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.
Some relevant excerpts to this thread from the statement after India-Australia Prime Ministers' Joint (Virtual) meeting yesterday.
Was hoping to see RAN inductedd into Ex. Malabar this year, but it was not mentioned. May be it would still happen without being part of this announcement.
. . . they committed to elevate the bilateral Strategic Partnership concluded in 2009 to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP). . . Both countries share the vision of an open, free, rules-based Indo-Pacific region supported by inclusive global and regional institutions that promote prosperous, stable and sovereign states on the basis of shared interests. . . reflect on the recommendations of the independent and comprehensive evaluation of the international health response to COVID-19 to improve capacity for global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. . . Australia conveyed that India could consider it as a stable, reliable and trusted supplier of high-quality mineral resources [reference to Uranium] to India. Both sides jointly decided to diversify and expand the existing resources partnership. The MOU on cooperation in the field of mining and processing of Critical and Strategic minerals identifies specific areas where both sides will work together to meet the technological demands of the future economy. . . deeper engagement between our two countries including maritime domain awareness, and expanded linkages between our maritime agencies. . . Australia expressed support for India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) . . . Both sides agreed to continue to deepen and broaden defence cooperation by enhancing the scope and complexity of their military exercises and engagement activities to develop new ways to address shared security challenges. Both sides agreed to increase military inter-operability through defence exercises through their Arrangement concerning Mutual Logistics Support (MLSA). . . adherence of all nations to international law including the and peaceful resolution of disputes rather than through unilateral or coercive actions. . . . Both sides share a commitment to supporting a strong and resilient regional architecture, with ASEAN at its centre. . . . trilateral meetings with Japan, trilateral meetings with Indonesia . . . They welcomed the inaugural Quad ministerial meeting with Japan and the United States in September 2019, and reaffirmed their commitment to ongoing Quad consultations. . . prosperity and security of the South Pacific . . . continued bilateral civil nuclear cooperation . . . strong support for India's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). . . support a comprehensive approach in combating terrorism . . . Both sides called for early adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) [India sponsored resolution] . . . Australia reiterated its support for India's candidacy for permanent membership of a reformed UN Security Council (UNSC) and India's candidature for a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council for the 2021-22 term. . . desire to increase the frequency of Prime Ministerial contact . . . Foreign and Defence Ministers will meet in a ‘2+2’ format to discuss strategic issues at least every two years.
Deans wrote:
Its the same with India. They are already in an economic war with us - which we, with our $60 billion annual trade deficit have been losing for over a decade. Why would they want to attack us when we are willing handing over our cash and becoming economically dependent. Current drama has the objective of `showing us our place'.
That I agree. However for a fight with us, the Chinese have the Paks. They will arm them heavily to keep us occupied. In a way the trade deficit(very expensive though) is sort of insurance against a China attack on LAC.
The Chinese are desperate to unleash their forces in a Khan style "shock & awe" campaign and show the world that they have arrived. They are looking for a victim and I am not yet convinced it will be us. At-least for the time being.
If trade has to be weaponized , india will need to get the lizards balls and squeeze them once in a while..just not to let them forget.. heck..they are doing it to the Aussies
SSridhar wrote:Some relevant excerpts to this thread from the statement after India-Australia Prime Ministers' Joint (Virtual) meeting yesterday.
Was hoping to see RAN inductedd into Ex. Malabar this year, but it was not mentioned. May be it would still happen without being part of this announcement.
. . . they committed to elevate the bilateral Strategic Partnership concluded in 2009 to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP). . . Both countries share the vision of an open, free, rules-based Indo-Pacific region supported by inclusive global and regional institutions that promote prosperous, stable and sovereign states on the basis of shared interests. . . reflect on the recommendations of the independent and comprehensive evaluation of the international health response to COVID-19 to improve capacity for global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. . . Australia conveyed that India could consider it as a stable, reliable and trusted supplier of high-quality mineral resources [reference to Uranium] to India. Both sides jointly decided to diversify and expand the existing resources partnership. The MOU on cooperation in the field of mining and processing of Critical and Strategic minerals identifies specific areas where both sides will work together to meet the technological demands of the future economy. . . deeper engagement between our two countries including maritime domain awareness, and expanded linkages between our maritime agencies. . . Australia expressed support for India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) . . . Both sides agreed to continue to deepen and broaden defence cooperation by enhancing the scope and complexity of their military exercises and engagement activities to develop new ways to address shared security challenges. Both sides agreed to increase military inter-operability through defence exercises through their Arrangement concerning Mutual Logistics Support (MLSA). . . adherence of all nations to international law including the and peaceful resolution of disputes rather than through unilateral or coercive actions. . . . Both sides share a commitment to supporting a strong and resilient regional architecture, with ASEAN at its centre. . . . trilateral meetings with Japan, trilateral meetings with Indonesia . . . They welcomed the inaugural Quad ministerial meeting with Japan and the United States in September 2019, and reaffirmed their commitment to ongoing Quad consultations. . . prosperity and security of the South Pacific . . . continued bilateral civil nuclear cooperation . . . strong support for India's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). . . support a comprehensive approach in combating terrorism . . . Both sides called for early adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) [India sponsored resolution] . . . Australia reiterated its support for India's candidacy for permanent membership of a reformed UN Security Council (UNSC) and India's candidature for a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council for the 2021-22 term. . . desire to increase the frequency of Prime Ministerial contact . . . Foreign and Defence Ministers will meet in a ‘2+2’ format to discuss strategic issues at least every two years.
Mineral might as well be Adanis huge coal project !
SSridhar wrote:Mineral might as well be Adanis huge coal project !
It says, " . . . Critical and Strategic minerals". Critical are Rare Earths perhaps and Strategic is Uranium. The Joint Statement also talks of "exploration and extraction of other minerals", which probably includes Adani.
skumar wrote:We cannot allow China to take 2 steps forward and 1 step back.
That's one of their usual tactics. They would make it look like a concession that they went one step back from their two steps forward. Since 1972, when the Chinese began to be re-allowed into the world order, they have never compromised on any of their strategic goals, rather they have ensured others accommodate themselves around the Chinese goals.
That there is a dispute, is undeniable.
But then, what exactly is this dispute that we keep hearing about?
Well, to put it simply – the two sides do not agree as to where the LAC lies in a few sectors – thus what is called ‘Claim Lines’, wherein both sides feel that the other side claims ‘their’ land. THIS is the ‘difference in perception’ that the Raksha Mantri talked about some time ago.
With both sides keen to retain their claims, patrolling parties inevitably ‘cross over’ into areas claimed to be theirs by the opposing side.
Hence the occasional video / photograph of both sides engaged in shoving and jostling with each other.
This is the ‘normal’ interaction between the Indian Army and the PLA.
.
.
Once again, refer back to the photos & the video of IA and PLA shared above.
Did you see that both sides are carrying their weapons?
Yet they choose NOT to use them and instead, keep them slung behind their backs?
BOTH sides follow this rule religiously. Ever wondered why?
Could it be due to an understanding – formal or informal – of NOT escalating things beyond a certain point?
I’d say YES.
Both sides are content to raise banners to inform the other of transgression into their claimed areas, which might of course, overlap with the other side’s claim.
This, folks, is the ‘routine’ interaction on the LAC.
.
.
The thing is, despite all sorts of provocations at higher echelons, the interaction on the ground between both armies is diligently kept below a level that might cause grievous bodily harm to anyone from the other side.
Bottomline: NONE seek escalation beyond a point.
Period.
So what about all those reports of a buildup of ‘tens of thousands of troops’ behind the area of the current standoff?
Well, didn’t we hear the same during the Doklam days?
.
.
Like it or not, the release of the video of the Chinese boy captured by the Indian troopers and the counter visuals of Indian troops in Chinese hands do not help the cause.
Is it a cause for worry, though?
Of course, it is.
But not for reasons we might think.
In a far-fetched contingency, in case guns do start booming, will such scenarios matter?
No Way!
First of all, the last time that guns boomed on the LAC was in Sep-Oct 1967, i.e. more than half a century ago. And unsurprisingly, it was the Chinese that came second best!
.
.
However, at the end of the day, despite all policies and agreements on that account, it remains the soldiers on the ground who are ultimately entrusted with ensuring that it remains thus.
What is to say that in the heat of the moment, a Jat, or a Sikh, or a Gorkha, or any other soldier of the Indian Army, or for that matter, one from the PLA will NOT end up losing his cool and end up initiating a chain of events that may potentially take the entire situation downhill?
Remember, the Chola clash of 1967 started not with a rifle being fired, but a Khukri being flashed, resulting in a Chinese sentry losing his arm to a Gorkha soldier of 7/11 Gorkha Rifles of the Indian Army.
As I’ve said before, human element plays a big role.
That’s a flawed logic. They have already attacked by taking Fingers 4-8. The Chinese understand the grey zone that Indians don’t recognize as an attack and repeatedly use it in their favor. The fix is recognizing the change of status quo on April 2020 as an attack, not waiting for a new attack.
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan has decided not join the United States, Britain and others in issuing a statement scolding China for imposing a new security law, Kyodo news agency reported on Sunday, citing officials from countries involved.
The Japs -- like zee Germans -- are maneuvering for a prime spot in Cheen's economy in the post-Wuhanvirus world. Only the Anglo-sphere -- UK, Oz and Canada -- are fully committed to Trump's trade war with Cheen.
China’s economic recovery could be ‘very impressive’ — but the U.S. stands in the way, Deutsche Bank says
PUBLISHED MON, JUN 8 202012:46 AM EDT
KEY POINTS
*The economic recovery in China, where the coronavirus first emerged, is “going to look very impressive,” said Michael Spencer, Deutsche Bank’s chief economist and head of research for Asia Pacific.
*Spencer said improving domestic demand in China is expected to help the economy grow by 5%-6% quarter on quarter in April-June, following a contraction in January-March.
*But the biggest risk to the Chinese — and global — economy is the U.S., he said.
*The U.S. is reopening “too soon,” which could trigger another wave of coronavirus infections and further rounds of lockdown, he added.
Don't look now, fellow Rakshaks. But PRC might come through the other side of this thing THEY CAUSED even stronger.
NRao wrote:Unless something has changed, Japan has allocated $20 billion to pull out of China. One destination spot: India (wish infra was far better).
Besides, I do not know anyone who has confidence in this US Prez to anything beyond talk!!
That money is for firms needing to leave Cheen so they can keep the US market. Again it is making the best of both markets. There is no directive from the Japanese government to leave the chini market. And $20B is peanuts when they do $350-$400B a year with Cheen. Their total investment in Cheen would be at least a half-trillion.
^^^ No that money from the chini market is real. If there were no money then the MNCs would have abandoned Cheen a long time ago. The reason why firms like to put their supply chain in Cheen is the economy of scale that comes from selling to the local market plus exports (not mentioning the other selling point like infrastructure, proximity to suppliers in East Asia, etc.)
Japanese (and Koreans and Taiwanese) might be influenced by the cultural affinity but not Germans. VW alone sells more passenger cars in Cheen than the entire Indian market. Tata Motors is deemed basically worseless without its China's operations for Landrover and Jaguar.
This is what makes Cheen a formidable rival. If it were just a Potempkin Village, it would have collapsed decades ago. Certainly after the 2008 Financial Crisis and the current crisis of its making. It came through strong in 2008 and is looking dangerously strong again powering through the virus.
Huawei has been lobbying hard to enter Malaysia through its proxies and the cancellation of the allocation will dent its chances to make up for the losses.
US has long been calling Huawei as an espionage tool of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been leading the crusade to eject Huawei from any country it is trying to squeeze in. It was only after the USA had put the pressure on the United Kingdom that the tories backed off from the deal with Huawei.
Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had also cautioned the Philippines, among other countries, against deploying Huawei technology, especially in matters involving sensitive information.
While the developments in Malaysia were still ripe, another bout of bad news came for China and this time from the Southeast Asian country of Indonesia.
Indonesia says no overlapping maritime issues with China, countering Beijing’s claims
Indonesia on Friday last week rejected a Chinese offer for negotiations on the South China Sea, as Jakarta reiterated that it had no overlapping claims with Beijing in its exclusive economic zone.
Beijing had shot a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledging it had no territorial dispute with Indonesia but said that the two countries had overlapping claims over maritime rights in parts of the South China Sea.
Earlier, reported by TFI, Jakarta had rejected China’s nine-dash line in the South China Sea or any claims of historical rights in the region. Now Jakarta has even refused to acknowledge that there is any overlapping maritime issue in the region with China.
The Indonesian government in a letter to UN secretary-general (dated 26 May) had also mentioned a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which the Philippines won, against China’s claims that it has a historic right to the maritime region.
If these embarrassments were not enough for Xi Jinping and his regime, Indonesia came up with another maneuver that has ever so slightly given a tight slap to China and its policies.
Jakarta mulling to introduce Japan in an Indonesia-China consortium
Jakarta is now mulling to include Japan in Kereta Cepat Indonesia China (KCIC), an Indonesia-China consortium to develop the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway.
Interestingly, China had outbid Japan for the project but the consistent delay in the project by the Chinese side which has been further exacerbated by COVID-19 has pushed the Indonesian government to bring Japan in the fold to expedite and expand the national strategic project.
Policymakers believe the inclusion of Japan would accelerate the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway project.
If this decision sees the day of the light, it would hurt Dragon’s egotistical nature as the Indonesian government will be indirectly sending the message that it did not have faith in Beijing to complete the project on time.
The High-speed rail project was aimed to begin operation by June 2021, which in the first place was already a two-year-long delay from its original target of 2019.
But with China unleashing a health crisis over the world, the project is all but certain looking to be stalled further.
The series of developments in the South China Sea is set to give a major jolt to China and its expansionist policies in the region as smaller countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are starting to stand up to it.
Beijing has bit more than it can chew and a post COVID world will be a different reality altogether for Beijing. With the Western nations already circling China with India in the squad and Australia in the Indo-pacific region, China is being legitimately cornered as Southeast Asia also jumps in the fray.
Any discussion of the turbulent waters in the South China Sea begins with the Nine-Dash line, used by Beijing to claim almost the entirety of the sea, from Hainan Island down to the top of Indonesia. A 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Appeals (PCA) in the Hague found the demarcation line to be invalid according to international law and was given in favor of the Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
China has largely ignored the PCA ruling and has encroached on the EEZs of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and Indonesia in recent years in addition to the Philippines.
About a year before the 2016 PCA ruling, the Chinese government began to build artificial islands on reefs and shoals in the South China Sea, militarizing them with airstrips, harbors and radar facilities.
Greg Polling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Institute (AMTI), told the CNN, "These (islands) are bristling with radar and surveillance capabilities, they see everything that goes on in the South China Sea. In the past, China didn't know where you were drilling. Now they certainly do.
The artificial islands allow the Chinese ships to use increasingly forceful tactics against major regional powers such as Malaysia and Indonesia with an armada of coast guard and Chinese fishing vessels that can be deployed in the South China Sea to harass other claimants' ships or to sail in politically sensitive areas.
Polling continued, “(The islands) provide forward basing for Chinese ships, effectively turning Malaysia and Indonesia into front line states. On any given day, there (are) about dozen coast guard ships buzzing around the Spratly Islands, and about a hundred fishing boats, ready to go."
Aggressive actions by China in the sea include a month-long stand-off earlier this year between Chinese and Malaysian vessels near the island of Borneo. The new year began with a standoff in the Natuna Islands on the far southern end of the South China Sea, territory claimed by China but within Indonesia's EEZ. In April, a Chinese vessel rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat near the disputed Paracel Islands.
Some experts say that Beijing’s more assertive actions are the result of the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s valued international reputation is damaged, and its economy has been slowed. Greg Polling agrees, saying, "What has changed is that they've really taken the glove off of the fist diplomatically. The statements are brash and unhelpful.”
The statements he was referring to were from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang saying that China would take "all measures necessary" to safeguard Beijing's interests in the region. Geng said, "I want to stress this: attempts by any country to negate in any means China's sovereignty, rights and interests in the South China Sea and to reinforce its own illegal claim are bound to be fruitless.”
Other countries in the South China Sea often have to balance their allegiances between their huge communist neighbor and the United Statees, which maintains a presence in the area mostly as a counter to China and to preserve freedom of movement in the international waterway.
James Holmes, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and former Navy officer, gave a public lecture in May that included the statement, "I think China has actually seriously overplayed its hand by being so bullying and by being so aggressive. That starts driving together allies that are worried about Chinese aggression ... The more China pushes, the more coalition partners are likely to unite and push back.”
Any push back will include the U.S. and that could damage Beijing’s economy even more. Will this prompt more aggression from the Chinese communist government using the artificial islands as a front, or will they ease up on their activities to preserve what are already tense relations with all Southeast Asia?
Australia’s farmers are on a mission to find fresh buyers for their barley, and are targeting bigger exports this year even after the country’s top customer, China, slapped tariffs of about 80% on the grain.
Markets in Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, India and Saudi Arabia are among those being scoured for new clients or eyed for increased shipments of the cereal, which is mostly used in brewing and livestock feed.
Hari Seldon wrote:Phoren firms making money in cheena's domestic market seems like a scam. Maybe short term gains and carrots are dangle-able but beyond that, zilch.
Not really. The ones which are trading technology for market access are the ones committing hara-kiri.
The firms which are using their brand name peddling low tech good for big bucks are the winners - luxury brands, food and hotel service providers, even Disney (they have tech, processes and SOPs which are relatively easy to duplicate but it's the brand and scale that is unmatched), educational institutes etc. The "reputation business" is thriving and the Chinese love brands even when equally good domestic shoes and burgers are available. Starbucks wouldn't be considered high tech in any way, but the Chinese equivalent [1] turned out to be one big scam - proving that they can't even get a cup of overpriced coffee right (and in some way our own CCD story was a tragedy).
Cars are mid-tech items, but the American brands being sold to Chinese are at the lower ends of technology yet command high mindshare & thereby profits. NBA is another example of mindshare resulting in profits.
I wrote this article 2 years ago, for the Indian military review. While it was intended to look at countering the Chinese threat economically, the article has includes military issues and a more simplified view on trade.
The real Chinese threat.
China’s goal is to be the world’s pre-eminent power, replacing the US. To that end China’s GDP – in purchasing power parity terms, is set to overtake the US in 2021. China’s goal which was earlier implied and understated, been formally stated and more aggressively acted upon by Premier Xi.
A key weapon in China’s Geo political strategy is the use of its economic power. This is done to do get concessions through economic coercion, undermine a country’s economy (making it more influenced by China’s policies), or affect defence spending of a rival though a small effort of its own.
For e.g. a relatively small amount of aid & weapons to North Korea (or Pakistan) is enough for those countries to threaten their neighbours and force them into a higher military spend that might otherwise be spent elsewhere. China’s border policy towards India, is in my view, part of this strategy wherein small but regular intrusions across the LAC, remind us of the ghosts of 1962 and force us to deploy a large force on the LAC (opposite a far smaller Chinese force across the LAC in Tibet) as a deterrent. Coupled with this, is China’s effort to undermine the India’s economy through its economic policies of the last decade.
The trade deficit between India and China at $ 63 billion in 2017-8, is the 2nd highest that any country has with another – only the US, with its much larger economy has a bigger trade deficit (also with China). While India imported goods worth $ 79 billion from China, China imported only $ 16 billion from India, in 2017-18. Not only is the absolute size of the trade deficit worrying, its composition and growth has even more serious implications for the Indian economy.
In 2003-4, India’s trade deficit with China was just US$ 1 billion. This increased to US$ 16 billion in 2007-8 and US $35 billion in 2013-4 (when the current Govt. took over). Despite all the talk around `Make in India’ this deficit has almost doubled the last 3 years, to reach US$ 63 billion. Incredibly, in the year, when we had the Doklam crisis, the trade deficit increased by another $ 11 billion!
While China’s exports to India have been steadily growing, ours have stagnated. Our exports to China were actually higher in 2011-12. The problem is India’s exports to China are mostly raw materials like Diamonds, Copper & Zinc, Cotton Yarn etc. These commodities have very small margins and are subject to global prices, over which India has little control. Even when India discusses reducing the trade deficit, the items India seeks to export are agricultural commodities like sugar and grapes, which have a finite supply, because of which any change in export volumes (which China can influence), can have a sudden impact on either consumer prices or farmer incomes in India.
In contrast, China exports manufactured goods to India. It has been estimated (and stated by Govt.) that the price subsidy given to Chinese manufacturers is about 17% on average making them cheaper than Indian products. Over time, this has led to Indian companies preferring to trade (buy from China) instead of manufacture and a lot of `manufacturing’ that is done is really assembling of Chinese components. While we have 100+ units ‘manufacturing’ cell phones, the local value addition is under 6%.
By 2020, India’s net imports of electronics could surpass that of Oil. Half these imports come from China. While in theory, Chinese subsidies for exports mean lower prices for the Indian consumer (including lower cost of power due to for e.g. low priced Solar panels) China is known to sharply increase prices once they have established market dominance and ensured the importing country loses the capability to manufacture locally. Pharma is an example. A staggering 70%-80% of Drug intermediates & API’s (Active pharmaceutical ingredients) are imported from China. This China has the ability to destroy our export led pharma industry by simply stopping supply or increasing prices of ingredients. The capacity utilisation of Indian API units is barely 40% - the lowest in the world. India by contrast, cannot export in any significant quantity to China because of non-tariff barriers (drug approvals in China take 5-7 years).
We are repeating the mistake the US has made over decades when they preferred cheap consumer products from China at the cost of undermining their manufacturing base. The US dependence on China is what makes the imposition of tariffs by the Trump administration so difficult and unpopular.
When faced with increasing instances of dumping of Chinese goods, India has responded with anti-dumping duties and increased tariffs. However, that has a limited impact. A lot of Chinese imports (to non govt. importers) are under-invoiced. The difference between real and declared value is remitted to China, from overseas accounts by the Indian importer (getting rid of his black money), while duties are paid on the reduced price declared in the invoice.
India has duty free arrangements with neighbours like Si Lanka. Here China’s use of the Hampantota free trade zone (given to China when Sri Lanka could not pay off Chinese debt) would mean that Chinese manufactured goods can reach India duty free (because they are notionally made in Sri Lanka). An estimated 40-50% of the textiles we import duty free from Bangladesh, have fabric of Chinese origin. It is of little comfort to us that Pakistan will face the same problem with the Gwadar free trade zone developed by the Chinese (with Pakistani money, to undermine Pakistani exports).
These are recent findings of the Parliamentary standing committee for commerce. To quote them “The committee finds it unfortunate that in the name of `ease of doing business’, we are more than willing to give market access to China, while China is smartly protecting its Industry from Indian competition”. In the case of solar power, the committee found that 2 lac jobs had been lost due to cheap Chinese imports. In the last 5 years, 40% of Indian companies making toys have shut.
To put in perspective the value of the trade deficit at US$ 63 billion – It is more than the total value of Chinese investments in Pakistan under the CPEC and the value of armaments supplied by China to Pakistan. Perversely, Indians pay for Pakistan’s development & arms, by buying Chinese goods in increasing quantities, while the Indian manufacturing sector is starved of orders for a significant part of this business. The annual trade deficit with China is also more than our defence expenditure of $ 52 billion and 7 times more than our value of imported weapons.
The economic threat from China goes beyond the trade deficit. Under-invoicing reduces import duties and launder black money held abroad. Misdeclaration and smuggling brings banned goods to India, while many consumer products fail Indian safety standards.
Recently 38 Chinese apps have been classified by the Ministry of Defence as dangerous, as they pose the risk of cyberattacks against India. While Western countries are placing restrictions on Chinese telecom firm Huawei (linked to the PLA) as it represents a significant espionage risk, India has asked them be part of our 5G network.
Data of millions of Indian consumers using Chinese owner PayTM or Chinese cellphones (4 of the top 5 brands in India), are, at the time of writing this, stored in China. This can potentially cause what intelligence agencies term – Addiction, Surveillance & Manipulation by an unfriendly foreign power.
Coupled with this, is China using its increasing clout in international organisations to hurt India’s interests. For e.g. denying India admission to the Nuclear Suppliers group, or shielding terrorist Masood Azhar.
Given how much China gains from the Indian market, India needs to realise that trade can be a strong weapon against China and one not wielded so far.
Import tariffs can be raised for items imported almost entirely from China (or Hong Kong, its proxy)
India has room to do this under its WTO obligations and it will not be seen as anti-China, since in theory all countries exporting that item to India are affected. On items where it is believed China is dumping goods below price, India should not just be more aggressive in imposing anti-dumping duties, but set a floor price below which an item cannot be invoiced at. This will prevent under-invoicing and loss of customs revenue.
Chinese goods need to conform to Indian standards. Such regulations – given the ways of our bureaucracy, can be effective non-tariff barriers. Imports from countries where there is no prior history of poor quality can be spared this process (so that imports from other major trading partner
remain smooth). Similar restrictions can be placed on granting of long term visas.
A stronger signal can be sent by banning companies that work with supporters of terrorism (i.e. Pakistan Govt. or companies where the Pak govt. or its agencies e.g. Fauji foundation, have a shareholding), from doing business in India. Exceptions can be made for `friendly countries’ (as the US did for Iranian Oil imports). Where a ban is not possible e.g. a Chinese airline operating in both countries, a `security tax’(as a percentage of turnover) can be imposed.
Just a 10% increased import duty on Chinese products and imposing a floor price on some categories of import, can yield around Rs. 50,000 crore annually in duties. More realistically, it might yield a Rs 25,000 crore duty increase (enough to give 10 million people work for 100 days under MGNREGA) and a $ 35 billion reduction in the value of Chinese imports. If half of that reduction results in increased manufacturing in India, it could, given our labour productivity, provide another 2.5 million factory jobs.
The impact of a $35 billion reduction in manufacturing may not be large given the size of the Chinese economy, but it could well have a domino effect, with more countries imposing protective measures against Chinese imports (as the US has done), or refusing to repay costly Chinese loans, or continue unviable projects, under China’s OBOR initiative - which small countries like Sri Lanka, Malaysia and the Maldives are now doing. Cumulatively, the financial impact might well be a tipping point that causes the highly leveraged Chinese economy to snap. The Chinese markets fell 25% in 2018, influenced by US tariffs on Chinese imports. China may well conclude for e.g. that its support for terrorist groups in Pakistan is not worth reduced or costlier access to the huge Indian market
The way the Chinese use trade to undermine our national security is, I believe, inadequately understood by our policy makers.
^^^ Deans ji, there really isn't a whole lot to understand in restricting trade. We could simply place an embargo on Cheen as an enemy nation and official trade goes to zero. (Basically what the US does to Iran.)
Or for something less drastic to avoid immediate rupture, you can fiddle with the mechanics of trade. Remember that trade with phoren nations can't happen unless there is local demand. You can change that local demand by increasing the price point. A 800% tariff increase on say API and electronics (both parts and finished products) will put a stop to a huge chunk of our trade deficit with Cheen.
But that will also cripple our pharmaceuticals and nascent electronic industry. It will also raise inflation and push consumer electronics out of reach for many of our working class.
That is the reason why we don't simply cut off trade with one of those two options. We can adjust tariffs to where our demand for chini components can be replaced with those from other nations or domestically. But there is no other place in the world with the same price points as Cheen. There is a real chance we will still have a deficit but with other nations and almost certainly a greater deficit overall because we will be going for higher priced imports. But if it improves our security then inflation is acceptable.
In the end, the ideal way is to make them buy our finished stuff so that Indian manufacturing can grow on exports. By rights, we have the lower labor costs so we should be competitive. We can force a pact that allows companies escaping Cheen to be able to export back to Cheen from Indian plants.
China’s pride and paranoia are a dangerous mix for the world
What is China up to? From Hong Kong to Taiwan and from the South China Sea to the Indian border, the Chinese government, led by President Xi Jinping, is pursuing more aggressive policies. There is growing concern about Beijing’s behaviour, not just in Washington but in Delhi, London, Tokyo and Canberra.
The coronavirus pandemic has brought a lot of attention in Washington to the Chinese Communist Party and its behavior, especially its influence operations inside the United States. Lawmakers are now calling for action against Beijing’s “United Front” activities, which are designed to interfere in our politics and society without our realizing it.
Lots of countries try to spread influence abroad through soft power, government media or propaganda, lobbying and even intelligence operations. And yes, the U.S. government does engage in such activities, as do other rivals, including Russia. But the CCP’s United Front effort is unique because it is more organized, more expansive and more insidious than our government or nation has realized.
On Wednesday, the Republican Study Committee, a group of about 150 conservative lawmakers, will release a report spelling out its national security strategy and calling for sanctions on all top officials in the CCP’s United Front Work Department, the bureaucratic office that coordinates Beijing’s influence operations at home and abroad. The RSC will also call for sanctions on officials responsible for repression of Chinese citizens in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong.
“We’re proposing in this report the toughest sanctions on the Chinese Communist Party ever proposed by Congress. And we think the time is right for that,” RSC Chairman Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) told me. “We have been focused on the threats posed by the CCP for a long time, but the pandemic and covid-19 have really focused the world’s attention on this.”
The CCP’s United Front system operates both inside and outside China toward the same goal, still described in Maoist terms as to mobilize the party’s friends to strike at the party’s enemies. Now expanded under the leadership of Xi Jinping, United Front work has brought covert CCP influence operations to bear inside foreign political parties, diaspora communities, colleges and corporations, all with the goal of promoting the party’s interests by co-opting local organizations.
“These efforts are carried out by the United Front system, which is a network of party and state agencies responsible for influencing groups outside the party, particularly those claiming to represent civil society,” researcher Alex Joske wrote in a new report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “It manages and expands the United Front, a coalition of entities working towards the party’s goals.”
Wealthy members of the CCP’s political organs, including former Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, oversee United Front work by throwing money at foreign institutions that are willing to toe Beijing’s political line, including U.S. think tanks and even media organizations.
Confucius Institutes on dozens of U.S. campuses have “longstanding and formal ties” with the United Front Work Department, the bureaucratic head of the CCP’s vast network of influence efforts, according to a report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Chinese Students and Scholars Associations on U.S. campuses are less directly connected to the UFWD itself but are supported by the party and are part of the United Front strategy, the report stated.
The RSC will also call for all Confucius Institutes to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as Chinese state media organizations are now required to do. Also, U.S. universities would be required to report any foreign gifts over $50,000, lowering the threshold from the current level of $250,000.
"The American people need to know what the facts are about United Front Work Department, its origin under Mao [Zedong], its goal of political warfare, and then the incredible influence it has inside the United States,” said Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who leads the RSC’s national security task force, which came up with the recommendations.
Although the RSC is part of the minority, there is some space for bipartisanship in Congress on the China issue, especially when it comes to human rights. The House voted 413-1 last month to send the Uyghur Human Rights Act to President Trump’s desk.
The China issue has also fallen victim to partisanship during the covid-19 pandemic. Republicans have been accusing Democrats of failing to hold Beijing accountable for its behavior during the crisis, while Democrats have been accusing Trump of scapegoating China to distract from his own failures.
But the challenge presented by the CCP’s United Front work existed before the pandemic and must be confronted regardless of our partisan political differences. Mao called United Front work one of China’s “magic weapons” because it’s meant to harm us without us noticing. The time has come to call it out and then take action to shut it down.
In a new statement outlining its plans to combat COVID-19 falsehoods, the EU said "foreign actors and certain third countries, in particular Russia and China, have engaged in targeted operations and disinformation in the EU, its neighborhood, and globally."
The two most powerful figures in the Chinese leadership appear at odds with each other over a stimulus approach for the economic recovery, pointing to a rift in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (李克強) on May 28 proposed the notion of a "stall economy" as a way to revive the battered state of things and spur spending amid the coronavirus fallout. The policy would signal the return of street vendors, who were largely cracked down on prior to the pandemic.
Less than a week later, however, CCP mouthpieces and a number of government media outlets have mounted a campaign against that approach over its potential to blemish the image of cities.
A sorta kinda analysis of peaceful non-diabolical Chinese intentions wrt aggressive maneuvers vs India and other countries:
The Chinese Communist Party declared June 2021 to be the beginning of the year of unity of One China. They have been preparing celebrations for this day ever since Eleven GinPegs came to power. (His folk singer wife was heard singing future heroic paeans to the great Emperor everyday over breakfast and dinner.) So this is a matter of H&D.
Now, China is defined in their minds as all areas having some presence of Chinese looking people. They ask, quite naturally, "How did people with Chinese appearance get into a place X, if it was not due to a great Chinese invasion in the past. Therefore, any place with Chinese looking people must now belong to China." Note that by this definition, with huge immigration of Chinese into other countries in Africa and also in USA, Australia, these locations will also naturally belong to China in the future, creating a One World Under CCP.
As believers in a version of Historic Materialism with Chinese Characteristics, Salami Slicing is indeed their Grand Strategy. Simple.
"Lets put some Chinese here. And then we say look there's been some Chinese there for a while, it must have always been Chinese territory. Let's grab it.". Note that this also applies to Chinese students taking IP home from Western Universities. Rule is that once they get there, it belongs to them. So its not stealing.
Having put this noble definition into their Great Chinese Planning Commission document, it is now being translated into Eleven GinPegs Thought, Strategy and Execution.
To make One China:
1. China should be a strong economic and military power [check]
- One Belt One Road (To China)
2. China should be a strong knowledge power.
- Send Chinese students to every university across the world (and bring IP back home)
3. All Chinese looking territories should be brought under Chinese Control [WIP]
All this gotta happen by June 2021.
So for anyone thinking that this is just a misdirected move into Indian territory, you are very wrong. It is Historic Materialism with Chinese Characteristics. Also known as Ctl-C, Ctl-V.
Engineers Found Guilty of Stealing Micron Secrets for China
Bloomberg
DebWu
,Bloomberg•June 12, 2020
(Bloomberg) -- A Taiwanese court ruled Friday that current and former engineers from United Microelectronics Corp. stole trade secrets from U.S. chipmaker Micron Technology Inc. and shared them with a government-backed mainland Chinese company, closing one chapter of a global dispute that’s stoked U.S.-Chinese tensions.
The district court of Taichung fined UMC NT$100 million ($3.4 million) after finding three engineers guilty of theft or assisting in the alleged theft. The trio was jailed for periods ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 years and fined between NT$4 million and NT$6 million.
The case is part of a years-long dispute spanning two continents that’s deepened divisions between Beijing and Washington. Intellectual property theft is among the Trump administration’s chief complaints as it wages a campaign to contain China that’s rattled global markets. China, which is trying to become a major player in semiconductors, has repeatedly denied that its companies poach trade secrets.
UMC said it will appeal the ruling, saying it has mechanisms to protect its customers’ intellectual property rights and it did not violate trade secrets laws. “In its appeal against the ruling and the excessively disproportionate penalty, UMC will cite many irregularities in both the investigation and the case itself,” the Taiwanese company said in a statement.
Micron welcomed the verdict in a statement and said justice had been served. “The misappropriation of trade secrets and their transfer outside of Taiwan is detrimental to the country’s entire semiconductor industry and threatens future competitiveness. This judgment further reinforces the importance of intellectual property protection in Taiwan, demonstrating that criminal misappropriation will be appropriately addressed,” the company said.
Micron first sued UMC and its Chinese partner -- Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co., which is said to have benefited -- in 2017 in the U.S. for stealing trade secrets, setting off the dispute between the top U.S. memory chipmaker and one of Asia’s largest manufacturers of made-to-order semiconductors. In January of the following year, UMC counter-sued in mainland China and that July, a Chinese court banned sales of some Micron chip sales in the country. In November 2018, UMC and Jinhua, along with the three individuals, were indicted in California, charged with conspiring to steal trade secrets from Micron.
Friday’s decision coincides with growing scrutiny of the role that Taiwanese companies play as global leaders in chipmaking and electronics assembly. In May, the U.S. slapped a ban on the sale without approval of silicon made with American gear to Huawei Technologies Co., a move regarded as an attempt to prevent industry giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. from supplying its top Chinese customer.
“The U.S. is intensifying its scrutiny of Chinese investors and companies and it will not allow Taiwan to become a loophole,” said Carol Lin, a law professor at National Chiao Tung University, speaking before the verdict was announced. She said that Taiwan’s legal process for IP theft cases is long and there is no knowing when this UMC case will be finalized. “This actually may undermine foreign companies’ confidence in Taiwan,” said Lin.
Taichung prosecutors had indicted UMC employees J.T. Ho and Kenny Wang in 2017 on charges of breaching Micron’s trade secrets. Both are former employees of the U.S. chipmaker. Ho and Wang replicated Micron’s DRAM data onto their own devices and used the material for their work at UMC including a partnership project with China’s Fujian Jinhua, prosecutors said in an indictment document reviewed by Bloomberg News.
Wang is no longer with UMC, according to a company spokesman. A third UMC staffer, Rong Leh-tian, instructed Wang to incorporate Micron’s design information into UMC’s own, according to the indictment. The intent of that was to shorten chip development times the court said in Friday’s statement.
In reaching its verdict, the court cited evidence including how Ho was on both UMC’s and Jinhua’s payroll at the same time and it was clear the allegedly stolen technology was intended for use in China.
“J.T. Ho earned two salaries respectively from UMC and Jinhua, so it is very clear he intended to use [Micron data] on mainland China,” the court said in a statement. “Kenny Wang and Rong Leh-Tian both leaked Micron’s trade secrets to UMC for the use of UMC’s relevant business units ... and the final research was to be transferred to Jinhua for mass production, so they had the intention to use [Micron’s data] in mainland China.”
Rong, a senior manager, instructed the other two defendants to wipe any Micron data on their computers before Taiwanese prosecutors raided their workstations, but investigators found a large volume of material from the U.S. company on the devices regardless, according to the court.
The court said Ho had received some NT$5 million from both UMC and Jinhua, while Wang got NT$1.5 million and Rong NT$1.6 million from UMC.
“The defendants’ conduct have led to Micron’s loss of advantage and competitiveness in the market of products connected to the leaked trade secrets and undermined Micron’s interests. This damage is difficult to remedy due to the leak,” the court said in a statement.
Point to note- Micron was a target for a takeover by a Chinese firm when it was stopped by the us govt. Same with a Brit semiconductor firm whose name escapes me at this moment.
For the first time in three years, the US Navy has mobilised three aircraft carrier strike groups to the Pacific as a part of a provocative military build-up against China. The deployments underscore the strategic shift by the Pentagon from the so-called “war on terror” to great power competition that heightens the danger of conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
The deployment of aircraft carrier strike groups is just part of the US build-up of military forces in the Western Pacific. Fox News reported this week that the US Air Force has deployed nuclear-capable B-1B Lancer bombers to Guam last month that have been conducting operations over the South China Sea. The Air Force has also sent long-range, high altitude Global Hawk drones to Japan to carry out surveillance in the Western Pacific.
The risks of relying economically on the Asian superpower have never been clearer. But as the world tries to get moving, it needs China more than ever.
The risks of relying economically on the Asian superpower have never been clearer. But as the world tries to get moving, it needs China more than ever.
I'm reading a report that says at this point in time, Cheen is making 62% of the world's steel. Steel is the building block of modern industry and they are making twice as much as the rest of the world combined.
They are only engine running in the world right now.
The funny thing is the MNCs are begging to get people back into Cheen for months now but Cheen has basically closed global flights off. They are turning inward to fuel their own growth. Exports are supplementary to them at this point.
They're evil but they aren't stupid. If the export market is turning against them, they'll go inward because they are still an continental sized nation. But I doubt the export market will really dry up for them and it'll be just another quiver for their bow.
