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: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 22 Apr 2017 18:18

Chinese Jihadis’ rise in Syria raises concerns at home - AP
Many don’t speak Arabic and their role in Syria is little known to the outside world, but the Chinese fighters of the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in the Arabic nation also known as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) are organised, battled-hardened and have been instrumental in ground offensives against President Bashar Assad’s forces in the country’s northern regions.

Thousands of Chinese Jihadis have come to Syria
since the country’s civil war began in March 2011 to fight against government forces and their allies. Some have joined the al-Qaeda’s branch in the country previously known as Nusra Front. Others paid allegiance to the Islamic State group and a smaller number joined factions such as the ultraconservative Ahrar al-Sham.

But the majority of Chinese Jihadis are with the TIP in Syria, whose vast majority are Chinese Muslims, particularly those from the Turkic-speaking Uighur majority native to Xinjiang in China. Their growing role in Syria has resulted in increased cooperation between Syrian and Chinese intelligence agencies, who fear those same Jihadis could one day return home and cause trouble there.

Their aim: remove Assad

Like most Jihadi groups in Syria, their aim is to remove Mr. Assad’s secular government from power and replace it with strict Islamic rule. Their participation in the war, which has left nearly 4,00,000 people dead, comes at a time when the Chinese government is one of Mr. Assad’s strongest international backers. Along with Russia, China has used its veto power at the United Nations Security Council on several occasions to prevent the imposition of international sanctions against its Arab ally.

Beijing has blamed violence back at home and against Chinese targets around the world on Islamic militants with foreign connections seeking an independent state in Xinjiang. The government says some of them are fleeing the country to join the Jihad, although critics say the Uighurs are discriminated against and economically marginalised in their homeland and are merely seeking to escape repressive rule by the majority Han Chinese.

Abu Dardaa al-Shami, a member of the now-defunct extremist Jund al-Aqsa group, said the TIP has the best “Inghemasiyoun,” Arabic for “those who immerse themselves.” The Inghemasiyoun have been used by extremist groups such as the IS and al-Qaeda’s affiliate now known as Fatah al-Sham Front. Their role is to infiltrate their targets, unleash mayhem and fight to the death before a major ground offensive begins.

‘Lions of ground offensives’

“They are the lions of ground offensives,” said al-Shami, who fought on several occasions alongside TIP fighters in northern Syria.

Xie Xiaoyuan, China’s envoy to Syria, told reporters in November that the two countries have had normal military exchanges focused on humanitarian issues, although Chinese officials have repeatedly rejected the possibility of sending troops or weapons.

In the last year, however, Chinese and Syrian officials have begun holding regular, once-a-month high-level meetings to share intelligence on militant movements in Syria, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“These people not only fight alongside international terrorist forces in Syria, but also they will possibly return to China posing threat to China’s national security,” said Li Wei, terrorism expert at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations and Director of the CICIR Institute of Security and Arms Control Studies.

5,000 Chinese fighters?

Rami Abdurrahman who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said there are about 5,000 {cannot believe that there are so many. If this were true, Uyghur would have seen much more violence all these years} Chinese fighters in Syria, most of them with the TIP fighters in northern Syria who along with their families make about 20,000. Mr. Li has said Mr. Abdurrahman’s numbers are way too high, adding that he believes the number are about 300 Chinese fighters in Syria who brought with them about 700 family members.

“As the control of the passage along the borders between Turkey and Syria is being tightened, it is becoming more difficult for them to smuggle into Syria,” Mr. Li said.

Syrian opposition activists and pro-government media outlets have said dozens of TIP fighters have carried out suicide attacks against government forces and their allies and for the past two years have led battles mostly in the north of the country.

The suicide attackers include one known as Shahid Allah al-Turkistani. He was shown in a video released by TIP taken from a drone of an attack in which he blew himself up in the vehicle he was driving near Aleppo late last year, allegedly killing dozens of pro-government gunmen.

In 2015, members of the group spearheaded an attack on the north-western province of Idlib and captured the strategic town of Jisr al-Shughour on the edge of Mr. Assad’s stronghold of Latakia region. They reportedly damaged a church in the town and raised their black flag on top of it.

In late 2016, TIP was a main force to briefly break a government siege on the then rebel-held eastern parts of the northern city of Aleppo.

They know more than others: Assad

The role of the Chinese Jihadis in Syria was a topic that Mr. Assad spoke about last month in an interview with Chinese PHOENIX TV, saying “they know your country more than the others, so they can do more harm in your country than others.”

Unlike other rebel groups, TIP is a very secretive organization and they live among themselves, according to activists in northern Syria. They are active in parts of Idlib and in the strategic town of Jisr al-Shughour, as well as the Kurdish Mountains in the western province of Latakia.

Abdul-Hakim Ramadan, a doctor who was active in Idlib province, said one of his teams was trying to enter a north-western village to vaccinate children when TIP fighters prevented them from entering, saying only Chinese can go into the area.

Mr. Ramadan said unlike other fighters who have come to Syria, the Chinese have not merged into local communities and the language has been a major barrier.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 526
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

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

Postby TKiran » 22 Apr 2017 19:01

To manage the Chinese threat, we have to do tit for tat. But han core doesn't have any borders with any neighbour, so it's almost impossible to do like what it does with the neighborhood, ofcourse the neighborhood is still far away from han core.

Let me explain, for example, if China encouraged the trouble makers in India, we can't reach the trouble makers in China, as there is physically too much of barrier is there. Even if we encourage the trouble makers in periphery, such as in Tibet or in Xinjiang, Chinese can paint all Tibetan as trouble makers and ruthlessly suppress them.

So we need to device some strategy to approach the trouble makers in Han core, till then China is safe and can encourage trouble makers inside India with out the fear of reprisals.

Even if India grows balls to disintegrate Pakistan, disintegrating China would still be very difficult, that I am realizing slowly.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1524
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 23 Apr 2017 00:33

anupmisra wrote:
IndraD wrote:buzz on SM is that road outside Chinese embassy in Delhi could be named after Dalai Lama.


Roads are usually named after dead people. Name that road - Free Tibet Road. The mailman who delivers mail to the embassy should be from Arunachal Pradesh.


I like the suggestion of Free Tibet Road also, but just to point out, the Dalai Lama is a title, not a person. So it doesn't matter if the current Dalai Lama is still alive. There were many before him, and will be many after him. So no probs in naming it Dalai Lama Road on that score.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 526
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

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

Postby TKiran » 23 Apr 2017 01:24

"Chinese Jihadis’ rise in Syria raises concerns at home "
This title is misleading, there are no Chinese jihadis, there are Uighur Terrorists, no Chinese jihadis.

For China, China is the Han core. Xinjiang is a province of China, where Uighur s are living still because, the place is not yet totally colonized. Once that happens, then it's time for integration.

They believe that nobody has balls to stop colonize the Xinjiang province with Han. They are correct in their calculation as well.

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 163
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

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

Postby tandav » 23 Apr 2017 01:30

Its interesting to note that India was the world largest producer (>90% capacity) of superior Potassium Nitrate (Saltpetre) the prime ingredient of Gunpowder from ~1300 AD through 1900s. India also had the ability to produce explosives and armaments using private enterprise. India's ability to make gunpowder and saltpetre firearms prevented the Mongols from entering India while the Mongols were able to easily conquer China after learning Indian Saltpetre technology. interestingly I think Cow/Cattle/Human Urine was the major raw materials for the the fecund production of Saltpetre that dwarfed the productions from all other nations as we had the largest cattle herds in the entire world.

PRC claims gunpowder as its civilizational heritage potentially usurping it from India but could never manufacture it in bulk, there are reports of an Indian sage transmitting saltpetre chemistry knowledge to his chinese counterparts along with Dharmic philosophy. In Usurping Indian heritage communists from PRC are ably assisted by noted Sinophiles like Needham. It's time to reassert and reclaim India's civilization heritage from the history concocting geniuses with a southern coast in the Ancient Champa sea with a penchant for renaming stuff.

Very interesting account of History of Saltpetre and its Indian origins in this blog here.
starting in Feb 2016 through June 2016
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.in/2016/02/the-history-of-saltpeter-i.html
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.in/2016/06/the-history-of-saltpeter-xix.html

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5456
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

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

Postby anupmisra » 23 Apr 2017 21:22

The Hindu has a nice article on this chini claim on AP.

Most places renamed by China have Dalai Lama, Tibet links: expert

Most of the six places in Arunachal Pradesh that China renamed recently have some significance related to the Dalai Lama or Tibet, a China expert said on Sunday.
China had earlier this week given a new name, Wo’gyainling, to Guling Gompa, located on the outskirts of Tawang. This is the place where the sixth Dalai Lama was born.
Daporijo town in Upper Subansiri district was named Mila Ri. It is located besides the river Subansiri, which is one of the principal rivers of Arunachal Pradesh and a major tributary of the Brahmaputra.
Bumla, the place where the Dalai Lama made his first stopover during his April 4-13 visit to Arunachal Pradesh, has also been renamed by the Chinese as Bumola.
Namaka Chu area has been renamed as Namkapub Ri, he said, adding the area has a huge potential for hydro-electricity.
China renamed a sixth place as Qoidengarbo Ri area but it is not clear which place in Arunachal Pradesh it refers to.


So, why is china interested in AP?

According to Prof. Kondapalli, these areas also have a huge potential for agriculture and fisheries besides hydro-electricity. All these places came into prominence in the 1980s when several Chinese strategic scholars started writing about them, saying these could solve problems of electricity and vegetation in Tibet, he said.These green areas, capable of producing vast quantities of food, were seen by Chinese scholars as the “apple of the eye” of the Tibet region, which is generally dry, Prof. Kondapalli said.
Prof. Kondapalli suggested that India can hit back at China by renaming Aksai Chin and Mansarovar areas, which are under Chinese occupation but claimed by India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 24 Apr 2017 09:26

Beijing’s Belt-Road plan overshadows BCIM meet - Suvojit Bagchi, The Hindu
Despite the scheduled presence of a 30-member Chinese delegation led by a Senior Vice-Minister of State Development and Planning Ministry, the meeting here [Kolkatta] next week of the Joint Study Group of the Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar (BCIM) has evoked little interest. The Indian delegation will be led by a former Ambassador, Rajeet Mitter, and include an Additional Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs [MEA]. The Bangladesh and Myanmar teams are considerably smaller.

The two-day meeting of the Joint Study Group, a sub-regional group of the BCIM, is to review economic integration of the region focussing on trade and energy cooperation while facilitating the construction of an economic corridor from Kumning in south-west China to Kolkata.

However, none of the sides are very hopeful about the outcome of the Kolkata meeting. Officials of the participating countries told The Hindu that the “interest generated” about the economic corridor in 2013 “is missing.”


The idea of the economic corridor, about 3,000 kilometres in length, from Kunming to Kolkata — via Mandalay in Myanmar, Imphal and Silchar in India, Dhaka and Jessore in Bangladesh, — gained momentum following the meeting in 2013 between Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Two subsequent meetings were held — one in Kunming (2013) and the other in Cox’s Bazaar in Bangladesh (2014). Though the Study Group was to have met in six months, the meeting will take place next week.

The reasons for the low key meeting are manifold, explained by a former Indian diplomat. “There is a change of government in Delhi which may have triggered some re-thinking on various projects including BCIM,” he said.

Chinese Consul General in Kolkata Ma Zhanwu, however, sounded optimistic. “Compared to our participation in the earlier BCIM meet, we have only scaled it up. A senior Vice Minister is coming with a team of nearly 30 members and many of them are very important in China,” he said.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 24 Apr 2017 13:53

China is so rattled that it has been giving unsolicited advice to India for a while now.

The below is one more in the long list.

India should focus more on economic development: Chinese media - PTI
India should focus less on speeding up the process of building aircraft carriers to contain China in the Indian Ocean and more on its economic development, Chinese official media said on Monday.

"New Delhi is perhaps too impatient to develop an aircraft carrier. The country is still in its initial stage of industrialisation, and there will be many technical obstacles that stand in the way of a build-up of aircraft carriers," an article in the state-run Global Times said.

"In the past few decades, India and China have taken different paths in terms of aircraft carriers, but the different results achieved by the two countries point to the underlying importance of economic development," it said.

"New Delhi should perhaps be less eager to speed up the process of building aircraft carriers in order to counter China's growing sway in the Indian Ocean, and focus more on its economy," it said.

China yesterday celebrated 68th anniversary of the establishment of its navy amid massive expansion of its fleet.


A fleet of three Chinese naval ships left Shanghai in the morning for a friendly visit to more than 20 countries in Asia, Europe and Africa.

"With the expansion of foreign trade, as well as China's 'One Belt and One Road' initiative, the Chinese navy has taken on a new mission, which is to protect the country's overseas interests," a report in the same daily said.

As a consequence, China's military strategy for the navy has changed and it must increase its presence overseas to meet the new requirements, military expert Song Zhongping said.

As a signature achievement of the navy, the Liaoning aircraft carrier built from an empty hull of former Soviet ship has finished its blue sea training, he said.

While the Chinese navy flexed muscle with massive expansion of overseas with new "logistic" based in Gwadar in Pakistan and Djibouti in the Indian Ocean, the Chinese official media sought to project India deploying aircraft carriers decades ahead of China in a negative light.

"As the world's second-largest economy, China is now capable of building a strong navy to safeguard the security of strategic maritime channels. China's construction of its first aircraft carrier is a result of economic development," an article in the Global Times said.


"The country would have finished work on it several years ago if Beijing had simply wanted to engage in an arms race to have more influence in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions," the article said in defence of China deploying its first aircraft carrier in 1912.

"India itself could be taken as a negative example for a build-up of aircraft carriers," it said.

Unlike China, India operated the aircraft carrier since 1961.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 24 Apr 2017 14:47

SSridhar wrote:China is so rattled that it has been giving unsolicited advice to India for a while now.

The below is one more in the long list.

India should focus more on economic development: Chinese media - PTI


First the 10 hours taking over Delhi and now about the carrier. This is good. I hope the Chinese do more of it.
So far the Chinese have been bullying us behind the scene through babus and Pakis, which the GoI has been covering up.

The Chinese needs to force GoI in a corner. .. and speed up modernisation of the forces.

It will remove any remnants of "Indi chini bhai bhai" from the population & IFS.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3455
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

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

Postby sanjaykumar » 24 Apr 2017 20:46

Perhaps china should empower their own sheeple before projecting power abroad. Charity begins at home or are the Chinese sub humans not deserving of rights?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 25 Apr 2017 04:58

Occasional hiccups in Sino-India ties due to border issue: Jaitley - PTI
Amid Sino-India differences, Union Minister Arun Jaitley said today that occasional hiccups in bilateral ties would arise due to the "unsettled" border issue.

"We believe that it is important that the border gets settled because that is in the interest of regional peace. Obviously, you will have occasionally some issues arising because of that unsettled situation," Jaitley said at the Council on Foreign Relations, a prominent American think tank.

Jaitley, who came to New York yesterday after attending the annual Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, said the Sino-India border was still an "unsettled border".

"In 2003 the prime minister visited China...I had accompanied him and we had a mechanism set up in order to resolve and define the border itself. Since 2003, that mechanism has not been able to come out with an answer," he said referring to the 19 rounds of talks between the Special Representatives of the two countries.

"Our economic relationship has strengthened significantly. There is a lot of trade between India and China that takes place. Now that is one area of strength that has picked up,"
said Jaitley, who holds the additional charge of the Defence Ministry.

Jaitley's remarks come amid differences between India and China on a host of issues.

rsangram
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 20 Sep 2016 17:54

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

Postby rsangram » 25 Apr 2017 05:30

SSridhar wrote:Occasional hiccups in Sino-India ties due to border issue: Jaitley - PTI
Amid Sino-India differences, Union Minister Arun Jaitley said today that occasional hiccups in bilateral ties would arise due to the "unsettled" border issue.

"We believe that it is important that the border gets settled because that is in the interest of regional peace. Obviously, you will have occasionally some issues arising because of that unsettled situation," Jaitley said at the Council on Foreign Relations, a prominent American think tank.

Jaitley, who came to New York yesterday after attending the annual Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, said the Sino-India border was still an "unsettled border".

"In 2003 the prime minister visited China...I had accompanied him and we had a mechanism set up in order to resolve and define the border itself. Since 2003, that mechanism has not been able to come out with an answer," he said referring to the 19 rounds of talks between the Special Representatives of the two countries.

"Our economic relationship has strengthened significantly. There is a lot of trade between India and China that takes place. Now that is one area of strength that has picked up,"
said Jaitley, who holds the additional charge of the Defence Ministry.

Jaitley's remarks come amid differences between India and China on a host of issues.


Why is Jaitley sounding like an apologist for China ? Sidestepping all the majorly serious issues like CPEC, like Aksai Chin, like holding on to our J&K, like arming and nuclearizing Paki, like creating instability in our NE by supporting rebel groups, like constantly rubbing us the wrong way on visa issues, like stapled visas etc, like opposing us at every stage in international fora, like providing our enemies like PAki, great succor, like conspiring against us, like trying to encircle us with string of pearls, like trying to turn Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal and BanglaDesh against us, like laying claims to Arunachal, like encroaching into Indian territory and systematically swallowing our territory inch by inch, like conducting a genocide against Indic Tibetans, like denying us entry into NSG, like impudently and stubbornly refusing to sort out the border issue, like being assholes in general.........and I can keep going on and on.......

Why is he trying to sidestep all the above issues and talking about trade and "occasional" issues with China. And if this guy passes for intelligent in our country, I shudder for my country, I am terrified for my country..........and may I ask, why Modi is tolerating a gutless, spineless, father of all corrupt, Mani Shankar Aiyerish nit with like Jaitley ?

It is bad enough that this MF was handling finance, was it necessary to give him defense too ?

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2695
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 25 Apr 2017 10:03

Rsangram, think of his audience. Where did Jaitley say this? At the CFR, an American Stink Tank, in New York.

Would you have wanted him to go in front of this institution and regurgitate your long list of Chinese affronts to India, painting a picture of India as a helpless wailing victim in the face of Chinese aggression?

What purpose would that have served other than rona dhona? Are we Pakis who have to construct a victimhood narrative so that the Americans will fill our begging bowl?

There is a time and a place for belligerent posturing in the international diplomatic theatre... and that is when it serves some greater strategic purpose, such as establishing causus belli when we are ready to strike. Otherwise why should we give any hint to anyone that anything China does is bothering us?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 25 Apr 2017 14:25

rsangram wrote: Sidestepping all the majorly serious issues like CPEC, like Aksai Chin, like holding on to our J&K, like arming and nuclearizing Paki, like creating instability in our NE by supporting rebel groups, like constantly rubbing us the wrong way on visa issues, like stapled visas etc, like opposing us at every stage in international fora, like providing our enemies like PAki, great succor, like conspiring against us, like trying to encircle us with string of pearls, like trying to turn Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal and BanglaDesh against us, like laying claims to Arunachal, like encroaching into Indian territory and systematically swallowing our territory inch by inch, like conducting a genocide against Indic Tibetans, like denying us entry into NSG, like impudently and stubbornly refusing to sort out the border issue, like being assholes in general.........and I can keep going on and on.......

All these issues must be well known to those in CFR.

The one thing that he has confirmed is that the border talks have made no movement. IMO, when he says that unsettled borders are an impediment to 'regional peace', then, that is a strong statement. There is no ambiguity here as to who is the culprit for unsettled borders given the fact that the Chinese greed for territory (and everything else, for that matter) is pretty well known too. A Tamil saying which translated, says 'inserting a needle into a banana', fits Jaitley's exposition well, again in my view.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 25 Apr 2017 14:53

Beijing won't make concessions to India in border dispute: Chinese expert - Economic Times
Renaming of six places by China in Arunachal Pradesh was not in retaliation for the Dalai Lama's visit to the state, but a way to convey Beijing's resoluteness in not making any concessions to New Delhi in border talks, a Chinese expert has said.

Long Xingchun, Director at the Centre for Indian Studies at China West Normal University, said Beijing was magnanimous in not retaliating against New Delhi's provocations by arranging the Tibetan spiritual leader's repeated visits to Arunachal Pradesh.

He also said some "radical" Indians were naive in thinking that New Delhi could out-do Beijing in armed clashes.

In fact, Long said, India, which had more advantages in the 1962 war with China, should learn from its "erroneous strategic judgements".

"Indian media outlets believe the move (renaming of six towns in Arunachal Pradesh) is China's revenge against the 14th Dalai Lama's visit to the disputed region on the China-India border. The standardisation of names demonstrates China is less likely to make concessions in border negotiations with India." Long wrote in the state-run Global Times daily.

"New Delhi has arranged the Dalai Lama to visit the disputed area several times, attempting to strengthen control over South Tibet. Beijing, for the sake of friendly ties with New Delhi, only lodged diplomatic representations rather than taking retaliatory measures against India's provocations."

Beijing calls the spiritual leader as a secessionist and claims Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet.

China and India fought a brief war in 1962 over the region in which the latter was defeated.

"Border disputes are core conflicts between Beijing and New Delhi. The 1962 Sino-Indian border clashes turned the friendly bilateral relationship into a confrontation."

"Since the mechanism of the Special Representatives' Meeting for the China-India Boundary Question was established in 2003, China and India have held 19 rounds of border talks. Both sides have kept border disputes under control and prevented them from impacting their diplomatic bilateral ties.

"The two countries should exercise restraint on border disputes so as to maintain peace and tranquility, and in the meantime, create favourable conditions for negotiations."

"Some radical Indians believe India's military strength has seen rapid growth and are eager to triumph over China in potential armed clashes. In fact, India had more advantages in 1962, and it should learn from its erroneous strategic judgments and carefully evaluate the current international situation." Long added.

Long admitted the issues of India's clamouring for a berth in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and branding Pakistani militant Masood Azhar as an international terrorist were two "friction points" between New Delhi and Beijing.

Last year, China rejected New Delhi's application to enter the elite Nuclear Suppliers Group and put a technical hold on its resolution against Azhar, who India calls a chief plotter of attack on its army base.

"The two events have triggered anti-China protests in India. The Indian government allowed and even encouraged its public to boycott Chinese goods, and has arranged the Dalai Lama's visit to South Tibet as a reprisal against Beijing." {That's the arrogance. Thumbing his nose and asking an implied question, 'What can you do about that?'}

"In fact, the Chinese government attaches great importance to its relationship with India. Beijing wants to work together with New Delhi to keep the conflicts under control, stabilise the bilateral relations, enhance economic cooperation and encourage more Chinese enterprises to invest in India."

"These are beneficial to Modi's 'Made in India' ambition and the country's economic development," Long added.

rsangram
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 20 Sep 2016 17:54

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

Postby rsangram » 25 Apr 2017 17:57

Rudradev wrote:Rsangram, think of his audience. Where did Jaitley say this? At the CFR, an American Stink Tank, in New York.

Would you have wanted him to go in front of this institution and regurgitate your long list of Chinese affronts to India, painting a picture of India as a helpless wailing victim in the face of Chinese aggression?

What purpose would that have served other than rona dhona? Are we Pakis who have to construct a victimhood narrative so that the Americans will fill our begging bowl?

There is a time and a place for belligerent posturing in the international diplomatic theatre... and that is when it serves some greater strategic purpose, such as establishing causus belli when we are ready to strike. Otherwise why should we give any hint to anyone that anything China does is bothering us?


I dont think raising the "other party's" belligerence strongly, in any way equates to or conveys "helplessness" or "weakness". If that were the case, US, which is a habitual and serial complainer, or wailer, would be construed as weak. To the contrary, NOT raising such issues is a sign of actual weakness and it is perceived as such, particularly in Washington.

Besides, everyone knows Indian weaknesses internationally. They are not hidden to anyone. It is only within India that we have drunk the cool aid that India will be the next super power. The Indians have become amazingly Don Quixote-sque. They think by not talking about someone else vicimizing us is a sign of strength and we will be able to fool the world into thinking that we are strong by concealing that fact that the Indians get brutally raped everyday by the Chinese.

Let me explain something to you. There should be no stigma attached to being a rape victim. The stigma should be on the rape perpetrator. We, in India have a long tradition of attaching stigma to the victim, and are being collectively as Indians now being victimized by this mindset and the perpetrators, meaning the Chinese keep getting a free pass because of our own sense of shame at being victimized and they, the Chinese get even more emboldened every day.

As an example, look at this link below. This article came out just today and is right on the money and to my point.

http://www.newsweek.com/john-elliott-when-india-and-china-compete-india-always-loses-588771

and yet another one that came out today

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-24/why-china-s-new-aircraft-carrier-should-worry-india?cmpId=yhoo.headline&utm_campaign=headline&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 25 Apr 2017 19:48

IMO, the NoKo issue must not be settled one way or another, by force or talks. This must be a festering wound with increasing pain for China itself. If China wants to use NoKo as its cat's paw against the US or Japan, then the tables must be turned and China must be made to devote increasingly more energy & efforts on the NoKo issue. In the early 50s, it was the Korean issue that saved Chiang-kei-Shek's Taiwan from being swallowed by Mao because attention was turned to the Korean War by China for three or four years.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2695
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 25 Apr 2017 21:02

rsangram wrote:I dont think raising the "other party's" belligerence strongly, in any way equates to or conveys "helplessness" or "weakness". If that were the case, US, which is a habitual and serial complainer, or wailer, would be construed as weak. To the contrary, NOT raising such issues is a sign of actual weakness and it is perceived as such, particularly in Washington.


Can you provide ONE piece of evidence that NOT raising "such issues" (meaning, crying that some other country did X, Y, Z to you) is perceived as a sign of "actual weakness" in Washington?

The US complains when it is actually ready to do something about the thing it is complaining about. Not before. Immediately after complaining it takes action, either unilaterally or as the head of a multilateral "coalition", against the entity it is complaining about. That is why the US is not seen as weak.

According to you we should raise "such issues". Can you explain why? What would the benefit be? When we are ready to act against China, then of course we should make the case for acting against China (just as Indira Gandhi visited a large number of world capitals making the case about Pakistan's genocide of Bengalis just prior to the 1971 war).

Are we ready right now to act against China? Do we have everything in place right now, to act against China as we acted against Pakistan in 1971?

If we do not... what exactly is gained by making a loud, whiny case about China's wrongdoing (as you recommend :(( ) and then NOT acting on it?

Do you think that will be perceived as a sign of "actual strength" in Washington? :D

Besides, everyone knows Indian weaknesses internationally. They are not hidden to anyone. It is only within India that we have drunk the cool aid that India will be the next super power. The Indians have become amazingly Don Quixote-sque. They think by not talking about someone else vicimizing us is a sign of strength and we will be able to fool the world into thinking that we are strong by concealing that fact that the Indians get brutally raped everyday by the Chinese.


So your logic is as follows
1) "The Indians" (not just Jaitley, but presumably all Indians from Ajit Doval to Barkha Dutt) have drunk the "cool aid" and come to the "Don Quixote-sque" conclusion that we are the next super power.
2) These "Indians" also think that by NOT complaining we will "fool the world into thinking we are strong".
3) These same "Indians" are getting "brutally raped" everyday by the Chinese.
4) Therefore the solution is for "the Indians" (in particular, Arun Jaitley) to go before the whole world and yell and cry that we are getting raped by the Chinese, long before we are ready to actually take action against the Chinese.
5) This will convince the world that we are actually strong. :roll:

Let me explain something to you. There should be no stigma attached to being a rape victim. The stigma should be on the rape perpetrator. We, in India have a long tradition of attaching stigma to the victim, and are being collectively as Indians now being victimized by this mindset and the perpetrators, meaning the Chinese keep getting a free pass because of our own sense of shame at being victimized and they, the Chinese get even more emboldened every day.


As an example, look at this link below. This article came out just today and is right on the money and to my point.

http://www.newsweek.com/john-elliott-when-india-and-china-compete-india-always-loses-588771


Have you read this article at all, or did you just start shivering when you saw the title?

I can count at least two places in the article where the author John Elliott expresses his contempt for India complaining while being unable to do anything about it. Which is exactly your recommendation for what Jaitley should have done while visiting the CFR in New York.

No surprise, by the way, that John Elliott, writer of the following articles/books about "The Indians":
John Elliott : Hindu Hard-Liners in India Threaten Meat Eaters

John Elliott: Implosion: India’s Tryst With Reality


John Elliott: In India, Intolerance Undermines Modi’s Reforms


is someone whose views you describe as "right on the money" and "to your point".

Why not try to decolonize your own mind to at least a rudimentary level before you start dispensing gratuitous advice to "The Indians"?



Ah, this article is by the one and only Mihir Simon Sharma. Makes ample sense that we should listen to him and shiver in our dhotis about China's new Aircraft Carrier.

Meanwhile the Global Times (PRC government mouthpiece) is telling India that India should focus less on building aircraft carriers and more on "economic development". That sounds to me like the Chinese are worried about India building aircraft carriers. But what do I know. Maybe I am just ignorant and drinking the cool aid. Better that I should listen to you and learn to think like a rape victim :rotfl:

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 819
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

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

Postby Liu » 25 Apr 2017 21:09

well,during Mao era,china obviously wanted to make a deal of Acsai chin for souther Tibet with india.(acsai china to china while acknowledge Machmaho line)

even the overwhelming victory in 1962 did not change Chinese idea.

however, now lt seems that china now wants both.

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

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

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 25 Apr 2017 21:17

And they are not going to get it. India wants an independent, democratic, pluralistic, self respecting Tibet, closely tied to India, but of course possessing autonomy of behaviour with respect to its foreign relations. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, but its more likely than India handing over some territory to Chinese imperialists.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3455
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

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

Postby sanjaykumar » 25 Apr 2017 21:55

But Tibet is the Tibet Autonomous Region. We already have our wishes. Just as China is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

One needs a fine Chinese intellect to hold contradictions with equanimity.

rsangram
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 20 Sep 2016 17:54

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

Postby rsangram » 25 Apr 2017 22:06

Rudradev wrote:
Can you provide ONE piece of evidence that NOT raising "such issues" (meaning, crying that some other country did X, Y, Z to you) is perceived as a sign of "actual weakness" in Washington?

The US complains when it is actually ready to do something about the thing it is complaining about. Not before. Immediately after complaining it takes action, either unilaterally or as the head of a multilateral "coalition", against the entity it is complaining about. That is why the US is not seen as weak.

According to you we should raise "such issues". Can you explain why? What would the benefit be? When we are ready to act against China, then of course we should make the case for acting against China (just as Indira Gandhi visited a large number of world capitals making the case about Pakistan's genocide of Bengalis just prior to the 1971 war).

Are we ready right now to act against China?

Makes ample sense that we should listen to him and shiver in our dhotis about China's new Aircraft Carrier.

Meanwhile the Global Times (PRC government mouthpiece) is telling India that India should focus less on building aircraft carriers and more on "economic development". That sounds to me like the Chinese are worried about India building aircraft carriers. But what do I know. Maybe I am just ignorant and drinking the cool aid. Better that I should listen to you and learn to think like a rape victim :rotfl:


Yeah, when all else fails, resort to the stock phrase "dhoti shiver" :rotfl: - this phrase is the last refuge, not of a scoundrel but someone who cannot counter anything with logic. Because Indians who use the phrase "Dhoti Shiver" are no different than black folk who use the word "nigger" under the guise of humor.

Evidence of US perception of India as weak ? Where do I begin.......let me see....how about, arming Pakistan through the teeth for the past 50 years, despite knowing that the weapons will be used against India ? Only someone who perceives India as weak can do that. I can go on and on and on, but even the internet does not have enough pages for me to list out US perfidy, duplicity and double talk, which a country only does to another country who they perceive will never retaliate or do not have the ability to hit back.

Is the criteria for raising an issue in the international fora is, that you only raise it when you are ready to go to war against the other party ? If you think so, I have nothing to argue with you about.........just record yourself and hear it 10 times and you will yourself get the flaw in your logic.

You are not ignorant, just an outdated Indian.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10589
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

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

Postby Suraj » 26 Apr 2017 01:10

Liu wrote:well,during Mao era,china obviously wanted to make a deal of Acsai chin for souther Tibet with india.(acsai china to china while acknowledge Machmaho line)

even the overwhelming victory in 1962 did not change Chinese idea.

however, now lt seems that china now wants both.

And will end up with neither of them...

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2695
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 26 Apr 2017 02:00

rsangram wrote:
Yeah, when all else fails, resort to the stock phrase "dhoti shiver" :rotfl: - this phrase is the last refuge, not of a scoundrel but someone who cannot counter anything with logic. Because Indians who use the phrase "Dhoti Shiver" are no different than black folk who use the word "nigger" under the guise of humor.


I must apologize RSangram ji. I accused you of old-fashioned Dhoti Shiver when you were in fact proposing a path-breaking and disruptive paradigm shift: Dhoti Wetting, Yellowing, and Browning by a minister of the GOI while weeping like a little girl in front of a phoren stink tank. That makes a LOT more sense :D

Evidence of US perception of India as weak ? Where do I begin.......let me see....how about, arming Pakistan through the teeth for the past 50 years, despite knowing that the weapons will be used against India ? Only someone who perceives India as weak can do that.



No doubt you believe the US would have stopped arming Pakistan, if only India had proved how "strong" it was by complaining bitterly and impotently about Pakistan's aggression.

That must be why Manmohan Singh launched a furious campaign of presenting dossiers to the US government after the 26/11 attacks. To stop the US from arming Pakistan by demonstrating our "strength" :lol: Worked wonderfully, didn't it?

This kind of reasoning would earn you a position as strategic advisor to the UPA shadow cabinet.

I can go on and on and on, but even the internet does not have enough pages for me to list out US perfidy, duplicity and double talk, which a country only does to another country who they perceive will never retaliate or do not have the ability to hit back.


So in your view, why has the US consistently approached Russia with perfidy, duplicity, and double talk?

Is it because they believe Russia will never retaliate, or because they believe Russia does not have the ability to hit back?


Is the criteria for raising an issue in the international fora is, that you only raise it when you are ready to go to war against the other party ? If you think so, I have nothing to argue with you about.........just record yourself and hear it 10 times and you will yourself get the flaw in your logic.


The only reason to raise an issue in international fora is to send a signal to international audiences. Official representatives of the GOI making public statements while abroad are engaged in an aspect of diplomatic posturing, nothing more or less than that.

Whether it is war, or sanctions, or retaliatory economic/diplomatic/political measures... if you don't follow up your tough talk with some kind of action, you end up damaging your credibility when making statements in the future.

In fact, it is India's repeated raising of Pakistani terrorism in international fora, coupled with the fact that India itself hasn't declared Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, that makes India look weak. Or perhaps you think that is a show of "strength" as well?

You are not ignorant, just an outdated Indian.
Admittedly. And you are an extremely modern, sensitive, and prophetic Indian who demonstrates your strength by complaining bitterly for the sake of complaining. :mrgreen:

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 Apr 2017 02:25

Liu wrote:well,during Mao era,china obviously wanted to make a deal of Acsai chin for souther Tibet with india.(acsai china to china while acknowledge Machmaho line)

even the overwhelming victory in 1962 did not change Chinese idea.

however, now lt seems that china now wants both.

Liu what china wants is getting as complicated as "What Women Want". China wants IndoChina Sea, Senkaku Islands, Arunachal, Aksai Chin, ports in SL, pakistan. Soon she will want entire Pakistan, Nepal, African nations and basically everyone that owes you money (possibly US too).
But wake up, the world had not, doesnt and will not work this way and the the fact is you're not gonna get either of the two places you mentioned. You may get some places i mentioned for sometime either militarily or diplomatically. In a manner very similar to Japan and Germany before WW2 period, but that's it.
The way china is going it's just a matter of time when china bares its fangs. After that you will be neutered. Irrespective of what the costs to china, India, US and rest of the world are. No matter how great your industrial/manufacturing and techno base are today and will become in future.
All china will have for her company is Pakistan, NoKo Phillipines and may be Iran. Rest all will despise her and all the theatrics you are doing will come to bite you. You will be the third axis of evil. You are bound to fail, no matter what your propaganda machine tells you
To avoid that, here's advice from an Indian (on the lines of a random chinese advising India),
1. china should focus on maintaining regional peace and order by not arming rogue terrorist nations e.g. Pakistan and North Korea
2. Should try to win the trust of neighbours by not meddling in other countries political and economic affairs
3. focus on it's ageing population without significant healthcare and family support
4. Should focus on peaceful transition to a democratic system to ensure that it's political system do not implode as they have repeatedly in past thereby resulting in death of millions of innocent chinese citizens
5. Should ensure it's vast resources are deployed to the betterment of humanity and not in the pollution of our planet earth e.g. installation of coal plants around CPEC
6. Stop funding trolls on various internet forums
7. Teach correct history in schools and so that their citizens do not play a victim card of being raped by Japan while boasting of being world beaters for most the history and regaining her rightful position today

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 26 Apr 2017 13:44

rsangram & Rudradev: you have PM.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 26 Apr 2017 19:11

Asean leaders seen going soft on South China Sea feud, according to draft communique - Straits Times
MANILA - South-east Asian leaders will express "serious concerns" over disputes in the South China Sea, but they will also avoid confronting China with an arbitration decision striking down its claims over the strategic waterway, according to a draft communique to be issued at the end of their annual summit in Manila this week.

"We shared the serious concerns expressed by some leaders over recent developments and escalation of activities in the area which may further raise tensions and erode trust and confidence in the region," read the draft of the "chairman's statement" that will be issued at the end of the meeting.

A draft of the communique was provided by a source to several reporters.

The 30th Asean Summit meetings starting on Wednesday (April 26) will see the grouping's foreign ministers meet on Friday and culminate in the leaders' summit on Saturday. Asean leaders, including Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, will attend Saturday's summit.

The draft statement, however, does not mention in 20 pages the ruling handed down last year on a case initiated by former president Benigno Aquino invalidating China's claims to nearly all of the South China Sea.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who is hosting the summit as Asean chair, has been warming once-frosty ties with China.

He has set aside the South China Sea ruling, as he seeks investments and loans from Beijing to help with his anti-crime drive and ambitious infrastructure spending programme.

The draft statement repeats language of concern already used in past Asean communiques.

"We reaffirmed the importance of enhancing mutual trust and confidence, exercising self-restraint in the conduct of activities, avoiding actions that may further complicate the the situation, and pursuing peaceful resolution of disputes," it read.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 26 Apr 2017 19:42

Liu wrote:well,during Mao era,china obviously wanted to make a deal of Acsai chin for souther Tibet with india.(acsai china to china while acknowledge Machmaho line)

even the overwhelming victory in 1962 did not change Chinese idea.

however, now lt seems that china now wants both.
What overwhelming victory??? You guys first took advantage of our goodwill, helped by our idiotic PM to come into our territory. In process got MORE of your blokes killed. When you knew, you had NO way to hold on to a resolute Indian response, you ran back like chickens. Proved again in 1967 and 1986 that you have no strength to fight us and "teach us a lesson". You have no way to threaten us and if we decide to call on your bluff of changing names et al with some action on the border, you will have nowhere to hide and you know it, hence the empty talk in the hope that you will have another gullible leadership. The only thing we have not done yet is launch a psychological assault on the dirty CPC.

Now, it seems China wants both --- ofcourse, its like being in a candy store, is it not? ?I want this, that....Time to teach China a lesson.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20086
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 26 Apr 2017 22:46

http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/25 ... -pub-68754
Protecting American Primacy in the Indo-Pacific
RECOGNIZING CHINA AS AN EMERGING GLOBAL COMPETITOR
The rise of China as a major economic power in recent decades is owed fundamentally to conscious policy decisions in Beijing aimed at fostering industrialization in order to produce a variety of goods for export to international markets. The success of this strategy remains a testament to the global trading order maintained and protected by the United States. Until the mid-1990s, China sought to utilize the gains from its early export-led growth strategy to mainly raise its standards of living at home rather than seek greater influence abroad. Since the March 1996 Taiwan crisis, however, China has made a concerted shift toward a strategy of building up its military capabilities with an eye to preventing any U.S. intervention along its maritime periphery that might undermine its core interests. Soon thereafter, it also began a comprehensive modernization of its land forces to ensure that its continental borders—along with any associated claims—are adequately protected. This effort has been complemented by the upgrading of its nuclear forces to ensure that Beijing possesses an effective counter-coercion capability against capable competitors such as the United States.In addition to the military investments aimed at preserving a cordon sanitaire up to the “first island chain,” China is steadily acquiring various air, naval, and missile capabilities that will allow it to project power up to the “second island chain” and beyond while beginning to establish a permanent naval presence in the Indian Ocean. In support of what is likely to be a global military presence by mid-century, China has embarked on the acquisition of maritime facilities in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea; it is exploring additional acquisitions to support a naval presence along the East and West African coasts and would in time acquire the capability to maintain some sort of a naval presence in the Western Hemisphere on a more or less permanent basis.Even a cursory glance at the weapon systems China now has in service or in development confirms the proposition that Beijing’s interests range far beyond the Asian rimlands: these include new advanced surface and subsurface platforms (such as aircraft carriers, large amphibious vessels, destroyers for long-range anti-surface and anti-air warfare, and nuclear submarines), large transport aircraft, exotic and advanced missilery, space-based communications, intelligence, navigation, and meteorological systems, and rapidly expanding information and electronic warfare capabilities. Taken together, these suggest that the Chinese leadership now views the future of its military operating environment in global terms. Even if the Chinese economy slows from its historically high growth rates, China will still have the financial resources to deploy significant military capabilities, primarily naval, around the Afro-Asian periphery to begin with, while maintaining a capability for presence and sea denial in the Western Hemisphere by the middle of this century.
One Road (OBOR) plan. Even as this scheme is being feverishly implemented, Chinese military power has gradually acquired the capacity to operate at greater distances from home—a presence now witnessed in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, which in a few decades will extend to the Atlantic and the Arctic oceans as well.
If this strategy writ large were to succeed, it would result in the successful decoupling of the United States from Asia, it would entrench Chinese dominance on the continent, and it would ultimately defeat the one grand strategic goal singularly pursued by the United States since the beginning of the twentieth century: preventing the dominance of the Eurasian landmass by any hegemonic power. Yet, it is precisely this outcome that will obtain if the United States weakens in economic and technological achievement; if it fails to maintain superior military capabilities overall; and if it diminishes in capacity and resolve to protect its alliances located at both the western and eastern extremities of the Eurasian heartland.An effective response to this evolving Chinese challenge must be grounded in a clear recognition of the fact—and a willingness to admit first and foremost to ourselves—that China is already a long-term military competitor of the United States despite the presence of strong bilateral economic ties; that it will be our most significant geopolitical rival in an increasingly, yet asymmetrically, bipolar international system; and that it will be a challenger not merely along the Indo-Pacific rimlands but eventually also in Eurasia, Africa, Latin America, and their adjoining waters. To offer just one probative illustration, the Chinese navy is likely to surpass the U.S. navy in the number of major combatants sometime in the second quarter of this century. With a fleet of such size and arguably comparable capabilities, it would be myopic to believe that Chinese military interests would be restricted merely to the western Pacific and the Indian Oceans. The time has come, therefore, to think more seriously about China as an emerging global competitor with widely ranging, and often legitimate, economic and institutional interests, rather than merely as a local Asian power that will forever be content to subsist under the umbrella of unchallenged American global hegemony.

PRESERVING U.S. GLOBAL PRIMACY AND REGIONAL PREEMINENCE IN THE INDO-PACIFIC

The first and perhaps most important task facing the United States today—a task rendered more urgent because of the recent election of President Donald J. Trump—is the need for a clear and public commitment to the preservation of U.S. global primacy and its regional preeminence in the Indo-Pacific. The distractions accompanying the slogan “American First” have created uncertainty in the minds of both U.S. allies and competitors about whether Washington still remains committed to protecting its position in the international system and preserving the international institutions that legitimize its leadership worldwide. Since the election, the president has taken important and welcome steps to reaffirm the value of key alliances such as NATO and those with Japan and South Korea, but there still persist lingering doubts in key capitals around the world and especially in the Indo-Pacific region about whether the administration will remain consistently committed to protecting the core elements of its international influence.Protecting such a balance in the first instance will require more resources, especially in the Indo-Pacific where China is already advantaged by interior lines of communication, by shorter distances to the battle areas of interest, and by its ability to muster substantial combat power, if not outright superiority, relative to Japan, Taiwan, and the smaller countries in Southeast Asia. The Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative (APSI) proposed by Senator McCain is a long overdue step in this direction and should be steadily increased to levels similar to the $4-5 billion annually appropriated for the European Reassurance Initiative.
Parenthetically, it is worth noting that most of the Chinese land-based ballistic and cruise missiles developed for this rear targeting mission—weapons with ranges between 500-5,500 kilometers—cannot be matched by the United States because of the limitations imposed by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which binds Washington but not Beijing. As a result, U.S. forces have to generate firepower primarily through expensive air and maritime platforms, while China can produce equivalent effects through myriad land-based systems that are relatively inexpensive. Whether continued compliance with the INF Treaty in regard to conventional missiles remains in U.S. interest, given evolving developments in the Indo-Pacific and Russia’s own compliance problems with this agreement, is something that deserves fresh scrutiny.

STRENGTHENING ALLIANCES AND BUILDING PARTNER CAPABILITIES
Moreover, the major allies or friends in Northeast Asia (Japan and South Korea), in Oceania (Australia), and in South Asia (India), are all powerful entities in their own right—they carry their own weight and cannot be considered financial burdens on the United States, given Washington’s own larger interests in Asia.The Committee is already well aware of the many distinct and complex challenges faced by the United States in each of the three major sub-regions of the Indo-Pacific—Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia and the Indian Ocean. I would like to highlight six major issues that must be addressed if the task of strengthening alliances and building partner capabilities is to be satisfactorily realized.
Fifth, the Trump administration must continue the transformation of U.S.-India relations undertaken by its two immediate predecessors because India is a vital element in the Asian balance of power and, along with Japan, remains one of the key bookends for managing the rise of China. The importance of strong U.S.-India ties goes beyond merely abstract geopolitical balancing today and is in fact increasingly an operational imperative. With the increasing Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean since at least 2008 and the likelihood of its acquiring “logistical facilities” in Djibouti and Gwader, Chinese naval operations—which are likely to be eventually supported by new anti-access and area denial capabilities based out of southwestern China and oriented toward aiding interdiction activities in the northern Indian Ocean—could one day interfere with U.S. naval movements from the Persian Gulf or from Diego Garcia into the Pacific; as such, closer U.S.-Indian cooperation in regard to surveillance of Chinese naval actions in the Indian Ocean is highly desirable. Both Washington and New Delhi have now agreed to cooperate in tracking Chinese submarine operations in the area, and both nations should discuss the possibilities of enhanced mutual access for transitory rotations of maritime patrol aircraft. In general, U.S. policy should move toward confirming a commitment to building up India’s military capabilities so as to enable it to independently defeat any coercive stratagems China may pursue along New Delhi’s landward and maritime frontiers, thereby easing the burdens on Washington’s “forward defense” posture in other parts of the Indo-Pacific.

Sixth, the United States must take more seriously the strategic challenges posed by China’s OBOR initiative. To date, Washington has addressed this effort only absentmindedly, given its preoccupation until recently with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The scale of the OBOR program is indeed mindboggling: the China Development Bank alone is expected to underwrite some 900 components of the initiative at a cost of close to a trillion dollars; other funders, such as the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China will commit additional resources, with the anticipated cumulative investment eventually reaching anywhere from $4-8 trillion. Even if the project ultimately falls short of these ambitions, there is little doubt that the enhanced connectivity it proposes—linking China with greater Eurasia through new road, rail, and shipping connections—has significant strategic implications for Beijing’s power projection in the widest sense. Thus far, the economic dimensions—and the political daring—underlying this effort have received great attention to the relative neglect of its geostrategic consequences for China’s rise as a global power, political competition within Asia, the impact on America’s regional friends and allies, and U.S. military operations in and around Eurasia. The U.S. Congress should remedy this lacuna by tasking the Department of Defense to undertake a comprehensive examination of China’s OBOR initiative with an eye to examining its impact on the economies and politics of key participating states, China’s ability to expand the reach of its military operations, and China’s capacity to deepen its foreign relations and strategic ties in critical areas of the Indo-Pacific. Even as this understanding is developed, the United States should look for ways to provide the Asian states with alternative options to China’s OBOR, even if initially only on a smaller scale. The U.S.-Japan Initiative for Quality Infrastructure in Southeast Asia is one such idea that deserves serious support because it marries Japanese finance and manufacturing technology with American design and engineering expertise to provide the smaller Asian states with high quality infrastructure while building capacity in the recipient nations—unlike China’s OBOR scheme which is mainly intended to support China’s indigenous industry abroad as economic growth slows at home.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 27 Apr 2017 07:03

China's expanding naval footprint in Indian Ocean a big concern - Rajat Pandit, ToI
The Indian defence establishment is not too disconcerted by the "launch" of China's first indigenous aircraft carrier in itself, holding that it will take Beijing at least five years to make the 50,000-tonne warship capable of being deployed as a potent offensive weapons platform on the high seas.

But what continues to send alarm bells clanging here is the rapid expansion in long-range naval deployments by the People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN)
, which ominously include regular forays by its nuclear and conventional submarines in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) on the pretext of anti-piracy patrols since December 2013.

Moreover, China's continues to "strategically encircle" India by further deepening its maritime links with eastern Africa, Seychelles, Mauritius, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Cambodia, among others, even though its primary aim is to secure its trade and energy sea routes.

"The launch of the half-finished carrier does not amount to much in real terms. But India can ill-afford to ignore China's continuing quest to go global in the maritime domain, which has been its major focus area since 2009. It already has Gwadar Port in Pakistan and the naval base in Djibouti," said a senior officer.

China eventually wants to have six aircraft carriers, with at least two of them being nuclear-powered for longer operational endurance. With the aim to deploy two carriers each in the Pacific and IOR, China fast-tracked its already extensive warship construction plans after inducting its first carrier, the 65,000-tonne Liaoning, in September 2012.

The assessment, however, is that China will take some years to attain requisite expertise in the highly-complex art of operating fighters from carriers. India, on the other hand, has operated "flattops" since it inducted its first carrier in 1961.

But India is slowly squandering its edge in this arena, having miserably floundered in executing its long-standing plan to have three aircraft carriers, with one each for the western and eastern seaboards and the third in reserve for maintenance refits.

India will have to soldier on with just the 44,570-tonne INS Vikramaditya for the next three to four years. The commissioning of first indigenous aircraft carrier, the 40,000-tonne INS Vikrant, which was "launched" at the Cochin Shipyard in 2013 after being approved way back in 2003, has now been further delayed to 2020.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

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

Postby Bheeshma » 27 Apr 2017 07:25

IN will not counter the chinese airccraft carrier with our 3-4 carriers. It will be via Brahmos-A and sub launches ones. I still doubt china's ability to take the carrier more than 200-300 km away from its shore. The so called syria deployment never hapened.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 27 Apr 2017 08:19

China tightening the screws even more on Sri Lanka.

China fear stalls India-Lanka deal - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
India is in no hurry to complete the economic and technical cooperation agreement (ETCA) with Sri Lanka. Officially, India has said it would proceed "at a pace comfortable for Colombo". But there are other, bigger reasons for India to guard its flanks while negotiating a second generation free-trade agreement (FTA) with Sri Lanka.

China has evinced interest in an FTA with Sri Lanka as well. This has given India pause, as it wants to see the details of that deal. This could include, according to sources, Chinese companies setting up manufacturing bases in Hambantota and Monaragala areas of Sri Lanka and using the India-Lanka FTA to push Chinese goods into India. "We have to be careful," said sources familiar with developments.


The ETCA has also run into trouble in Sri Lanka with some opposition building up against it. India's nontariff barriers, bureaucratic delays etc have not endeared it to Lankan business.

Chinese companies are apparently being given 15,000 hectares in Hambantota, a fact former foreign minister G L Peiris told TOI in an interview was nothing short of a "bad deal". If the deal had been done the way former president Mahinda Rajapakse had intended, Peiris said, Hambantota would have been a sustainable entity .

"There was no agreement to hand over 15,000 hectares to a Chinese company .The agreement as structured at the time did not involve the wholesale leasing of the port,but only a terminal of the port," Peiris said. {Though Peiris, as a faithful Rajapakseite, fudges the issue, the fact emerges that the Ranil/Sirisena government is only getting buries further in the Chinese quicksand with their effots}

Answering questions on the huge debt that Rajapakse left behind, Peiris said, "Loans taken by this government is far in excess of what Rajapakse had taken. There was something to show then -today there is nothing. The government has admitted that the money to be paid by China for the port ($1.4 billion) is not to be used for retiring this debt. So the government argument of doing this (giving the land) to pay off the debt doesn't stand." {During the visit of Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe to China, he asked for relief from debt-service repayments of debts amounting to USD 8 B that the previous Rajapakse government had taken from China. To add to Sri Lanka’s problems, the China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) which was building the suspended Colombo Port City (CPC) project demanded damages of USD 125M as well. Later, in August 2016, after “the goodwill created by the visits” of President Maithripala Sirisena (in March 2015) and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (in April 2016) to China, the compensation demand was dropped by Colombo. However, a few months later, in October 2016, Sri Lanka agreed to sell 80 per cent of the $1.5-billion (Chinese EXIM Bank funded) port in the southern city of Hambanatota to a Chinese company to tackle the Chinese debt burden. On August 4, 2016, China and Sri Lanka formed a joint committee to “devise and implement strategies to save the Hambantota project”. It is this settlement that China is now saying cannot be used to pay back Chinese debts. So, China is now placing Sri Lanka more in debts.}

Instead, India will focus more on infrastructure development in Sri Lanka.New Delhi is working on projects in roads, railways, ports etc. In this, Japan may prove to be a valuable ally for both India and Sri Lanka. Japan will work with India on the Trincomalee port, while Singapore is expected to help develop Trincomalee city .

Peiris said the payment scheme as set out by the Sirisena government is unsustainable. "In the proposed agreement, the Chinese company will not pay any money for the next 15 years.At the end of 15 years, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority will get money from the Chinese company only if a dividend is declared," he said.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 27 Apr 2017 12:24

China boosts naval power with new aircraft carrier - Atul Aneja, The Hindu
China has launched its second aircraft carrier, marking an incremental rise in its capacity to project power in the West Pacific. The carrier, called Type 001-A before it acquires a formal name, was transferred from dry dock into the water at a launch ceremony that started at about 9 a.m. at the Dalian shipyard of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation. Fan Changlong, Vice-Chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission (CMC), chaired the launch ceremony.

President Xi Jinping, who is also the Chairman of the CMC, was not present at the launch. The new carrier, which is likely to be christened Shandong, will supplement the Liaoning — China’s first aircraft carrier that was purchased from Ukraine and commissioned in 2012.

The Type 001-A is expected to enter service of the People’s Liberation Army (Navy), or PLAN, by 2020, following other time-consuming preparations such as the debugging of all onboard devices and sea trials.

Maritime interests

The new carrier will have a displacement of 50,000 tonnes, which means that the Type 001-A will be a mid-sized carrier, significantly smaller than the super-carriers operated by the U.S., which are above 70,000 tonnes. Like the Liaoning, the new carrier is likely to operate home-developed Shenyang J-15 fighter jets. Opinion among Chinese naval experts regarding the ideal size of China’s carrier-based strike groups has varied.

The South China Morning Post has quoted Li Jie, a researcher at the Naval Military Studies Research Institute, as saying that China would require at least three aircraft carriers to defend its maritime interests. “Among three carrier fighting groups, just one would be able to carry out operational missions because one would be used for training, while the third would have to undergo maintenance,” he said.

He also dismissed speculation that China would emerge as a three-carrier navy by 2020, with one ship deployed in the East China Sea and two in the South China Sea. “It’s impossible for China to complete the construction of three carrier fighting groups by 2020 based on current shipbuilding capabilities and other technical reasons,” he observed. Mr. Li said China had a limited capacity to produce aircraft carriers as it had only two yards — one in Dalian and the other in Shanghai’s Jiangnan shipyard.

Some Chinese experts propose that China would require five to six aircraft carriers to project power simultaneously in the West Pacific, as well as the Indian Ocean — India’s core area of concern.

The Global Times quoted Yin Zhuo, a senior researcher at the PLAN Equipment Research Center, as saying that “China needs two carrier strike groups in the West Pacific and two in the Indian Ocean. So we need at least five to six aircraft carriers” to protect the country’s maritime interests.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 27 Apr 2017 19:49

Chinese military modernisation is focused on defeating American in Asia: US general - PTI
WASHINGTON: China has fundamentally altered the physical and political landscape in the strategic South China Sea+ through militarisation and large-scale land reclamation, a top American admiral has claimed.

Chinese military modernisation+ is focused on defeating the US in Asia by countering US asymmetric advantages, Admiral Harry Harris, Commander of US Pacific Command told lawmakers during a Congressional hearing.

"North Korea continues to disregard UN sanctions by developing and threatening to use intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons that will threaten the US Homeland," Harris said.


"China has fundamentally altered the physical and political landscape in the South China Sea+ through large scale land reclamation and by militarising these reclaimed features," Harris said.

He said China continues to press Japan in the East China Sea, stepping up diplomatic and economic pressure against Taiwan, and methodically trying to supplant US influence with "our friends and allies in the region".

"Furthermore, China is rapidly building a modern, capable military that appears to far exceed its stated defensive purpose or potential regional needs. China's military modernisation is focused on defeating the US in Asia by countering US asymmetric advantages," Harris alleged.

China's military modernisation cannot be understated, especially when one considers the Communist regime's lack of transparency and apparent strategy, he said, adding that China is committed to developing a hypersonic glide weapon and advanced cyber and anti-satellite capabilities that present direct threats to the Homeland.

"China's near-term strategy is focused on building up combat power and positional advantage to be able to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight while asserting de facto sovereignty over disputed maritime features and spaces in the region," the top American commander said.

Harris said the rapid transformation of China's military into a high-tech force capable of regional dominance and a growing ability to support aspirations for global reach and influence is concerning.

"China's activities on the seas, in the air and in cyberspace have generated concerns about its strategic intentions," he said.


Referring to the Chinese construction activities in the disputed areas of the South China Sea, Harris said China's military-specific construction in the Spratly islands includes the construction of 72 fighter aircraft hangars - which could support three fighter regiments - and about 10 larger hangars that could support larger airframes such as bombers or special mission aircraft. All of these hangars should be completed this year, Harris said.

"Despite its claims to the contrary, China has militarised the South China Sea through the building of seven military bases on artificial islands constructed through the large-scale damage of a fragile environment in disputed areas," he said.

The presence of these military capabilities undermines China's consistent claim that these massively expanded features are for safety and humanitarian purposes, Harris said.


Recently, China has tried to obscure the military purposes of its Spratly islands efforts by calling for private investment, residential settlement and tourism, he said.

"The latter may prove especially problematic as China's land creation effort over the past a few years has destroyed the once vibrant marine ecosystem surrounding the features," Harris added.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, including islands more than 800 miles from the Chinese mainland, despite objections from neighbours such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 28 Apr 2017 08:43



ua Zhou2 weeks ago
0:48 The blue line going through Iran can be blocked at any time by the US
The yellow line going through Egypt can be blocked at any time by China since China has a 5000 military base in Djibouti ( at the mouth of red sea). India's land road to Europe was blocked by Pakistan. India is a landlocked and water enclosed country, nobody will go to India to build a factory, make product and export from India simply because there is no dependable way to get the product f&&king out. India is a dead duck.




@HauZhou.....I don't know what to reply you. It looks like you are commenting just for the sake of argument.

I really can't understand how being the biggest off-shore R&D centre of the world hurts IND. How does it mean that the R&D is being done only for the off-shore companies. Any idea why the companies chose China as the manufacturing hub while IND as the R&D hub? How selling labour power benefits China while selling intelligence power hurts IND.

Regarding your googling habit, its a good starting point but google isn't all, like it misguided you on "intellectual community". Just reading up some stuff isn't good enough. You have to process, filter, compile and deduce on your own, else you would just like a typist who takes an input at one end and just dumps it at some other end. Go and check why INDns are the biggest community of scientists in US after the US people. Go and check why INDns are most educated and highly ranked off-shore community in the US and many such other facts. Also, only IQ doesn't help. In fact, now-a-days the old IQ test is also abandoned in most cases. Intelligence is a combination of many many things rather than just being static IQ. As I said, IND is almost the biggest R&D hub for a reason.

Regarding your view on IND, it seems you have a old perspective about IND. Either you are not aware of the current IND or you are not ready to let go of the old one. I wonder why? Why do you think that only China is smart enough to progress ahead while IND is dumb to be sitting behind? Any reasons? I admit we started late, but that doesn't mean IND isn't progressing. In fact, in some of the fields, IND is already the best in the world and it covers tech fields too. I don't know how you overlooked the long ques of companies waiting to set up factories in IND. FYI, Huawei, Gionee and many other Chinese companies are part of the que too.

Regarding the war cry, let me make it very straight. There won't be any war. Modern forces are less of a fighting tool but more of a deterrent tool, and thats bcoz, if there is an war then no-body would be left to declare the winner. So, war isn't an option and the world won't spare any country who facilitates such provocations. Be it China blocking INDn route in Red Sea or be it IND blocking Chinese route in INDn Ocean. So, don't even think of it and ask your leaders to do the same.

Now, coming to your point of China blocking the route for IND, here are a few pointers:
1. The presence of a Chinese base doesn't give China the freedom to exercise its own foreign policies off the base and completely ignoring the very countries foreign policy where the base exists.
2. Djibouti is mainly French and Arab. IND has excellent relations with France and Arabs favour IND any day over China, more so after the bans and restrictions on muslims in China.
3. Any goods passing through the INDn route isn't necessarily INDs, it might belong to a lot more countries and so any misdeed by China would screw up relations with that country more than that with IND.
4. China has the base there for how long? Why it didn't do anything yet. You know why? Bcoz its not so easy to mess with international trade routes.
5. Just think about Chinese routes. CPEC is China's plan to get an alternative route for its trade if USA ever blocks the straight of Malacca, which is much closer to IND too. However, CPEC passes through much more volatile land, in fact some part of it passes through disputed territory which is claimed by IND. So, here is the picture. China's routes are passing through regions which are in close INDn monitor and reach, like the Indian Ocean, or through regions which are claimed by IND and is very very volatile. In fact, China is threatening IND every once in a while that IND shouldn't interfere with Chinese trade routes and that too just in speculation. So, you think China would mess with INDn routes. I guess not, if Chinese is intelligence is as high as you claim it to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjRsO9O48NY

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

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

Postby Neela » 28 Apr 2017 18:52

Suraj wrote:Step 1: no agreement on Chinese requirements . EVERYTHING is negotiable . 'Tibet / Xinjiang are part China' : something to be discussed . 'One China' : to be decided .

Even if GoI refuses to show enough spine to engage with Tsai Ing-Wen's government in Taiwan or arm Vietnam, it should repudiate all prior agreements and instead say it's for negotiations to decide .

The Chinese will blow a gasket of course . But is their normal state of being . The reason for this positioning is to give us additional maneuvering room . This is essential Sun Tzutiapa, as shiv puts it - when you are weaker, refuse to agree and instead waffle and waffle as you build strength . You only agree from a position of strength . Until then give any number of nutty reasons for not agreeing .


I wish GoI makes some secular noises on the "Mohamed" name issue.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10589
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

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

Postby Suraj » 02 May 2017 22:42

Interrupting the otherwise great power march of PeeAalSee:
Desperate note from Chinese 'sweatshop slave' found in purse bought in Walmart
A note written by a Chinese 'slave' was allegedly discovered in a purse bought from a Walmart in Arizona.

The note claims that prisoners in China are working 14-hour days – as well as receiving beatings – while producing goods for US consumers.

Christel Wallace says she discovered the handwritten plea in the zip compartment of a purse she bought from a Sierra Vista Walmart two months ago.

Her daughter-in-law Laura had the note translated by three different Chinese speakers and each of them deciphered a similar, harrowing message.

"It actually stated that the person who wrote that was a prisoner in China," she told KVOA News.

"Basically what their situation was and how they work long hours, 14 hours a day. And they don't have a lot to eat," she said.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5456
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

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

Postby anupmisra » 03 May 2017 04:20

China's new aircraft carrier lacks catapult, must stop for refueling

According to the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, the Type 001A carrier – sometimes referred to as the Shandong – has the power and capability of a typical carrier built in the '50s.
The Chinese carrier does not use a catapult to boost planes off the runway, and instead of using nuclear power, it is conventionally powered.
Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report.
Those are some of the technological limitations of the Type 001A that places the carrier in the parameters of weapons developed six decades ago, according to the analysis.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 493750399/

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5456
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

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

Postby anupmisra » 03 May 2017 04:24

China’s New Carrier (Almost) Ready for Launch

China has already begun work on a third carrier in Shanghai, and its plans to build up to six carriers, and ten naval bases to host them, are already spooking neighbors like India. China’s quest for a blue-water navy, capable of projecting power globally and securing access to its sea-trade routes, may be years away. But after the steady growth of China’s maritime reach during the Obama years, the United States still needs a credible strategy to convince China’s neighbors that it will remain the top dog in the Pacific for years to come.


https://www.the-american-interest.com/2 ... or-launch/

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21002
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 04 May 2017 09:44

The dragon beckons - P.S.Raghavan, The Hindu
On March 17, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution on security in Afghanistan. It includes a reference to regional development initiatives such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China promptly announced that this reference (possibly inserted at its instance) reflected a global consensus on the BRI. This is part of an intensifying campaign to mobilise high-level attendance at a summit — the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (BRF) — being hosted by China in mid-May. The declared purpose is to review progress of the BRI, obtain perspectives of stakeholders and plan new trajectories of cooperation.

The grand design

The BRI originated from two speeches by President Xi Jinping in Central Asia in 2013, outlining plans for China’s global outreach through connectivity and infrastructure development. The Silk Road Economic Belt includes land corridors from China through Central Asia and Russia to Europe with spurs to West Asia and to Pakistan — the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The 21st century Maritime Silk Road links China’s east coast through major sea lanes to Europe in the west and the Pacific in the east. Together, they constitute the BRI (originally “One Belt One Road”, until the Chinese recently changed the name). The concept was subsequently fleshed out with multiple justifications and project ideas, finally giving it wings as the grand strategic vision of President Xi.

Among Chinese objectives of the BRI are finding outlets for excess capacity of its manufacturing and construction industries, increasing economic activity in its relatively underdeveloped western region, and creating alternative energy supply routes to the choke points of the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca, through which almost all of China’s maritime oil imports pass {and to bankrupt weak nations on the way to gain strategic foothold}. The political subtext is strengthening China’s influence over swathes of Asia and Africa, buttressing its ambitions to be a maritime power, and developing financing structures parallel to (and eventually competing with) the Bretton Woods system. It is a rich mix of economic, developmental, strategic and geopolitical motives. It is also the most ambitious global infrastructure project ever envisaged by one country.

Connectivity and infrastructure development are unexceptionable objectives. Much of Asia lacks them and the finances required to develop them. The devil is in the detail. Analysts have highlighted a number of potential issues: Chinese overcapacity may override host countries’ development priorities in project selection; political tensions between countries may prevail over considerations of economic benefit; local elites may corner the “spoils” from new projects, thereby exacerbating social tensions; and financing strategies may result in countries sleepwalking into a debt trap (the Hambantota development projects in Sri Lanka provide a telling example). Much will depend on how sensitive China is to international and local concerns on these counts. However, even if only a part of the grand BRI design is eventually implemented, it could have a major political and economic impact.

India and the mid-May meet

Officially, India says it cannot endorse the BRI in its present form, since it includes the CPEC, which runs through Indian territory under illegal Pakistani occupation (Gilgit-Baltistan). Some analysts have argued for the more “pragmatic” approach of a partial endorsement: as the initiative rolls out in various countries, India can engage with them (and with China) to promote projects that would be of benefit.

Judging from recent Chinese actions, their major focus today is not so much securing endorsement for the BRI as ensuring high-level global attendance at the BRF. Whatever its other objectives, the principal role of the forum is to showcase international endorsement of President Xi’s strategic vision of economic cooperation for peace. The forum is timed to enable him to carry this aura of global recognition into the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party later this year, where he will put his policy stamp on his second term as party general secretary.

As of April 21, China confirmed attendance of 28 heads of state and government at the BRF. They include leaders of Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Indonesia. This is a relatively disappointing list. The U.S. of course, but also Germany, France and the U.K. will not be represented at the top level (because of their leaders’ domestic preoccupations). There are only two each from South Asia, Central Asia and Africa and none from West Asia. It is no wonder then that China is launching an all-out charm offensive to attract more quality attendance at the forum. India has also been a target, since it has apparently not yet conveyed the level of its attendance. China’s argument, that India would be “isolating” itself by staying out, is a pressure tactic: roads, ports and railways are public goods, which cannot be open to some and closed to others, based on nationality.

Scope for give and take

India should ask China whether it is willing to address its concerns in such a way as to enable high-level Indian participation. Would China be willing to declare that the CPEC is not a component of the BRI but a separate bilateral China-Pakistan project?

The sovereignty issue needs to be addressed. China’s Foreign Minister declared that the CPEC does not change Beijing’s stand on Jammu and Kashmir. A senior Chinese diplomat was more explicit, drawing attention to Article 6 of the 1963 China-Pakistan “boundary” agreement (in which Pakistan ceded the “Trans-Karakoram tract” to China), wherein the two sides agreed that after the J&K issue is resolved, China would renegotiate the boundary with the relevant sovereign country. Would China be willing to say the same today about the CPEC — that once the status of Gilgit-Baltistan is agreed bilaterally between India and Pakistan, China will renegotiate with the sovereign authority the terms of transit of the corridor? {I do not want India to ask China this question. This has been the trap that Indian diplomats have fallen into often. There is no question of 'resolving the status of GB' in future. Treaties are useless. India must always state that GB is an inalienable part of India. Period. This is how China has always conducted its business about Tibet, Taiwan, HK & Macau.}

China argues that connectivity provided by the BRI would enhance economic cooperation and promote peace. Will it walk its altruistic talk and include the existing land corridor from India to Afghanistan, through Pakistan, in the BRI? This corridor would intersect the CPEC and may therefore open new routes for Chinese goods to both India and Afghanistan, besides promoting India, Pakistan and Afghanistan trade. With its investment in the CPEC now estimated at over $60 billion, its increasing bilateral assistance to Pakistan and its growing military presence in that country, China is in a strong position to persuade Pakistan to recognise that this is in its best economic interest: it may even transform the CPEC into a commercially viable project.{Are we now turning to China to plead our case with Pakistan? We tried the UK & the USA in the past and came an absolute cropper. Now, our sworn and chief enemy, China? What is wrong with our diplomats?}

The Indian government may have other ideas on reciprocal actions. The short point is that the strong Chinese interest for a high-level Indian presence at the BRF may provide New Delhi the opportunity to extract something of commensurate value in return. :evil:

P.S. Raghavan is Convenor of the National Security Advisory Board and formerly Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Manish_Sharma, milano and 37 guests