Managing Chinese Threat

[kumarn]

Unlike what most people think, China is quite vulnerable along the entire stretch at almost all places in spite of infrastructure build-up, JF-17, CSS-5 et al.

SSridhar ji,
Please indulge me here. I have heard similar views on this forum multiple times over the years and had come to believe it. But in a recent interaction with some middle level ex-officers (Colonels, Sq Ldrs) from my social circle, I was shocked to know that their view is exactly the opposite. They think the chinis can thrash us anywhere, anytime, and another confrontation with them would be similar to 62. Why this stark difference in opinion?
Thanks in advance.

[Philip]

The logistic situ is the key to the answer as to who will thrash whom."Amateurs think tactics,professionals think logistics'" is an old saying.While the Chinese have the advantage of the Tibetan terrain to move their troops and material with ease,it's a long way to Beijing.In any spat with China,the IAF should first without any hesitation take out the Tibetan railway at several key locations,knocking out bridges,tunnels,key stations,etc.,plus destroying Chinese air bases rendering runways and facilities inoperable.This can also be done with massed missile attacks.This calls for serious forward basing by India of strike capability close to the border ready to be launched with thin the least amt. of time.Special forces and other combatants will have to be ferried in by our air transport assets.As building up our border infrastructure is facing serious hurdles thanks to terrain and govt. apathy,we need to establish a chain of helipads and landing strips that can accommodate even the smallest sized aircraft that can operate in the Himalayan terrain and assist our troops.Remember how Mussolini was rescued By Otto Skorzeny at Gran Sasso,the Allies never imagining that a Feiseler Storch could land there.We neeed to think outside the box with respect to the Himalayan warfare strategy ,tactics and logistics,that is needed to "thrash the Chinese" .

One key element that has not been seriously considered is the building up of a special strike force using large numbers of the Tibetan diaspora,plus using Tibetans living in Tibet just as we did with the Mukti Bahini in B,Desh.There has been absolutely no change in Chinese attitude towards HH the Dalai Lama or the diaspora from the blood-sucking parasites of Zhongnanhai,who continue to persecute the Tibetans at will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... tan-leader
China vows to step up fight against Dalai Lama

Yu Zhengsheng's comments indicate China's new government has not softened stance towards exiled Tibetan leader

Reuters in Beijing
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 July 2013 12.11 BST

Dalai Lama
Yu Zhengsheng said the Dalai Lama’s separatist activities ran counter to the country’s interests and to Buddhist tradition. Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

China's leading official in charge of religious groups and ethnic minorities has vowed to step up the fight against exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, as a rights group reported police shootings of monks marking his birthday.

The comments by Yu Zhengsheng, number four in the ruling Communist party's hierarchy, appeared aimed at thwarting speculation that China's new leadership could take a softer line on the Dalai Lama.

Beijing considers the Dalai Lama, who fled China in 1959 after an abortive uprising against Chinese rule, to be a violent separatist. The Dalai Lama, who is based in India, says he is merely seeking greater autonomy for his Himalayan homeland.

Visiting a heavily Tibetan area of the western province of Gansu, Yu told local officials and religious leaders that the Dalai Lama's separatist activities ran counter to the country's interests and to Buddhist tradition.

"For the sake of national unity and the development of stability in Tibetan regions, we must take a clear-cut stand and deepen the struggle against the Dalai clique," the official Xinhua news agency cited Yu as saying.

Buddhist leaders must be guided to oppose separatism and any efforts to damage the Communist party's leadership, added Yu, who is head of a largely ceremonial advisory body to parliament that aims to co-opt religious and minority groups.

Yu repeated that ties with the Dalai Lama would improve if he openly recognised that Tibet had been a part of China since ancient times and abandoned his Tibetan independence activities, Xinhua reported.

"The Dalai Lama's 'middle way' aimed at achieving so-called 'high-degree autonomy' in 'Greater Tibet' is completely opposite to China's constitution and the country's system of regional ethnic autonomy," Yu added, according to Xinhua.

Speculation China would take a softer line towards the Dalai Lama had been fuelled in part by an essay written by a scholar from the Central Party School, who said that China could take some steps toward resuming talks with the Dalai Lama's representatives, which broke down in 2010.

Rights groups also say there has been some discussion about lifting restrictions on public displays of the Dalai Lama's picture in his birthplace of Qinghai province.

Despite a heavy security presence, protests and resistance against Chinese rule in Tibetan areas have continued.

Police in a restive Tibetan part of Sichuan province opened fire on a group of monks and others who had gathered to mark the Dalai Lama's birthday over the weekend, seriously injuring at least two, the US-based International Campaign for Tibet said.

While Chinese security forces often use heavy-handed tactics to stop protests in Tibetan regions, they rarely use guns.

Officials reached by telephone in Ganzi said they had no knowledge of the incident.

China's foreign ministry said it was also unaware of the reports, but said the Dalai Lama was using the opportunity of his birthday to promote his separatist agenda.

At least 119 Tibetans have set themselves alight in protest against Chinese rule since 2009, mostly in heavily Tibetan areas of Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces rather than in what China terms the Tibet Autonomous Region. Most have died from their injuries.

[SSridhar]

Please indulge me here. I have heard similar views on this forum multiple times over the years and had come to believe it. But in a recent interaction with some middle level ex-officers (Colonels, Sq Ldrs) from my social circle, I was shocked to know that their view is exactly the opposite. They think the chinis can thrash us anywhere, anytime, and another confrontation with them would be similar to 62. Why this stark difference in opinion?
Thanks in advance.

kumarn, I would request you to read the IDSA Policy Brief, "Contours of a Possible Indian Riposte to Chinese Aggressiveness". It is about 2 years old, but is still relevant. Should be available at the IDSA site or can be Googled.

It essentially discusses the various components of the Chinese plan against India such as 'string of pearls', its air warfare capabilities in Tibet/Ladakh regions, the missile threat, its military modernization etc and exposes how each one of them is fraught with gaping holes. It also talks about the development of the aircraft carrier, the ASAT (anti-Satellite), and the much boasted CBG destroyer missile, DF-21D, which might not be of immediate relevance. It then talks about the Indian riposte and though there are some lacunae in the Indian approach (like mountain guns), it describes how existing Indian assets can nullify the Chinese advantage in infrastructure.

[SSridhar]

Japan warns of a 'risk of incident' from 'coercive' acts by China - Business Line

China’s “coercive” behaviour in waters around islands at the centre of a bitter dispute with Japan are dangerous and could trigger an incident, Tokyo said in a new defence paper today [July 9, 2013].

Hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ministers adopted the annual defence white paper at a cabinet meeting, which warned of the risks as the two Asian rivals lock horns in their territorial dispute.

It was the first annual report on the nation’s defence capabilities and regional security since Tokyo took three of the five Senkaku islands out of private ownership. Beijing lays claim to the islands, and calls them the Diaoyus.

“China ... has taken action described as coercive, which includes risky behaviour,” the 450-page report said.

“China’s activities include its intrusion into Japan’s territorial waters, its violation of Japan’s territorial airspace and even dangerous actions that could cause a contingency,” it said.

In particular, the paper said a Chinese frigate locked weapons-targeting radar on a Japanese destroyer in January -- a claim Beijing has denied.

“These acts are extremely regrettable and China should accept and stick to the international norms,” it said.

Ships from the two countries have for months traded warnings over intrusions into what both regard as their sovereign areas around the islands, which are strategically sited and rich in resources.

Chinese government ships have regularly sailed into the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of the islands, where they are confronted by Japan’s well-equipped coastguard.

The most recent incident was Sunday [7th July 2013].

[SSridhar]

Neither side should change status-quo, says China - The Hindu

The Chinese government on Wednesday said neither China nor India “should change the status quo” along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC), a day after Indian officials said Chinese troops had, last month, taken away a camera located near an Indian Army post.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said Chinese troops were “patrolling along the Chinese side of the LAC of the China-India border” when asked about the incident, which took place at Chumar sector in southern Ladakh around three weeks ago.
{Once again, the same excuse. Once again, our Indian dhoti-shivering analysts would say that quiet diplomacy would resolve such issues. They would trot out the age-old excuse that 'differing perceptions of the LAC' is the problem and the Chinese cannot actually be blamed. My question is that why such differing perceptions of the LAC do not result in Indian Army intruding 19 Kms into what they consider as Indian territory and stay put there for weeks while Salman Kurshid keeps saying that the Indians are only on the Indian side of the border ? There is no recorded history of the ITBP or the IA doing some such thing.}
Ms. Hua’s suggestion was that the incident took place within what China sees as its side of the LAC. However, as both sides have differing perceptions of where the LAC lies in this area, what Ms. Hua described as the “Chinese side of the LAC” likely refers to areas that India sees as falling within its claim lines.

After a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) patrol took away the camera, set up only 6 km ahead of an Indian Army post, the matter was raised by India at a border personnel meeting on June 19, 2013. China returned the camera earlier this month after India had raised its objections.

Ms. Hua said she was not aware of the specifics of the incident, but added that “the general situation in the border areas is stable”. Both sides, she added, had “a consensus” that pending the final settlement of the boundary question, neither “should change the status quo along the LAC”.

[SSridhar]

China for freeze in infra development along LAC; India to reject - PTI, The Hindu

China has proposed freezing of infrastructure development along the border under a new pact but it is set to be rejected by India which is in the process of building infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

China has made the proposal as part of the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA) which is under negotiation between the two countries, highly-placed sources said here.

In the proposal, which is in the form of a paragraph in the BDCA, the Chinese side has said there should be a freeze on development of infrastructure in any ‘disputed area’, they said.

India is set to reject the proposal in its response expected to be conveyed to China by the end of this month, the sources said.

India is in the process of major infrastructure building exercise along the LAC and the Chinese proposal appears to be aimed at scuttling that.

The BDCA was proposed by China during the Defence Secretary-level talks earlier this year.

Sources said the proposed pact would be a “comprehensive” one encompassing some of the protocols and agreements signed by the two countries in the past.

The border pact is aimed at avoiding flare ups on the boundary between the two countries.

Other proposals made under the pact include non-tailing of troops if noticed during patrolling along the disputed Line of Actual Control and to not fire at each other under any condition.

[SSridhar]

The new BDCA is being pushed by China because India has begun to concentrate on its eastern borders (against the usual practice of concentrating on its western borders) in military, infrastructure and logistics terms and China felt compelled to contain it through the means of a new agreement, it having already developed its infrastructure along its side of the border. The second phase of force modernization and development along the India-China LAC was expected to be completed by GoI by c. 2017. The Daulat Beg Oldie incident was therefore created to lend some urgency to the BDCA proposal of China. India’s Ambassador to China, S Jaishankar, said later : “The Chinese gave us their draft on the 4 th of March. I think we gave them our draft on the 10 th May. Obviously now we will be discussing it with the Chinese. Since our draft is pending their consideration, to me it is not at all surprising the matter did not come up because it is still something on which we need to engage them in detailed discussion” India received the modified Chinese draft once again before A.K.Antony’s visit to China on July 4th, 2013.

[Lalmohan]

the actions of china look like an insecure bully (w.r.t. all her borders) and not that of a confident superpower in the making

[Bade]

I think localized confrontations can be indulged in and also encouraged. The chances of it developing into a wider war is slim to none, IMO.

[kit]

Does the senkaku islands have off shore oil ? Japan would have been drilling long time back if it did ?!

[svinayak]

I think localized confrontations can be indulged in and also encouraged. The chances of it developing into a wider war is slim to none, IMO.

The confrontation should be such that it should affect their economy and their international trading partners but should not escalate into large war along LAC

[Prem]

I think localized confrontations can be indulged in and also encouraged. The chances of it developing into a wider war is slim to none, IMO.

The confrontation should be such that it should affect their economy and their international trading partners but should not escalate into large war along LAC

Alhamdolillah!!
It should start in Mallaca Straight or Yellow Sea . Rub the Master;s nose and Asia-South Servants will fall in line.

[Suraj]

Arihant will probably know more about this, but here's something PRC never officially admits: it formally refused an agreement to take control of Taiwan in the late 1800s. The sequence of events were:

* Late 1800s, Qing Dynasty is ossifying, suzerainty over Taiwan all but lost
* 1874: Japan colonizes Taiwan and Ryukyu Islands.
* 1879: Former US President Ulysses Grant on world tour. Visits Beijing and Tokyo. Stays in Tokyo as guest of the Meiji Emperor. Both Japan and China ask him to intercede as arbitrator on the dispute. After negotiations, it is agreed: Japan keeps Ryukyus, Taiwan returned to China.
* Grant leaves. China reneges on agreement and refuses to sign. Japan retains hold on Taiwan.
* 1945: Japan loses WW 2. Taiwan control ceded to Chinese representative (Chiang Kai Shek's Republicans).

In effect, there is no Taiwan dispute except in the heads of PRC. Taiwan is in the hands of the entity who received it at the end of WW2.

[Prem]

During the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Communist Party was strong enough to move mountains. In 1969, the government manufactured aluminum badges showing Chairman Mao standing triumphantly in front of Tiananmen Square flanked by Yan’an and Jinggangshan, compressing thousands of miles of territory into a unified landscape. Sure it was scenic, but the purpose was purely propagandistic. (Mountainous Jinggangshan was birthplace of the Red Army and Yan’an was where Mao first organized his takeover of China.) The make-believe vista presented a compact history of Chinese communism under Mao, and the stamped aluminum badges validated that hagiography through the masses who wore them.Approximately five billion Mao badges were manufactured between 1966 and 1971, and the majority of Chinese wore them, compelled by the coercive pressure of the Cultural Revolution. Moving mere mountains is trivial by comparison.

nature of Chinese Commie Propoganda

[Arihant]

Arihant will probably know more about this, but here's something PRC never officially admits: it formally refused an agreement to take control of Taiwan in the late 1800s. The sequence of events were:

* Late 1800s, Qing Dynasty is ossifying, suzerainty over Taiwan all but lost
* 1874: Japan colonizes Taiwan and Ryukyu Islands.
* 1879: Former US President Ulysses Grant on world tour. Visits Beijing and Tokyo. Stays in Tokyo as guest of the Meiji Emperor. Both Japan and China ask him to intercede as arbitrator on the dispute. After negotiations, it is agreed: Japan keeps Ryukyus, Taiwan returned to China.
* Grant leaves. China reneges on agreement and refuses to sign. Japan retains hold on Taiwan.
* 1945: Japan loses WW 2. Taiwan control ceded to Chinese representative (Chiang Kai Shek's Republicans).

In effect, there is no Taiwan dispute except in the heads of PRC. Taiwan is in the hands of the entity who received it at the end of WW2.

This is correct with respect to the Kingdom of Ryukyu (which includes Okinawa), over which China has now manufactured a historical claim.

Ulysses Grant interceded in the Ryukyu dispute (the official Chinese position was that the Rykyus were an independent kingdom - but not part of China as they now claim).

Taiwan was ceded in perpetuity by China to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895.

Even prior to this, China did not acknowledge Taiwan as part of their empire. In the 1870s, the Qing emperor refused compensation to Western powers for acts of piracy by Taiwanese pirates by pointing out that Taiwan was "beyond their territory".

The legal status of Taiwan is in dispute since the Japanese ceded control of Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but did not specify who they were ceding control to.

This website provides a good account of Taiwan's history - it is maintained by a group aligned to Taiwan's opposition party and hence provides a better story than the Chinese mouthpieces:
http://www.taiwandc.org/hst-1624.htm

[Suraj]

Great explanation, thanks Arihant! I forgot to mention the issue at the peace treaty regarding ceding of control of Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it up.

These issues provide a very good basis for India to initiate formal ties with Taiwan and address PRC opposition with repeated bureaucratic responses of 'but according to this document you never had any control over them'...

[Sri]

I think localized confrontations can be indulged in and also encouraged. The chances of it developing into a wider war is slim to none, IMO.

In his book 'Defeat into Victory' FM Slim talks of how he used exactly this tactics to build up his troops morale. One of the things he was faced with was the fact that Burma army which generally constituted of Indian troops had to withdraw in a very disorderly fashion to Kohima. Most of his troops started feeling that the reason was that Japanese soldiers were better equipped better trained and tactically superior.

Slim ordered that there should be aggressive patrolling. And each patrol should be sufficiently strong and will move only in Jungles and not on roads. Slowly little incidents of confrontations started happening. Because of strong patrolling and some excellent patrolling tactics, the British and Indian soldiers started gaining confidence. later he rights that these patrols became hunts. Where a competition ensued between regiments on how many Japanese they got.

Similar tactics has to be deployed here. Indian soldiers should start feeling like hunters and the Han soldier should feel like the hunted. If this happens there will be dramatic shift in Chinese attitude.

[Victor]

Can't 'hunt' Chinese soldiers but we can definitely leave tents containing rice, atta, dal and Dalda tins
deep inside Tibet every now and then. Maybe even some maps showing these areas inside India. We need to have the Chinese side complain and the Indian side respond with 'differing perceptions' argument. Agreed that we should decline discussion on the border and just stick to LAC positions. That will send its own message.

[Sri]

Can't 'hunt' Chinese soldiers but we can definitely leave tents containing rice, atta, dal and Dalda tins
deep inside Tibet every now and then. Maybe even some maps showing these areas inside India. We need to have the Chinese side complain and the Indian side respond with 'differing perceptions' argument. Agreed that we should decline discussion on the border and just stick to LAC positions. That will send its own message.

It's a mindset Victor Ji. Our troops need to start showing natural aggression towards the chinese.

[harbans]

Just say we don't think Chinese are in their territory in Tibet and KM. So the natural agression against any Chinese tents along the LAC will develop. There has to be a political will to define the right borders and tell where the Chinese should be..that is North and East of Tibets Northern and Eastern boundaries. Not off Ladhak, Uttaranchal, Nepal, Bhutan, ArP.

[Christopher Sidor]

The logistic situ is the key to the answer as to who will thrash whom."Amateurs think tactics,professionals think logistics'" is an old saying.While the Chinese have the advantage of the Tibetan terrain to move their troops and material with ease,it's a long way to Beijing.In any spat with China,the IAF should first without any hesitation take out the Tibetan railway at several key locations,knocking out bridges,tunnels,key stations,etc.,plus destroying Chinese air bases rendering runways and facilities inoperable.This can also be done with massed missile attacks.This calls for serious forward basing by India of strike capability close to the border ready to be launched with thin the least amt. of time.Special forces and other combatants will have to be ferried in by our air transport assets.As building up our border infrastructure is facing serious hurdles thanks to terrain and govt. apathy,we need to establish a chain of helipads and landing strips that can accommodate even the smallest sized aircraft that can operate in the Himalayan terrain and assist our troops.Remember how Mussolini was rescued By Otto Skorzeny at Gran Sasso,the Allies never imagining that a Feiseler Storch could land there.We neeed to think outside the box with respect to the Himalayan warfare strategy ,tactics and logistics,that is needed to "thrash the Chinese" .

Lhasa is only 833 kms from Calcutta. This is less than Delhi-Ahmedabad, Bombay-Bangalore distance. So our lines of communications are shorter. With the case of PLA/PLAAF it is reverse. But our lines are more arduous. Theirs not so. Just like Deccan plateau, Tibet is a plateau when approached from China and East Turkestan. That is why the engineering challenges of the Lhasa-Bejing railway line is less compared to our proposed train to Leh and Srinagar-Jammu line. But the problem is that in our case the last mile connectivity is fragile. Observe the devastation, which has wrought over our North-Western states. This is compounded by two other facts
1) Our gross ineptitude in infra building in the himalayas. Notice how most of our roads in himalayas run parallel to Rivers, especially observe the Chandigarh-Kullu-Manali-Leh road which make them prone to landslides and faster erosion.
2) Our inability to lay roads quickly. Observe how most of the people were evacuated by air and not by quickly building alternative routes to the affected sites. It is only recently that Army has started building a track, which might allow light commercial vehicles to reach kedarnath through an alternative route.

So when people say that PLA/PLAAF can be countered easily, I do not believe that it can happen. Let us not forget many a times in 1962, our troops ran out of ammunition and were overrun as a consequence. There were cases where our artillery guns ran out of ammunition and fell silent, with disaster ensuring as a consequence, especially in the north-east. Hell our troops are still running out of ammunition and getting slaughtered by the maoists. The nazis were not beaten in Stalingard in a head-to-head fight, but by cutting off their supply lines and then letting them starve. The pig-headedness of that austrian-born-corporal did the rest.

And I have not mentioned even the mess financially and economically this country is. Tomorow if a conflict, small/minor/major take your pick, were to occur we would either face the inflation of early 1970s or a depression which would make 1989-91 seem like walk in the park.

[Victor]

1) Our gross ineptitude in infra building in the himalayas...
2) Our inability to lay roads quickly...

I have never understood why this is so. Rampant corruption and political waffling or cowardice don't explain our pathetic track record and capability. Something else is seriously wrong.

An extreme example: The Bhalukpong-Bomdila-Tawang road in ArP has been in a state of construction for at least 20 years with monthly statements in the press about India countering China's border infrastructure on a war footing . In reality, the torturous road, if one can call it that, is actually worse than it was 5 years ago and nowhere near being motorable with anything less than a tata truck, SUV or army vehicle. In addition, there is almost zero indication that it is being worked on. One may encounter one or two lone bulldozers along the entire 24-hour journey in places where landslides or falling rocks have blocked the road.

In contrast, the road from Bum La to Tawang was constructed by the Chinese in 1962 in a matter of weeks to facilitate their invasion and it is still the best road in the whole of ArP, untouched by Indians since then.

[SSridhar]

Two Chinese Choppers Violate Indian Airspace in Ladakh - New Indian Express

Two Chinese Army helicopters violated Indian airspace on July 11 in the Chumar sector in Ladakh, days after their soldiers intruded and took away an Indian surveillance camera.

The PLA choppers violated Indian airspace in the Chumar sector on July 11 around 0800 hours and returned after flying for some time there, sources said.

However, Army sources played down the incident, claiming the two Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) choppers were only flying close to the Indian airspace and had not entered inside our territory.

The two Chinese choppers were probably carrying out a reconnaissance of the area, sources said. The incident happened soon after Defence Minister A K Antony's visit to China when the two sides discussed measures to enhance peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control.

Chumar has seen a number of incursion incidents in the recent past including an incident on June 17 where Chinese troops took away an Army surveillance camera meant for keeping an eye on the PLA troops patrolling there.

Chumar, 300 km from here [Leh], is the same area where Chinese troops triggered tensions in April smashing some bunkers besides cutting wires of cameras installed at the border post.

Chumar has always been an area of discomfort for the Chinese troops as this is the only area along the China-India border where they do not have any direct access to the LAC.

India and China have been working towards signing a border pact to maintain peace and tranquillity along the LAC where a number of incursion incidents have been observed in the recent few months.

More than a couple of years ago, Chinese troops had entered the Indian territory using their Mi-17 medium lift choppers and dropped food and other supplies in Ladakh.

[Prem]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8673fa70-ec5b ... z2Z5AhRUO2

Chinese warships sail past northern Japan

Chinese warships have passed for the first time through the narrow strait that divides northern Japan and Russia, Japan’s defence ministry said on Sunday.
The five ships, including a guided-missile destroyer, travelled in international waters through the La Pérouse Strait early on Sunday morning, the ministry said.
MoreThe vessels appeared to be returning to China after a week-long military exercise with the Russian navy that took place in the Sea of Japan and was seen as a message of defiance directed at Japan and the US.
Ahead of the exercises, Chinese media quoted Yin Zhuo, a retired admiral who advises Chinese politicians, as saying that such manoeuvres in the Sea of Japan would “have a certain level of threat to Japan, which has a dispute with China over the Diaoyu Islands and one with Russia over the Northern Territories”.The Chinese ships could have returned home more directly by travelling southwest, back through the Sea of Japan and into the East China Sea. That made their chosen route on Sunday – which would take them out into the Pacific in a broad swing around Japan – appear all the more provocative.
China and Japan have been embroiled since last year in a tense stand-off in the East China Sea over the Senkaku Islands, known in China as the Diaoyu. Japan administers the uninhabited group, but China and Taiwan both claim sovereignty. Japan also claims islands on the Russian side of the La Pérouse Strait, which were seized by the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war.In recent years, China’s navy has been expanding its scope of operations with more frequent and larger exercises in the South China Sea and Western Pacific. In June, the US confirmed that China was sending ships and aircraft into its exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from US territory, including Guam.China has been boosting its military budget with double-digit increases in spending during most of the past two decades. Chinese navy and missile forces are increasingly able to project their power across the Asian region, a trend that has created growing unease among China’s neighbours, including Japan.
Japan last week sharpened its criticism of what it says is an increasingly belligerent effort by China to assert territorial claims in disputed Asian waters, saying Beijing was using “force” in a “risky” effort to change maritime boundaries.
In the first defence white paper issued under conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan said China had “attempted to change the status quo by force based on its own assertion which is incompatible with the existing order of international law”.
Last Friday, Hua Chunying, spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, said the white paper “maliciously plays up the ‘China threat’”. She added that Japan was trying “to create an excuse for its military build-up”.Global Times, the state-run newspaper known for its nationalistic bent, went farther, saying the “conflict” between China and Japan was moving toward “strategichostility”

[Arihant]

China plots strategic coup in the Pacific

Despite commentary that China and the United States are moving closer together, the opposite is the case. In fact, China is mounting a direct, if subtle, challenge to the international order the United States created in the Far East after World War II. Most are aware that China is attempting to leverage growing military strength into a larger, dominating position by laying claims to islands in the East and South China Seas. Few realize that China is attempting to overturn the legal underpinnings of the US position in the western Pacific.

[SSridhar]

China plots strategic coup in the Pacific

Despite commentary that China and the United States are moving closer together. . .

Who made such a commentary ?

[Arihant]

China plots strategic coup in the Pacific

Despite commentary that China and the United States are moving closer together. . .

Who made such a commentary ?

I think this is a reference to the commentary that appeared in parts of the Western media about the bonhomie following the Obama - Xi Jinping meeting.

[SSridhar]

Arihant, thanks.

I have not seen them. I am not sure if heavy-weights would have made such a commentary.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^
There are two incidents which were correlated as far as the recent chinese bullying tactics. One was the 2008 semi-depression which gave the PRC the chance to reassert itself. And the second was the American Pivot.

What PRC is basically saying is that despite this pivot, which will involve over 60% of USN+Marines assets to be placed in the Western Pacific along with a significant proportion of USAF and the american army being stationed in the same theater, PRC will not be deterred. PRC will lay claims to what it believes are its so called core interests. Right now it is South-China-Sea and in the very near future it will be Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, just like what a PLAN Admiral told to a USN Admiral. After all significant amount of PRC's oil and gas comes from the Malacca straits and originates from West Asia. If the North Atlantic countries are willing to physically secure their crucial assets, then so is PRC.

And it seeks to wear down the Japanese, the Philippines and the other south-east Asian nations. Let us not forget USA does not recognize the Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku islands. Nor have the Americans helped or offered help to the Vietnamese in its rightful claim over the islands of south china sea.

[Prem]

Ghana deports thousands in crackdown on illegal Chinese goldminers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... goldminers

Thousands of Chinese nationals have been deported from Ghana in a crackdown on the plunder of the country's gold by illegal miners.Immigration authorities say more than 4,500 Chinese nationals have been repatriated after a series of swoops on illegal goldmines. The Guardian has learned that Ghana's government, which depends heavily on China for billions of dollars in loans and as a major trading partner, believes Beijing may be retaliating, damaging relations between the two countries.
China has denied that any of its actions are a retaliation for the deportation of illegal immigrants from Ghana. Ghana's government said claims that delays in Ghana being able to access a $3bn loan facility agreed with China recently were related to the current events. So far this year
This year the Guardian exposed the scale of illegal Chinese goldmining in Ghana in a film that showed widespread excavating and use of toxic chemicals, and allegations of human rights abuses. Following the film Ghana's president, John Dramani Mahama, established a high-level taskforce, saying it was necessary to bring "sanity" to the mining sector.Since then the government has launched a series of raids through the combined military, immigration and police taskforce. Towns that had swelled with the presence of illegal miners have been significantly affected, officials say. In Dunkwa, where the Guardian filmed this year, sources said the departure of Chinese had drastically affected the local economy.But many Ghanaians have lauded the government's efforts to curb illegal mining. The Chinese have attracted heavy criticism from Ghanaians for taking local jobs, wielding weapons such as AK-47 rifles, and polluting lakes and rivers."This illegal goldmining was compromising the environment. It was compromising the security of this country. It had a lot of social consequences and the government was losing a lot of resource revenue," said Fuseini, the mines minister. "The Chinese were just plundering the resources. So what we have done is take action to stop the plunder and ensure that the resource needs of this country are not any way depleted in ways that breaks resource revenue of the state."

[SSridhar]

The Telegraph reports, linked here, speak of the CCS taking a decision on the mountain strike corps only after assessing 'diplomatic ramifications' of such a China-specific unit. It comes as a shock to me because I was under the impression it was a done deal already.

Unless significant progress has been made in the latest and the 16th round of talks between the two Special Representatives, SS Menon & Jeichi, that general public are unaware of and that demands a new look at the Chinese, I am unable to understand or appreciate this concern for 'diplomatic ramifications', if indeed it were true. All that we know are the following: the new aggressiveness in the PLA that resulted in multiple incidents in the last couple of months (Depsang, Chumar, airspace violation, building a road inside Indian territory which has later been denied by the IA), the firm stand by the Chinese Foreign Ministry that the PLA was all the time on its own territory, the demands to dismantle even the rag-tag and minor infrastructure that ITBP put up in these sectors, and the tough talk by the top General who calls himself 'a dove in heart but a hawk in claws' on what India should expect from the Chinese.

What would these signal to a normal nation-state that still has the functioning twin unmentionables in their proper place ? That the threat is here and is real. What would such a normal nation state do considering past history including the most inimical action of transferring nuclear weapons, design and delivery platforms to an unfriendly neighbour to target and target only that nation state ? What would a normal nation-state do when it is made claustrophobic by surrounding it with an intention of robbing its influence in its own region and confine it to within its own borders ? What would a normal nation-state do when such a country is ceded and leased portions of captured land, captured from the common enemy, by the second enemy state and tens of thousands of soldiers are placed there by the first enemy state threatening the common enemy and the occupational army is casually explained away as simply 'workers' or 'relief providers' ?

What does a normal nation-state do when this country constantly stands in the way of its membership in powerful fora, bodies or vetoes engagements by international financial agencies in its developmental projects etc ?

And, here we are when these and much more have happened, debating whether it would be diplomatically prudent to offend our enemy. We are the most capable innovators in the whole world in inventing reasons to procrastinate, postpone and delay taking decisions that should have been taken years back.

[rajrang]

The Telegraph reports, linked here, speak of the CCS taking a decision on the mountain strike corps only after assessing 'diplomatic ramifications' of such a China-specific unit. It comes as a shock to me because I was under the impression it was a done deal already.

Unless significant progress has been made in the latest and the 16th round of talks between the two Special Representatives, SS Menon & Jeichi, that general public are unaware of and that demands a new look at the Chinese, I am unable to understand or appreciate this concern for 'diplomatic ramifications', if indeed it were true. All that we know are the following: the new aggressiveness in the PLA that resulted in multiple incidents in the last couple of months (Depsang, Chumar, airspace violation, building a road inside Indian territory which has later been denied by the IA), the firm stand by the Chinese Foreign Ministry that the PLA was all the time on its own territory, the demands to dismantle even the rag-tag and minor infrastructure that ITBP put up in these sectors, and the tough talk by the top General who calls himself 'a dove in heart but a hawk in claws' on what India should expect from the Chinese.

What would these signal to a normal nation-state that still has the functioning twin unmentionables in their proper place ? That the threat is here and is real. What would such a normal nation state do considering past history including the most inimical action of transferring nuclear weapons, design and delivery platforms to an unfriendly neighbour to target and target only that nation state ? What would a normal nation-state do when it is made claustrophobic by surrounding it with an intention of robbing its influence in its own region and confine it to within its own borders ? What would a normal nation-state do when such a country is ceded and leased portions of captured land, captured from the common enemy, by the second enemy state and tens of thousands of soldiers are placed there by the first enemy state threatening the common enemy and the occupational army is casually explained away as simply 'workers' or 'relief providers' ?

What does a normal nation-state do when this country constantly stands in the way of its membership in powerful fora, bodies or vetoes engagements by international financial agencies in its developmental projects etc ?

And, here we are when these and much more have happened, debating whether it would be diplomatically prudent to offend our enemy. We are the most capable innovators in the whole world in inventing reasons to procrastinate, postpone and delay taking decisions that should have been taken years back.

Yes the "diplomatic ramifications" is a shock.

Besides procrastination this could either be the appeasement tendencies of a timid government or the lack of geo-politics savvy of an economist PM.

Or is it something in the "DNA" of Indian (strategic) thinking that throughout history has refused to recognize external threats AND take ADEQUATE counter measures until the invader is at the door step by which time it may be too late? Is that why India ha been overrun by invaders every few generations throughout history? Is there a cultural tendency to dismiss as "dhoti shivering" efforts to take counter measures to threats? If yes then history will repeat itself.

On balance I am glad to admit, that not withstanding a "yes" answer to the above questions, Indian culture has managed to survive for thousands of years in spite of the absence of a strategic threat recognition and response mechanism and against all odds and this is truly amazing!

In the current political set up in India, the strategic thinking is completely focused on winning the next election.

[Suraj]

Shinzo Abe is pushing hard to review Article 9 of the Japanese constitution which outlaws war. He's seeking 2/3rds support from the upcoming Diet elections to effect constitutional changes. This action is naturally a response to PRC's repeated provocations.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^
Nope the trigger was north korean actions. But this got a big boost because of Chinese, PRC + RoC(better known as Taiwan), actions. Tomorrow if PRC goes ahead and occupies one of these islets, then one can almost guarantee a return of Japanese military. Ironic isn't it? The one thing which PRC hates viscerally, is going to come true because of its actions.

[Suraj]

Considering the Pillsbury doughboy's regular trips to Beijing, it's not hard to imagine NoKo's actions are not entirely autonomous. Further, NoKo has been a loose cannon for years now. It's PRC's assertive naval actions in the area that are a new game changer. For most of the past several decades, PLAN stuck to coastal waters, and actions were primarily Taiwan centric.

[SSridhar]

China develops 'paws' with which it tries to bottle-up or divert attention or confine its enemy countries. Just as Pakistan (and slowly Sri Lanka) is (are) for India, it has been North Korea for Japan. The scales might differ but the intentions are the same. Simultaneously, it pursues its aggressive 'peacefully rising China' actions against its enemy countries as well.

[SSridhar]

Japan PM renews claim on Senkaku Islands - The Hindu

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe renewed his claims on disputed East China Sea islands today as he visited nearby islands. He urged border security officials to boost their guard against China’s increased activity in the region. Mr. Abe told Coast Guard officials based on the Ishigaki island that Japan’s border security environment is challenging because of China’s increased provocation in the area. The Japanese-controlled islands called Senkaku are also claimed by China, which calls them Diaoyu. Tougher territorial defence is part of Mr. Abe’s ruling party’s campaign platform for the upper house election on Sunday. His governing coalition is likely to win a comfortable majority and strengthen its grip on power. Mr. Abe’s hawkish security policy and remarks including those defending Japan’s wartime actions have caused diplomatic rows with China and South Korea. — AP

[SSridhar]

Centre Okays 50000 strong force to tackle Chinese threat - New Indian Express

The Union government on Wednesday decided to raise a 50,000-strong force of mountain strike corps along the eastern sector at a cost of Rs 65,000 crore to boost India’s offensive capability to counter neighbouring China.

The nod for the Indian Army’s proposal came from a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, government sources said here.

The expenses for raising the new strike corps, which would have more than 50,000 troopers and specialist mountain warfare equipment, will be spread over a seven-year period till 2020, with funds flowing during both the 2012-17 12th plan and 2017-22 13th plan periods under its Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP), sources said.

Along with the mountain strike corps, which will be based at Panagarh in West Bengal, the Indian Army has also mooted two new ‘independent’ infantry brigades and as many ‘independent’ armoured brigades. Plans in this regard are yet to finalised, though the new brigades are likely to cost Rs 19,000 crore.

The new brigades would plug operational gaps along the 4,057-km-long Line of Actual Control (LAC) and would boost counter offensive capabilities.

The new mountain strike corps will be tasked with an offensive role in the north-eastern part of India, where Arunachal Pradesh shares a long LAC with China, which has been claiming the State as its territory.

The proposed formation will be the fourth such offensive corps apart from the existing three strike corps — 1 Corps based in Mathura, 2 Corps at Ambala and 21 Corps at Bhopal — focused on Pakistan. The new mountain strike corps was mooted after the Indian armed forces incorporated the possibility of a two-front war with Pakistan and China in it doctrines.

The new mountain strike corps proposal has already been tweaked and approved by the Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC), headed by Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne and has Army chief General Bikram Singh and Navy chief Admiral D K Joshi as members.

[Arihant]

Centre Okays 50000 strong force to tackle Chinese threat - New Indian Express

The Union government on Wednesday decided to raise a 50,000-strong force of mountain strike corps along the eastern sector at a cost of Rs 65,000 crore to boost India’s offensive capability to counter neighbouring China.

The nod for the Indian Army’s proposal came from a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, government sources said here.

The expenses for raising the new strike corps, which would have more than 50,000 troopers and specialist mountain warfare equipment, will be spread over a seven-year period till 2020, with funds flowing during both the 2012-17 12th plan and 2017-22 13th plan periods under its Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP), sources said.

Along with the mountain strike corps, which will be based at Panagarh in West Bengal, the Indian Army has also mooted two new ‘independent’ infantry brigades and as many ‘independent’ armoured brigades. Plans in this regard are yet to finalised, though the new brigades are likely to cost Rs 19,000 crore.

The new brigades would plug operational gaps along the 4,057-km-long Line of Actual Control (LAC) and would boost counter offensive capabilities.

The new mountain strike corps will be tasked with an offensive role in the north-eastern part of India, where Arunachal Pradesh shares a long LAC with China, which has been claiming the State as its territory.

The proposed formation will be the fourth such offensive corps apart from the existing three strike corps — 1 Corps based in Mathura, 2 Corps at Ambala and 21 Corps at Bhopal — focused on Pakistan. The new mountain strike corps was mooted after the Indian armed forces incorporated the possibility of a two-front war with Pakistan and China in it doctrines.

The new mountain strike corps proposal has already been tweaked and approved by the Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC), headed by Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne and has Army chief General Bikram Singh and Navy chief Admiral D K Joshi as members.

A relief!

[Arihant]

Considering the Pillsbury doughboy's regular trips to Beijing, it's not hard to imagine NoKo's actions are not entirely autonomous. Further, NoKo has been a loose cannon for years now. It's PRC's assertive naval actions in the area that are a new game changer. For most of the past several decades, PLAN stuck to coastal waters, and actions were primarily Taiwan centric.

Agree entirely. NoKo is largely (but not entirely) managed from elsewhere. The Japanese are responding to China, not NoKo.