US and PRC relationship & India

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jan 2011 03:38

Sorry fifth fleet.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 21 Jan 2011 05:58

Hu pla around Hu's visit cenetr around american's debt

The Obama White House on Wednesday rolled out the red carpet for Chinese President Hu Jintao months after the US President met Tibetan leader Dalai Lama sans fanfare and photo-ops and showed him out through a side door past garbage bags.

It would be a stretch to say China owns the US, but it is no great secret that President Hu is being courted, coddled and occasionally criticized because of Beijing's stranglehold on the US economy.

There is no mistaking the fact that China's financial and economic clout is clouding, if not dominating, the visit. And notwithstanding token noises about human rights and political freedom, the Obama administration's primary concern is how to wean itself out of its indebtedness to the country that was till recently seen as a brooding Third World giant that produced cheap goods and indulged in large-scale human rights violation.

the irony of one Nobel Peace laureate entertaining a man who has imprisoned another Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Shorn of hyperbole and boiled down to essentials, the meeting is akin to one between a banker and a client, with the latter seeking ways to ease the debt burden and the former trying to ensure the borrower remains liquid enough to pay back as per terms agreed. The rest, including disagreements about Iran, North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet etc are minor distractions thrown up to engage various interested constituencies.

The biggest constituency is the debt-trapped American people. For all of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's feisty declarations about human rights, Washington's worst kept secret is that borrowers can't be choosers.

One analyst likened the visit to a "slap-on-the-back for the national leader of America's biggest foreign lender," pointing out that with over $895 billion in US Government securities, China held 6.4 percent of the US National Debt and "when someone invests that much in your country, they probably deserve an opulent State Dinner at the White House." Whether the back-slapping will be mutual or whether the two sides make a meal of the engagement is something that will be watched with bated breath in many world capitals.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jan 2011 06:17

The Chinese President Hu Jintao is enjoying the red-carpet treatment in Washington DC against a backdrop of increasing tension between his country and the US.

As the two leaders meet, a number of US lawmakers are demanding again that China allow its currency to float against the dollar - arguing that a weak yuan is hurting American business.

But is China really listening? Its global expansion takes in every corner of the globe. And its influence is growing. Will this be China's century? Will the US have to live in China's shadow?

Inside Story, with presenter David Foster, discusses.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jan 2011 10:46

U.S. Warning to China Sends Ripples to the Koreas

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/world ... diplo.html

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jan 2011 11:21

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jan 2011 11:23

abhishek_sharma wrote:U.S. Warning to China Sends Ripples to the Koreas

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/world ... diplo.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama warned President Hu Jintao that if China did not step up its pressure on North Korea, the United States would have to redeploy its forces in Asia to protect itself from a potential North Korean strike on American soil, a senior administration official said Thursday.

One of my friend predicts that this could happen and US will go to another war against NK.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jan 2011 12:33

An hour with Henry Kissinger on Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the United States

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11417

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Jan 2011 15:24

DO NOT underestimate the chankianness of Uncle. It is becoming increasingly easy to do so, and many are doing it, and that is very worrying.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 22 Jan 2011 03:42

South Asia Thankfully Left Out of U.S.-China Joint Statement

India objected strenuously to the language in the 2009 joint statement, and the U.S. has apparently taken on board New Delhi’s concerns. In any case, China’s actions over the last two years have demonstrated that China’s interests in South Asia don’t significantly match up with the Obama Administration’s goals or U.S. interests in the region.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Jan 2011 09:31

For China, Relief After a Successful Trip

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/world ... china.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Jan 2011 10:59

Maybe Japan Was Just a Warm-Up

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23japan.html

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 24 Jan 2011 07:15

X-POSTED: Managing Chinese Threat

EXCERPTS from "Will China and India grow together or grow apart?", by Prof. Kishore Mahbubani, National University of Singapore, at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on January 8, 2011

(BETTER TO READ THE WHOLE THING HERE: http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110113.htm )

...

When China emerges with the world's largest economy by 2027, or earlier, it will be the first time in over 200 years that at a non-Western power will be the strongest power in the world. It is possible that the West will sit back passively and not try to thwart China's rise. However, it would be wiser for China to make its geopolitical plans on the basis that the West will try, directly or indirectly, to thwart China's rise.

My second point is that when the West tries to thwart the rise of China, it would prefer to do it indirectly rather than directly. The ideal scenario is the one that the West used successfully against the Soviet Union. There the West did not confront the Soviet Union directly. Instead, it unleashed radical Islamic forces in Afghanistan to unhinge the Soviet Union.

That strategy succeeded. Vis- -vis China, the best instrument that the West could find to thwart the rise of China would be the second fastest rising Asian power, namely India. The emergence of a bitter and persistent geopolitical contest between China and India would be an ideal geopolitical outcome for the West.

My third, and I hope most obvious point, is that it does not serve India's interests to be used an as instrument by the West to thwart China's rise. In simple geopolitical logic, the best position for India to take is to maintain a neutral and carefully staked out middle position in the coming struggle between the West and China.

The West will try to seduce India by saying that this is not a power struggle but a struggle over virtue and values: democracy versus communist authoritarian systems.

However, the history of the West has shown that geopolitical interests always trump values. This is why the West supported the Saudi-Pakistan axis over India in the Cold War.

...

Please see pages 219-234 from my book The New Asian Hemisphere. The complex strategy included the following elements: heeding Deng Xiaoping's advice to take a low profile

Note: the following characters describe Deng's advice:
1. lengjing guancha: observe and analyse [developments] calmly;
2. chenzhuo yingfu: deal [with changes] patiently and confidently;
3. wenzhu zhenjiao: secure [our own] position;
4. taoguang yanghui: conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight;
5. shanyu shouzhuo: be good at keeping a low profile;
6. juebu dangtou: never become a leader;
7. yousuo zuowei: strive to make achievements.

China is using the developing interdependence between the US and China, where the US economy now heavily depends on Chinese purchases of US Treasury Bills and taking full advantage of America's absolutely stupid policies vis- -vis the Islamic world.

...

Indeed, the Chinese believe that they have many reasons to feel distrustful of the West.

This suspicion is well captured in the following poem:

An Awakening Message

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled opium to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, it was an Invasion!
When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
But when you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
We don't hate you either,
But, do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said,
We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer...
Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big enough for all of Us.

...

Please let me emphasise one point: I presume that it is clear that it is not in India's interest to join the West in trying to de-legitimise the Chinese political system, tempting as it may be.

The second instrument that the West can try to use against China is divide-and-rule. Indeed, this is how the West conquered the world. One reason why I published my first book, Can Asians Think? was to answer an obvious question: how did 100,000 Englishmen rule so effectively over 300 million Indians. One obvious reason: divide-and-rule. ... the ideal geopolitical instrument [for the West to use against China] will be India.

Why India? The simplest answer is that from year 1 to year 1820, the two largest economies were China and India. However, with the passing of the era of Western domination of world history, there will be an almost natural return of China and India to the number one and number two slots in Global GNP ranking.

From the point of view of Western geopolitical interests, with China and India returning as the number one and number two non-Western powers in the world, what better geopolitical scenario could there be for the West than for the number one and number two to struggle against each other as they are rising?

And if they both succeed in slowing down the rise of each other, won't the prime beneficiary of this be the West?

The third and final question is this: is it in India's interest to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? I presume that the answer is no. There is a simple rule of geo-politics. In any three-way contest of power, the best position to occupy is the middle-position.

To put it simply, it is better to be courted by both sides rather than to be taken for granted as an instrument by one side and as an adversary by the other side.

...

In geopolitics, it is a mistake to allow emotions to determine when to get aggravated. Getting aggravated should be a rational choice, not an emotional choice.

...

This is why the best strategy for India to emulate in trying to rise and emerge peacefully is to follow Deng Xiaoping's seven-point advice for China.

...

There is one fundamental common interest that China and India share. Both have suffered foreign invasions and foreign humiliation over the past two hundred years. Both have also understood well the price they paid for being weak. Both have also suffered the most in the period of Western domination of world history.

It would therefore be hugely ironic that at the most propitious moment in both their histories, they allow the geopolitical interests of the West to trump the common interests they have in seizing the best moment to re-establish themselves as the two most powerful countries in the world. And, if both can follow their common interests rather than Western interests, both can grow together, not grow apart.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110113.htm

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jan 2011 07:18

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:
My third, and I hope most obvious point, is that it does not serve India's interests to be used an as instrument by the West to thwart China's rise. In simple geopolitical logic, the best position for India to take is to maintain a neutral and carefully staked out middle position in the coming struggle between the West and China.

It does not serve China with the help of west to support Pakistan against India and should rollback what happened for the last 20 years

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 24 Jan 2011 07:25

^^^^^
Agreed, wholeheartedly, especially since the only market large and fast-growing enough to absorb Chinese industrial output is India. China needs India to continue along its preferred growth curve, since the US will never again have the credit liquidity that has brought it to this (sad) point in its economic history.

However, I think we make a big mistake when we calculate that China is a strongly unified entity. There have been numerous examples of one power center in China doing something to undermine another power center, and the Chinese support for Pakistan may be another example of this.

Perhaps the most salient example is the 1962 invasion of India, begun while Chou Enlai was visiting India.

Please also kindly note the article was not mine, it was by Prof. Kishore Mahbubani, National University of Singapore.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 24 Jan 2011 13:22

Something strange about this. Have never seen such down to earth drama on dry grass

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 25 Jan 2011 06:30

X-POSTED: Managing Chinese Threat
X-POSTED: Wikileaks Diplomatic Cable Dump - News & Discussion

EXCERPTS from "Eastern promises, western fears"
Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu, January 25, 2011

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

...

Behind the heavy typeface that the release of confidential American diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks has generated lie smaller stories which sometimes tell us more about the way in which our world is changing than the headlines themselves.

The U.S. ambassador in Paris met Michel Rocard, a former Prime Minister of France, in October 2005 for one of those sweeping, freewheeling chats that Gallic statesmen evidently specialise in. The bulk of the conversation deals with the French political scene but at the end, M. Rocard shares his concerns about the place of France and the United States in the new world order and proposes a joint Euro-American think-tank to prepare for the future. “Speaking of the growth of India and China, along with all the other challenges confronting both of us,” the leaked cable quotes the senior French politician as saying, “We need a vehicle where we can find solutions for these challenges together — so when these monsters arrive in 10 years, we will be able to deal with them.”

So there we have it. Even as the Indian elephant and Chinese dragon circle each other warily, wondering how each will cope with the rise of the other, the Occidental mind which has enjoyed dominating the world and the global commons for two centuries is worrying about how to deal with the combined arrival of these two “monsters.”

Happily for the West, the arrivistes are not exactly on the best of terms with each other...

...

From the Chinese side, a number of scholars spoke of four specific problem areas with India. There is, first and foremost, the unsettled boundary and the fact that border territories are disputed. Second, the presence of the Dalai Lama and the so-called ‘Tibetan government in exile' is seen as a continuing irritant, especially in the aftermath of the disturbances which shook Lhasa and some other Tibetan pockets in China in 2008. Third, and this was surprising, the scholars acknowledged that China's friendship with Pakistan was a source of friction with India. And though they differed from the Indian side in characterising the current nature of the relationship, they acknowledged the fact that “balancing India” used to be a primary Chinese motive in the past. Their argument was that the rise of the Indian economy in the past decade has forced Chinese policymakers to de-hyphenate their South Asian policy. Finally, many of the Chinese interlocutors spoke of growing strategic suspicions that are made worse by a trust deficit. “Many people in China believe Indians look down upon them,” a professor from the International Relations department of Renmin University said. “India sees itself as close to the West and is willing to be used by the U.S. in its desire to become a world power.” Other scholars echoed the same view in different ways — that India might become part of an American-led effort to gang-up against China, that many in India subscribe to the ‘China threat' thesis.

...

As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is obvious that China and India have a crucial stake in the stability of that country and need to discuss between them what they can do to help the situation there. The Chinese side is well aware of the emerging ideological and institutional fault lines in Pakistan. If there is any country other than the U.S. that has the ability to exercise leverage over the Pakistani military, it is China. Until now, however, China has been reluctant to use its influence. For more than four decades, Chinese strategic thinking on Pakistan has been dominated by the need to ‘balance' India. But with India having outgrown South Asia and Pakistan in danger of imploding as the problem of extremism and terrorism slowly gets out of control, Beijing cannot afford to remain wedded to this anachronistic mindset.

...

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

READ THE AFOREMENTIONNED WIKILEAKED US DIPLOMATIC CABLE HERE http://213.251.145.96/cable/2005/10/05PARIS7360.html (Specifically, the last paragraph.)

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 12 Feb 2011 23:55

Irked by US, China warns war against neighbours

India has stayed closely allied with the US in recent years, and Obama promised to support India for a permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council. Thus, the probability for India to cooperate with China is also not great," it said.

"India's purchasing power of foreign exchange reserves is very limited anyway, so it cannot influence the overall situation much," it said.

So in view of this China should "pick up courage" and go for aggressive buying of other currencies, including the Indian Rupee hence taking the lead in affecting the market for US dollars.

This approach, it said, is market-driven and it will not be able to easily blame China.

How naive Chinese are. Arrogance is first step of destruction. May be China has highest USD reserves. But what happens when US stops importing from China, skyrocketing employment. The revolt of these people makes the revolts in the Egypt and Tunisia look like puny.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Feb 2011 03:37

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists ... t-1.762645
India's fine balancing act
New Delhi manages to build strong ties with both US and China by choosing diplomatic engagement over containment or hedging

Apples and oranges do not compare. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to compare Chinese President Hu Jintao's four-day visit to the US in January with that of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's three-day visit to India in November last year.There is a degree of triangularity in Washington's relationship with both Beijing and New Delhi and vice versa, and between both New Delhi and Beijing.If India fears encirclement by China in South Asia through Beijing's overt and covert support to Pakistan and its increased strategic footprint in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, China is equally wary of India's engagement in Southeast Asia alongside the US and Japan.If there is distrust and suspicion between the US and China, the same emotions underlie relations between India and China — only the degree varies.It was in this backdrop and the trust deficit between both US-China and India-China that Jintao visited the US and before him, Jiabao visited India.From 2000 to 2005, Sino-Indian relations had improved considerably. Not only were there frequent high-level contacts and exchanges of visits, but also diplomatic successes like China's official recognition of Sikkim as an integral part of India in 2003.
Sinologists attribute the post-2005 hardening of Beijing's stand towards India to rapidly improving Indo-US relations that impelled Beijing to perceive them as a hedge against China.Fortunately, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's personal chemistry with the Chinese leadership particularly with Jiabao whom he has met 11 times in last six years, has ameliorated relations somewhat.His diplomatic finesse in articulating India's foreign policy posture and his delicate handling of India's relationship with both the US and Japan has somewhat bridged Beijing's trust deficit with New Delhi.
Easing concerns
India seems to have managed a fine balancing act in its relations with the US and China. When President Barack Obama visited India in November last year, there was some suspicion and anxiety in Beijing about the intent of the visit. However, the visit was perceived by Beijing more in terms of the economic and political narrative of two countries rather than through the lenses of a security paradigm. The defence contracts between the US and India were viewed as augmenting job opportunities in the US, not as an arms race against China.Chinese suspicion of an Indo-US strategic partnership seems to be slowly mellowing down, or at the very least revealing a China that is coming to terms with it. Indeed, there seems to be signs of a maturing of the triangular relationship. It is against this backdrop that the recent bonhomie between Jintao and Obama augurs well for Sino-Indian relations as well.An improved relationship and increased trust between the US and China should dispel Beijing's suspicion of Indo-US strategic ties, a state of affairs which should facilitate and promote a better relationship between India and China.However, there is some wariness that an improved Sino-US relationship may push India to play second fiddle in the triangular relationship between India, China and the US. However, the action of the US in the recent past suggests otherwise.It is worth remembering that Washington used its leverage to persuade Beijing to secure a waiver for the Indo-US nuclear deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna.Even during the Kargil war where the US stood with India, China maintained its neutrality. These recent events suggest that there can be a strategic convergence of interests at least on some issues. It is evident that stakeholders in the region stand to gain through a process of engagement between these major powers rather than a hedging or containment strategy.This is, however, easier said than done and sounds rhetorical and idealistic. If diplomacy is war by other means, then the status quo calls for astute diplomacy, sensitivity and mutual adjustment of self-interest.

Rupnarayan Das is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, where he is a member of the institute's China cluster.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Feb 2011 23:41

X-Posted from TSP thread....

ChandraV wrote:
I have been reading the points and counter-points on US-Pak-China with great interest. My 2 paise here:

No one is disputing that American arms to Pakistan are not in India's interest. No one is happy that those weapons are going there. The fact that it is harmful to India is undisputed.

Fine. But the reason for all these debates and discussions is a nagging doubt: "What happens if America vanishes from the picture all of a sudden? Will the Chinese not step into America's shoes?" There is a general feeling that in the coming decades we can exert more influence on the US due to increasing trade and general improvement in relations, and it would be much better from India's perspective if it's the US that continues controlling Pakistan, rather than the Chinese.

That is the crux of the debate. ShivJi, to get people around to your point of view, I think you will need to address the latter point first i.e., why would Pakistan under complete Chinese control (a la North Korea) be a better option for us compared to Pakistan under American control.

We should question it here.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 18 Feb 2011 03:19

ChandraV wrote: What happens if America vanishes from the picture all of a sudden? Will the Chinese not step into America's shoes?"

Wrong question from my POV. If US pulls out tomorrow it only relieves pressure on alQaida-Taliban-ISI-TSPA combine as a result encourages TSP further.

China is already busy connecting POK with Gwader (or have we forgotten) so the second part of the question is redundant. American pullout has nothing to do with it.

I want to see a speed up of China's stepping into America's shoes with regard to TSP along with NK. China has been mischief making with the help of NK & TSP for 2 decades now (supplying nuke tech to one and missile tech to the other and then enabling an exchange between these two of the two technologies). It is better if it polarizes further and a new set of Axis powers come together. Then China will be held to account for the actions of these maniacal regimes (and it will be forced to keep them in check).

Just like Pokhran-II it will educate the rest of the rest of the World of their double games. So do not worry when that happens.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 18 Feb 2011 14:14

^^^
Half of our problems have a "manufactured in USA" written all over them. From the growth of Islamic fundamentalism to the current Pakistan armed forces strength.

If America along with saudi arabia had not gone ahead and transformed Afghanistan into another Somalia, we would not have had to face the spill over effects of over 20 years of terrorism. Going back even further, it was America along with China, who coerced Indra not to dismember West Pakistan. If tomorrow PAF nukes any Indian city or Indian strike division, it will be on F-16 another made-in-america product.

America is directly responsible for building up PRC into one of the worlds greatest economic super power. Now they seek our help to contain this Frankenstein entity.

I would be glad if America gets restricted just like UK got restricted post WW-II. And guys get real the world worked fine without US before WW-II and it will work just fine without it somewhere in the future.

Please note I am not advocating a sour or an adversarial Indo-US relationship, rather I am advocating that we need not prop up the yank and the yankiee international system.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 18 Feb 2011 17:43

Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^
Half of our problems have a "manufactured in USA" written all over them. From the growth of Islamic fundamentalism to the current Pakistan armed forces strength.

If America along with saudi arabia had not gone ahead and transformed Afghanistan into another Somalia, we would not have had to face the spill over effects of over 20 years of terrorism. Going back even further, it was America along with China, who coerced Indra not to dismember West Pakistan. If tomorrow PAF nukes any Indian city or Indian strike division, it will be on F-16 another made-in-america product.

America is directly responsible for building up PRC into one of the worlds greatest economic super power. Now they seek our help to contain this Frankenstein entity.

I would be glad if America gets restricted just like UK got restricted post WW-II. And guys get real the world worked fine without US before WW-II and it will work just fine without it somewhere in the future.

Please note I am not advocating a sour or an adversarial Indo-US relationship, rather I am advocating that we need not prop up the yank and the yankiee international system.

I beg to differ.

Christopher Sidor wrote:Half of our problems have a "manufactured in USA" written all over them. From the growth of Islamic fundamentalism to the current Pakistan armed forces strength.

IMO, US has channelized or subverted the Islamic fundamentalism. When the prosperity, theocracy and Islamic majority are merged, the resulting force is aggressive Islamic fundamentalism. Take the example Arabic nations, the US/UK have subverted the fundamentalism and aggressiveness by hedging the rulers.

Take the example of Malaysia where the prosperity, islamic majority and choice of theocracy/democracy are converging into a line and resultant Islamic fundamentalism is more rabid and sophisticated then Arabic and Pakistan.

In some manner US is slowing the final countdown of final clash down of civilizations.

Christopher Sidor wrote:If America along with saudi arabia had not gone ahead and transformed Afghanistan into another Somalia, we would not have had to face the spill over effects of over 20 years of terrorism. Going back even further, it was America along with China, who coerced Indra not to dismember West Pakistan. If tomorrow PAF nukes any Indian city or Indian strike division, it will be on F-16 another made-in-america product.

Then what transformed Somalia into utter chaos, for me its Islamic fundamentalism and non-US intervention as in Afghanistan. In fact in Afghanistan the US is acting as cohesive force, without it assume that down a decade the Afpak will be fragmented, which makes India's position as more challenging as its next door neighbor.

One crux of USSR-US Indo-Pak quagmire is Pak's nuclear arsenal. No body has seemingly projections about its impact. Probably India has to pay a heavy price for not unifying on its issues (Karmic balance).

Christopher Sidor wrote:America is directly responsible for building up PRC into one of the worlds greatest economic super power. Now they seek our help to contain this Frankenstein entity.

IMO, not so sir. Its USSR first cultivated, nurtured the CPC and Chinese monster for its political reasons. What US did is snatch away that baby monster, fed economically and made it big. Look at offensive and defensive capabilities of Chinese armaments, in fact they had all originated from from USSR.

Christopher Sidor wrote:I would be glad if America gets restricted just like UK got restricted post WW-II. And guys get real the world worked fine without US before WW-II and it will work just fine without it somewhere in the future.

Nope, it would not be possible sir. UK is altogether a different story with limited geography and population. Best you can equate US with Russia, at distressed times it may loose its shine temporarily. It has tasted the blood of World Police, it may morph into another avatar, but the essence and range will be changed.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Feb 2011 22:11

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asi ... 35934.html

"As the rise of Germany defined the 19th century and the rise of the United States defined the 20th century, the rise of China and India as global players will transform the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century," said Robert Hormats, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs. "So we are moving from a trans-Atlantic century to a trans-Pacific century, and China and India are smack in the middle of that."Speaking Wednesday in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Under Secretary Hormats says the United States has been learning how to balance relations with both countries as ties with India grow stronger.
"How to manage this triangular relationship in a cooperative and not a competitive way is going to be very important. China has been watching very carefully the rise of the U.S.-India relationship, including on the defense side. We do more maneuvers now with the Indian army than they do with any other country," he said.In many aspects, the direct relationship between China and India has been difficult. A large stretch of the Himalayan border is disputed and contentious. Ed Luce, a Senior Commentator with The Financial Times, says that has helped to stifle the flow of people crossing between the two countries, limiting direct contact and knowledge of each other."The number of visas issued each year are still tiny if you consider that they border each other and they are massive. They are the world's two most populous countries. So the potential for misunderstanding is great," he said.

Under Secretary Hormats says the climate for misunderstandings presents a potentially delicate diplomatic situation for the United States. "India wants good relations with China because they know they are neighbors and they know that they are both nuclear weapons states and they want to trade. They do not want to get caught up in a machination of U.S.-China," he said.As in most national relationships, economic prosperity and growth often determine actions between countries. Because of that, Ed Luce does not think that China and India are on a collision course toward conflict."There is a mutual wariness there. All the while, economic ties between the two countries are flourishing. So it is a much more complex picture than just the one you would get if you looked at the strategic realm. And both countries very explicitly see their core national security and trust as economic growth. And the one thing that would kill that would be conflict. So I do not think they are destined for any kind of conflict," he said.
That leaves the United States in the position to help foster a climate where both China and India can prosper by growing into the established practices of western nations which have flourished over the past century.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Feb 2011 22:37

The wariness is because of the dual nature or split personaility of PRC. The CPC, the political faction wants good ties with India. The PLA, the military faction is worried that India could be a US catspaw. In 1962, the PLA faction got the upper hand and set the pace.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Feb 2011 22:44

ramana wrote:The wariness is because of the dual nature or split personaility of PRC. The CPC, the political faction wants good ties with India. The PLA, the military faction is worried that India could be a US catspaw. In 1962, the PLA faction got the upper hand and set the pace.

US support for India is the biggest nightmare for PRC and also for Pakistan
PRC sees the support it got from US in economy and global forums in the last 30 years as a parmanent one and with no rivals. This is the kind of global view which the US was able to build the perception.

It will make PRC to protect its position in the world and also go against all the rivals which it sees will weaken China.

PRC used the money and lobby groups in US capitol to reduce Indian influence inside US and also reduce US support to India. This is still going on .

With media controlled by the western agencies they are able to change the perception of the rival countries.
They have controlled the news about China to the world and access to information on China for India for the last 30 years

In many aspects, the direct relationship between China and India has been difficult. A large stretch of the Himalayan border is disputed and contentious. Ed Luce, a Senior Commentator with The Financial Times, says that has helped to stifle the flow of people crossing between the two countries, limiting direct contact and knowledge of each other."The number of visas issued each year are still tiny if you consider that they border each other and they are massive. They are the world's two most populous countries. So the potential for misunderstanding is great," he said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Feb 2011 22:51

ChandraV, I will keep the answer short. The ideology behind the US and PRC support to TSP is different. The former has civilizational forces driving that support. The latter has balance of power considerations.

--
Am working on a study of "How enemies become friends" in Indic history.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Feb 2011 00:01

ramana wrote:The wariness is because of the dual nature or split personaility of PRC. The CPC, the political faction wants good ties with India. The PLA, the military faction is worried that India could be a US catspaw. In 1962, the PLA faction got the upper hand and set the pace.

PRC is afraid that US is trying to build up India which it kind of is. Its just showing the chinese, look you mess around, then we will back India. The Chinese are fretting at this.

I feel that India's foreign policy with Beijing, Washington and Riyadh are driven by Pakistan, our economic and security interests. US is helping us in West asia. These 3 countries can influence bakistan, so if we want to send a message we can do so.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Feb 2011 07:00

PVNR is reported to have said is there is choice between US and PRC India should align with PRC. Its some deep stuff. I don't know the basis or context.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Feb 2011 07:16

May be PVNR did not realize the forces unleashed by him will make India rise rapidly to sit on the biggg table . India's economic and security enviorenment in his time was at the lowest ebb. IMHO, in 10-20 years , it will be PRc and US who will be doing their best to allign with India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Feb 2011 10:40

“Towards a New Asian Order”: Shivshankar Menon

http://www.idsa.in/keyspeeches/AmbShivs ... enon_13ASC

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Feb 2011 10:41

‘Towards a New Asian Order’ : A. K. Antony

http://www.idsa.in/keyspeeches/DefenceM ... tony_13ASC

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Feb 2011 10:45

if India and China ape the West and star flexing their muscles at each other, they'll be ripe for the picking by US, Europe, and Russia. the Atlanticist establishment would love for China to go at India. as soon as that happens, US can conveniently come into the field, declaring that they are fighting for "freedom and liberty." and Russia will gladly go along with this. the Russians are wary of China's growing influence. if PRC and India get involved in a long drawn out non-nuclear war, Russia will do every thing it can to prolong the war and weaken China as much as it can. and US will just do what it did in 1945. history will repeat itself just like it did with Japan. Western and Euro/Imperialist powers will get a convenient excuse to divide Asia into little pieces where each piece is under the dominance of some non-Asian power.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Feb 2011 08:08

From Ram Narayanan

LINK

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
GLOBAL VIEW FEBRUARY 22, 201
Beijing and the Arab Revolt

What has happened in Bahrain is a tiny but telling shot across China's gigantic bow.

Bahrain is an island kingdom in the Persian Gulf with a population of about 1.2 million. The People's Republic of China is 12,000 times as large and 1,000 times as populous. Yet what is happening in Manama ought to be profoundly disquieting to the strongmen of Beijing.

Seen from a distance, the Arab revolts of 2011 all seem connected and broadly similar: The spark with which a Tunisian vegetable seller set himself ablaze spread on the invisible wind of satellite signals and is now burning to the ground regimes that are mainly alike in their record of greed, incompetence and despotism.

Yet on closer inspection the convulsing states of the Arab world look more like Tolstoy's classic description of unhappy families: Each is unhappy in its own way. Yemen's protests have a large secessionist element. The demonstrators in Tahrir Square were urban middle class. Libya's revolt has an important tribal dimension. The protests in Algiers are largely about rising prices and mass unemployment. The beleaguered regimes also vary widely, from the mildly authoritarian in Morocco to the brutishly totalitarian in Libya.

These differences matter because while the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya may be momentous and vivid, they are not particularly interesting. Mubarak, Ben Ali, Saleh and Gadhafi were (or are) lousy rulers: They finally got their long-overdue comeuppance. Sic semper tyrannis.

But then what about little Bahrain? Its people have a per capita GDP of $27,000, women have the franchise, and the country is an excellent place in which to invest. And despite having a minority Sunni government ruling over the Shiite majority, the country is religiously tolerant enough to have a Jewish woman as its ambassador to the U.S.

What Bahrainis don't have is political freedom. Representative government is a sham. The ruling al-Khalifa family calls all the shots—and, when threatened, fires them too. Add rising economic expectations and growing inequality to the mix, and you have the ingredients of a bourgeois revolution.

What you also have is a lesson in the nature of freedom-seeking. The place in which that matters most is China.

Ever since Deng Xiaoping launched the "Four Modernizations" in 1978, China's leaders have gambled that they could turn the country into a great economic power without risking their political monopoly. When challenged on this score—as they were by dissident Wei Jingsheng's "Fifth Modernization" (democracy) in 1978, or by the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or more recently by the Charter 08 movement—they have resorted to brute repression. But in quieter times, they, along with like-minded authoritarians, have been confident enough to stake a philosophical claim for their style of rule.

For many years, that claim was defended as a function of "Asian values": the idea that the public welfare was best served by enlightened one-party rule that nurtured economic growth but drew the line at anything that threatened social harmony, political competition most of all. "I do not believe that democracy necessarily leads to development," Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew once said. "I believe that what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy."

Say what you will about that view, it's hard to gainsay the economic gains that Singapore, Malaysia and China all made over the last 30-odd years. But are those gains sustainable in the long term? Probably not.

"Most ruling elites are aware that economic development will result in the emergence of powerful challengers to power and probably the loss of the political monopoly," writes Chinese American scholar Minxin Pei in his book "China's Trapped Transition." What follows is a bit dense, but worth reading carefully:

"Such a realization would prompt the agents of the regime to increase their discount rate for future income from the monopoly and, consequently, intensify their efforts to maximize current income while maintaining a high level of repression to deter challengers. In addition, the collapse of a foreign regime with similar characteristics may make fears of losing one's own power even more acute and real. The net effects of the combination of a growing sense of long-term insecurity and the demonstration effects of a fallen fellow autocracy may be those akin to a run on the bank, with agents rushing to cash in their political investments in the regime, quickening the collapse of the regime's authority."

In recent weeks, Beijing has been censoring news about the Arab revolt and putting down small but widespread protests that draw inspiration from it. No doubt the regime will succeed in the short term. But what has happened in Bahrain is a tiny but telling shot across Beijing's gigantic bow. Economic growth will not save it. Neither, in the long run, will repression.

Where the Arab revolt goes next, and what it produces, is anyone's guess. But its lesson for authoritarians everywhere is already clear: Until they grant their people democracy, their quest for discipline will only hasten their demise.

Need to pay attention to PRC.

habal · Post by **habal** » 23 Feb 2011 08:18

Bahrain was a false charge to prevent Saudis from intervening in Maghreb.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Feb 2011 08:33

http://opinionasia.com/node/865

Sino-US relations may auger well for India
Rupnarayan Das
12 Feb 2011

Apples and oranges do not compare. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to compare the just concluded four day visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao in January to the United States with that of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s three day visit to India in November last year. At a time when both India and China are rising and their economies registering competitive growth rates, the two visits attracted considerable media attention both in their respective countries and worldwide.

The US is trying to court both Beijing and New Delhi in a bid to cling to its preeminent global position. There is, however, a degree of triangularity in Washington’s relationship with both Beijing and New Delhi and vice versa, and between both New Delhi and Beijing. If India fears encirclement by China in South Asia through Beijing’s overt and covert support to Pakistan and its increased strategic footprint in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, China is equally wary of India’s engagement in Southeast Asia alongside the US and Japan. If there is distrust and suspicion between the US and China, the same emotions underlie relations between India and China - only the degree varies.

It was with this backdrop and the trust deficit between both US-China and India-China that President Hu Jintao visited the US and before him, Premier Wen Jiabao visited India. From 2000 to 2005, Sino-Indian relations had improved considerably. Not only were there frequent high level contacts and exchanges of visits, but also diplomatic successes like China’s official recognition of Sikkim as an integral part of India in 2003. The 2005 Sino- Indian agreement signed during the first visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stated that “the two sides shall safeguard due interest of their settled populations in the border areas.” No doubt his was an oblique reference to Arunachal Pradesh. Beijing, however, started hardening its attitude soon after 2005 and changed the interpretation of ‘settled population’.

Sinologists attribute the hardening of Beijing’s stand towards India to rapidly improving Indo-US relations that impelled Beijing to perceive growing Indo-US relations, if not containment, as a hedge against China. Ever since then, relations have been sliding between the two countries, with irritants like the issue of stapled visas to the Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh compounding matters. Beijing, however, regards the latter as a “technical issue”, to be handled appropriately at administrative level.

Fortunately, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal chemistry with the Chinese leadership particularly with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao whom he had met 11 times in last six years, has ameliorated relations somewhat. His diplomatic finesse in articulating India’s foreign policy posture and his delicate handling of India’s relationship with both the US and Japan has somewhat bridged Beijing’s trust deficit with New Delhi. For example Manmohan Singh’s visit to Japan in the month of November last year was adroitly managed with the Chinese media restraining from perceiving it as a hedge against China, but as an aspect of India’s inclusive diplomatic engagement in a multi-polar world.

Similarly, India seems to have managed a fine balancing act in its relations with the US and China. When President Barack Obama visited India in November last year, there was some suspicion and anxiety in Beijing about the intent of the visit. However, the visit was perceived by Beijing more in terms of the economic and political narrative of two countries rather than through the lenses of a security paradigm. The defence contracts between the US and India were viewed as augmenting job opportunities in the US, not as an arms race against China.

Chinese suspicion of an Indo-US strategic partnership seems to be slowly mellowing down, or at the very least revealing a China that is coming to terms with it. Indeed, there seems to be signs of a maturing of the triangular relationship. It is against this backdrop that the recent bonhomie between Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama augurs well for Sino-Indian relations as well. An improved relationship and increased trust between the US and China should dispel Beijing’s suspicion of Indo-US strategic ties, a state of affairs which should facilitate and promote a better relationship between India and China.

However, there is some wariness that an improved Sino-US relationship may push India to play second fiddle in the triangular relationship between India, China and the US. However, the action of the US in the recent past suggests otherwise. It worth remembering that Washington used its leverage to persuade Beijing to secure a waiver for the Indo-US nuclear deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna. Even during the Kargil war where the US stood with India, China maintained its neutrality. These recent events suggest that there can be a strategic convergence of interests at least on some issues between the US, India and China.

It is evident that stakeholders in the region stand to gain through a process of engagement between these major powers rather than a hedging or containment strategy. This is, however, easier said than done and sounds rhetorical and idealistic. If diplomacy is war by other means, then the status quo calls for astute diplomacy, sensitivity and mutual adjustment of self-interest.

Rupnarayan Das is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, India, where he is a member of the institute's China cluster.

It could be better if Egyptian dawn arrives in Beijing and removes the trust deficit.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Feb 2011 10:18

ramana wrote:From Ram Narayanan

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
GLOBAL VIEW FEBRUARY 22, 201
Beijing and the Arab Revolt

What has happened in Bahrain is a tiny but telling shot across China's gigantic bow.

Need to pay attention to PRC.

How can PRC be called as a supe power if what happens in tiny Baharin will jolt it deep inside.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 23 Feb 2011 12:21

ramana wrote:http://opinionasia.com/node/865

Sino-US relations may auger well for India
Rupnarayan Das
12 Feb 2011
....
....
It could be better if Egyptian dawn arrives in Beijing and removes the trust deficit.

Ramana, this is where I differ. Irrespective of the type or nature of political system that exists now or will exist in the future, in China, Sino-India trust deficit will not ease much. We tend to believe that if China were to become democratic or say non-communist then the friction between these two giants would ease. But this is not based on any fact. Each of these countries self image and self-perceived place in the world would lead us to a clash or friction somewhere down the line, if not in battlefield then in economics. If not in economics then in culture. If not in culture then in some other field. It is China which is going to be the biggest rival and nemesis of India.

My only hope is that Sino-India relationship should not become like two cats fighting, whose advantage is taken by a monkey sitting on the branch of a tree. Nor do I wish for Sino-Indo relationship to develop along the lines of Nazi-Soviet relationship or Imperal Nippon-USA relationship.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Feb 2011 15:29

I agree,

It doesn't matter what kind of political system or government comes to China, Chinese foreign policy, especially Chinese policy towards India is independent of that!

Chinese policy towards India or the region for that matter, depends on how much area Han China controls, i.e. whether Tibet and East Turkestan remains under their control or not; and it depends on how well India is able to come from behind and consolidate her national strength!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Feb 2011 00:07

Chris and RajeshA, The current totalitarian setup with uncle is not conducive to Indian interests. Granted they will be hostile to India due to proxmity and perceived clash of interests, the current setup leds itself to manipulation and direction. So in my view a change could be better.
Just my thoughts.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Mar 2011 09:31

Rethinking U.S. foreign policy towards Taiwan

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

International Relations theorist Charles Glaser has joined a growing chorus calling for the abandonment of Taiwan. His take on why we should abandon the island is tucked into his "nuanced version of realism" argued on the pages of Foreign Affairs. As do most "abandon Taiwan" arguments, he begins with a "realist" argument for why war between the United States and China is unlikely. Why? Because besides Taiwan, Sino-U.S. interests are compatible.

...