Managing Chinese Threat

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Dec 2010 13:40

Raja Ram ji,
I often mention every now and then your commitment to spread awareness about India's national interests as exemplary. I also find it as a very good format. Just mentioned it in the google group, before I saw your comments here!

Please keep it up sir!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Dec 2010 08:51

I think it really is past time to put export duties on raw material exports to China, and import duties on those finished products that compete with Indian industries, or in those sectors which we want to develop indigenously.

There should be a law mandating such penalties on (a) Nations hosting or aiding terrorist groups (b) Nations involved in any kind of military or nuclear trade with nations in clause (a).

Provided that the Parliament may give, an exemption (which will have to be renewed every year) to nations or companies or individuals, if it is in national interest.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 22 Dec 2010 03:17

It's Tibet

China's irrational fears about India's democracy will fuel their strategic competition possibly leading to military confrontation, says N.V.Subramanian

China and India are set on a course of strategic competition which may or may not lead to military competition but would still remain unresolved. At bottom, totalitarian China is battling democratic rising India, and since India cannot make compromises with its democracy, India and China are destined for competition that might not get better without becoming worse.

The problem unfortunately lies all with China. Any objective commentator would reach that conclusion. Without totally subscribing to Lord Curzon's principle of buffer states, at least in this age of globalization, economic blocs, WMDs, and so forth, it is still possible to rue Tibet's annexation by China from an Indian standpoint. It removed Tibet as a buffer state between expansionist Middle Kingdom China and a status quo power like India.

The Indian foreign minister, S.M.Krishna, blundered by equating Tibet with Jammu and Kashmir in conversations with Wen. J and K of its own volition acceded to India after Pakistan state-backed invaders destroyed the sanctity of the Standstill Agreement. On the other hand, China overran Tibet causing the Dalai Lama to flee to India. As analyzed in earlier NewsInsight commentaries, that act of the Dalai Lama fleeing to India and his subsequent asylum in the country put India firmly in negative light with China. Further, the Indian decision to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama enduringly delegitimized the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and while the Chinese intuitively understood this, India did not.

Perhaps the biggest contribution of the Sino-Indian stalemate would be its role in spurring the Indian government to reassess the true value of Tibet for India apropos hegemonic China.

The (tibetan)exile government sought to insert itself into the dispute, going so far as to say that there was, in geo-sovereign reality, no China-India border but only an India-Tibet frontier. China had to settle issues with Tibet, implying thereby that there was no case in fact for any Sino-Indian border settlement.

The nub of the matter is that as a totalitarian state, China has more irrational fears regarding its unity than a democracy like India. China is perfectly rational in believing that democracy will undermine and terminate one-party CPC rule.(hence the brain washing by CPC=chinese nationalism drilled into various chinese for no fault of the aam chinese except being born there)If you go by the CPC definition of China as one including Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan, then it perhaps has valid fears that democracy will lead to downsizing. It certainly does not wish a repetition of the Soviet fate.

By obsessing itself with Tibet in its relations with India, China may have triggered off a process whose end-state may indeed be an independent buffer state of Tibet. There is much that has gone awry in India's dealings with China, but one positive outcome of the Wen Jiabao visit is a conscious and determined attempt on the part of the Manmohan Singh government to address the trade imbalance that favours China. India cannot go down the slippery slope of America's gross indebtedness to China. China uses its vast and growing economic clout as a strategic weapon, and India has made welcome moves in a direction to protect itself.

The exhortation of this writer to the Indian government is not to view China in compartments but to see it as a composite strategic competitor and foe. A democracy like India may pull in different directions but not a totalitarian state like China. This is not to suggest absolute uniformity of opinion within the Chinese ruling hierarchy. At any given moment, the military will be extra nationalistic and corner the politicians and especially the moderates among them. Equally, the hard-line politicians will have no compunction in throttling the internationalists and accommodationists. Democracy as a system of government may be under questioning in various parts of the democratic world. But that does not diminish China's totalitarian insecurities vis-a-vis democracies like India. The relationship between China's present assertiveness and its growing internal vulnerabilities has not been adequately examined for this factor.

By daring to attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for the Chinese dissident, Liu Xiabo, disregarding Chinese pressure, India has burnished its democratic credentials. It is as significant as the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama fifty-one years ago. India has to learn to bear the cross of democracy, and it is never too late to begin. With China, this will be as good as it gets.

(the writer loses some steam here)

Nice article IMHO.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Dec 2010 15:17

>>India has to learn to bear the cross of democracy,

Not just loses steam, but loses the plot as well... Democracy is not a "cross" to bear (an expression I'm not comfortable with in any case, but let's leave that aside). It is what we have chosen not because it is difficult or easy, but because it is the most durable and least non-human of options, and more importantly because it is the best way to get the majority of the people invested in the survival and prosperity of the state, and of the cultural or civilisational ethos it represents. Until a better system is conceived, it is the best available and we are fortunate to have this particular "cross" to bear. It is highly unlikely that we will be crucified on the cross of democracy, to be blunt about it.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 22 Dec 2010 15:39

^^^
I Agree with you JE Menon, Democracy is not a cross. It will make us stronger in the long run. Our democracy is only some 60 years old. Other mature democratic countries have histories in excess of 100 years.
Please note China has not made the transition to a representative system till date. And if history is any guide, no country has made the switch without significant turbulence. In China unfortunately turbulence has often been associated with fragmentation. Wonder if this time it would be different ?

And democracy is ingrained in our ethos and our culture. It was Bhisma who had said lying on the bed of arrows that the first objective of citizens is to choose a ruler. Please note the emphasis on the word "choose". This was the lesson that Bhisma taught the eldest pandav son on urging of the lord himself after the fratricidal war.
And if even we ignore the mythology and consider ancient India, the Arth Shasthra has given detailed description of sanghas and ganas which existed in India. It is true that these cannot be compared to modern democracy in India, but still it goes to prove that democracy or the spirit of democracy was part of India long before 1947. We just went on a path which was different in the interregnum.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 26 Dec 2010 06:01

Amid China Fears, Bhutan Stands Out

It is time India valued this relationship and paid more attention to the Land of the Thunder Dragon, says Nilova Roy Chaudhury.

The factual status of Bhutan's relations with China is that there are none, Bhutanese government sources have clarified.

While China keeps "knocking at their door" offering huge incentives Bhutan, like the Little Gaullish Village we have all come to Love in the Asterix Comics, appears intent on ensuring the Chinese stay out, much to the relief of the Indians who appear keen but unable to go the extra mile to keep the "special relationship" with Thimpu going.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 26 Dec 2010 06:22

^^^ The author seems to be a bit ignorant on India-Bhutan relations. In contrast to what she claims, it is a two-way street.

We turned the other side as the Bhutanese threw out the ethnic Nepali community from their midst (around 7% of their population if I am not wrong). Quid pro quo for Op. All Clear, if you may. The very fact that ULFA, KLO and NDFB terrorists were taking refuge in Bhutan meant that someone had to do a clean-up act. It was not charity, if Bhutan had any respect for its territorial sovereignty, it would have done so. In contrast to BD where things are more or less under DGFI's control, in Bhutan, the terrorists were their own kings and nobles. The situation needed some prodding from India's side, so much for the state of affairs in 2003.

Not to mention that the Bhutanese have their own border problem with china and would not like to lose more territory to the chinese, which the chinese would grab if given just a chance. The chinese see all of Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal as a part of their "South Tibet" agenda. The Bhutanese do not have consular relations with china, so how do they parley with the chinese? Do they resort to pushpaka vimana or send piegons across the border? The PM of Bhutan was in Assam just recently promoting trade relations in Lower Assam. Regularizing trade is a big deal for both Assam as well as Bhutan, that is called symbiosis and things will happen even without much prodding. All the regional media (sentinel, tribune, times, telegraph) was reporting it, just that the mainstream "national" media was NOT. If rediff is late to the show, why should the South Bloc take the blame?

And BD is not doing Bhutan or India charity either by allowing transit of goods, they get to earn a lot of cash. If there was one reason, they did nt allow this so far, it was because they believed it was their ONLY bargaining tool in getting a package deal to open up Bhutan and Nepal for themselves and let us access to the Northeast. There were some complicated bargains -- some give and take -- and a deal has been hammered out, not like I expect the author to go dig all those documents that are available in the MEA website.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 27 Dec 2010 04:52

Pushing back

As China’s prime minister visits India, the host’s attitude towards its bigger neighbour is hardening

COUNT the ways in which India’s handling of China is quietly growing firmer.

Manmohan Singh, India’s usually mild-mannered prime minister, set the tone with a blunt warning in September. He spoke of a “new assertiveness” in China, which he said was seeking a “foothold in South Asia”. Subsequently he shuttled about Asia, promoting a “look east” policy of warmer ties with fellow democracies that fret, like India, about a more nationalistic China.

In October Mr Singh signed a trade deal with Japan and pushed for rapid implementation of an existing one with south-east Asian allies.

On December 10th he waved two undiplomatic fingers at insistent Chinese demands that India join a boycott of the Nobel peace-prize ceremony for a jailed Chinese human-rights activist

Ramming home the point on December 13th, India’s foreign secretary, Nirupama Rao, chided China’s ambassador at a public meeting in Delhi. She said her “Chinese friends” should get used to dealing with the “vibrant…noisy, nature of our democracy”. Ms Rao was responding to the ambassador’s dark warning that criticism of China during a rare visit by Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, to India between December 15th and 17th, could threaten “fragile” bilateral ties. He added that these would be “difficult to repair” if broken. India’s leaders are not in a mood to listen.

In Delhi a few hundred Tibetans were left to demonstrate against Mr Wen as he arrived.

( India allowed the protests but bundled them to jail and later released in the name of democracy

)

More striking, the Dalai Lama, their spiritual leader, embarked at the same time on an eight-day trip to Sikkim, a north-eastern state on the border with Chinese-run Tibet. That excursion, like one last year to Arunachal Pradesh—Indian territory claimed by China as “south Tibet”—seemed designed to arouse Chinese ire.

But Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, suggests going further. “Why should India have a one-China policy, when China doesn’t have a one-India policy?” he asks. “What if we started stapling passports from Tibet?” Though this is never likely to be adopted as policy by the government in Delhi, the very suggestion would make China furious.

(Keep it up!

)

The Indians’ increasingly strong ties with America are bolstering their confidence in dealing with China.

( it is a 2 way- both benefit )

But Indian officials fret openly about China’s trade surplus of some $20 billion. They complain that barriers to China’s domestic market mean that India is mostly shipping unrefined minerals and primary goods, getting finished products in return. Mr Wen, accompanied by some 400 businessmen, announced new loans, investment deals and the sale of 36 coal-powered generators to India. But little of this was likely to lead to higher-value exports to China. Chinese talk of a free-trade deal that would expose India’s inefficient manufacturers to fierce competition has been given short shrift.

India worries that China is throwing up huge dams in Tibet that might divert water from rivers flowing over the border. It frets about cyber-attacks from China. Ever resentful of China’s invasion in 1962, it shudders at hawkish talk in the Chinese press.

This week a Chinese newspaper, Global Times, published an essay by a member of the country’s Academy of Military Science. In it the author lamented, perhaps with India in mind, “we have not recovered the land looted by our neighbours, so how can we boast of being a strong nation?” Many Indians feel much the same way about China.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 27 Dec 2010 07:58

Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^
I Agree with you JE Menon, Democracy is not a cross. It will make us stronger in the long run. Our democracy is only some 60 years old. Other mature democratic countries have histories in excess of 100 years.
Please note China has not made the transition to a representative system till date. And if history is any guide, no country has made the switch without significant turbulence. In China unfortunately turbulence has often been associated with fragmentation. Wonder if this time it would be different ?

Very good point, so unless something drastic happens, don't expect the Chinese people to clamor for democracy.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Dec 2010 15:12

Frankly, I personally don't expect something drastic to happen, if by drastic you mean something "revolutionary"... There are many political and social impulses at work in the world today and the environment in which these impulses are at work are significantly more complex and fragmented than it was during the Cold War.

Democracy, as we recognise it from the Western perspective, is by no means assured - even in the West. Powerful forces such as religious and ethnic identification and their attendant prejudices are bubbling up. Combined with economic uncertainty, i.e. embodied in the leaching of real power away from the Western elites, there will be a backwash in favour of other means of exercising control - i.e. other than money. And the most powerful of these is identity and its reaffirmation. This may get violent. We are on the cusp of a time, in my opinion, where we are bound to witness increasing violence on the basis of religious and ethnic and other forms of self-identification within the West.

At the same time, because of the globalisation of information flow, the coagulation of influence and, to some extent, even power will materialise through non-traditional channels, such as the global social networks, etc. Intelligence and interpretation of events will become increasingly difficult while at the same time speed will be of the essence in decision making. This will give rise to a greater frequency of misunderstandings and decisions made on the basis of incorrect interpretation of information. Population and age imbalances are going to complicate the situation even more.

So I'm not sure that anyone waiting for China to "collapse" or change dramatically over a short period of time is going to be satisfied. On the other hand, the Chinese are intelligent and aware as much as anyone else - again I refer to the elites here. It is these people who will bring about changes to the Chinese system, but it is hard to foresee what these will be. What is fairly certain is that, whatever it is, it will not mean the dilution of Chinese power - and more importantly influence - in the overall sense. To put it another way, the ethnic Chinese are going to be a major, even the major, driver in the way the world works. So, for that matter, are the Indians. But the way in which that power and influence is exercised will be quite dramatically different from the Western paradigm.

It is this that the Western countries are already beginning to sense, not suprisingly. It also means that the "monolithic" sort of Western world that we are used to will cease to exist. The two things that, broadly speaking, hold them together - namely skin colour and faith - will therefore begin to be emphasised (in an indirect way) as time goes by so that the dissembling of the superstructure of power that has been created willy nilly over the past couple of hundred years is stretched out as long as possible. This, again, opens up the greater possibility of confrontation and probably even violence in the decades ahead.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Dec 2010 15:16

JEM,

My master how diffrent will it be from the bloody conflicts of the Past. Ie The WW1 & 2.

Perhaps you could help me learn in the OT thread.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Dec 2010 15:27

Boss, I hope you were joking... How the fu(k would I know grasshopper?

But I shall make an attempt, nevertheless, in the OT thread... But think of this: were a war to break out tomorrow between China or India or Japan and any single European country (think France/Germany/England/Italy/Spain) how do you think the European state would fare, sans NBC weapons? And even if it were the Western European Union military forces, do you think victory is assured? I think it is much more debatable than, say, 50 years ago.... Now, consider, how it might be 20 or 30 years hence... Not pretty I assure you. And it is in such uncertainties that the seed of conflict is sown, and the monster of war is born, as part of the human search for certainty or totally assured security in their environment. In short, more often than not, by miscalculation.

A little later though. Right now, am enjoying my coffee and cigarette in a bright little cafe in a Mediterranean country, making the most of the damned little leisure time I manage to get... and spending it on BRF as a matter of course.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 31 Dec 2010 02:47

Watch Out for Russian Wild Card in Asia-Pacific

If India is the "swing state" in Asia's future balance of power, as a prominent CIA 2005 report put it, New Delhi is well aware that Russia remains the wild card in the region.

Over the next 15 years, it is estimated that every second overseas nuclear reactor built by the Russians will be in India, while New Delhi could be the destination for more than half of all Russian arms exports in the next five years.
It is no surprise that Russia is pulling out all the stops to court India.
After all, its two main exports - energy and arms - are exactly what India needs.

Demographic problem

The problem for Russia is not just the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and a patchy commitment to economic reform after the Boris Yeltsin era, but a declining population.
Russia has experienced periods of dramatic population decline before, from 1917-23, 1933-34 and 1941-46.
Since 1992, and despite the absence of famine or war, Russian deaths have exceeded births by a staggering 13 million.
With 141 million people now, numbers could be as low as 120 million by 2030.

Clear and present danger

While Russia is preoccupied with regaining its influence in parts of eastern Europe, Moscow is also warily watching China's unauthorised movements into Siberia and the Far East.
Beijing is about six times closer to the port city of Vladivostok than is Moscow, which has very weak administrative control over its eastern territories.
Already, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Chinese nationals have illegally settled in these oil, gas and timber-rich areas.
Beijing is also tempted by Siberia's freshwater supply, given that China already has severe shortages throughout the country.

As Medvedev recently admitted, if Russia does not secure its presence in the Far East, it could eventually "lose everything" to the Chinese.
The point is that Russia will have as much reason to balance against China's rise as encouraging it. As the godfather of geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, put it, the key is to control the Rimland (Western, Southern and Eastern) Eurasia.

By contrast, China sees the coming regional and world order as a bipolar one defined by US-China competition, with powers such as the EU countries, Japan, India and Russia relegated to the second tier, something that is very difficult for a proud "Asian" power such as Russia to accept.

China should establish "munro" doctrine in its backyard before dreaming of G-2

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.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 31 Dec 2010 05:47

India Digs In Its Heels as China Flexes Its Muscles

The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqué issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen’s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqués, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.

“It has been in every communiqué, but the Chinese didn’t even bring it up,” said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.”

Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a “defining partnership” between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China’s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India’s “Look East” policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
“Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,” the senior Indian official said.
“That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.”

denying freedom in its own backyard. hope India boldly questions one china policy and tibet's illegal occupation.
expect more to come if dragon behaves wildly.

china may be is trying to chew more than it can digest. No flair for diplomacy. short term gains with long term ones questionable.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 31 Dec 2010 06:01

From Russia with love

Srinagar-based trader Abdul Hamid’s experience is illustrative of the Chinese whispers on India’s core interest areas. Hamid applied for a Chinese visa hoping for the stamp on his passport, as a stapled visa would be rejected by the immigration officials at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. He received the visa on his passport, quite unlike many other Kashmiri travellers to China. Hamid asked for the reason, and Chinese embassy officials candidly told him that stapled visas were not issued to people who were big traders or revenue generators for China. They are for first-time visitors, students and people who do not figure high on the Chinese scheme of things. In Kashmir, it seems, China is playing it carefully and skilfully.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 31 Dec 2010 09:22

China readying for military conflict from all directions, says minister
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... z19exXWeQo

China's defence minister BEIJING: China's defence minister has put aside diplomatic tact and said the country's military will prepare itself for "military conflict in every strategic direction" in the next five years. The military will speed up modernization and development of equipment, he said.

"We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns away," defence minister Liang Guanglie said in an interview published in state-backed newspapers. China's pace and scale of military modernization and construction of military related infrastructure has caused alarm among neighbours like India, South Korea and Japan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ction.html

"The modernisation of the Chinese military cannot depend on others, and cannot be bought," Mr Liang added, "In the next five years, our economy and society will develop faster, boosting comprehensive national power. We will take the opportunity and speed up modernisation of the military."

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Dec 2010 18:43

Chinese aircraft increasingly aggressive; Japan

In the last nine months, Japanese fighters have been scrambled to intercept Chinese intruders on 44 occasions, the highest figure in the last five years and more than double the number for the whole of fiscal 2006, the defence ministry officials said.

In another deviation from their previous behaviour, the Chinese aircraft are not turning home as soon as they realise they have been detected but are continuing on their courses until they make visual contact with Japanese interceptors.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Jan 2011 00:45

xxx post
US The Peg, India High In China’s Foreign Policy Deliberationshttp://www.eurasiareview.com/analysis/u ... -31122010/

After a surge in aggressive, sometimes bordering on threatening foreign policy over the last two years, the Chinese leaders have realised that their perceived unchallengeable comprehensive national strength (CNP) could also be fragile. Although the second largest economy in the world on national GDP, China still figures at 104 in per capita GDP terms. It is the largest exporter in the world, but depends almost exclusively on imported raw material to produce goods. Its galloping economic growth is dependent on energy, on import of oil and gas. Can China use military power to ensure foreign inputs? Absolutely not, though some in the Chinese hierarchy, especially the military, thought so.It is not an encirclement policy engineered by US President Barack Obama that has caused consternation among China’s neighbours in the Asia – Pacific Region (APR). It was China’s aggressive posture and gun- boat diplomacy. In fact, Barack Obama went out on a limb to court friendship with China from the beginning of his presidential term. But Beijing apparently read it as weakness, given USA’s financial problems. What they missed was how could the USA spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq? This basic point was missed by those in Beijing who were heady with the wine of self-perceived power.Briefly, accepting the United States as the fulcrum of global exchanges and balance of power, the extract identified four factors that have changed China’s security environment, and advised five fronts on which China should tighten its regional security management – (i) It admitted that the US remained the bellwether with its “ flying grease “ security structure, (ii) the US – Japan and US – South Korea (ROK) alliances as the second US security chain, (iii) the US relationship with Australia, Thailand and the Philippines as the third, and (iv) ties between US and Vietnam, Indonesia and India as the fourth.
Lately, there has been an open acceptance of India as a power to contend with, but with strategic care. The Liaowang (Outlook Weekly) in December wrote India was a power that could not be ignored by the international system given its economy, demography, culture and military; its status in the post-economic crisis era was pronounced; its relationship with major powers appeared getting better as the year came to an end. The Liaowang commentary was among other official media reports which were a mix of sobriety and sarcasm, just before Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India. Under the circumstances, Premier Wen was at his classical Chinese best trying to warm relations with India, but not giving an inch.But he also faced an Indian government very different from his last visit. India insisted on reciprocity, making no concessions on “its core interests”, even indicating that New Delhi could change its support to China’s core interests if Beijing continued to abuse those of India’s, especially on Kashmir. Wen proposed that the “stapled visa” issue could be resolved by officials of both sides. Unfortunately, India accepted it. In negotiations, both sides have to give. But why should India give, and what, on an issue unilaterally created by China.
The CASS report assessed that India’s growing relationship with the US was an issue to address seriously, that even beyond India’s developing relations with Japan, Vietnam and other countries, it was the US ingredient through which China must pay special attention to India’s diplomacy in 2011.
China has been looking at India through the narrow focus of the growing India-US relations following the India-US peaceful nuclear deal of 2008. It senses that this single deal had over turned China’s strategy to constrict India within South Asia, as this had spurred India-US military and high technology exchanges, and cooperation in strategic affairs.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 04 Jan 2011 03:47

Dancing with the Dragon

In the immediate aftermath of the three-day visit of Chinese premier Wen Jiabao to India in early December, the Indian strategic community purred approvingly at the host country’s changed assertive self in the face of continued Chinese diplomatic obfuscation and intransigence in bilateral geopolitical issues. Indian analysts, policy-wonks and think-tankers announced from the roof-tops at how self-confident we have become in the face of the dragon!

Time to balance protocol
First and foremost is the issue of protocol. We really need tochange the protocol while dealing with China owing to differential power structures and forms of governance in both the countries. The Prime Minister of China is not at par with the Prime Minister of India hierarchically. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao comes third in hierarchy in the Chinese government. The top dog is President Hu Jintao and next to him comes Wu Bangguo, the speaker of the National Parliament of China (NPC).

babus should follow protocols scrupulously.

The stapled visa
India should not have agreed to a visit by Wen Jiabao till the stapled visa issue was solved satisfactorily to India’s viewpoint. China has brandished this new irritant in the bilateral relationship as it has become economically and militarily stronger. By not dealing with the issue forcefully, India lost another opportunity to assert its sovereignty. China only promised to have the stapled visa be discussed with and looked into by minor level Chinese visa officers. China will do everything to keep this issue alive for next few decades as it has changed its strategy in the Indian sub-continent and seeks to force parity and hyphenation of India with Pakistan. More emboldened with India’s naivete, China will manufacture more such issues implying geographical shrinkage of India’s official boundaries.

Preserve our boundaries
On the eve of the Wen Jiabao visit, Xinhua stated that the Indo-China border is
2000 km.India should not accept the TAR as part of China, but clearly enunciate that Tibet is a colonised Asian country that has had civilisational relations with India for centuries. The border with TAR should be termed as the Indo-Tibetan border and not part the Indo-China border. Indeed, the Chinese used force to grab the nation of Tibet as war booty in 1949. Continued Chinese imperialism and usurpation of the territory of independent Tibet for natural and fresh water resources should no longer be acceptable to future Governments of India. Similarly Eastern Turkistan (Xinjiang) was an independent country in the 20th century till the Chinese forces overran it and was annexed as new frontiers.

straight from BRF thread. good going. Hope the babus read this.

Skewed bilateral trade
Currently bilateral trade is heavily in favour of China. The Chinese have always been very business-minded. Promises never make a difference with China. Denial of markets is the only solution to force the Chinese towards fairer trade practices. Going slow on bilateral trade would take the steam out of China as Western markets have been drying up owing to the economic meltdown. Trade barriers and shipping costs (which increase with energy costs) will eventually neutralise the China price of manufactured goods and take away the Chinese trade advantages and surpluses.

Will China endorse India’s quest at the UNSC?
India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru gave up the opportunity for permanent membership of UN Security Council in the 1950s, which was then encouraged by the US administration because he was too scared of the Chinese dragon. In 1971 when Communist China was seated for the first time in the UN General Assembly after manoeuvring to get Taiwan unseated, India’s permanent representative in the UNGA welcomed China by thumping the table. despite 1962.

The Sino-Pak all weather relationship
May be next time an Indian Prime Minister visits China, on the way back home he or she needs to take a refuelling stop in Taipei and discuss some trade and business deals with the Republic of Taiwan.

The dragon’s necklace
It was good that in the joint statement there was no mention of India endorsing a ‘One China’ policy. However, there was no mention about China’s ‘String of Perals’policy which will lead to a strategic encirclement of India. In future, in bilateral communiques with China, a statement renouncing this strategy should be mentioned. If China refuses to do so, India needs to enunciate a ‘One China, One Taiwan, One Tibet’ doctrine openly. India needs to explore naval bases in North-eastern Asia to reciprocate this policy of encirclement.

A very powerful statement indeed!!

Bully thy neighbour
Chinese national character is mired in feudalism despite professing equality and liberty.
While decrying serfdom in pre-1949 Tibet, China has always considered itself as a divine power with all its neighbours as vassals or tributary states. This national trait manifests periodically in saber-rattling and pressure-tactics towards neighbours.

Very good suggestions for GOI. many have been articulated in BRF threads.

Hope these writings reach every one in the corridors of power.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 04 Jan 2011 04:07

^^^^
contiunuing with the above,
the following to be added to the protocol.
India lacks gumption

A recent lunch at one of our Raj Bhavans exposed an anomaly that might be more than ceremonial. When the Rajyapal ushered in the Dalai Lama, all of us dutifully stood up for Jana Mana Gana. Listening to the familiar strains, I wondered what the Tibetan national anthem which I expected to follow sounded like. But lo and behold! no Tibetan national anthem was played. India’s anthem over, we formed a line to be received by His Holiness.

This intriguing breach of protocol reflected a confusion that, one hopes, will be cleared in the New Year. It indicated an anomalous self-view and an inability to shape a realistic foreign policy to realise India’s national aims. The routine was especially curious because a senior official from New Delhi had told me earlier that the Dalai Lama enjoys the status of a visiting head of state. If so, his national anthem should have been played immediately after the host country’s. That norm is followed at national day celebrations in New Delhi and State capitals.

lot of the above can be done, even if some are symbolic they send a very simple and powerful message.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 04 Jan 2011 04:49

Tibetan outcome will depend on the Indian American relationship. Not necessarily Washington's explicit China policy. This is what China is really afraid of.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 04 Jan 2011 06:49

Is Cold War II Underway?

Mesmerized by China’s vast military buildup, a new constellation of strategic partnerships among its neighbors, and America’s revitalized commitment to Asian security, many shrewd observers suggest that 2010 saw the first sparks of a new Cold War in Asia. But is “Cold War II” really inevitable?

It is this grim history that makes China’s current disregard for Deng Xiaoping’s maxim that China “disguise its ambition and hide its claws” so worrying for Asian leaders from New Delhi to Seoul and from Tokyo to Jakarta. From its refusal to condemn North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan and shelling of South Korean islands, to its claims of sovereignty over various Japanese, Vietnamese, Malay, and Filipino archipelagos and newly conjured claims on India’s province of Arunachal Pradesh, China has revealed a neo-imperial swagger. So it should surprise no one that “containment” is coming to dominate Asian diplomatic discourse.

Sun Tzu, the great Chinese theorist of warfare, focused on the weakening of an adversary psychologically, not in battle. Until recently, much of China’s bid for regional hegemony reflected Sun’s concepts.

(IOW shivering in my dhoti == I am doing a lungi dance to cover my etchandee)

China’s export machine sucks in vast quantities of parts and components for final assembly from across Asia – Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, as well as richer Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Membership of the World Trade Organization has helped to bind China to highly sophisticated pan-Asian production networks. Everybody has benefited from these ties.

Given that as many as half of China’s 1.3 billion people remain mired in abject poverty, it is in China’s interest to ensure that these economic relationships continue to flourish. In the past, China has recognized the vital need for good neighborly relations. During the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, Chinese officials did not engage in competitive devaluation of the renminbi. Unfortunately, such clear-sighted and responsible policymaking is a far cry from what we are seeing today.

But, even according to the highest estimates, China’s military budget is only now about equal to that of Japan and, of course, much less than the combined military budgets of Japan, India, and Russia, all of which border China – not to mention Indonesia, South Korea, and a militarily modernizing Taiwan. Moreover, Russia and India possess nuclear weapons, and Japan has the technological wherewithal to reconfigure its defense posture to meet any regional nuclear threat.

Before 2010, most Asian countries would have preferred not to choose between China and the US. But China’s assertiveness has provided enormous incentives to embrace an Asian multilateral system backed by America, rather than accept the exclusionary system that China seeks to lead. In 2011 we may begin to see whether those incentives lead China’s rulers to re-appraise their diplomatic conduct, which has left them with only the corrupt, basket case economies of Burma and North Korea as reliable friends in Asia.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 04 Jan 2011 07:06

Not to worry China also has that resposible nuclear power Pakistan.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Jan 2011 04:48

Chinese Adventurism
Max Boot -

Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has been visiting China at a time when it is beginning to flex its military muscles in ways that should alarm its neighbors and their protector — us. While Gates was meeting with President Hu Jintao, the People’s Liberation Army was testing its J-20 Stealth fighter, a clear challenge to American power in the western Pacific. To make matters worse, American officials got the distinct impression that President Hu had not been aware of the test beforehand.That raises questions about how firmly civilians are actually in control of the armed forces — not normally a problem in a Communist state, which is designed to have parallel lines of authority (party and state, military and secret police) precisely to ensure that the oligarchs at the top are in control of everything that happens. It is no secret that the Chinese armed forces are full of ultra-jingoistic officers who make hair-curling threats about going to war against the United States. If they are not firmly under the sway of the central party bosses, that is a worrisome development. Even if they are under control, however, we can hardly relax, for the senior party leadership has indicated that it is bent on pursuing a nationalistic agenda, with Chinese triumphalism replacing Marxism-Leninism as their ruling theology.That is all the more reason why we need to ensure that our own military is strong enough to deter Chinese adventurism — something that further defense cuts in Washington will endanger.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs ... oot/386334

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 13 Jan 2011 05:07

Prem wrote:Chinese Adventurism
Max Boot -
To make matters worse, American officials got the distinct impression that President Hu had not been aware of the test beforehand.That raises questions about how firmly civilians are actually in control of the armed forces
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs ... oot/386334

Americans are playing their usual games about "govt not in Control", whenever they have some H&D explanation to do back home to Joe-Sixpacki.

Even my aging Granny knew of the J20 test, thanks to little emperors with cameras being allowed to hide behind weeds.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Jan 2011 06:33

Old habits of China

When the time came for the Chinese ships to depart, the ruler of Yemen, al-Malik al-Zahir, gave Zheng He gifts for the emperor, among them two gold belts inlaid with jewels, a letter written on gold leaf and a number of exotic African animals. The animals were a tremendous hit in the Ming court, and paintings of zebras and giraffes by court artists have survived. As usual, the Chinese interpreted these gifts as tribute; indeed, they carefully noted every place from which they received goods as a tributary nation to China. We know from Yemeni chronicles that the locals regarded this with great amusement: “The Chinese seem to think everyone is their subject,” said one Yemeni writer, “showing complete ignorance of political reality.”

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/2 ... eng.he.htm

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Jan 2011 12:08

Prem wrote:Chinese Adventurism
Max Boot -
To make matters worse, American officials got the distinct impression that President Hu had not been aware of the test beforehand.That raises questions about how firmly civilians are actually in control of the armed forces
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs ... oot/386334

hnair wrote:

Americans are playing their usual games about "govt not in Control", whenever they have some H&D explanation to do back home to Joe-Sixpacki.

Even my aging Granny knew of the J20 test, thanks to little emperors with cameras being allowed to hide behind weeds.

My initial thought was similar to this. But going through this from wsj i see may be this could be true, as i recall our own MMS expressed similar thoughts. Or it is just a facade like good cop, bad cop as we see in our NW neighbour Pak behaviour to American demands.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61586.html

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 13 Jan 2011 14:13

krisna wrote:Before 2010, most Asian countries would have preferred not to choose between China and the US. But China’s assertiveness has provided enormous incentives to embrace an Asian multilateral system backed by America, rather than accept the exclusionary system that China seeks to lead. In 2011 we may begin to see whether those incentives lead China’s rulers to re-appraise their diplomatic conduct, which has left them with only the corrupt, basket case economies of Burma and North Korea as reliable friends in Asia.

[/quote]

What about Bakistan! Tall than the mountain deeper than the whole

Did they get disqualified because of the word reliable

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Jan 2011 03:16

Japanese military seeks greater cooperation with U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02297.html

TOKYO - Worried about North Korean belligerence and an increasingly aggressive China, Japan's military wants to cooperate in unprecedented ways with the United States and is even considering putting its military in the line of fire in areas outside Japan, Japanese defense officials said Thursday.
In October 2009, Gates was gruff with his hosts, telling them to it was "time to move on" with a controversial plan to build a new facility on Okinawa in exchange for the Marine Corps vacating the Futenma air base located in the middle of a city of 80,000. But Thursday, Gates described ties with Tokyo as "very healthy and on a positive track," and he went so far as to acknowledge that the multibillion-dollar base relocation scheme is "politically a complex matter" as he pledged to "follow the lead of the Japanese government" in solving the problem. Gates came to Japan from China, where he had an eventful three-day visit punctuated by the first test flight of China's stealth fighter. Chinese officials told Gates that the test was not meant to reflect insensitivity toward his visit, which was aimed at restoring high-level military ties with Beijing. But the test flight was seen as an unprecedented statement nonetheless.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 14 Jan 2011 03:22

A tale of two ports By Christophe Jaffrelot (YaleGlobal, Jan. 7, 2011)

Gwadar and Chabahar display Chinese-Indian rivalry in the Arabian Sea

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 14 Jan 2011 07:54

Invading the strategic space: the Dragon fires another salvo at India

It has gone totally unnoticed in the Indian media but for the last few days, both the Peoples' Daily of China and the China Daily along with their Indian Sinophile minions have been crowing about the latest Chinese “smart” success in invading India's international strategic space.

By these aggressive containment efforts, China has proved once again that it is not a friend or an ally of India but at worst a determined and hostile strategic adversary and at best a peer competitor.

Despite India's serious reservations, a few years ago, China manipulated the SAARC process to enter as an observer, on an Invitation from Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh When India wanted to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the full membership was frozen and India was again hyphenated with Pakistan and Iran as an observer. China is the only country among the P5 nations that has yet to endorse India's candidature for the permanent membership of the UNSC. This, even though China has been making noises about harmony, democracy and consensus building in the UNSC reform process. This will help the Coffee Group (so-called United for Consensus group) orchestrated by Pakistan.

China had initially put up a number of conditions at the time of approval of the India-US civil nuclear energy deal by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Ultimately, the US forced China to support the deal in the NSG. Now, China wants a similar deal in the NSG for its all-weather friend and client state Pakistan.

Turning to the ASEAN, China has, for last several years prevented India's entry by stringently opposing the ASEAN plus six formula that includes India (ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and US) while supporting the ASEAN plus three formula (ASEAN, China, US and Japan). We also see continued exclusion of India from the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Conference).

At the same time, China has been seconding the Manmohan Singh mantra about the world having enough space for both China and India to rise peacefully at the same time. Similar to Nehru's endorsement of “Panchsheel”, the current Indian PM has fallen in the same trap laid by China for India in the international organizations. Nehru was privately characterised as a “useful idiot” by the Chinese leadership. One wonders what Hu Jintao is saying about Dr. Singh privately.

A few years ago, India's then petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar was naively talking about developing hydrocarbon resources jointly with China, while China successfully outbid India for every hydrocarbon asset internationally whether in Africa or closer to home in Myanmar. Indian politicians have failed to learn from the previous treacherous behaviour on part of China, and regularly succumb to Chinese bullying. The lack of proactive strategic planning has always been missing from India’s leadership’s mindset and time and again we are left to react to geo-political situations by fire-fighting each avoidable crisis.

( Indian politicians are successful in scr*wing their internal political opponents but left wanting in international arena)

China has been keen to neutralise India's influence in the IBSA, a grouping that excludes China specifically. India has been lukewarm to the idea of China joining the IBSA because China is not a democracy while all the three countries of IBSA are thriving democracies in three separate continents. China has been working very hard with Brazil and South Africa for the last couple of years to achieve its stated purpose.

Enlarging the economic grouping to BRICS tremendously helps China’s foreign policy objectives of containing Indian economic, strategic, political and diplomatic influence. China has effectively managed to collapse BRIC and IBSA into one single grouping (BRICS). Currently China is South Africa’s largest trading partner and South Africa is the largest destination in Africa for China’s direct investment. South Africa’s small population, the size of its economy and the relatively slow growth rate did not meet the original BRIC standards. By inviting South Africa to BRIC(S), China has deftly dented India's economic outreach in Africa. China has also quickly out-manoeuvred the proposed India-US collaboration and cooperation in Africa as suggested by President Barack Obama during his November 2010 India trip recently.

(read this analysts skeptical over bric invite )

By this master-stroke, China has shown the audacity to adopt the colonial and imperialistic policy of “Divide and Rule” vis-a-vis the G4 countries (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan) who are aspiring to be members of the UNSC as permanent members

Chinese efforts are ostensibly geared towards strengthening South Africa's and Brazil's claims for the UNSC permanent membership while simultaneously over-looking and demeaning India's global role. People’s Daily Online ominously notes that “In 2011, all the members of the BRICS countries will serve as members of the UN security council, permanent or non-permanent. Their active roles deserve people’s attention in the year to come”. China Daily, while neglecting India focuses on the role of China, Russia and Brazil have played in the international arena.

India has now very hard strategic choices. It should insist that BRICS in its latest avatar must remain primarily an economic block without any scope for creeping politicisation of the economic group into a geo-political formation. India cannot be seen to be opposing South Africa’s entry into the BRICS for historical, diplomatic and geo-political reasons, though it remains lukewarm to the proposal. India should take a serious note of China’s audacious move in the international chess game and counteract it by joining the ASEAN formally, resurrecting the BIMSTEC and vigorously strengthening the IBSA as a trade block. India should use her current membership of the UNSC to catapult into the NSG as a full-fledged member. India should make determined efforts to join the proposed East Asian Economic Community and prevent her further exclusion from any economic or trade group in order to balance China’s growing influence in international economic diplomacy.

worth reading in full.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Jan 2011 20:25

Changing perceptions of China
Panda Kong

suddenly not so cute

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jan 2011 12:25

What one warned about 10+ yers ago has finally come to be.When I said that Burma would be China's method of outflanking the Malacca Straits then,few thought of it as a serious plan by China and one that would rarely take off.We now have the final "piece of the jigsaw" as to how China is going to outflank the western threat at the Malacca Straits to choke its oil supplies.Gwadar and the new Burmese oil jetty will ensure that China has TWO methods by which to pipe its oil home,either through the long route (Pak),which is a troubled zone,and via Burma,much easier which however will require a huge invasion of the IOR by the PLAN to protect Chinese tankers entering and exiting their Burmese havens.India has been effectively shafted with this agreement and the Chinese will nopw add to the jetty deal by establishing miltary facilties-air and naval bases later on as legitimate requirements to proetct its oil!

China strikes deal with Burma to guarantee oil supply
China has put the final piece of its energy supply jigsaw in place, signing a deal with Burma that will make it impossible to choke off Beijing's oil supply.

In a move that was described as a "golden bridge of friendship", Burma's ruling junta has given Beijing permission to build and operate a wharf on Burma's west coast to receive tankers arriving from Africa and the Middle East and then pump their cargo overland to southern China.

The new facility, at the deep sea port at Kyauk Phyu, is the culmination of decades of planning by Beijing to safeguard its energy supply.

Currently, as much as 80 per cent of China's imported oil and gas is forced to pass through the Strait of Malacca, a narrow bottleneck between Malaysia and Indonesia.

With an Indian naval base on the Andaman and Nicobar islands at the mouth of the straits, and with a large US Navy presence in the region, China has fretted for years that its trade and energy routes are vulnerable to a blockade.

Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, warned in 2003 that some "big countries" were attempting to "control the transportation channel at Malacca".

In response, China has crafted a strategy known as the "string of pearls", a chain of naval bases across the Indian Ocean that could protect its tankers in case of emergency. These bases include Gwadar in Pakistan, Chittagong in Bangladesh and Hambantota in Sri Lanka.

In addition, China has patiently courted the Burmese junta, sending an estimated £800 million worth of tanks, fighter jets and weapons to its southern neighbour during the 1990s to prop up the regime.

After signing a trade agreement in 1988, China has also helped to rebuild Burma's roads and railways and even sent People's Liberation Army advisers to provide guidance and expertise.

Last year, Hu Jintao pledged unconditional support to the Burmese regime, telling Than Shwe, one of Burma's most senior generals, that China's policy "will remain unchanged regardless of changes of the international situation".

In return, the Burmese junta has granted access to its rich natural resources and is now allowing China to make use of Burma's key geographical position on the Indian Ocean.

After China's tankers reach the deep sea port at Kyauk Phyu, oil and gas will be pumped through twin 500-mile pipelines to the province of Yunnan. The station will be operated by China National Petroleum Corporation, the country's largest oil company, and Qingdao Port, the ninth-largest port operator in the world.

The pipelines, which are already under construction, should be able to carry a daily maximum of 440,000 barrels of oil and 400 billion cubic feet of gas when they are completed in 2013.

In addition, China plans to build thousands of miles of new railways to connect the southern Chinese city of Kunming with ports across Burma and South East Asia, including Yangon, the former Burmese capital. Not only will China's partnership with Burma help safeguard its own energy supply, but it will also give Beijing a key strategic advantage over Japan and South Korea, who also rely on the Strait of Malacca for part of their energy supplies.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 16 Jan 2011 14:23

Philip wrote:What one warned about 10+ yers ago has finally come to be.When I said that Burma would be China's method of outflanking the Malacca Straits then,few thought of it as a serious plan by China and one that would rarely take off.We now have the final "piece of the jigsaw" as to how China is going to outflank the western threat at the Malacca Straits to choke its oil supplies.Gwadar and the new Burmese oil jetty will ensure that China has TWO methods by which to pipe its oil home,either through the long route (Pak),which is a troubled zone,and via Burma,much easier which however will require a huge invasion of the IOR by the PLAN to protect Chinese tankers entering and exiting their Burmese havens.India has been effectively shafted with this agreement and the Chinese will nopw add to the jetty deal by establishing miltary facilties-air and naval bases later on as legitimate requirements to proetct its oil!

China strikes deal with Burma to guarantee oil supply
China has put the final piece of its energy supply jigsaw in place, signing a deal with Burma that will make it impossible to choke off Beijing's oil supply.

In a move that was described as a "golden bridge of friendship", Burma's ruling junta has given Beijing permission to build and operate a wharf on Burma's west coast to receive tankers arriving from Africa and the Middle East and then pump their cargo overland to southern China.

The new facility, at the deep sea port at Kyauk Phyu, is the culmination of decades of planning by Beijing to safeguard its energy supply.

Currently, as much as 80 per cent of China's imported oil and gas is forced to pass through the Strait of Malacca, a narrow bottleneck between Malaysia and Indonesia.

With an Indian naval base on the Andaman and Nicobar islands at the mouth of the straits, and with a large US Navy presence in the region, China has fretted for years that its trade and energy routes are vulnerable to a blockade.

Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, warned in 2003 that some "big countries" were attempting to "control the transportation channel at Malacca".

In response, China has crafted a strategy known as the "string of pearls", a chain of naval bases across the Indian Ocean that could protect its tankers in case of emergency. These bases include Gwadar in Pakistan, Chittagong in Bangladesh and Hambantota in Sri Lanka.

In addition, China has patiently courted the Burmese junta, sending an estimated £800 million worth of tanks, fighter jets and weapons to its southern neighbour during the 1990s to prop up the regime.

After signing a trade agreement in 1988, China has also helped to rebuild Burma's roads and railways and even sent People's Liberation Army advisers to provide guidance and expertise.

Last year, Hu Jintao pledged unconditional support to the Burmese regime, telling Than Shwe, one of Burma's most senior generals, that China's policy "will remain unchanged regardless of changes of the international situation".

In return, the Burmese junta has granted access to its rich natural resources and is now allowing China to make use of Burma's key geographical position on the Indian Ocean.

After China's tankers reach the deep sea port at Kyauk Phyu, oil and gas will be pumped through twin 500-mile pipelines to the province of Yunnan. The station will be operated by China National Petroleum Corporation, the country's largest oil company, and Qingdao Port, the ninth-largest port operator in the world.

The pipelines, which are already under construction, should be able to carry a daily maximum of 440,000 barrels of oil and 400 billion cubic feet of gas when they are completed in 2013.

In addition, China plans to build thousands of miles of new railways to connect the southern Chinese city of Kunming with ports across Burma and South East Asia, including Yangon, the former Burmese capital. Not only will China's partnership with Burma help safeguard its own energy supply, but it will also give Beijing a key strategic advantage over Japan and South Korea, who also rely on the Strait of Malacca for part of their energy supplies.

If the pipeline were to operate without any interruption for a year, then 440,000 barrels a day translates into 160,600,000 barrels a year or 160 million barrels a year. 1 Barrel is approximately 0.136 metric ton. This conversion is as per the US Energy Information Administration. For the sake of argument I will assume that this applies to the Chinese measurements too.
So 160,600,000 barrels a year translates into 21,901,022 Metric tonnes or approximately 22 Metric tonnes of Crude oil in a year or about 5-6 metric tonnes of crude oil in a quarter. China's consumption of crude oil in 2008, per quarter was about 91.8 metric tonnes.
To compare this pipeline, consider the Trans-Alaskan pipeline. The Trans-Alaskan pipeline can carry theortically 2.14 million barrels per day. In 2008 the the Trans-alaskan pipeline carried approximately 700,000 barrels per day. The maximum the trans-alaskan pipeline has carried is 2.03 million barrels per day in 1988. All sources for the Trans-Alaskan pipeline are from wikipedia.
The chinese pipeline will hardly be a dent as they say.
But if we were join this pipeline with the siberian pipeline and the central asia-chinese pipeline running through Xianjing province then the situation changes drastically.

Let us look at the gas component now. The gas pipeline will carry about 400 billion cubic feet(i.e. bcf) of gas per year. Again the same assumption, the pipeline will run without an interruption for the whole year.
To put this figure into perspective consider the IPI pipleline. IPI was estimated to transport initially 22 billion cubic meters (approximately 776 bcf) of natural gas per year, which was expected to be raised later to 55 billion cubic meters (approximately 1942 bcf or 1.942 tcf. tcf= trillion cubic feet).
But the beauty of gas pipeline is this. It cuts down the transportation cost. LNG from persian gulf can now be transported cheaply via this pipeline to southern and costal china.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Jan 2011 14:30

Why do you sound so incensed that China is securing her energy supplies? Why so shocked? Shouldn't India do the same? It's just good business. Are we the bad guys for doing it?

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 16 Jan 2011 20:08

"Why do you sound so incensed that China is securing her energy supplies? Why so shocked? Shouldn't India do the same? It's just good business. Are we the bad guys for doing it?"

You are the bad guys for a whole lot of reasons, so when bad guys are aggressive and relentless in securing those supplies, they will be noticed. Should India also become aggressive, relentless and cold bloodedly pragmatic in pursuing its energy needs and in other phases of life as well? That's the discussion in India, with some people feeling that India will be forced to become that way, in order to keep up with China. Which would be a shame.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Jan 2011 20:49

Tony, the real problem is that the PLA/PRC (whoever is in charge) has been shaking a stick at everyone for the past couple of years. There is only so much arrogant aggression that everyone can stand. If you want to do business, do business - don't become the neighbourhood bully
even in kung fu movies, those guys get their musharraf's kicked by the hero

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 17 Jan 2011 01:13

Varoon Shekhar wrote:

You are the bad guys for a whole lot of reasons, so when bad guys are aggressive and relentless in securing those supplies, they will be noticed.

Who are the good guys? Are the Australian cricket team "Bad Guys"? Or are they just on a different team?

Lalmohan wrote:Tony, the real problem is that the PLA/PRC (whoever is in charge) has been shaking a stick at everyone for the past couple of years. There is only so much arrogant aggression that everyone can stand. If you want to do business, do business - don't become the neighbourhood bully
even in kung fu movies, those guys get their musharraf's kicked by the hero

And yet regional trade continue to grow. PRC is tame compared with American stick shaking. It takes a lot more then some elements of the PLA blowing off steam to stop people from making money.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 17 Jan 2011 02:33

"Who are the good guys? Are the Australian cricket team "Bad Guys"? Or are they just on a different team?"

"Bad" is not necessarily the opposite of "good" meaning angelic, perfect, wonderful in all aspects, a non-competitor etc. "Bad" could mean intrinsically bad, from behaviour, ideology, power structure, past actions, future contemplated or perceived/possible actions. Australia, as Indians would be the first to attest, is far from being utterly "good", and some recriminations toward them may follow. But they are not 'bad' in the way China is bad, when you take China as a whole- ideology, political system, international stance toward India.

'trade continues to grow' Many Indians are having misgivings about the nature of the trade India conducts with China, which appears to be largely one of India supplying raw materials, and importing Chinese merchandise at the cost of local suppliers. This would have to change in order to make trade into a serious compensating factor to China's other policies.