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

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.
g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1647
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

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

Postby g.sarkar » 16 Oct 2018 21:28

chola wrote:The hindi chinis of Kolkata is a dying community of 2000 old people and will be dead soon enough.

The Chinese in Kolkata were famous as shoe sellers and dentists. Chinese (Hakka style) food came much later, when Indians started eating Chinese food. Many Chinese came to India from Hong Kong during the Raj days. Both cities were thriving during the British Raj. The decline came after India China conflict of 1962. Some may have worked as spies for China, or at least that was the rumor, but the whole community was tainted. Many did not have Indian citizenship. Most have left for the West, leaving behind the older generation unwilling/unable to move. The restaurants and roadside food stalls are now mostly operated by the locals. A friend of mine once visited a Chinese restaurant in Canada and was surprised to find the owner speaking fluent Bengali. He was from Kolkata China town.
Gautam

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3171
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 17 Oct 2018 00:27

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ina-221310

How Trump’s Trade War Is Driving China Nuts

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has reacted to American pressure with a level of desperation that is good for neither Washington nor Beijing.

By WILLIAM PESEK

October 16, 2018

...

Initially, Xi’s government figured the president was bluffing. Beijing’s calculation was that, sure, Trump might slap some tariffs on Chinese goods, but it’s a mere negotiating tactic – his “Art of the Deal” writ large. After all, past American presidents had often attacked China on the campaign trail—only to make nice while in office. Xi’s men held it together as Trump slapped taxes of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. They figured Trump’s initial attack on $50 billion of Chinese imports in June would satisfy Peter Navarro and other protectionist voices in the White House.

Hardly, as Xi’s team is realizing. If the extra $200 billion of levies Trump tossed Beijing’s way in September weren’t reality-check enough, Mike Pence’s Oct. 4 “we-will-not-stand-down” speech suggests 2019 could get even worse for Beijing.

Pence accused Beijing of trying to “malign” Trump’s credibility, of “reckless harassment” and of working to engineer “a different American president.” On both economic and military issues, Pence declared: “We will not be intimidated; we will not stand down.”

The vice president seemed to confirm that Trump’s trade war is more about tackling China than creating U.S. jobs. Worse, perhaps, taxing Beijing is shaping up to be a 2020 re-election strategy. Forget Russia, Pence suggested: China is the real election meddler. It “clearly laid down an official marker for a much more competitive and contentious New Era of U.S.-China relations,” says China analyst Bill Bishop.

All this is throwing Xi’s domestic strategies into disarray – perhaps permanently.

Six months ago, Beijing was throttling ahead with “Made in China 2025,” a multi-trillion-dollar effort to dominate the future of self-driving vehicles, renewable energy, robots and artificial intelligence. Party bigwigs were also planning festivities to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Deng’s reforms -– and Xi’s steps to accelerate them.

Now, Xi’s undivided attention is on making this year’s growth numbers. Trump’s trade-policy grenades are sending a few too many market forces Beijing’s way for comfort. China’s currency is down 6.4 percent this year. Shanghai stocks are down 22.3 percent this year as JPMorgan Chase and other investment banks turn cautious despite China’s 6.7 percent growth.

The headwinds heading China’s way are unmistakable, particularly with Trump threatening to up the tariff ante to $505 billion. In August, export growth weakened to just under 10 percent from the previous month -- crisis levels for a trade-reliant developing nation. Fixed-asset investment has stalled, falling to a record low in August. And the latest purchasing managers’ data from the government and Caixin at right at the 50-point mark -- just a small step from contraction.

That’s unleashed a frantic push to keep China’s growth engine from crawling to a stop. Almost daily, Xi’s team rolls out new plans to cut taxes, boost business lending and ramp up infrastructure spending. Regulators are easing up on credit curbs and limits on property speculation. On Oct. 7, the central bank slashed the amount of cash lenders must set aside as reserves for the fourth time this year. It is as clear an admission as any that China’s 6.5 percent growth target is in trouble.


So are Xi’s designs of raising Deng’s upgrades to 11. In 1978, Deng set the most populous nation on a journey from impoverished backwater to surpassing Japan’s GDP on the way to America’s. Deng replaced Maoist egalitarianism with meritocratic forces. He loosened price controls, decollectivized agriculture, allowed entrepreneurs to start businesses, welcomed foreign investment and morphed China into a global manufacturing juggernaut.

Xi’s Made in China 2025 gambit aimed to push the economy upmarket – making it more about tech companies like Alibaba and Tencent than sweatshops. Yet now Xi is engaged in all-hands-on-deck battle against Trump’s ploy to turn back the clock on China’s rising influence.

A key element of moving China beyond boom-and-bust cycles and making growth more productive is tackling dueling bubbles in credit, debt and property prices. That means increasing transparency, policing an out-of-control $20 trillion shadow-banking sector and dropping support for state-owned enterprises to create a vibrant private sector. Such upgrades will necessitate slower growth -- 5 percent or below.

Yet they are now largely on hold. Xi reverting to the stimulus-at-all-costs playbook that got China into financial hot water is a worrisome bookend for the Deng revolution. Xi is ensuring that when China’s debt-excess reckoning comes, what economists call a “Minsky moment,” it will be bigger, more spectacular and more globally impactful. If you thought the “Lehman shock” of 2008 was scary, wait until the No. 2 economy with $14 trillion of annual output goes off the rails.

Beijing is well aware of its plight – and the air of panic and paranoia is manifesting itself in bizarre ways.


The disappearance of a beloved actress, the detention of an Interpol bigwig and the visa troubles of a Western journalist wouldn’t normally be big concerns for economists. But there’s nothing typical about the lengths to which China is going to fend off Trump’s escalating trade war.
...

Taken together, these plotlines make a mockery of Xi’s market-forces pledge. Rather than creating a predictable rule of law on which trusted economies thrive, Xi’s China is regressing in ways sure to chill foreign investment. This imperils his efforts in the Trump era to portray China as a credible power ready to fill the global leadership void. Xi is engaged in his own Trumpian battle against the media –- even outside the mainland –- and going after high-profile rivals.

Trump doesn’t get all the blame. If Xi had worked with Deng-like determination to recalibrate growth engines and wean China off exports, the economy would be less vulnerable to Trump’s attacks. By certain metrics, meantime, Xi, is dragging China backward. Its press-freedom ranking from Reporters Without Borders worsened to 176th, three notches below 2013.

Irony abounds, of course. Earlier this year, Xi convinced the party to effectively make him president for life rather than the traditional 10 years. Past U.S. presidents would’ve condemned the power grab; Trump was all compliments. Yet the stronger Xi becomes, the more he clamps down on the media and dissenting voices needed to police the government and corporate titans.

Nor has Xi addressed a central paradox: how China increases innovation while walling off innovators from Google, Facebook and the big debates of the day. Those market forces Xi pledged to heed are coming from Silicon Valley, too. While Trump complains about fake news, Xi’s China has a “fake reform” problem, says Wang Yiming, deputy director of the State Council Development Research Center.

A propensity for own-goals, too. Case in point: allegations that China’s government inserted tiny spying chips into smartphones and other devices. Might that troll Trump to retaliate further? “Conflict with China over trade, investment, technology and geopolitical dominance will only escalate,” says analyst Arthur Kroeber of Gavekal Research in Beijing.


That’s likely to further reduce China’s appetite for risk. Since Xi’s legitimacy is predicated on rapid growth, he’s likely to punt Deng 2.0 forward. It follows that the faster China grows over the next 12 months, the less reforming Xi’s men are doing behind the scenes.



Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3171
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 17 Oct 2018 00:34

However I detect a certain American triumphalism in articles like the above, which may not be entirely warranted.

If the worst Trump's "Trade War" can do is push China's growth down to 5%, and slow down (with no guarantee of stopping) China's ascendance in AI, robotics, renewable energy etc... this is nothing but a setback that PRC can easily survive (given its enormous cash reserves, industrial/infrastructural base, domestic market, and all manner of resources). The high degree of state control which PRC has (wisely) retained over its civil society, media, and general population will ensure that none of this will be catastrophic enough to threaten the CCP's hold on power in any serious way. It is almost as if the Chinese long-ago foresaw the day when the white devils might pull the rug from under them... and organized their socio-political structure in such a way as to minimize the impact of such an eventuality, even while undertaking economic reforms and liberalization.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

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

Postby TKiran » 17 Oct 2018 07:10

^^^^superbly articulated Rudradev sir, that was exactly what I wanted to say, did not get the point across as beautifully as you said. We need intellectual Kshatriyas like you in thousands not just one Rudradev or one Shiv sir, who can think, analyze and articulate so nice without emotions.. kudos

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

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

Postby ashish raval » 17 Oct 2018 07:44

Rudradev wrote:However I detect a certain American triumphalism in articles like the above, which may not be entirely warranted.

If the worst Trump's "Trade War" can do is push China's growth down to 5%, and slow down (with no guarantee of stopping) China's ascendance in AI, robotics, renewable energy etc... this is nothing but a setback that PRC can easily survive (given its enormous cash reserves, industrial/infrastructural base, domestic market, and all manner of resources). The high degree of state control which PRC has (wisely) retained over its civil society, media, and general population will ensure that none of this will be catastrophic enough to threaten the CCP's hold on power in any serious way. It is almost as if the Chinese long-ago foresaw the day when the white devils might pull the rug from under them... and organized their socio-political structure in such a way as to minimize the impact of such an eventuality, even while undertaking economic reforms and liberalization.



No offence but if these trade war goes on for full ten years China will turn into Russia with high debt and economics parameters will make it look frightening place to invest and once investors confidence goes down; the nation goes down to dogs as FDI goes down and factories start shutting. When this happens the very large industrial base and over capacity created creates a huge credit risk run like what happened in Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina in the past. Society may start making noises too as their lifestyle is affected and general feeling arises that communism has failed and nationalism cannot triumph the rational thinking of being unable to having a say in government and nation remaining poor at the same time. The structure then just needs one bad incident in such cases like tiannamen square for the house of cards to fall down. Central contract of communism with people only survives if masses in general become rich or people will throw communism out without necessarily linking it to nationalism.

Agree they might weather the storm out but not before their claws being cut to become toothless and not bite it's neighbours.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 986
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 17 Oct 2018 22:08

Rudradev wrote:However I detect a certain American triumphalism in articles like the above, which may not be entirely warranted.

If the worst Trump's "Trade War" can do is push China's growth down to 5%, and slow down (with no guarantee of stopping) China's ascendance in AI, robotics, renewable energy etc... this is nothing but a setback that PRC can easily survive (given its enormous cash reserves, industrial/infrastructural base, domestic market, and all manner of resources). The high degree of state control which PRC has (wisely) retained over its civil society, media, and general population will ensure that none of this will be catastrophic enough to threaten the CCP's hold on power in any serious way. It is almost as if the Chinese long-ago foresaw the day when the white devils might pull the rug from under them... and organized their socio-political structure in such a way as to minimize the impact of such an eventuality, even while undertaking economic reforms and liberalization.


Sir, you should discuss this topic with a non-official but politically connected person(s) to find out the truth. It is giving so big headache and sleepless nights as it could to anyone, who is going to lose easy money + IP stealing opportunities. With the bravado of retaliating to the USA, there is no real action as they import too less. The only thing they have is a huge cash reserve and the USA is not too much worried even if China will sell it. So far they have lie down to cool down the temperature except for few hot-headed commanders issuing a warning whenever USA navy assets or bomber fly over them. I am looking out, how China is going to react?

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 208
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

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

Postby Tuan » 19 Oct 2018 06:48

yensoy wrote:
Tuan wrote:My latest article on Neo-Cold War in the Indian Ocean Region:
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/10/15/t ... an-region/


There are a lot of references/quotes in this article but I fail to understand what you are trying to say, in fact whether you are trying to say anything at all.


You're absolutely right. I intentionally tried not to draw any conclusions or insist on my own opinions. Rather, I let the readers to come to a conclusion.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3000
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

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

Postby Kashi » 19 Oct 2018 07:43

Tuan wrote:You're absolutely right. I intentionally tried not to draw any conclusions or insist on my own opinions. Rather, I let the readers to come to a conclusion.


In other words you have nothing to say at all. Why go to the trouble of publishing an article on a "platform for assessing and evaluating complex international issues", when you are not "evaluating or assessing"?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 19 Oct 2018 09:39

Sri Lanka reverses $300 million China housing deal ahead of PM Wickremesinghe's India visit - Reuters
COLOMBO: Sri Lanka has reversed a decision to award a $300 million housing deal to China in favour of a joint venture with an Indian company, the government said, ahead of a visit by the prime minister to its South Asian neighbour.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will meet PM Narendra Modi on Saturday in New Delhi for talks. The two countries have long-standing ties, partly because of cultural and ethnic links with Tamilians, many of whom live in the island's north and east.

In April, state-run China Railway Beijing Engineering Group Co Ltd won a tender worth more than $300 million to build 40,000 houses in Jaffna in Sri Lanka's north, with China's Exim bank to provide funding.

But the project was halted after residents demanded brick houses, saying they preferred their traditional type of dwelling instead of the concrete structures the Chinese firm had planned.

On Wednesday, government spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said the cabinet had approved a new proposal for 28,000 houses worth 35.8 billion rupees ($210 million) to be built by Indian firm ND Enterprises and two Sri Lankan firms in the north and east.


The planned homes are part of a total requirement of 65,000, he added.

"The rest of the houses will be given to firms which are ready to build them at lower prices," Senaratne told reporters in Colombo, the Sri Lankan capital, adding that China could also be considered in future for the remaining housing projects.

In Beijing on Thursday, foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular news briefing China's cooperation with Sri Lanka was derived from consultations on an equal footing and he hoped that cooperation would be viewed objectively.

Critics have said a big Chinese port project and related infrastructure in Sri Lanka's south have been dragging the country of 21 million people deep into debt.

India has built 44,000 houses in the country's north in the first phase of reconstruction after a 26-year-war with Tamil Tiger rebels, and plans to rebuild Palaly airport and Kankesanthurai harbour, both heavily damaged in the conflict.

But in recent years, China has swept in, building ports, power plants and highways as part of Beijing's String of Pearls strategy to build a network of friendly ports across Asia.

India has long considered Sri Lanka, just off its southern coast, as within its sphere of influence and sought to push back against China's expanding maritime presence.


The Sri Lankan government is making a virtue out of necessity. The opposition has come from people and GoSL makes it appear as a concession to Indian apprehensions over Chinese expansion within SL, particularly towards the north.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20884
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 19 Oct 2018 10:17

Maldives new President have also publicly said today that he will reverse OBOR contracts. This week China have taken over power plant in Zambia because of loan default and Germany too have said no to Chinese investment and put many deal under scrutiny. China is getting exposed as old style loan shark .


Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 208
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

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

Postby Tuan » 19 Oct 2018 17:18

Kashi wrote:
Tuan wrote:You're absolutely right. I intentionally tried not to draw any conclusions or insist on my own opinions. Rather, I let the readers to come to a conclusion.


In other words you have nothing to say at all. Why go to the trouble of publishing an article on a "platform for assessing and evaluating complex international issues", when you are not "evaluating or assessing"?


It is a comparative analysis and thus I don't intend to assess or evaluate. It is a summary of a larger essay. Even though, the assignment may say “compare,” the assumption is that you will consider both the similarities and differences; in other words, you will compare and contrast.

uskumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 23:41

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

Postby uskumar » 19 Oct 2018 18:14


It made no sense to sign any free Trade deal let alone a fta deal involving china/NZ and Australia. Every FTA we signed so far has only increased our trade deficit with that country. Same will be the case with rcep as well and with rising Trade deficit, we can't afford that.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 19 Oct 2018 18:43


Good news. It is unwise at this juncture to venture into such deals when everything is in a great flux.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5963
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Peregrine » 20 Oct 2018 00:04

China v America - The end of engagement

How the world’s two superpowers have become rivals

For the past quarter century America’s approach to China has been founded on a belief in convergence. Political and economic integration would not just make China wealthier, they would also make it more liberal, pluralistic and democratic. There were crises, such as a face-off in the Taiwan Strait in 1996 or the downing of a spy-plane in 2001. But America cleaved to the conviction that, with the right incentives, China would eventually join the world order as a “responsible stakeholder”.

Today convergence is dead. America has come to see China as a strategic rival—a malevolent actor and a rule-breaker (see Briefing). The Trump administration accuses it of interfering in America’s culture and politics, of stealing intellectual property and trading unfairly, and of seeking not just leadership in Asia, but also global dominance. It condemns China’s record on human rights at home and an aggressive expansion abroad. This month Mike Pence, the vice-president, warned that China was engaged in a “whole-of-government” offensive. His speech sounded ominously like an early bugle-call in a new cold war.

Do not presume that Mr Pence and his boss, President Donald Trump, are alone. Democrats and Republicans are vying to outdo each other in bashing China. Not since the late 1940s has the mood among American businessfolk, diplomats and the armed forces swung so rapidly behind the idea that the United States faces a new ideological and strategic rival.

At the same time, China is undergoing its own change of heart. Chinese strategists have long suspected that America has secretly wanted to block their country’s rise. That is partly why China sought to minimise confrontation by “hiding its strengths and biding its time”. For many Chinese the financial crisis of 2008 swept aside the need for humility. It set America back while China thrived. President Xi Jinping has since promoted his “Chinese Dream” of a nation that stands tall in the world. Many Chinese see America as a hypocrite that commits all the sins it accuses China of. The time to hide and bide is over.

This is deeply alarming. According to thinkers such as Graham Allison of Harvard University, history shows how hegemons like the United States and rising powers like China can become locked into a cycle of belligerent rivalry.

America fears that time is on China’s side. The Chinese economy is growing more than twice as fast as America’s and the state is pouring money into advanced technology, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and biotech. Action that is merely daunting today—to stem the illegal acquisition of intellectual property, say, or to challenge China in the South China Sea—may be impossible tomorrow. Like it or not, the new norms governing how the superpowers will treat each other are being established now. Once expectations have been set, changing them again will be hard. For the sake of mankind, China and America need to come to a peaceful understanding. But how?

Mr Trump and his administration have got three things right. The first is that America needs to be strong. It has toughened the rules on takeovers, to give more weight to national security. It has extradited an alleged Chinese intelligence officer from Belgium. It has increased military spending (though the extra money going to Europe still dwarfs that going to the Pacific). And it has just boosted foreign aid in order to counter lavish Chinese investment abroad (see article).

Mr Trump is also right that America needs to reset expectations about Chinese behaviour. Today’s trading system fails to prevent China’s state-backed firms from blurring the line between commercial interests and the national interest. Government money subsidises and protects companies as they buy up dual-use technology or skew international markets. China has used its state-directed commercial clout in smaller countries to influence foreign policy in, say, the European Union. The West needs transparency about the funding of political parties, think-tanks and university departments.

Third, Mr Trump’s unique ability to signal his disregard for conventional wisdom seems to have been effective. He is not subtle or consistent, but as with Canadian and Mexican trade, American bullying can lead to dealmaking. China will not be so easily pushed around—its economy depends less on exports to America than Canada’s and Mexico’s do and Mr Xi cannot afford meekly to disavow his Chinese Dream in front of his people. Yet Mr Trump’s willingness to disrupt and offend has already wrong-footed China’s leaders, who thought they could count on America being unwilling to rock the boat.

For what comes next, however, Mr Trump needs a strategy, not just tactics. A starting point must be to promote America’s values. Mr Trump acts as if he believes that might is right. He shows a cynical disdain for the values America enshrined in global institutions after the second world war. If he follows that course America will be diminished as an idea and as a moral and political force. When America competes with China as a guardian of a rules-based order, it starts from a position of strength. But any Western democracy that enters a ruthless race to the bottom with China will—and should—lose.

The strategy should leave room for China to rise peacefully—which inevitably also means allowing China to extend its influence. That is partly because a zero-sum attempt at containment is likely to lead to conflict. But it is also because America and China need to co-operate despite their rivalry. The two countries are more commercially intertwined than America and the Soviet Union ever were. And they share responsibilities including—even if Mr Trump denies it—the environment and security interests, such as the Korean peninsula.

And America’s strategy must include the asset that separates it most clearly from China: alliances. In trade, for example, Mr Trump should work with the eu and Japan to press China to change. In defence Mr Trump should not only abandon his alliance-bashing but bolster old friends, like Japan and Australia, while nurturing new ones, like India and Vietnam. Alliances are America’s best source of protection against the advantage China will reap from its increasing economic and military power.

Perhaps it was inevitable that China and America would end up rivals. It is not inevitable that rivalry must lead to war.

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 20 Oct 2018 14:49

‘China calls it fishing, Indonesia calls it crime’: Pudjiastuti finds her target for Oceans summit - David G Rose, South China Morning Post
Susi Pudjiastuti, Indonesia’s minister for fisheries and maritime affairs, has a strong message for China, owner of the world’s largest fishing fleet.

What they are doing is not fishing, it is transnational organised crime,” she tells This Week in Asia after a press conference in Jakarta. “You should write that. They need to understand.”


The straight-talking, self-made businesswoman, who is known as much for her chain-smoking and tattoos as her no-nonsense approach to policy, has been holding forth on her favourite topic: the pillaging of her country’s waters by foreign fishermen.

“We have had several disagreements [with China] on issues of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, they still disagree that it classifies as transnational crime,” she says, ahead of this month’s Our Oceans Conference in Bali. “But mostly these are China-origin vessels [with] multinational crews.

“Without international cooperation, we will not be able to fight this.”

In four years, Indonesia has banned 10,000 foreign-registered vessels from fishing in its waters, half of which have been more than 500 gross tonnes (GT). Hundreds of vessels have since been seized and sunk – in some cases blown up on Pudjiastuti’s orders, as a deterrent to others.

They have come from mainland China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines. Some have disguised their true origins by sailing under multiple flags or being registered to proxy companies in Indonesia or elsewhere.

China has expressed serious concern over the destruction of vessels and, two years ago, said it would take action against overfishing and the fishing industry’s overexpansion, including cutting down the number of fishing vessels.

Last week, an official from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs said Chinese authorities would impose “zero tolerance” punishment on domestic vessels found to have violated laws and regulations in high-sea fishing, according to the hawkish tabloid Global Times.

Deputy director of Sea Fishery Administration Liu Xinzhong was quoted as saying China cared more about the protection and sustainability of marine resources than other countries thought. :)

But according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, more than a third of the world’s commercial fish stocks are being diminished at unsustainable rates.

With domestic Chinese fish stocks among those declining at speed, in part due to growing demand for high-quality, fresh seafood from middle-class consumers, Beijing appears also to be increasingly encouraging “distant water fishing” far beyond its own exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

“A 100 GT vessel in a year can catch 2,000 tonnes of fish. It’s millions of tonnes, billions of dollars,” Pudjiastuti says. “It’s a multinational big business. They call it fishing. We call it crime. We do disagree [with China] on that.”

China’s trade war pain can be Asean’s gain

Ministers and heads of state from 35 nations are to attend this month’s Our Oceans Conference along with 200 non-governmental and private sector organisations. Maritime security, climate change and pollution of the seas will be on the agenda as well as overfishing.

But so far China – like many of Indonesia’s neighbours in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) – will not be sending any high-level delegations.


Undeterred, Pudjiastati says she has in her corner many island or coastal nations that are most vulnerable to over-fishing and climate change, and she will campaign for increased monitoring and enforcement of existing protected territories such as marine conservation areas.

She points out Chinese fishermen have been caught poaching sharks as far away as the Galapagos islands in the Southern Pacific Ocean, one of the world’s ecological treasures.

“How can fishermen travel three-quarters of the world’s surface and take 400 tonnes of sharks from a maritime-protected area?” Pudjiastati asks, exasperated.

“Hopefully with interest and international cooperation on traceability, legality required to declare catch in ports, China will finally understand that they have to accommodate international concerns on distant fishing.

While Beijing denies any wrongdoing, its fishing boats, supported by coastguard and navy vessels, have also been seen as testing its territorial claims in the South China Sea. In 2016, an Indonesian patrol boat seized a 300-tonne Chinese fishing boat, Kway Fey 10078, for fishing near the Natuna Islands, where China’s infamous “nine-dash line” marking its South China Sea claims overlaps Indonesian waters.

Pudjiastuti says the poachers are now switching tactics, to operate from the high seas, beyond national jurisdictions: “With modern technology, and the size of equipment, with 150km long lines, with 100km of nets, they can drop the nets in the high seas and pull [the catch] from within the exclusive economic zones of everybody.”

Without more international commitments to tackle the issue, she adds, migrating fish which range across the seas such as yellowfin tuna and cod, will suffer.

“The benefit of the no-jurisdiction high seas is only for the 11 states who do distant fishing,” she adds. “But these migratory fish stocks are the world’s fish stocks, not just Indonesia’s fish stocks, it’s also Japan … Europe … also China’s fish stocks, so we hope the concern on this is recognised as well.”

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday said the government took the usage of fishery resources very seriously and would develop its fishing industry responsibly and in an environmentally sustainable way. It had cracked down on illegal fishing and was strengthening its education of fishermen and supervision of fishing vessels, a faxed statement said.

“We hope the relevant authorities can take an objective and fair view. If Indonesia has evidence that they bring to the Chinese, we will seriously investigate it.”

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 20 Oct 2018 15:59



Great news!!..I was flabbergasted when this govt gave in to most of the demands of RECP..Any govt with the best of nations interest would have just withdrawn from this shitty deal...

People keep harping that Free trade is the way..BS!!..We should be looking at getting Fair Trade..There is no way our companies with the current hard and soft infra is ready for competition...It is already much cheaper to invest in a factory in Thailand and to import its products here than doing the whole thing in India...The less said about China the better...Until we get the DFCs ready and get land and labour reforms, industrial production will be inefficient..There is no friggin way we can compete ..

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 20 Oct 2018 20:02

jpremnath wrote:Great news!!..I was flabbergasted when this govt gave in to most of the demands of RECP..Any govt with the best of nations interest would have just withdrawn from this shitty deal...

People keep harping that Free trade is the way..BS!!..We should be looking at getting Fair Trade..There is no way our companies with the current hard and soft infra is ready for competition...It is already much cheaper to invest in a factory in Thailand and to import its products here than doing the whole thing in India...The less said about China the better...Until we get the DFCs ready and get land and labour reforms, industrial production will be inefficient..There is no friggin way we can compete ..

I totally agree. We are not competitive at all. To add to our woes, the latest IL&FS issue is already putting paid to future PPP route in infrastructure development. Looks like that the government has to step in as before in implementing infra projects through the contract route. This might impact further our competitiveness.

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 20 Oct 2018 20:59

And one needs to look at the duplicity of ASEAN and others who push India to sign this...They drag their feet on service trade agreements including free movement of professionals, but want India to remove tariffs on the goods they export...and our idiotic babu's can't put enough pressure on these countries to get our way. And we somehow always get the short end of the stick when it comes to getting our agriculture and SMEs damaged..Enough of FTAs..

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 22 Oct 2018 09:07

‘China’s flood alert helped avert disaster’ - Vishwa Mohan, ToI
China’s pro-active approach on sharing hydrological data with India averted a crisis in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam on Friday-Saturday as the timely flood alerts helped central and local authorities in both the states take precautionary measures and evacuate people to safer places.

The country had last year stopped sharing the data after stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops at Doklam, making it difficult for the Central Water Commission (CWC) to predict floods in the north-eastern states.

Sharing of data was resumed this year after both the countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) during visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China in June. The MoU is meant for sharing hydrological data from May 15 to October 15 every year.

“China, however, shared those data with us even beyond the cut-off date of October 15 when it encountered an emergency situation (landslide-induced blocking of the main stream of Yarlung Zangpo/Brahmaputra river) to its side,” said the CWC Chairman, S Masood Husain.

He told TOI on Sunday, “Chinese authorities, in fact, went out of the way and kept on sharing data with us at the CWC’s Dibrugarh division on hourly basis. It helped us take all precautionary measures and put Indian Air Force and NDRF on alert.

“Fortunately, the breach (to the lake created due to landslide) took 14 hours to happen, resulting in gradual discharge of water. Had it been quicker, the high discharge of water would have been disastrous. Nevertheless, we were better prepared to face it due to China’s pro-active approach on sharing hydrological data. It shows cooperation from their side.”

China had also constantly kept Indian ambassador in Beijing into the loop. The ambassador had, in turn, been in touch with cabinet secretary and chief secretaries of both Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.

Asked about the situation on Sunday, the CWC chairman said the situation was absolutely normal and there was no need to panic.


The MoU between the two countries for sharing hydrological information by China on Yarlung Zangpo\Brahmaputra river with India was first signed in 2002. This is being renewed from time to time. Besides, India and China have also an operational MoU on sharing data on river Sutlej on the western side.


Nice to see some sensibility in the Chinese at times. Wuhan spirit or Trump's pummelling?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5963
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Peregrine » 22 Oct 2018 21:38

$600-billion reason why China crash might just worsen

Perhaps the biggest financial market story in 2018 so far is the colossal fall from grace of the Chinese stock market, which has witnessed losses in excess of 30 per cent since the start of the year.

The fall, which has seen the benchmark Shanghai Composite index drop to its lowest level in almost four years this week, is generally explained through the prism of investors realising that the blockbuster growth China has enjoyed over the last decade is on the wane, and that things are likely to slow down to a strong, but not stellar, rate.

Such a view has been exacerbated by the rise of the trade conflict between the US and China, which has seen the world’s two largest economies exchange tit-for-tat tariffs, which now apply to goods totalling close to a cumulative $300 billion.

Many economists see the trade war having a major negative impact on Chinese growth, withJPMorgan earlier in October saying a full-blown trade war could have a 1 per cent shrinking effect on the economy. While these two factors are evidently at play, there’s reason to believe that another factor could soon come into play, and force Chinese stocks even deeper into bear market territory.

In China, hundreds of companies use their shares as collateral for loans, but when share prices fall they are forced to sell in order to maintain a certain level of balance in brokerage accounts, used to lend the companies money.

About 4.18 trillion yuan worth of shares have been put up by company founders and other major investors as collateral for loans, accounting for about 11 per cent of the country’s stock market capitalisation, based on calculations using China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation data.

Cheers Image

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3171
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 23 Oct 2018 01:02

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... mare-34087

Why America Leaving the INF Treaty is China's New Nightmare

It would allow Washington to finally compete with Beijing in building similar weapons previously banned under the treaty.
by Nathan Levine

The United States has indicated on October 20, that it will withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, with President Donald Trump saying Saturday that Russia has been “violating it for many years,” and “we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.”

But despite pinning the blame on Moscow’s repeated violations of the treaty (Russia having allegedly begun test flights of a prohibited cruise missile as early as 2008), America’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty is not really about Russia—nor is it even about nuclear weapons. As with much else in its new era of strategic competition, America’s move is focused squarely on its contest with China in the Asia-Pacific region.

China has never been a signatory of the INF Treaty, which bans the development or deployment of both nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. This has allowed China to build up a vast arsenal of conventional anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons, such as the DF-21 “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missile (range of 1,500 kilometers). All of these weapons are of a class that the United States is legally prevented from deploying.

This has led to America becoming significantly “out sticked” in the ongoing “ range war " between military systems designed to safely control the increasingly unfriendly seas and skies of the Western Pacific. In the event of a high-end conflict, U.S. naval surface combatants would find themselves at a disadvantage, having to rely on older sea-launched standoff systems, like the Tomahawk land-attack missile, and vulnerable carrier-based airpower, to strike at deadly A2/AD weapons that can hide within the Chinese interior.

This is a problem, because as Christopher Johnson, formerly the CIA’s senior China analyst, recently told The Economist “In any air war we do great in the first couple of days,” but “then we have to move everything back to Japan, and we can’t generate sufficient sorties from that point for deep strike on the mainland.” And without being able to strike anti-ship systems in the mainland, American carriers operating off the Chinese coast would be placed in unacceptable danger.

U.S. withdrawal from INF, however, could help reverse this dynamic and lead to a nightmare scenario for China.

New American conventional systems, probably beginning with a ground-launched version of the Tomahawk but perhaps eventually expanding to include ballistic missiles similar to the DF-21 and DF-26, could be stationed in unsinkable, out-of-the-way locales like northern Japan, Guam, the southern Philippines, or even northern Australia.


These weapons would have the potential to act as the cornerstone of an alternative U.S. military strategy for the Western Pacific increasingly advocated by defense experts in Washington. This new strategy would use America’s own A2/AD systems to lock down the waters within the “first island chain” and transform China’s near seas into what scholars like Michael Swaine and others have described as a “no man’s land” in the event of war. Such a strategy, labeled by Andrew Krepinevich as “ Archipelagic Defense ,” would be capable of deterring and containing Chinese military aggression without having to place U.S. surface vessels at significant risk. Moreover, such a strategy has the potential to be significantly cheaper (in both money and lives) than relying on incredibly expensive carrier battle groups to maintain sea control.

Chinese strategists have long been deeply concerned about the potential for such a scenario, in which the defenses of America and its regional allies would prevent the Chinese navy from “breaking through the thistles” of the first island chain’s unfavorable geography, leaving China unable to project maritime power beyond its near seas.

Meanwhile, many arms-control analysts have warned with dismay that U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty could provoke a new “missile race,” while Russian politician Aleksey Pushkov has declared that such an exit would be a “powerful blow inflicted on the world’s entire system of strategic stability.” However, at least in the U.S.-China context, the result could be more strategic stability rather than less, for two reasons.

First, if America followed the Archipelagic Defense strategy outlined above, then it would have less need to move any “ too big to fail ” assets within range of Chinese weapons during a crisis. The loss of those assets would be such a traumatic disaster for America (with up to six thousand lives lost with a single aircraft carrier, for example) that any U.S. leader would feel immense pressure to immediately and dramatically escalate the scale of the conflict. Instead, cheap, unmanned long-range strike weapons could serve in their place, reducing the chance of crisis escalation.

Second, with fewer American surface ships required to operate close to China, the tactical necessity for U.S. commanders to strike Chinese missile systems within mainland China as a defensive measure would be reduced. This is significant because, as Caitlin Talmadge explains in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs , China’s nuclear weapons are intermingled with its conventional missile forces, and it would be nearly impossible for the United States to strike at China’s conventional ballistic missiles without inadvertently destroying elements of China’s strategic nuclear deterrent. And, as she writes, when “faced with such a threat, Chinese leaders could decide to use their nuclear weapons while they were still able to,” increasing the chances of a conflict going nuclear.
...



chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2749
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 23 Oct 2018 11:46

Rudradev wrote:https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-america-leaving-inf-treaty-chinas-new-nightmare-34087

Why America Leaving the INF Treaty is China's New Nightmare

It would allow Washington to finally compete with Beijing in building similar weapons previously banned under the treaty.
by Nathan Levine

The United States has indicated on October 20, that it will withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, with President Donald Trump saying Saturday that Russia has been “violating it for many years,” and “we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.”

But despite pinning the blame on Moscow’s repeated violations of the treaty (Russia having allegedly begun test flights of a prohibited cruise missile as early as 2008), America’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty is not really about Russia—nor is it even about nuclear weapons. As with much else in its new era of strategic competition, America’s move is focused squarely on its contest with China in the Asia-Pacific region.

China has never been a signatory of the INF Treaty, which bans the development or deployment of both nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. This has allowed China to build up a vast arsenal of conventional anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons, such as the DF-21 “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missile (range of 1,500 kilometers). All of these weapons are of a class that the United States is legally prevented from deploying.

This has led to America becoming significantly “out sticked” in the ongoing “ range war " between military systems designed to safely control the increasingly unfriendly seas and skies of the Western Pacific. In the event of a high-end conflict, U.S. naval surface combatants would find themselves at a disadvantage, having to rely on older sea-launched standoff systems, like the Tomahawk land-attack missile, and vulnerable carrier-based airpower, to strike at deadly A2/AD weapons that can hide within the Chinese interior.

This is a problem, because as Christopher Johnson, formerly the CIA’s senior China analyst, recently told The Economist “In any air war we do great in the first couple of days,” but “then we have to move everything back to Japan, and we can’t generate sufficient sorties from that point for deep strike on the mainland.” And without being able to strike anti-ship systems in the mainland, American carriers operating off the Chinese coast would be placed in unacceptable danger.

U.S. withdrawal from INF, however, could help reverse this dynamic and lead to a nightmare scenario for China.

New American conventional systems, probably beginning with a ground-launched version of the Tomahawk but perhaps eventually expanding to include ballistic missiles similar to the DF-21 and DF-26, could be stationed in unsinkable, out-of-the-way locales like northern Japan, Guam, the southern Philippines, or even northern Australia.


These weapons would have the potential to act as the cornerstone of an alternative U.S. military strategy for the Western Pacific increasingly advocated by defense experts in Washington. This new strategy would use America’s own A2/AD systems to lock down the waters within the “first island chain” and transform China’s near seas into what scholars like Michael Swaine and others have described as a “no man’s land” in the event of war. Such a strategy, labeled by Andrew Krepinevich as “ Archipelagic Defense ,” would be capable of deterring and containing Chinese military aggression without having to place U.S. surface vessels at significant risk. Moreover, such a strategy has the potential to be significantly cheaper (in both money and lives) than relying on incredibly expensive carrier battle groups to maintain sea control.

Chinese strategists have long been deeply concerned about the potential for such a scenario, in which the defenses of America and its regional allies would prevent the Chinese navy from “breaking through the thistles” of the first island chain’s unfavorable geography, leaving China unable to project maritime power beyond its near seas.

Meanwhile, many arms-control analysts have warned with dismay that U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty could provoke a new “missile race,” while Russian politician Aleksey Pushkov has declared that such an exit would be a “powerful blow inflicted on the world’s entire system of strategic stability.” However, at least in the U.S.-China context, the result could be more strategic stability rather than less, for two reasons.

First, if America followed the Archipelagic Defense strategy outlined above, then it would have less need to move any “ too big to fail ” assets within range of Chinese weapons during a crisis. The loss of those assets would be such a traumatic disaster for America (with up to six thousand lives lost with a single aircraft carrier, for example) that any U.S. leader would feel immense pressure to immediately and dramatically escalate the scale of the conflict. Instead, cheap, unmanned long-range strike weapons could serve in their place, reducing the chance of crisis escalation.

Second, with fewer American surface ships required to operate close to China, the tactical necessity for U.S. commanders to strike Chinese missile systems within mainland China as a defensive measure would be reduced. This is significant because, as Caitlin Talmadge explains in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs , China’s nuclear weapons are intermingled with its conventional missile forces, and it would be nearly impossible for the United States to strike at China’s conventional ballistic missiles without inadvertently destroying elements of China’s strategic nuclear deterrent. And, as she writes, when “faced with such a threat, Chinese leaders could decide to use their nuclear weapons while they were still able to,” increasing the chances of a conflict going nuclear.
...




This might make Cheen build nukes and ICBMs to offset losing the regional advantage.

Cheen currently only has several hundred nukes and a few dozens intercontinentals. They might go into the thousands to match the US and Russia.

Nerve-wracking for India but it will mean the actual start of an arms race that could cripple their economy like it dud the USSR. I think this is what Unkil wants.

Cheen had been able to play it cheap in defense. Even the massive air force and naval buildup are done on 2% of GDP and aviation and shipbuilding are dual use that help their business side. Nukes would have no return on investment. It would be the beginning of the end like the Siviet Union. At least, that’s the hope.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Paul » 23 Oct 2018 11:55

Watched RSTV discussion on Indian aircraft carrier developments. One panelist (ex navy) said PLAN has a grand total of 22 Naval aviation pilots.

They are building ships at a much faster rate than being able to staff them them with trained personnel.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2018 13:16

chola wrote:Nerve-wracking for India but it will mean the actual start of an arms race that could cripple their economy like it dud the USSR. I think this is what Unkil wants.

Cheen had been able to play it cheap in defense. Even the massive air force and naval buildup are done on 2% of GDP and aviation and shipbuilding are dual use that help their business side. Nukes would have no return on investment. It would be the beginning of the end like the Siviet Union. At least, that’s the hope.


The difference b/w Chini and Soviet Union was Chini is richer, has enough people and is able to plough money and people to rapidly build up weapon system. US realize this. US wants to do the trade war to reduce Chini investment in weapons, by hitting one leg of their build.The other leg is ofcourse people, which it cannot do much.

There is also the question of arms market.. Chini exports of UAV is hitting American sales!

We have an interesting dual between the most efficient capitalist state versus most efficient communist state. Both have money and people!

US wants cheaper option to deal with China, by having stand off weapons. They can already fire ALCM from B52 if they really want to hit China from Pacific as the article says. They want cheaper land based options.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17612
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 23 Oct 2018 17:19

Paul wrote:Watched RSTV discussion on Indian aircraft carrier developments. One panelist (ex navy) said PLAN has a grand total of 22 Naval aviation pilots.

They are building ships at a much faster rate than being able to staff them them with trained personnel.


The Naval aviation pilots and the carrier crew are russki trained and this is on going. I haven't been able to find out if the trainers are serving russki guys or retired russki guys on private enterprise but either way they are russki govt approved.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2749
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 23 Oct 2018 17:33

nam wrote:
chola wrote:Nerve-wracking for India but it will mean the actual start of an arms race that could cripple their economy like it dud the USSR. I think this is what Unkil wants.

Cheen had been able to play it cheap in defense. Even the massive air force and naval buildup are done on 2% of GDP and aviation and shipbuilding are dual use that help their business side. Nukes would have no return on investment. It would be the beginning of the end like the Siviet Union. At least, that’s the hope.


The difference b/w Chini and Soviet Union was Chini is richer, has enough people and is able to plough money and people to rapidly build up weapon system. US realize this. US wants to do the trade war to reduce Chini investment in weapons, by hitting one leg of their build.The other leg is ofcourse people, which it cannot do much.

There is also the question of arms market.. Chini exports of UAV is hitting American sales!

We have an interesting dual between the most efficient capitalist state versus most efficient communist state. Both have money and people!

US wants cheaper option to deal with China, by having stand off weapons. They can already fire ALCM from B52 if they really want to hit China from Pacific as the article says. They want cheaper land based options.


Yes, interesting contest indeed. But between two kinds of capitalism. The state capitalism of Cheen against the more traditional private sector dominant kind of the US. Cheen’s is less efficient because it is halfway between communism and free market. At least on paper.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2018 17:38

The biggest drawback for us in all these is these two will be competing like hell, leaving us far behind given that we are all "peace loving" idiots and never learn.

In a decades time the competition is going to take these two to such a level, no country will be able to close the gap.

The only hope is the idiots on our western border survive and keep threatening us with Chini developed weapons.

mappunni
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 14 Jul 2017 19:07

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

Postby mappunni » 23 Oct 2018 23:29

Trump’s trade war could pay off and revive American manufacturing
By Vivek Wadhwa


Even without tariffs, most of China’s manufacturing cost advantage has disappeared

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-trade-war-could-pay-off-and-revive-american-manufacturing-2018-10-23

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 24 Oct 2018 08:16

The official withdrawal from INF, whenever that happens, could mean that the US was about to test a new China-specific GLCM of appropriate range and characteristics.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10421
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 24 Oct 2018 11:31

nam wrote:The biggest drawback for us in all these is these two will be competing like hell, leaving us far behind given that we are all "peace loving" idiots and never learn.

In a decades time the competition is going to take these two to such a level, no country will be able to close the gap.

The only hope is the idiots on our western border survive and keep threatening us with Chini developed weapons.
To me it looks the reverse ...
1. China is trying to muscle its way into our backyard and not Bakistan.
2. China is trying to surround India with its string of pearls strategy.
3. China is trying to build facilities around IOR to facilitate its Navy's permanent deployment in the IOR.

This is not just known to you or me but the Indian security establishment too. The rationale cited for going in for Pokhran-II was China and not Bakistan even as far back as that. The Agni series development continues not because of Bakistan but China. The Navy has started getting more attention not because of Bakistan but China.

Given all the above and more, IF the "peace loving idiots" are going to be pushed to act on weapons technology/development it will be because of Chinese advancement not Baki antics.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 24 Oct 2018 13:10

pankajs wrote:Given all the above and more, IF the "peace loving idiots" are going to be pushed to act on weapons technology/development it will be because of Chinese advancement not Baki antics.


I wish it was true. After Doklam, I was expecting GoI to take Chinese threat seriously and programs like hypersonic, AMCA, subs and further tech would be pushed up. Dumping by chinese would be counter more firmly.

Hardly any movement. All we got is relationship resets. Doesn't even come close to what Trump is doing to reduce trade deficit with China. US didn't even have a millitary standoff, we did!

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10421
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 24 Oct 2018 13:28

India is not US in terms of its military might or long arms or its stranglehold on technology that is imported by China. Basic difference.

It is entertaining to see people wanting India to emulate US.

OTOH, if one goes by peoples views on some other thread, especially on J&K and Border related thread, one will find that India is not doing enough to punish even Bakistan! If we are talking economics retaliation, India still hasen't taken back the MFN status granted to Bakistan even when Bakis have refused in grant it to India in return.

If we use the above as a data point to extrapolate Indian response to the Chinese advancements, one cannot even be sure that Baki antics on the border and beyond will spur India to race to catch up with Chinese advancement, the starting point of this side discussion.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 24 Oct 2018 13:42

I understand India is not US and our behavior with Pak is exactly why GoI is made up of peace loving idiots. However at least in case of Pak, we react to some extend in the military sphere like ABM.

Regarding China, we don't have to be Trump, however there are lot of leverage given we are a big market for Chinese products.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10421
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 24 Oct 2018 13:48

nam wrote:I understand India is not US and our behavior with Pak is exactly why GoI is made up of peace loving idiots. However at least in case of Pak, we react to some extend in the military sphere like ABM.

Regarding China, we don't have to be Trump, however there are lot of leverage given we are a big market for Chinese products.

So while "GoI is made up of peace loving idiots" who do respond to "some extent in military spheres" on Bakistan, GOI's explicit statements wrt China when doing Pokram-II is ignored so is it follow up on Agni series, its investment in SSBN, its investment in ABM and S-400 purchase, its focus on Navy, its effort to link up with like minded countries to counter China and many such efforts.

Convenient.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 24 Oct 2018 14:27

pankajs wrote:
nam wrote:I understand India is not US and our behavior with Pak is exactly why GoI is made up of peace loving idiots. However at least in case of Pak, we react to some extend in the military sphere like ABM.

Regarding China, we don't have to be Trump, however there are lot of leverage given we are a big market for Chinese products.

So while "GoI is made up of peace loving idiots" who do respond to "some extent in military spheres" on Bakistan, GOI's explicit statements wrt China when doing Pokram-II is ignored so is it follow up on Agni series, its investment in SSBN, its investment in ABM and S-400 purchase, its focus on Navy, its effort to link up with like minded countries to counter China and many such efforts.

Convenient.


If there is a impression that what GoI(all parties included) has done so far is good enough, who am I am to argue!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2749
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 24 Oct 2018 17:04

nam wrote:The biggest drawback for us in all these is these two will be competing like hell, leaving us far behind given that we are all "peace loving" idiots and never learn.

In a decades time the competition is going to take these two to such a level, no country will be able to close the gap.

The only hope is the idiots on our western border survive and keep threatening us with Chini developed weapons.


This aspect is no joke, Namji. The money and resources put into the Unkil-Lizard rivalry will impact everyone — not just us but other “great” powers too Russkies, (f)UK, les Francais and everyone else with less national produce.

These are the things that caught my attention this week. All projects created in rivalry with Unkil:
https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/science/news-china-launches-two-more-satellites-to-enhance-gps-style-system-472284
The satellites are the 39th and 40th of the BeiDou navigation system and the 15th and 16th of the BeiDou-3 family.
China successfully launched twin BeiDou-3 navigation satellites into space on Monday to strengthen its satellite navigation network being built to rival the US' Global Positioning System (GPS).
...
This year has seen an intensive launch of BeiDou satellites. China plans to send another three BeiDou-3 satellites into space to form a basic system to provide services for countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, by the end of the year.


https://www.wired.com/story/ai-cold-war-china-could-doom-us-all
Imagine it’s 2022: America’s confrontational economic policies have continued, and China has refused to yield. Huawei and ZTE have been banned from the networks of the US and key Western allies. Through investment and theft, Beijing has reduced its reliance on US semiconductors. Rival tech superpowers have failed to develop common standards. US and Chinese academics increasingly deposit their cutting-edge AI research in government safes instead of sharing it at international conferences. Other countries—like France and Russia—have tried to build homegrown technology industries centered on AI, but they lag far behind.

The world’s nations can commit to American technology: buying Apple phones, using Google search, driving Teslas, and managing a fleet of personal robots made by a startup in Seattle. Or they can commit to China: using the equivalents built by Alibaba and Tencent, connecting through the 5G network constructed by Huawei and ZTE, and driving autonomous cars built by Baidu. The choice is a fraught one. If you are a poor country that lacks the capacity to build your own data network, you’re going to feel loyalty to whoever helps lay the pipes at low cost.



https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/science/news-china-prepares-to-launch-3-artificial-moons-in-space-by-2022-473682
The artificial or man-made moon is a satellite carrying a huge space mirror, which can reflect the sun light to the Earth.

Three man-made moons will be launched in 2022, it said.
"By then, the three huge mirrors will divide the 360-degree orbital plane, realising illuminating an area for 24 hours continuously," Wu said.


The funds to put up 40 satellites for a new GPS system, AI and other high tech standards that compete with the US and artificial moons (death stars) simply isn’t available to India or even others in the P5.

It all comes down to the printing presses owned by the US and Cheen.

That said, Trump is trying to overtax the the Chini printing press by leaving INF and forcing Cheen off its easy 2% defense spending stride and make it go Soviet Union. But before the Cheen press implodes, we will be seeing more of the above from PRC and Amreeka. Prepare dhotis for shaking.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23016
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 25 Oct 2018 10:20

China will never give up an inch of territory, defence minister says - Reuters
China will never give up an inch of its territory, whether the self-ruled island of Taiwan it claims as its own, or in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, the country's defence minister said on Thursday.

Beijing has been infuriated by recent U.S. sanctions on its military, one of a growing number of flashpoints in ties with Washington that include a bitter trade war, Taiwan and China's increasingly muscular military posture in the South China Sea.

Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe made the remarks at the opening of the Xiangshan Forum in Beijing, which China styles as its answer to the annual Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in the wealthy city-state of Singapore.

China's military ties with the United States are important and sensitive, Wei said, adding that Taiwan was a “core” interest of China's and Beijing opposed displays of strength by “outside forces” in the South China Sea.


On Monday, the United States sent two warships through the Taiwan Strait in the second such operation this year.

China-Taiwan relations have deteriorated since the island's President Tsai Ing-wen, of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, swept to power in 2016.

Beijing, which has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control, has also viewed U.S. overtures toward the island with alarm, such as a new de facto embassy there and passage of a law to encourage visits by U.S. officials.

mappunni
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 14 Jul 2017 19:07

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

Postby mappunni » 25 Oct 2018 23:18

SSridhar wrote:China will never give up an inch of territory, defence minister says - Reuters
China will never give up an inch of its territory, whether the self-ruled island of Taiwan it claims as its own, or in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, the country's defence minister said on Thursday.

Beijing has been infuriated by recent U.S. sanctions on its military, one of a growing number of flashpoints in ties with Washington that include a bitter trade war, Taiwan and China's increasingly muscular military posture in the South China Sea....


Saar,
Don't think Cheen has the stomach to see bodybags. Especially with one child norm, no sane parent would like to lose their only child. Cheen has been successfully using economy as a weapon just like they did against Japan or South Korea. When it is going to be real confrontation, Han's will be running for cover. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5963
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Peregrine » 26 Oct 2018 00:02

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Inside China's Xinjiang internment camps: tear gas, Tasers and textbooks

Examination of over 1,500 publicly available govt documents shows the centres are run more like jails than schools.

On state television, the vocational education centre in China's far west looked like a modern school where happy students studied Mandarin, brushed up their job skills, and pursued hobbies such as sports and folk dance.

But earlier this year, one of the local government departments in charge of such facilities in Xinjiang's Hotan prefecture made several purchases that had little to do with education: 2,768 police batons, 550 electric cattle prods, 1,367 pairs of handcuffs, and 2,792 cans of pepper spray.

The shopping list was among over a thousand procurement requests made by local governments in the Xinjiang region since early 2017 related to the construction and management of a sprawling system of “vocational education and training centres”.

The facilities have come under international scrutiny, with rights activists describing them as political re-education camps holding as many as one million ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities.

Beijing had previously denied their existence. But a global outcry, including from the UN and the US, sparked a PR counter-offensive.

Government propaganda insisted the centres were aimed at countering the spread of separatism, terrorism and religious extremism through “free” education and job training.

However, an AFP examination of more than 1,500 publicly available government documents — ranging from tenders and budgets to official work reports — shows the centres are run more like jails than schools.

Thousands of guards equipped with tear gas, Tasers, stun guns and spiked clubs keep tight control over “students” in facilities ringed with razor wire and infrared cameras, according to the documents.

The centres should “teach like a school, be managed like the military, and be defended like a prison”, said one document, quoting Xinjiang's party secretary Chen Quanguo.

To build new, better Chinese citizens, another document argued, the centres must first “break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins”.

'Detain those who should be detained'

The centre featured on state broadcaster CCTV last week is one of at least 181 such facilities in Xinjiang, according to data collected by AFP.

Participation is voluntary, according to CCTV, which showed contented “students” wearing matching uniforms, studying Mandarin and learning trades like knitting, weaving and baking.

The centres first appeared in 2014, the year that authorities launched a new “strike hard” campaign against “terrorism” after deadly violence in Xinjiang.

But the buildup began in earnest in early 2017, with local governments in predominantly Uighur southern Xinjiang ordered to speed up the construction of “concentrated educational transformation centres for focus groups” — a euphemism for the religious, the poor, the uneducated, passport holders, and virtually all men of military age.

Shortly after, Xinjiang's regional government issued regulations on managing “religious extremism”. Extremists could be hiding anywhere, officials warned, instructing cadres to be on the lookout for 25 illegal religious activities and 75 signs of extremism, including such seemingly innocuous activities as quitting smoking or buying a tent.

“Detain those who should be detained to the greatest extent possible,” cadres were told. Detentions surged, catching local governments unprepared.

In 2017, spending by justice bureaus throughout Xinjiang exploded, driven largely by huge outlays for building and running vocational centres.

The offices spent nearly three billion yuan ($432 million) — at least 577 per cent more than planned — according to AFP's calculations.

Counties in the south closed the gap with a special fund earmarked for centres in the region. At least some of that money came directly from the Communist Party's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission — the group in charge of the nation's legal authorities — budget documents showed.

'Wolf's teeth'

Around April 2017, local governments began posting a wide variety of tenders related to the facilities. Some orders — furniture, air conditioners, bunk beds, cutlery — would not seem out of place at a typical Chinese university.

But others resembled prison equipment: sophisticated surveillance systems, cameras for recording students in their rooms, razor wire, a system for eavesdropping on phone calls, and infrared monitoring devices.

The centres also bought police uniforms, riot shields and helmets, pepper spray, tear gas, net guns, stun guns, electrified batons, billy clubs, spears, handcuffs and spiked clubs known as “wolf's teeth”.

At least one centre requested “tiger chairs”, a device used by Chinese police to restrain interrogation subjects.

The gear was necessary, party officials in the regional capital Urumqi argued in an emergency request for Tasers, to “guarantee staff members' personal safety”.

Non-lethal weapons, it said, were important for “reducing the possibility of accidental injury in some situations where it is not necessary to use standard firearms”.

Despite repeated attempts by AFP, local authorities could not be reached for comment before publication. On Wednesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying questioned the report's findings but offered no specific denial.

“I want to express my strong doubts on whether the situation you described is true,” she told an AFP reporter at a regular press conference, adding that “I hope you can look at what Chinese officials have said and what the Chinese media has reported.”

'Self-criticisms'

At the end of 2017, “higher authorities” issued directions to standardise the facilities' operations. New “vocational education and training service management bureaus” were set up, headed by officials experienced in running prisons and detention centres, according to local government websites.

Students would be tested on their knowledge of Mandarin and propaganda on a weekly, monthly and “seasonal” basis, and write regular “self-criticisms”, one bureau wrote in a memo.

They would spend their days “shouting slogans, singing red songs and memorising the Three Character Classic”, it said, referring to an ancient Confucian text.

Their files lodged in a centralised database, students were sorted into categories based on their offences and levels of accomplishment.

Criminals who had completed a prison sentence were released directly into the centres, under the principle of “putting untrustworthy people in a trustworthy place”.

Students who performed well would be allowed to call their families or even visit them in special rooms at the centres.

Officials were ordered to regularly visit students' families at home to give them “anti-extremism” lessons and check for signs of anger that could harden into opposition to the Communist Party.

The new bureaus also ensured “absolute security” against “troublemaking” in the centres, including preventing “escapes”, one local management bureau wrote in a breakdown of its duties.

In addition to ex-prisoners and those charged with religious extremism, local governments were also ordered to ensure that at least one member of each household received vocational education for a minimum of one to three months — a measure ostensibly aimed at alleviating poverty in the region of 24 million.

While China has rejected estimates that upwards of one million are held in the centres, tender documents hint at huge numbers.

In a one-month period in early 2018, Hotan county's vocational education bureau, which oversees at least one centre, ordered 194,000 Chinese language practice books. And 11,310 pairs of shoes.

Cheers Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nandakumar and 25 guests