Managing Chinese Threat

[SSridhar]

While we are talking about the uncouth, coincidentally, here is a news item reported today.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-china-tu ... 16385.html

I see no component of any charm offensive in the conduct of the Chinese contingent at the Shangri-La annual conference, from what I read. The Chinese have once again asserted that South China Sea belonged to them and their naval presence was therefore within their territorial waters even if they were threateningly close to Philippine or Malaysian coast at times. This smacks of the same attitude of claiming brazenly patrolling within their own territory at Depsang even after a 19-Km intrusion.

[shyamd]

Good news
Antony visit to Thailand, Oz may put China at unease

Rahul Singh, Hindustan Times New Delhi, May 30, 2013

Defence minister AK Antony will visit Singapore, Australia, and Thailand next week, close on the heels of a four-day tour of the Prime Minister to Japan and Thailand that has triggered unease in Beijing.


Antony’s visits to bolster defence ties with these countries is likely to cause further discomfort to China, which has always been suspicious of growing strategic relations between India and countries in the Indo-pacific region, experts said.

Antony will be the first Indian defence minister to visit Australia. China has in the past has flagged concerns about India roping Australia into bilateral naval exercises with the US.

The experts said China would be closely monitoring India’s deepened diplomatic engagement with these countries, especially in the backdrop of the recent border tensions in eastern Ladakh.

“India was earlier cautious in engaging Japan and Australia. The Chinese must realise that India’s motivation to press the accelerator in the Indo-Pacific region has enhanced,” said strategic affairs expert Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak (retd).

Government sources said India’s diplomatic initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region should not be seen as a means to contain China, but a “natural play in the larger strategic neighbourhood.” “This urgency should have been showed earlier to find more play to pursue strategic, economic and military interests in the Indo-Pacific region,” Kak added.

[Shanmukh]

I think we are reading too much into interested reconstructions of Mongol history. I am not sure where people got the "ill-mannered" characteristics of The mongols. Before adopting Islam towards the middle of the 13th, they were primarily followers of various branches of Central Asian Buddhism, with a strong component still remaining till today of Tibetan Buddhist influence all the way up to the eastern shores of the Baikal. Are we saying Buddhists taught them to be "uncouth/ill-mannered"?

Ehh - I thought they were mostly Tengri until the middle of the 13th century. Afterwards, they adopted the religions of their subjects, Islam in the Golden Horde and the Il-Khanate, and Buddhism in China. I have never read that they were Buddhists before the middle of the fourteenth century. Do you have any references that says that they were Buddhists before?

Some of Mongol narratives of the period are available, for example the so-called chingiz diaries, which show a great deal of sophistication in social interactions, and they had their own "manners", not at all dubbable "uncouth". A lot of Mongol uncouthness that we hear about comes from Persian, Arabic, and Chinese sources - who had an interest in showing the Mongols as uncivilized barbarians.

I was referring to their `uncouthness' in only one aspect. Their apparent inability to accept the independence of their neighbours. This is particularly true after the death of Chinghiz Khan. Vietnam, Japan, Poland, and Java had done precious little to upset the interests of the Mongols. But they still had no compunction about invading them, even with no causus belli. This, by the way, is something that the Chinese also demonstrate - their extreme unwillingness to see someone unwilling to bow to the might of the Chinese.

As for the other aspects of the Mongols, I am actually an admirer of their tolerance. Zoroastrianism actually made a partial recovery under Abaqa and might well have been revived in Persia, if the Il-Khanate had remained Tengri and in power for another two centuries.

On the other hand, the myth of organizational superiority and un-defeatability - is a bit of a stretch. The height of Mongol power lasted roughly for 150 years. Even within that the period of "one empire" was only the lifetime of Chingiz. The Mongols broke up into regional principalities immediately after his death, and Kublai's dominance of China ended with hi sdeath. The Mongols were chased out soon after - from China. Kublai failed in his attempts to conquer Japan, the Mongols failed to take Vietnam and were devastatingly crushed there. Mongols came into India - after a long interlud eof Persian mixing, Islamization, and Afghanification. Their remnants - as part of the "Golden horde" - in the khanate of Astrakhan were wiped off by Dmitry.

Mongol superiority lasted only for about 50 years or so - from 1205 (the creation of Chinghiz Khan, from Temujin) to the death of Mongke Khan and the battle of Ain Jalut (1257). Their later efforts were less about their armies, and more about the armies of their subjects. The armies that invaded Vietnam, or Japan were the armies of their Chinese subjects, and less their own armies (the armies which invaded Russia or the Middle East). Their main problem was the amount of manpower that they themselves could field.

There were no "Mongol" organization techniques that left any lasting impact on any state formation processes, or society, or the army. The way they failed to take care of successiond isputes should be ample proof that they had not developed any profound "organization" techniques. The innovation of mounted archers did not belong onlee to Mongols, and the use of gunpowder based projectile weapons were also not their innovation - the primary reasons for their apparent success.

While I confess to know very little about Mongol administration, their army organisation, particularly in the first fifty years (from 1205 to 1257) was a marvel. They practised a corps system (very similar to what Napoleon would accomplish in the 18th century) with each corps having its own resources, logistics and objectives, their army was organised in decimal system, with the command of each unit, from the smallest to the largest, being assigned on merit, their staff work before the invasions was amazing (both the invasions of the Khwarazim state, and the twin invasions of Poland and Hungary (about which we have any real information) show staff work including logistics, intelligence and communications done to a degree of which any modern army might be proud), and finally, their conscription which allowed them to mobilise their entire might for any war.

The main Mongol failure was their inability to come up with a model that harnessed their non nomadic subjects power properly, in support of their ambitions. If they had done that, they might have unified Asia.

[Paul]

The armies that invaded Vietnam, or Japan were the armies of their Chinese subjects, and less their own armies (the armies which invaded Russia or the Middle East).

Include Burma in this....Burma actuallymade a transition from India to China after the invasion.

[Shanmukh]

The armies that invaded Vietnam, or Japan were the armies of their Chinese subjects, and less their own armies (the armies which invaded Russia or the Middle East).

Include Burma in this....Burma actuallymade a transition from India to China after the invasion.

Agree with this, Paul-ji. In fact, we can even add Yunnan and Guizhou (Kingdom of Tali) in this list. Even that was colonised by the Chinese after the Mongol invasion of the state. The Kingdom of Tali was a very Indianised kingdom before the Mongol conquest, according to many historical sources.

[Lalmohan]

the mongol 'administrative' model was to replicate the chinese and persian models in their captured domains

[Prem]

Time to Stop Feeding the Tiger?
Pat the Rat Buccha Non

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 18664.html

In 1812, we declared war on Britain, tried to invade Canada and got our Capitol burned. In 1818, Andrew Jackson, on an expedition into Spanish Florida to put down renegade Indians harassing Georgia, hanged two British subjects he had captured, creating a firestorm in Britain.In 1838, we came close to war over Canada's border with Maine; in 1846, over Canada's border with the Oregon Territory.After the Civil War, Fenians conducted forays into Canada to start a U.S.-British battle that might bring Ireland's independence. In 1895, we clashed over the border between Venezuela and British Guiana.War was avoided on each occasion, save 1812. Yet all carried the possibility of military conflict between the world's rising power and its reigning power. Observing the pugnacity of 21st-century China, there appear to be parallels with the aggressiveness of 19th-century America.China is now quarreling with India over borders. Beijing claims as her national territory the entire South and East China seas and all the islands, reefs and resources therein, dismissing the claims of half a dozen neighbors.Beijing has bullied Japan and the Philippines and told the U.S. Navy to stay out of the Yellow Sea and Taiwan Strait.In dealing with America, China has begun to exhibit an attitude that is at times contemptuous.Yet the "international community" has been tolerating this activity for years.
No one wants a war with China, and provocative though it is, China's conduct does not justify a war that would be a calamity for both nations. But China's behavior demands a reappraisal of our China policy over the past 20 years.Consider what we have done for China. We granted her Most Favored Nation trade status, brought her into the World Trade Organization, threw open the world's largest market to Chinese goods, encouraged U.S. companies to site plants there and allowed China to run trillions of dollars in trade surpluses at our expense.In 2012, China's trade surplus with the United States was over $300 billion, largest in history between any two nations.What has China done with the wealth accumulated from those trade surpluses with the United States? How has she shown her gratitude?She has used that wealth to lock up resources in Third World countries, build a world-class military, confront America's friends in neighboring seas, engage in cyber-espionage, and thieve our national and corporate secrets. Is this the behavior of friends or partners?And if the Chinese airily dismiss our protests, who can blame them?f they have concluded we are more fearful of a confrontation than they, are they wrong? Other than fear or cowardice, what other explanation is there for our failure to stand up to China, when its behavior has been so egregious and insulting?
Does America fear facing down China because a political and economic collision with Beijing would entail an admission by the United States that our vision of a world of democratic nations all engaged in peaceful free trade under a rules-based regime was a willful act of self-delusion?What China is about is as old as the history of man. She is a rising ethno-national state doing what such powers have always done: put their own interests ahead of all others, suppress ethnic minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs, and crush religious dissenters like Christians and Falun Gong.There is no New World Order. Never was. The old demons -- chauvinism and ethno-nationalism -- are not ancient history. They are not extinct. They are with us forever. And America is not going to be able to deny reality much longer or put off facing up to what China is all about.Given her current size and disposition, one day soon we are going to have to stop feeding the tiger. And start sanctioning it.

[SSridhar]

China ramps up maritime strategy around US territory - Business Line

China’s People’s Liberation Army is ramping up the maritime strategy by holding naval operations within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around the United States in an apparent bid to challenge America’s Asia-Pivot push.

Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of US forces in the Pacific, told the Shangri-La Dialogue, a high-level defence forum in Singapore, that PLA navy had started “reciprocating” US navy’s tactics of sending ships and aircraft into the 200-nautical-mile zone off China’s coast.

China’s experts on the international law of the sea said the move suggested a significant change in China’s maritime strategy and development policy, while others apprehend that it could lead to direct confrontation.

It is assumed that the PLA Navy is getting active near the Pacific island of Guam, an important outpost for the US military in the Western Pacific, as the waters around Hawaii and along the West Coast of the United States are still too distant for operations by the PLA Navy, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported.

Zhao Yadan, a maritime expert with Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, said that it was a significant development in China’s maritime policy and suggested that “Beijing is moving towards international norms”.

“That says that Beijing is accepting the international norms, which emphasise the right of free navigation on the high seas,” the Post quoted him as saying.

Ni Lexiong, director of the university’s Institute of Maritime Strategy and National Defence Policy, said it reflected Chinese leaders’ “changing concept of maritime affairs following the rapid development of China’s maritime industry and rising strength of its naval force in the past decade”.

China and the US have struggled to agree on rules for operating on high seas amid rising tensions across the region as China’s military strength grows.

In the past month, Japan has detected three foreign submarines near the Okinawa Islands.

Japanese officials say they know the nationality of the vessels and have made diplomatic representations to that government, the Post report said.

Beijing has long complained about US warships exercising their right of passage through China’s EEZ. The decision to exercise the same right in America’s backyard is an indication to Washington that Beijing now has the capability to do so.

A professor of international relations at Tokyo’s Meiji University, Go Ito, said China’s position was hypocritical because it thought of its 200 nautical mile EEZ as its “exclusive political zone and its territory“.

He said Japan had been watching the PLA Navy carefully for some time and he believed China would use its submarines to expand the scope of its activities in the Pacific.

“The potential for a confrontation is serious,” he said.

Qi Jianguo, deputy chief of general staff of the PLA, told the Shangrila dialogue forum two days ago that China is committed to work for sustained peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region but at the same would remain steadfast in safeguarding its core national interests.

[SSridhar]

X-posting the below from India-Oz thread, for obvious reasons and linkages.

India-Australia to strengthen defence ties - ToI

India and Australia have decided to implement a slew of defence cooperation initiatives to further strengthen the strategic partnership between the two countries, which range from stepped up military exchanges and regular defence dialogues to maritime security and a joint naval combat exercise in 2015.

This came after defence minister A K Antony held extensive talks with his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith in Perth and Canberra on June 4 and 5.

"The two ministers acknowledged the deepening bilateral strategic and defence cooperation. They agreed to continue to contribute to the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region and to promote cooperation in the Indian Ocean region (IOR)," said an official.

Though both countries are wary of China's expanding military might and its growing naval forays into the IOR, they are opposed to any multi-lateral strategic construct or axis in the Asia-Pacific which might be seen as a move to contain Beijing.

But in the backdrop of China's increasing assertiveness in the contentious South China Sea, where Beijing is locked in escalating maritime territorial disputes with its neighbours, India and Australia emphasised that mariritime security and freedom of navigation in accordance with principles of international law is critical for the growth and prosperity of the Asia Pacific and IOR.

In a joint statement issued after the Antony-Smith talks, the two countries agreed on six points to promote bilateral defence cooperation. One, to continue to have regular bilateral defence ministers' meetings. Two, to promote exchanges between the defence establishments and the armed forces of both sides, including through the regular conduct of the Defence Policy Dialogue, Armed Forces Staff Talks and professional military exchanges.

Three, to continue ongoing bilateral naval exchanges to build confidence and familiarity between the navies and work towards a bilateral maritime exercise in 2015. Four, to continue to cooperate in the Asia-Pacific region bilaterally and through various multilateral fora, including the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum and ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus. Five, to enhance IOR cooperation, including through the framework and priorities of the IONS (Indian Ocean Naval Symposium) and the IOR-ARC. And six, to promote the sharing and exchange of professional knowledge and experiences through participation in training courses in each other's military training institutions. Antony also accepted Smith's invitation for the participation of Indian warships' in the International Fleet Review to be held in Sydney in October 2013.

The two ministers noted that both the countries are already cooperating through the IONS, which Australia will chair next year, along with hosting the IONS conclave of chiefs in Perth in March 2014, and the IOR-ARC of which India is currently chair and Australia the next chair. Earlier, speaking at a reception hosted for him at Perth, Antony said the defence cooperation between India and Australia has increased substantially in the last few years.

"India values its strategic partnership with Australia and is committed to further strengthening the bilateral relations in various areas including defence,'' he said.

Referring to the IOR, Antony said it was critical to India's maritime interests. The security of shipping along with sea-lanes is of vital interest to us,'' he said. Smith, in turn, said the 2013 Australian Defence White Paper outlines the profound strategic changes'' that are occurring as economic, strategic and military weight shifts to our part of the world'', the Indo-Pacific region. India and Australia have a shared interest in helping to address these strategic changes, including through defence collaboration,'' he said.

[SSridhar]

India Prime target of Chinese cyberespionage: Kaspersky - Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu

India has been a prime target of a Chinese cyber-espionage campaign that has been active for at least eight years, according to Russia’s leading IT security provider.

A report released by the Kaspersky Global Research and Analysis Lab said an ongoing hacking attack dubbed “NetTraveler” has hit hundreds of victims in 40 countries since 2005 or 2004, “with the highest number in Mongolia, India and Russia”.

The “medium-sized threat actor group from China”, estimated to comprise about 50 individuals has attacked government agencies, embassies, universities, research centres and oil and gas companies and military contractors, as well as Tibetan activists.

The group has focused on stealing data on space research, nanotechnology, energy production, nuclear power, laser technology, medicine and communications.

The Lab described NetTraveler as “a malicious data exfiltration tool” that takes advantage of old flaws in Microsoft Office to delivery spear-phishing emails.

“Although these vulnerabilities have been patched by Microsoft, they remain effective and are among the most exploited in targeted attacks,” said the Kaspersky Lab, which is best known for uncovering Flame and Stuxnet spyware, which targeted Iran’s nuclear programme.

Kaspersky discovered more than 22 GB of stolen data on the malware’s several command-and-control (C&C) servers, which is a small fraction of the total haul since the rest of it had been downloaded by the hackers and deleted from the servers.

“Taking into account that several other C&C servers exist for which we have no logs… we estimate the total number of victims worldwide to be around 1,000,” Kaspersky said.

Kaspersky has promised to release more information on victims to “selected parties, including local authorities of victim countries”.

[SSridhar]

India is an example of how *not* to manage the Chinese threat.

Assertive China, Apologetic India - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line

During the past month, China inflicted a national humiliation on India by intruding 19 km across what has been the traditional border between Ladakh and Tibet since the 17th century. It not only forced India to pull back from its own territory in the Daulat Beg Oldi sector, but also to dismantle Defence structures in the Chumar sector.

Moreover, apart from violating all past agreements on the Ladakh-Tibet border, China’s territorial claims also violate the provisions of the Wen Jiabao-Manmohan Singh Agreement of 2005 Agreement on the Guiding Principles for a border settlement which state: “The (Sino-Indian) boundary should be along well defined and easily identifiable geographical features, to be mutually agreed upon”. India’s claims, based on historical data, also fulfil the provisions of the 2005 Agreement as they set the western borders up to the Indus River Watershed, with the Karakoram mountains forming the natural boundary.After being militarily humiliated, India chose to subject itself to diplomatic ridicule in the Joint Statement issued after the visit of the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. While the Joint Statement paid lip service to the 2005 Guiding Principles, there was no mention of the need for defining the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in accordance with these guiding principles.

Unless we insist on China furnishing its version of LAC, the Chinese will continue to stall and obfuscate, while placing our forces in an untenable position along the borders, with India meekly agreeing to pull down any defences the Chinese demand. Worse still, India agreed to accept some ridiculous and one-sided provisions which are clearly detrimental to its national interests. The most astonishing provision of the Joint Statement was the sentence: “The two sides are committed to taking a positive view and support each other’s friendship with other countries”. This, in effect, was an endorsement of Chinese policies of “low cost containment” of India.

Sino-Pakistani relations

Over the past three decades, China has provided Pakistan designs for its nuclear weapon, allowed the latter to use of its territory in 1990 for testing nuclear weapons, upgraded Pakistan’s enrichment centrifuges, provided unsafeguarded plutonium production and reprocessing facilities, China is also Pakistan’s largest arms supplier, providing equipment ranging from JF-17 fighters and T-90 tanks to modern frigates. General Musharraf had made it clear just after the visit of then Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji that the Gwadar Port being built with Chinese assistance would be made available to China if there were tensions with India.

Moreover, does our ill-advised backing of the nature of Sino-Pakistani collusion not suggest an endorsement of Chinese growing presence in PoK and the northern areas of Gilgit-Baltistan?

As the Chinese Government’s mouthpiece, the Global Times mockingly observed: “India must accept and adapt to the enviable friendship between China and Pakistan. China cannot scale down this partnership merely because of India’s feelings”!Virtually, every South Asian leader choosing to challenge India — ranging from President Waheed in Maldives to Begum Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh and Prachanda in Nepal — has received a warm welcome at the highest levels in Beijing. Moreover, China is bent on blocking India’s entry to forums like the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.

Freedom of navigation

Worse still, India grandiosely agreed to support a Chinese role in the Gulf of Aden, without getting similar Chinese endorsement for its maritime and energy interests in the South China Sea, most notably for its exploration projects in the Phu Khanh Basin off the coast of Vietnam. Interestingly, while commissioning the first Squadron of Carrier based MiG 29 aircraft on May 13, Defence Minster A. K. Antony asserted that there should be freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, adding that while India is not a Party to disputes there, it believes that these disputes should be settled according to the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).

Sadly, such clarity on Indian interests is not evident in other parts of South Block. Moreover, Antony believes that there can be no “miracles” in the development of India-China relations and has no intention of either taking up residence in Beijing.

New Delhi has to understand that appeasement of an assertive China is a recipe for global and regional marginalisation. On river waters, India is well placed to work with lower riparian states in the Mekong Basin and, indeed, internationally, to isolate China on its refusal to engage in prior consultations on projects on the Brahmaputra River.

It is time policy-makers mustered the courage to speak on the South China Sea and issues having a bearing on national security, particularly in forums like the East Asia Summit, instead of appearing apologetic, weak and vacillating. The statements made and cooperation envisaged when the Prime Minister visited Japan are a good beginning.

[SSridhar]

China unveils South Asia trade push with backing from India's neighbours - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

As Communist Party of China (CPC) Politburo member Ma Kai on Thursday announced the start of a new chapter in China’s economic engagement with South Asia, he held aloft the arm of Sri Lankan Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne, flanked by leaders from Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Maldives.

Conspicuous by their absence was any representative from India, which has looked on with some ambivalence as its neighbours have appeared to eagerly lend their support to an expanded Chinese economic presence in the region.

On Thursday, China launched its first-ever South Asia Exposition, an event described by Mr. Ma, who is also a Vice-Premier, as an attempt to deepen China’s economic ties in the region. The expo is an upgraded version of a commodities fair that Kunming hosts every year, signalling the Central government’s backing to an event it had earlier largely ignored.

Officials in the provincial government of Yunnan — a green, mountainous border province southeast of Tibet and bounded by Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam — say that China’s attempts to engage with South Asia economically have trailed behind other border-driven efforts. For instance, Xinjiang has received significant Central assistance to boost links with Central Asia, while Guangxi had led plans to push ties with Southeast Asia.

While Yunnan officials say they believed Beijing had earlier moved slowly due to Indian sensitivities, this no longer appears to be the case. {There can be only two reasosn for this: either China feels that India has joined the camp to contain it and it must therefore drop all its facade vis-a-vis India or it feels that India is too submissive and therefore it can be arm-twisted}

Larger “blueprint”

Mr. Ma on Thursday said the launch of the expo was tied to a larger “blueprint” unveiled by the new leadership to boost development in border regions. China, he said, would follow up the event by taking forward plans to increase regional connectivity.

He said Premier Li Keqiang’s proposals, made during his recent visits to India and Pakistan, to accelerate long-discussed plans to build a Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) economic corridor and a Xinjiang-Pakistan corridor underscored this intent.

Yunnan government officials told The Hindu that they saw the reference to the BCIM corridor in the joint statement issued after Mr. Li’s visit as a reflection of signs of a new willingness from India to look past security and strategic considerations.

“We’ve backed this plan for a decade, but until last year, India would not send a government-level representative to BCIM meetings,” the official said.

“Now we see a change, which we hope can push things forward”.

India declined to send a high-level representative to Thursday’s event. While China had requested the presence of a ministerial delegate, India decided that the event that was essentially a commodities and retail fair — regardless of the new billing China had accorded it — did not merit such a level of participation.

Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce Asit Tripathi was the sole official representative at the event, although 100 Indian exhibitors — many of whom were earlier participants in the annual commodities fair — were present.

India’s neighbours appeared more enthused about the event. Mr. Jayaratne said the government under Mahinda Rajapaksa backed a greater Chinese economic presence in the region, while Nepal Vice-President Parmanand Jha detailed plans to build a special economic zone along the border with China and courted Chinese investment in hydropower projects.

Gowher Rizvi, an adviser to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, voiced his government’s support for road and rail links between Kunming, Yangon in Myanmar and the strategically significant port at Chittagong.

He said Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina planned to attend the fair, but was unable to be present owing to the unveiling of the national budget in Dhaka on Thursday.

Perhaps the biggest endorsement came from the Maldives. Ahmed Saleem, current Secretary-General of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), announced at the opening ceremony that a special session of the standing committee of SAARC foreign secretaries would be held later this year to debate on expanding the role of observer countries such as China.

Another attendee from the Maldives, Permanent Secretary Hassan Shifau, said the island nation was currently preparing a paper to make a case for a revised role for observer countries, with China having declared its willingness to step up investments.

“We need to rethink our model of cooperation with observers,” he said. “For instance, India is now investing in Asean,” he said adding that China could do likewise in South Asia. “For SAARC, it is a great opportunity to have an economic powerhouse extend economic cooperation,” he said. “So it makes me wonder why we haven’t taken this opportunity.”

This is China's economic string of pearls to supplement its security string of pearls. China is also undermining India's position within the SAARC. The Maldives is now completely under Chinese control and anti-Indian.

[SSridhar]

IN Indian Ocean, threat is from the US, not China: Gayoom - Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who ruled the Maldives for 30 years and is today a sprightly 76-year-old, feels that it is the U.S. rather than China that could upset the balance of power in the Indian Ocean by seeking to set up a base in his nation.

“I am not happy. I didn’t want that to happen,” he said, reacting to reports of the U.S. and the Maldives discussing a Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) that envisages a foothold for American forces in the heart of the Indian Ocean.

“There are no such moves from China,” Mr. Gayoom said, when he was asked about reports from think tanks from Australia to Europe predicting a Chinese Navy presence now that Beijing has opened an embassy in the Maldives.

The leaked draft SOFA being discussed by Male and Washington “incorporates the principal provisions and necessary authorisations for the temporary presence and activities of the U.S. forces in the Republic of Maldives and, in the specific situations indicated herein, the presence and activities of United States contractors in the Maldives.”

Acknowledging that the discussion had taken place, the U.S. embassy in Colombo has, however, clarified that there are no immediate plans for a permanent military base in the Maldives. “SOFAs are normal practice wherever the U.S. cooperates closely with a country’s national security forces. SOFAs generally establish the framework under which the U.S. personnel operate in a country when supporting security-related activities and the United States is currently party to more than 100 agreements that may be considered a SOFA,” it said.

Mr. Gayoom appreciated the role played by India, third major player in the region. “I am happy with India’s role in my 30 years of presidency. There is no threat from the Indian side. I appreciate what it has done in the social and economic sectors,” he said in an exclusive interview to The Hindu on the last day of his three-day visit during which he met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid.

But on cancellation of the GMR-led consortium’s contract for modernising and running the airport at Male — the biggest single-ticket FDI proposal in the Maldives — Mr. Gayoom blamed Muhammad Nasheed, former President who had defeated Mr. Gayoom in the archipelago’s first multiparty polls in 2008.

The multibillion-dollar contract was scrapped by Mr. Nasheed’s successor, Mohammad Waheed Hasan. But Mr. Gayoom says it was Mr. Nasheed who inked the deal without taking Parliament into confidence.

“This was a mistake. Had he consulted all political parties, the public would not have formed the impression that corruption had taken place. Then we told the next President Mr. Waheed that he should hold discussions with the GMR Group and the Indian government to arrive at an acceptable solution, after which the government was free to act on its own. Unfortunately, this was not done and suddenly there was this unhappy ending.”

But he declined to predict what a happy ending would look like on the grounds that case was up for arbitration.

As for the presidential elections, Mr. Gayoom once entertained thoughts of Mr. Waheed joining hands with his Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM). That did not happen and it is now a three-horse race, likely to be held in September. Besides Mr. Gayoom’s brother Yameen Abdulla and Mr. Nasheed, Mr. Waheed has thrown his hat into the ring. That could complicate matters for the PPM, which has Cabinet Ministers in the government and which till late last year entertained thoughts of the incumbent President becoming a force multiplier by supporting Mr. Abdulla.

[Philip]

One has to admire the Chinese and their relentless "soldier ant" march across the globe,in every sphere of activity.Just list a few of China;s gambits today.A new canal in Nicaragua to rival the Panama Canal. The South Asian gambit described above,similar to what China did a few years ago with the leaders of Africa.Throw money around on the ground and watch the greedy stoop!
The many espionage activities,where a list of top US mil-tech has been compromised.It's driving economic strategy,to become the world's largest manufacturer ,flooding the globe with cheap goods-like solar panels where Chinese manufacturers make more panels that are required by the global market,sending foreign manufacturers to the wall. This is devastating the capabilities of both developed and developing nations.Just one illustration is given below,how Chinese telecom cos. are inflitrating western nations,despite umpteen warnings from western intel agencies. In fact,every Chinese national travelling abroad has to be considered as a spy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 48418.html

MPs’ alarm at Chinese giant’s power over UK phone networks
George Osborne bats away national security fears over Huawei with call for more Chinese investment

Urgent measures are needed to counter the national security threat posed by Chinese firms’ involvement in Britain’s telecommunications, an influential group of MPs has warned.

The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) expressed “shock” at how the multinational giant Huawei, started by a former member of Beijing’s armed forces, established a huge presence in the UK. Officials failed to tell ministers about the underlying deal with BT for more than a year.

The committee spoke of the grave danger of national security being traded for financial gain and warned that “a lack of clarity” concerning procedures means that “national security issues [risk] being overlooked.”

But a reminder of the power of Chinese money in an ailing economy came within hours of the report’s publication, when George Osborne said it was his “personal priority” to boost trade with China and hailed Huawei’s opening of a Reading office.

“Inward investment is critical to generating UK jobs and growth. It is a personal priority of mine to increase trade links between the UK and China and I cannot emphasise enough that the UK is open to Chinese investment,” said the Chancellor.

Huawei is now the world’s second largest telecoms company, with more than 150,000 employees and a turnover of £20bn. Its activities have been repeatedly questioned by official scrutinising authorities in countries such as the US, Australia and India.

The ISC report pointed out that, despite concerns that China exploits vulnerabilities in the Huawei equipment to spy on the UK through the telecoms system, officials chose not to inform ministers about the contract with BT.

The Committee was initially told that this was because officials had concluded that they did not have the powers to block it. The Cabinet Office later admitted that the powers were available but that officials had deemed “the potential trade, financial and diplomatic consequences of using them” to be “too significant”. The report noted that Huawei went on to supply other firms such as O2 and TalkTalk and that “its equipment permeates the UK’s fixed and mobile telecommunications infrastructure”.

The Joint Intelligence Committee, the country’s main intelligence co-ordination centre, has warned that a cyber attack “would be very difficult to detect or prevent and could enable the Chinese to intercept covertly or disrupt traffic passing through Huawei supplied networks”.

Yet the ISC discovered that the unit set up to ensure that Huawei’s activities does not compromise Britain’s safety and secrets was funded and staffed by the company itself.

Although the members of the unit had been security vetted, the MPs called for the Government’s National Security Adviser to carry out a review “as a matter of urgency” and recommended that it is staffed by GCHQ.

The ISC stated “most of the concerns surrounding Huawei relate to its perceived links to the Chinese state; 20 per cent of detected cyber attacks against the UK interests demonstrate levels of sophistication which indicate they are more likely to be state-sponsored... China is suspected of being one of the main perpetrators of State-sponsored attacks. In this context, the alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese state are concerning as they generate suspicion as to whether Huawei’s intentions are strictly commercial or more political.”

The report also noted: “Huawei strenuously denies that it has direct link with the Chinese government or military and it receives no financial support from the Chinese government and that it is 98.6 per cent owned by its employees.” But it maintained: “Nevertheless there is a lack of clarity about its financial structure. Moreover, Huawei’s denial of links to the Chinese state is surprising, given that such links to the state are considered normal in China.”

Profiles: Secretive leadership

Ren Zhengfei, chief executive

The founder of the world’s largest telecoms company Huawei is a former People’s Liberation Army major and the son of two teachers. The 68-year-old spent much of his youth in a remote town in the Guizhou province before graduating from the Chongqing Institute of Civil Engineering and Architecture in 1963. He worked for Shenzhen South Sea Oil before setting up Huawei in 1987.

Mr Ren had never spoken to the media until last month. Huawei came under scrutiny in the US over alleged contacts with the Chinese military and government. He claimed envy of Huawei’s success was behind the allegations.

Domestically, he is seen as the heroic entrepreneur who proved China could compete on the world stage. But elsewhere his company is seen as a “potentially lethal” threat whose technology could be manipulated to steal secrets.

“Huawei has no connection to the cyber-security issues the US has encountered in the past, current and future,” Mr Ren was reported to have said in May.

Cathy Meng, chief financial officer

Like her father, Ren Zhengfei, she had shunned the public eye for almost all of her 40 years but has found her private life the subject of considerable speculation. She made her first public appearance as the CFO of Huawei in January, when observers said Ms Meng’s “easy-going character” could help soften Huawei’s public image.

The mother-of-two attended university and graduated in 1992 before joining Huawei in 1993 as a receptionist. The holder of a masters’ degree in accounting from Huazhong University of Science and Technology and a doctorate from Nankai University in Tianjin, she has a son, 10, and daughter, four, with her husband who does not work in telecommunications.

She has said the only thing that could bring down Huawei would be “internal corruption” but added that its executive directors had taken oaths pledging to maintain high moral standards so “that the fortress won’t be breached from within”.

Sam Masters

PS:Sadly,we have to judge China by its actions not words.It has always cheated on its promises.We cannot depende upon any assurances that its leadership gives us.The so-called "first visit abroad" by Leaky-King,was to judge the Indian mentality before proceeding onwards to Pak to gift them more nuclear proliferation,aid and weaponry.

Though I am ever cautious about India entering into any military bloc to counter China,as time goes by,I feel that an "alignment" with those nations threatened by China has to be made urgently before the situ becomes a critical threat to Asian and regional security. We have to carefully work out a "security architecture" with the West,despite some asinine western adventurism as sen in Iraq,etc., as one our own,Asian and ASEAN powers will face difficulties in evolving a suitable strategy to counter the Chinese.The recent steps to increase our security relationship with Japan and now OZ,is a timely step in the right direction.

[SSridhar]

Taiwan leader urges three-way dialogue on Senkaku resources - Japan Times

Taipei, Tokyo and Beijing should shelve their sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and engage in a three-way dialogue on resource development near the territory, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou said in an interview Thursday regarding the Japan-controlled islets.

“The East China Sea Peace Initiative is not designed for one single party or two, but for three,” Ma said. “A peaceful resolution to the dispute will only benefit us all.”

“We believe the territorial dispute can be shelved and resources can be shared,” he said. “Territorial disputes are hard to tackle, but if a territorial dispute is linked to resources, it may be easier to address.”

In Tokyo later in the day, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga rejected Ma’s call for a three-way dialogue.

“The Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of Japan’s territory. There’s no doubt about that in terms of history and international law,” he told a news conference.

“Japan will not accept such remarks based on Taiwan’s claim,” Suga said, reiterating, “There has been no territorial dispute to be resolved over the Senkakus.”

But he added, “We haven’t changed our stance that Japan will promote concrete cooperation with neighboring countries and regions to ensure peace and security in the East China Sea.”

Tokyo agreed in April with Taipei let Taiwanese fishing boats operate in Japan’s exclusive economic zone around the islets, known as good grounds for tuna. It triggered criticism from China, which had called for cooperation with Taiwan in the territorial dispute.

[RajeshA]

Japan should not entertain Taiwan's suggestion for any 3-way talks on Senkaku. Senkaku is Japanese. Period!

Taiwan is essentially infiltrated by Han Chinese interests.

[wong]

^^^^

LOL Indians. You realize that everyone in Taiwan is racially Han Chinese, right??? It's like 99.9% Han with some aborigines.

[RajeshA]

^^^

Lol Wong. It is not quite as homogeneous as PRC like to put it. Today Han Chinese label is being used inflationarily for every group in China and Taiwan.

But I basically meant Communist Chinese interests.

[wong]

^^^^^

LOL, stop making stuff up and people won't have to call you out on it.

It's 98% Han:

Traditional Chinese
Ethnic groups
98% Han,[3][4]of which
• 70% Hoklo
• 14% Hakka
• 14% Mainlanders
2% Aborigines[c]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan

[RajeshA]

you are the one making stuff up, calling Hoklo as Han Chinese!

[wong]

^^^^

It doesn't get more stupid than this.

[member_23651]

OT old news
Most Hoklo, Hakka have Aboriginal genes, study finds

Eighty-five percent of Hoklo and Hakka people have Aboriginal ancestry, according to a study on the DNA of non-Aboriginal ethnic Taiwanese conducted by Mackay Memorial Hospital's transfusion medical research director Mari Lin (林媽利).
Those 85 percent have strains from both plains and mountain Aboriginal tribes, as well as from Fujian and Guangdong and minor traces of ancestry from the Philippines, Indonesia and other Southeast Asian islands, the study found.

[RajeshA]

AnantS ji,

not OT at all. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We need a lot more genetic studies on the so called "Chinese".

[wong]

^^^^

Getting desperate. Most Americans are also 1/4096th Cherokee Indian too (I'm referring to Red Indians, Not Brown Indians), but they are considered Caucasians of European descent.

[Mahendra]

Are Pakistaneese han too?

[abhik]

If I am not wrong most countries including India do not officially recognize Tiawan. Nor should they as long as Taiwan thinks of themselves as the Republic of China, ie the "real" China. That should be told that they are not a real state hence they can't be a party to any dispute. Show them their place when they get uppity.

[AjayKK]

Are Pakistaneese han too?

Ha(i)n ji !!
Now I understand why Pakistaneese are called Bin Painda ka Lota Chin panda ka Lota. Notice how easily agent Laludin crosses a mountain and becomes Laal Mao Han.

[RajeshA]

^^^^

Getting desperate. Most Americans are also 1/4096th Cherokee Indian too (I'm referring to Red Indians, Not Brown Indians), but they are considered Caucasians of European descent.

Just as Hoklo Taiwanese are a little "Han Chinese" also!

[Mahendra]

Are Pakistaneese han too?

Ha(i)n ji !!
Now I understand why Pakistaneese are called Bin Painda ka Lota Chin panda ka Lota. Notice how easily agent Laludin crosses a mountain and becomes Laal Mao Han.

or Mao Mein Lun

[RajeshA]

Notice how easily agent Laludin crosses a mountain and becomes Laal Mao Han.

[rsingh]

What? Lal Mullah closs da mountain?

[Lalmohan]

who dares disturb my repose in the heavenly tien shan?!?!
prepare to die!

[Prem]

Nya Pakistan

Hanistan videogame lets players attack Japanese forces over island dispute

Hanistan and Japan are deadlocked over control of an island chain in the Indo-Japan Sea, but now a nationalist newspaper is letting gamers decide the issue -- with force.Hanistani newspaper Global Times has launched an Internet game called "Recover the Diaoyu Islands," which lets players control a People's Liberation Army vessel and shoot Japanese ships and planes."The Haniese nation's determination to protect the Diaoyu Islands is unwavering!" the game declares. Victory is achieved when players guide the ship to an island and successfully avoid the Japanese forces.The Diaoyu Islands, which are known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan, were placed in Japan’s control after a post-World War II agreement with the U.S. in 1972.Last year, Japan nationalized ownership of the uninhabited islands -- which used to be privately owned.Since then, Hanistan’s Foreign Ministry has declared sovereignty over the islands, calling it a “core interest,” to claim them for Hanina>

[Christopher Sidor]

Time to Stop Feeding the Tiger?
Pat the Rat Buccha Non

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 18664.html

In 1812, we declared war on Britain, tried to invade Canada and got our Capitol burned. In 1818, Andrew Jackson, on an expedition into Spanish Florida to put down renegade Indians harassing Georgia, hanged two British subjects he had captured, creating a firestorm in Britain.In 1838, we came close to war over Canada's border with Maine; in 1846, over Canada's border with the Oregon Territory.After the Civil War, Fenians conducted forays into Canada to start a U.S.-British battle that might bring Ireland's independence. In 1895, we clashed over the border between Venezuela and British Guiana.War was avoided on each occasion, save 1812. Yet all carried the possibility of military conflict between the world's rising power and its reigning power. Observing the pugnacity of 21st-century China, there appear to be parallels with the aggressiveness of 19th-century America.China is now quarreling with India over borders. Beijing claims as her national territory the entire South and East China seas and all the islands, reefs and resources therein, dismissing the claims of half a dozen neighbors.Beijing has bullied Japan and the Philippines and told the U.S. Navy to stay out of the Yellow Sea and Taiwan Strait.In dealing with America, China has begun to exhibit an attitude that is at times contemptuous.Yet the "international community" has been tolerating this activity for years.

China did this recently and the authour says that they have been "tolerating this activity for years"

Consider what we have done for China. We granted her Most Favored Nation trade status, brought her into the World Trade Organization, threw open the world's largest market to Chinese goods, encouraged U.S. companies to site plants there and allowed China to run trillions of dollars in trade surpluses at our expense. In 2012, China's trade surplus with the United States was over $300 billion, largest in history between any two nations.What has China done with the wealth accumulated from those trade surpluses with the United States? How has she shown her gratitude?

And because of this gratitude, US enjoyed very low inflation for most the time. Further the same dollars which PRC earned were recycled back to buy MBS and other securities. If not for PRC US would have to face inflation twice or thrice what it has historically faced in the last 30 years. So US got a good deal out this gratitude.

She has used that wealth to lock up resources in Third World countries, build a world-class military, confront America's friends in neighboring seas, engage in cyber-espionage, and thieve our national and corporate secrets. Is this the behavior of friends or partners?

No different than US listening to each and every conversation that we carry out either using gmail or black berry messenger or any other service for that matter. And if PRC is locking up resources in Third World she has learnt from a master. Further to feeds its factories it needs these resources. And everybody has a right to build a world-class military. Tomorow if India were to start down the path of PRC and have more than 400 nukes, more than 50 submarines then the same accusation would be thrown at us but with a twist, India is so poor, has so many beggars and so many child prostitutes locked up in brothels of calcutta yet it continues to shower it armed forces.

And if the Chinese airily dismiss our protests, who can blame them?f they have concluded we are more fearful of a confrontation than they, are they wrong? Other than fear or cowardice, what other explanation is there for our failure to stand up to China, when its behavior has been so egregious and insulting?

It is not that PRC is more brave or US is more of a coward. Countries do not go to war for any of the above mentioned reasons.

Does America fear facing down China because a political and economic collision with Beijing would entail an admission by the United States that our vision of a world of democratic nations all engaged in peaceful free trade under a rules-based regime was a willful act of self-delusion?What China is about is as old as the history of man. She is a rising ethno-national state doing what such powers have always done: put their own interests ahead of all others, suppress ethnic minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs, and crush religious dissenters like Christians and Falun Gong.

No different than suppressing occupy wall street minorities. So was US, prior to WW-II where the white anglo-saxon race mixed with protestant faith was the defining feature of US.

There is no New World Order. Never was. The old demons -- chauvinism and ethno-nationalism -- are not ancient history. They are not extinct. They are with us forever. And America is not going to be able to deny reality much longer or put off facing up to what China is all about.Given her current size and disposition, one day soon we are going to have to stop feeding the tiger. And start sanctioning it.

Oh you mean blockade it, just like UK used to do in its imperial past. Or talk about the millions of Iraqi children dead because some medicines were deemed to hazardous, and please do not give us the crap about how Saddam was responsible for that. Or how US is trying to replay the same record again but this time against Iran. Sanction, sheesh, old wine, old bottle old only the label is new. And guess what, which country would be most impacted by a blockade of PRC? Guess which country is the major trading partner of US? Guess which country has the most massive amounts of US securities?

The only problem is that PRC is not following the dictates of Sun Tzu. Or as the Americans would term it, PRC is not being too subtle. If PRC would show some finesse in its dealings, than we would see a different response. Having said that to expect the followers of mao, whose most famous dictum was "power flows from the barrel of a gun", to display some finesse is to expect an elephant to dance as beautiful as a peacock does when he is wooing his beloved peahen.

[SSridhar]

In a first, China details its Indian Ocean Policy - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

China has, for the first time, attempted to spell out its strategy — and plans — to secure its interests in the Indian Ocean in its first “blue book” on the region, released here on Saturday.

The blue book makes a case for China to deepen its economic engagements with the Indian Ocean Region’s (IOR) littoral states, but stresses that Beijing’s interests will be driven by commercial — rather than military — objectives.

However, it warns that the Indian Ocean could end up “as an ocean of conflict and trouble” if countries like India, the U.S. and China failed to engage with one another more constructively as their interests begin to overlap.

In a frank assessment of China’s role in the IOR so far, the book laments that Beijing has trailed behind New Delhi and Washington in securing its interests. The 350-page book’s introduction says candidly that China “has no Indian Ocean strategy,” while India has put forward its own “Look East” policy and the U.S. has put in place its “pivot” or “rebalancing” in Asia.

A translated version of this blue book is needed.

The book calls for China to be more proactive in securing its economic interests in the region. “If [China] cannot have a positive impact on these regional powers and the Indian Ocean littoral states, the future situation will be even more severe, and will affect China’s development and peace negatively,” the book says. “China’s diplomatic strategy in the past has been based on the traditional concept of moderation, and striven to maintain the status quo ,” it argues. “With changes in the relations among countries in the IOR and in the international situation, China’s diplomacy should also change. A clear development strategy in the IOR for China is not only a sign of China’s self-confidence, and also a clear demonstration of China’s strategic interests in the IOR.”

Official Chinese think tanks release “blue books,” which are policy documents that put forward recommendations to the government, on a range of subjects every year. The authors of the book, published by the official Social Sciences Academic Press, say it does not represent the government’s official position. Ambassador Wu Jianmin, a consultant to the project who earlier served as China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, indicated that the book was part of a larger attempt to initiate a much-needed frank dialogue. {Like the Depsang aggression ?}

“We are going through a very important phase in international relations, and the change that we are seeing is unprecedented,” he told The Hindu . “Change generates apprehension, suspicion, even fear. This is a reality that is facing us.”

“To those who say that India ‘looking east’ and China ‘looking west’ will have to lead to rivalry, we have a different perspective,” he said. “We look at the convergence that there is [in this process]. If we only focus on differences, the end result is more suspicions, rivalry and competition. But in India too, you need peace and development. This is the same for China, and for the region.”

“To my understanding,” he added, “the region is facing an unprecedented opportunity for development. My advice is if in India you have doubts about China, we must have a frank conversation, and talk to each other.”

Ambassador Wu and Wang Rong, general secretary of the Yunnan University of Finance and Economics (YUFE) which backed the project, made the point at Saturday’s launch that China’s foreign policy has remained too focused on the West, and needed a shift in perspective.

The book was launched only two days after China opened its first South Asia Exposition, a trade push led by Yunnan and backed by the central government.

The book includes chapters on India’s “Look East” policy, the expansion of India’s interest eastward in an interlinked “Indo-Pacific.” and lessons for China on “the decline of U.S. and U.K. hegemony” in the region.

It predicts that “no single regional power or world power, including the U.S., Russia, China, Australia, India, can control the Indian Ocean by itself in the future world,” leaving “a fragile balance of power” that will be reached after jostling among “big powers.”

While arguing that the region’s security “does not face a serious threat yet,” it warns that “with the escalating defence efforts of world and regional powers, the future of the Indian Ocean region may turn from cooperation and peace into an ‘ocean of conflict and trouble’.”

The book stresses that “the rise of China is not a threat” to the region, though it acknowledges that “Indian Ocean countries, including India, are worried about the rise of China.” It attributes this trend to “the ‘China threat theory’ proposed by Western countries and the illusory ‘string of pearls strategy’,” rather than seek to explain what many of China’s neighbours, from Japan to the Philippines and Vietnam, see as a new assertiveness from Beijing.

[ramana]

If India enables TSP collapse it takes care of China and US threats

[Christopher Sidor]

In a first, China details its Indian Ocean Policy - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

China has, for the first time, attempted to spell out its strategy — and plans — to secure its interests in the Indian Ocean in its first “blue book” on the region, released here on Saturday.

In the next few years, India will be offered a bargain by PRC. PRC will abandon Pakistan, if India were to do the same for Japan and possibly Vietnam. First of all this bargain is one sided, PRC looses very little while we loose a lot. The benefits that India accrues from Japan out way the benefits that PRC accrues from Pakistan. Japan can help us technologically, economically, politically and security wise.
Pakistan can only help PRC in security. Even the so called oil & gas corridor to PRC via Pakistan is a mirage. If this were to be possible, Iran would have suggested a Iran - Pakistan - China pipeline instead of Iran - Pakistan - India pipeline. But that was not done. Also such petroleum corridor will forever remain at the mercy of Indian arms.

Now about Vietnam. If Japan is the northern most link to a future Indian defense wall in the western pacific, Vietnam is logically its southern most link. It is a proud country which has significantly resisted Chinese influence. We have demurred on very important points like transfer of prithvi missiles and other defense related sales to Vietnam. It is critical that we make sure that certain south-east nations like vietnam, thailand, indonesia and singapore have India as one of the most important trading partners. China should not be allowed to dominate the external trade and domestic investment of these 4 countries.

Note that I have left out US in this scheme of things. While India should have a very-very-close relationship with US as far as Western pacific is concerned, it should keep its budding western-pacific alliance out of US influence and guidance.

[Arihant]

Now about Vietnam. If Japan is the northern most link to a future Indian defense wall in the western pacific, Vietnam is logically its southern most link. It is a proud country which has significantly resisted Chinese influence. We have demurred on very important points like transfer of prithvi missiles and other defense related sales to Vietnam. It is critical that we make sure that certain south-east nations like vietnam, thailand, indonesia and singapore have India as one of the most important trading partners. China should not be allowed to dominate the external trade and domestic investment of these 4 countries.

Shouldn't we include Taiwan in the list of SE Asian nations?

[Pratyush]

^^^

Tiwan, should not be considered as an Indian Ally. When it comes to dealing with the Panda. If they declare themselves as an independent nation. Only then Tiwan ought to be treated as an Ally.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^^
Taiwan considers itself as a part of China. It only objects to rule by CPC. If tomorow CPC were to be overthrown and KMT or its offshoot were to take power we would see Taiwan embracing the motherland eagerly. CPC and KMT are opposite sides of the same coin. The infamous 9-dashed line which shows the entire South-China Sea as Chinese lake was created by KMT.

Moreover Taiwan is an american headache. I have no wish in seeing India being dragged into this mess.