Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

[SSridhar]

1000 Indian & Chinese troops face off in Ladakh - ToI

The face-off between Indian and Chinese troops has only become worse with 1,000 Army and PLA troops clashing at the Chumar sector in Ladakh. This Chinese incursion is being touted as the worst in recent years. TV reports also indicate that India will most certainly raise the issue of the recent incursion with Chinese President Xi Jinping when he meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday.

National security adviser Ajit Doval is said to be monitoring the situation himself.

A flag meeting that was held on Wednesday to diffuse the gnawing tension was of brigadier-level. It was held at a border personnel meeting point in Chushul, where the issue of intrusion of Chinese civilians in the Demchok area was also discussed, Army sources said.

The meeting discussed the situation in Chumar where the Chinese troops have entered into Indian area and have been asked to leave, they said.

This was the second flag meeting that has taken place in the last one week between the two sides to defuse the situation.

Chumar is one of the very few places along the Line of Actual Control where access to the border areas is easier from the Indian side and this place has witnessed several face-off situations in the last two-three years.

It is being reported that senior members of the external affairs ministry and defence ministry are in constant touch with their counterparts in China to bring a swift end to the growing troubles at the border.

So, the much touted BDCA has been unable to accomplish much? Clearly, the Chinese side wants to neutralize any geographical advantage that we may have. They have been at it relentlessly and for a long time now, trying to wear us down and browbeat if possible.

[manjgu]

when we indians continously beg the chinese for a border solution, it clearly shows who the weaker side is... indian statecraft is nowhere as sophisticated as the chinese... and our problems are compounded by our own foolishness...

[Shanmukh]

An interesting tweet from Nitin Gokhale.

nitin gokhale ‏@nitingokhale 10m

Latest from Ladakh: India has deployed nearly 1500 troops in Chumur.More troops ready for deployment if nedeed. Situation under control.

[SSridhar]

IndiGo inks ₹15,384-cr deal with China bank - BusinessLine

Budget carrier IndiGo has entered into a $2.6-billion (₹15,384 crore) deal with Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) for financing the purchase of over 30 aircraft.

The two parties have signed a memorandum of understanding in the backdrop of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping’s ongoing state visit to India.

A320 induction

In a press statement, Aditya Ghosh, IndiGo’s President, said: “Through this MoU, ICBC will provide IndiGo financial solutions for the introduction of A320 and the other family of aircraft to the fleet in the form of sale and lease back or financial lease or commercial lending.”

Further, Ghosh added that the no-frills carrier has worked with ICBC in the past and that the latest agreement will ‘cement the relationship for the longer term’.

ICBC is said to be one of the largest banks in the world by total assets and market capitalisation.

[SanjayC]

elkay ‏@elkay14 29m
#namo namah jst in # army moves 3 battallions 2 #ladakh 2 face d heat of 1000 Chinese soldiers infiltrating #ladakh .

[Philip]

Typical Chinese "dupricity".Gin and Tonic is sadly mistaken if he thinks that the crude pressure he is exerting upon the Modi regime will be taken kindly.Mr.Modi is not quisling "Surrender Singh".

http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/chinas-r ... ientation/

China’s Revisionist Orientation

China is not a revisionist power, but the recent air intercept indicates revisionist orientation
By John H.S. Åberg
September 18, 2014

The recent incident involving an armed Chinese Su-27 fighter conducting a dangerous intercept of a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft has provoked much debate, especially here in The Diplomat. Zachary Keck argues that Chinese pilots are not rogue, and that the actions are consistent with Chinese foreign policy objectives, while, in turn, despite the intercept, Robert Farley argues that China is just an assertive status quo power. Jin Kai states that the P8 intercept signals “China’s bottom line” and is a matter of restating its core interests, yet without being related to the pivot or the “new type of great power relations.” Moreover, here, here, and here a raging debate goes on concerning who’s to blame and whether U.S. surveillance or China’s intercept represents the unlawful act of this drama. So how do we bring these threads together?

China is not a revisionist power, but the intercept indeed indicates revisionist orientation; the intercept is a matter of China’s core interests, and the “new type of great power relations” needs to be included in the analysis; and notwithstanding the quarrels about international law, the intercept was an act of deviance going against established norms of interaction.

The dichotomous understanding of countries as either status quo powers or revisionist powers is flawed. Status quo and revisionism are analytically useful in terms of foreign policy orientations that are pursued at certain times, at certain locations, and in certain issue areas and functional areas of order. Therefore: China is not a revisionist power, but the P8 intercept indicates revisionist orientation. This particular revisionist orientation concerns the regional security order. Whether in the form of Asian security for Asians by Asians as expressed by Xi Jinping or in the form of disapproval of the U.S. broker and leadership role in the South China Sea disputes, the political performances of the Chinese leadership explicitly pronounce a preference for revising the regional security order. Yes, preferences are attitudinal, not behavioral. But overt preferences are revealed in actual choice situations. The intercept was one such situation.

In contrast to overt preferences, there are covert preferences. They instead “take the form of half-articulated or unarticulated grievances or aspirations…because of the bias of the dominant political agenda or the prevailing culture.”

It might be argued that China has long harbored grievances related to the U.S. presence in its backyard, and what is new are China’s growing capabilities to turn these covert preferences into overt ones. Conversely, it might be argued that these acts of “Chinese assertiveness” are nothing new and that China’s strategic logic has not changed. Both arguments miss important points. First, to use capabilities as an explanatory factor is just that – a factor. It is not a source of international order. Second, while acts such as the intercept are indeed not new, these actions should not be separated from China’s main project for regional order – the “new type of great power relations.”

While the intercept in itself might not have anything to do with the new type of great power relations, as such occurrences would have happened with or without this new initiative, the new type of great power relations, however, very much does have something to do with acts such as the recent intercept. It gives them new meaning.

The new type of great power relations captures all the fundamental areas of China’s foreign policy – the core interests, Taiwan, the five principles of peaceful coexistence, harmonious world, and great power equality – into a unified project for the 21st century. It is a project fit for the end of the U.S. unipolar era and for the beginning of a world of regions in which Xi Jinping’s assertion of the Asia-Pacific as being big enough for both China and the United States means that the United States should know its place. In essence, a multipolar world of regions is what China’s harmonious world is all about. True, these ideas are not new, but the project is. The intercept is therefore not only a mere act of deviance – it makes sense in relation to a larger narrative of regional change. If the process evolves according to the generic plan of the project this would entail new status hierarchies, new distributions of roles, and new ordering principles in the regional security order. All of which points towards the fact that revisionism has been more about “recognition and standing…than specific alterations to the existing rules and practices.”

But what about the rules of the game? In the raging debate in which Dingding Chen argued for a halt to U.S. surveillance and reconnaissance on the grounds that it is unlawful, his critics at first contend that international law is straightforward, unequivocal, and not open for rival interpretations. Yet at the same time the idea that it is possible for China to “redefine a legal precept” and that countermeasures should be taken seems to indicate muddy waters of interpretation. At one extreme international law is nothing but ruler practices, at the other international law is infallible, transparent, and always just. In between there might be a middle ground worth taking, but I am not going to take a stance on international law in order to further the argument of China’s revisionist orientation. To avoid quarrels over international law, another way of approaching the issue is to look at the intercept strictly in terms of standards of behavior. Revisionist orientation thus connects to a rejection of “the dominant norms of interaction.” In this case, the norms of interaction concern U.S. surveillance and reconnaissance in China’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to which China indeed rejects. The implications of such a stance are inherently normative and cannot be decided in an unbiased and neutral way.

Of course, much falls back on how the United States makes use of its preventive power.

According to the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon, who recently published Reassurance and Resolve: U.S.-China Relations in the Twenty-First Century, the United States “should not and would not pull back” and the smaller voices that preach retrenchment in the American debate will not “win the game.” Thus, if the fundamental problem “is that Beijing wants a sphere of influence, while Washington is not willing to accede it,” then the antithesis of China’s new type of great power relations is facing an uncompromising thesis. Often, when history is faced with such a situation struggle ensues until a new synthesis emerges and creates something new out of the clashing projects.

John H.S. Åberg is pursuing his doctoral studies in International Relations at Lingnan University under the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme. Follow him on Twitter at @JHSaberg

[member_19686]

As possibility of third world war exists, China needs to be prepared
By Han Xudong (Global Times) 07:02, September 16, 2014

As the Ukrainian crisis deepens, international observers have become more and more concerned about a direct military clash between the US and Russia. Once an armed rivalry erupts, it is likely to extend to the globe. And it is not impossible that a world war could break out.
The world war is a form of war that the whole world should face up to. During human evolution, the world war has entered its third development phase.
The first phase took place between nomadic societies and farming groups. The second phase was featured by colonial wars, with WWI and WWII as its special representatives.
Currently, the world has entered an era of new forms of global war.
Outer space, the Internet and the sea have become the battlefields of rivalry. Technology is the key, and the number of countries involved is unprecedented.
The rivalry on the outer space and the Internet takes place with the rivalry on the sea as the center stage. During WWII, some major powers attached significant importance to the sea.
Alfred Thayer Mahan, a US military strategist who died in 1914, coined the notion of sea power. He advocated valuing the naval forces, commercial fleet and overseas military base, which served for wars on the land.
But nowadays, we stress the importance of power in the sea. Judging from the contention of the global sea space, the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean have seen the fiercest rivalry. It's likely that there will be a third world war to fight for sea rights.
In an era when a third world war may take place, an important topic for the Chinese military is how to develop its power to maintain its national interests.
This should become the basis for its development, because since the founding of the PRC, the development of its military forces has been centered around maintaining its rights on the land. As the rivalry on the sea grows intense, China's military development should shift from maintaining the country's rights on the land to maintaining its rights on the sea.
Meanwhile, China is standing at the focal point of rivalries. This requires China to develop its military power based on a global war. China is in the heartland of the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
The development of China's sea power touches the nerves of many countries. China needs to develop its military power to avoid being squeezed to a passive position.
China's overseas interests have spread all over the world. As the US has been shifting its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, especially aiming at China, China's overseas interests have been increasingly threatened by the US.
Without large-scale military power, securing China's overseas interests seems like an empty slogan.
The long-range or overseas combat capabilities of China's sea and air forces are quite limited yet. If we don't view the development of sea and air forces with a farsighted view, we will face various restraints when building up the combat capabilities of sea and air forces or maintaining overseas interests. This will lead to the backwardness of China's sea and air forces.
China should not be pushed into a passive position where it is vulnerable to attacks. We must bear a third world war in mind when developing military forces, especially the sea and air forces.
The author is a professor at the PLA National Defense University.

http://english.people.com.cn/n/2014/091 ... 82955.html

[SSridhar]

The genesis of the latest problem, the one at Chumar.
Link - ToI

The Chinese side had been constructing a road on their side of LAC at Chumar but on Sunday, its workers entered into the Indian side to carry on the construction. This was objected to by the Indian side as Chinese workers were making assertions that they have instructions to build a road upto Tible, five kilometres deep into Indian territory, the sources said.

The Indian Army asked the Chinese workers to leave, otherwise they would face prosecution under Indian laws for entering into the country illegally.

However, during the intervening night of Sunday and Monday, nearly 100 Indian soldiers were reported to have been encircled by 300 Chinese PLA men after which a face-off started . . .

[manjgu]

i hereby give instructions to BRO to make a road till Beijing !

[aditya]

If one looks at various maps, China's borders with Bhutan also appears disputed. It also has a long border with Nepal.

Are there any incidents of incursions into Bhutan and Nepal, or are there other factors (geography? lack geopolitical value?) that ensure an equilibrium in these cases?

It would be interesting to track these as an incursion into Nepal or Bhutan impinges on India as well.

[Philip]

If China continues to dispute the boundary,then India should start disputing China's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan."What's sauce for the Beijing duck is sauce for the hen".

[SSridhar]

If one looks at various maps, China's borders with Bhutan also appears disputed. It also has a long border with Nepal.

Are there any incidents of incursions into Bhutan and Nepal, or are there other factors (geography? lack geopolitical value?) that ensure an equilibrium in these cases?

It would be interesting to track these as an incursion into Nepal or Bhutan impinges on India as well.

aditya, there is no country with which China does not have a border dispute.

China also has a border dispute with Bhutan. The dispute goes back to 1950 when China published maps showing certain portions in the west and north of Bhutan as belonging to it. Bilateral talks however started only in 1984 on the border dispute. In c. 2012, China made a package offer to Bhutan through which it conceded its claims to 900 Sq Kms of territory in the north for a 400 Sq Km territory in the west. China has been claiming Doklam, Charithang, Sinchulimpa and Dramana pasture land in Western Bhutan leading up to the Chumbi Valley which is a wedge between India (Sikkim) and Bhutan. The idea of the Chinese is to increase the shoulder leading to the narrow Chumbi valley to enable building road and rail network. The Chumbi Valley is hardly 500 Kms from the strategic and narrow Siliguri Corridor (or, ‘Chicken’s Neck’) that connects the North East to mainland India.

In June, 2012, China proposed to establish its diplomatic mission in Bhutan and demanded Bhutan conceding 400 Sq. Kms of land leading up to the Chumbi Valley. This was discussed when the Bhutanese Prime Minister Jigme Thinley, held a first-ever meeting with then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, on the sidelines of a United Nations conference in Brazil in June 2012. A commentary in the Communist Party-run tabloid Global Times accused India of influencing the c. 2013 domestic elections in Bhutan and treating the country “like a protectorate” by withdrawing petroleum subsidies.

In June 2014, on the eve of Indian PM Narendra Modi’s state visit (his first foreign tour upon assuming office), the Bhutanese Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay said regarding the Chinese diplomatic mission, “China has not advanced such a proposal to the Royal Government, but that as a neighbour of China we engage regularly with it to resolve the border issue.” After the conclusion of Modi’s visit to Bhutan, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that there was no competition between India and China for strategic space in Bhutan.

As it does along the Indian border or even elsewhere, PLA makes regular deep intrusions and carries out road extension works into or near disputed areas even violating the 1998 China-Bhutan Agreement for Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility. Again, the Chinese violation of a treaty is also unsurprising.

[arun]

India 'instigating' incidents on borders: Chinese media :-

PTI via ET

The cited “Chinese Media” article from Chinese State Owned Newspaper, Global Times:

Xi, Modi ink 12 agreements

[harbans]

If China continues to dispute the boundary,then India should start disputing China's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan."What's sauce for the Beijing duck is sauce for the hen".

That "If" is the problem. Problem is there should be no "If" here. It should be disputed without hesitation even if China's leadership crawls on all 4 singing Indian soverginity on ArP. Sikkim, Aksai Chin. The day we take that stand the pressure from Aksai, ArP, Sikkim, Bhutan, Shiv Bhoomi etc all reversed onto China. Point is we thought we are too clever and would get 'concessions'. We got nothing. CHinese acknowledging Aksai, ArP, Sikkim, Bhutan is not some 'concession'. Look at how some were wagging their tails in glee at China gives green signal to motorable way to Shiv Bhoomi. Shiv Bhoomi (KM region) should never have been with the Han. The Han has no link whatsoever remote to this region. This region should have been under joint management of India-Nepal-Tibet. It has nothing to do with Han China that has been 4k kms in history removed from this most sacred spot that is right next to us.

[MN Kumar]

India Cancels Media Dialogue With China After Border Stand-Off

NEW DELHI: An India-China media dialogues scheduled for later this week in Delhi may have become the first casualty due to the border stand-off between the two countries.

The government of India has abruptly withdrawn clearances for Chinese editors who were coming to Delhi this week for a media exchange with Indian journalists, something that takes place every year.

The think tank organising the event says no reason was given and all they got was a one line fax that the clearances had been withdrawn.

"Due to unavoidable complications, we have had to postpone the India-China Media Exchange. We thank you all for agreeing to participate on Sep 24th -- and dinner -- and we will call on your participation again when we hold the event. But for now, it stands cancelled," the organisers told participating Indian journalists. They insist the Chinese editors had their visas in place.

So far, there has been no official comment by the government.

Soldiers of China's People's Liberation Army, who entered Chumur in Ladakh last week, have remained on Indian territory, despite the reported assurance by Chinese President Xi Jinping -who concluded his three-day visit to India on Friday - to Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the issue. PM Modi had taken up the incursions with President Jinping and bluntly stressed on the need to resolve the dispute quickly and clarify the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Chumur, 300 kilometres north of Ladakh, stands at the intersection of the international border and the Line of Actual Control or the de facto border between the two countries. The Chinese troops allegedly brought in in heavy construction equipment and a large labour force to set up a road up to the border.

The standoff in Chumur worsened on Saturday after a second intrusion by Chinese army personnel in two days was reported at another point after they had withdrawn from the same area.

Story First Published: September 21, 2014 18:16 IST

[SSridhar]

Chinese pitch seven tents in Chumar; stand off continues - PTI, ET

The stand-off in Chumar area of Ladakh area took a new turn today with Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) pitching seven tents well within the Indian territory and showing no signs of withdrawing from the territory.

The Chinese who had arrived in vehicles yesterday in Chumar, 300 km from Leh, started erecting the tents in the Indian territory despite repeated warnings by the army to vacate the area, official sources said.

Nearly 100 personnel of the PLA strength was estimated around Point 30R, a strategically important post, as it helps India to keep a vigil deep inside the occupied territory of Chinese, they said.

This incursion was in addition to the 35-odd personnel who were already camping at a hillock in the Chumar area itself, the sources said.

The Chinese soldiers were demanding that Indian army should withdraw simultaneously from the area but the army had decided to dig in its heels. The Chinese soldiers had retreated to their territory on Thursday night.

The Point 30R post has been frequented by PLA often as Indian Army has kept an observation post which dominates the Line of Actual Control(LAC) and gives advantage to India in keeping a vigil on the Chinese activity deep across the border.

Chinese helicopters were again seen in action for dropping food packets for its soldiers but none of them violated the air space. The food packets were later collected by the PLA personnel and stored inside the tents.

The tension in this area erupted on Sunday when some of the Chinese workers, who were constructing road on their side, started entering into the Indian side and also claimed that they had orders to build road upto Tible, five km deep into the Indian territory, the sources said.

The Indian army asked the Chinese workers to leave, telling them that otherwise they would face prosecution under Indian laws for entering the country illegally.

[khan]

What exactly is the difference between the UPI's handling and the BJP's handling of the Chinese border situation? It seems that the main difference has been on the PR aspect of it. This time around we seem to be much more vocal about our concerns.

My fear about being this vocal is we might make it too hard for them to de-escalate without loosing face (they are the aggressors here, the onus of de-escalation is on them). There is nothing wrong with that provided we are militarily prepared. But the big question is - are we?

I found Ajit Doval's blog here http://ajitdoval.blogspot.com

I haven't had time to go through it, but there might be some stuff in there that details his thinking about dealing with the Chinese.

[PratikDas]

What exactly is the difference between the UPI's handling and the BJP's handling of the Chinese border situation? It seems that the main difference has been on the PR aspect of it. This time around we seem to be much more vocal about our concerns.

My fear about being this vocal is we might make it too hard for them to de-escalate without loosing face (they are the aggressors here, the onus of de-escalation is on them). There is nothing wrong with that provided we are militarily prepared. But the big question is - are we?

We're not just more vocal, we've put boots on the ground, matched number for number while the Chinese President was in town, without caring for niceties or what this esteemed guest may think or consider to be offensive. In a room shared by the President of China and the Prime Minister of India, the Indian Prime Minister took a moment to listen to his National Security Adviser before dealing with the Dragon. The Indian Prime Minister didn't hesitate in bringing unsavoury realities vis-à-vis the border to the table regardless of the $100 billion carrot China dangled. Like many things made in China, that carrot too was hollow.

elkay ‏@elkay14 29m
#namo namah jst in # army moves 3 battallions 2 #ladakh 2 face d heat of 1000 Chinese soldiers infiltrating #ladakh .

nitin gokhale ‏@nitingokhale 10m

Latest from Ladakh: India has deployed nearly 1500 troops in Chumur.More troops ready for deployment if nedeed. Situation under control.

Those battalions may have cost India $80 billion, but no patriotic Indian gives a flying ----.

As for losing face, President Xi seems to have already lost his. Too bad for him.

China's military told 'to follow Xi Jinping's instructions'
Ananth Krishnan | Beijing, September 21, 2014 | UPDATED 22:36 IST

The Chiefs of Staff of China's military were called to Beijing on Sunday for a meeting held to address "inefficiencies" in the chain of military command, with the armed forces given an order "to follow the instructions of President Xi Jinping".

The meeting in Beijing of the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) top brass was aimed at "improving" the chain of military command, a brief statement issued by the Defence Ministry said.

The statement said the chiefs had been instructed to ensure that "all PLA forces should follow the instructions of President Xi Jinping", who also heads the Communist Party's and government's Central Military Commission (CMC).

The question of the extent of Xi's direct control over the military command has come under attention with the PLA's deployment of several hundred troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Demchok straining ties just as the Chinese President was visiting India.

The timing of the PLA's actions at Demchok and Chumar surprised observers, as the stand-off threatened to erode the goodwill that Xi was trying to establish with Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he visited Gujarat and New Delhi. When pressed by Modi about the stand-off in Demchok, Xi was learned to have conveyed he would take steps to deescalate the situation. Chinese troops subsequently pulled back as the President concluded his visit, but the stand-off resumed in Chumar on Saturday, according to reports.

Xi has been seen as among the most powerful of China's recent leaders, with strong connections with the PLA. Unlike his predecessor Hu Jintao, he served briefly with the PLA - albeit only as an aide to a former top official - and is known to enjoy close ties with several of the PLA's current top generals, including Chief of General Staff, General Fang Fenghui.

The meeting of the PLA's Chiefs of Staff was held in Beijing a day after Xi arrived in the capital following his visit to India. The Chiefs of Staff were told to streamline the operational headquarters of the PLA and "revised several important protocols", the Defence Ministry said without elaborating.

[SSridhar]

Chinese incursion: 15 battalions in Ladakh on high alert - Rajat Pandit, ToI

Indian Army is keeping its 15 battalions as well as "reserve units" in eastern Ladakh on "high alert" to counter the People's Liberation Army in the ongoing shadow-boxing taking place in the high-altitude region to strengthen claims to disputed areas.

Diplomatic channels are now working overtime to de-escalate the border imbroglio at both Chumar and Demchok, after three flag meetings between local military commanders failed to make any headway, but India is not averse to playing "cartographic hardball" with China if required, say sources.

"The situation is fluid but not tense. Chumar has always been held by us. We will not allow the PLA to construct a road or anything else on what we consider our territory. If they withdraw, we will also simultaneously pull back some of our troops," said a source.

But no change in the ground situation in either the troop faceoff at Chumar or the so-called "civilian confrontation" at Demchok was reported till Sunday evening. Around 1,000 PLA troops were still occupying six to seven tactical positions in the Chumar sector, where heights vary from 12,000 to 15,000 feet.

"Some of them often re-position themselves for better logistics. A few return to their administrative bases in the rear for the night, and then come back in the morning. It's a well-planned operation by PLA, which has never set up camps in the area before," said the source.

Over 1,000 Indian troops, too, are maintaining their forward deployment in the Chumar sector, where the "cat-and-mouse game" has now been underway since September 10 after Indian soldiers stopped PLA troops from building a road right up to Chepzi on the unresolved Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The close-quarter jostling for better tactical positions had even led to a young PLA officer being detained by the Indian troops after he had strayed into one of their positions last week. The Chinese lieutenant was later handed over to the PLA.

Though the standoff is currently limited to the southern part of eastern Ladakh, the Army-ITBP combine has stepped up patrols all along the LAC stretching from Daulat Beg Oldi in the north down to Chumar near the Himachal border. Both sides have also deployed helicopters and drones for sustaining their soldiers as well as surveillance to detect build-ups.

The Army has enough personnel in the region to take care of such contingencies. There are four battalions each under the 70 Brigade at Kiari and the 114 Brigade at Tangtse, as also five units of the Ladakh Scouts. The 14 Corps at Leh, which looks after the Kargil sector as well as eastern Ladakh, also has the 81 Brigade as "a reserve formation", which can swiftly be deployed towards Kargil or eastern Ladakh when required.

Sources said China seems to be testing the Modi government's resolve both on the land boundaries as well as the Indian Ocean Region with its Maritime Silk Route construct. During the 21-day Depsang faceoff at the DBO sector in April-May last year, just before Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's visit here, India had got conflicting signals from the PLA commanders on the ground and the political leadership in Beijing.

Similar messaging is happening in the ongoing Chumar faceoff, which coincided with President Xi Jinping's visit here. "It's very difficult to believe that local PLA commanders would act like this without the top Chinese leadership's nod. We have asked China to adhere to the 2005 protocol on CBMs on the LAC," said the source.

It had taken intensive diplomatic intervention to finally defuse the DBO faceoff last year after India dismantled "a tin shed" at Chumar and the PLA troops simultaneously withdrew from the Depsang Valley. Similarly, this time the Chinese troops are also asking Indian troops to demolish a recently-built hut at Tible in the Chumar sector, as reported by TOI earlier.

PLA does not want India to improve infrastructure on its side of the LAC at all. As we embark on the ambitious programme to increase infrastructure along the LAC, we are going to see more of these stand-offs.

[Rudradev]

Gentlemen,

I'd like to bring something to your attention here:


For all the Congress apologists protesting that there was really "no difference" between how the UPA handled Chinese incursions and how the current administration is handling them, a little attention to the facts will go a long way.

The latest Chinese incursion needs to be seen in terms of developments that began at least as early as April-May 2013.

At that time the PLA had advanced 19km in the vicinity of Depsang (black marker) which is in close proximity to our advanced landing ground in Daulat Beg Oldi (blue marker) and also only about 50 km east-southeast of the Siachen ALS (green marker).

The incursion was "resolved" on May 5th when, according to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 995992.cms

India dismantled what it called ``a tin shed'' at Chumar and the PLA troops simultaneously withdrew from Depsang. ``Chumar is one of the few sectors in Ladakh where our positions and supply lines are much more advantageous than the PLA,'' said an officer.

Our relatively poor infrastructure along the entire LAC is well known to anyone who has carried out even a modicum of analysis. Chumar (red marker) was ONE place along the LAC where India actually HAD some advantageous defense infrastructure:

The Chumar post on the Ladakh-Himachal Pradesh border was the bone of contention even during the 21-day military face-off in April-May, which saw the two rival armies pitching tents and indulging in banner drills after PLA troops intruded 19 km into the Indian territory in the Depsang Bulge area of the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) sector.

In fact, the main pre-condition laid down by the PLA to withdraw from Depsang during the face-off was that India should dismantle the temporary bunkers it had constructed in Chumar.

Though Chumar is some 250-km south of DBO, Indian observation posts and surveillance cameras there have for long irked the PLA since they can ``look'' into Chinese territory and track troop movements there.

So there you have it. In response to the PLA's Depsang incursion, AK Antony and Manmohan Singh (whom we are not supposed to call traitors ) were quick to placate the Chinese by dismantling some of IA's valuable observational infrastructure at Chumar.

This was obviously a cue for the PLA to walk right into Chumar and vandalize more IA property there:

The June 17 incursion saw the PLA patrol cross over into what India perceives to be its side of the LAC and slash the wires of the cameras installed there, which fed live images to the Indian post some 5-km to the rear. On noticing the PLA activity, a joint Army-ITBP patrol also rushed to the area but by then, the PLA patrol had withdrawn with the dismantled camera.

And now, of course, the PLA has intruded into Chumar with more than a 1000 soldiers, building semi-permanent structures, in a move timed to coincide with the visit of Xi Jinping to New Delhi.

I don't think the picture could be more clear. The Sonia-MMS regime bartered away scarce and valuable infrastructural advantages along the LAC by dismantling our observational structures in Chumar, because they could think of no better way to remove the PLA from Depsang in April-May 2013. The effect was to wilfully blind the few eyes that the IA had available on the LAC.

This may be briefly recapitulated by the following analogy:

1) Your neighbour occupies a space on your lawn.
2) The best way you can think of to make your neighbour depart from your lawn is to promise him you will board up all the windows in your house that overlook his house.
3) Your neighbour shows up in your daughter's bedroom.

Would the PLA have been able to surprise IA with a 1000+ personnel incursion in Chumar sector if our observational infrastructure in the area had still been intact and functioning? Or is this incursion something else for which we must thank the Sonia-MMS regime's utter contempt for national security and the men who put their lives on the line to defend it?

[Jarita]

What exactly is the difference between the UPI's handling and the BJP's handling of the Chinese border situation? It seems that the main difference has been on the PR aspect of it. This time around we seem to be much more vocal about our concerns.

My fear about being this vocal is we might make it too hard for them to de-escalate without loosing face (they are the aggressors here, the onus of de-escalation is on them). There is nothing wrong with that provided we are militarily prepared. But the big question is - are we?

I found Ajit Doval's blog here http://ajitdoval.blogspot.com

I haven't had time to go through it, but there might be some stuff in there that details his thinking about dealing with the Chinese.

This is a tricky situation because tough talk will not work here. The chinese are such that we need to hurt them while smiling at them. They desperately want to show that they are a world superpower and strength talk will not help. Only a quiet show will.
This is where we need pragmatism and realpolitik. Unfortunately, the present government has very little left from UPA to leverage

[JE Menon]

>>AK Antony and Manmohan Singh (whom we are not supposed to call traitors )

Really? Who said that on BRF? My opinion is that one should be free to call them anything you want, now.

But you or anyone else can't call Modi or Jaitley that, at least on BRF, until they demit office without risking admin action.

[SSridhar]

RD, The PLA took away a high resolution camera and when India protested, the Chinese returned the non-functional camera a few days later.

[Rudradev]

>>AK Antony and Manmohan Singh (whom we are not supposed to call traitors )

Really? Who said that on BRF? My opinion is that one should be free to call them anything you want, now.

But you or anyone else can't call Modi or Jaitley that, at least on BRF, until they demit office without risking admin action.

Who said it? Why, a dear friend of mine who lives not far away from me and is a respected member of BRF/attends our regional meets regularly. He even demanded that posters "apologize" for calling Manmohan Singh a "traitor". I won't name him or link to the relevant posts because I don't want to embarrass him

[SSridhar]

Let me recall the Depsang incident just prior to the Chumar incident taking away our camera and asking us to demolish the 'tin shed'.

On April 15, 2013, in a deep incursion, forty Chinese troops entered the Indian territory in the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) sector in eastern Ladakh and erected a tented post, 19 Kms inside Indian territory at Depsang Valley, setting the stage for a face-to-face situation with Indian troops which continued for 21 days. In the three flag meetings, the PLA put several demands such as the Indian Army destroying certain structures, calling off of night patrols, not tailing Chinese patrols and reducing troop levels in return for Chinese troops to vacate Depsang valley in DBO sector. The incursion took place just within a fortnight after the new Chinese President met Indian PM Man Mohan Singh (at the BRICS Summit Meet in Durban in March 2013) and requested Man Mohan Singh to accommodate Chinese PM Li Keqiang’s visit in May to India (as he was keen on making India his first stop) and weeks before the state visit of the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India as his first stop after he took prime Ministership {Eerily, the last two BRICS Summit Meetings have been followed by the top-level Chinese visit to India and in between a serious incident at LAC} . After nearly three weeks of stand-off, India acceded to certain demands such as dismantling some Indian structures and withdrawing Indian forces facing the Chinese and the stand-off ended. Thus, Indian troops withdrew from its own land to ‘appease’ the Chinese.

Later, the calling off of night patrols and tailing of each other’s patrols were included in the BDCA that was signed during the October, 2013 state visit of Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh to China. However, the defence minister Arun Jaitley announced in the Parliament in August, 2014 that even after signing the BDCA which expressly prohibits tailing, the PLA tailed an Indian Army unit on June 2, 2014 in Eastern Ladakh. We now understand that there have been several such 'tailing' after that.

The official Chinese newspaper, People's Daily, commenting on the DBO stand-off, said that China should continue friendly relations with India but should not "indulge" India's "bad habits" and, in particular, the "lies" of the Indian news media. In a press briefing, ahead of the October, 2013 visit of Man Mohan Singh to China, the Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman said that Depsang incident “was a reaction to too much construction along the border by India”. She also warned “If we don’t have the overall collaboration of the military, policymakers and decision makers on both sides it will be difficult to avoid such incidents”.

A few weeks later, on May 17, 2013 more disturbing news appeared of Indian patrols being stopped by the Chinese PLA within Indian territory near the Finger-VIII area in eastern Ladakh or Sri Jap area, situated north of Pangong Tso lake and prevented it from going upto the LAC. However the Indian Army dismissed the incident as inconsequential saying "Six to seven such incidents take place in that area every month, with both sides patrolling up to what they perceive to be their territory along the LAC ... there was no activity out of the established pattern witnessed there". At the same time, the Indian Army dismissed reports from Leh that the Chinese had constructed a road 5 km across the LAC into the Indian side in the Finger-IV area. The Indian Army said that the Chinese had constructed about three or four roads in 2008 in the Siri Jap area currently controlled by them.

After everyone thought that the incursion issue had been amicably settled with the intervention of Foreign ministers and Prime Minister of both countries, a fresh row erupted on June 17, 2013 in the same sector, this time in Chumar, South Ladakh. This incident happened two weeks before defence minister A.K.Antony’s official visit to Beijing, the first by an Indian defence minister in seven years.

[JE Menon]

RD

As far as I know, only serving officials or constitutionally appointed officials are off limits. Of course limits of personal taste and BRF rules applying to all remain in effect, but "traitor" is a fairly normal word in English - provided sufficient information is provided, and these two chaps are definitely on the thin edge.

I personally consider MMS to be a coward, both as a personal and professional trait, rather than a wilful traitor. He was a man with all the power for good in his hand, and he could have done a lot of good - if only he had decided to exercise power on behalf of the people instead of this family, which once did some good but has now become a wretched leech on the state and national body. Instead Manmohan Singh preferred the role of lapdog, and played it to the hilt. I can't think of a more accurate word to describe him than coward.

"Apologize" indeed!

[SanjayC]

>>AK Antony and Manmohan Singh (whom we are not supposed to call traitors )

Really? Who said that on BRF? My opinion is that one should be free to call them anything you want, now.

But you or anyone else can't call Modi or Jaitley that, at least on BRF, until they demit office without risking admin action.

Who said it? Why, a dear friend of mine who lives not far away from me and is a respected member of BRF/attends our regional meets regularly. He even demanded that posters "apologize" for calling Manmohan Singh a "traitor". I won't name him or link to the relevant posts because I don't want to embarrass him

I was banned for calling MMS a traitor.

[JE Menon]

When he was PM I guess. You know the difference.

Anyway this is OT. Matter is over and done with. Return to subject please.

[Rudradev]

RD, The PLA took away a high resolution camera and when India protested, the Chinese returned the non-functional camera a few days later.

Again, SS garu, to be seen in context:

April-May: PLA advances 19 km into DBO sector.

May 5: PLA withdraws only after brave MMS/AK Antony agree to destroy our own infrastructure on our own soil (Chumar) because the Chinese say so.

May 12: Salman Khurshid goes to Beijing and says it is so wonderful that he would love to live there permanently.

June 17: The incident you describe: PLA walks into the newly-blinded Chumar sector with a small patrol, takes away a camera, breaks it and returns it.

July 4-7: Our defense minister, AK "beheadings were carried out by terrorists in Pak army uniform" Antony visits China like the whipped and wretched supplicant he is. He allows the Chinese to dictate the terms of a new BDCA ("Border Defence Cooperation Agreement") to maintain "peace and tranquility" along the LAC.

The present government responded to the 1,000-man PLA incursion by matching their deployment, soldier for soldier, without hesitation. It has placed 15 Northern Command battalions on high alert. All this, it has done even while the Chinese Premier was visiting Delhi and brandishing investment offers at us. Without a hint of "log kya kahenge" (or should it be "Madam kya kahegi"), the current administration has demonstrated that no pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about trade or investment could be leveraged for an instant against the territorial integrity and national security of India. Now that Sonia Gandhi is gone, we are no longer a nation of beggars who can be induced to drop our pants by waving crumbs under our noses.

And some people ask what this regime did differently from the UPA. Seriously?

[SanjayC]

China's military told 'to follow Xi Jinping's instructions'

The Chiefs of Staff of China's military were called to Beijing on Sunday for a meeting held to address "inefficiencies" in the chain of military command, with the armed forces given an order "to follow the instructions of President Xi Jinping".

The meeting in Beijing of the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) top brass was aimed at "improving" the chain of military command, a brief statement issued by the Defence Ministry said.

The statement said the chiefs had been instructed to ensure that "all PLA forces should follow the instructions of President Xi Jinping", who also heads the Communist Party's and government's Central Military Commission (CMC).

The question of the extent of Xi's direct control over the military command has come under attention with the PLA's deployment of several hundred troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Demchok straining ties just as the Chinese President was visiting India.

The timing of the PLA's actions at Demchok and Chumar surprised observers, as the stand-off threatened to erode the goodwill that Xi was trying to establish with Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he visited Gujarat and New Delhi. When pressed by Modi about the stand-off in Demchok, Xi was learned to have conveyed he would take steps to deescalate the situation. Chinese troops subsequently pulled back as the President concluded his visit, but the stand-off resumed in Chumar on Saturday, according to reports.

Xi has been seen as among the most powerful of China's recent leaders, with strong connections with the PLA. Unlike his predecessor Hu Jintao, he served briefly with the PLA - albeit only as an aide to a former top official - and is known to enjoy close ties with several of the PLA's current top generals, including Chief of General Staff, General Fang Fenghui.

The meeting of the PLA's Chiefs of Staff was held in Beijing a day after Xi arrived in the capital following his visit to India. The Chiefs of Staff were told to streamline the operational headquarters of the PLA and "revised several important protocols", the Defence Ministry said without elaborating.

[Peregrine]

Two people killed in series of blasts in China's Xinjiang region

BEIJING: Two people were killed and "many" injured by multiple explosions in China's Xinjiang, the local government said on Monday.

The blasts struck at least three locations in Luntai County in the region's south on Sunday, including a shopping area, the Xinjiang government's Tianshan web portal said.

The report did not say what caused the explosions or give a precise number of injured.

Clashes between locals and security forces in Xinjiang — located in China's far west and home to the mostly-Muslim Uighur minority — as well as attacks targeting civilians have killed more than 200 people in the past year.

Beijing blames the violence on "terrorist" groups seeking independence for the region, while rights groups say that cultural and religious oppression of Uighurs has fuelled resentment.

The attacks have grown in scale and sophistication over the last year and have spread outside the region.

Among the most shocking were a May assault on a market in the regional capital Urumqi, where more than 30 people were killed, and a deadly rampage by knife-wielding assailants at a train station at Kunming in China's southwest in March, which left 29 dead.

China launched a crackdown in the region following the Urumqi attack, detaining hundreds of people described as suspected terrorists.

Earlier this month three people who appeared to be Uighur were sentenced to death and another to life in prison for the Kunming knife attack.

Authorities in Xinjiang tightly control religious gatherings and are carrying out a campaign against Islamic veils and beards.

"China's policies have led people to resist fiercely in order to maintain their dignity," Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress exile group said in a statement in response to the explosions.

Last week China put Ilham Tohti, a Uighur academic who was an outspoken critic of China's policies in the region, on trial for separatism.

A court in Urumqi is due to deliver its verdict in the case on Tuesday, his lawyers said, in a move critics say could add to tensions.

The explosions came as China's supreme court on Sunday distributed new regulations on prosecutions for terrorist cases.

"Making and showing banners and other material of religious extremism will be criminalised," the state-run Xinhua news agency said in a summary of the regulations.

The court also said that the use of insults such as "religious traitor" and "heretic", if serious, may lead to criminal conviction, it said.

Xinjiang, a resource-rich region which abuts Central Asia, is home to about 10 million Uighurs, who mostly follow Sunni Islam.

Many complain of economic inequality and discrimination. Beijing regularly accuses what it says are exiled Uighur separatist groups such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and the Turkestan Islamic Party as being behind attacks.

But overseas experts doubt the strength of the groups and their links to global terrorism, with some arguing China exaggerates the threat to justify tough security measures in Xinjiang.

Cheers

[SSridhar]

China for regional response as blasts rock Xinjiang - Atul Aneja, The Hindu

Regional response? The next time 'Eleven' broaches this topic with Modi, he should be reminded the Chinese stance in the UNSC vis-a-vis LeT & Hafeez Saeed. Seriously, we must not miss such a chance.

[SSridhar]

There are 'differing perceptions' of LAC: Chinese military - PTI, ET

Amid the continuing standoff with Indian troops in the Ladakh region, the Chinese military today for the first time commented on the recent border incidents, saying there are "differing perceptions" of the LAC but the two sides can resolve boundary issues through dialogue.

"We have noted the relevant media reports," the office of the spokesman of China's Ministry of National Defence said in response to a query from PTI here about the standoff between the troops of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and that of India in Chumar area of Ladakh which has been continuing for over a week.

"The China-India boundary dispute is an issue left over from history. The boundary between the two countries has not been demarcated till now and there are differing perceptions with regards to the Line of Actual Control (LAC)," military said in its first comments on the incident which cast a shadow over President Xi Jinping's high-profile visit to India.

"The border troops of China have always strictly observed the relevant agreements signed between the two countries. The two sides can properly resolve issues arising in the border areas through dialogue and consultations," it said.

The Chinese military referred to the joint statement issued at the end of Xi's visit, stating that the two countries wished to build a closer developmental partnership recognising peace and tranquility on the China-India border areas as an important guarantor for the development and continued growth of bilateral relations.

"They (Xi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi) also reiterated that pending a final resolution of the boundary question, the two sides would continue to make joint efforts to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas," the military said.

"We are willing to work with the Indian side to earnestly implement the important consensus agreed upon by the leaders of the two countries and work together to maintain peace and tranquility in the China-India border areas," the PLA communique said without specifying how to resolve the issue.

Yesterday, Chiefs of staff of the PLA met to improve the efficiency of the military command under new circumstances.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying told a media briefing today that President Xi's visit to India removed "some suspicions" between the two countries, pushed the ties to a "new age" and during talks an "important consensus" was reached on politically resolving the border issue through friendly coordination.

"We can say President Xi's visit to India has removed some of the suspicions of two countries and pushed bilateral relations to a new age," Hua said.

[Jarita]

China will never agree on any LAC. Their perception will always be more. That is the philosophy of the nation both historically and at in stone by Mao. It has to expand. That is the underlying foundation.
It is like a beast which expands by killing culture and tradition and creating a uniform monolith with no harmony towards the earth and the flow of he universe. It is the ultimate horror that has wiped out 50 plus languages and created a massive factory with slave labor and a small elite. Just like Islams oil the world will no longer speak against chinas atrocities towards humanity itself because of dirt cheap manufacturing through slavery and a destruction of nature.
We ourselves call ourselves a dharmic nation but pussyfoot around the facts that if it was not for economic might china is no better than Congo or Liberia with the blood diamond mines, despotic leaders. The only difference is that the Chinese leadership has a false sense of history based upon the past they abandoned in the cultural revolution. It is a completely foul nation which has used capital and military might to get a place at the table with civilized folks.
For India to expect a deal on the LAC with china is beyond ridiculous. There will never be one. China has been most unethical in its border claims and dealings. They walked into Tibet and claimed it without any agreement with Tibetan leader. That is an illegally occupied nation they are busy raping day in and day out.
The only way to deal with china is as one would with a narcissistic child who fancies himself emporer and wants everything in their sight. Humor them and distract them. Keep distracting them.
On the surface we can treat them as equals but the short sightedness of indians is to see other groups with the same frame as oneself. China is not the same as us. They will not honor treaties and agreements. They are rapacious about the environment and have broken every covenant of dharma.

[sivab]

Brahma Chellaney @Chellaney · 1h
Amid a tense but localized troop standoff in Ladakh, Indian Army chief scraps Bhutan trip while Xi asks PLA to be ready for a "regional war"

[sivab]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/xi-j ... 84400.html

Xi Jinping asks Chinese Army to be ready for a regional war

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday asked the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to be combat ready to win a "regional war" and make sure that all decisions from the central leadership are strictly followed.

"Headquarters of PLA forces must have absolute loyalty and firm faith in the Communist Party of China, guarantee a smooth chain of command and make sure all decisions from the central leadership are fully implemented," said Xi, chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

"Headquarters of all PLA forces should improve their combat readiness and sharpen their ability to win a regional war in the age of information technology," Xi, who returned from India last week after a three-day visit, was quoted as saying by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

Though this is not the first time that Xi has asked the PLA to be ready for a "regional war", his statement assumes significance in the context of repeated incursions into Indian territory along the Line of Actual Control which cast a shadow during his visit.

All PLA forces should follow the instructions of President Xi and update their operations to meet new goals and missions set by the CMC, an official statement said.

It is not yet clear why the emphasis was made on absolute loyalty and to follow the orders to ensure smooth chain of command.

Xi's directives come in the midst of a standoff between the PLA and Indian troops in Chumar area in Ladakh region along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The standoff took a new turn yesterday with the PLA pitching seven tents well within the Indian territory and showing no signs of withdrawing from the territory.

Xi, 61, acquired the image of China's most powerful leader after Deng Xiaoping, who succeeded Mao, as he headed the Presidency, the CPC and the military from day one of coming to power unlike his predecessor Hu Jintao.

Since then, Xi has reshuffled the military postings of the generals loyal to him at the top and removed and prosecuted some top PLA generals for corruption.

Yesterday, General Fang Fenghui, PLA chief, said in a statement that all PLA forces follow the instructions of President Xi who is also the chairman of the CMC, which is the overall high command of the Chinese military.

Fang said the forces should update their operations to meet new goals and missions set by the CMC.

Meanwhile, the PLA chiefs of staff met in Beijing to discuss how to improve the efficiency of military command under new circumstances. Fang attended the meeting.

[ramana]

Context is everything. Xi's directive to PLA is in context of informational technology.

Doesn't apply to India.

Basically PLA is out of control of Xi. He has been embarrassed. He gave new directives and shuffled the PLA leadership. So as a sop gives them some directive to get ready for regional war.

Xi gains more from a friendly India than an unfriendly India.
His biggest challenge is to ensure India doesn't join the US.
PLA is still dreaming of 1962 and is poking India.

[Philip]

Absolutely.The Middle Kingdom mandarins still look at India through 'scopes made in '62.

Here is an opportunity where we can assist Taiwan to develop its own indigenous weapon systems in similar fashion as China assists Pak.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ition-Plan

Taiwan Previews Major Naval Acquisition Plan
Sep. 20, 2014 - 03:45AM |
By WENDELL MINNICK |
The Next Fleet: Taiwan ships on parade during annual Han Kuang exercises off the east coast of Taiwan.

TAIPEI — Taiwan’s Navy plans to build new destroyers, frigates, corvettes and submarines in a 20-year force modernization program that will replace all the US and French-built warships in the fleet.

Details of the program will be released in November, but Navy officials provided some information about the scope of the massive build plan during the live-fire field training event during the annual Han Kuang exercises off the east coast of Taiwan on Sept. 17.

None of the new ships and submarines will be built by the US. Instead, Taiwan will rely on the combined efforts of its Ocean Industries Research and Development Center for design, the Taiwanese military-run Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST) for systems and integration, and the Taiwan-based China Shipbuilding Industry Corp. for construction.

The Navy hopes to finish the design and development stage in five to 10 years, depending on the budget and complexity of each vessel, a Navy official said.

Taiwan will seek Western assistance on various components and systems, but their determination to build the ships in Taiwan remains firm.

Producing them in Taiwan creates jobs and skills, reduces reliance on restrictive US government export policies, and reduces corruption, the Navy official said. US and European defense companies have a history of hiring local agents with ties to organized crime and Beijing’s intelligence apparatus.

This year’s Han Kuang exercise demonstrated a confidence in Taiwan’s Navy to counter China’s growing naval prowess. The exercise, part of the Han Kuang’s joint interdiction phase, included ships and aircraft organized into task groups. Every class of warship participated, from the stealthy Kuang Hua 6 fast-attack missile boat to the Kidd-class destroyers. Aircraft included S-70C helicopters, P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and F-16 fighter aircraft.

Various drills and operations were carried out based on the exercise scenario, including live firing of an anti-ship rocket, depth charges, ship guns and Phalanx close-in weapon systems. “The [field training exercise] reveals not only the superior combat capability of the new-generation naval and Air Force platforms, but also the great training achievements of men and women involved in the exercise,” a Navy spokesperson said. The exercise tests combat effectiveness in force preservation, high sea maneuver and joint interdiction, he said.

Over the next 20 years, the Navy must replace these systems as they age, and there are no guarantees Taiwan’s reliance on US-made weapon systems will continue as Beijing’s influence on Washington grows. Taiwan’s three classes of frigates — Perry, Knox and La Fayette — and the Kidd-class destroyers, will need to be replaced, Navy officials said during the exercise.

The Navy will introduce the plan to the public in November for local build programs for four 10,000-ton destroyers, 10 to 15 3,000-ton catamaran frigates, amphibious transport docks to replace 11 dock landing ships and tank landing ships, and four-to-eight diesel 1,200-3,000-ton submarines to replace two Dutch-built submarines.

US companies will still be allowed to participate in the supply of many systems, Navy officials said, but reliance on local companies will be the focus. The Indigenous Defense Submarine program is the only possible exception. US and European companies can partner with Taiwan on the program, “if they come in early enough,” a Navy official said. “There will be four subs initially, perhaps eight if the budget is there.”

The local build catamarans will be outfitted with 3D phased-array radar and vertical launch missiles. If the US cannot supply the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 air defense missile system, the Navy will commission CSIST to build a missile system based on the Tien Kung (Sky Bow) air defense missile system. CSIST also builds the Hsiung Feng (Brave Wind) anti-ship missile family, Tien Chien (Sky Sword) air defense missile family, and the new land-attack cruise missile.

Taiwan’s local build experience already includes eight Perry-class frigates (Cheng Kung-class), 31 170-ton Kuang Hua 6 fast-attack missile boats armed with Hsiung Feng 2 missiles, 11 500-ton Ching Chiang-class missile patrol boats armed with ramjet-powered supersonic Hsiung Feng 3 missiles, and is building 12 600-ton Hsun Hai-class (Sea Swift-class) corvettes also armed with the Hsiung Feng 3.

The Navy’s build program will face hurdles from budget declines in coming years. The military’s finances will be put to the test as it reduces personnel and implements an all-volunteer force. ■

[Anantha]

Rudradev and Ramana
Thanks for the good analysis. Better than the standard BS by the prev Gov, Media etc "it is due to differing perception of the LAC"

[g.sarkar]

Xi gains more from a friendly India than an unfriendly India.
His biggest challenge is to ensure India doesn't join the US.
PLA is still dreaming of 1962 and is poking India.

Sirji,
The word "gain" here is quite relative. It is very difficult to fathom the motives of a people that have lived in isolation in a dog-eat-dog corrupt world, where only material success is of any account in the society and where millions have perished at the whim of one person. Thousands in Chinese soldiers were killed in their punish Vietnam campaign. You could also have said in 1962, China would gain more from not having a border war with India. Most Indian analysts predicted China will never attack India. Nehru would have given them access through Aksai Chin and more even without the war. But gaining land was not the only aim, China wanted to gain by humiliating India. Any you can not gain that without a war, and in this case a humiliating war.
Gautam