The Chinese establishment is mad. Not as mad as the Pakis, but still mad. Won't you be scared of a mad man walking down from the other end of the road?Christopher Sidor wrote: In fact Menon was still being chicken. He should have asked Beijing to honor its agreement to provide autonomy to Tibet.
TOKYO—The Japanese government is expected to announce this week long-awaited steps toward easing a decades-old ban on weapons exports, a move that will lower costs of arms purchases and help the country's defense contractors participate in more global development projects.
"The idea is to create a new framework," Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa told reporters Saturday. He said that he had "called for starting a detailed study" of the curbs, adding that "I think that direction is fine."A formal announcement could some as soon as Tuesday, officials said.
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 111214.htmIn an exclusive chat with Rediff.com’s Sheela Bhatt, a senior government official candidly explains the current India-China relationship and the road ahead. A must read!
"India is absolutely committed to a pragmatic approach in dealing with sensitive bilateral issues. India doesn’t want any fights with China. We want to develop a relationship further and faster, but we want to assure that our pride is not hurt in the process because China has risen and India is, still, rising. This, in a nutshell is India’s policy on China."
A senior government official, in an exclusive briefing to Rediff.com provided a detailed explanation about the broad parameters under which the Sino-Indian relationship currently operates and will continue to grow in coming years.
The official provided valuable insights into the current issues between China and India in an off the record conversation. "China’s global and regional policy has been changing since 2008 when the global economic showdown had accelerated," he said.
"The slowing down of the economies of many Western countries has impacted the global economy and since then India has found changes in China’s regional policies. The economy of the United States has lost its dynamic edge, Japan is facing depressive economic stagnation, even Europe has joined the club of failing or stagnated economies."
"In and around 2008, China could clearly see that their era had just begun. China is looking for a superior place on the global chessboard and it wants to leverage its strong economy to absolutely secure its position vis-a-vis issues it finds itself on a weak wicket."
"India is just learning how to deal with today’s China which has certain goals to achieve."
’How can you stop the public activity of the Dalai Lama suddenly after 50 years?’
India is of the view that China’s post-2008 mindset has resulted in an increasingly intense disapproval of the Dalai Lama and his policies.
China’s stance has perplexed India because the Dalai Lama has lived in India since March 30, 1959 and India’s stand on the Dalai Lama’s presence in India has remained the same as before.
The Dalai Lama and Tibetans are welcome in India as long as they do not indulge in any explicit political activity on Indian soil. But increasingly, China has been trying to push the Dalai Lama into a corner by objecting to almost every action of his inside India.
In its international stance, in the last decade, there has been no dramatic change in India’s position, but China has become important and too rich to ignore.
The official reminded that although India perfectly understands Chinese sensitivity on Tibet, India believes in a One China policy. China should understand India’s position too, he added.
While respecting Chinese sensitivity during the 2008 Summer Olympics, India did its best to protect the Olympic torch and clamped down on Tibetan protestors. It has also successfully ensured that Tibetans do not indulge in anti-Chinese activity in India.
"But the Tibetans have been on Indian soil for half a century. To ensure that they don’t speak, don’t move and to keep them, almost, under house arrest is not possible."
"How can you stop the public activity of the Dalai Lama suddenly after 50 years?"
On last month’s Buddhist Conference that became a bone of contention between the two countries, the official said, "If the Chinese would not have objected to the Dalai Lama’s presence, the Indian media would have largely ignored it (the conference). China should understand how the Indian media works. When the media starts bombarding questions on why the President, prime minister and other dignitaries have ignored the international conference, then the government has to reply with caution."
The Chinese demand for the cancellation of the Dalai Lama’s speech at the conference led to the postponement of the India-China border talks scheduled on November 28. India argued that Buddhists from Sri Lanka, South Korea, Mongolia, Japan, even South Africa, had arrived and no country could order the postponement of such an event at such a late stage nor could it instruct the organisers to stop the Dalai Lama from participation.
"The Dalai Lama irritates the Chinese. Alright! We know about it. But India has to justify if overnight it changes its stance on the Dalai Lama."
’We should not expect a third country’s support’
India, in the last five years, has also understood -- more than ever -- that on vital diplomatic issues and particularly in its relation with China, India stands alone, the official explained.
Obviously, every country has a China policy and its own national interests in mind. The "balancing factors" available before are no more available with Russia, the European Union and the United States losing their prominence in the world economy.
Also, these countries are also struggling to make deals with China.
"You are alone. We must know that nobody, not even America, will stand up in your fight if you are at the receiving end. We should not, even, expect a third country’s support. We must develop better relations with China keeping focus on our interests," the official said, debunking the charge that India is teaming up with the US in its fight with China.
When asked about India’s commercial activity in the South China Sea, the official said the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, ONGC, had not ventured in the area recently. It had operated in that area for the last two decades and repeated India’s stated position that the country had no other but only commercial interest in the area.
Discussing the impression that China is increasing its presence in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the official said, "India is just not concerned about Pakistan occupied Kashmir, we are also concerned about China occupied Kashmir (CoK)!"
In the last 60 years China has captured around 45,000 square kilometres of land in the Saksgam valley and a small area of Aksai Chin that Pakistan gifted to China.
In the Indian debate on China, rarely does CoK appear, says the officer. CoK is the Chinese area of interest, he says. The trans-Karakoram development will be China’s next focus.
In 2010 India had conveyed its concerns to China about their presence in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. It was reported, then, in the American media that as many as 11,000 Chinese soldiers were present in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. China had then argued that the Chinese were assisting the Pakistanis in post-flood management.
’China believes Kashmir is not their battle’
When asked about the status of the border talks between the two countries, the official said, "It is difficult to predict. It is difficult to assume what will satisfy China in the end-game. The border issue will take more time."
"India had lost land to China during the 1962 war," he continues. "China, justifiably, asks, what will it gain at the end of protracted border talks? But, in India there is no way people will accept and approve any surrender of land to China."
"Can you imagine the prime minister of India telling the nation that India has agreed to give certain portion of land on the border? In India, even the nuclear agreement with America has turned into a ’liability’ instead of an ’asset,’ how will you settle borders on China’s terms?"
Explaining the equation in candid detail, he further added, "Things work in their own way within India. We don’t follow global logic! The Indian masses think India lost the war with China. India lost a piece of land to China. Without India getting something back no Indian negotiation will be accepted by the public. Both countries are aware of the challenges."
Going beyond the border dispute, the Indian government is trying hard to emphasise that there are a variety of areas where India and China are much closer than India and America.
Bilateral trade will reach $70 billion in the coming few years. India and China are on the same page on the issue of climate change, and have also protested the planned American action in Libya and Syria and on many financial steps at the global level.
The official says it is wrong to form firm theories that India and China are competitors or India and America are closer than India and China. In the real world things work with more complexity, he adds.
He was keen to highlight that critics who think India is not standing firm to China should read the fine print. On the issue of China giving stapled visas to Kashmiris in the last few months, India has noticed that Kashmiris are being issued normal visas now.
"China believes Kashmir is not their battle. Surely, they are ultra-sensitive about Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh."
’China has risen, India is still rising’
While giving a few more examples where the convergence of interests has been possible between China and India, the official repeatedly gave the example of the Oslo Conference on Climate Change. While talking about the offensive in Syria, like Russia and China, he said India has differed with America.
The bottom-line of the relationship is that China has risen, India is still rising. The unequal space of development should not cast a shadow on mutual treatment which has to be based on the spirit of equality and respect.
Both India and China will have to find ways to preserve mutual pride and move ahead on the journey of development and growth.
Seen from the Indian premise, India wants to ensure there is no stress or conflict with China,but it also wants to display courage that it can stand up for its convictions in spite of its unequal economic trajectory.
Diplomats in India are striving to arrive at a kind of balancing act where the right mix of pragmatism and nationalism pushes Sino-Indian relations forward.
"Let us play the game with China with the attitude and spirit of a Test match," the official, a keen fan of cricket, added, "and not with the mindset of Ranji Trophy matches."
:
:
India and the US have also been strengthening their strategic relations with Japan, not only bilaterally, but also in a unique trilateral way, which US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns has suggested could "reshape the international system".
:
:
If one anniversary in 2012 symbolises India’s progress, past demons and future challenges, it must be that of the humiliation by China 50 years ago. Sujan Dutta charts the changes
If one anniversary in 2012 symbolises India’s progress, past demons and future challenges, it must be that of the humiliation by China 50 years ago. Sujan Dutta charts the changes
At a mountaintop hut in the Eastern Himalayas on the border in late autumn, a senior colonel of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) confronted an Indian brigadier with photographs. The prints showed a bunker that the Indian troops had allegedly built in what the Chinese said was disputed territory.
“You have to take it out,” the Chinese officer told the brigadier, expecting the usual response.
The usual response from the Indian side at such flag-meetings is softly bureaucratic: “We have noted your complaint; it will be sent to higher authorities.”
“Okay, we will see what has happened,” the brigadier told his Chinese counterpart. But the Chinese officer was insistent, even mildly threatening. “You will bear the consequences of this if you do not take it (the bunker) out in good time,” he said — a statement the Chinese inevitably make at flag meetings to sort out border transgressions.
But this time the script was altered.
“You have said what you have to say and I have heard you,” the brigadier replied in fluent Chinese without raising his voice. “But don’t threaten me. If you do something we do not like, YOU will face the consequences.”
The BPM (border personnel meeting) had reached an uncharacteristic conclusion. Some months later, Chinese troops removed the unmanned bunker from the area that is not patrolled. It was what the Indian Army had expected. There was no encounter. The bunker was just a calling card that read: “We were here.”
This year, the Indian Army will not mark the remorse and the humiliation in the hands of the Chinese in 1962. In the half-century since that event, a different generation of soldiers is willing to look the Chinese in the eye at the very spots in which its predecessors were so thoroughly routed. That attitude is evident even in recent routine BPMs, such as the one recounted above.
Plucky or pro-active, bravura or brazenness, the Indian Army is less impressed by China’s growing military might now than it has ever been in the last 50 years.
In early (February) 2012, India will test its 5,000km-range Agni V missile for the first time. A commentary in the Chinese Communist Party paper, Peoples’ Daily, said it was China-specific.
“It is the Indian goal to continue to strengthen the military and possess a military clout that matches its status as a major power,” the paper said. “However, how many missiles is enough is a question for all governments in the missile era.”
If successful, the range of the Agni V, which can deliver a nuclear warhead, would be able to cover most cities of central and south China — Guangzhou and Shanghai among them.
Even if the first test fails, India will have stated its intent: despite the intensity of bilateral economic ties, New Delhi, like Beijing, will continue to reinforce its military capabilities.
China is far ahead in the missile race. Its 8,000km-range intercontinental ballistic missile Dong Feng-31 (the name means “Eastern Wind”) can cover most of India from depth launch pads in China, and its shorter-range DF series can hit cities in most of north India. The Chinese PLA Navy’s submarine fleet continues to expand at a faster rate than any other force, including America’s. Its surface combatants are reaching farther almost every passing month, largely to secure its sea lanes of communication through which much of China’s oil imports transit.
In the South China Sea, where China is locked in a dispute with four other countries, Beijing’s claim has got shriller. In July 2011, it buzzed an Indian assault ship, the INS Airavat, sailing in Vietnamese waters.
Combined with its economic heft, the Chinese military machine has put an aura around Beijing that the world is largely in awe of.
In New Delhi, though, the security establishment is convinced that it can read the Chinese mindset better than ever before. Within the security establishment, it is the military that has a measure of confidence not yet shared by the political class. The external affairs ministry, for example, worries about Chinese objections to the coverage of Sino-Indian relations in the Indian media. It is true that sections of the Indian media see a larger shadow of the Chinese ghost than the military itself does. TV channels have routinely played up the construction and re-construction of bunkers and watchtowers by the Chinese along the border, as if they represent the threat of invasion.
In the military and the defence ministry, cooler analysts point out that such defences are requirements for peacetime rather than preparations for war. Wars are not conducted from visible control stations.
“The idea is not to keep India-China relations hostage to the border dispute," a top adviser remarked recently. “The border has been largely peaceful for more than three decades. Indeed, the so-called transgressions — the crossing of the line by patrols — now have such a pattern that we can almost predict when and where they will occur.”
Without a shade of doubt, the paranoia originates from the border war 50 years ago. Indian border patrols discovered much to their shock in 1959 that China had built the Western Highway, a road linking Tibet with Sinkiang province of China through Aksai China, the northern and eastern bulge of Jammu and Kashmir that Jawaharlal Nehru’s government then believed it was in possession of.
The furore in Parliament and an inability to determine the exact nature of the threat it posed led to the government ordering the army to take a “forward posture”. The army moved its posts closer to the disputed boundary and, on occasion, crossed it in 1960-1961.
For months, Beijing — then called Peking — absorbed the pricks. China was emerging from its revolution in 1949. Mao Zedong famously told the Communist Party’s central military commission: “Lack of forbearance in small matters upsets great plans. We must pay attention to the situation.”
Then, in 1962, Indian army units led by Brigadier Dalvi in Eastern Arunachal Pradesh crossed a rivulet called the Namka Chhu — which was conventionally acknowledged as the undefined border — and established posts along the Thagla Ridge, an event documented by journalist Neville Maxwell in India’s China War.
China sent Premier Chou En Lai to New Delhi to talk things out with Nehru just a week before hostilities broke out. By this time, China was beginning to suspect “creeping annexation”. In subsequent years, even Brigadier Dalvi admitted that “the territory we were fighting for, we were not convinced it was ours”.
By October 18, Chinese troops were ordered to restore the balance. Mao changed his policy.
Henry Kissinger quotes the Chinese Chairman in his book On China: “...Since Nehru sticks his head out and insists on us fighting him, for us not to fight would not be friendly enough. Courtesy demands reciprocity.”
Wave upon wave of Chinese troops cut through Bumla and Tawang. Despite heroic efforts by some of the Indian troops, the sheer numbers of the war-honed Chinese army overran the Indian posts. Civic authorities in Tezpur, Assam, prepared to evacuate citizens. New Delhi all but lost hope for the tea town.
In Ladakh, China consolidated its hold over Aksai China. India had only two divisions — about 30,000 soldiers, poorly equipped and not acclimatised to walk and fight in heights of 13,000 feet and above — in the areas where the most intense battles took place.
The entire higher command and control structure of the army had failed to read the situation in their effort to please the political leadership led by Nehru and defence minister V.K. Krishna Menon. Much of the command and control failures were studied by Lt General Henderson-Brooks and Brigadier P.S. Bhagat in a post-operations study that was ordered. The report is still a state secret, wrapped in brown package in the defence secretary’s cabinet. Defence minister A.K. Antony told Parliament as recently as July that its contents “are not only extremely sensitive but of current operational value”.
Senior army officers say 50 years down the line that that is an overstatement. There is quiet suspicion that the report is under wraps because it could rip the aura around the political leadership of Nehru. Chinese troops withdrew unilaterally from Arunachal Pradesh to positions north of the McMahon Line, believing that they had delivered to India the lesson it deserved, by December 1962. They continued to hold Aksai China, though, for the strategic reason of giving depth to the crucial Western Highway, the connect between Tibet and Sinkiang.
Neither China nor India had used their air forces or their navies. China, probably, for an inability to operate aircraft from the high Tibetan plateau where the air is rarer. The Indian military now recognises that not using its air force was a gross miscalculation.
In the immediate aftermath of the war there was a churning. Six years later, India recorded its most — and probably its only — convincing military victory in modern warfare. In 1971, it routed Pakistan, mid-wifed the birth of Bangladesh and took 90,000 prisoners of war.
Relations with China, after a freeze till the early 1980s, were gradually revived. Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in 1988, the agreements of 1993 (on border peace and tranquillity) and 1996 (on military confidence-building measures) and Vajpayee’s 2003 visit (which decided to establish the special representatives’ talks on the border) paved the way for increased trade and cultural exchanges. Even then, bilateral ties were subservient to the border dispute. The effort now is to de-link the border from other exchanges. Through 2012, it is likely that bilateral relations will continue to follow a pattern that has emerged towards the end of 2011 when the fourth Annual Defence Dialogue took place after a gap of two years. Even in those two years, Indian border policy has seen changes on the ground.
The army has raised two new mountain strike divisions in the Northeast. The air force has begun basing its most potent assets — the Sukhoi 30 Mki — in Assam and the Indian Navy has, with encouragement from Asean nations and the US, stated its interest in “the freedom of navigation in international waters”, a euphemism for the freedom of access to and through the South China Sea.
On the economic front, it is against Beijing’s interests to disrupt exchanges because the balance of trade favours it.
“Militarily,” said a top adviser, “there is a beefing up of defences on either side of the border; you might say we now have a higher state of equilibrium”.
Fifty years after 1962, neither is the Tiger crouching nor is the Dragon hidden in the script for India and China. When the forest itself has changed, breathing fire will burn the trees and even a growl can awake sleeping dogs.
Pentagon officials are reluctant to talk publicly about potential conflict with China. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing isn’t an explicit enemy. During a visit to China last month, Michele Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, told a top general in the People’s Liberation Army that “the U.S. does not seek to contain China,” and that “we do not view China as an adversary,” she recalled in a later briefing.Nevertheless, U.S. military officials often talk about preparing for a conflict in the Pacific—without mentioning who they might be fighting. The situation resembles a Harry Potter novel in which the characters refuse to utter the name of their adversary, says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon. “You can’t say China’s a threat,” he says. “You can’t say China’s a competitor.”
How long can things continue as they are when the name of your enemies cannot be mentioned? The US has three unmentionable Lord Voldemorts: China, Islam and Russia too. If you cannot view reality as it really is, then you are in big trouble.It is modern liberalism that has created this alternate universe where reality is flipped upside down. China is not a competitor, Islam is a religion of peace, and there is no new cold war with Russia. Generally, the US, Israel and Christianity are the primary sources of evil in the world today. By lifting up and redefining the bad, and dragging down and redefining the good, one ends up with everyone somewhere in the middle. As a consequence, one becomes blind to external and internal threats to the system, which then makes the system vulnerable to collapse and defeat.
As China takes aim at the US military, and the US military tries to respond, failure of US leadership means any response will be inadequate. For example, the primary response of the US government should be to drastically limit or completely eliminate all trade with China. It is China’s economic power that gives it military power. While there is some talk about starting to limit trade with China, it’s too little, too late.
China: On 3 January the official news service, Xinhua, published an explanation in English of major changes in satellite television prime time programming that came into effect on 1 January. That article is reproduced below.
"A recently implemented rule has effectively curbed the "excessive entertainment" trend as two-thirds of the entertainment programs on China's 34 satellite channels have been cut, according to the country's top broadcasting watchdog."
"The total number of entertainment shows airing during primetime every week has been reduced to 38 from 126 at the end of 2011, marking a 69 percent plunge as the new rule came into effect on Jan. 1, said a statement issued Tuesday (3 January) by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT)."
"According to an SARFT directive last October, each of the country's satellite channels would be limited to broadcasting two entertainment programs each week and a maximum of 90 minutes of content defined as entertainment every day during primetime -- 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m."
"The directive also required channels to broadcast at least two hours of news programming. Between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., they must each broadcast at least two 30-minute news programs."
"The restricted programs on the SARFT list include dating shows, talent contests, talk shows as well as emotional stories that were deemed 'excessive entertainment' and of 'low taste.' "
"However, popular dating shows like "If You Are the One," produced by Jiangsu Satellite TV, and soap operas, such as "Li Yuan Chun," presented by Henan Satellite TV, will still be aired during weekend primetime hours, according to the statement."
"It said that the satellite channels have started to broadcast programs that promote traditional virtues and socialist core values."
"The newly-added programs among the satellites' revised broadcasting schedules are documentaries as well as cultural and educational programs, it added."
"The SARFT believes that the move to cut entertainment programming is crucial in improving cultural services for the public by offering high quality programming."
Comment: The changes are far reaching and portend more restrictions on freedom of speech and social activity, as understood in the US. China does not have freedom of speech and has never guaranteed it because it is a communist country. The broadcasting restrictions are a reminder that openness in economics, speech and social life are not rights, but privileges granted by the communist state as they suit its interests.
Background. The Central Committee meeting last October approved the ideological foundation for a tightening of cultural activities, based on a speech given by President Hu Jintao. After that meeting, officials announced a new policy to eliminate many Western entertainment shows in prime time. That policy went into effect on 1 January.
Last month in another manifestation of the new policy, officials in Beijing and other cities ordered internet providers to ensure that people posting on microblogs had registered their accounts using their real names. Officials also have pressured executives and editors running the microblog platforms to censor themselves.
The effect of the new directives is to restore cultural space as a domain of ideological struggle between China and the modern world. Hu Jintao said last October, "We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of Westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration…. We should deeply understand the seriousness and complexity of the ideological struggle, always sound the alarms and remain vigilant, and take forceful measures to be on guard and respond…"
"The overall strength of Chinese culture and its international influence is not commensurate with China's international status….The international culture of the West is strong while we are weak," Hu said.
Comment: Hu's remarks are defensive and atavistic. Activities that the West and modern East judge as freedom of artistic expression and money-making entertainment opportunities, the Chinese communist leadership still considers to be part of a deliberate plot and a potentially existential threat. That parallels the thinking of North Korean chief propagandist Kim Ki-nam about the South Korean entertainment industry. It is also how Soviet General Secretary and former KGB chief Yuri Andropov and chief ideologist Mikhail Suslov viewed the flow of information from the West in the early 1980's.
Hu's comments also expose one of the fundamental contradictions in China's controlled capitalist economy. Entrepreneurial creativity tends to flourish in an environment stimulated by the free exchange of ideas and experimentation. However, communist orthodoxy is built on structure, control and obedience to orthodoxy. After 30 years of relative economic openness, the communists apparently remain uncomfortable with and suspicious of the free flow of information that is essential for a market economy capable of thriving in a global economic system. Hu's fears are not unreasonable because free market capitalism has never been consistent with communist orthodoxy.
NightWatch suspects that an important ulterior purpose of the new regulations is to control and eventually soak up excess liquidity held by an increasingly prosperous population in the cities; keep it from leaving China for Japan and Western countries and make it available to authorities to increase the national reserves against a decline in the rate of economic growth. That suggests the cultural correctness campaign is partly a ruse to cover economic redirection.
Open source evidence that this hypothesis is accurate is likely to be imposition of follow-on restrictions on the way the public and companies are allowed to spend profits and on access to credit. Greater social discipline always changes public spending patterns, in Europe as well as China.
Chinese newspapers call on China to assert itself, while India and African nations ponder the implications of becoming 'strategic partners' with the US.
Reuters news agency reported that neither the Chinese Defense Ministry nor the Foreign Ministry responded to faxed inquiries today. But the Global Times, a strongly nationalist newspaper based in Beijing, urged China to continue to assert itself and develop "long-range strike abilities."
China should come up with countermeasures. It should strengthen its long-range strike abilities and put more deterrence on the US. The US must realize that it cannot stop the rise of China and that being friendly to China is in its utmost interests. It’s a plan that is both ambitious, and rather less innovative than it might at first appear to be. Many of the cost savings and “smaller footprint” ideas announced by Mr. Obama and Panetta were first broached by defense officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations, most notable former Defense Secretary Donald RumsfeldRon Matthews, from the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore, told Al Jazeera that much of the Obama plan has been “progressing over the last two or three decades.Australia welcomed the new US strategy, a reflection of the US’s growing partnership in the Asian Pacific region. India, too, was identified as a “strategic partner” in the Indian Ocean, as both the US and India share parallel concerns about how to counter the growth in regional terror and piracy networks.
Under the Africa Command, based in Frankfurt, Germany, US military trainers are deployed on a rotating basis, in small numbers, training soldiers across the semi-arid African Sahel region to conduct counterterrorism operations. A small number of US special forces have also been deployed in Uganda and the Central African Republic to locate and neutralize the Lord’s Resistance Army – a deployment, again, that is officially a training and advisory mission. And an estimated 3,000 US troops are based at the French military base of Camp Lemonier in Djibouti – a tiny country located next to Somalia in the Horn of Africa – primarily a logistics and training base for operations in the Horn of Africa
In an overnight change of stance, India [ Images ] on Saturday decided to go ahead with sending the military delegation to China as scheduled next week but scaled it down from 30 to 15 after visa was denied to a senior IAF officer hailing from Arunachal Pradesh.
Sources said the Staff Officers' delegation will travel to China from January 10 as scheduled as part of defence exchanges programme.However, instead of 30 members as decided earlier, the delegation will comprise 15 members drawn from all the three Services, they said.he decision marks a change of stance as the government had on Friday put on hold the visit in response to the provocative action by China of denying visa to IAF Group Captain M Panging, who hails from Arunachal and was to be part of the delegation.The delegation is to visit Beijing [ Images ], Nanjing and Shanghai during the four-day trip.China, which lays claim over Arunachal Pradesh, has often denied visa to those hailing from the state despite protests by India.he visit by Indian military delegation is reciprocal to the one undertaken by the Chinese last month and is part of the confidence building measures between the two sides.Earlier in 2010, China had denied visa to the then Northern Army Commander Lt Gen B S Jaswal as he was serving in Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ], leading to souring of bilateral relations. Jaswal was to head a military delegation to China under the defence exchange programme.The ice was broken when India sent a delegation under a Major General in June last year. After that visit, two more visits took place between the two sides.
Dipak K Dash, TNN Jan 6, 2012, 01.28AM IST
Tags:
Pakistan and China borders|Networks
(The Union government is planning to build 11 tunnels in the strategically important road stretches close to the Pakistan and China borders.)
NEW DELHI: The Union government is planning to build 11 tunnels in the strategically important road stretches close to the Pakistan and China borders. Two more tunnels will be built in Uttarakhand to improve connectivity in the hilly state. These all-weather tunnels, which will be built by the Border Road Organization (BRO), would cover about 89km. These tunnels are expected to help rapid mobilization of troops and equipments besides providing better connectivity to local residents, officials said.
At a recent review meeting about the progress of road projects implemented by BRO, the road construction wing of the Army told the highways ministry officials that the feasibility studies of three projects are under progress. Two of them - the 12km Zojila and the 6.5km Z Morh tunnels - fall in Jammu and Kashmir and are crucial for connectivity between Srinagar and Leh. These two regions often remain cut off during winter as snow covers the highway connecting the regions. The third project has been planned near Rudraprayag in Uttarakhand.
The BRO is likely to undertake the feasibility study of another nine tunnels in J&K, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. India had stopped the road building activities in regions close to China border after the 1962 war with a view that better road network could help the Chinese forces to spread in case of an invasion. But that doctrine has been changed and several road development works are being undertaken by the BRO, which are funded by the ministry of road transport and highways (MoRTH).
The BRO would take up construction of two tunnels, totaling 25.4km on Balipara-Charduar-Tawang road that would improve connectivity to Tawang region throughout the year. Supply of troops in Tawang region is being met by helicopters. Two more crucial tunnels have been planned in Sikkim, which are located only 19.3 and 24.6 km distance from the line of control (LoC).
Rangpo tunnel in Sikkim that will be only 800meter long, is also expected to be built soon.
Details available from a BRO presentation made to the highways ministry show that the completion of strategic roads has so far been unsatisfactory. Out of the 18 strategic roads totaling 1,693km, only four (102km) have been completed so far. Work on about 1,096 km is in progress. "The BRO officers have told us that they face hardship in mobilization of men and material and they execute the projects under tough conditions. But they are expediting the key road networks which are strategically important and would also bring economic prosperity to neglected regions," said a senior highway official.
Despite living next to each other for most of history, despite having fundamentally different ways of looking at international relations, the number of cases of direct military conflict between India and China have been few. So, while India was invaded overland several times from the North-west, and later from the southern ocean, the northern frontier was relatively quiet. Why?
The advent of nuclear weapons in the latter half of the previous century restored the old equilibrium. Since 1998, after India unambiguously acquired a nuclear arsenal, the resulting strategic deterrence between India and China works quite like the Himalayas used to.
As long as they are high-that's where the minimum credible deterrent comes in-it is inconceivable that China or any other power will see merit in mounting a direct military invasion. Of course, we will continue to see skirmishes, proxy wars, terrorist attacks and geopolitical chess games under the nuclear umbrella, but a largescale war is very unlikely.
Full version in his blogFor all the talk about a new push towards global nuclear disarmament, it is more likely that the world will have two or three more nuclear weapons states in the near future. If Iran has the bomb it is quite likely that the Saudis will want to declare their hand too. A Saudi bomb will probably come from a Pakistani factory. So a triangular nuclear relationship between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel may be in the offing. We need not assume that this will necessarily make things more unstable.
In any case, the international nuclear order needs renewal. In the coming years, therefore, India will have to simultaneously discuss disarmament while ensuring that it has what it needs to ensure that the new Himalayas remain high. All the more reason for us, as a nation, to soberly but quickly reconcile to the value and utility of our nuclear weapons.
In fact, before the India-China war of 1962, the last recorded instance of a Chinese military expedition against India was in 649 CE, when a diplomatic misunderstanding caused a resourceful Chinese envoy to organise a force comprising of 7000 Nepali horsemen, 1200 Tibetan warriors and a few Chinese soldiers to organise a punitive expedition into the Gangetic plains.
There was nothing to stop two very different civilisation-states, two incompatible political systems, two proud leaders and two geopolitical mindsets from clashing violently.
We can see nuclear weapons as the New Himalayas that keep us secure. As long as they are high —that’s where the minimum credible deterrent comes in—it is inconceivable that China or any other power will see merit in mounting a direct military invasion. Of course, we will continue to see skirmishes, proxy wars, terrorist attacks and geopolitical chess games under the nuclear umbrella, but a large scale war is very unlikely. For a nation with a strategic culture of being oblivious to external threats until they reach the plains of Panipat, if not the very walls of Delhi, acquiring security through the New Himalayas was perhaps the ideal way.
Take for instance the enduring perception of “China doing another ’62, to put India in its place.” This leads to paranoid outrage on violations of the line of actual control, gratuitous self-flagellation on being “too weak”, followed by demands for us to invest in military capabilities to fight a land war on our North-eastern frontiers. Most of the time, this discourse ignores nuclear deterrence. When the nuclear dimension does figure, it is in the form of calls to throw away the no-first use policy or to develop thermonuclear warheads. Few ask whether the Chinese would jeopardise their historic ascent by getting into a war with India that will not only throw New Delhi into the arms of Washington, but could also go nuclear. Few ask how much the men in Beijing trust New Delhi when it solemnly declares that India won’t be the first to launch a nuclear strike. Will Chinese leaders be any more comforted that the warhead on the incoming Indian missile is a kiloton fission weapon, and not a megaton hydrogen bomb?Fundamentally rethinking our assumptions in the context of nuclear weapons will throw up different set of prescriptions of dealing with China.
IOW keep the enemies guessingWhile India has a well-considered nuclear doctrine and command-and-control structure with the red button in the hands of the prime minister, you can detect a certain nonchalance in the way this actually works. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee didn’t hand over control to his deputy in October 2000 when he underwent major surgery. That was in the days before the Nuclear Command Authority was set up, but even in 2009, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was hospitalised for a bypass operation, the nation did not know who actually was in command of the nuclear arsenal. Was this person—presumably a senior cabinet minister—familiar enough with nuclear weapons policies and procedures? In other words, did he or she know what to do? We still don’t know. We ought to.
Where is the reference to this? China was not India's neighbor then. I think his analysis is flawed. We were not invaded from the North not just because of geography, but more due to similar value systems of Dharma being prevalent across the Himalayas. That went for a six once the CCP took over Tibet 60 years ago.In fact, before the India-China war of 1962, the last recorded instance of a Chinese military expedition against India was in 649 CE, when a diplomatic misunderstanding caused a resourceful Chinese envoy to organise a force comprising of 7000 Nepali horsemen, 1200 Tibetan warriors and a few Chinese soldiers to organise a punitive expedition into the Gangetic plains.
It was a very perturbed Sardar Patel who wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru on November 7, 1950, pointing out that by our silence at the UN we had accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.
In a forceful letter, the Sardar, not a man to mince words, warned that "The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention" but in fact "it is not a friend speaking in that language, but a potential enemy."
He then detailed ten steps that needed to be considered to strengthen our internal border security and defences, especially in the north-east. The tragedy is that this letter was apparently never discussed. Till 1950, India had borders with Tibet not with China and by accepting China's suzerainty we became direct neighbours. Also, this concession in effect gave China a border with Bhutan, Nepal, India and Pak-Occupied- Kashmir. China now had the potential to be a player in South Asia.
Mao's China was turbulent. The Korean War was followed by the disastrous experiments of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution. The revolt in Tibet in March 1959 leading to the Dalai Lama's flight to India added to China's paranoia. The Chinese thought it necessary to warn India through its Ambassador Pan Tzu-li in a letter to Prime Minister Nehru in May 1959, saying that China would make common cause with Pakistan. This would force India to face diplomatic and military pressure on two fronts. Therein lay the beginning of an all-weather affair that is deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains.
1962 and 1965 were landmark years when India was involved in conflicts with both her neighbours. This provided an opportunity for Pakistan to get closer to China and the two have remained locked in a warm usually unquestioned embrace. For China, becoming Pakistan's largest arms supplier to match Indian acquisitions ” conventional, delivery systems and nuclear weaponry was a convenient hedge against India, and Pakistan thus strengthened by American indulgence and Chinese connivance felt emboldened to hone its assistance to terrorists as a low cost, highly effective foreign policy option.
A Chinese official once told US officials that Pakistan was China's Israel. Pakistanis see China as an assured guarantor against India. The Deep State of Pakistan ” run by its military-jihadi combine, has to realise that the hard state of China is using Pakistan as a stepping stone for regional dominance and not as an end in itsel
Ayesha Siddiqa, one of Pakistan's better known analysts, makes a very valid observation when she says that China is an 'empire by stealth' which is "growing steadily without necessarily taking on the socio-political or economic liabilities of its client states." China will invest only in the extractive industries of Pakistan not in the country's development.
Hoping that pakis prove their worth by becoming panda's somalia.Over time, as India has progressed, China's stance has hardened. It has played up issues ” like paper visas to residents of J&K or not granting visa to the Northern Army Commander and continued intrusions into Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. It has continued with its concerted attempts to keep both Myanmar and Pakistan under its influence to cover both Indian flanks.
Had India heeded Sardar Patel's advice in 1950 we would not perhaps been in this state of feeling surrounded by China in our backyard and the prospect today that Pakistan could become China's Somalia instead of its Israel is no consolation to India.
649 – The year China first invaded India Again by Nitin Paiharbans wrote:Where is the reference to this? China was not India's neighbor then. I think his analysis is flawed. We were not invaded from the North not just because of geography, but more due to similar value systems of Dharma being prevalent across the Himalayas. That went for a six once the CCP took over Tibet 60 years ago.In fact, before the India-China war of 1962, the last recorded instance of a Chinese military expedition against India was in 649 CE, when a diplomatic misunderstanding caused a resourceful Chinese envoy to organise a force comprising of 7000 Nepali horsemen, 1200 Tibetan warriors and a few Chinese soldiers to organise a punitive expedition into the Gangetic plains.
The reason more often is not geography, but the fact that value systems in the neighborhood are the same. Canad-US; UK-France-Germany don't go to war because they believe in the same fundamentals in life.
India-Pak/China will be in conflict because our values systems are different. Fundamental flaw in his analysis.
Into this happy state of mutual misunderstanding straggled Wang Xuance on his way back from his rebuff in India. The rout of an embassy from the Son of Heaven, not to mention the Heavenly Qaghan, could not go unavenged. Wang Xuance demanded troops for a retaliatory attack on India and the Tibetans obliged. It was thus a joint Sino-Tibetan force that in 649, probably by way of the Chumbi pass between Sikkim and Nepal, crossed the Great Himalaya and inflicted heavy defeat on Harsha’s successors. ‘Thereupon’, says the standard Tang history, ‘India was overawed.’
Elsewhere it is recorded that Wang Xuance brought back as prisoner to Chang’an the man who had supposedly usurped Harsha’s throne. A statue of ‘this contumacious Indian’ was erected among the many in front of Tang Taizong’s tomb and ‘so [the Indian] found lasting fame—but as a trophy and an emblem’. Needless to say, Indian tradition is blissfully ignorant of all this. The Sino-Tibetan incursion probably affected only a corner of Bengal and had no known repercussions. Though a Chinese assault on Indian territory had been shown to be feasible, it would not be repeated until the 1960s. [John Keay/China - A History pp243-244]
Google search.With the growth of close relations between Nepal and Tibet, Nepal became well known to China as well. In 648-49, during the reign of Narendradeva, son of Udayadeva II, who is believed to have succeeded his father to the kingship in 643, with the help of Tibet, the Nepalese and Tibetan forces combined to avenge an insult offered by a chief of Tirhut (Tirabhukti) to an embassy from China, led by [Wang Xuance] and proceeding to Harsha’s court. This chief of Tirhut is described incorrectly in Chinese accounts as the usurper of Harsha’s throne. [Ram Rahul/Making of Modern Nepal International Studies 16:1]
The reason why India did not pay heed to Sardar Patel is because we didn't have enough people to rally behind Dharma, then and now too. INC rallied behind Western concepts of Socialist Marxism. We never had a rallying force for Dharma in it's entirety. That would have got heart to defend fellow Dharmics under onslaught. In no way India would have endorsed Chinese takeover of Tibet. We ended standing up for nothing. And fell for anything. Patel himself was aware that China was not India's neighbor till 52. Many in India still are not.Had India heeded Sardar Patel's advice in 1950 we would not perhaps been in this state of feeling surrounded by China in our backyard and the prospect today that Pakistan could become China's Somalia instead of its Israel is no consolation to India.
BEIJING —
A top Chinese diplomat on Monday rejected linking Iran's nuclear program to trade, adding to tensions with Washington on the eve of a visit by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to seek support for sanctions on Tehran's oil industry.A deputy foreign minister, Cui Tiankai, said China's trade with Iran, an important oil supplier, has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear program.Washington is pressuring Tehran to abandon what Western governments say is an effort to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions approved by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve would bar financial institutions that deal with Iran's central bank from the U.S. market."The normal trade relations and energy cooperation between China and Iran have nothing to do with the nuclear issue," Cui told reporters. "We should not mix issues with different natures, and China's legitimate concerns and demands should be respected."China's fast-growing economy is the world's biggest energy consumer and obtained about 11 percent of its oil imports from Iran last year. Industry analysts say Beijing is unlikely to support an oil embargo against Iran because such huge imports would be next to impossible to obtain from other sources.The sanctions have led to a clash of interests between Washington and key commercial and strategic partners in Asia.South Korea and Japan also depend on Iranian oil and are negotiating with Washington in an effort to keep supplies flowing. South Korea obtains up to 10 percent of its oil from Iran, while Japan gets nearly 9 percent.
The dispute threatens to add to irritants in U.S.-Chinese ties, which are strained by disputes over market access and pressure on Beijing to ease currency controls that Washington complains are swelling its trade surplus."We feel strongly that all countries including China ought to be looking hard at how we can reduce dependence on Iranian oil as a way to send a signal to that government that it needs to come back under compliance with its international obligations," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told a news briefing in Washington.Cui, one of the top officials in charge of relations with Washington, said Beijing supports nuclear nonproliferation efforts but believes Iran is entitled to develop peaceful atomic energy.He rejected suggestions that anyone who does business with Iran is providing money for nuclear programs.
"According to this logic, if the Iranians have enough money to feed their population, then they have the ability to develop nuclear programs. If that is the case, should we also deny Iran the opportunity to feed its population?" he said."We believe the livelihood of the Iranian people and the normal economic ties between countries in the world and Iran should not be affected
That is why it is important that the only thing for which China can use Pakistan is to help it keep some control over the Uyghur militants from Xinjiang operating from FATA and Afghanistan. Pakistan should be kept busy with this issue, so that it cannot be used against India. Also Pakistan needs to be kept unstable, so that Pakistani Army does not have the option of waging any war against India in concert with China.SSridhar wrote:Jhujar wrote: General Ashfaq Kayani: vital to the Sino-Pak nexusThe above must be interpreted not only in terms of the evolving situation within Pakistan but also in the light of the recently concluded ASEAN meeting, East Asia Summit and the naval facility that the US has opened in Australia. The long-duration meeting between the Army Chief of a country with one of the most powerful persons on this planet is truly unusual. China knows which side of the bread is buttered and is talking directly to the PA as the US has been doing since the 50s. China has been pushed back in ASEAN & East Asia Summit. Its principle of only talking bilaterally with the nations of South China Sea and West Philippine Sea had to be swallowed hard and Wen Jia Bao had to assure of China's peaceful intentions etc. in South China Sea. The strong trilateral convergence of India, Japan and the US as well as the surging strategic collaboration between India and Japan are all matters of grave concern for Beijing. China has few friends in the region today and increasingly a strong alliance against it is under formation. China needs PA strongly on its side. A sense of 1950s deja vu for the PA with China replacing the US.As the guest of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), General Kayani would normally have had little to do with China’s chief executive except for a brief courtesy call and a photo op. The extended exchange of views bearing practically on all the important aspects of the Pak-China relationship was exceptional and a real show of importance attaching personally to General Kayani.. . . Such unqualified assurances of help and support are normally extended to heads of state and governments rather than to visiting army chiefs.. . . Such an extended exchange of sentiments and notes between a premier and a visiting army chief is certainly out of the ordinary. Premier Wen Jiabao spoke at length of the “complex and evolving regional and global situation” stressing the need for “closer and strengthened coordination” between the two countries. General Kayani for his part assured the Chinese premier of ‘unswervingly’ boosting cooperation with China and ‘firmly’ supporting China’s effort to maintain its ‘core interests’.The Chinese premier expressed his appreciation of the ‘important contribution’ the Pakistan armed forces had made towards boosting China-Pakistan ‘strategic cooperation and partnership’ . . . General Kayani also spent a busy time with the deputy Chief of General Staff General Liang Guanglie on a wide rage of subjects pertaining to bilateral defence cooperation issues.
Planning, planning, planning. What about execution ??? The works that they are outlining should have been finished atleast 5 years ago. We still don't have a all weather link between Leh-Manali-Chandigarh. Or consider the fact that Kargil-Dalhousie-Chandigarh road link is still a dream. The second would give us a route deep into Kashmir, away from the arterillery and guns of both PA and PLA. The less said about the north-east the better. And Sikkim is even worse.shyamd wrote:Govt plans 11 tunnels on Pak, China bordersDipak K Dash, TNN Jan 6, 2012, 01.28AM IST
Tags:
Pakistan and China borders|Networks
On November 26, an Indian delegation landed in Iran on a hush-hush visit to hold discussions on a 900-km railway project that will traverse through Afghanistan and end at Iran's Chah Bahar port. The team of top diplomats, railway and shipping officials was there to examine the project's feasibility. A day after, the Afghan Government has picked an Indian consortium for the $10 billion (Rs.50,000 crore) project to tap the iron ore deposits in the Hajigak region. In addition to the railway line, an Indo-Iranian effort will upgrade Chah Bahar port, quadrupling its cargo capacity to 8 million tonnes.
The project will give India access to Asia's largest iron ore deposits in Afghanistan's Bamiyan province, bypassing Pakistan. The US Geological Survey says Afghanistan sits atop at least $1 trillion in mineral wealth concentrated in Wardak and Bamiyan provinces. Copper deposits at Aynak are already being developed by the Chinese and Hajigak's iron ore mines could enter production by 2016.
The consortium, led by Steel Authority of India Limited, includes National Mineral Development Corpo-ration Limited, the largest iron ore miner in the country, as well as private sector steel companies. The blocks B, C and D for which the Indian consortium has won rights have iron ore reserves of 1.3 billion tonnes. The deal surpasses the $4 billion contract signed by China for copper four years ago.
Beyond the scramble for mineral wealth, the railway line is part of a strategic story unfolding in the region. The Chinese started work on Gwadar port in Pakistan in March 2002, four months after the US ordered its troops into Afghanistan to oust the Taliban. The village lies in Pakistan's Balochistan province. "The port project set off alarm bells in India which already feels encircled by China on three sides: Myanmar, Tibet, and Pakistan. To counter Sino-Pak collaboration, India has brought Afghanistan and Iran into an economic and strategic alliance," says Tarique Niazi of the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, who specialises in resource-based conflicts. While India plans to develop Chah Bahar port as a counter to Gwadar, Afghanistan, a land-locked country, will get access to the sea, cutting dependence on Pakistan. An internal Ministry of External Affairs note emphasises the project's importance. "Given the rich mineral resources of Afghanistan, the bid acquires great importance."
M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former career diplomat who served in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Moscow, argues that the project is predicated on a broad strategic understanding with Iran. "What is needed is the requisite political will to deeply engage Iran in a major regional project in defiance of the US 'containment' strategy," he says. "I prefer to keep my fingers crossed, given the massive erosion that took place in the last five-six years in the bilateral understanding with Iran on the one side and the pronounced inclination to harmonise our policies with the US regional strategies on the other. Needless to say, Israel will be seething, too, if India actually goes ahead with this project," he adds.
Uyghurs have already made dera in Massa land , Poaqs can do nothing substansive to help Chinese who must know that even indians have the cpapabilty to build relation with Uyghirs and co-ordinate their activites with soon to be active Tibet Liberation Front havinf few thousands members trained along with some of the best Special Forces in the free world . From 2016-2017 onward , Chinese will be retreating back to their own Khudd before they loose all in trying to save their half and Poaqy Calf sucking on them.RajeshA wrote:[That is why it is important that the only thing for which China can use Pakistan is to help it keep some control over the Uyghur militants from Xinjiang operating from FATA and Afghanistan. Pakistan should be kept busy with this issue, so that it cannot be used against India. Also Pakistan needs to be kept unstable, so that Pakistani Army does not have the option of waging any war against India in concert with China.Pakistan needs to be kept tied up and bottled up with its problems.
China's Nightmare, America's Dream: India as the next Global PowerFormer U.S. diplomat William H. Avery said, in a book titled “China’s Nightmare, America’s Dream: India as the Next Global Power” that India must pressure Sri Lanka to kick out the Chinese and become a kind of vassal state.
BIO: For the past two decades Will Avery has been advising some of the world’s most
successful companies on corporate strategy, performance improvement, international
trade and mergers and acquisitions.
Will has consulted to a variety of companies from closely held private entities to large,
listed multinationals with revenues in excess of $30 billion. Within M&A, Will has advised
both buyers and sellers on complex cross-border deals, including corporate divestitures,
private equity leveraged buyouts and secondary management buyouts. His client work
has covered engagements in the United States, South America, Australia, Asia and most
European countries.
Will also served in the United States diplomatic service as an Economic Officer. His work
included trade development and commercial advocacy at American Embassies in
Denmark, India and Sri Lanka. He is a three-time recipient of the State Department’s
Meritorious Honor Award. Will also writes and comments frequently on international trade
and foreign policy.
Will was born and raised in Pennsylvania. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree, summa cum
laude, from Princeton University and was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Vienna.
NEW DELHI, Jan 9, Agencies:
The ambassadors of the two countries endorse secure ties
Ahead of their boundary talks next week, India and China on Monday rejected an “adversarial relationship” amid recent irritants and called for greater all-round cooperation to scale up strategic trust that will enable them to shape the evolving international order.
In a bid to keep sensitive bilateral ties on an even keel, China’s Ambassador to India Zhang Yan acknowledged that there are “differences and challenges left over by history,” alluding to the decades-old boundary dispute, but pitched for greater trust and cooperation to resolve these issues.
Without naming anyone, the Chinese envoy said that “some are trying to create a wedge between the two countries but asserted that they will not succeed”.
The cooperation between India and China will benefit each other and the confrontation will hurt us, Zhang said.
Despite prophecies with evil intentions, India-China relations will take their own course and go where their national interests lie, the envoy said.
Underlining the need for “equilibrium” in relations between India and China, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon pitched for a closer collaborative relationship so that the “potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation is limited.”
“It is in our mutual interest to work together, bilaterally and with other partners, to reduce uncertainty and create an international environment that is supportive to our domestic transformation efforts,” Menon said, speaking at a function organised by the Chinese embassy to celebrate an exhibition on the India-China Year of Exchanges in 2011.
“Relations between India and China and their new equilibrium hold an important key to the emerging economic and strategic landscape of Asia and, to a certain extent, the world,” Menon said.
“There is enough space for both India and China to realise their development aspirations,” he stressed.
“It ignores the successful experience and demonstrated expertise of both governments in managing differences and building on commonalities for over three decades and particularly since the Rajiv Gandhi visit to China in 1988,” he said.
“The issue is whether we can continue to manage the elements of competition within an agreed strategic framework which permits both of us to pursue our core interests. I see no reason why that should not be so,” he asserted.
Menon stressed that India and China will have “key roles to play in forging a new compact for common and collective security for Asia.”
abhishek_sharma wrote:Will China threat last beyond 2 yrs? Finance stalls military expansion
JAMMU: A top Army Commander on Sunday said he sees no threat from China and there is no reason for any alarm as the situation along the Sino-Indian border in Ladakh sector is calm.
"The situation remains calm (along the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh sector). There is no threat from China," General Officer Commanding-In-Chief, Northern Command, Lt Gen K T Parnaik, said.
....
....
What we have on the LAC is transgressions. There are transgressions which have taken place in 2011, which have followed the routine pattern of previous years with some minor changes," Lt Gen Parnaik said.
"The confidence-building measures are in place. Hence, the situation is very much under control," he said adding Army and ITBP personnel were carrying out surveillance along the border.
India to raise Arunachal ethnic issue with ChinaShishir Gupta, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, January 16, 2012
Email to Author
Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee has assured army chief General VK Singh that fiscal go-ahead for creation of a new strike corps based at Pannagarh and bolstering up of defence along the 4,057 kilometre Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China will soon be accorded so that the vital matter is
taken up for approval by the Cabinet Committee for Security (CCS).
Mukherjee gave this verbal commitment when General Singh called on the finance minister after his return from Myanmar on January 9, and requested him for speedy expedition of the force and weapon accretion process so that orders could be issued for recruitment and raising two more divisions for proposed Pannagarh Corps.
Singh has met Mukherjee thrice on this issue and has written at least once to the Finance Ministry after the latter raised sundry questions on the Indian Army's threat assessment on China owing to significant financial implications involved.
Defence minister AK Antony on his part is confident that the matter would be taken up by the CCS in 2011-2012 financial year and the fiscal impact would be spread over next five years.
While China has resurrected a lean and mean PLA machine with world class infrastructure along the LAC, India is still struggling to improve its road infrastructure and force capability.
However, the Indian Army is struggling for the UPA government support to raise Pannagarh Corps, two armoured brigades in Sikkim (near Nathu La) and Ladakh (Chusul), and an additional infantry brigade in Barahoti plains in the middle sector.
The latest objections have been raised by deputy national security advisor Lt Gen (Retd) Prakash Menon, who has suggested that force accretion and resources should be equally distributed among the three services rather than only focus on the Army.
Gen Menon is learnt to be partial to India enhancing its naval capabilities to tackle China as the latter has in fact reduced number of troops in Tibet by using rapid deployment formations and has beefed up PLA Navy.
The Indian Army, on its part, has made it amply clear that it need force accretion as threat potential of a border flare-up with PLA is omnipresent till the boundary is finally demarcated by the two nations.
Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi January 16, 2012, 0:10 IST
Ads by Google
LACOSTE® Christmas Sales : Get up to 50% off online now! In the LACOSTE Christmas Sales
Lacoste.com/Sale
India and China will hold the 15th round of their talks on the boundary question over the next two days, two months after these were cancelled by Beijing. At the talks, national security adviser Shiv Shanker Menon is expected to raise the issue of China’s sensitivity to Arunanchal Pradesh with his counterpart, state councilor Dai Bingguo.
According to highly placed government sources, the Indian side will point out that the ethnic origins of Indians travelling to China should not come in the way of a rapidly improving relationship, especially in the context of Arunachal Pradesh.
A sources told Business Standard: “We are discussing the entire boundary question with China, from the contested Aksai Chin sector in Jammu & Kashmir in the north to Arunachal Pradesh, especially Tawang district, in the east. The negotiations are ongoing. We will explain to the Chinese that there is no need for them to be so sensitive to people who hail from areas that are disputed, such as Arunachal Pradesh.
“Such setbacks and controversies do not behove the remarkable progress in relations between Asia’s largest powers.”
India’s decision to raise the issue of Arunachal Pradesh comes in the wake of it sacrificing an IAF officer, Group Captain Mohonto Panging, from a tri-services delegation visit to China around 10 days ago. The IAF officer, posted in Jorhat, hails from Arunachal Pradesh.
The ministry of defence had at the time asked the ministry of external affairs to clear a 30-member delegation to China, but allegedly failed to inform the MEA that one of the officers was of Arunachali origin. When the Chinese failed to clear Group Captain Panging’s visa, on the grounds that he hailed from a territory that was contested between India and China, India was forced to prune the delegation to half. Group Captain Panging was also dropped from the China visit.
India’s gesture of accommodation to China came at a considerable loss of face, admitted government sources. But they pointed out that India could not afford to take the risk of China cancelling the boundary talks with India again.
In November 2011, Beijing cancelled the talks between Menon and Dai on the grounds that Dai was going to be present in Delhi at the same time the Dalai Lama would be inaugurating a Buddhist conference in the capital.
Having assuaged China’s ruffled feathers, Delhi is expected to make full use of Dai’s visit to get a sense of China’s vision of the world, especially South Asia. Premier Wen Jiabao has just concluded a flying visit to Nepal – en route to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – where he announced a one-time special grant of $20 million, besides a promised grant assistance of approximately $100 million over three years.
Clearly, as China continues its relentless rise to become a world power, India’s attitude towards its powerful neighbour has also undergone a change. Delhi’s confidence at sustaining seven per cent growth this year is tempered by the fact that the $67-billion trade basket with China is heavily weighted against India.
Moreover, most of the goods in India’s basket consists of primary commodities such as iron ore, while China’s much more diversified basket includes everything from power-generation equipment to soft toys.
Both Menon and Dai sought to set the stage for the conduct of the bilateral relationship for 2012 with speeches at the Chinese embassy in Delhi and the Indian embassy in Beijing, respectively, over the last 10 days.
Both countries had intentionally arranged to have their senior diplomats make these speeches at the other country’s embassy so as to remove public apprehension around the growing ugliness of their recent spats. Indian officials said China agreed that it was as much in its interest not to rock the boat with India and contain emerging differences.
Menon said in his Chinese embassy speech there was “no denying” that the boundary question was a “difficult issue,” but that a number of mechanisms had been put in place to ensure the border stayed peaceful in the interim.
“On the settlement itself, we are in the second stage of the three stage process of agreeing principles, a framework and finally a boundary line,” Menon said. India had in fact taken a leaf out of China’s book, in its emphasis of a “peaceful periphery, a stable and benign world environment and continued prosperity among our economic partners, which are of utmost importance to both of us,” he said.
Interestingly, some “vocal experts in our two countries” believed that India and China were bound to be strategic adversaries, but Menon found “such determinism misplaced.” India is already one of China’s most important markets for project exports, with a cumulative value of contracted projects at $53.5 billion and turnover realized at $24.6 billion.
“What is less noticed is the range of contact between our two societies. For instance, over 7,000 Indian students are studying in China today. This scale of interaction never occurred before in history,” he added.
In Beijing last week, at the inauguration of the new Indian embassy, Dai returned the compliment. He pointed out that he had been present at the inauguration of all three premises of the Indian embassy in China, from 1950 onwards.
“Looking ahead, China-India relations will be increasingly important for our two countries, the region and the world. We must follow the call of our times for peace and development bearing in minds the interest of the Chinese and Indian people and our overall relations,” Dai said.
“…. Certainly we have our share of challenges. A settlement of boundary question still awaits us…. We must remain continuously sensitive to mutual concerns.”
Some interesting information from the above articleSurasena wrote:An interview of the learned scholar shrI Lokeshchandra son of AchArya raghuvIra about China and Chinese culture: http://t.co/LewM3fZg
If India wants to become a superpower she has to invoke the deeper values of history and culture as an inspiration for a glorious future, in line with the Confucian values in China. We must understand how China has molded the past, present and future in a unitary discourse. While Sino-centrism has aggressive implications, it definitely infuses a sense pride and excellence in the Chinese people. The Chinese perception of the Central Kingdom versus Barbarians has been their preoccupation for going beyond other nations. Indian curricula on China focus on political and economic dimensions, which are highly important, but we need to look at their psycho-sphere that elevates them to heights.
Chinese have introduced the teaching of Confucian classics and T’ang poetry in their school curricula. Despite undergoing massive modernization and studying English in a big way, their curricula induces the new generation to feel proud to belong to a great Confucian tradition. Self-confidence and self-esteem comes from Confucius. The Chinese government emphasizes it and it is going to spend 20 billion dollars for establishing 200 Confucius Centers in China and around the world.
The Chinese have a strong sense of self-image in contradistinction to the counter-image of Barbarians. Do we have a counter-image of the Chinese?
The Chinese are self-centered. They read foreign books rarely. Their libraries have few books in the English language. They concentrate on research in their own language that reflects a strong national identity and encourages widespread creativity. A group of experts needs to study how the Chinese achieved excellence and global standards in a short span of time. Chinese perceptions are formed by Confucian ideas and they are predominantly Sino-centric. China’s friendship with India will depend on our military and economic strength. We have to be super-strong in every respect. A Chinese journalist once said that India is a soft country; and Hinduism is a soft religion and they do not appreciate softness. He said that the South Chinese tie a living monkey to a stool, hammer his brain and eat it without cooking. He implied a lot in this short statement.
The evolution of China Studies in the Indian context will have to take into account our national priorities in terms of competition and confrontation.The Chinese Railways are coming to Kathmandu, which will change the regional geopolitical scenario and may heighten tensions. The Chinese are creating their future on the Han concepts of international relations. In ancient times the Chinese emperor sent Chang Chien to find out about Central Asia. He opened the world of Central Asia to China. He travelled as far as Bactria, whence he took Indian music, which became the 28 martial tunes of Chinese armies in the Han period.[/b] We have shared so many centuries with China in arts and culture. To have friendly relations with China, we have to be strong politically, diplomatically, economically and intellectually. The political will of China is Confucius in modern manifestation. Neo-Confucianism is conditioning contemporary developments.
The current Indian writing on China does not focus on the content of our relationship with China in the future and how we should plan for it in diplomacy and at the civil society level. China is staking its claim on Arunachal Pradesh and we need to elaborate the historical ties of this Pradesh with the mainland to counter Chinese claims.We need more detailed research on India China relations. Confucian thought conditions the East Asian and South East Asian countries. We should have a political will and perception of the future grounded in history. Our understanding of classical China is important from the cultural point of view because it has a large Buddhist population, and there are many monasteries.We must establish close relations with the Chinese Buddhists. They are friendly towards India, though they don’t have a political voice. We can invite the monks of the Shaolin Monastery to teach martial arts. The Buddhist population in China can help
to maintain friendly cultural relations. Chinese Buddhists are poor; their poverty does not allow them to visit the Buddhist sites in India. Bilateral initiatives should promote Buddhist pilgrimage at the governmental and civil society level. We can invite Buddhist poets, writers, monks and experts of martial arts. Chinese are turning towards Christianity, because their main attraction is the United States. They are going to the US for jobs and to them the United States is a vast area, which the Chinese can populate. In the long run, it may work out to be a demographic dominance of the United States. When Huntington went to the University of Osaka, Japan he asked the Japanese: why don’t you use English in your country. The Japanese responded: if we start using English we will be ruling the United States one day. The Chinese migration to the United States in large numbers may have a similar meaning
In the early 1950s the relations between the two countries were exceptionally cordial. However with the passage of time, the classical Han perceptions of international relations turned this cordiality into hostility in 1962.
By the time this column appears in print, the 15th round of talks between the Special Representatives (SRs) of India and China, Shivshankar Menon and Dai Bingguo, is likely to have concluded on an expectedly positive and forward-looking note. The much awaited bilateral mechanism at the Joint Secretary level, to deal with any border incidents, is being put in place. This was proposed during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India in December 2010.
Substantive progress on the comprehensive resolution of the border issue was not anticipated, but over the past several rounds these talks have invariably covered a whole range of regional and global issues as well. They have provided a platform for the two sides to exchange perspectives on such issues. This is important precisely because the two countries are emerging powers, whose respective strategic profiles are expanding and intersecting at multiple points — particularly in Asia. These intersecting points can become either new areas of cooperation or, conversely, additional areas of confrontation and even conflict. The SR-level talks help, therefore, in managing a rapidly evolving and complex relationship.
What is noteworthy is that both sides seem to have decided to take a step back from their recently somewhat tense and even prickly encounters, draw a deep breath and reset relations towards a more positive course. Both governments made an unusually well-orchestrated effort to create a congenial ambience for the talks, despite a clear awareness that the boundary issue is likely to remain unresolved in the foreseeable future. The Indian and Chinese SRs used Embassy events, in Delhi and Beijing respectively, to deliver speeches evenly matched in friendly sentiments. Dai Bingguo went one step further, penning an article in the Indian daily The Hindu on the eve of his visit, to pledge everlasting friendship and a “golden age” in India-China relations.
What explains this somewhat unexpected turn of events?
One, on the Chinese side, there is concern that its more assertive posture of the past couple of years has triggered a rapid and continuing build-up of countervailing coalitions in the strategic Indo-Pacific theatre, in which the US has taken the lead with its “pivot” into Asia. While the Kuomintang’s victory in Taiwan’s recent elections may have brought some relief to an anxious China, this is counterbalanced by the death of Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, which left his untested heir holding the reins of power. Preventing the still loose and essentially hedging coalitions from congealing into more open containment of China is an important objective. A more friendly and benign approach to India, which could be a significant “swing state” in this as yet fluid landscape, would serve this objective.
Two, the Chinese are concerned about negative developments in two key allied countries, one to the west of India and the other to the east — Pakistan and Myanmar, respectively. The deepening political and economic crisis in Pakistan and the deepening loss of control by the Pakistan Army and the ISI – including over Jihadi elements that are feeding unrest among Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province – mean that a mainstay of China’s proxy containment of India is becoming problematic. The rising tensions between Pakistan and the US add to these worries.
On the other flank, China cannot but be nervous about the rapid political changes in Myanmar, which, at the very least, threaten to dilute China’s 20-year pre-eminence in that country. From a potential pressure point on India from the east, Myanmar could well turn out to be a pressure point on China from the south. Add to this the continuing unrest in Tibet, spawned by a growing number of self-immolations by Tibetan monks, and it is easy to see that in a year of sensitive leadership transition, caution, prudence and risk avoidance must be the watchwords for China’s foreign policy.
Three, both India and China face a difficult economic situation domestically, which may be further exacerbated by the possible collapse of the euro zone, an energy crisis brought about by continuing political turmoil in the Arab world, and the possibility of an armed conflict involving Iran. While India may find itself in a more favourable position vis-à-vis China geopolitically, it is like China, constrained by a worsening global economic situation and an incipient energy crisis for these reasons.
These two factors do provide a point of convergence between the two countries and a possible platform for coordinated diplomacy. The forthcoming Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit, to be held in Delhi in March, could help mobilise the most important emerging economies and Russia towards averting an Iran-related crisis. Dai Bingguo and Shivshankar Menon may well be playing the friendship flute together with an eye on the summit as well.
Last, but not the least, is the rising political uncertainly in both countries. In China, there is the pre-arranged passing of the baton from the current generation of leaders to a new set of younger, though experienced, technocrats. This will be a collective leadership — but, precisely for that reason, it may find it difficult to deal with new and unfamiliar challenges both at home and abroad.
In India, political uncertainty is mostly self-inflicted. There is a real danger that if and when multiple economic and energy crises do erupt, the ship of state may not have a united, capable and strong captain and crew to lead it to safety. A risk-averse polity can at best welcome the relief provided by a more preoccupied China. It is unable to leverage this to significantly expand its own strategic space. A pity indeed.
A day after beginning talks on the boundary question, India and China on Tuesday agreed to set up a working mechanism on border management to deal with important affairs related to maintaining peace and tranquillity in the border areas.