US and PRC relationship & India

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 05 Dec 2010 06:55

putnanja wrote:
Why? If China was so sure about the will of Taiwanese people, why do they raise such a hue and cry and threaten Taiwan if it tries to go for a referendum on the issue? You will surely agree that a referendum in Taiwan on whether to re-unite with China or not is important to determine the fate of Taiwan?

Unfortunately a few imperialist running-dogs and han-traitors has deeply infiltrated the Taiwan political scene. But as you say, the will of the people can not be denied. Reunification can not be denied. The people wills it.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 05 Dec 2010 06:57

Marten wrote: Who gives a rat's fart what you think about this? Not the Taiwanese!
The will of the Taiwanese people is to stay independent. Period.

Unlike what Hollywood, or in deed Bollywood would like you to believe. When given the choice, most people would rather be slaves then dead. Reactionary-Imperialists will be defeated.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 05 Dec 2010 14:01

x-post
Wikileaks: India sought US help to deal with 'assertive China'

China's neighbours, including India, are worried about the Asian giant's increasing assertiveness, the Wikileaks cables have revealed.

In a cable sent to the US State Department in February 2010, US ambassador to Beijing, Jon Huntsman had said that Indian ambassador S Jayashankar had sought closer co-operation with the US because of "China's more aggressive approach", the 'Guardian' reported.

Earlier, when US President Barack Obama had visited China in late 2009, a joint Sino-American statement had called for the two countries to “work together to promote peace, stability and development in that (South Asia) region”. This had, in turn, raised more worries about China's role in Asia.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his visit to US in late 2009 had raised worries over China officially, specifically talking about 'China's greater assertiveness'. The PM had also brought up the mention of India and Pakistan resolving their disputes in the US-China joint statement.

America had allayed Indian worries by agreeing that the world had to deal with a rising China and ensure that the rise was peaceful.

India is not the only country worried by Chinese assertiveness. According to a Guardian report, Japanese officials also filed similar complaints to the American ambassador. Japanese diplomats complained that officials were "aggressive and difficult" during summit preparations.

Japan was also concerned about rising tensions in the East China Sea. The cable claimed that it had specifically warned about "the increased aggressiveness of Chinese 'coastguard' and naval units…" which had provoked "many dangerous encounters with Japanese civilian and self-defence force ships".

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 05 Dec 2010 21:49

TonyMontana wrote:
Marten wrote: Who gives a rat's fart what you think about this? Not the Taiwanese!
The will of the Taiwanese people is to stay independent. Period.
Unlike what Hollywood, or in deed Bollywood would like you to believe. When given the choice, most people would rather be slaves then dead. Reactionary-Imperialists will be defeated.

Now I understand how the mainland chinese defines "will of the people". You either vote for reunification or we kill everyone and take over the land! nice! Glad to know that Mao's teachings are still alive and being propagated!

TonyMontana wrote:
putnanja wrote:
Why? If China was so sure about the will of Taiwanese people, why do they raise such a hue and cry and threaten Taiwan if it tries to go for a referendum on the issue? You will surely agree that a referendum in Taiwan on whether to re-unite with China or not is important to determine the fate of Taiwan?
Unfortunately a few imperialist running-dogs and han-traitors has deeply infiltrated the Taiwan political scene. But as you say, the will of the people can not be denied. Reunification can not be denied. The people wills it.

Not the people of Taiwan. Most of the people in their 50s and below have been born in independent Taiwan. Why will they subject themselves to the mainland chinese authority?? Would China allow a truly independent referendum , and issue no threats directly or indirectly to the Taiwanese before the referendum? Just the word of a referendum is enough for China to start making threats!

TonyMontana wrote:You rejection is duely noted. I must condemn this rejection without reservations. Taiwan, since the recapturing of island by the Most Mighty and Magnificant Admiral, remain by right and mandate an integral part of the rightful desendants of the Old Empire. The People's Republic.

Hmm, should France claim the whole of Europe as Napolean had captured them sometime in the past? Or should UK claim US, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the entire commonwealth because they had colonized them earlier? What sort of absurd argument is being made by China? And their drones repeating it without applying their mind?

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 06 Dec 2010 06:27

Should Japanese claim part of China since they had occupied that area during WWII?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Dec 2010 06:28

Did they not find out China was populated with men out of India ?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 06 Dec 2010 06:37

Taiwan's "will of the people" can be bent and shaped, just as it is done in the mainland. Please note, free will of the people is not the issue. It is about will of the people. "Will of the people" will be shaped in reeducation camps. Unfortunately, the excuse could have been hanification of Taiwan, but wait a minute: taiwan has already been hanified. So it is reeducation gulags that would do the trick. If it worked on mainland, why not on an island? When is CPC starting this mega project? Or do we have to wait till the 4th yellow age?

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 06 Dec 2010 16:31

Pratyush wrote:David,

Would be kind enough to educate the posters, as to exactly what is considered a soverigen and indipendent nation? Where the Nation of Tiwan fails in that classification as a soverigen nation.

It's just a technicality, Taiwan by all accounts is a fully sovereign nation. Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion though. What would India recognize Taiwan as? It's not a trapping question, I'm seriously curious.

putnanja wrote: Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back

You're perfectly right, but when did "should" ever matter in politics? South Korea still claims the whole of Korea, Japan still claims the northern territories, and India still claims the whole of Kashmir, no?

Arihant wrote:
Educate me here, DavidD - I thought that Taiwan was always independent. How exactly do the 24 or so UN member states that have full diplomatic relations recognize Taiwan? The debate in Taiwanese politics is all about the subtle matter of changing the name of the government to a "Republic of Taiwan" or some such, and ditching the quixotic KMT fantasy of militarily conquering China again (but who knows, that might not be a bad idea ). As some in the free world know (but most living behind the bamboo curtain don't), the KMT in Taiwan actually maintained a fictitious "legislature" representing all of China, but that was abolished more than a decade ago. Taiwan is constitutionally entirely indepedent - I would be curious if any of our Chinese brethren could offer proof of any de jure "dependence" of Taiwan on China (discounting of course the manfactured news and history that often emanates from China).

Hey, I'd like to know the same thing, what exactly do they recognize Taiwan as? I know that before the Sino-American repproachement, Taiwan was recognized as the legitimate government of China and the communists were recognized as the renegades. There's no de jure "dependence" of Taiwan on China at all, but then again, it hardly matters. If say China somehow occupies AP and set up an independent government there, will India stop claiming it since it's got de jure independence?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Dec 2010 19:23

DavidD wrote:What would India recognize Taiwan as?

For all intents and purposes as a defacto sovereign state, full sovereignty depending on Taiwan's own declaration of it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Dec 2010 22:39

RajeshA wrote:
DavidD wrote:What would India recognize Taiwan as?
For all intents and purposes as a defacto sovereign state, full sovereignty depending on Taiwan's own declaration of it.

At the same time India will do the same thing with Tibet as a defacto sovereign state, full sovereignty in its own declaration.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Dec 2010 00:01

DavidD wrote:
putnanja wrote: Taiwan should be recognized as a legitimate country by itself. Why would anyone recognize Taiwan as legitamate govt for whole of China? The taiwanese island is a separate nation, and they have been ruled by themselves for close to half a century now. Just because 50 years back they were one nation, doesn't mean they need to merge with China. It is like asking Pakistan or Bangladesh to be part of India because they were so 50 years back
You're perfectly right, but when did "should" ever matter in politics? South Korea still claims the whole of Korea, Japan still claims the northern territories, and India still claims the whole of Kashmir, no?

The difference being that Kashmir was and is part of India for a long time, and it signed the accession to India act legitimately.

DavidD wrote:
Hey, I'd like to know the same thing, what exactly do they recognize Taiwan as? I know that before the Sino-American repproachement, Taiwan was recognized as the legitimate government of China and the communists were recognized as the renegades. There's no de jure "dependence" of Taiwan on China at all, but then again, it hardly matters. If say China somehow occupies AP and set up an independent government there, will India stop claiming it since it's got de jure independence?

AP even today doesn't want to be part of China. And the comparision with what you are proposing is like allowing Iraq to have kept Kuwait after it occupied it, against the wishes of its people. AP is part of india currently, and the people there are happy with India.

Many countries lost wars earlier in history, and claiming them now doesn't make any sense. S Korea may claim whole of korea, which N Korea claims similarly. But S Korea isn't threatening N Korea like china does to taiwan.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 07 Dec 2010 13:23

If this has already been posted, please do overlook it.
This is from the wiki-leaks. China might accept Unified Korea under the control of South-Korea.

Vice Foreign Minister Chun Yung-woo told the Ambassador February 17th that China would not be able to stop North Korea's collapse following the death of Kim Jong-il (KJI). The DPRK, Chun said, had already collapsed economically and would collapse politically two to three years after the death of Kim Jong-il.
....
....
Beijing had "no will" to use its economic leverage to force a change in Pyongyang's policies and the DPRK leadership "knows it." Chun acknowledged that the Chinese genuinely wanted a denuclearized North Korea, but the PRC was also content with the status quo.
....
....
Sophisticated Chinese officials XXXXXXXXXXXX stood in sharp contrast to Wu, according to VFM Chun.XXXXXXXXXXXX Chun claimed XXXXXXXXXX believed Korea should be unified under ROK control.XXXXXXXXXXXX, Chun said, were ready to "face the new reality" that the DPRK now had little value to China as a buffer state -- a view that since North Korea's 2006 nuclear test had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC leaders.
....
....

From the cable it appears like there is some discord between the various Chinese officials. Something akin to what Indian policy makers had to face, before they went for normalization of relations with Burma. It would be interesting to see who would prevail. The so called "sophisticated" who would like to see a unified korea or the PLA lobby which would prefer to retain north-korea as a buffer.
It is note worthy that both the camps would not like to see an American presence north of the DMZ. So will America oblige in such an understanding??

Chun argued that, in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly "not welcome" any U.S. military presence north of the DMZ. XXXXXXXXXXXX Chun XXXXXXXXXXXX said the PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the United States in a "benign alliance" -- as long as Korea was not hostile towards China.

Please note that the emphasis shown above are mine and not in the original cable text or the authors.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 07 Dec 2010 14:24

putnanja wrote:
The difference being that Kashmir was and is part of India for a long time, and it signed the accession to India act legitimately.

AP even today doesn't want to be part of China. And the comparision with what you are proposing is like allowing Iraq to have kept Kuwait after it occupied it, against the wishes of its people. AP is part of india currently, and the people there are happy with India.

Many countries lost wars earlier in history, and claiming them now doesn't make any sense. S Korea may claim whole of korea, which N Korea claims similarly. But S Korea isn't threatening N Korea like china does to taiwan.

The point I was trying to make is that sovereignty is not a justification of the status of a region. Some people were at least insinuating that Taiwan should be independent from China because it has full sovereignty over itself, and I was simply using India's lack of sovereignty over parts of Kashmir and the conjured up scenario with AP as a counter argument.

Claiming them now doesn't make any sense? It makes perfect sense to me. You just have to occupy the area long enough for the occupation to be "earlier in history", then any other claim wouldn't make any sense to people like you

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Dec 2010 16:45

Not sure where to post this.

OSLO: China and 18 other countries have declined invitations to attend Friday's Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said on Tuesday.

It said the countries were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

Read more: China, 18 others to miss Liu's Nobel gala - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... z17QQjIXso

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Dec 2010 17:10

A_Gupta wrote:Not sure where to post this.
OSLO: China and 18 other countries have declined invitations to attend Friday's Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said on Tuesday.

It said the countries were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

Read more: China, 18 others to miss Liu's Nobel gala - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... z17QQjIXso

The Philippines' absence is a bit of an oddity. Looks like they are doing downhill skiing after the bus hijacking drama.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 08 Dec 2010 13:11

A_Gupta wrote:Not sure where to post this.
OSLO: China and 18 other countries have declined invitations to attend Friday's Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said on Tuesday.

It said the countries were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

Read more: China, 18 others to miss Liu's Nobel gala - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... z17QQjIXso

If the news is true then Vietnam and Iraq are the two notables. Why is Vietnam not attending? And Iraq is allegedly under Uncle Sam's thumb, but still not attending. This does speak volumes about who are willing to stand up to China's pressure.

Gupta ji can you please post this snippet in the "Vietnam - News & Discussions" forum too.

I certainly hope that we go and attend this ceremony if not at an Foreign Minister level then definitely at the ambassador level. We should not allow China to dictate, what we should attend and what we should not attend. Not attending this ceremony will not dramatically improve our relations with China. Nor will we get any tangible or concrete out of not attending this ceremony.
After all we should not listen to the only country which tried to put a block on the UNSC sanctions to LeT/JuD. Among all the 15 members of UNSC, only China was the country, which opposed the sanctions on LeT/JuD. If China expects us to be sensitive about their concerns, there has to be reciprocity by it FIRST.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 08 Dec 2010 14:30

^^Chinese have repeatedly protected terrorist organizations such as JUD & LET from being banned by UN. This is a good opportunity to snub the Chinese. They think that they will ask us to support them and we will forget all their actions to hurt India?

GoI must never listen to the Chinese and MUST attend the ceremony. They should let China know that any future face saving cooperation will be dependant on China's behaviour and sensitivity to India's concerns.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 08 Dec 2010 17:35

I have a feeling that India will pull out on a day before Nobel awards ceremony.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Dec 2010 02:02

I think India should not attend the Nobel prize nonsense.

India shouldn't do something just to pi$$off PRC. Why losing the opportunities if there are areas that have common interests/view-points?

India has to fight its wars on its own. Indians and GOI should get over the stupidity that USA/PRC/Russia/France or anyone would come help India achieve prosperity and duper-powerdom.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 09 Dec 2010 07:58

KS writes on what China is offering to US for peaceful co-existence.

http://www.maritimeindia.org/modules.ph ... ge&pid=632

It is asserted that the article represents only the
views of the authors who include John Milligan-Whyte and Dai Min, authors of China and
America's Leadership in Peaceful Coexistence, and Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of
The Pentagon's New Map and leading Chinese policy experts.

“When agreed upon by the presidents of both nations through an ‘executive
agreement’ not subject to U.S. Senate ratification, the grand strategy will
promote U.S. economic recovery, increase U.S. exports to China, create 12
million US jobs, balance China-US trade as well as reduce U.S. government
deficits and debt. Furthermore, it will stabilize the U.S. dollar, global currency
and bond markets. It will also enable reform of international institutions,
cooperative climate change remediation, international trade, global security
breakthroughs as well as facilitate the economic progress of developed and
developing economies, the stabilization and rebuilding of failed states and
security of sea transport.”

What have been put forward is perhaps maximalist
demands and they are likely to be open to negotiation at much lower levels. It should be of
interest to Indians that India, Pakistan and Myanmar do not figure in the proposals. Does it
mean China is telling the US the whole of South Asia is China’s sphere and is not available to
be negotiated?

What would be the reaction of Russia, Europe, Japan, India such a condominium between US and China. If the US continues to remain weak, it might find a condominium with China attractive. This article shows what China would ask in return.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Dec 2010 12:29

The PRC it seems has officially replied to the Ombabas G2 ploy.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Dec 2010 20:00

RamaY wrote:I think India should not attend the Nobel prize nonsense.

India shouldn't do something just to pi$$off PRC. Why losing the opportunities if there are areas that have common interests/view-points?

India has to fight its wars on its own. Indians and GOI should get over the stupidity that USA/PRC/Russia/France or anyone would come help India achieve prosperity and duper-powerdom.

thats not the point, prc is bullying people not to attend
if india does not attend, it means we are scared of the prc

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Dec 2010 05:43

China creates peace prize to rival Nobel

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Dec 2010 00:25

Interesting world view
Foreign Affairs:Nov-Dec 2010 Issue

Note which country is not mentioned!

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 11 Dec 2010 06:57

China's finds India's presence at Oslo weird.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-pre ... 36986.aspx

I merely regard this vicious handout of prize an allied efforts to demonise China, unfortunately India joined the China bashing chorus, its weird for a former colonized country to do so, I see nothing independent (in it)", a Chinese diplomat told Hindustan Times.

Well, India finds a lot of things weird about China. supplying nukes to Pakistan, blocking sanctions on terrorists, claiming India's land, blocking India's nuclear deal etc.

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 11 Dec 2010 07:20

Prem wrote:China creates peace prize to rival Nobel

Kudos to China. India should hop on , create a Bharat-China peace prize and award the first one to Julian Assange (even if it is in absentia) and second one to Nikolas Sarkozy.

Nobel prize is more driven by political agendas than any worthwhile peace activities anyway.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 11 Dec 2010 12:52

Chinese analyst view of India Japan relations.

http://china.org.cn/opinion/2010-12/11/ ... 518845.htm

Indo-Japanese relations in the post Cold-War era

International relations in Asia are characterized by an unprecedented buildup in the power of China, Japan and India, in the context of the continuing supremacy of the United States in the region. The core aim of India's foreign policy is to become a leading world power, and in achieving this goal it sees China's rise as a major challenge. Japan also sees China as its major security threat. In the strategic triangle among China, Japan and India, the latter two have arrived at a kind of common understanding to jointly oppose China. Another factor is that both India and Japan are "democracies" with similar political values and without any ideological barriers. Since 2009, there has been growing hysteria in India about the "China threat" and the country has moved still closer to the United States and Japan. In 2010, India's foreign policy establishment celebrated an impressive feat of achieving a breakthrough in relations with the United States and making further progress with Japan.

Thirdly, the India-Japan engagement helps India balance China. In recent years, India has been beset with increasing suspicion and jealousy against China. But in terms of overall national capabilities, India cannot challenge China in near future. That's why India is strengthening its military capabilities, while seeking political support from major powers. Japan is, of course, an ideal choice for India. The latest evidence for this is recent joint military drills in the South China Sea.

India-Japanese relations in the post-Cold War era exemplify a famous saying of the ancient Indian strategist Kautilya: "Your neighbor is your natural enemy and your neighbor's neighbor is your friend."

Overall, a good quality article. Better than the many that are available in western media. I did not know the Chinese knew about Kautilya. He is referring to the mandala theory.

From the article, it can be inferred that the Chinese are very unhappy with India's diplomatic success with US and other powers. Unlike what appears in their publications, they are acutely aware of the success of the Indian diplomacy in forging multiple partnerships. In the past, India has been referred as the "friendless" power and now with increasing economic strength, it appears India is winning some friends.

The article also shows that they know that while India canot challenge China on its own now, it may not remain like that in the future. Another takeaway is that while there is a lot of talk of stringof pearls and Chinese encirclement of India, India by establishing close ties with Japan and South Korea gives a similar feeling to China. India now has a FTA with both Japan and SK as well as ASEAN.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 11 Dec 2010 16:08

ramana wrote:Interesting world view
Foreign Affairs:Nov-Dec 2010 Issue

Note which country is not mentioned!

Boss which article are you referring to? This link opens up the home page of the nov-dec 2010 issue.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Dec 2010 16:45

China-India ties fragile, need special care: Chinese envoy

The relevent excerpts are posted below.

"China-India relations are very fragile and very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair. Therefore, they need special care in the information age," Chinese envoy to India Zhang Yan said at a conference here.

The PRC ought to have thought of it when they supplied TSP with the nuke ans the means to diliver them.

"To achieve this, the government should provide guidance to the public to avoid a war of words," Zhang said at the conference on India-China relations organised by FICCI.

The bugger wants the GOi to ristrict the free speach.

Madam Rao who was present at the finction responded with the following words.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao, who was present at the conference, sought to assuage the feelings of the Chinese envoy, by telling him that India has a "very commonsensical" and "very rational" approach to China.

But at the same time, she highlighted the "vibrant and noisy nature" of democracy to which the Chinese were exposed in India.

"Often, our Chinese friends speak of a certain gulf in appreciation of each country vis-a-vis the other, especially when it comes to opinions of that are expressed in the media of the two countries," Rao said.

"Our Chinese friends are increasingly exposed to the vibrant, I would say, noisy nature of our democracy. The fact that many schools of thought contend, many opinions are expressed which are often at divergence with each other. But I would urge them to understand that there is a certain very commonsensical, very rational approach that we in India have to China," she said.

"We see you as our largest neighbour, we regard in a real sense and an absolute sense the importance of building bridges with China, understanding China better, creating more of a mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries," Rao said.

The foreign secretary said the betterment of relations with China was of great importance not only to the Indian leadership but also for the business and for the industry of both the countries.

All in all a fitting reply to the PRC ambassador. Filled with diplomatise.

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Dec 2010 16:56

Ouch! After the Liu tamasha this one must really hurt:

"Our Chinese friends are increasingly exposed to the vibrant, I would say, noisy nature of our democracy. The fact that many schools of thought contend, many opinions are expressed which are often at divergence with each other. But I would urge them to understand that there is a certain very commonsensical, very rational approach that we in India have to China," she said.

I like this lady! And not just for her sartorial sense.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 13 Dec 2010 19:01

China expects that countries, not just India, are simply overawed by their potential power and therefore accept as fait accompli some of its practices and policy approaches. This is, of course, wishful thinking. China needs to live in this world, just like everybody else. The law of the fish may rule, but some fish can bite back. Quietly. If you show the sword too often, others may start building swords rather than shields.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2010 22:49

Looks like PRC did the transfers on assurance it will box in India. Didn't expect the consequences: POKII, Agni series and Arihant. There was misperception about Indian capabilities and misreading of Indian intentions.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Dec 2010 01:25

Dunno how this US-PRC thing will affect India, but here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/busin ... trade.html

WASHINGTON — The World Trade Organization on Monday upheld the Obama administration’s decision last year to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on auto and light-truck tires from China, rejecting a Beijing complaint that the punitive duties violated international agreements.

The decision, which the United States trade representative called “a major victory,” came as the administration was seeking to re-energize its trade agenda, a potential area of cooperation with Republicans, while not antagonizing labor unions, a major Democratic constituency.

The United Steelworkers had requested the tariffs, arguing that a surge in imports had threatened domestic manufacturing.

“We have said all along that our imposition of duties on Chinese tires was fully consistent with our W.T.O. obligations,” the trade representative, Ron Kirk, said in a statement. “It is significant that the W.T.O. panel has agreed with us, on all grounds.”

The tariffs represented the first time that the United States had invoked a special safeguard provision that was part of its agreement to support China’s entry into the W.T.O. in 2001.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 14 Dec 2010 01:57

ramana wrote:There was misperception about Indian capabilities and misreading of Indian intentions.

Same led to 1962

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 14 Dec 2010 14:05

A_Gupta wrote:Dunno how this US-PRC thing will affect India, but here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/busin ... trade.html
WASHINGTON — The World Trade Organization on Monday upheld the Obama administration’s decision last year to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on auto and light-truck tires from China, rejecting a Beijing complaint that the punitive duties violated international agreements.

The decision, which the United States trade representative called “a major victory,” came as the administration was seeking to re-energize its trade agenda, a potential area of cooperation with Republicans, while not antagonizing labor unions, a major Democratic constituency.

The United Steelworkers had requested the tariffs, arguing that a surge in imports had threatened domestic manufacturing.

“We have said all along that our imposition of duties on Chinese tires was fully consistent with our W.T.O. obligations,” the trade representative, Ron Kirk, said in a statement. “It is significant that the W.T.O. panel has agreed with us, on all grounds.”

The tariffs represented the first time that the United States had invoked a special safeguard provision that was part of its agreement to support China’s entry into the W.T.O. in 2001.

This may signal the beginning of the import blocks which are being talked about in US. Since US has not succeeded in persuading China to allow Yuan to appreciate, this might be the first salvo of the response. Wonder how would China respond?

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 14 Dec 2010 14:45

Christopher Sidor wrote:
This may signal the beginning of the import blocks which are being talked about in US. Since US has not succeeded in persuading China to allow Yuan to appreciate, this might be the first salvo of the response. Wonder how would China respond?

Think they've already responded, with tariffs on imported chicken feet or something. I'm not sure I like that, chicken feet's delicious!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Dec 2010 15:26

David, you must be Cantonese!

RamaT · Post by **RamaT** » 28 Dec 2010 14:24

http://www.businessinsider.com/andy-xie ... 11-2010-12

Andy Xie's latest sees the liquidity war getting worse in 2011.
America will continue to pump the financial system with liquidity via tax cuts and quantitative easing. China will keep the yuan cheap and avoid clamping down on inflation.
The tense equilibrium can't last for long, as either sovereign debt or inflation gets too heavy to bear. Whoever lasts longer, wins.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 31 Dec 2010 02:53

Standing Up to the Chinese Menace

Maybe it's just the growing pains of an adolescent superpower, but China has begun to flex its newfound muscles in ways inconsistent with its "peaceful rise." Its bullying behavior demands a firm pushback from the United States - starting next month when Chinese President Hu Jintao comes to Washington for talks with President Obama.

The unmistakably imperious trend in China's conduct has definitely caught the world's attention

True, the United States spends 4.5 times more on defense than China, and no one doubts Beijing's right to protect the supply lines that feed its mighty export machine. But U.S. analysts believe China's naval expansion also aims at denying U.S. forces access to the region. In a report for PPI, Michael Chase of the U.S. Naval War College notes that China's intention isn't to match our navy ship for ship, but to "develop asymmetric war-fighting capabilities that deter American military intervention by driving up its cost."

Meanwhile, U.S. cyber-security officials believe China already is waging an aggressive cyber-war against U.S. companies, the Pentagon and other government agencies. According to news reports, China's "patriotic hackers" seem to be operating with the tacit support if not outright encouragement of the government.

Just like pakis- plausible deniability.

U.S. policy makers are right to assume that a collision between the United States and the West and China is not inevitable. It is only natural that China craves an international role commensurate with its status as the world's 2nd biggest economy. It wants - and deserves - a seat on the world's steering committee, but only on the condition that it respect the interests of others and accept responsibilities to the international community.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jan 2011 05:22

American Rivals have no culture of greatness

Please read in full and think about his remarks.

Victor Davis Hanson

Archive | Log In

December 30, 2010 12:00 A.M.
The American 21st Century
America’s rivals lack the culture necessary to sustain greatness.

The current debt, recession, wars, and political infighting have depressed Americans into thinking their country soon will be overtaken by more vigorous rivals abroad. Yet this is an American fear as old as it is improbable.

In the 1930s, the Great Depression supposedly marked the end of freewheeling American capitalism. The 1950s were caricatured as a period of mindless American conformity, McCarthyism, and obsequious company men.

By the late 1960s, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., along with the Vietnam War, had fueled a hippie counterculture that purportedly was going to replace a toxic American establishment. In the 1970s, oil shocks, gas lines, Watergate, and new rustbelts were said to be symptomatic of a post-industrial, has-been America.

At the same time, other nations, we were typically told, were doing far better.

In the late 1940s, with the rise of a postwar Soviet Union that had crushed Hitler’s Wehrmacht on the eastern front during World War II, Communism promised a New Man as it swept through Eastern Europe.

Mao Zedong took power in China and inspired Communist revolutions from North Korea to Cuba. Statist central planning was going to replace the unfairness and inefficiency of Western-style capitalism. Yet just a half-century later, Communism had either imploded or been superseded in most of the world.

By the early 1980s, Japan’s state capitalism along with emphasis on the group rather than the individual was being touted as the ideal balance between the public and private sectors. Japan Inc. continually outpaced the growth of the American economy. Then, in the 1990s, a real-estate bubble and a lack of fiscal transparency led to a collapse of property prices and a general recession. A shrinking and aging Japanese population, led by a secretive government, has been struggling ever since to recover the old magic.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the European Union was hailed as the proper Western paradigm of the future. The euro soared over the dollar. Europe practiced a sophisticated “soft power,” while American cowboyism was derided for getting us into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Civilized cradle-to-grave benefits were contrasted with the frontier, every-man-for-himself American system.

Now Europe limps from crisis to crisis. Its undemocratic union, coupled with socialist entitlements, is proving unsustainable. Symptoms of the ossified European system appear in everything from a shrinking population and a growing atheism to an inability to integrate Muslim immigrants or field a credible military.

As we enter this new decade, we are being lectured that China is soon to be the global colossus. Its economy is now second only to America’s, but with a far faster rate of growth and with budget surpluses rather than debt. Few seem to mention that China’s mounting social tensions, mercantilism, environmental degradation, and state bosses belong more to a 19th- than a 21st-century nation.

Amid all this doom and gloom, two factors are constant over the decades. First, America goes through periodic bouts of neurotic self-doubt, only to wake up and snap out of it. Indeed, indebted Americans are already bracing for fiscal restraint and parsimony as an antidote to past profligacy.

Second, decline is relative and does not occur in a vacuum. As Western economic and scientific values ripple out from Europe and the United States, it is understandable that developing countries like China, India, and Brazil can catapult right into the 21st century. But that said, national strength is still measured by the underlying hardiness of the patient — its demography, culture, and institutions — rather than by occasional symptoms of ill health.

In that regard, America integrates immigrants and assimilates races and ethnicities in a way Europe cannot. Russia, China, and Japan are simply not culturally equipped to deal with millions who do not look Slavic, Chinese, or Japanese. The Islamic world cannot ensure religious parity to Christians, Jews, or Hindus — or political equality to women.

The American Constitution has been tested over 223 years. In contrast, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea have constitutional pedigrees of not much more than 60 years. The last time Americans killed each other in large numbers was nearly a century and a half ago; most of our rivals have seen millions of their own destroyed in civil strife and internecine warring just this past century.

In short, a nation’s health is gauged not by bouts of recession and self-doubt, but by the durability of its political, economic, military, and social foundations. A temporarily ill-seeming America is nevertheless still growing, stable, multiethnic, transparent, individualistic, self-critical, and meritocratic; almost all of its apparently healthy rivals, by contrast, are not.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.