Managing Chinese Threat

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Jun 2013 00:09

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanmil ... -alliance/
Japan's New Cybersecurity Strategy - Implications for the Alliance?

( Warfare have gone to new ;level. Indian should explore the opportunity with Japan and ask them to open High tech labor Market)

n June 10, the Japanese government adopted the Cybersecurity Strategy to replace the Information Security Strategy for Protecting the Nation, which was crafted in May 2010 and expires in March 2014. This is the first time for Tokyo to employ the word, “cybersecurity,” in its strategy to deal with information security issues and cyber threats to its national interests. Japan is planning on creating an action plan based on this strategy by the end of June.A series of cyber espionage incidents against the Japanese government and defense industry were revealed recently which has served to elevate the issue of cyber security for Japan. Indeed there have been notable espionage attacks on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the Japanese Diet in 2011.
The Cybersecurity Strategy refers to the survey result regarding the shortage of cybersecurity experts, but focuses on technical expertise only. According to the Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan is short of 80,000 technical experts, whereas the country has about 265,000 experts and 160,000 of them need further education or training. Still, because cyber threats can affect any aspect of human activities, cybersecurity efforts also demand anthropological, defense, geopolitics, legal, linguistic, and technical expertise. This wide variety of skill collaboration calls forcareful selection of trustworthy partners to work together in the academia, government, and industry — most likely not only within Japan but also outside the country. Japan has no domestic anti-virus software manufacturer known in the international market.Japan has interpreted that the constitution does not allow the country to execute the right of collective self-defense. Under the 2nd Shinzo Abe administration, his national security advisory panel started studying if the execution of this right should cover cyberspace. Because attribution is difficult and there is no internationally-agreed definition of “armed attack” or “use of force” in cyberspace, this makes collective self-defense in the domain challenging. Still, Washington is pursuing collective cybersecurity with allies and this may have a symbolic meaning for the alliances to show the strong will to counter cyber threats collaboratively.

member_26147 · Post by **member_26147** » 14 Jun 2013 00:16

Well, deploy IPv6 with IPSec and tunneling all across the defence networks and computers and China can't do anything. All this strategy and grand plans making doesn't make sense when the technology already exists, just needs to be deployed and ipv4 should be phased out as soon as possible.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 14 Jun 2013 00:25

Dhruv sir, all the computer security in the world can't do anything against a top-level individual who's been subverted by the enemy. I'd wager that the bulk of the info that the Chinese scrounge from around the world comes from humint.

wong · Post by **wong** » 14 Jun 2013 01:27

Deleted

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 14 Jun 2013 01:35

Arihant and other knowledgeable folks on this thread, humbly request that you don't get side-tracked by Wong. For my part, I'll hold fire. Hope to learn something from you folks. Wong's just here to hijack the discussion. Use the ignore button if you have to (again, just a humble request).

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Jun 2013 02:24

Suraj saar,

You have warned me for "baiting" a poster, whom you have had to ban! You have even considered his posts as "repeated trolling".

I am not a moderator here. But I created this thread, and as such feel somewhat responsible for the content that goes in here. The poster you banned had been baiting others here and trying to show India as some inferior irrelevant country. Are the others not supposed to answer him?

To be frank, I am a bit surprised at the warning, especially as my response to him was decent.

So for the moment, I'll simply desist from posting on BRF!

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 14 Jun 2013 03:01

Rajesh ji, hope you're not planning to carry out that threat. Now that the troll is gone, hopefully for good, please ignore the warning and continue posting.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Jun 2013 03:02

Mumble Singh mumbles to IFS types. Two takeaways:

1. "The rise of China is a "phenomenon", and budding Indian diplomats must study its chronology, and what goes on in that country."

Hoo boy! 25 years ago India was ahead of PRC and the same GoI sniffed at the futility of the Chinese strategy and proffered advice on import substitution versus exports. Now these bozos are trying to 'study China'. Still has not registered on the radar that the PRC got ahead by doing something not just 'studying'

2. "No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come" (quoting Victor Hugo)

Well, let me say that over the last 66 years, Indian babudom has conclusively proved you can derail any idea, anytime, anywhere and that ideas and time have no correlation in Indian governance. So take that Victor!

A better VH quote might have been: "When God desires to destroy a thing, he entrusts its destruction to the thing itself. Every bad institution of this world ends by suicide."

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china ... s/1128431/

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 14 Jun 2013 03:33

RajeshA: no, you're not obligated or required to respond to him; a post report and keeping the main topic on track without distraction would have sufficed. Particularly, after the previous informal caution you chose to ignore the caution to back off, and continued to bait him. Your warning was therefore earned.

member_26147 · Post by **member_26147** » 14 Jun 2013 06:33

sudarshan wrote:Dhruv sir, all the computer security in the world can't do anything against a top-level individual who's been subverted by the enemy. I'd wager that the bulk of the info that the Chinese scrounge from around the world comes from humint.

sudarshan, the americans and japanese are paranoid about the chinese hacking activity which is why they are spending billions. The solution is there. Obviously, a top level individual if compromised, nothing cannot be done. That is more likely amongst top level babus in corrupt India, not in Japan and United States.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 14 Jun 2013 08:33

Dhruv ji, the Americans are famous for "spending billions" on any given problem. They think that so long as they throw a gob of money at a problem, it will be solved.

That said, I accept that the problem of top-level individuals being corrupted is more severe in India. Tightening computer security protocols is fine, but surely military secrets aren't kept on computers that are hooked up to the internet anyway?

It doesn't have to be a high-level individual. In US universities, even Chinese students are encouraged by their govt. to report back anything and everything. Every time I hear of a security breach involving military secrets (there was one in my company last year, even), it's been traced to China. And this is despite all the emphasis on secluding the company intranets from the external networks.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 16 Jun 2013 00:10

Lalmohan wrote:the best way to deal with a lot of the noise is just to ignore it

This thread has gone so deathly quiet, there is no noise left to ignore....

Yet there is perhaps no thread as critical as this in identifying means to ensure India's survival and the survival of the Indic civilization.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Jun 2013 01:25

true, but most threads soon degenerate into 'come my side i'll show you' panga taking - which gets very tedious; which is why several posters now tend to frequent the threads which are more light hearted and only cursorily cruise through the formerly interesting threads

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jun 2013 01:37

India, Indian Interests, specially civilizational ones are more important than any other Panga/Considration or rule. Onlee rule is if its good for advancing the aboves or not.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 16 Jun 2013 02:33

Jhujar wrote:India, Indian Interests, specially civilizational ones are more important than any other Panga/Considration or rule. Onlee rule is if its good for advancing the aboves or not.

I can see Lalmohan-ji's point, but also Jhujar-ji's position. The only Panga-taking should be with enemy trolls, and then only to shut them down....

In any case, in honour of the many eminent contributors, forum moderators and others who have gone silent, here is another titbit to chew on:
Taiwanese have multiple identities: poll

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jun 2013 14:00

This news is from the respected Tamil daily, Dinamani. Chinese trawlers are being allowed by Sri Lanka to fly Lankan flag and literally fish in troubled waters. If true, which I have no reason to suspect, Sri Lankans are crossing all limits. Strong action is needed against them.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Jun 2013 15:13

^^ Thats a red line event. Last year there was an incident where the IN spotted a trawler anchored off A&N. Then as the IN approached they started moving and were followed all the way to SL. SL intel later told us what was on board - can't remember if it was an intel ship or transporting weapons

---------
New mountain corps to man China border soon

Shishir Gupta, Hindustan Times New Delhi, June 16, 2013

Prior to his China visit in July, defence minister AK Antony has given his nod to the creation of a new mountain strike corps for the China border at Pannagarh and has sent the proposal to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for a formal approval.

The proposal has already been cleared by the finance ministry.

Top government sources said Antony signed the China Strike Corps file after returning from his maiden official trip to Australia and Thailand on June 6.

The proposal spread over the 12th five year plan and costing about Rs. 60,000 crore to the exchequer, involves raising nearly 90,000 new troops and officers. The tri-services proposal has an army element that involves setting up of two infantry divisions, two armoured brigades for Ladakh and Sikkim and one independent infantry brigade for deployment in Uttarakhand.

The Air Force element involves creation of more air assets and deployment of low-level radars along the 3,488 km Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The naval element involves setting up of new radars along India’s island territories and additional sea combatants.

The decision to set up China Strike Corps, which will be headquartered in Pannagarh, West Bengal, was approved in principle by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2010. The approval was made after discovering that China, through vastly upgraded infrastructure in Tibet, had developed the military capability of deploying 34 troop divisions — around half a million troops — along the LAC in a high threat scenario.

Although Antony will discuss the new border defence pact with his Chinese counterpart, India is committed not to allow a repeat of troop face-offs like in Depsang plains in March this year and is continuously upgrading its vigilance along the LAC. “We want to make it clear to China that there is no scope for any military adventure on the border and any escalation will be met with equal response. Thus, there is a need for both sides to maintain peace on the border,” said a senior defence ministry official.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jun 2013 16:59

shyamd wrote:^^ Thats a red line event. Last year there was an incident where the IN spotted a trawler anchored off A&N. Then as the IN approached they started moving and were followed all the way to SL. SL intel later told us what was on board - can't remember if it was an intel ship or transporting weapons

shyamd, that was a Chinese spy ship camouflaged as a fishing trawler. It was picking up crucial Bathymetric data, currents of the Indian Ocean, the temperature at various depths and also very crucially, underwater obstructions and obstacles etc. It was also possibly involved in tracking Indian missile launches or monitoring Indian naval vessel movements on the Eastern seaboard.

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 16 Jun 2013 17:01

That the chinese can deploy heavily across the LAC was know for the past few years to even a brb surfer like me. Was it not known to the babus in the govt? Why action only after "chidiya chug gayi depsang ke khet"? What is the use of the bravado now that there will be response?

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 17 Jun 2013 01:23

Although Antony will discuss the new border defence pact with his Chinese counterpart, India is committed not to allow a repeat of troop face-offs like in Depsang plains in March this year and is continuously upgrading its vigilance along the LAC. “We want to make it clear to China that there is no scope for any military adventure on the border and any escalation will be met with equal response. Thus, there is a need for both sides to maintain peace on the border,” said a senior defence ministry official

The trouble is that even as we incrementally increase vigilance on the LAC, the definition of what constitutes the LAC keeps incrementally changing on us (and, as recent events show, "not necessarily in our favour", to use a famous quote from Hirohito's surrender address in August 1945).

On a different note, it is interesting to see Panagarh back in the thick of things, given the role it played in the 1971 operations (for those of us old enough to remember).

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 17 Jun 2013 18:31

shyamd wrote:^^ Thats a red line event. Last year there was an incident where the IN spotted a trawler anchored off A&N. Then as the IN approached they started moving and were followed all the way to SL. SL intel later told us what was on board - can't remember if it was an intel ship or transporting weapons

---------
New mountain corps to man China border soon
Shishir Gupta, Hindustan Times New Delhi, June 16, 2013

Prior to his China visit in July, defence minister AK Antony has given his nod to the creation of a new mountain strike corps for the China border at Pannagarh and has sent the proposal to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for a formal approval.

The proposal has already been cleared by the finance ministry.

The decision to set up China Strike Corps, which will be headquartered in Pannagarh, West Bengal, was approved in principle by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2010. The approval was made after discovering that China, through vastly upgraded infrastructure in Tibet, had developed the military capability of deploying 34 troop divisions — around half a million troops — along the LAC in a high threat scenario.

Just great. Frigging great. So since 2010, we knew that Chinese could move close to 34 division of troops to LAC and now, 3 years after that we are reading a response? This is a criminal oversight bordering on treason. These guys, the whole CCS, should be hanged. The approval will come by the year end and the corps would be formed in another 1-2 years, if the our legendary governance and ethics of working is anything to go by. So with any luck after 5 years, we would have had a response to the Chinese. And we wonder why we meekly surrendered to the Chinese in the recently McMahon Line Incursions. In the meantime in the next 2 years we can expect PLA/PLAAF to argument its capacity even further, so that by 2015 it is even more further ahead. And our response is moot. 3 years it took us to respond. Jesus what were these guys thinking that Americans would send in the marines?

So as usual the tale remains the same. We are reactive. We have no plan to built a capacity to take the fight to PLA into Tibet, East Turkestan and Central China. And no plans to make the PLA/PLAAF catch up to our capability. Nah we are happy to catch up with their capability.

Why is it that I am among the few who finds our ruling establishment not upto the task and finds it seriously lacking.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 17 Jun 2013 19:20

Arihant wrote:
SSridhar wrote: This is where India makes mistakes. Such contacts should be open, rather then being secretive.
SSridhar, I totally agree.

And in case we still suspected that Taiwanese loyalties lay ultimately with China, the following should be an eye-opener:
Taiwanese independence more popular, survey says

A couple of interesting points re this article:

First, pro-independence sentiment is far stronger in the younger demographic.

Second, many who disapprove of a declaration of independence are driven by fear. Chinese psyops maintain a steady barrage of stories in the media about how they would attack, which suburbs of Taipei the paratroops would land in, how they would carry out a decapitation attack on the government (these latter stories stopped after Ma Ying-Jeou became President).

As I said earlier, many in the Taiwanese establishment (both blue and green) believe that an overt statement of Indian support would make a huge difference.

PLA/PLAAF's domination of taiwan is a recent phenomenon. It picked up after the infamous incident of 1990s when USN had to dispatch carriers around taiwan after PRC fired missiles over the islands. more than a decade after that by 2008 PLA/PLAAF had achieved its superiority. Now only PLAN is the wing which has to catch up. And if indications are any thing to go by, PLAN has its eyes on 5 carriers. With these 5 carriers and its ASBM, which by the way has reached IOC, PLAN would be in a position to deter USN.

Read the above paragraph once again, this is a recently development, about 6-7 years. Prior to that PLA/PLAAF did not have any such capability. Taiwan could have declared independence then. But it did not. In fact ever since 1971 Taiwan could have declared independence, which it did not. That should be an eye opener for all of those who claim that it is the fear of PRC which has somehow kept Taiwan from declaring independence. The facts do not add up.

Another fallacy is the so called ambivalence which Taiwan has towards Tibet. Well first of all it is not Taiwan it is Republic of China. Yes it is China. Not Republic of Taiwan. But Republic of China. RoC, the entity which is known as Taiwan, considers Tibet as a part of China. When RoC ruled over China, prior to the CPC's capture of power, it included a department in its government which dealt with Tibet. Even today RoC believes that is there is one China, and that China has sovereignty over both mainland China, Taiwan, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and the other islands. The issue of difference is that in case of PRC, CPC claims that it is the ruling party of this so-called one-china. While in case of RoC it believes that it is the "legitimate representative of that sovereignty."

So in simple words two entities are not fighting against the one-china policy but rather they are fighting who gets to rule this one-china. They are two different sides of the same coin. The coin does not change, its policies does not, only the one who lords over it changes. And the recent shift towards independence can be explained as a way not to fall into the CPC's orbit. If tomorrow CPC were to be overthrown, expect RoC to make its so called "right full claim" as the sovereign of One-China. Even till date, not one citizen of RoC has said that Tibet and East Turkestan are not a part of China. Even till today the constitution of RoC lists Tibet, East Turkestan and Mongolia as a part of China.

Taiwan is looking towards India with the aim of overthrowing CPC rule over One-China. And once it is established in power, expect it to be as virulent and as hyper-nationalist as the CPC has been.

Consider this the 9-dashed line which the CPC is using to claim the South China Sea as a Chinese pond was a creation of RoC.

This is the reason why there are no takers for RoC's claim to independence. For more than 90 years RoC has claimed that it is rightful ruler of One-China and not CPC. And all of a sudden we are seeing these claims of it being separate.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 17 Jun 2013 19:26

Christopher Sidor wrote:
Arihant wrote:
SSridhar, I totally agree.

And in case we still suspected that Taiwanese loyalties lay ultimately with China, the following should be an eye-opener:
Taiwanese independence more popular, survey says

A couple of interesting points re this article:

First, pro-independence sentiment is far stronger in the younger demographic.

Second, many who disapprove of a declaration of independence are driven by fear. Chinese psyops maintain a steady barrage of stories in the media about how they would attack, which suburbs of Taipei the paratroops would land in, how they would carry out a decapitation attack on the government (these latter stories stopped after Ma Ying-Jeou became President).

As I said earlier, many in the Taiwanese establishment (both blue and green) believe that an overt statement of Indian support would make a huge difference.
PLA/PLAAF's domination of taiwan is a recent phenomenon. It picked up after the infamous incident of 1990s when USN had to dispatch carriers around taiwan after PRC fired missiles over the islands. more than a decade after that by 2008 PLA/PLAAF had achieved its superiority. Now only PLAN is the wing which has to catch up. And if indications are any thing to go by, PLAN has its eyes on 5 carriers. With these 5 carriers and its ASBM, which by the way has reached IOC, PLAN would be in a position to deter USN.

Read the above paragraph once again, this is a recently development, about 6-7 years. Prior to that PLA/PLAAF did not have any such capability. Taiwan could have declared independence then. But it did not. In fact ever since 1971 Taiwan could have declared independence, which it did not. That should be an eye opener for all of those who claim that it is the fear of PRC which has somehow kept Taiwan from declaring independence. The facts do not add up.

Another fallacy is the so called ambivalence which Taiwan has towards Tibet. Well first of all it is not Taiwan it is Republic of China. Yes it is China. Not Republic of Taiwan. But Republic of China. RoC, the entity which is known as Taiwan, considers Tibet as a part of China. When RoC ruled over China, prior to the CPC's capture of power, it included a department in its government which dealt with Tibet. Even today RoC believes that is there is one China, and that China has sovereignty over both mainland China, Taiwan, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and the other islands. The issue of difference is that in case of PRC, CPC claims that it is the ruling party of this so-called one-china. While in case of RoC it believes that it is the "legitimate representative of that sovereignty."

So in simple words two entities are not fighting against the one-china policy but rather they are fighting who gets to rule this one-china. They are two different sides of the same coin. The coin does not change, its policies does not, only the one who lords over it changes. And the recent shift towards independence can be explained as a way not to fall into the CPC's orbit. If tomorrow CPC were to be overthrown, expect RoC to make its so called "right full claim" as the sovereign of One-China. Even till date, not one citizen of RoC has said that Tibet and East Turkestan are not a part of China. Even till today the constitution of RoC lists Tibet, East Turkestan and Mongolia as a part of China.

Taiwan is looking towards India with the aim of overthrowing CPC rule over One-China. And once it is established in power, expect it to be as virulent and as hyper-nationalist as the CPC has been.

Consider this the 9-dashed line which the CPC is using to claim the South China Sea as a Chinese pond was a creation of RoC.

This is the reason why there are no takers for RoC's claim to independence. For more than 90 years RoC has claimed that it is rightful ruler of One-China and not CPC. And all of a sudden we are seeing these claims of it being separate.

You've quite correctly characterized the Taiwan that is synonymous with the KMT. That, sadly, is the legacy of almost 6 decades of KMT rule in Taiwan. Like all totalitarian regimes, the party and state become synonymous.

That, however, is not the reality represented by public opinion in Taiwan, or the "green" side of Taiwanese politics.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 17 Jun 2013 19:51

^^^^
IF the Green Side had a majority, the change could have come sooner. Even then the policy and the approach of RoC/Taiwan towards Tibet and East Turkestan would not be that different as compared to PRC/CPC.

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission - RoC/Taiwan

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commision http://www.mtac.gov.tw/epages.php?lang=5&page=131 wrote: 1929 witnessed the historical moment when in accordance with the Nationalist Government Organizational Law the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission was formed to oversee the administration of Mongolia and Tibet and to promote local development. One of the eight ministries and two commissions under the Executive Yuan, it was equal to a ministry in administrative ranking.

For all of those who claim that they have visited RoC/Taiwan in the recent past and plan to visit it, please ask the following questions to your host
1) Do they support the independence of Tibet and East Turkestan from One-China ? Please note use China and not PRC or CPC rule.
2) Do they view Tibet and East Turkestan as a part of China?
3) What is their stand on the so called 9-dashed line related to South China Sea ?
4) What is about PRC that they dislike? They will tell you it is CPC. Ask them what would be their approach/view if CPC were no longer be in the picture?

It will be an eye opener for many to hear the answers to these questions.

Our problem is the grandiose claims of Chinese sovereignty of both PRC and RoC/Taiwan. Replacing CPC with KMT or somebody from Taiwan will not change that equation. In fact it will aggravate it even further. Just as Hitler was an aggravation over the Communist and Royalist in Weimar Republic, but was perceived initially differently.

Moreover the RoC and PRC conflict is a civil-war relic from the cold-war. We paid a heavy price in getting involved in another civil war, Sri Lanka. Recall IPKF and the role which India played. Let us not repeat this mistake again, this time with different players and that too with a race with which we have very little in common.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 17 Jun 2013 20:17

Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^^
IF the Green Side had a majority, the change could have come sooner. Even then the policy and the approach of RoC/Taiwan towards Tibet and East Turkestan would not be that different as compared to PRC/CPC.

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission - RoC/Taiwan

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commision http://www.mtac.gov.tw/epages.php?lang=5&page=131 wrote: 1929 witnessed the historical moment when in accordance with the Nationalist Government Organizational Law the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission was formed to oversee the administration of Mongolia and Tibet and to promote local development. One of the eight ministries and two commissions under the Executive Yuan, it was equal to a ministry in administrative ranking.
For all of those who claim that they have visited RoC/Taiwan in the recent past and plan to visit it, please ask the following questions to your host
1) Do they support the independence of Tibet and East Turkestan from One-China ? Please note use China and not PRC or CPC rule.
2) Do they view Tibet and East Turkestan as a part of China?
3) What is their stand on the so called 9-dashed line related to South China Sea ?
4) What is about PRC that they dislike? They will tell you it is CPC. Ask them what would be their approach/view if CPC were no longer be in the picture?

It will be an eye opener for many to hear the answers to these questions.

Our problem is the grandiose claims of Chinese sovereignty of both PRC and RoC/Taiwan. Replacing CPC with KMT or somebody from Taiwan will not change that equation. In fact it will aggravate it even further. Just as Hitler was an aggravation over the Communist and Royalist in Weimar Republic, but was perceived initially differently.

Moreover the RoC and PRC conflict is a civil-war relic from the cold-war. We paid a heavy price in getting involved in another civil war, Sri Lanka. Recall IPKF and the role which India played. Let us not repeat this mistake again, this time with different players and that too with a race with which we have very little in common.

Beg to differ, Sidor-ji.

My last visit was 2 weeks back. The answer to those questions would be highly variable. If you look at the traffic on this thread over the last few days, you'll see the polls that show that a Chinese identity is by no means the dominant identity. Also, pro-independence sentiment is very much alive and growing.

The green side would declare independence at the drop of a hat. Trouble is that China and the extreme elements of the KMT wouldn't let them. A very good case study is what happened to the DPP government's efforts to change the names of various state-owned enterprises to replace "China" with "Taiwan".

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 17 Jun 2013 21:05

Pan Green doesn't like the terms Chinese Taipei or Republic of China. Those are both KMT (Pan Blue) terms. PG folks prefer Taiwan. If any of you had PG friends on facekitab, there were online memes during 2012 Olympics criticizing IOC's use of Chinese Taipei for their name there.

KMT carries over some antiquated remnants of the old Sun Yat Sen era ROC, and therefore, for the sake of asserting a claim over mainland territory as defined by their view of post-Qing Dynasty extent of China, they retain the same views on Tibet and other regions. In the real world, their positions are at best laughable.

Even so, if by some magic the CPC were replaced in Beijing with KMT overnight, that would be a MUCH better situation for India. CPC depends on an aggravated form of victimhood driven nationalism, while KMT is much more of an old classical Chinese entity who would appeal to Chinese culture and history, rather than on cultivating 1.5 billion drones.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 18 Jun 2013 17:05

Suraj wrote:Pan Green doesn't like the terms Chinese Taipei or Republic of China. Those are both KMT (Pan Blue) terms. PG folks prefer Taiwan. If any of you had PG friends on facekitab, there were online memes during 2012 Olympics criticizing IOC's use of Chinese Taipei for their name there.

KMT carries over some antiquated remnants of the old Sun Yat Sen era ROC, and therefore, for the sake of asserting a claim over mainland territory as defined by their view of post-Qing Dynasty extent of China, they retain the same views on Tibet and other regions. In the real world, their positions are at best laughable.

Even so, if by some magic the CPC were replaced in Beijing with KMT overnight, that would be a MUCH better situation for India. CPC depends on an aggravated form of victimhood driven nationalism, while KMT is much more of an old classical Chinese entity who would appeal to Chinese culture and history, rather than on cultivating 1.5 billion drones.

Suraj: I agree.

The KMT maintained its antiquated claim after the death of Chiang Kai-Shek mainly because the Chinese (and yes, they were Chinese, and not Taiwanese, born in China or with families that moved from China with Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949) elite that ran the KMT were reluctant to part with tradition. Chiang Ching-Kuo, the son of the original dictator (and generally credited with Taiwan's economic success) was also reluctant to deviate from his father's legacy.

I knew someone who represented a Chinese province in the fictitious "senate" that Chiang Kai-Shek invented to maintain the impression that his was the "real" Republic of China. Until the early 1990s, there was even a separate provincial assembly for Taiwan (recall that in this world view, Taiwan was but a province of the Republic).

Lee Teng-Hui, the first Taiwanese to become President of the Repubic put an end to that. He was bitterly opposed by the Chinese elite in the KMT (there is a very interesting story of how Madame Chiang, the famous Soong Mei-Ling, travelled back to Taiwan from the US to make sure that Lee did not get the Presidency). Note that Lee parted company with the KMT after his Presidency, and now heads a very pro--independence outfit called the TSU.

I agree that the KMT is quite different to the CPC, and does emphasize older Chinese values, that are not that dissimilar to ours. But the KMT was a dictatorial party, and borderline fascist. There are many interesting stories (left for another day) of the reign of terror they unleashed on their arrival in Taiwan in 1945.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 18 Jun 2013 19:28

This still does not change the fact that officially Taipei views itself as a part of One-China, which includes Tibet and East Turkestan. Moreover none of the people residing under the rule of RoC(i.e. Republic of China) have said that Tibet and East Turkestan are not a part of China. Like I said if the majority of people in RoC believe themselves to be separate from One-China then it would already have happened.

Maybe we can use RoC to needle PRC. But more meaningful ally would be Japan and Vietnam. Our PM wasted a fantastic opportunity recently. We should have declared an economic and naval alliance with Japan. But we cant expect this from a PM who took 3 years to respond to the PRC's build-up across the Himalayas.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 18 Jun 2013 20:04

Arihant wrote:
I agree that the KMT is quite different to the CPC, and does emphasize older Chinese values, that are not that dissimilar to ours. But the KMT was a dictatorial party, and borderline fascist. There are many interesting stories (left for another day) of the reign of terror they unleashed on their arrival in Taiwan in 1945.

I have a slightly nuanced view on the issue of values. It is true that the mad chairman Mao, wreaked havoc on Chinese traditions in a manner that no one else did, resulting in the death of millions. However a large part of these were corrected by Deng Xiaoping and subsequent leaders. As a symbol of this course correction stands the statue of Confiscous at Tianemen square, Mao would be certainly rolling in his grave. The CPC and its in-famed penchant for "order" is firmly rooted in Chinese traditions. Their lack of separation of power in their structures has footings in the the age old structures of the all powerful magistrate at district levels of the old replaced by the county level party boss of today. Its ideas of governance is still influenced by its old system "Keju Kaoshi" the imperial service through whom order was maintained. Its "levels" of officials in the CPC is modeled on similar lines.

The quickest way to hurt China is to provide it with "western" style freedoms and democracy. It is a society, supremely ill equipped to manage that level of "chaos" in its society. The 100 years of shame they refer to in their literature, stems from their perceived lack of order at that time. This was the charge against the KMT/RoC, that ended with the establishment of the PRC. Towards this view, India should cooperate with the western world for not only in terms of geo-poltics of the region and military power but also psychological damage, which is the biggest fear of the Chinese. Death of a few million they can handle, not chaos!

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 18 Jun 2013 20:45

Christopher Sidor: Taipei is a proverbial person teetering between two boats - the mainland boat and the independence boat. Their 'official position on the claim over mainland territories' is not worth the paper it is written on. But they have to state it for the purpose asserting their political opposition to CPC and claim over mainland.

They're stuck in a remarkable political logjam where they:
a) Will not be subsumed within PRC under CPC
b) Have a laughable 'official position' regarding RoC as constituting all of mainland, that people stopped respecting in the 1950s.
c) A vigorous pro-independence sentiment that's afraid to assert itself unless it has strong external backing.

In effect, different parts of their official spectrum simultaneously claim the mainland, as well as assert independence from it. The ROC claim is entirely built around the 1949 ROC exile generation who escaped with Chiang to Taiwan. And even those folks, including those who fought with KMT back then (now in their 80s), hold no serious belief that their claim has any hope of happening. It's just words on paper they have to state.

Taiwanese, by the admission of a PG friend, are cowards. They do not want to rock the boat. Other than folks like wong, no one believes the KMT 'official position' nonsense. The Pan Green would be a much stronger political entity if there was outside support for Taiwanese independence. The US continues to vacillate over the matter. Russia doesn't really have a position on them. EU appears to have their lips superglued to Beijing's rear end. India lacks the robust leadership to step away officially from the current position and initiate official ties with them.

Repeatedly pointing out one part of their overall twilight zone political position doesn't really serve our interests in any way. They actively resent New Delhi's lack of courage to build ties with them, and they're hardly about to start a dialogue by stating 'oh yeah, and we believe Tibet is part of Taiwan'. I have at least two Taiwanese acquaintances who maintain imagery of The Dalai Lama in some form at home, and they're both Pan Blue folks. Like I said, reality isn't anywhere as clearcut as 'but their official position is...'

Arihant: it helps to be sure that the sources of the stories about CSK and ROC forces' actions are not the CPC. The 'army of the masses fighting the elitist ROC' line was classic CPC fodder from the civil war era. That's not to say CSK and the ROC were saints, of course, despite what Zhang Yimou would like to claim in his typical anti-Japanese civil war movies.

Deng's actions in bringing back the Confucius statue were somewhat self serving. He wanted to eliminate the remnants of Mao's personality cult, but not replace it with a cult centered around someone else. So he turned back to the person everyone still remembered, despite the best brainwashing efforts of the Red Guards...

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 18 Jun 2013 20:53

Christopher Sidor wrote:This still does not change the fact that officially Taipei views itself as a part of One-China, which includes Tibet and East Turkestan. Moreover none of the people residing under the rule of RoC(i.e. Republic of China) have said that Tibet and East Turkestan are not a part of China. Like I said if the majority of people in RoC believe themselves to be separate from One-China then it would already have happened.

Maybe we can use RoC to needle PRC. But more meaningful ally would be Japan and Vietnam. Our PM wasted a fantastic opportunity recently. We should have declared an economic and naval alliance with Japan. But we cant expect this from a PM who took 3 years to respond to the PRC's build-up across the Himalayas.

I don't think Taiwan considers itself to be part of one China. When the pro-China elements within the KMT suggested that Taiwan adopt a "one China with two different interpretations" view some years back, it raised a storm of protest. If you look at the Taipei Times yesterday, the opposition raised a another storm of protest because they alleged that the Chairman of the KMT conceded a "one China" position on a recent visit to China.

If you look at some of the surveys I posted on this thread over the last week, the majority of those who reside under of the entity nominally called the ROC would like to be independent, i.e., part of a distinct entity called the Republic of Taiwan (or some variant of that name). In other words, they want to have nothing to do with China, and would most emphatically reject the proposition of the Taiwanese nation laying claim on geographically distant entities such as Tibet or East Turkestan.

So yes, I think that Taiwan would make a great ally, and thus far it has been a missed opportunity for us.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 18 Jun 2013 21:00

ShauryaT wrote:
Arihant wrote:
I agree that the KMT is quite different to the CPC, and does emphasize older Chinese values, that are not that dissimilar to ours. But the KMT was a dictatorial party, and borderline fascist. There are many interesting stories (left for another day) of the reign of terror they unleashed on their arrival in Taiwan in 1945.
I have a slightly nuanced view on the issue of values. It is true that the mad chairman Mao, wreaked havoc on Chinese traditions in a manner that no one else did, resulting in the death of millions. However a large part of these were corrected by Deng Xiaoping and subsequent leaders. As a symbol of this course correction stands the statue of Confiscous at Tianemen square, Mao would be certainly rolling in his grave. The CPC and its in-famed penchant for "order" is firmly rooted in Chinese traditions. Their lack of separation of power in their structures has footings in the the age old structures of the all powerful magistrate at district levels of the old replaced by the county level party boss of today. Its ideas of governance is still influenced by its old system "Keju Kaoshi" the imperial service through whom order was maintained. Its "levels" of officials in the CPC is modeled on similar lines.

The quickest way to hurt China is to provide it with "western" style freedoms and democracy. It is a society, supremely ill equipped to manage that level of "chaos" in its society. The 100 years of shame they refer to in their literature, stems from their perceived lack of order at that time. This was the charge against the KMT/RoC, that ended with the establishment of the PRC. Towards this view, India should cooperate with the western world for not only in terms of geo-poltics of the region and military power but also psychological damage, which is the biggest fear of the Chinese. Death of a few million they can handle, not chaos!

That's a good assessment, but the story might be more complex. If you observe the evolution of democracy in Taiwan, then the idea that democracy will lead to Chinese collapse doesn't quite stand. Taiwan is very much a society with Chinese cultural characteristics, albeit reflecting the pre-Mao culture of China. Yet Taiwan today is almost as vibrant a democracy as India. I have been visiting Taiwan for 20 years now, and I have seen the transformation happen, and it is, frankly, a pleasant thing to behold.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 18 Jun 2013 21:14

Suraj wrote:Christopher Sidor: Taipei is a proverbial person teetering between two boats - the mainland boat and the independence boat. Their 'official position on the claim over mainland territories' is not worth the paper it is written on. But they have to state it for the purpose asserting their political opposition to CPC and claim over mainland.

They're stuck in a remarkable political logjam where they:
a) Will not be subsumed within PRC under CPC
b) Have a laughable 'official position' regarding RoC as constituting all of mainland, that people stopped respecting in the 1950s.
c) A vigorous pro-independence sentiment that's afraid to assert itself unless it has strong external backing.

In effect, different parts of their official spectrum simultaneously claim the mainland, as well as assert independence from it. The ROC claim is entirely built around the 1949 ROC exile generation who escaped with Chiang to Taiwan. And even those folks, including those who fought with KMT back then (now in their 80s), hold no serious belief that their claim has any hope of happening. It's just words on paper they have to state.

Taiwanese, by the admission of a PG friend, are cowards. They do not want to rock the boat. Other than folks like wong, no one believes the KMT 'official position' nonsense. The Pan Green would be a much stronger political entity if there was outside support for Taiwanese independence. The US continues to vacillate over the matter. Russia doesn't really have a position on them. EU appears to have their lips superglued to Beijing's rear end. India lacks the robust leadership to step away officially from the current position and initiate official ties with them.

Repeatedly pointing out one part of their overall twilight zone political position doesn't really serve our interests in any way. They actively resent New Delhi's lack of courage to build ties with them, and they're hardly about to start a dialogue by stating 'oh yeah, and we believe Tibet is part of Taiwan'. I have at least two Taiwanese acquaintances who maintain imagery of The Dalai Lama in some form at home, and they're both Pan Blue folks. Like I said, reality isn't anywhere as clearcut as 'but their official position is...'

Arihant: it helps to be sure that the sources of the stories about CSK and ROC forces' actions are not the CPC. The 'army of the masses fighting the elitist ROC' line was classic CPC fodder from the civil war era. That's not to say CSK and the ROC were saints, of course, despite what Zhang Yimou would like to claim in his typical anti-Japanese civil war movies.

Deng's actions in bringing back the Confucius statue were somewhat self serving. He wanted to eliminate the remnants of Mao's personality cult, but not replace it with a cult centered around someone else. So he turned back to the person everyone still remembered, despite the best brainwashing efforts of the Red Guards...

Suraj: I like your assessment.

2 points to note though:

1. In relation to the sources of the stories about CSK and his KMT army's atrocities, they are most certainly not the CPC, but the Taiwanese green movement. The most celebrated massacre was the so called 228 Incident (see: Wikipedia on 228).

2. The Taiwanese do not assert their claim over China (I am reluctant to use the word "mainland") because they need to assert their opposition to the CPC. They assert it because the Chinese oblige them to. Renouncing the ROC's claim over China, and therefore identifying Taiwan as a politically sovereign entity, is a clearly stated Chinese "red line" (and hence, a scenario in which they will attack). It is a master-stroke of Chinese engineering the semantics, such that the status quo becomes a statement of a "one-China" position.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 18 Jun 2013 21:29

Note: All posts related to RajeshA's warning have been moved to the forum feedback thread. Please don't derail this thread further.

Arihant: Both good points. I was referring to incidents on the mainland during the civil war (pre 1945) though. The incidents in Taiwan are certainly more clear cut. The KMT were certainly very authoritarian until after both Chiangs died. That the Pan Green movement even exists and has flourished recently is quite amazing. It shows just how fluid the situation there is, and how neither the KMT's base, nor PRC's influence, is overwhelming.

PS: I should be writing CKS, not CSK. Too much IPL

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 18 Jun 2013 23:40

crosspost:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/0 ... b6lR_m1FPc

Onodera to visit Philippines, Hawaii to discuss China containment steps

In a bid to keep China in check, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera is making final arrangements to visit the Philippines and Hawaii from later this month, a government source said.

During his trip to Manila from June 26 and Hawaii on July 1, Onodera will stress the need to ensure maritime safety based on the rule of law amid China’s growing assertiveness in the East and South China seas, the source said.

In Manila, Onodera plans to discuss with Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin the current tensions in the region and to work out a coordinated response toward China, the source said.

In Hawaii, the defense minister will reconfirm that the Japan-administered but China-claimed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea fall under the scope of the bilateral security treaty with the U.S., which requires American forces to defend Japan in the event of an armed attack.

Onodera is also set to meet with Adm. Samuel Locklear, head of U.S. Pacific Command, to discuss whether the two sides’ missile defense system is sufficient to deal with North Korea, given the recent progress of its missile and nuclear development programs.

Ahead of the July 4 start of the Upper House election campaign, the government hopes to use Onodera’s trip to assure conservatives at home that it is maintaining a hard-line stance on security issues, political analysts said.

Tokyo and Beijing remain at odds over the ownership of the Senkakus, known in China as Diaoyu. Japan denies the existence of any sovereignty dispute, arguing the islets are an inherent part of its territory in terms of history and international law.

China is also involved in a dispute with the Philippines and several other Southeast Asian nations over the sovereignty of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

Both Tokyo and Manila have protested repeated incursions by Chinese vessels in their respective territorial waters near the Senkakus and the Spratlys.

Since taking office in December, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has looked to bolster Japan’s defense ties with Southeast Asian nations, and top Self-Defense Forces officials already have been dispatched to Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, among other destinations.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 18 Jun 2013 23:48

crosspost:

devesh wrote:http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/ ... 05178.html

The India vs. China Border Standoff

A pattern can be deciphered: Gradually trespass into an area of interest over a period of time and set a routine that evades notice and serious attention thus avoiding any significant protest or challenge. Down play protests or apprehensions if any. Exploit unchallenged border encroachments as an opportunity to consolidate position and stake a claim to the area at an appropriate moment through precipitous military coercion and intimidation. On close evaluation this pattern can be discerned in the construction of dams across Brahmaputra.

Territorial interest and positioning

Indications are that China and Pakistan have reached an agreement to lease the Gilgit-Baltistan area to China for 50 years. China, it appears has already positioned 7000 to 11000 PLA soldiers in the Baltistan area who are working to construct the railway line from Gwadar to Xinjiang which runs parallel to the Karakoram Highway. The highway it is believed is being frantically upgraded. Reports of construction of 22 tunnels along the route to establish a gas pipeline from Iran to China are abound. These tunnels can act as a storehouse for missiles. Information relating to construction of huge housing complex in the area and a cemetery at Danyor 10 km across Gilgit river has also surfaced indicating that the Chinese are planning to stay in the area permanently - a clear indication that de facto control of the area has surreptitiously been ceded to China by Pakistan.

With its physical presence in all the four cardinal directions and India being in the South, China's interest clearly is in closing the gaps in the areas bounded by Gilgit - Baltistan in the west, Xinjiang in the North, Aksai Chin in the East and India to its South. That will facilitate free movement within the area. Securing the Karakoram heights along with this action will thwart any threat from India. There lies the Chinese interest in the Saltoro ridge in Siachen.

What are the strategic interests of China in securing the areas under discussion?

Besides providing freedom of movement, logistics and security, the area also provides the much needed buffer between India and the Chinese mainland. The Karakoram Highway which passes through this area connects China and Pakistan. The highway that connects Pakistan to Tibet and Xinjiang is also significant in that it opens up the strategic possibility of an alternative shorter route for uninterrupted energy supplies from the Gulf through Gwadar Port avoiding Afghanistan and the Chinese Muslim majority Uyghur dominated Kashgar area. Importantly, it also guarantees access to Afghanistan and Central Asia where China has invested heavily in energy and copper. In nutshell, with Gwadar port under their control, this area has become the key to China's access to the Arabian sea through Karakoram Highway and their investment opportunities in Afghanistan.

devesh wrote:the above author goes on to recommend some steps for India:
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/ ... 178-3.html

Lessons: Diplomacy and Friendship

Diplomacy especially with China does not work without military power, economic robustness and a strong leadership. The effect of DBO like incidents and the lack of firm response will have very adverse effects on India's influence on its smaller neighbours.

Considering the Chinese military strength, economic prowess and the investments made by them towards the development of infrastructure in the disputed areas, it would not be very easy to recover territory illegally occupied by them. Soft options are therefore unlikely to work.

As a matter of rule, India has adopted a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. However, if the burden of a country's human rights violations falls at its own doorstep as had happened in 1971 in erstwhile Pakistan, India may have no option but to provide moral, material and financial support besides highlighting and promoting the cause of the affected in various international bodies and institutions.

India has sheltered over 120,000 Tibetan refugees. These refugees are in India because their political aspirations and demands have remained unanswered even after 60 years. It may be recalled that China invaded the de facto independent Tibet in 1950 resulting in the incorporation of Tibet as a part of Republic of China. Since then, human rights violations have been perpetrated against the Tibetans to suppress their claims for independence. The number of Tibetan Buddhist self-immolation cases in the recent past stands testimony to the fact. It is time China learns to respect the sensibilities of people.

The unrest in the Uyghur dominated Xinjiang Autonomous region and in the Gilgit-Baltistan areas too open up a number of options for India. Chinese calculations of economic prosperity through Gwadar Port in Baluchistan can be nullified by providing moral, material and financial support to Baluchistan independence movement.

China is India's second-largest trading partner and their combined trade was $50.9 billion in the April-December period, according to Indian government figures, India may have to provide incentives to countries like Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, and other western countries to promote their trade interests in India while restricting entry of Chinese goods and services through various measures.

DBO like incidents will prompt the Indian people to demand that India align with countries which are subjected to similar provocation. India may also have to weigh its options of supporting the US and other countries to limit Chinese influence and hegemony in the region. The US Asia pivot too may need a relook.

While accusing the US of trying to forge anti-China alliances, China should take a close look at its own aggressive show of strength which are forcing countries to go in for countervailing alliances. If indeed such alliances are formed, China cannot blame anyone but itself.

Exchange of maps indicating the perception of LAC on both sides should be expedited. India needs to work out its strategy to force Chinese to accept an equitable and a reasonable solution to the border dispute at an early date, failing which India should not hesitate to work on hard options suggested.

China has a concrete plan of action. they've thought about what they need to secure, why to secure it, and how to secure it. they are thinking in concrete terms of land and resources. they've zeroed-in on the specific land targets that they feel are very essential for their future expansion plans. and they are using the offensive tactics and strategy in going about securing those areas.

against such an opposition, India will have to do similar thinking. sit down and figure out what are the geographical areas where the future will require concrete on-the-ground control and dominance, and go about acquiring it. the measures favored by the author are useless if there is no basic understanding of the importance of land and routes to important areas. the author remains stuck in the paradigm of "border protection" and "keeping enemy out of our borders". this is an extremely defensive mindset which is unlikely to work against an opposition like the Chinese who are executing an offensive plan of action.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 20 Jun 2013 03:26

China has a concrete plan of action. they've thought about what they need to secure, why to secure it, and how to secure it. they are thinking in concrete terms of land and resources. they've zeroed-in on the specific land targets that they feel are very essential for their future expansion plans. and they are using the offensive tactics and strategy in going about securing those areas.

against such an opposition, India will have to do similar thinking. sit down and figure out what are the geographical areas where the future will require concrete on-the-ground control and dominance, and go about acquiring it. the measures favored by the author are useless if there is no basic understanding of the importance of land and routes to important areas. the author remains stuck in the paradigm of "border protection" and "keeping enemy out of our borders". this is an extremely defensive mindset which is unlikely to work against an opposition like the Chinese who are executing an offensive plan of action.

I have been arguing that Taiwan is a missed opportunity. But so is Fiji. Half its population are Hindi speakers, with quite a strong affinity to India. China is actively engaging Commodore Bainimarama. Fijian Indians are asking why India continues to remain reticent (some minor moves aside).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2013 04:11

Fiji has US support.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 20 Jun 2013 04:33

ramana wrote:Fiji has US support.

Ephemeral...

China is quickly becoming the biggest player.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jun 2013 07:14

Arihant wrote: Fijian Indians are asking why India continues to remain reticent (some minor moves aside).

Indian foreign policy moves at glacial pace.

BTW, deep pockets have moved from the US to PRC. Smaller countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Fiji, PNG etc. are in danger of coming (or have already come) under the Chinese influence.