regions, the Rafale packs quite a punch with its ability to carry 9.3-tonne of weapons and simultaneously perform both air defence and ground attack missions.

“The Hasimara airbase currently has MiG-27s that will be retired over the next two-three years. They will be replaced by Rafales. A team from Dassault Aviation has already visited Hasimara to review the maintenance and other infrastructure required there,“ said an official.

“The Sarsawa base (UP), among other places, is being considered for the second Ra fale squadron.
Under the contract, Dassault has to ensure minimum 75% availability for the jets at all times under the performance-based logistics support for the first seven years, which can be extended by another five,“ he added.

The IAF also activated the advance landing ground (ALG) at Tuting, in Arunachal's Upper Siang district, just 10 days ago. It is the sixth such ALG to be made operational in Arunachal apart from the ones in eastern Ladakh, all with an eye firmly on China.

Moreover, the Panagarh base in Bengal is also set to get its six C-130J Super Her cules aircraft. Panagarh, of course, is also going to be the headquarter of the Army's new 17 Mountain Strike Corps being raised with two high-altitude infantry divisions, apart from other armoured, artillery , air defence and engineer brigades spread from Ladakh to Arunachal.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 07 Jan 2017 19:57

China could own a third aircraft carrier - Atul Aneja, The Hindu
China is expected to “own” a third aircraft carrier in the near future, the People’s Daily online reported, quoting a leading naval expert.

The website quoted Liang Fang, a military expert as saying that “the Chinese military’s combat capability has grown by leaps and bounds in the past decade”.

He added: “At present, China’s second aircraft carrier is under construction. In the near future, the Chinese Navy is expected to own a third aircraft carrier strike group, capable of safeguarding territorial sovereignty and maritime rights.”

Current carrier

A website affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) also relayed the report.

China has so far deployed Liaoning, its sole, aircraft carrier — an import from Ukraine — whose prime purpose is to impart training, so that a skilled core of personnel is developed, capable of marshalling more combat-worthy aircraft carriers of the future.

“While the Liaoning is far from a game-changer in the naval balance of power in the region, it has been efficiently utilised as a training platform to educate the foundational core of officers, sailors and airmen that will build the future Chinese aircraft carrier force,” says Brian Kalman, a military analyst, on the website South Front.

Analysts say that the focus on aircraft carriers marks a doctrinal shift, allowing China to gradually transition towards exercising “sea control” far away from shores. At present the Chinese Navy is in a “sea denial” mode, focused on deterring external forces from intruding into Chinese waters.

Mr. Liang pointed out that though Chinese aircraft carrier strike group is not comparable with its U.S. counterpart in tonnage or number of aircraft, it can nevertheless boast of stamina and a bright future. He stressed that “from the perspective of future development, the U.S. military clearly lacks stamina, and the country’s insufficient military spending is proof of that. In addition, frequent problems with U.S. Navy Super Hornet, F-35C and other carrier-borne fighters have seriously hampered the aircraft carriers’ combat capability.”

U.S. deployments

The website highlighted China’s assertiveness, in the wake of upcoming naval deployments in the western Pacific by the U.S. Navy.

“On the first day of the new year, a fleet headed by aircraft carrier Liaoning held drills in the South China Sea. Around the same time, news was released that the USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear-powered American aircraft carrier, would deploy from San Diego, California to the Western Pacific region.”

China’s second aircraft carrier, CV-17 is currently at an advanced stage of construction at Dalian Shipbuilding in northeastern China.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2796
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2017 21:37

From the China Watch Thread :
Shankas wrote:General Motors moving forward on sale of Indian car plant to China's SAIC

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/06/gm-india-nears-deal-with-chinas-saic-on-gujarat-plant-sale.html

SSridhar Ji :

From the looks of it - it is pretty ominous. Do you think that the Indian Government can stall this?

This is in some ways similar to the Dubai Port World taking over P & O thereby getting Container Terminals at Chennai, Cochin, Mundra, Nhava Sheva and Visakhapatnam.

Similarly the Chinese will start taking over other Foreign Plants in India.

How would you opine?

Cheers Image

Karthik S
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Karthik S » 07 Jan 2017 22:00

Chinese company owning a car manufacturing plant in a state bordering pak is not much of a threat to India IMO.

darshan
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby darshan » 07 Jan 2017 23:02

I disagree. Any given day, having chinese directly associated with Indian politicians does not seem like great idea. May be not as big of a threat as chinese made telecommunication equipment but still a threat. The best scenario for India would be that GM sells it and GoGJ makes running plant honestly impossible for chinese and they write off as a loss to some Indian company.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chanakyaa » 08 Jan 2017 00:03

The following isn't India related but related to the subject. It can be moved.

Chinese Access to U.S. Semiconductor Industry May Be Curbed (Wall Street Journal)
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is completing a study that could lead to restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. semiconductor sector.

The report, being prepared by President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser and due to be published before he leaves office this month, will include recommendations aimed at bolstering protection of an industry deemed critical to national security, according to people familiar with the study.

Among its recommendations could be a tougher stance by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, a secretive multi-agency panel that reviews foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets for national security threats....(more)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 08 Jan 2017 04:52

India, Portugal sign seven agreements - ToI
India and Portugal today signed seven agreements - including one on defence cooperation - after Prime Minister Narendra Modi held bilateral talks with Portugal's Prime Minister Antonio Costa.

The two nations today also took a veiled dig at China for blocking New Delhi's move at the UN to list Jaish-e-Muhammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.

PM Modi said the MoU on defence cooperation will help both nations harness their "respective strengths in this field for mutual benefit."

PM Modi thanked Costa for his country's support for India's bids to gain permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The PM said he and his Portuguese counterpart had reviewed the full range of India-Portugal ties in an extensive discussion, and talked about the rapidly growing threats of violence and terrorism.

Veiled dig at China

A joint statement issued after the bilateral talks between PM Modi and Antonio Costa said, "Recognising the importance of the Central role of UN in combating terrorism, they (the two leaders) exhorted the international community to effectively implement the measures enumerated by the 1267 UN Sanctions Committee."

The joint statement said both sides called for strengthening cooperation in combating terrorism in a spirit of 'zero tolerance', underlining that States should not support any terror entity including 'non-state actors' on any grounds.


Costa, who has lived in Goa, said he felt proud for being able to return to India as Portugal's Prime Minister. On this trip, he will visit his ancestral home in Goa


IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5108
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby IndraD » 09 Jan 2017 03:27

Wary of China, India offers Akash surface-to-air missile systems to Vietnam http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 410196.cms

With Beijing continuing to thwart New Delhi's bid to join the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and get Jaish-e-Muhammed chief Masood Azhar designated a terrorist by the UN, while also stepping up its naval forays into the Indian Ocean Region, India is responding by fast-tracking military ties with countries in China's own backyard. The expanding "strategic and military partnership" with Japan and Vietnam, in particular, has emerged a major thrust area.
Sources say the discussions under way with Vietnam on the Akash area defence missiles, which have an interception range of 25-km against hostile aircraft, helicopters and drones, come after India earlier offered BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles and Varunastra anti-submarine torpedoes to the country.
India, of course, will also begin training Vietnamese fighter pilots on its Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets from this year, much like it has been tutoring sailors from that country on the intricate art of operating Kilo-class submarines for the last three years, as reported earlier by TOI.

It was in 2013 that India had kicked off the training of a large number of Vietnamese sailors in "comprehensive underwater combat operations'' in Navy submarine school INS Satavahana, Visakhapatnam.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18070
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Austin » 09 Jan 2017 10:35

End One China Policy And We Will 'Take Revenge': Chinese Daily Warns Donald Trump

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/end-one- ... eststories

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 09 Jan 2017 11:14

IndraD wrote:Wary of China, India offers Akash surface-to-air missile systems to Vietnam http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 410196.cms

So, China has been successfully pressurizing through Russia to stop sale of BrahMos.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1021
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby schinnas » 09 Jan 2017 11:24

Why can't US sell advanced short and medium range cruise missiles to Vietnam? May be Japan can give a soft loan to modernise Vietnam's defence forces.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 09 Jan 2017 12:02

schinnas wrote:Why can't US sell advanced short and medium range cruise missiles to Vietnam? May be Japan can give a soft loan to modernise Vietnam's defence forces.

schinnas, the US-Vietnam relations have acquired some depth only recently. The US has lifted its ban on weapons export to Vietnam. As their ties expand and some comfort level is reached and as China increasingly becomes 'a bull in the China shop', I am sure that your wishes will come true.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20303
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 09 Jan 2017 12:12

China’s Creeping Maritime Assertiveness - Abhay Kumar Singh, IDSA
China’s maritime assertiveness in the South China Sea (SCS) was on display on December 15, 2016 when a PLA Navy (PLAN) vessel retrieved an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) of the US Navy (USN) in international waters about 50 nautical miles (NM) northwest of Subic Bay in the Philippines. The UUV was being operated by USN Ship (USNS) Bowditch which was in the process of recovering the UUV. At the time of the incident, both the ships were within 500 yards distance of each other. Despite radio communication from the USNS Bowditch, the Chinese warship reportedly did not return the UUV and proceeded away with the UUV.1 The incident created furore in the US with commentators terming the Chinese act as ‘theft’.2 The US registered its diplomatic protest and demanded that the UUV be returned immediately. The Chinese media termed US surveillance as continued provocation.

The Chinese Ministry of National Defence (MND) in a statement gave the following explanation:

‘A Chinese naval lifeboat located an unidentified device in the waters of the South China Sea. In order to prevent the device from causing harm to the safety of navigation and personnel of passing vessels, the Chinese naval lifeboat verified and examined the device in a professional and responsible manner. Upon examination, the device was identified as an underwater drone of the United States. The Chinese side had decided to hand over it to the US in an appropriate manner’.
3

The UUV was returned to the USN destroyer USS Mustin by China on December 20, 2016. The MND on December 21, 2016 stated that ‘China has handed over the US underwater drone it captured ‘in its waters’ to the United States [Emphasis added]’.4 The map of the area published by The Washington Post shows the area of incident outside China’s proclaimed nine-dash line.5 No geographical details of the area of the incident were provided by the Chinese authorities. Based on information available in the public domain, the location of the incident seems to be within Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In essence, China has no valid jurisdiction to interfere with the oceanographic survey being conducted by the USN ship in the international waters or within EEZ of another country.

Image
Figure- Location of UUV Seizure6

The incident has prompted broad speculation about Chinese intent, including whether China was signalling even more expansive claims over the SCS, since the area of incident was even beyond the controversial nine-dash line. The incident has also revived questions about Chinese strategic ambiguity regarding the nature of its jurisdiction over waters enclosed within the nine-dash line, which has since been nullified by The Hague Arbitration Tribunal judgement.7

Nine Dash Line: China’s Strategic Ambiguity

The Chinese government, through two note verbale submitted in the UN in May 2009, asserted its ‘indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof’.8 Nine line segments (dashes) — encircling waters, islands, and other features of the SCS — were displayed on the map submitted along with the note verbale. As a reiteration of its jurisdictional claim, China submitted another note verbale in 2011 which asserted that ‘China’s sovereignty and related rights and jurisdiction in the South China Sea are supported by abundant historical and legal evidence’.9

As per the UN Commission on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states enjoy varying degree of jurisdictional rights and privileges in different waters, viz, territorial sea, contiguous zone, internal waters, archipelagic waters, international straits, historical waters. China has not clarified about the legal basis or nature of its jurisdiction within nine dash lines through any legislation, proclamation or any other official statement. China has also not published geographic coordinates specifying the location of the dashes.

The above claims of jurisdictional control through the nine-dash line does not form part of China’s submissions of records as per UNCLOS. The claim, about its sovereign jurisdiction through historical rights, was submitted as an objection to the continental shelf claims of Vietnam. China had submitted baseline coordinates in compliance with UNCLOS Article 16(2) with respect to mainland and Xisha (Paracel) Islands in SCS with claims of UNCLOS zones viz territorial waters and EEZ in July 1996 and September 2004 respectively which has no reference to nine-dash line.10 However, its legislative declaration about Maritime Zones has provided a caveat that this legislation does not prejudice its historical rights with no explanation about nature or geography of said historical rights.11

At the core of Chinese claims in SCS is a Chinese government map circulated in 1947 drawing an eleven-dash line to indicate the geographical scope of its authority over the SCS. In 1953, two dashes were removed from the eleven-dash line, leaving nine segments that was published as a new map which is cited as Chinese jurisdictional claims.12 While asserting its indisputable sovereignty over the Islands and the adjacent water enclosed therein, China has maintained strategic ambiguity over geographical limits and scope of sovereign jurisdiction over areas enclosed within the nine-dash lines. China’s policy of strategic ambiguity, as it has been euphemistically called, serves its purposes well.13

Chinese scholars have defined the nine-dash line as a line to preserve both its title to territory and its historic rights. Analysts note that China seems to have three purported reasons for its nine-dash claims. ‘First, it represents China’s title rights over island groups that it encloses and signifies sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction — in accordance with UNCLOS — over the waters and seabed and subsoil adjacent to those islands and insular features. Second, it preserves Chinese historic rights over the oceanic resources in the waters and on the continental shelf surrounded by the line. Third, it is likely to allow for such residual functionality as to serve as potential maritime delimitation lines’.14

The view about the possible rationale of the nine-dash line as a potential negotiation reference was also expressed by the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in February 2012, when it was stated that no single nation claims sovereignty over the entire SCS and that the dispute was only about the ‘islands and adjacent waters’.15 This had raised hopes in the region that China may moderate its jurisdictional claim to align with legal provisions as per UNCLOS. However, on the contrary, the SCS has seen progressive Chinese assertiveness regarding its jurisdictional claims with reclamation of land, construction of military facilities and enforcement of its rights through use of maritime militia.

Just prior to the decision of UNCLOS arbitration proceedings initiated by the Philippines, the Chinese interlocutor at the Shangri-La Dialogue 2016 had argued that China’s ambiguity over nine-dash line was a good thing for all the parties involved.16 The decision of The Hague Arbitration Tribunal in July 2016 has disallowed Chinese historic claims.17 The arbitration proceedings were boycotted by China and the decision has not been accepted by it. China, in addition, has also persuaded the Philippines to set aside the arbitration award.18

Previous Incidents with USN over Surveillance in EEZ


USN ships have been regularly conducting Freedom of Navigation Patrols (FONOPS) in order to exercise their rights of freedom of navigation. China has always protested these surveillance sorties in accordance with their proclaimed interpretation of jurisdictional rights and coastal state rights over military surveillance within EEZ. Prior to this incident, there have been at least six incidents of interaction between Chinese and American vessels in the international waters of the SCS.19 In March 2009, USN ships Impeccable and Victorious were harassed by Chinese oceanographic vessels in international waters off Hainan Island. In June 2009, a Chinese submarine fouled the towed array sonar of US warship John McCain. US warship Cowpens nearly collided with one of the escorts of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning in December 2013.

However, all these incidents happened within the EEZ claimed by China.20 There exists differing interpretation about jurisdictional rights of coastal state within EEZ. Some countries including the US consider the EEZ like the high seas when it comes to foreign militaries conducting surveillance and do not consider requirement of specific permission from the coastal state. China has long taken the position that it has the right to restrict foreign military activities and surveillance within its EEZ. China argues that the coastal state permission must be obtained for a foreign military to conduct surveillance activities within the EEZ. China had justified its action against USN assets in accordance with its restrictive interpretation of UNCLOS provisions.21

Creeping Jurisdictional Assertions through Ambiguity

The Chinese official stance towards the extant incident of seizure of USN UUV has been extraordinarily ambiguous. As pointed out earlier, the MND statement of December 18 expressed routine dismay at continued military surveillance by the US with the retrieval being explained as removal of navigational hazards along with the casual assertion about the incident occurring in the Chinese waters with no further details or possessive implications.22 The Chinese Foreign Ministry also used generic remarks over continued US military surveillance and maintained the safety-of-navigation explanation. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson told reporters that ‘the Chinese side is firmly opposed to the frequent appearance of US military aircraft and vessels in waters facing China for close-in reconnaissance and military surveys. We require the US side to stop such activities [emphasis added]’.23 Some commentators asserted Chinese maritime rights or claims over the area in which the UUV was seized.24 This assertion was confirmed by the Chinese MND in its statement on December 20, 2016 which noted that the UUV was captured in its waters.25

As the USN UUV was seized 50 NM northwest of Subic Bay, the USN vessel was outside THE Philippines territorial water but within its EEZ. The area is also clearly outside the Chinese claim of nine dash-line. The core question then is on what basis China is claiming that the UUV was captured in Chinese waters? It could only be possible if China considers that the disputed Scarborough Shoal has EEZ of 200 NM which will place Chinese EEZ within 50 nautical miles from the coast of Philippines. The UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal has ruled that the Scarborough Shoal is a rock that entitles its sovereign jurisdiction to only a 12 NM territorial sea and is not entitled for 200 NM EEZ.

The extant assertion of Chinese MND that the UUV capture happened in Chinese waters brings the focus back on strategic ambiguity of China about its maritime claims. Rather than using ambiguity for accommodation or negotiation, China has been strengthening its jurisdictional claims which can be seen through its reclamation efforts to convert erstwhile low tide elevations — viz, Mischief reef, SubiReef and Ferry Cross Reef, into man-made habitable islands. These reclamation efforts in addition to bolstering its military capability in the SCS also strengthen its case for claiming UNCLOS entitled EEZ up to 200 NM since the reclaimed features could be shown as capable of sustaining human habitation. It is pertinent to mention that all other previous incidents/dispute over fishing rights, resources, reclamation of reefs and rocks, and incidents against surveillance had remained within the ambiguous nine-dash line.26 The phrase ‘waters facing China’ and the assertion of jurisdictional claim over waters beyond the nine-dash line has been used by the Chinese officials for the first time.

Some commentators have argued that since the capture of the UUV had no legal basis, it could be an act of political signalling.27 In addition, since the UUV was returned without much delay, the act of seizure may have lacked institutional approval at the highest level.28 However, these explanations fail to take into account latent assertion of jurisdictional claim in the official statements post incident.

The Chinese approach, so far, clearly indicates its intent of progressive attempt to strengthen its ‘creeping’ jurisdiction which has been termed by some observers as ‘salami slicing strategy’29 or ‘cabbage strategy’30. The strategy is being pursued through small but persistent enhancement of territorial jurisdiction claims along with creation of new facts on ground. The incident of UUV capture and related claims about the incident’s occurrence in Chinese waters fits in to the established pattern of incremental actions of creeping jurisdiction to change the status quo in its favour through fait accompli.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2857
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vera_k » 09 Jan 2017 21:46

kittoo wrote:Either China is extremely stupid (at least vis a vis India) or the Agni tests have kicked them in the balls. Why do we care if they provide more range to the Pakis? Paki missiles already cover whole of India. If the Chinis want to give the Paki headache to many more countries too, please go ahead.


IMO, neither of the above. Based on past track record, China has already given ICBMs to Pak. The Indian test will just be used as an excuse to make it official.

gashish
BRFite
Posts: 253
Joined: 23 May 2004 11:31
Location: BRF's tailgate party, aka, Nukkad thread

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby gashish » 09 Jan 2017 23:57

chanakyaa wrote:The following isn't India related but related to the subject. It can be moved.

Chinese Access to U.S. Semiconductor Industry May Be Curbed (Wall Street Journal)
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is completing a study that could lead to restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. semiconductor sector.

The report, being prepared by President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser and due to be published before he leaves office this month, will include recommendations aimed at bolstering protection of an industry deemed critical to national security, according to people familiar with the study.

Among its recommendations could be a tougher stance by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, a secretive multi-agency panel that reviews foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets for national security threats....(more)


This policy has been more or less in place for couple of years now.

Not only just US companies, but foreign companies with operations in the US are also being blocked from selling to Chinese.

Philips in its goal of shedding Lighting business tried to sell its specialty LED manufacturing division (Lumileds) in 2015 to the highest bidder which happened to be Chinese. Most of the deal was done with necessary approvals from Netherlands, but it was blocked by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States despite extensive lobbying.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19805
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Prem » 10 Jan 2017 03:42

https://medium.com/@SecDef/department-o ... .ufiotbynh
Ash Carter
But not all change has been constructive — tensions in the South China Sea, North Korea’s continued provocations, and the dangers of violent extremism felt worldwide all pose challenges to the region’s stability and prosperity. Early in President Obama’s tenure, he made a strategic decision to increase focus on the Asia-Pacific, recognizing its vital importance to America’s political, economic, and security interests. In support of this rebalance, DoD has realigned forces in the region to be more geographically distributed, operationally resilient and politically sustainable, while also increasing investments in capabilities and technologies to counter the growing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenge in the Western Pacific.
To do so, we are positioning 60 percent of our Navy and overseas Air Force assets in the Asia-Pacific region, including some of our most advanced capabilities. For instance, over the past eight years, DoD has deployed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery to Guam; introduced additional ballistic missile defense-capable ships into Japan; replaced CH-46 helicopters in Okinawa with more capable MV-22 Osprey aircraft; established air-ground task force capabilities in multiple locations across the Pacific; introduced a continuous bomber presence in the region to bolster partner nations; and strengthened the capabilities of U.S. Air Force and Army forces in the Republic of Korea. We have also focused on building similar security capabilities in our many friends and allies. We’ve done this through recent efforts like the five-year $425 million Maritime Security Initiative, which has increased training, exercises, personnel support, and maritime domain awareness in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
The United States favors the development of an inclusive and principled security network that is open to all that seek to preserve and strengthen the rules and norms that have undergirded regional stability for the past 7 decades. We have invested in strengthening and modernizing our alliances: revising bilateral defense guidelines with Japan; moving to a conditions-based approach to the transition of wartime operational control with South Korea; establishing a rotational deployment of U.S. Marines in Australia; signing an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Philippines; and establishing closer defense ties with India, including by naming it a Major Defense Partner and establishing the Defense Technology Trade Initiative. We have supported multilateral forums, bolstering our ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and investing in strengthening trilateral ties, including through the Defense Trilateral Talks with Japan and Korea, and the Security and Defense Cooperation Forum with Japan and Australia

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19805
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Prem » 10 Jan 2017 09:21

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/09/chi ... ing-muddy/
China’s New Silk Road Is Getting Muddy

th the future of U.S.-China relations an open question for the incoming Donald Trump administration, many have focused on whether the president-elect’s promise to withdraw from negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will enhance Beijing’s growing influence in East Asia. But rather than hand-wringing over TPP’s ignominious failure, Asia watchers should turn their attention to China’s unprecedented $1 trillion strategic gambit: the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, aka “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR). Launched in 2013 as President Xi Jinping’s signature initiative, OBOR holds great promise, as well as potential pitfalls, for both China and its neighbors.OBOR is a game-changing plan to bring about the next stage of globalization, a Sinocentric vision that harks back to the ancient Silk Roads — but this time on Beijing’s terms. The goal is to create a new economic “belt” of connective infrastructure westward into Eurasia and a new maritime “road” connecting China to Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Examples of OBOR projects include a railway linking China to Laos and another one through Mongolia and Kazakhstan; gas and oil pipelines through Turkmenistan and Myanmar; road and port development in Sri Lanka; and the cornerstone $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which encompasses highways, pipelines, coal-based electricity generation, and the Chinese-operated Gwadar port.OBOR is primarily a “build it and they will come” initiative. Rather than improving the host country’s industrial or productive capacity, it expands and strengthens transportation and energy arteries, including ports, rails, communications, electricity, and pipelines. It promises to stimulate the ailing Chinese economy in the short and medium terms through construction and telecoms contracts and capital goods provision while in the long term opening new trade routes so Chinese products can fill store shelves in OBOR countries for decades to come.Lending to your neighbors to finance infrastructure projects that you build for them is a shrewd way to make friends while generating business for Chinese firms and earning better returns than U.S. Treasury bills. But the approach does carry significant economic and political risks for China, as well as for recipient countries and local communities. Under OBOR, China is loaning hundreds of billions of dollars to fund infrastructure construction in foreign countries during an economic slowdown at home — a recipe that could spell disaster if it fails to stimulate the Chinese economy or leaves poor countries hopelessly in hock to Beijing.For two decades, China has promoted an increasingly expansionist “going-out” policy among its state-owned enterprises that includes strong financial and political support for construction and telecoms companies to penetrate Asian and African markets. OBOR takes this approach to a new, and far riskier, level. Beijing has set aside nearly $1 trillion to make concessionary loans to about 60 developing countries via its policy banks — principally the China Development Bank and Silk Road Fund — to underwrite the construction of approximately 900 infrastructure projects. After terms are reached with a host country, funds are transferred directly into the Beijing-based bank accounts of China’s state-owned enterprises, which build the project often with Chinese materials. This is a model Beijing has employed extensively in Africa. Once Beijing’s political blessing for a project is communicated via funding from its policy banks, China’s national- or provincial-level state-owned enterprises build it, often with little or no political or financial risk assessment or market research.The problem is due diligence. OBOR involves risking hundreds of billions of dollars on the assumption that poor countries either can or will pay China back. The lending program’s sheer size has already required the Chinese government and party organs to detail hundreds if not thousands of staff to vet scores of projects across a myriad of regulatory, linguistic, and cultural environments. This effort demands intragovernmental coordination across dozens of agencies and state-owned enterprises, many of which have little or no understanding of political or financial risk analysis. With such little experience in Beijing, much OBOR planning has been farmed out to provincial-level officials who are equally unqualified to vet the future profitability of investments in numerous uncertain political, economic, and regulatory environments. Religion is another consideration for the atheist Chinese, since OBOR traverses large swaths of the Muslim world.
China’s business practices are already facing local pushback in several countries where its state-owned enterprises have built energy and infrastructure projects. Some firms have been accused of cutting corners, ignoring safety standards, using secondhand or low-quality materials and equipment, and building environmentally destructive projects, such as hydroelectric dams or coal-fired power plants. Complaints have come from Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia regarding environmental damage and droughts from Chinese hydropower projects along the Mekong River; from Indonesia regarding an ill-fated, over-budget coal power plant and a failed high-speed rail project; and from Myanmar regarding Chinese firms clear-cutting forests.Last month, dock workers at Hambantota port in Sri Lanka held the massive Japanese vehicle carrier Hyperion Highway and its crew hostage for several days after they were cut out of a 99-year lease agreement with the state-owned China Merchants Port Holdings Co. Meanwhile, in Venezuela’s Bolívar state rioters looted hundreds of Chinese-owned businesses including shops, supermarkets, and warehouses. In Pakistan, workers on Chinese mining and construction projects have been attacked by Baloch rebels embroiled in separatist struggles with the government. Extensive squabbling among Pakistan’s political parties, the military, and local community leaders continues to delay the implementation of numerous CPEC projects.OBOR presents significant domestic economic and political risks for China. There is real tension between the Chinese government’s drive to invest in riskier developing countries via OBOR and private capital’s flight to safety amid a domestic economic slowdown and growing protectionist fears. Just as Beijing is pushing OBOR on its state-owned enterprises, private Chinese investors are finding ever more ingenious ways to offshore their resources in safer assets, particularly U.S. real estate. Beijing has responded with increasingly pervasive capital controls, but technology has made these difficult to enforce.
More than a decade ago, the United States called on China to be a “responsible stakeholder,” both in its neighborhood and beyond. The years since have seen the rise of a new, and increasingly assertive, Chinese foreign policy. OBOR is a big part of Beijing’s new approach and a potential harbinger for a new stage of Sinocentric globalization. It is a grand vision with wide-reaching political consequences both at home and abroad. If it succeeds, China will become the unquestioned Eurasian hegemon. But Beijing’s efforts likewise carry enormous economic and political risks that Chinese policymakers know they must mitigate if President Xi’s initiative is to live up to its billing. The question is whether OBOR can overcome the logistical, political, security, and financial challenges identified above — or be thwarted by them, losing hundreds of billions of dollars and creating a slew of disgruntled debtor neighbors with landscapes scarred by white-elephant projects. Only time will tell.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45375
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 10 Jan 2017 21:16

SS, China is now getting into a civilized nation state trap. Early on as a rogue state it could get away with a lot of wrong things under US patronage to bring down the Former Soviet Union. But now it is acting against the US itself. This is the civilized nation state syndrome.
HAK thinks its the Thyucides Trap. Its an analogy from Western history meme and like all analogies its only partially right. HAK is better informed if her reads Carrol Quigley Evolution of Civilizations model.

China is at cross roads. How does it reform itself to create a nation state for the long duration? Right now it is still following the policies of an early nation forming civilization hustling and pushing its way to the top. Its already there and what it is creating is resentment. Its following Sun Tzu and not the Buddha

I think Buddhism civilized the Chinese from the Sun Tzu eternal war making policy.

shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby shashankk » 11 Jan 2017 21:27

China likely to pressure Vietnam leader to stop missile deal with India

"If the Indian government genuinely treats its enhancement of military relations with Vietnam as a strategic arrangement or even revenge against Beijing, it will only create disturbances in the region and China will hardly sit with its arms crossed," Global Times, the organ of the Chinese Communist Party, said in a commentary on Wednesday.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/china-likely-to-pressure-vietnam-leader-to-stop-missile-deal-with-india/articleshow/56479282.cms

I wish GOI create these disturbances even if we end up loosing some money in this deal. High time we send message acrosss that their one way traffic of harming our intrests is over now. Icing on the cake would be to invite few of Vietnamese top nuclear scientists to a study tour to our nuclear facilities.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3435
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby panduranghari » 12 Jan 2017 02:00

I posit once India asserts itself, all those even mildly opposed to Chinese will come out openly against them, including Philipines who are cozying up to China.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1053
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby g.sarkar » 12 Jan 2017 05:04

ramana wrote:China is at cross roads. How does it reform itself to create a nation state for the long duration? Right now it is still following the policies of an early nation forming civilization hustling and pushing its way to the top. Its already there and what it is creating is resentment. Its following Sun Tzu and not the Buddha.

No reform is possible without the party ultimately loosing power. Before the party existed due to ideology, now it is just money. I know the BRF has announced the fall of China many times for many years, but the basics have not changed and the dilemma remains. So no suffrage, no free press, no free internet, no consultation with the Aam on any matter, no consequence for the powerful corrupt and so on. China has no Gorbachev on the horizon.
Gautam

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1021
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby schinnas » 12 Jan 2017 14:07

Pakistan using China to block extradition of a D-company shooter from Thailand.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 493508.cms

Trump administration will take a tough stand on Indo China Sea a.k.a. South China Sea
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 492918.cms

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3435
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby panduranghari » 12 Jan 2017 15:29

g.sarkar wrote: China has no Gorbachev on the horizon.


The great transformation has already happened. That the CCP has not recognised it, it to their detriment. We are unable to accept this change that has happened too. Waiting for 'Gorbachev' is very Abrahamic thought process like waiting for the return of the king. shed that baggage.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3435
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby panduranghari » 12 Jan 2017 17:16

ramana wrote:SS, China is now getting into a civilized nation state trap. Early on as a rogue state it could get away with a lot of wrong things under US patronage to bring down the Former Soviet Union. But now it is acting against the US itself. This is the civilized nation state syndrome.
HAK thinks its the Thyucides Trap. Its an analogy from Western history meme and like all analogies its only partially right. HAK is better informed if her reads Carrol Quigley Evolution of Civilizations model.

China is at cross roads. How does it reform itself to create a nation state for the long duration? Right now it is still following the policies of an early nation forming civilization hustling and pushing its way to the top. Its already there and what it is creating is resentment. Its following Sun Tzu and not the Buddha

I think Buddhism civilized the Chinese from the Sun Tzu eternal war making policy.


Interesting perspective saar. Do you think India should go a rogue now? What benefits do we accrue if we do? Clearly the preeminent powers who are looking into the future as 'has beens', would not let India do what it wants without their express permission or inputs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 12 Jan 2017 17:26

No India to go "rogue",we simply have to act openly (He!He!) and since we are singing a civil N-deal with the Viets,matters can take their predicatble course. Vietnam should become India's strat. deterrent just as Pak is for China.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14211
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby svinayak » 12 Jan 2017 22:57

panduranghari wrote: SS, China is now getting into a civilized nation state trap. Early on as a rogue state it could get away with a lot of wrong things under US patronage to bring down the Former Soviet Union. But now it is acting against the US itself. This is the civilized nation state syndrome.
HAK thinks its the Thyucides Trap. Its an analogy from Western history meme and like all analogies its only partially right. HAK is better informed if her reads Carrol Quigley Evolution of Civilizations model.

China is at cross roads. How does it reform itself to create a nation state for the long duration? Right now it is still following the policies of an early nation forming civilization hustling and pushing its way to the top. Its already there and what it is creating is resentment. Its following Sun Tzu and not the Buddha

I think Buddhism civilized the Chinese from the Sun Tzu eternal war making policy.
-------
Interesting perspective saar. Do you think India should go a rogue now? What benefits do we accrue if we do? Clearly the preeminent powers who are looking into the future as 'has beens', would not let India do what it wants without their express permission or inputs.

India has to maintain the unity of Asia. It is a great responsibility. Outside power desire a divided Asia so that they benefit.

India has to do the transformation of Asia so that China becomes a mature nation. India has to bring order and equilibrium in the region as India undergoes economic transformation.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1558
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Vivek K » 12 Jan 2017 23:57

India has to maintain the unity of Asia. It is a great responsibility. Outside power desire a divided Asia so that they benefit.

Really??

Vinayak ji - India has no such mandate and it should burden itself with such a no-win mission. India must care about its own national security only. Do you think that the ordinary Japanese is running around with such a concern? Who cares about the unity of Asia? Has anyone cared in the past?

India must stop saying foolish things like - peaceful nuclear explosion, harnessing atoms for peace, harnessing space for peace and so on. International Diplomacy is based upon - become as big a problem as you can and then a solution will emerge. Look at Pakistan - they have benefitted by this. So has China. India must change its docile, pacifist, hapless dame in distress outlook and look at forcing solutions using its military and economic power.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45375
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2017 01:12

Was listening to a talk show about China on Bloomberg radio.
China has about 3T reserves.
China flight of capital is ~1T a year since 2015.
As $ appreciates Renminbi/Yuan is getting devalued.
What is driving this is the Chinese fear that capital controls will be clamped down.
Secondly places like Shenzen the average apartment is $2M.
So people are selling and moving to Sidney, Vancouver, Los Angles.

The host asked when will all this come to a head?
The guest answered around 2018-2019 period.
What happens then?

Usually PRC solution is to start a war in the neighborhood: Tibet, India, Ussuri, Vietnam.
XiJin Peng could task his PLA to avert the crisis or the hardliners could take it upon themselves.

Take this a one data point.

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5108
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby IndraD » 13 Jan 2017 02:03

The US should block access to islands built by China in contested waters of the South China Sea, Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state says.
The comments, which are likely to hike tensions with Beijing, were made by Rex Tillerson at his confirmation hearing.
Beijing has been building artificial islands on reefs in waters also claimed by other nations.
Images published late last year show military defences on some islands, a think-tank says.
Mr Tillerson, appearing before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, likened China's island-building to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38593034

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13597
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chetak » 13 Jan 2017 02:32

ramana wrote:Was listening to a talk show about China on Bloomberg radio.
China has about 3T reserves.
China flight of capital is ~1T a year since 2015.
As $ appreciates Renminbi/Yuan is getting devalued.
What is driving this is the Chinese fear that capital controls will be clamped down.
Secondly places like Shenzen the average apartment is $2M.
So people are selling and moving to Sidney, Vancouver, Los Angles.

The host asked when will all this come to a head?
The guest answered around 2018-2019 period.
What happens then?

Usually PRC solution is to start a war in the neighborhood: Tibet, India, Ussuri, Vietnam.
XiJin Peng could task his PLA to avert the crisis or the hardliners could take it upon themselves.

Take this a one data point.


this is exactly why the hans are really upset about the Agni 5 and all it's serious implications for their future plans. India was not a country that they had taken seriously so far and the powers of the Indian commies in and out of the parliament has waned considerably.

The Modi factor has also upset everyone's apple cart, nationally and internationally. Modi's rise was not gamed by anyone with any degree of certainty, except perhaps the congis who went all out to bury him.

Still the hans have the pakis, bangladeshis and additionally including the territories of nepal and lanka to play their mischief in India.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19805
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Prem » 13 Jan 2017 02:48

Mischief is not same as waging war and defeating worthy opponent. War with Japan and India will extract huge cost from China and Vietnam have already given them bloody nose. PEE RC may lash put at Mongolia or Indonesia or may just take over 1/2 of Pakistan to console/ reward itself.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45375
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2017 06:44

Prem wrote:Mischief is not same as waging war and defeating worthy opponent. War with Japan and India will extract huge cost from China and Vietnam have already given them bloody nose. PEE RC may lash put at Mongolia or Indonesia or may just take over 1/2 of Pakistan to console/ reward itself.



That's just punishment for all their actions.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gagan, SBajwa and 21 guests