Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

[shiv]

Sri Lanka has banned the Chinese navy from Hambantota port for now, but faces decades of debt repayments to Beijing. “Any country that extends economic assistance, whether it’s China, India or the US, has a strategic interest in doing so,” says Dushni Weerakoon, the executive director at the Institute of Policy Studies in Colombo.

One of the reasons why I object to all this mushy-wushy talk of "Ohh Sri Lanka was on our side Ohh Nepal was on our side Ohhh Maldives was on our side was that there is deep hypocrisy in the way large countries treat smaller ones and there is very little the smaller countries can do about it. Cooperation is the best bet. One of the most hypocritical documents I posted earlier today was the agreement between India and Bhutan to respect each other's sovereignty. I mean are we expecting Bhutan to attack us? Actually it is only a reassurance from India to Bhutan. We give the same reassurances to all small states but there is an implicit threat that they must not mess with us because we bloody well do carry a big danda.

We have made the same reassurances to Pak and China but they do not follow our ideas. Hence there is the question of use of military/coercive power with both China and Pakistan in case diplomacy does not work. In general we do not use that sort of threat with small states, hypocritical as that attitude might be. Our men sitting up in the mountains and our navy are implicit evidence of our readiness to use force.

China and Pak have used force against us. Pak I will not discuss further. But we are also ready to use force with China. if you are scared of that then we should pull back our troops and navy and let them do what they like. But our forces are there as an in your face signal that force will get China only so far. If they build up their forces and get threatening - then we too will build up and it's not going to help them have their way.

One of the complaints I hear is that we are "reactive". I find this a fairly idiotic thing to say. Do the critics want us to NOT react? The same critics who howl that we are "reactive" are hyperventilating, jumping up and down like they have a full bladder demanding that we react to things in Sri Lanka, Maldives blah blah blah? Heck should we react or not react? We are reactive but not reacting. wtf is that? The fact that from a position of abject weakness in 1962 to a stalemate with Pakistan in 1965 we have reached a position where we are talking about a 2 front war. Is is "overreaction"? Should we have stayed weak - or even better attacked China and Pakistan from a position of weakness? I find some of the absurd criticisms beyond absurd.

[Mukesh.Kumar]

Sri Lanka has banned the Chinese navy from Hambantota port for now, but faces decades of debt repayments to Beijing. “Any country that extends economic assistance, whether it’s China, India or the US, has a strategic interest in doing so,” says Dushni Weerakoon, the executive director at the Institute of Policy Studies in Colombo.

One of the reasons why I object to all this mushy-wushy talk of "Ohh Sri Lanka was on our side Ohh Nepal was on our side Ohhh Maldives was on our side was that there is deep hypocrisy in the way large countries treat smaller ones and there is very little the smaller countries can do about it. Cooperation is the best bet. One of the most hypocritical documents I posted earlier today was the agreement between India and Bhutan to respect each other's sovereignty. I mean are we expecting Bhutan to attack us? Actually it is only a reassurance from India to Bhutan. We give the same reassurances to all small states but there is an implicit threat that they must not mess with us because we bloody well do carry a big danda.

We have made the same reassurances to Pak and China but they do not follow our ideas. Hence there is the question of use of military/coercive power with both China and Pakistan in case diplomacy does not work. In general we do not use that sort of threat with small states, hypocritical as that attitude might be. Our men sitting up in the mountains and our navy are implicit evidence of our readiness to use force.

China and Pak have used force against us. Pak I will not discuss further. But we are also ready to use force with China. if you are scared of that then we should pull back our troops and navy and let them do what they like. But our forces are there as an in your face signal that force will get China only so far. If they build up their forces and get threatening - then we too will build up and it's not going to help them have their way.

One of the complaints I hear is that we are "reactive". I find this a fairly idiotic thing to say. Do the critics want us to NOT react? The same critics who howl that we are "reactive" are hyperventilating, jumping up and down like they have a full bladder demanding that we react to things in Sri Lanka, Maldives blah blah blah? Heck should we react or not react? We are reactive but not reacting. wtf is that? The fact that from a position of abject weakness in 1962 to a stalemate with Pakistan in 1965 we have reached a position where we are talking about a 2 front war. Is is "overreaction"? Should we have stayed weak - or even better attacked China and Pakistan from a position of weakness? I find some of the absurd criticisms beyond absurd.

++1 to Shiv saar's point. We need to stop and clearly think what we need to do and get out of this muddle. The very same guys who say that we react, are the ones, who end up harping, "We should not have provoked China on Doklam- See where that got us." And very same guys who say, why are we letting Pakistan needle us and not doing anything. It is mind numbing trying to get some of these cretins to clearly state out their point. Thank God for BRF. At least here things are clearer.

[SSridhar]

India should have 'learnt lessons' from Doklam stand-off, says China - PTI

China today asserted that Dokalam belongs to it and India should have "learnt lessons" from the stand-off last year, days after India's envoy blamed China for the face-off, saying it happened because Beijing tried to alter the "status quo" in the disputed area.

Reacting to India's Ambassador to China Gautam Bambawale's remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said, "Donglong (Dokalam) belongs to China because we have historical conventions."

"China's activities there are within our sovereign rights. There is no such thing as changing status quo," she said at a media briefing here. "Last year thanks to our concerted efforts and our wisdom we properly resolved this issue. We hope the Indian side could learn some lessons from this and stick to the historical conventions and work with China to ensure the atmosphere in the border areas is conducive for the development of bilateral ties," she said.

"The east, middle and western side is yet to be officially demarcated," she said. "China is committed to resolving the disputes through negotiations. China and India are exploring ways to resolve this territorial dispute through negotiations so that we can arrive at mutually acceptable solution," she said, referring to the boundary talks between the two countries. The two sides have so far held 20 rounds of boundary talks. Pending final solution both sides should work together to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border area," she said.

Hua, however, commended Bambawale's comments that India has no concern about China's rise instead regard it as a motivation and China is not a competitor, rival or a threat but a partner in progress.

"I commend these remarks made by the India ambassador and all these positive remarks. The two countries are growing at fast pace. China and India are each other's important opportunities and to the whole world we present important opportunities," she said.


"We have every reason to be each other's partners. We would like to work with India to enhance political trust, mutually beneficial cooperation under the guidance of the two leaders to achieve common development," she said.

[TKiran]

That's what happens when you offer a face saving formula when the other party is not interested.

What is worrying is the lie MEA told to Indian public that China has said that status quo ante will be maintained, that is the reason why Indian army withdrew.

[pankajs]

If the other party wasn't interested why was the face saving formula accepted?

No amount of spin/word play can hide the "bangle wearers" in both India and China.

[kiranA]

Here is the text of the treaty: https://idsa.in/resources/documents/Ind ... reaty.2007

Please point out where it says that Bhutan will be guided by India on external affairs. I wil offer a public apology to you if you can do that. Or else I will point out that you are bluffing

Now for this one:

"Later, on 28 August 1959, Nehru stated in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Indian Parliament) that the defense of the territorial uprightness and frontiers of Bhutan was the responsibility of the Government of India. Thus, India committed itself towards ensuring the sovereignty of Bhutan, a Kingdom that is just about 50 years old"

You are referring to 2007 updated treaty. The original treaty executed between India and Butan and in operation from 1949-2007 clearly calls out that Bhutan will be guided by India on external affairs. China occupied doklam well before 2007 and neither Bhutan nor India invoked the treaty thats what I was referring to in my original post.

http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4d620.html

ARTICLE 2
The Government of India undertakes to exercise no interference in the internal administration of Bhutan. On its part the Government of Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice of the Government of India in regard to its external relations.

Here is the complete text:
This is what Nehru said in Bhutan

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru ruled out any pressure on Bhutan which might impair its independent status. Nehru said: “Some may think that since India is a great and powerful country and Bhutan a small one, the former might wish to exercise pressure on Bhutan. It is therefore, essential that I make it clear to you that our only wish is that you should remain an independent country, choosing your own way of life and taking the path of progress according to your will. At the same time we two should live with mutual goodwill. We are members of the same Himalayan family and should live as friendly neighbors helping each other. Freedom of both Bhutan and India should be safeguarded so that none from outside can do harm to it”.

And here is what Nehru told parliament 9 years before India even had diplomatic relations with Bhutan

Later, on 28 August 1959, Nehru stated in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Indian Parliament) that the defense of the territorial uprightness and frontiers of Bhutan was the responsibility of the Government of India. Thus, India committed itself towards ensuring the sovereignty of Bhutan, a Kingdom that is just about 50 years old.

Nehru was speaking with both sides of his tongue. He spoke nothing of defence of Bhutan while he was in Bhutan but spoke of the "defense of the territorial uprightness and frontiers of Bhutan " in parliament in 1959. The comment "Thus, India committed itself towards ensuring the sovereignty of Bhutan" is the interpretation of the author of the document you have linked. Nehru only suggested that India would not violate Bhutan's borders - a statement that India promptly ignored and violated in 2017 in Doklam by crossing over into the Doklam plateau. There is no written agreement between India and Bhutan that India will protect Bhutan's frontiers against all transgressions. The absence of a written document makes it impossible to make a credible claim that India has any commitment to the protection of Bhutan.

Nehru was speaking in his capacity as the prime minister of India on the floor of Indian parliament. Those words matter its is not banter unless you hold India as some banana republic. Moreover what Nehru was saying is nothing but what is already in 1949 treaty which he co-signed.

Apart from being misinformed I am not sure where you are going with this. Going by your own interpretation India acted highly irresponsibly in Doklam violating the sovereignty of another country not due to some hostile missile installation, militant activity or arms but a tar road of all reason and well within a foreign territory.

[Philip]

So China still after '62 thinks of India as a schoolboy and themselves as the wise teachers.My ars*! Only Chin maps are correct,Indian maps all wrong,the products of the running dogs of the British Raj,so what India must learn,the hard way if need be,is to hand over Ar.Pradesh,the so-called Southern Tibet and other areas where the line is not demarcated ,possibly including Uttarkhand,HP,J&K who knows,and pay tribute by increasing the trade deficit with it to say $100B every year!

If I were the PM I would cancel,"postpone" the visit since important elections are taking place. A good enough excuse. The "baggage" of babus,etc. can enjoy their Chinese banquets another day.

[pankajs]

I agree with Chola on that if US were to loose or chicken out after having initiated the trade war China will come out stronger from that dustup. Too early to say who will win this round.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/lock-th ... ff-1828830
"Lock This Beast Back In The Cage": China Asks WTO On US Tariff

Geneva: China called on World Trade Organization members on Monday to unite to prevent the United States "wrecking" the WTO and urged them to oppose U.S. tariffs targeting China's alleged theft of intellectual property.

Beijing's envoy Zhang Xiangchen told delegates at the Geneva-based trade body that President Donald Trump's plan to impose tariffs on up to $60 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301 of the 1974 U.S. Trade Act broke WTO rules.

"The U.S. is setting a very bad precedent by bluntly breaching its commitment made to the world. WTO members should jointly prevent the resurrection of 301 investigations and lock this beast back into the cage of the WTO rules," he said.

[pankajs]

So China still after '62 thinks of India as a schoolboy and themselves as the wise teachers.My ars*! Only Chin maps are correct,Indian maps all wrong,the products of the running dogs of the British Raj,so what India must learn,the hard way if need be,is to hand over Ar.Pradesh,the so-called Southern Tibet and other areas where the line is not demarcated ,possibly including Uttarkhand,HP,J&K who knows,and pay tribute by increasing the trade deficit with it to say $100B every year!

If I were the PM I would cancel,"postpone" the visit since important elections are taking place. A good enough excuse. The "baggage" of babus,etc. can enjoy their Chinese banquets another day.

Ah ... if wishes could be horses .... you would be the PM!!! But we will have to make do with whatever talent we have in the PMO. Sigh!

[kiranA]

That's what happens when you offer a face saving formula when the other party is not interested.

What is worrying is the lie MEA told to Indian public that China has said that status quo ante will be maintained, that is the reason why Indian army withdrew.

You are correct but its not correct to blame MEA they were doing what they were told. Infact MEA was the once most embarrassed and quiet during the whole doklam issue while other government agencies including Army were going bombastic.

China was not installing missiles or running militant camps it was building a tar road for gods sake. Nevertheless building it that close is not neighbourliness . I believe Indian army should still have carried out the operation but resolved it mutually with chinese forces. THe bombast actually tied up India and enraged China.

[TKiran]

If the other party wasn't interested why was the face saving formula accepted?

.

That is called "deception". A powerful tool to fool the enemy.

[Philip]

ha!Ha! I'd like to see the Donald's reaction,being called the beast.Well someone called him the "Orange-Utan'.I thought that that was hilarious.
Can't wait to see how this plays out.

Modiji,past time for India to reduce the trade deficit with China to "zero" too!

[pankajs]

Ah .. deception. I though you said they were not interested. You probably meant they were *acting* as not interested.

That's what happens when you offer a face saving formula when the other party is not interested.

As I had suspected bangles wearers on both sides.

[Chandragupta]

I dont think the Chinese will ever fight India. But we still see everything from 1962 prism. Yet the Chinese and Indian armies fight every other day! Have been for the last 10 years. With bare hands, gaali galoch, harvanvi jhapads and kung fu kicks. Why fight when you have so much to lose? Do we think Chinese are crazy like Paki fundoos? Why will the fight when Indians can be scared only by showing off the sooper dooper stealth fighter J-420 and dozens of new submarines that are nevermind more suited to tourism than war!

We must also find a way to dominate the Chinese without fighting. Time to be creative!

[Philip]

News flash:X-posted from the US td.

The US expels 60 Ru diplomats,along with EU expulsions too, in what is the worst ever state of affairs between the West and Russia.Welcome to Cold War-3.Expect hot wars to break out in the hot spots of the globe,as there is now a total lack of understanding between the two blocs. This is a planned move,details made months ago,as the attempted attack on a minor ex-spy is too unimportant for such a reaction.One clear aim is to totally wreck the impending soccer World Cup in Russia,just as the UKR crisis was created to wreck the Sochi Winter Olympics.This is utterly deplorable of the West.

I do not know what the GOI's attitude to this will be,but in my opinion,deeply worried as to the fall out. We are drifitng rapidly towards actual military confrontation which could take only a small spark anywhere on the globe. In this context,with a US-led trade war against China,we may see China take a more conciliatory attitude towards India and try and try and persuade India not to join a mil "Quad" against it but get into a "triad" along with Russia to protect Asian interests.

I take back my earlier words.Time for Modiji and XI Gins to meet asap and take measures to avoid an Indo-Sino spat as well as getting dragged into Cold War-3.We have everything to lose in the Asian century.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... salisbury/

[shiv]

You are referring to 2007 updated treaty. The original treaty executed between India and Butan and in operation from 1949-2007 clearly calls out that Bhutan will be guided by India on external affairs. China occupied doklam well before 2007 and neither Bhutan nor India invoked the treaty thats what I was referring to in my original post.

http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4d620.html

Both treaties state that they will continue in perpetuity unless modified or terminated. The old treaty has been modified so only the 2007 one is valid. Many of the articles are identical and outdated ones removed and new ones put in place. That business of "advised by India" is not there. And, most importantly no promise to look after Bhutan's security like Nehru bluffed in parliament. Read again my friend

Nehru was speaking in his capacity as the prime minister of India on the floor of Indian parliament. Those words matter its is not banter unless you hold India as some banana republic. Moreover what Nehru was saying is nothing but what is already in 1949 treaty which he co-signed.

All these American memes! Why are we weighed down by mental colonization? "Banana republic"? "Nehru said bla bla". Nehru was Indian PM - not US president. US prez words may count as law in Amreeka but In India it is parliament that counts not PM's words. When parliament says something - that is significant, not some loose comments by the PM. Read how parliament received Nehru's bluff. And you are still bluffing. Nowhere in the 1949 or 2007 treaty does it say that India will look after Bhutan's security. Your personal view is of no consequence but the same idea being propagated by "strategic analysts" is utter trash and reeks of failure to read and digest available documents. It's not my misinformation as you allege. It is delusion that you share with our great analysts who may think India has a treaty to look after Bhutan's security.

Going by your own interpretation India acted highly irresponsibly in Doklam violating the sovereignty of another country not due to some hostile missile installation, militant activity or arms but a tar road of all reason and well within a foreign territory.

Don't put your words in my mouth. India acted in her interests. India actually walked into Bhutanese territory (or Chinese territory if you want to believe the Chinese) and physically stopped the Chinese from going about their business. Why act as if India is weak, innocent and scared of China? And stop having any illusions that India was protecting Bhutanese sovereignty. India was looking after her own interests. If Bhutan invited India - we have not yet heard about it. If China accuses India of violating sovereign territory - so fricking what? We do what is in our interest. I can't for the life of me understand why people are incredulous that India was not meek and subservient. It is IMO a type of mental colonization to accuse India of "acting irresponsibly" as you have done merely because we acted in our interest. Need to grow out of that

[kiranA]

Sorry Shiv. You are indulging in what can only be described as sophistry. When did China occuply Doklam ? 60s atleast ? what treaty was in effect? 1949 or 2007?
Again regarding Nehru's words too you are indulging in sophistry. First of all it doesn't matter what Nehru said when Nehru already signed 1949 treaty where India assumed power over external affairs of Bhutan with the phrase "advise". I don't need to tell you what advise means. And it clearly implies India's responsibility to defend which is what Nehru reiterated in parliament as well. Second I don't assume Indian PM words on the floor of Parlaiment as loose talk but lets agree to disagree there. Even if it were it doesn't matter the treaty obligation is there.

Also you are mischarectirizing the parliamentary debate as well. Parliament wanted even firmer assurances of nehru in defending Bhutan not lesser. All of them clearly understood India's duty and wanted a vigorous defending of bhutan.

After this argument I was reading more of the treaty . It appears Bhutan did sought India's help in ousting China from its claimed areas but India couldnt deliver.

China later formally extended claims to 300 sq. miles of territory in northern Bhutan and areas north of Punakha, but apparently not in Doklam. Bhutan requested the Indian government to raise the matter with China

Border negotiations between Bhutan and China began in 1972 with India playing a supporting role. However, China sought the exclusion of India.[49] Bhutan commenced its own border negotiations with China in 1984

Anyhow the treaty is defacto void by 1962 when India couldnt defend its own sovereignty against China what chance does it have defending Bhutan's sovereignty.

Finally, I am puzzled by your thinking that respecting borders is meek and subservient. India is one nation among others in the world if India wants others to respect its borders then it has a duty to respect others. Statecraft cannot be as cavalier as you are alluding to.

[shiv]

Sorry Shiv. You are indulging in what can only be described as sophistry. When did China occuply Doklam ? 60s atleast ? what treaty was in effect? 1949 or 2007?

Probably 2005 as per Google Earth images

I don't need to tell you what advise means. And it clearly implies India's responsibility to defend which is what Nehru reiterated in parliament as well.

Bhutan taking Indian advice on foreign affairs does not mean "India will protect Bhutan's borders" Claiming that is sophistry.

Also you are mischarectirizing the parliamentary debate as well. Parliament wanted even firmer assurances of nehru in defending Bhutan not lesser. All of them clearly understood India's duty and wanted a vigorous defending of bhutan.

That is what you think. The document shows that parliament did not trust Nehru, and Parliament did not protest when Nehru stated that Indian troops would not be sent into Bhutan - contrary to your claim that parliament was hankering for assurances that Bhutan would be defended. They wanted India to be defended. Nehru was stonewalling and denying the building of a Chinese road in Aksai Chin while bluffing about defending Bhutan.

Finally, I am puzzled by your thinking that respecting borders is meek and subservient. India is one nation among others in the world if India wants others to respect its borders then it has a duty to respect others. Statecraft cannot be as cavalier as you are alluding to.

Nonsense. If it comes to national interest all these ideals must be dismissed as idle talk.

The utter blindness of your statement is easy to see - neither Pakistan, nor China have shown any respect for our boundaries despite our constant harping on our standing by ideals. Statecraft is as cavalier as that and only the snooty (and sneaky) Brits would protest with statements like "statecraft is not as cavalier as that". It's a pity we believed and swallowed that crap and we talk like them without a fraction of their chutzpah. All this business of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may sound good in the Bible or something but it just isn't "statecraft". It's fatal naivete.

[kiranA]

Shiv,

I stand by what I already said about India treaty obligation to Bhutan. The wording in the treaty (Bhutan will follow India's advise), its implication that it imposes the responsibility on India to protect Bhutan sovereignty, the reiteration of that implication by India's Prime Minister on the floor of Indian parliament, Concern of Parliamentarians on China's planned attacks on Bhutan, the efforts of Bhutan itself later to involve India in its border dispute resolution with China, the scores of analysts in India who held attack on bhutan is attack on india (until 2007 ofcourse) is all consistent with what I am saying.

It is your assertions that despite the wording of treaty India has no responsibility for Bhutan borders, Nehru did not use the same language in Bhutan (as if he has an obligation to parrot the same thing on every occasion despite signing the treaty itself), Parliament did not object to No troop decision of Nehru (why would parliament care about operational issues like troop deployment) which is weird. By the way India eventually deployed troops in Bhutan and last time I checked they are still there.

I have nothing more to add and let readers evaluate for themselves which stand makes better sense.

Coming to statecraft, here too you have been poorly informed. Sanctity of borders is serious stuff. When did Pakistan ever admitting to crossing an inch of IB without it being called a war ? Forget IB even during kargil Pakistan never admitted breaching LoC and blamed it on non-state actor.

So when India govt foolishly announced to whole world that it entered a foreign country to attack a tar road it committed a major faux pas. No wonder dragon started to breathe fire. And after initial bombast India went dead quiet. it is not some chankian strategy to go quiet its realization that India caught itself in a hard place - if India withdraws it is loss of face with Indian public, if India continues to occupy its hard not to come out as aggressor in International arena not to mention the unrelenting hostility of china. It was India which was making rounds to China including Doval - thats not how victors behave. And india's MEA lied to Indian public that status quo will be preserved. What is status quo ? A tar road half km away violates a status quo but helipad or rocket launcher 5 kms away doesnt ?

Doklam was a major blunder and who knows what India is paying to china to assuage its ego in all those private discussions.

[shiv]

May I use a Kargil and Aksai Chin (and Kuwait) analogy about land areas that need to be protected or "protectorates"?

When you need to "protect" land - your soldiers need to occupy it and be on the spot. If you say "Ho hum, wake me up when something happens" - "I will wait till His Royal Highness the King of Bhutan has his breakfast and see if he requests me for help" - then the land can get occupied and getting intruders out is hell of a job.

Aksai Chin occupation happened because army was not in position in strength to stop it. In Kargil army had withdrawn from the heights. Evicting Saddam from Kuwait was costly because there were no protecting forces sitting in Kuwait. That is why Indian troops need to man the borders.

Moral of story: One cannot claim that "Bhutan is a protectorate of India" unless Indian troops are sitting in Bhutan in strength along with well developed logistics lines. Anything less than this then we are either not serious or worse - we are ready to put our military in a position of needless risk and excessive loss of life. The British crown - having Indian troops who could be sacrificed on the altar of their sovereignty could do such stuff. They did not give a damn if a few battalions were massacred.

We need to get out of this mindset where we claim we are going to rescue various nations from their foes. If I recall right the Yanks ensured that they got paid for liberating Kuwait. That was clever - aside from all the "allies" they had to do a lot of dirty boots on the ground work.

There is a slightly happier "reverse side of the coin" aspect to this. Chinese border guards used to cuddle up with the teddy bears at night in Yadong and go up to Doklam on day trips and lord it over there. No more of that. Border guards have now been removed. Army has come in and they have to rough it out in Doklam because they can hold Doklam only by being physically present there - not by farting loudly that they own it.

Here is a relevant Tweet short, succinct and sweet.
https://twitter.com/kayjay34350/status/ ... 8794428416

Lt Gen K J Singh
‏ @kayjay34350

On Doklam issue, a point 2 ponder. Chinese had Border Defence Regiments(BDR) in Yatung & in depth in comfort. Came 2 patrol like big lords. Now forced 2 deploy & sustain logistics. Has its costs, also indicates lesser lordship.

[shiv]

Shiv,

I stand by what I already said about India treaty obligation to Bhutan.

Fair enough. It is your right to hold what you believe as your opinion as I have to hold mine. There will always be more than one view - but I will always state my view forcefully if I disagree with an alternate viewpoint.

You made your post as I was typing the post before this and if you understand what I have said you may be able to figure out how stupid it is to claim that we can protect Bhutan without our forces being in Bhutan in strength. This is not a PTA meeting of parent with teacher sorting out issues. It is embarrassing in my view to tomtom to the world that we are going to protect Bhutan like Nehru boasted. The humiliation that Nehru's bluster and fake promises wrought on the nation are irreparable and I think all Indians need to learn that "treaties" or "verbal promises" of looking after security is a load of crock without hard power in place to back it up.

Anything less is simply chaibiskoot. China has surely learned that lesson about Doklam

[Prem]

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... rnOey7wapq
Why the South China Sea is critical to security
By BC

CANBERRA – When the U.S. aircraft carrier, Carl Vincent, recently made a port call at Da Nang, Vietnam, it attracted international attention because this was the first time that a large contingent of U.S. military personnel landed on Vietnamese soil since the last of the American troops withdrew from that country in 1975. The symbolism of this port call, however, cannot obscure the fact that the United States, under two successive presidents, has had no coherent strategy for the South China Sea.It was on President Barack Obama’s watch that China created and militarized seven artificial islands in the South China Sea, while his successor, Donald Trump, still does not seem to have that critical subregion on his radar.
In fact, with Trump focused on North Korea and trade, China is quietly pressing ahead with its expansionist agenda in the South China Sea and beyond. At the expense of its smaller neighbors, it is consolidating its hold by constructing more military facilities on the man-made islands and dramatically expanding its presence at sea across the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific.
It was just five years ago that China began pushing its borders far out into international waters by building artificial islands in the South China Sea. After having militarized these outposts, it has now presented a fait accompli to the rest of the world — without incurring any international costs.These developments carry far-reaching strategic implications for the vast region stretching from the Pacific to the Middle East as well as for the international maritime order. They also highlight that the biggest threat to maritime peace and security comes from unilateralism, especially altering the territorial or maritime status quo by violating international norms and rules.The Indo-Pacific region, which extends from the western shores of the U.S. to eastern Africa and the Persian Gulf, is so interconnected that adverse developments in any of its subregions impinge on wider maritime security. For example, it was always known that if China had its way in the South China Sea, it would turn its attention to the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific. This is precisely what is happening now. An emboldened China has also claimed to be a “near-Arctic state” and unveiled plans for a “polar Silk Road.”In fact, with the U.S. distracted as ever, China’s land-reclamation frenzy in the South China Sea still persists. China is now using a super-dredger, dubbed by its designers as a “magical island-building machine.”
China’s latest advances are not as eye-popping as its creation of artificial islands. Yet the under-the-radar advances, made possible by the free pass Beijing has got, position China to potentially dictate terms in the South China Sea. Last year alone, China built permanent facilities on 290,000 square meters of newly reclaimed land, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.In this light, U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea cannot make up for the absence of an American strategy. FONOPS neither deter China nor reassure America’s regional allies.Indeed, China’s cost-free change of the status quo in the South China Sea has resulted in costs for other countries, especially in Asia — from Japan and the Philippines to Vietnam and India. Countries bearing the brunt of China’s recidivism have been left with difficult choices. Japan, of course, has reversed a decade of declining military outlays, while India has revived stalled naval modernization.China’s sprawling artificial islands that now double as military bases are like permanent aircraft carriers, whose potential role extends to the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific.Beijing’s growing strategic interest in the Indian Ocean region has been highlighted by its establishment of its first overseas military base at Djibouti, its deployment of warships around Pakistan’s Chinese-built Gwadar port and its acquisition of Sri Lanka’s strategically located Hambantota port under a 99-year lease. China is also acquiring a 70 percent stake in Myanmar’s deepwater Kyaukpyu port. A political crisis in the Maldives, meanwhile, has helped reveal China’s quiet acquisition of several islets in that heavily indebted Indian Ocean archipelago.
There is consensus among all important players other than China for an open, rules-based Indo-Pacific. Playing by international rules is central to peace and security. Yet progress has been slow and tentative in promoting wider collaboration to advance regional stability and power equilibrium.
For example, the institutionalization of the Australia-India-Japan-U.S. “Quad” has yet to take off. The Quad, in fact, remains largely inspirational. In this light, the idea of a “Quad plus two” to include France and Britain seems overly ambitious at this stage.If and when the Quad takes concrete shape, Britain and France could, of course, join. They both have important naval assets in the Indo-Pacific. During French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent New Delhi visit, France and India agreed to reciprocal access to each other’s naval facilities, on terms similar to the U.S.-India Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement.Unless the Quad members start coordinating their approaches to effectively create a single regional strategy and build broader collaboration with other important players, Indo-Pacific security could come under greater strain.
China could also declare “straight baselines” in the Spratlys, as it did in the Paracels in 1996. Such baselines connecting the outermost points of the Spratly island chain would seek to turn the sea within, including features controlled by other nations, into “internal waters.”To thwart China’s further designs in the South China Sea and its attempts to change the maritime status quo in the Indian Ocean and the East China Sea, a constellation of democratic states linked by interlocking strategic cooperation — as proposed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe — has become critical to help institute power stability. The imperative is to build a new strategic equilibrium, including a stable balance of power.

[SSridhar]

Is this the reason, apart from Trump's antics?

India, China plan FTA breakthrough - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu

Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu and his Chinese counterpart, Zhong Shan, met here [New Delhi] on Monday for the first high-level contact between both sides that decided to “reset” their ties this year in the run-up to a Xi-Modi summit meeting in China.

In exclusive written replies to The Hindu , Mr. Zhong, who co-chaired the 11th meeting of the India-China Joint Group on Economic Relations, Trade, Science and Technology with Mr. Prabhu, said a free trade agreement (FTA) between India and China would be negotiated in due course, which would be a breakthrough in ties.

On economic ties

Since 2014, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have met on several occasions. Mr. Zhong said they had decided that the two countries would build a closer partnership in development and deepen cooperation in all areas. With the care and personal support of the Chinese and Indian leaders, the trade and economic ties between the two countries had kept a fast-growing momentum.

In 2017, the bilateral trade reached $84.4 billion, registering a growth of 20.3% from the year before and a record high. In particular, China’s import from India soared by 40%, helping ease the bilateral trade imbalance. China remained India’s largest trading partner. India had become one of the most important overseas investment destinations for Chinese companies.

Talks with Prabhu

Mr. Zhong said that at the 11th session JEG meeting, he and Mr. Prabhu had in-depth discussions and the two sides had reached a series of important consensus. First, the two sides would jointly promote the synergy between China’s Belt and Road initiative and India’s development strategies, including the “15-year Development Agenda”, “Make in India” and “Digital India” to deepen mutually-beneficial cooperation and share development experience. Second, the two sides would promote India’s exports to China so as to address the trade imbalance between the two countries.

China welcomed the participation of Indian businesses in the agricultural, pharmaceutical and IT sectors, and the participation of producers of manufactured goods. China would provide Indian participants with preferential arrangements. Third, the two sides agreed to set up a special working group to draw a road map for developing two-way trade ... The two sides supported the multilateral trading system and safeguard the interests of developing members. Both sides would demonstrate flexibility to reach at an early date a modern, comprehensive and mutually beneficial RCEP agreement of high standards.

The two sides are also considering positively launching in due course negotiations on a regional trade arrangement or free trade agreement between China and India.

Most of it, especially Indian access to Chinese markets, would be a non-starter.

[TKiran]

We don't know the chankian move, may actually this move could boost the bilateral trade, who knows...

[pankajs]

http://www.marctomarket.com/2018/03/chi ... march.html
China's Inexorable March [Marc Chandler - Head of Currency Strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman]

Despite some metrics making it look like China rivals the United States, like GDP at purchasing power parity, most observers recognize that the role of the yuan and Chinese markets are nowhere close to taking on the US. China still needs years go growth and development, and the multilateral trading system that the US was instrumental in creating works in it interest. Chinese officials are nothing if not pragmatic. They will be the concessions that are necessary to preserve and augment its place in the world economy.

China is not defenseless in a trade war, but many observers trying to game out the extent of its weapons lack imagination. They focus on agriculture or some other products, like big-ticket item airplanes. Some see the exchange rate as a possible tool and others have given some thought to the reduced buying of Treasuries, or even their sales. However, many of these actions could hurt China. Instead, it behooves the US to think of other ways China could strike back without doing harm to its own agenda. Imagine China lending out or repo-ing its US Treasury holdings.

Nevertheless, it seems as if Chinese officials are drawing the same insight as others are after Trump's first year in office: Resist when possible, make concessions when necessary, avoid antagonizing needlessly. There seems to be a general acceptance that Trump represents an anomaly--a vocal minority of the political and economic elite--who won control of the levers of state, but their hold on power is tenuous at best and could in any event be circumscribed by the November mid-term elections.

When China "Resist when possible, make concessions when necessary, avoid antagonizing needlessly" it is strategically smart but India does the same it is called shameful, sellout and cowardice.

I had earlier written about how China uses Dollar/Treasuries to maintain CNY/USD exchange rate balance that it thinks will help with its exports to US. So while China could stop buying or start selling treasuries there is going to be a cost involved.

[Skanda]

Maldives lifts state of emergency, defusing China-India tensions

Pressure from India and the U.S. seems partly responsible for bringing the state of emergency to an end. Calling the situation unconstitutional, ex-President Mohamed Nasheed, in exile and facing terrorism-related charges, called on India to send its military and a special envoy to free the political detainees. In response, India beefed up patrols in the Indian Ocean around the island nation.

According to Indian government sources, China sent several vessels, including missile destroyers, near the Maldives, apparently in response to a Maldivian envoy's visit to Beijing on Feb. 7. Yameen has counted on China for support, including investment, which has proven controversial.

But around Feb. 22, when these ships were around 30 nautical miles from India's vessels, the Indian Navy threatened action -- a warning shot and "war drill" -- if they were to come within 20 nautical miles. The Chinese fleet retreated to the southeast, stopping in waters 276 nautical miles from the Maldivian capital of Male.

Diminished prospects for Chinese military support may have led Yameen to scrap the state of emergency. Tensions between China and India over the island nation of 400,000 people look likely to abate for now, though both navies were maintaining the positions of their warships in the Indian Ocean as of March 22.

[SSridhar]

Seychelles opposition blocks military deal with India - Indrani Bagchi, ToI

The agreement is very important for India, as it works hard to mark a military presence on both Seychelles and Mauritius (Agalega island), in its drive to extend its strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean. . . . . India will have to work harder to win support for the plan, particularly as China too is finding its feet in this country, with deeper pockets.

[shiv]

Thread about the difficulties China faces with BRI. Worth a read
https://twitter.com/NamasteNiHao/status ... 7998398464

[TKiran]

When China "Resist when possible, make concessions when necessary, avoid antagonizing needlessly" it is strategically smart but India does the same it is called shameful, sellout and cowardice.

That's bullshit.

India not only says but also practices "with US 'resist when possible, make concessions when necessary, avoid antagonizing needlessly' " , it has paid rich dividends and China is following the India's lead on how to conduct relationship with a friendly nation whose strategic interests converge on many areas except on "security".

[pankajs]

When China "Resist when possible, make concessions when necessary, avoid antagonizing needlessly" it is strategically smart but India does the same it is called shameful, sellout and cowardice.

That's bullshit.

India not only says but also practices "with US 'resist when possible, make concessions when necessary, avoid antagonizing needlessly' " , it has paid rich dividends and China is following the India's lead on how to conduct relationship with a friendly nation whose strategic interests converge on many areas except on "security".

That quote was for China's "bangle wearing" strategy wrt US wonlee. The author and myself felt no need to add "with US" at the start because it was obvious.

BTW, in case you did not notice, that strategy was stated in economic/trade context but the same "bangle wearing" strategy has been adopted by China on strategic issue too. Example is wrt Taiwan. Again, on Taiwan its wrt US not India in case it is not clear from context.

I am a fan of China's *bangle wearing* strategy. I consider a pinnacle of their achievement.

[TKiran]

The current goi does not consider China as an enemy.

The current goi wants to use with China the same strategy it uses with US. It's not going to work.

[nam]

But around Feb. 22, when these ships were around 30 nautical miles from India's vessels, the Indian Navy threatened action -- a warning shot and "war drill" -- if they were to come within 20 nautical miles. The Chinese fleet retreated to the southeast, stopping in waters 276 nautical miles from the Maldivian capital of Male.

Diminished prospects for Chinese military support may have led Yameen to scrap the state of emergency. Tensions between China and India over the island nation of 400,000 people look likely to abate for now, though both navies were maintaining the positions of their warships in the Indian Ocean as of March 22.

Do Chinis wear dhotis?

[pankajs]

The current goi does not consider China as an enemy.

The current goi wants to use with China the same strategy it uses with US. It's not going to work.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on both China and GOI's view of China or US or any other matter.

As far as I can see, it is following the Chinese model of dealing with Japan and the US. China does not label them as enemy at every *official* press briefing. India too does not label China as enemy at every *official* press briefing. Chinese media or Brahma Chellaney don't count as official statements. It is unnecessary but that is just my opinion.

Current GOI want's to deal with China the way China dealt with the US. You are perfectly within your right to hold that as "not going to work". I hold a different opinion. Only in 10-20 year we will know if the current GOI's strategy worked or failed.

[shiv]

In order to train and hone my mind to make nasty/bitchy comments I try and imagine that it is Modi standing with Kim Young One and think of the sort of nastiness that would emerge

[SSridhar]

Maldives' engagement with China, Pakistan ‘too secretive’ for India - Sachin Parashar, ToI

As TOI had first reported on February 26, China is looking to build what the Maldives officially describes as a Joint Ocean Observation Station on the westernmost atoll of Makunudhoo in northern Maldives, not far from Lakshadweep. Even as it seeks to convince India that the observatory will have no military application, it has refused to share a copy of the agreement for the observatory with the Indian government.

Official sources here said that former foreign secretary S Jaishankar had sought a clarification from the Maldivian ambassador, Ahmed Mohamed, over the issue. Mohamed is learnt to have told Jaishankar that China was only looking to build a meteorological ocean observation centre in the Maldives.

A senior official of the Maldivian government told TOI too that the agreement signed was for meteorological purposes but refused to share a copy saying it was not a public document.

While the President’s official website calls the agreement The Protocol on Establishment of Joint Ocean Observation Station between the Maldives and China, the Maldivian official claimed that the website probably "forgot" to add the word meteorological to it.

A marine observatory, as strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney says, is an important tool to gather information on ocean state, phenomena and processes in order to have a better understanding of ocean dynamics and grasp regional characteristics and vulnerabilities.

"A Chinese-built marine observatory in the Maldives will yield a variety of physical, chemical and biological data to better understand the specific characteristics of that part of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea so as to optimally deploy nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in India’s maritime backyard. This will complete India’s strategic encirclement,’’ he says.

As Vice Admiral (Rtd) Jagjit Singh Bedi had tweeted, in response to the TOI story on the proposed observatory, China needed accurate and reliable hydrological data for sub surface operations. "Precursor to prolonged deployment of SSBN/ SSN operations in the Arabian Sea. To be read in conjunction with surveys conducted off Gwadar (the Pakistan port which China has built and controls) to analyse tectonic activity,’’ tweeted Bedi

[SSridhar]

China to resume sharing hydrological data with India on Brahmaputra - PTI

China said on Wednesday it will resume sharing with India the hydrological data of the Brahmaputra river as top water resource officials of the two countries wrapped up two-day talks, the first after Beijing last year stopped providing the data crucial to predict floods.

"On the basis of humanitarian spirit {Bloody hell... That's the minimum any decent upper riparian is expected to do} and our shared will to develop bilateral ties we will continue with the cooperation on hydrological information cooperation," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a media briefing here.

He was responding to a question whether China will resume sharing of the hydrological data on Brahmaputra river, which Beijing suspended last year stating that it could not share it with India due to upgradation of data collection station in Tibet.

China's announcement to not to share the data came soon after the 73-day long stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops at Doklam over Chinese military's plans to build a road close to India's Chicken Neck corridor connecting North-Eastern states.

A team of officials of India's Ministry of Water Resources held talks with their Chinese counterparts on the cooperation of trans-border rivers in the last two days at the Chinese city of Hangzhou, the first after Beijing last year stopped providing the data.

Lu said during the talks the two sides reviewed the achievements of the previous meetings as well as bilateral cooperation on emergency and response and hydrological information.

"The two sides have agreed to continue with such cooperation. On the grounds of humanitarian principles and the basis of bilateral relations China will continue with this cooperation with the Indian side on the provision of hydrological information and emergency response cooperation {Wait. . . didn't they say when they stopped the data that they were upgrading their equipment and that caused the stoppage of data? So, where is the question of humanity & bilateralism?} ," Lu said.

Asked whether China would resume the data, Lu said "since you made it quite clear", China will continue with the cooperation on hydrological information cooperation.

The two-day talks of the 11th meeting of the India-China Expert Level Mechanism (ELM) on Trans-Border Rivers concluded yesterday at Hangzhou, a statement from the Indian Embassy here said on Wednesday.

The Indian side was led by Teerath Singh Mehra, Commissioner (B&B), Ministry of Water Resources and the Chinese side by Yu Xingjun, Consul, Department of International Cooperation Science and Technology, Ministry of Water Resources.

The meeting which was held in a "cordial and friendly" atmosphere reviewed the progress made since the earlier meetings of the ELM and their continued cooperation on provision of hydrological information and emergency management in respect of trans-border rivers, the press release said.

The officials also reviewed the data utilisation report upon provision of hydrological information provided by China to India in flood season on Brahmaputra and Sutlej Rivers.

The institutional mechanism of the ELM was established in 2006 to discuss various issues related to trans-border rivers.

Under existing bilateral Memorandums of Understanding, China provides to India hydrological information of Brahmaputra River (Yarlong Zangbo) and Sutlej River (Langqen Zangbo) during the flood seasons.

China has been building major dams on Brahmaputra river to generate hydel power. It operationalised Zangmu hydroelectric project in October, 2015 and three more are under construction.

While dams raised concerns of water shortages in India and Bangladesh, which are lower riparian states of Brahmaputra river, China said its dams were aimed at generating power and not storing water.

The data shared by upper riparian state, China, to lower riparian states, India and Bangladesh is essential every monsoon to allow anticipation of the flow of the water and take necessary measures to deal with flooding in India's north-eastern States.

[shiv]

A fresh and original perspective like cool air in summer:

Understanding Chinese Mind: How can India use Doklam Standoff to its own advantage

https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/ ... -advantage

If the supreme leader is shown as being weak, Hans do not organize to make him strong again. they simply follow a different Han leader who appears stronger. If that statement is true it will mean that the supreme leader will be risking his own leadership if he gets into a war that he cannot decisively win. Can a Chinese supreme leader decisively win a war where his own capital city (and maybe other cities) is devastated by Martian nukes? That’s where the situation gets interesting. Give China a crushing military defeat along the border and, ideally, create suffocating chaos for the Chinese economy by cutting off its trade routes in the IOR.

Because China is a rational trading power with non-military culture, a short war is possible especially if we overwhelm them in the theatres of our choice and give them no incentive to pursue further hostilities by limiting territorial gains to what we lost in 1962 and bit more in defensible positions. It won't go long term or total war if we don't get victory disease and attempt to detach Tibet as a whole.

War provides India with an opportunity but China with a risk. OBOR happens unabated WITHOUT war, with war it goes on hold. Defeating India would not change their conflicts with Taiwan, Japan, Russia, Vietnam or Korea. It didn't in 1962 and it won't today. And in fact, would spur them to arm themselves more furiously.

[Philip]

Shiv pl take a look at the general Ind. Mil. td.Article in the Ind.Exp. quoted on the state of our mil. , can fight only for 10 days.After that what? ME wars have lasted for years.
Absence of mil.men in the MOD staffed with mil. illiterate babus who delay matters for months the key reason why nothing is moving at any decent speed.GOI 's insult of a defence budget sorely upset the services and chiefs who've criticised it.

[shiv]

Shiv pl take a look at the general Ind. Mil. td.Article in the Ind.Exp. quoted on the state of our mil. , can fight only for 10 days.After that what? ME wars have lasted for years.

Look at the positive side. Now it is 10 days. Previously it was how much - maybe 3 days?

[Chandragupta]

A fresh and original perspective like cool air in summer:

Understanding Chinese Mind: How can India use Doklam Standoff to its own advantage

https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/ ... -advantage

If the supreme leader is shown as being weak, Hans do not organize to make him strong again. they simply follow a different Han leader who appears stronger. If that statement is true it will mean that the supreme leader will be risking his own leadership if he gets into a war that he cannot decisively win. Can a Chinese supreme leader decisively win a war where his own capital city (and maybe other cities) is devastated by Martian nukes? That’s where the situation gets interesting. Give China a crushing military defeat along the border and, ideally, create suffocating chaos for the Chinese economy by cutting off its trade routes in the IOR.

Because China is a rational trading power with non-military culture, a short war is possible especially if we overwhelm them in the theatres of our choice and give them no incentive to pursue further hostilities by limiting territorial gains to what we lost in 1962 and bit more in defensible positions. It won't go long term or total war if we don't get victory disease and attempt to detach Tibet as a whole.

War provides India with an opportunity but China with a risk. OBOR happens unabated WITHOUT war, with war it goes on hold. Defeating India would not change their conflicts with Taiwan, Japan, Russia, Vietnam or Korea. It didn't in 1962 and it won't today. And in fact, would spur them to arm themselves more furiously.

Did Chola guru write this? Seems like it.