US and PRC relationship & India

[ramana]

The trouble that comes in threes

Kishore Mahbubani Posted online: Fri Dec 31 2010, 03:11 hrs

Henry Kissinger once made a famous remark about the tragedy of the Iran-Iraq war. He said, “The only thing wrong with this confrontation is that only one side can lose.” There is no doubt that Kissinger is one of the geopolitical geniuses of our times. In this one brief remark, he captured a strategy that the West has used for the past two centuries to maintain its global domination: divide and rule.The one region that should understand divide-and-rule better than any other is South Asia. The British used this strategy brilliantly and succeeded. One reason why I published my first book, Can Asians Think? was to find an answer to an obvious question: how did my 300 million Indian ancestors allow themselves to be ruled so effortlessly by 100,000 Englishmen? The answer to this question is complex but one element is obvious: divide and rule.The era of Western domination of global history is coming to an end rapidly, but great powers do not give up their power easily. Anyone who thinks the UK and France will give up their permanent seats in the UN Security Council voluntarily must be smoking opium. And in this urge to retain power, it would be very natural for the West to continue using a strategy that has worked well for centuries: divide and rule.The main challenge to Western domination of world history is not coming from Africa or Latin America. It is coming from Asia. This is natural. Up to 1820, the two largest economies of the world were consistently China and India. It was only in the last 200 years that Europe took off, followed by North America. But the last 200-year period of Western domination was a major historical aberration. All historical aberrations come to a natural end. Hence, it is inevitable that by 2050 (and probably earlier) the two largest economies will once again be China and India.The return of China and India can no longer be questioned. The real big question is: will China and India grow together or grow apart? The natural answer to this question should come from the historical pattern of the years 1 to 1820. Then, when China and India provided the world’s largest economies, they never went to war with each other. Hence, if this pattern of two millennia returns, logically China and India should not go to war.However, from 1 AD to 1820, despite the glories of the Greeks and Romans, China and India never had to deal with a third rival civilisation. In the 21st century, even though Western domination of world history will end, the West will not disappear. Indeed, it will remain the single strongest civilisation for another 100 years or more. And it will have a great advantage, with the United States remaining the world’s greatest military power for a longer time.One does not have to be a geopolitical genius to predict that the most important relationship will be the US-China-India geopolitical triangle. And one also does not have to be a genius to know that the best position to occupy in this geopolitical triangle is to be in the middle position. Hence, for example, if India’s relations with both the US and China are better than the US-China bilateral relationship, this will give India a significant geopolitical advantage.So far, the United States enjoys the position of being in the middle. Despite the obvious geopolitical rivalries and tension, the bilateral relationship between the US and China could not be stronger. The total amount of US-China trade last year was $366 billion. China enjoyed a massive trade surplus of $196 billion in the same year. In return, the US enjoys a massive amount of cheap loans from China in the form of over $1 trillion of US treasury bill purchases.Equally importantly, the common permanent membership of the UN Security Council means that on a daily basis the US and China make geopolitical deals. I witnessed this at first hand when I served on the Council in 2001-02. And when a crisis breaks out in North Korea or Iran, the first impulse of Washington, DC is to call Beijing. India’s exclusion from such permanent membership gives it a geopolitical disadvantage.To secure the comfortable middle position in the US-China-India geopolitical triangle, India will have to work hard to simultaneously strengthen its relations with both the US and China. Its relations with the US are on a good wicket now. The American courtship of India has become a major industry in Washington, DC. Some of it is due to ideological affinity as fellow democracies. But as India learned in the Cold War, a democratic US can support a military-dominated Pakistan over democratic India. Geopolitical interests always trump ideological affinities. And since it serves American interests to occupy the middle position in the US-China-India geopolitical triangle, this may be an even more powerful reason for the US courtship of India.The major questions for India therefore are obvious ones: will it be used as a convenient geopolitical card by the US to balance China? Or will it emerge as an independent actor that can use both America and China to advance its own interests? Will it allow emotions and ideology to influence its decisions, or will it use the wisdom of a Henry Kissinger to make cool and calculated long-term choices? Will India use divide and rule, or will India be used again in divide and rule?

The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore and the author of ‘The New Asian Hemisphere’ [email protected]

India's actions are not for Indians but for the self interests of its elite and thier world view is shaped by 150 years of Macaulayization and Amercian maya they have been mesmerized with. However there is a generational and regional shift coming and we will see how it pans out.

[ramana]

What we re-learn from the two articles by KS garu and Kishore Mahbubani are:
- There is a trinity of powers left standing after the clarification of the mess of post Cold War.
- US, PRC and India. PRC and Indian reemergence is a reversal of 200 years on modern history.
- Both authors recognize that US-PRC have strong bonds yet are afraid of each other.
- They have strong trade ties and PRC holds US treasuries ~ $1T which keeps them in lock step.
- US despite its economic mess is the pre-eminent military power for quite sometime to come.
- US has some ties with India.
-India and PRC have weak ties with mutual suspicion. They have only commercial ties.

Both authors realize that the US-PRC duopoly has maximum potential to stiffle India.

KS wants to entice US away from PRC. The gist of his articles is to make US realize its on wrong side of history by backing dictatorships. In essence confront the US on its moral basis of Western leadership.
KM wants to entice PRC from the US. The gist of his article is that PRC should realize the thrust of history when India and China were the dominant world economies and did not have confrontations. And not let the US be the middle in the triangle. To do this he wants India to have better relations with both and not let it be a zero -sum game.

A few things to consider:
- China considers that it was subjugate by West only after the West subjugated India. The Opium Wars are after the 1820s that he mentions.
- China has suspicions that India could again become a foil for the West. Hence it has its own insurance moves thru TSP nuclearization, string of pearls, commodities, investment in Africa etc.
- And at same time the US by arguing for Open Door policy for China effectively ensured that China was not turned into a European colony just as India was.
- US does not want India to rise on its own as it could set off rivalry with PRC which would have negative impact on US. Hence it wants India's rise to be modulated per its wishes and interests.

[Prem]

What about All 3 on the top without fingering each other and taking whole humanity on new upward trajectory as called by ancient Indian ethos, American Revolution and Old Chinese wisdom. Whole world will be much better place within few decades with trillions spent on health, education and other constructive purpose instead of investing in making new efficient killing machines.

[Hari Seldon]

A 3 player game is always rife with instability. Danger of the G2 colluding against Dilli is ever there.

[svinayak]

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

--David Rockefeller, “Memoirs,” page 405

[brihaspati]

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.

Again a strange myopia in comparative history. When America started out it was far more mercantile, environmentally disastrous [wholesale clearing of land, killing off fauna, aridification and what not], and state bosses better described as sharks - compared to the more regimented, regulated, and "rule of law" mother country - UK. By that precedence, China will take the place of what USA is today! UK went down compared to the USA, so will USA then be compared to China!

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.

Obviously he has difficulties in using the expression "India". The one exception and counterexample to his thesis is India. India is culturally equipped obviously to deal with millions who differ in how they look, what they believe in, obviously has still managed to "integrate". Compared to that Americans continue to judge and treat and deal with people based on how they look, there remain invisible glass ceilings and circles in society which remain exclusive, and the apparent integration is more a state coercion and overwhelming force imposed co-existence that bursts out into flames whenever the state's iron hand is less forthcoming or hesitant.

In fact in all of his tirade he avoids associating India with any of the others he mentions as culturally ill-equipped, in any of the demographic or cultural spheres he claims as crucial - except the potential to "economically" launch or dominate.

In fact one thing India shares with America he avoids to mention - and that is periodic self-doubt and nagging self-criticism. Of course he is working from a model - that of the Roman style government, a plague for all of Europe's future development, which claims to base itself on "constitutionalism". From that viewpoint, all other systems are faulty. America still is nothing but an extension of the idea of the Roman Republic, with all its contradictions. But the American revival of the Roman Republic is a short blink in historical terms - just a matter of 200 odd years. Compared to that Indian "Hindu" society in particular - has survived for much more than a "blink", and from a period thousands of years before the Romans deceptively entrapped the local Sabine women and raped them to gain wives and a foothold on the land to which they had been kindly allowed to immigrate by natives around Tibre.

Indian Hindus have shown that they can absorb, integrate, tolerate, all the while have immense self-criticism and periodic self-doubts and the capacity to reinvent themselves - even without a king, or a president, or the existence or non-existence of the iron hand of a state.

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.

This is the ultimate fall-back into tribalism. The great self-doubter, and self-critic still needs to feel secure in his cultures or systems' distinction from other human societies, needs to define the "other" as lower, weaker, lacking in order to feel good.

Maybe he needs to read what I have posited as the Hindu India as an yardstick to ponder on!

[brihaspati]

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.

Again a strange myopia in comparative history. When America started out it was far more mercantile, environmentally disastrous [wholesale clearing of land, killing off fauna, aridification and what not], and state bosses better described as sharks - compared to the more regimented, regulated, and "rule of law" mother country - UK. By that precedence, China will take the place of what USA is today! UK went down compared to the USA, so will USA then be compared to China!

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.

Obviously he has difficulties in using the expression "India". The one exception and counterexample to his thesis is India. India is culturally equipped obviously to deal with millions who differ in how they look, what they believe in, obviously has still managed to "integrate". Compared to that Americans continue to judge and treat and deal with people based on how they look, there remain invisible glass ceilings and circles in society which remain exclusive, and the apparent integration is more a state coercion and overwhelming force imposed co-existence that bursts out into flames whenever the state's iron hand is less forthcoming or hesitant.

In fact in all of his tirade he avoids associating India with any of the others he mentions as culturally ill-equipped, in any of the demographic or cultural spheres he claims as crucial - except the potential to "economically" launch or dominate.

In fact one thing India shares with America he avoids to mention - and that is periodic self-doubt and nagging self-criticism. Of course he is working from a model - that of the Roman style government, a plague for all of Europe's future development, which claims to base itself on "constitutionalism". From that viewpoint, all other systems are faulty. America still is nothing but an extension of the idea of the Roman Republic, with all its contradictions. But the American revival of the Roman Republic is a short blink in historical terms - just a matter of 200 odd years.

Compared to that Indian "Hindu" society in particular - has survived for much more than a "blink", and from a period thousands of years before the Romans deceptively entrapped the local Sabine women and raped them to gain wives and a foothold on the land to which they had been kindly allowed to immigrate by natives around Tibre.

Indian Hindus have shown that they can absorb, integrate, tolerate, all the while having immense self-criticism and periodic self-doubts and the capacity to reinvent themselves - even without a king, or a president, or the existence or non-existence of the iron hand of a state, or the apparent dominant presence of a supposed Constitution. It is difficult for the American to imagine a Constitution that is not readily visible, or written down in ink and paper, hardbound, and in English. If the Hindu India has survived for thousands of years maintaining its culture, knowledge and society - they must have done it on something that served the role that modern Constitutions play - a system of rules, preference patterns, values and laws and a mechanism to upgrade, and modify them to suit changing needs. Americans fail to see other forms of "Constitutionalism" - which was what really "dharma" is about in application - if it does not appear in the written, bloody, and coercive form that Europe reveled in.

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.

This is the ultimate fall-back into tribalism. The great self-doubter, and self-critic still needs to feel secure in his cultures or systems' distinction from other human societies, needs to define the "other" as lower, weaker, lacking in order to feel good.

Maybe he needs to read what I have posited as the Hindu India as an yardstick to ponder on!

[ShauryaT]

India's actions are not for Indians but for the self interests of its elite and thier world view is shaped by 150 years of Macaulayization and Amercian maya they have been mesmerized with. However there is a generational and regional shift coming and we will see how it pans out.

First, Alternate world view models are needed for this and the next generation to latch on to. These new models will have to go through tests and trials. The model has to show signs of progress and fulfill the desires of its own and world populace. So, a long way to go, if an alternate model, is ever to come into being. At this time, we do not even see a proper critique of the current world view models. Only Knee jerk negative reactions pervade, as I see them.

If India or PRC have to lead the world then that leadership cannot be done on borrowed ideas, no matter how good we become in military and/or economic spheres. The idea that somehow, when we reach a certain level of economic size and only then we can chart a new course is like saying, I will be a chameleon, who can change colors at will. Societal evolution does not work that way.

Will India be molded by western thought in such a pervasive manner (as it already is - in most spheres) that there will practically be no hope of a new world view from these lands or will she still retain enough of her memories alive to chart a new course is something only the future will foretell. But, I am skeptical of a sudden transformation, if the seeds for such new models are not protected and nurtured.

There are times when the sowing of these seeds are ideal but if that chance is wasted then it becomes another uphill battle. This is where, leadership comes into play. Leadership, who's thoughts are also molded by the time and space they live in.

[brihaspati]

India has tried accommodating all other views. It has not landed India with necessarily more friends and lessening of enemies. Indian leadership has to think of its own aims and targets, not only for itself but also for the world. I thought India has seen sufficiently how playing friends with USA and China turns out to be if India is not getting ready for their eventual betrayal at the same time.

[ramana]

I think BRF was ahead of the curve in seeing the trinity by Jan 2009

US The Peg, India High In China’s Foreign Policy Deliberations By Bhaskar Roy

http://www.southasi aanalysis. org/papers43/ paper4253.html


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 ona 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.It’s time to do some serious introspection in China over the country’s growing hard line and ‘fist in your face’ international behaviour. Differences within the top hierarchy are visible, with many foreign policy experts openly disagreeing with their Party’s and government’s stated line. The most important is the disagreement with China’s appeasing and protective policy towards a belligerent North Korea threaten the stability of East Asia. The official China Daily (Dec. 27, 2010) published an extract from a report “2010: Regional Security Change and China’s
Strategic Response” prepared by China’s top think tank, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) Institute of Asia – Pacific Studies which reflects a new thinking. The report was obviously prepared at the instance of the Foreign Ministry and the Communist Party, and the extract was published to give only a glimpse at a new trend in China’s thinking in the making. 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. He interacted with school children, emphasized trade and economic relations, and suggested some recent Chinese policies towards India could be adjusted. 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. The US was seen as promoting India in the ASEAN, and was more concerned over the May 2006 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPPA), now joined and pushed by the US. The TPPA started with Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, known as the P-4, and was joined by five others – Australia, Malaysia, Peru, United States and Vietnam. Others likely to join the TPPA soon one Japan and South Korea who are in consultation, and India was an eminent candidate for the same. China views the TPPA as another US vehicle in the region to assert the primacy of its security and economic interests, and render the ASEAN + 3 (China, Japan and South Korea) mechanism as almost redundant. The CASS thinking cannot yet fully comprehend why the US suddenly hurried back to impose its position in the region, complicating China’s relationship with its neighbours. It was highly perturbed with the leadership of the US, Japan and South Korea declined to join the China proposed six-party (North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan, the US and Russia) talks to calm down the tension in North East Asia, after North Korea sank a South Korean naval ship in March this year, and the shelling of a South Korean island in November.The report says that China’s most vulnerable security environment lies in North East Asia, but the published extract of the CASS report does not seem to recognize that it was China’s protection to the Pyongyang regime that allowed it to configure its nuclear weapons and delivery systems and threaten its neighbours.

China has its own concerns which the unpublished portion of the CASS report would certainly have discussed with some suggestions. One, the Chinese top leadership fears that if North Korea collapses the two Koreas will unite with South Korean domination. An influx of North Korean refugees in such a scenario would not be a major problem for China. What would threaten China’s security in such a scenario would be a nuclear Korea under US and Japanese influence. Even more threatening would be the repercussion of the collapse of the North Korean communist regime on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which is already under some strain from within the country. The collapse of the CCP is visualised as the collapse of China – at least by the party leaders. Although the collapse of the CCP cannot be visualised in the near future, the dissidence among activists including retired senior elders of the party does raise concerns for the current leadership. Collapse of the CCP will bring about consequences that are unimaginable.

Therefore, North East Asia is China’s weak link. China, however, was making a mistake by strategising that India was riding on USA’s shoulder to contain it. This is neither in India’s strategic interest nor in its economic interest. The two countries could make Asia’s destiny if such perception and mistrust were removed. At the same time, India has its own interests. China has been all over India’s neighbourhood strategically, militarily and economically to counter India. This is very visible currently not only in Pakistan, but in Nepal and Sri Lanka, with some setbacks in Bangladesh after a change in government in that country. India must strongly pursue its interests in the ASEAN as a group and individually, similarly in North East Asia, and examine joining the TPPA. China cannot take umbrage. This is the reality of a globalised world, as India and China were also cooperating in certain international fora. Beijing should make some very serious introspection about India – partner, friendly cooperation, or antagonism. Till now China has shown little to encourage trust from India.

(The author is an eminent China analyst with many years of experience. He can be reached at grouchohart@ yahoo.com)

So the reality is PRC has fire n its backyard and is pursuing aggressively to set India's neighborhood on fire. Once again its India's best interest to stay together and let the others collapse on their own folly.

In 1992 I had suggested that reform of Asian socialism in PRC, NoKo, Vietnam and Myanmar were the last problems in the political arena. already Vietnam and Myanmar are on agreeable terms with India. South Korea is also in same front.

So India should propose Korean unification under the Hong Kong plan for a limited perod of 30 years for a start.

[JE Menon]

Fully in agreement with brihaspati... In fact, it is not only Victor Davis Hansen but numerous other Western observers and commentators who have difficulty using the word "India" in such analysis and observations. They simply cannot plug India into their comfortable worldviews... This is across the board. Even Jared Diamond virtually misses out India entirely in his Guns, Germs and Steel, and there are several other such examples (Huntington in his wars of civilisations thesis is a case in point) - although the Indian experience is a glaring and large exception to their thesis or even a confirmation of it. The trouble for them is, I suppose, the fact that they would then have to acknowledge a non-Judeo Christian heritage can throw up a tolerant, pluralistic, democratically minded society just as well ... It will be interesting to see how this avoidance is going to be sustained, going forward.

Added later: I forgot George Friedman too, who in his Next 100 years, appears not to see much room for India in the world but rather finds Mexico a much more likely great power! Not to put down Mexico (may the force be with it for all I care), but please... ignorance about what makes a country tick cannot be a reason to ignore the reality of its increasingly significant presence in world affairs!

[ramana]

These experts have a group think or received wisdom that India won't matter as it will whither with the "thousand cuts" and "million mutinies". So they dont want to break the ranks lest they be ridiculed by their cohort.

Add Uneven Cohen to the lot.

[JE Menon]

Ramana, I also think there's a fundamental problem for them to "understand" and "fit" India into their hitherto neatly categorised worldviews - i.e about how a country should work, drawing from the Western experience:

1. Here is a country that is all that western countries are, ideologically, but rarely ran a parallel course (at least during the latter half of the 20th century) with those very countries.

2. Often democracy is conflated with Christianity (most democratic countries are Christian majority states) and so that was an easy sell, but what to do about India - which was neither Christian, nor monotheistic in their view.

3. Here is a democracy, non-Christian, and not often in agreement with them on how the world should work - and having the temerity to lecture them now and then on top of that.

How to fit it into conventional analysis? Very tricky. One way, the easy way out usually, was simply to ignore and avoid it. This was a fairly simple task in the latter half of the 20th century because India did not amount to much in terms of trade, technology, and presence on global stage. This is no longer the case.

That is why the "ignore" option is no longer really available. Hence it will be interesting to see how they take it forward. I expect that closer attention will be paid by some, and there will be observers who will make an effort and get it right on occasion. On the other hand, expect more focus on the caste issue, regionalism, Hindu-Muslim issues, the dynastic tendency, etc. etc...

[Airavat]

How to Stay Friends With China: Zbigniew Brzezinski

[svinayak]

How to fit it into conventional analysis? Very tricky. One way, the easy way out usually, was simply to ignore and avoid it. This was a fairly simple task in the latter half of the 20th century because India did not amount to much in terms of trade, technology, and presence on global stage. This is no longer the case.

That is why the "ignore" option is no longer really available. Hence it will be interesting to see how they take it forward. I expect that closer attention will be paid by some, and there will be observers who will make an effort and get it right on occasion. On the other hand, expect more focus on the caste issue, regionalism, Hindu-Muslim issues, the dynastic tendency, etc. etc...

They have other discussions which is hidden from open source. Some times in conservative mag or other publication they will print material on what to do with India. They are waiting for something. Maybe a coalition of large states who have *common interest* on India.

[brihaspati]

So far it seems to be camps led by USA, Russia and China. With Russia increasing in power again, this can colour the dynamics again. USA will alternatively tickle Russia and China and perhaps therefore also on their respective interests in India. India needs to distract them.

Three intervention points can unravel the big-states plans. Somalia/Red-Sea exit to Indian ocean, Afghanistan, and South China Sea. India could think of these three points to make its presence felt.

[RajeshA]

So far it seems to be camps led by USA, Russia and China. With Russia increasing in power again, this can colour the dynamics again. USA will alternatively tickle Russia and China and perhaps therefore also on their respective interests in India. India needs to distract them.

Three intervention points can unravel the big-states plans. Somalia/Red-Sea exit to Indian ocean, Afghanistan, and South China Sea. India could think of these three points to make its presence felt.

Somalia/Red-Sea exit should be considered not just a weakness for other states, but rather one of India's uppermost national security interests. While China may get overland access through Russia, or the China-Turkey Axis, or even through the Arctic Sea once it melts a bit more, India's days as a naval power and a commercial maritime power are bound to the Gulf of Aden - Red Sea Passage.

[svinayak]

http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/119

Check what he says about China today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opini ... .html?_r=1
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... ies_h.html

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman.

He served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. He was known for his hawkish foreign policy at a time when the Democratic Party was increasingly dovish. He is a foreign policy realist, and considered to be the Democrats’ response to Henry Kissinger, a realist who served under President Nixon.

Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China (and severing of ties with the Republic of China - today’s Taiwan), the signing of the SALT II arms control treaty, the brokering of the Camp David Accords, the transition of Iran to an anti-Western Islamic state (the “loss” of Iran), encouraging reform in Eastern Europe; emphasizing human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and arming mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight against a new Soviet-friendly Afghan government and then to counter the Soviet invasion.

He is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of various boards and councils. He appears frequently as an expert on the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

[ramana]

I get the feeling that KS garu is asking US some difficult questions. In effect he is saying that TSP nukes are from US active inaction and its their problem to take care off.

[shyamd]

x post:

I've called it wrong on India's expanding reach into West Asia. Its not driven by anything other than US designs for the region. The US had pressured GCC to build up relations with India.

The dynamic is actually to do with US - China relations. The US wants to show them Chinese that they have other places for cheap labour. So the US sold it to GCC like this - This is your chance to make good deals with India. The US doesn't want China to be the sole power on its own.

Of course this doesn't mean there are no fundamentals to the India - GCC relationship. There are. But the core driver seems to be the US.

[shyamd]

Just to add to that, I came across this K Subrahmanyam article.

The return of G-2?
Larger | Smaller

K. Subrahmanyam
Tags : K Subrahmanyam, columnist indian exress, The return of G-2
Posted: Wed Dec 01 2010, 04:52 hrs

Even as President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh talked of a 21st century world order based on their shared values as leaders of the world’s two largest democracies, a newspaper run by the Chinese Communist Party published a plan for an alternative world order, based on a mutuality of interests between China and the US.It asserted, though, that the article, in the November 22 edition of People’s Daily Online, represented 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 Thomas P.M. Barnett, the author of The Pentagon’s New Map, and leading Chinese policy experts.The article describes the benefits of the grand strategy they propose: “[it] will promote US economic recovery, increase US exports to China, create 12 million US jobs, balance China-US trade as well as reduce US government deficits and debt. Furthermore, it will stabilise the US dollar, global currency and bond markets. It will also enable reform of international institutions, cooperative climate change remediation, international trade, global security breakthroughs... The essence of the grand strategy is that the United States and China will balance their bilateral trade and never go to war with each other, and the US will refrain from seeking regime change and interference in China’s internal affairs with regard to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, the Internet, human rights, etc and China will continue its political, legal, economic and human rights reforms.”There are, of course, flashpoints there. On Taiwan and North Korea, the article says that “the Taiwan situation will be demilitarised by an informal US presidential moratorium on arms transfers to Taiwan, China’s reduction of strike forces arrayed against it, a reduction of US strike forces arrayed against China and ongoing joint peacekeeping exercises by US, Chinese and Taiwan militaries. The strategic uncertainty surrounding the nuclear programme in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) will be de-escalated by the US eschewing DPRK regime-change goals and China ensuring that the DPRK adopt policies along the lines of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms and terminate its nuclear weapons program.”And, meanwhile, on Asian regional security, “China will negotiate the eventual resolution of sovereignty disputes on the basis of the ASEAN Code of Conduct and... the United States and China will harmonise and coordinate their roles... and relations with Asian nations to ensure the peaceful coexistence and the economic stability and growth of ASEAN nations in their bilateral and multilateral relations and roles in ASEAN, APEC, etc.”There is no doubt that while this is not a formal proposal from Chinese official circles; this is kite-flying, to test public reaction in the US. It is possible that the idea is to suggest that the US and China can accommodate each other to mutual benefit — and China shares the US view that a war between two such powers in the 21st century would not make sense. It also holds out certain assurances that China will accommodate the US’s concerns on Southeast Asia as well as on North Korean and Iranian proliferation, provided the US reciprocates on Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and human rights. The US must also forget down its desire for regime change in North Korea and Iran. And, in return for the US lifting its high-technology trade ban, China will invest $1 trillion in the US, presumably in new technologies, as well as help in balancing trade and enabling the US to manage debt reduction. But the glaring gap in the proposals is that there is no mention of Pakistani proliferation and Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism. While all the other issues listed by China are important to the US, casualties are being incurred by the US on the Pakistan front, and the US homeland is under threat from Pakistani terrorist organisations that are fielded by the Pakistan army behind the nuclear-missile deterrence shield that China provides to Islamabad. This may have one of two implications: either Pakistan, unlike North Korea and Iran, is not under Chinese influence; or Pakistan, in Chinese strategic interests, is a non-negotiable factor. There is also no mention of US interests in India — even after the development of the Indo-US strategic partnership. Does this mean that China hopes to wean the US away from its strategic partnership with India, as part of the price for the deal? Or do they hope to frighten India into a non-aligned submission to China’s hegemony over the mainland of Asia (less Asean)? China’s, and the authors’, value systems are evident from their advocacy that such a Sino-US deal should be outside the purview of the US Congress purview: they say it should be “agreed upon by the presidents of both nations through an ‘executive agreement’ not subject to US Senate ratification.” Surely, now that these ideas have been publicised, the present US president — with two years to go before seeking re-election — will find it difficult to move in this direction, as there will be accusations of his selling out to China. It is also clear that there are sections in China who are of the view that, just as the US helped China’s rise to second position in the world so that its resources and cheap labour could benefit US multinationals and US consumers — both by way of cheap consumer goods and credit expansion in the US — now the US will help China by releasing high technology, and thereby help themselves, benefiting through job creation and debt reduction. And once China has access to US high-tech, its demographic advantage over the US will ensure it will become the superior knowledge power this century.A significant number of people in this country imagine that there is an adversarial equation and a conflict of interest between China and the US, and thus, it will benefit India to be non-aligned. This article — published, significantly, on the eve of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s visit to India and Pakistan — holds out the possibility that China thinks it is possible to use the US to attain hegemonic power. Let us wake up to reality!
The writer is a senior defence analyst [email protected]

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^^
I had posted elsewhere a link to an article which said something similar. Chinese were asking the americans to remove the restrictions on hi-tech exports as a means to bring down the trade deficit. From the Chinese it was a win-win situation.

But if we think the chinese are only devious over here thing again. There are two different threads which many have not linked.

Early in his presidency the American president went to China and basically signed a document which said "China plays a significant role in south asia." It kicked up quite a storm in India. This was the first thread.

When Obama came to India later, he was all for India getting involved in East-Asian affairs. You know do military exercises, etc. He justified it by saying that America did not view any area as sole preserve of any one nation. Fair enough. I certainly hope this applied to Afghanistan too. This was the second thread.

But there can be a different twist to these two threads too. US wants China and India to encroach of each others traditional turf. In case of India it was South Asia, while in case of China it is East Asia. Such an encroachment may or may not lead to friction. But this seems like making two cats fight while the monkey adjudicates between them.

[svinayak]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ent-476116
Comment on an article

Money for nothing
Wall street and Wal-Mart have been coercing American companies to move their manufacturing to China for 20 years. If China does become the worlds number one superpower, we will have Wall street and Wal-Mart to hold accountable for it.

REPLY SAUCYMUGWUMP 10:29 AM ET January 3, 2011 Walmart and Wall Street are not the only villains
It is certainly true that Wall Street, with its concentration on quarterly profits, has driven millions of jobs overseas. And Walmart is the poster boy for predatory action in the corporate area. However, Apple, with its subsidiary Foxconn, has gleefully jumped on the bandwagon, creating a new slave class in China.

If Americans cared about jobs, they would not shop at Walmart. Yet they do, in droves; they selfishly only think of themselves. They buy low-quality products for a lower price, which has a follow-on effect in that other companies are forced to lower their quality and prices in order to compete. The USA, and soon Europe, is running in reverse with respect to quality products available for the middle class. In the not-too-distant future, there will be stores for the lower middle class and ones for the elite, with ones in the middle having gone the way of the dinosaur.

Money for nothing? A country that's broke shouldn't say that!
You should ask why the 2Ws moved across the Pacific to China? Why didn't they moved to your two large neighbors - Canada and Mexico? Why your backyard the South America countries hate you so much? Ask, Think, and Ask again!

China's rise is no surprise if you read history. Maybe it's a bit hard for you - a baby country of 300 year old (Oops, not even that!) to comprehend. But go read your history books and find out.

[abhishek_sharma]

Is the Obama-Hu summit over already?

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... er_already

[Rony]

Read this article and see what kind of gibberish is peddled as analysis in US with respect to Hinduism. Its like this article is not written in 2011 but in 1811 by some colonialist western christian missionery.


China and India Fight Each Other and Christianity

WRITTEN BY BRUCE WALKER
TUESDAY, 11 JANUARY 2011 16:58

The civilizations of China and India are two of the oldest in human history. Archeologists have found Bronze Age Indian artifacts from about 3,300 B.C. in the Indus River Valley, and say that signs of human activity in India date back many thousand years before that. China is relatively younger, with the earliest signs of civilization about 4,000 years ago, and signs of human life many thousand years before that.

Two of the four cradles of civilization have long been believed to be India's Indus River Valley and China's Yangtze River Valley. Very early sophistication in writing, architecture, metaphysical systems, and technology endowed these lands with wealth and culture.

The governments which have arisen out of the two ancient civilizations of China and India have generally been nonaggressive. Alexander the Great’s Macedonians attempted to invade the Hindu Kush, not the reverse. The Great Khan overran the Chin Kingdom, not vice versa. Perhaps the salient characteristic of these very old lands, however, has been the lack of dynamism. China, about the time of Columbus, already possessed the technology and wealth to find the Western Hemisphere and provide land for its teeming peasant populations; instead, it chose to deliberately withdraw into itself. The Chinese equivalent of the State Department or Foreign Ministry was the “Department of Barbarian Affairs.”

India, fabulously rich and populous, was easy prey to British, French, Portuguese, and Dutch occupation because of a sort of apathy about life which bordered on indifference.

Part of the reason for both China's and India's disdain for the outside world was the great complexity and size of the two countries. Why should Chinese or Indians care about the rest of the world, when each realm was so huge and diverse that the average inhabitant could never begin to absorb even what lay within the borders of each empire? Part of the reason, however, for their insular behavior was that both of these civilizations were married to metaphysical systems which found no merit in growth, or pioneering or hope.

Hinduism — or Brahmanism, as India’s “Untouchables” call it — is an utterly static view of life. One is born into a caste, and may not rise or fall from that caste in his lifetime. Human suffering is always believed to be deserved because of one's sins in a prior life. According to National Geographic, Untouchables are "tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human." Further, academics in Hindu India have always involved the study of old texts, which though beautiful and thoughtful, provide no hope of understanding the world.

When the West came into direct contact with India, those few who adopted a view of life which embraced a divine Creator, such as the Parsees (or Zoroastrians) of Bombay, were incredibly overrepresented in science, art, industry, and charity. When India was occupied by Muslim overlords, many Hindus converted to Islam, largely to escape the atheistic and fundamentally hopeless cycle of reincarnation, which ended only when a soul reached “Nirvana” or oblivion.

China also saw mankind as rigidly divided into a sort of caste system, and viewed all outsiders as fundamentally different and inferior. The famous Confucian System — not a religion but rather a code of moral conduct — is admirable in many ways. For instance, Confucianism honors parents, promotes peace, encourages industry, and considers justice a virtue. However, like Hinduism, Confucianism and the other indigenous Chinese metaphysical systems are static. And this attitude carries over to politics and government.

The historical boundaries of India and of China, therefore, cannot be changed. When the flow of history has compelled these two countries to adopt political change, the results have been horrific. Why? Like an earthquake produced by the long-building tension of continental plates which have not moved, change in both China and India is a sudden shock to the systems of those nations.

For instance, Westerners warned that the end of British rule in India would lead to an orgy of blood and mayhem — and it did. Millions of Muslims and Hindus killed and were killed. Though the Untouchables begged the British to stay, the pious words of Indian nationalists (nearly all Brahmins themselves) overawed public opinion in Britain.

In 1949, the defeat of Chiang Kai-shek’s Party of the People (Kuomintang) by Mao’s Chinese Communists led to the beginning of genocide in Tibet and was also the prelude to Mao’s Great Leap Forward — a preventable calamity predicted by anti-Communists and ignored except by all except them.

Today, India and China are fighting along perhaps the oldest border in the history of the world. The “Line of Actual Control” has become a diplomatic term for territories occupied by each nation, whether the other country concedes the propriety of that occupation or not. The governments of both China and India have tended to downplay these battles. The Indian Foreign Minister, for instance, has stated: "It will be recollected that there are differences in perception between India and China on the Line of Actual Control in this area,” and the Chinese Foreign Ministry has responded: "Chinese border personnel have respected the two agreements between the two countries on maintaining peace and tranquility in the border area, and have never crossed the Line of Actual Control."

What makes these border disputes ironic in Western eyes is that most of these territories are inhabited by Tibetans, Sikhs, and other peoples who do not consider themselves Chinese or Indian — and regions such as Kashmir and Sikkim, which either have claimed independence for themselves or are territories disputed with other nations such as Pakistan.

Though ultra-modern in some respects, both India and China seem in other ways not to have changed at all in 3,000 years. Confucianism in China has been replaced by Communism, which is also very inflexible. Brahmanism in India has been replaced somewhat by the socialism so attractive to the Nehru family dynasty. These influences, however, offer no hope of change. These variations of Marxism are presumed to be iron laws of human behavior, and no matter what the calamity caused by socialist principles in operation, the basic premises are always deemed still valid.

On the other hand, Christianity historically has been the great catalyst for change in human thinking. Both Doctor Sun Yat-Sen and General Chiang Kai-shek, the first two political leaders of the Republic of China, were Christians — a remarkable historical fact which seldom receives the attention it deserves. The Republic of China on Taiwan became an economic powerhouse while the wretches of Mao’s China starved by the millions. Mother Teresa, an Albanian nun who became so beloved for her Christian compassion that she received one of the two state funerals in India’s history (Gandhi was the other), demonstrated how the Christian ideals could defang the caste system.

Christianity is now under severe attack in both India and China. The resentment in India comes from Hindus, who engage in horrific crimes, and whose objection to Christianity dates back to the first decades of the last century, when Christians allow Untouchables to become full and practicing members of any congregation. The persecution of Christians in China is based upon the fear that the Communist bosses of China would find in a Christian population the same sort of obstacle that the Soviets found in Catholic Poland: peaceful, but quiet, conquest of the Chinese soul.

Until the philosophical underpinnings of these two great nations change, one can expect continued persecution at home and border wars with neighbors.

[JE Menon]

The New American does not seem much different to the old American, whom we knew as the British.

On the other hand, when the power balances are perceptibly shifting in our favour we should avoid despair at the ignorance of others about us, although we must seek to enlighten them (moderately) on occasion so that we maintain our right moral posture.

[Rangudu]

The New American is a publication of the faaar right, McCarthyist and hateful John Birch Society. I'd take this as seriously as a publication of the KKK or the ne Black Panthers.

BTW, the HQ of the John Birch Society is in a place called "Grand Chute". 'Nuff said

[svinayak]

The New American does not seem much different to the old American, whom we knew as the British.

On the other hand, when the power balances are perceptibly shifting in our favour we should avoid despair at the ignorance of others about us, although we must seek to enlighten them (moderately) on occasion so that we maintain our right moral posture.

They have carefully avoided the role of the evangelical movement. They do not mention that Christianity has been in India for the last 500 years

[ramana]

Err, its longer than that. Its from right after Jesus was crucified by civilised Romans. St Thomas, one of the apostles, is buried in India. US can't hope for that status despite all the bible thumping.

India is truly holy land.

[svinayak]

I only say 500 years to tell tham Goa had these churches since then.

[ramana]

US Right wingers get flustered when I mention Jesus was Asian and that Middle East is in Asia. Not in Europe.

Aside:
My son attended a catholic school in Bay Area. The first day of class the religion teacher asked them to write an essay on the saints. My son chose St Xavier of Goa.

Later in the class the teacher asked if anyone visited any St's tomb.

My son said he had been to San Thome Cathedral in Madras. And this was an apostle not a mere saint!

No more religion questions or remarks on Hindusism as long as he was in the school.

[abhishek_sharma]

Good news and bad news about U.S.-China relations

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... _relations

[AKalam]

Amidst the hoopla after the tragic Arizona shooting incident, there are some trends that needs more attention and analysis IMHO. It is about the rise of Ron Paul, his early brain child the Tea Party movement, attempted hijacking of this movement by Neocons (Fox, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh et al) and the increasing influence of "Paleoconservative" liberterians in US political landscape despite the attempts at hijacking of the movement by mainstream Republicans as well as Neocons. Chinese influence and role among these many players are also something that needs analysis I believe. I would suggest opening a new thread on this topic, if possible, as it might be important for India and the subcontinent as well as world affairs.

Some seemingly unrelated articles which may indicate the development of a pattern:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... nader.html

The Tea Party phenomenon is really composed of three layers of political energy. First are the Tea Party people who range from pure libertarian Ron and Rand Paul types to defenders of plutocracy. They are mostly from the long-neglected conservative wing of the Republican Party that dislikes both the corporate Republicans such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as well as the Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

The second layer is those new members of Congress who owe their election, many over incumbent Democrats, to the fund- raising energy and voter turnout of grassroots Tea Partiers.

While the third layer is composed of incumbent Republicans such as Representatives Steve King of Iowa and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who have declared their fealty to the Tea Party, though what that specifically means isn’t clear.

It is no secret that the established Republican leadership is trying to co-opt the 87 newcomers in the House and 13 in the Senate to the ways of Washington. Even before the Tea Party reformers took office last week, the incoming class of 2011 had been treated to fundraising parties swarming with seasoned corporate lobbyists, some of whom they’ve already hired as staff.

Charges of Hypocrisy

The pressure last month from champion Republican earmarkers to support the $1.1 trillion spending bill, containing more than $1 billion in earmark projects inserted just by Senators McConnell of Kentucky, and Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, provoked angry charges of hypocrisy from Tea Partiers back home. The result: Republican leaders in Congress jettisoned their members’ earmarks and forced Obama to replace the bill with a short-term spending measure expiring in March.

But earmarks, which don’t add significantly to the budget deficit, are just the low-hanging fruit. Bigger clashes between the Tea Partiers in Congress and the corporate Republican establishment will come this year. And nothing scares incumbents more than uncontrollable, high-energy, angry citizens back home who receive regular national media attention.

Five conflicts on corporate policies that likely will divide Republicans are:

No. 1. Curbing the Federal Reserve. Here Ron Paul of Texas, the new chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve, is straining at the bit to lead the way. Last year he had more than 300 House members signed on to a bill to audit the central bank. Paul has far more ambitious goals as his book, “End the Fed,” outlines.

The central bankers are anxious about his growing influence. Paul has a demonstrated ability to articulate Fed issues. There is rising anger around the country against the central bank and its many secret bailouts. Moreover, there are a number of Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent, who have significant agreement with Paul’s determination to overhaul this giant regulator and debt juggernaut whose budget is funded not by Congress but by banks.

No. 2. Watch for heightened criticism of corporate welfare programs -- numbering in the hundreds -- that feed companies subsidies, handouts and special protections from markets. The huge corn ethanol subsidy will probably be among the first to be challenged.

No. 3. After many years, the swollen, waste-ridden military budget, with its over-reaching corporate contractors operating in two unpopular wars, will receive bipartisan examination (with the help of libertarian think tanks such as the Cato Institute). The coalition building around the alliance of Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul will start exposing this taboo subject. Defense contractors are bracing for a new pushback on procurement deals.

No. 4. The World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement and proposed bilateral extensions will receive Tea Party scrutiny, especially as China continues to de- industrialize America, all with the eager cooperation of American companies and their compromising of U.S. sovereignty.

No. 5. Whistleblower protection inside government and corporations strikes fear and consternation among both bureaucrats and corporate executives. Long-time Republican senatorial champions of expanding whistleblower rights against waste, fraud and abuse, led by Charles Grassley of Iowa, will have many new allies and support from progressive Democrats. The new financial reform law’s whistleblower recovery rights, expanding on the federal False Claims Act, will force this issue to the forefront, judging by the early mobilization of corporate lobbies to weaken or repeal that provision.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011 ... al-change/

The participants were Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker, William Hartung of the New America Foundation, Stephen J. Walt, a professor of foreign affairs at the Kennedy School of Government and author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, and Chris Littleton, co-founder of the Ohio Liberty Council and a committed member of the “Tea Party” movement. Go here to listen.

The program opens with Olney wheeling out that famous Eisenhower critique of the military-industrial complex, and Hertzberg noting that Ike said this while he was on his way out, not when he was in a position to do anything about it. Hertzberg went on to say that the reason for the reluctance to cut the military budget is the fear of being thought of as “soft on defense.” Oh sure, he continued, there are some “heretical” Republicans, like Ron Paul and Rand Paul – but the latter, as far as Hertzberg seems to know, “stopped uttering” those “heretical words” after he got the Republican nomination. Seems like Hertzberg is not a reader of this column, otherwise he would know that there’s a third chapter to that story, because in one of the first interviews he gave after being elected to the Senate, Paul the younger clearly said defense – and our be-everywhere-fight-everyone foreign policy – is on the table.

It was hard to miss the faint albeit clear note of condescending disdain in Hertzberg’s tone when he spoke of the Pauls, no doubt based the assumption that they’re marginal figures with little influence beyond their own movement, which is why I imagine he must have been thunderstruck upon hearing what the next guest had to say.

Littleton, when asked if the military budget could be and should be subjected to cuts, was emphatic: The Pentagon, he said, has to be cut. “Not should be – it must be. It is a fundamental necessity.” Yes, said Olney, but what about national security? Littleton’s answer went right to the heart of the matter: we need to look at our foreign policy, and completely reevaluate our present course. “Why,” he asked, “are we still fighting the Korean War? Why do we have troops in over 150 countries? We have no business playing world police: let’s get out of the world police business.” Financial solvency is a national security matter.

Olney, clearly a bit surprised at the vigor and conviction of Littleton’s anti-interventionist views – coming from a professed conservative, or, at least, a non-liberal – asked how many of his fellow tea partiers would agree with him. Littleton was quite upfront about the division this creates in his ranks: “This is a split issue for a lot of people in the tea party. There’s a pretty significant divide.“ He went on to characterize the interventionist faction as being tied to the Republican party machine (hello Dick Armey!), while the more ideological types – i.e. libertarians, constitutionalists, and other grassroots activists uninfected by the neoconservative spore – want to start dismantling the Empire and return to the old Republic.

The reaction from the other guests – all of them conventional liberals – was quite interesting. Hertzberg’s disdain was palpable. He proffered that “It’s unusual for me to be agreeing with a member of the tea party,” and hastened to add that his reasons for being in favor of cutting the military were quite different from Littleton’s: “It isn’t because we don’t have the money: I believe the money should be spent elsewhere.” Government, it appears, must never be cut: and if, by some chance, it is cut back, then it must grow somewhere else. The defense establishment is an anachronism, he argued, based on outdated cold war assumptions. But this argument is itself outdated, for the new American militarism is clearly devoted to fighting guerrilla insurgencies and maintaining occupations, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hertzberg also referred to “libertarian isolationism” as if it were some exotic disease.

While Professor Walt basically agreed with Littleton’s arguments, he distanced himself by saying that “I wouldn’t go that far” in terms of scaling down America’s overseas commitments. That’s what was most striking about this little session: the libertarian was the most radical, the most willing to challenge the comfortable assumptions of both left and right, and easily the most optimistic. The overwhelming sense one got from the others was that change would be next to impossible: only Littleton appeared optimistic – and determined.

Littleton is not some isolated individual, he is one of the leaders of a statewide coalition of some thirty tea party groups in Ohio, and there are many thousands like him. The ideological tables are turning, and today it is on the right, not the left, where the action is, where the ferment is, where the challenge to the conventional wisdom dares raise its head. While it is true that some of the most militaristic, nationalistic, and downright unpleasant elements in American politics are to be found on the right side of the political spectrum, there, also, are some of the most hopeful signs of growing resistance to the Warfare State. This is a paradox all too many “progressives” cannot get their minds around, because it defies the dominant left/right paradigm – a way of looking at the world that is outmoded and irrelevant, but, like many dead and useless ideas, persists way beyond its expiration date.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/editorblog/200

Wal-Mart, Wall Street and W: Three W's That Sank the American Economy and Boosted China

We haven't heard much from former President George W. Bush, but Bush stewarded in the final disastrous denouement of the Reagan "Revolution" of plundering the "vassals" of America to support the moneyed elite. By ensuring that the S.E.C. was neutered and that our national wealth became measured in worthless Wall Street "paper" instead of actual manufacturing production, "W." sealed our fate, helping China -- who many of the right wing Neo-Confederates on Capitol Hill still hissingly call "Communist" -- become a tiger, while our nation became a supplicant.

So there they are: the three W's that symbolize the economic decline of a nation that shipped its jobs overseas, became a high-finance gambling den and lost, and endured a president who made swindling the middle class "patriotic."

Everytime a financially-challenged American goes shopping at Wal-Mart, it's an act of self-cannibalization. Because, until we become a nation that starts producing things again -- which may come with a new technological and green revolution foreseen by President Obama -- we're just slaves to the rich and to nations such as China, trying to survive our diminished staus on bended knee.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B5C620110112

Assange, whose website has angered and embarrassed Washington by releasing confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, said China was the main technological enemy of WikiLeaks, not the United States.

"China has aggressive and sophisticated interception technology that places itself between every reader inside China and every information source outside China," Assange told Britain's New Statesman magazine.

"We've been fighting a running battle to make sure we can get information through and there are now all sorts of ways Chinese readers can get on to our site," he said in extracts of the interview published on the magazine's website.

http://www.telugucinimalu.com/chinese-g ... dow-jones/

It іѕ purported ѕhе came tο thе US аѕ the student, brοkе up thе matrimony οf thе horde family thаt sponsored hеr, thеn deceived οn hеr nеw associate οf dual years, wаѕ thrown out prior to eventually finale up wіth Murdoch 9 years ago. Thеу hаνе dual young kids together.

In thе surrounded by οf аll thе play Deng perceived аn MBA frοm Yale University аnd "іѕ the executive аnd arch strategist fοr thе land association thаt licences thе MySpace code аnd record tο MySpace China." Before thаt ѕhе wаѕ the Vice President οf News Corporation's STAR TV іn Hong Kong.

Now ѕhе іѕ јυѕt the couple of years divided frοm good thе tip dog οf hеr spouse's іnсrеdіblе empire.

Even thе tabloids саn't mаkе up thіѕ kind οf the tаlе.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 08086.html

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange revealed that he has damaging "insurance files" on Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp media empire that he will release if something happens to him or to WikiLeaks.

Assange made the revelation in a conversation with journalist John Pilger that appeared on the website of the New Statesman magazine on Wednesday.

"If something happens to me or to WikiLeaks, 'insurance' files will be released," Assange told Pilger. He said that the contents of the files "speak more of the same truth to power...there are 504 US embassy cables on one broadcasting organisation and there are cables on Murdoch and News Corp."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world ... nted=print

When Mr. Murdoch visited China late last year, he met Liu Yunshan, Mr. Ding’s successor as propaganda chief, and Liu Qi, the party secretary of Beijing and the top coordinator for the 2008 Olympics.

The News Corporation also entered an alliance with China Mobile, the state-owned company that is the world’s largest mobile communications operator. Mr. Liu of Phoenix said the move “could open a new, lucrative highway” to provide media content to China’s 480 million mobile-phone users.

Wendi Murdoch has stepped up her role in China. She plotted a strategy for the News Corporation’s social networking site, MySpace, to enter the Chinese market, people involved with the company said. The News Corporation decided to license the MySpace name to a local consortium of investors organized by Ms. Murdoch.

As a local venture, MySpace China, which began operations in the spring, abides by domestic censorship laws and the “self discipline” regime that governs proprietors of Chinese Web sites. Every page on the site has a link allowing users or monitors to “report inappropriate information” to the authorities. Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have made similar accommodations for their Web sites in China.

The Murdochs will soon be able to call Beijing home. Workers have nearly finished renovating their traditional courtyard-style house in Beijing’s exclusive Beichizi district, a block from the Forbidden City. Beneath the steep-pitched roofs and wooden eaves of freshly coated vermillion and gold, the courtyard has an underground swimming pool and billiard room, according to people who have seen the design.

Plainclothes security officers linger on the street outside. One neighbor is the retired prime minister, Mr. Zhu, who invited Mr. Murdoch to become Chinese.

http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2 ... americans/

Within the span of a few minutes, Beck implied that there are no quality medical schools in India; implied that medical care in India is a shoddy imitation of real health care; implied that the entire nation is an undeveloped backwater without even so much as indoor plumbing; and compared the Ganges River, a holy body of water for one of the world’s oldest and largest religions, to a disease.

While PRC seems to have chosen the shortest route to wealth, influence and rise while working with the self serving political, financial and media elite, it might be a better route for India (and perhaps a future Subcontinental Union) to work with Western middle and working classes during her rise instead of making it a zero sum game. Emerging icons like Ron Paul and Assange are clearly people to watch and get to know about.

[abhishek_sharma]

U.S. Is Not Trying to Contain China, Clinton Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/world ... diplo.html

[ramana]

LINK

THE WASHINGTON POST
Avoiding a U.S.-China cold war
By Henry A. Kissinger

Friday, January 14, 2011

The upcoming summit between the American and Chinese presidents is to take place while progress is being made in resolving many of the issues before them, and a positive communique is probable. Yet both leaders also face an opinion among elites in their countries emphasizing conflict rather than cooperation.

Most Chinese I encounter outside of government, and some in government, seem convinced that the United States seeks to contain China and to constrict its rise. American strategic thinkers are calling attention to China's increasing global economic reach and the growing capability of its military forces.

Care must be taken lest both sides analyze themselves into self-fulfilling prophecies. The nature of globalization and the reach of modern technology oblige the United States and China to interact around the world. A Cold War between them would bring about an international choosing of sides, spreading disputes into internal politics of every region at a time when issues such as nuclear proliferation, the environment, energy and climate require a comprehensive global solution.

Conflict is not inherent in a nation's rise. The United States in the 20th century is an example of a state achieving eminence without conflict with the then-dominant countries. Nor was the often-cited German-British conflict inevitable. Thoughtless and provocative policies played a role in transforming European diplomacy into a zero-sum game.

Sino-U.S. relations need not take such a turn. On most contemporary issues, the two countries cooperate adequately; what the two countries lack is an overarching concept for their interaction. During the Cold War, a common adversary supplied the bond. Common concepts have not yet emerged from the multiplicity of new tasks facing a globalized world undergoing political, economic and technological upheaval.

That is not a simple matter. For it implies subordinating national aspirations to a vision of a global order.

Neither the United States nor China has experience in such a task. Each assumes its national values to be both unique and of a kind to which other peoples naturally aspire. Reconciling the two versions of exceptionalism is the deepest challenge of the Sino-American relationship.

America's exceptionalism finds it natural to condition its conduct toward other societies on their acceptance of American values. Most Chinese see their country's rise not as a challenge to America but as heralding a return to the normal state of affairs when China was preeminent. In the Chinese view, it is the past 200 years of relative weakness - not China's current resurgence - that represent an abnormality.

America historically has acted as if it could participate in or withdraw from international affairs at will. In the Chinese perception of itself as the Middle Kingdom, the idea of the sovereign equality of states was unknown. Until the end of the 19th century, China treated foreign countries as various categories of vassals. China never encountered a country of comparable magnitude until European armies imposed an end to its seclusion. A foreign ministry was not established until 1861, and then primarily for dealing with colonialist invaders.

America has found most problems it recognized as soluble. China, in its history of millennia, came to believe that few problems have ultimate solutions. America has a problem-solving approach; China is comfortable managing contradictions without assuming they are resolvable.

American diplomacy pursues specific outcomes with single-minded determination. Chinese negotiators are more likely to view the process as combining political, economic and strategic elements and to seek outcomes via an extended process. American negotiators become restless and impatient with deadlocks; Chinese negotiators consider them the inevitable mechanism of negotiation. American negotiators represent a society that has never suffered national catastrophe - except the Civil War, which is not viewed as an international experience. Chinese negotiators cannot forget the century of humiliation when foreign armies exacted tribute from a prostrate China. Chinese leaders are extremely sensitive to the slightest implication of condescension and are apt to translate American insistence as lack of respect.

North Korea provides a good example of differences in perspective. America is focused on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. China, which in the long run has more to fear from nuclear weapons there than we, in addition emphasizes propinquity. It is concerned about the turmoil that might follow if pressures on nonproliferation lead to the disintegration of the North Korean regime. America seeks a concrete solution to a specific problem. China views any such outcome as a midpoint in a series of interrelated challenges, with no finite end, about the future of Northeast Asia. For real progress, diplomacy with Korea needs a broader base.

Americans frequently appeal to China to prove its sense of "international responsibility" by contributing to the solution of a particular problem. The proposition that China must prove its bona fides is grating to a country that regards itself as adjusting to membership in an international system designed in its absence on the basis of programs it did not participate in developing.

While America pursues pragmatic policies, China tends to view these policies as part of a general design. Indeed, it tends to find a rationale for essentially domestically driven initiatives in terms of an overall strategy to hold China down.

The test of world order is the extent to which the contending can reassure each other. In the American-Chinese relationship, the overriding reality is that neither country will ever be able to dominate the other and that conflict between them would exhaust their societies. Can they find a conceptual framework to express this reality? A concept of a Pacific community could become an organizing principle of the 21st century to avoid the formation of blocs. For this, they need a consultative mechanism that permits the elaboration of common long-term objectives and coordinates the positions of the two countries at international conferences.

The aim should be to create a tradition of respect and cooperation so that the successors of leaders meeting now continue to see it in their interest to build an emerging world order as a joint enterprise.

The writer was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977

[RajeshA]

^^^
Impressive insight in the article by Henry Kissinger, even if he sounds to be speaking again in favor of a G2.

[Christopher Sidor]

LINK

THE WASHINGTON POST.
Avoiding a U.S.-China cold war
By Henry A. Kissinger

Friday, January 14, 2011
....
....

The aim should be to create a tradition of respect and cooperation so that the successors of leaders meeting now continue to see it in their interest to build an emerging world order as a joint enterprise.

Carve up the world? No surprise that this is coming from a man who was instrumental in the US-PRC thaw.

[Hari Seldon]

I'm indeed very happy to see unkil dreaming merrily of G2 and planet carve-ups. More such dry dreams, the merrier.

PRC/CPC/PLA by their very nature will up the ante as soon as they are able and willing, once a G2 has been agreed upon. Pretty much display the same mercantilism they used to wedge an entry into the WTO and to their immense benefit thereafter.

Unkil, by agreeing to a G2, can only allow PRC to gain even more in strength, clout, networks, bases, military might, satell states, resource tie-ups and the like. And at some point, PRC will decide the status-quo underpinning the G2 doesn't suit it so much anymore. Only. Condemed to repeating history, aren't we....

[TonyMontana]

I'm indeed very happy to see unkil dreaming merrily of G2 and planet carve-ups. More such dry dreams, the merrier.

PRC/CPC/PLA by their very nature will up the ante as soon as they are able and willing, once a G2 has been agreed upon. Pretty much display the same mercantilism they used to wedge an entry into the WTO and to their immense benefit thereafter.

Unkil, by agreeing to a G2, can only allow PRC to gain even more in strength, clout, networks, bases, military might, satell states, resource tie-ups and the like. And at some point, PRC will decide the status-quo underpinning the G2 doesn't suit it so much anymore. Only. Condemed to repeating history, aren't we....

China remain the junior partner for the forseeable future. We are happy with East Asia. As we always has been. No need to rock the boat, I say.

[abhishek_sharma]

For Chinese President’s Visit, a Bolder Tack

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/world ... olicy.html

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had a testy series of meetings in Beijing last week, telling reporters beforehand that the United States would counter China’s military buildup in the Pacific by stepping up investments in weapons, jet fighters and technology.

Last Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the United States would grant China more access to high-tech American products and expand trade and investment opportunities in the United States only if China opened its own domestic market to American products. Mr. Geithner said China also needed to take additional steps to allow its currency, the renminbi, to appreciate in value — an issue a bipartisan group of senators vowed on Monday to address with legislation this year.

Then on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly criticized China’s human rights record, citing the persecution of the pro-democracy group Charter 08 and the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo, the political activist who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but whose family was blocked from attending the prize ceremony in Oslo last month.