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

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Feb 2015 20:43

As for Tawang from an Indian point of view, giving it up takes away all legitimization from Indian side to holding on to rest of AP. Bhutan being adjacent to the Tawang sector and essentially an Indian protectorate or a future Indian state in the making, why would we want to cede Tawang. That would be a big self-goal in itself.

India really has no negotiating room with them to make a compromise except for minor adjustments perhaps at most close to the LAC. Even that I am not sure would make them happy to give up Aksai Chin. So it is check-mate for now till Pakistan's future status is permanently resolved. I cannot foresee a fair settlement with no war till Chinese interest to develop a Pakistan corridor vanishes.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 21 Feb 2015 21:38

Bade wrote:If they did not want Tawang after 1962 why would they want it now for exchange for something else. The halfway being referred to is Aksai Chin, that India abandon claims to it. I had said so before as their interest lie exactly in the western sector with their pet lapdog that needs grooming to keep India occupied and trade/oil for themselves. They would not want to fight a real direct war on the western front with India, except for managed border escalations to prove a point or two whenever they feel like.

The link that RoyG posted in the previous page, clearly summarizes their stance from 50 years ago...that is a wonderful documentary on their thinking.

I agree with you. Legally, the Chinese withdrawal from Tawang should eliminate any Chinese claims to AP. But then China with its dramatic economic expansion of the last 20+ years and filled with hubris, seems to have contempt for legal viewpoints.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 21 Feb 2015 21:47

On a different train of thought, a joint BIMSTEC and ASEAN grouping with 15 countries, population 2 billion and growing, fast growing economically, underpinned by the US military and Japan will be a powerful deterrent. Perhaps the US with its leadership track record bringing together coalitions of countries (WW1, WW2, Korean War, Cold War etc.) will take the lead in making this happen. There will be everlasting peace and prosperity for a third of humanity in the Indo-Pacific region from New Delhi to Manila

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 22 Feb 2015 01:16

India should abandon one China policy

period. They will fall in line. Chinese do not have guts to fight over Himalayan region. Max they could do is use pukes, naxals and Bangladesh as proxies to keep India on toes. We should rake up uighur, mongol and other weak points. Arunachal is India. We should not give bulls waste of waste chicoms think. I would give tawang if they give kailash mansarovr. If not forget it.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Feb 2015 05:19

Luckily it's not up to you to give up Tawang! Did you even think before posting that?!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Feb 2015 05:43

The near term goals should be to make China accept Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India. Do check on Wikipedia to get the demography both by ethnic or religious groupings, there is no valid claim possible from PRC for any part of Arunachal including Tawang.

As for Manasarovar it was not officially Indian held territory, so the best is to support Tibetan autonomy from PRC as a near term goal.

Aksai Chin will take longer to resolve. What will a few decades do. Even this will have to wait for a Tibetan state to appear to weaken PRC's hold on the region. But the time will come. Borders are never permanent by any stretch.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Feb 2015 06:29

‘Arunachal visit breach of consensus’ - Atul Aneja, The Hindu

For the second successive day, China has protested Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh on Friday, calling the journey a breach of consensus that had been reached between the two countries on the boundary issue.

On Saturday, China’s Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin called in Ashok Kantha, India’s Ambassador to China, “to lodge stern representation” on Prime Minister Modi’s visit to “a disputed border region,” Xinhua reported. Mr. Liu expressed “strong dissatisfaction and staunch opposition” to the Indian side’s insistence on arranging the visit by its leader to the disputed area on the China-India border.

The report said the Chinese embassy in India “lodged representation” with the Indian authorities on the visit.

During the meeting, Mr. Liu pointed out that “the act by Indian side undermined China’s territorial sovereignty, right and interests.” He reiterated that the Chinese government “has never recognised the so-called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ unilaterally set up by the Indian side.”

Mr. Liu observed that India’s action “artificially amplified differences between the two countries on the border issue and thus went against the principles and consensus that the two sides reached on properly addressing the issue.”

On previous occasions, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has maintained that Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Ping had reached an “important consensus” on the border issue.

Mr. Liu hoped that the Indian side would treasure the sound momentum in the growth of bilateral relations, march toward the same goal with China and abide by the “important consensus” on the border issue. He called on the Indian side “not to take any action that may complicate the border issue and stick to the general orientation of resolving the issue through negotiations to maintain the overall growth of bilateral relations.”

He emphasised that China places importance on developing relations with India. He said the two countries share broad prospects on cooperation at various levels.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 22 Feb 2015 06:34

^^ Modi should open a camp office in Itanagar, and work from there one day a month.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 22 Feb 2015 11:02

devesh wrote:Luckily it's not up to you to give up Tawang! Did you even think before posting that?!

It can be up on table only if Tibet, aksai chin is on table for negotiation.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 22 Feb 2015 20:12

ashish raval wrote:It can be up on table only if Tibet, aksai chin is on table for negotiation.

How about the area you live in, may be that ought to be on the table for negotiation?

Did you ask the people of Tawang before doling out your wisdom?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Feb 2015 13:51

ashish raval wrote:It can be up on table only if Tibet, aksai chin is on table for negotiation.

ashish, Aksai Chin is an Indian area illegally occupied by China. Shaksgam valley is an Indian area illegally ceded by Pakistan to China, Arunachal Pradesh which includes Tawang is an Indian area which China illegally claims, just as it claims land and sea territories with each one of its neighbours. So none of these can be on the table except to retrieve Aksai Chin & Shaksgam from China. The only thing that can be on the table is the withdrawal of China from Tibet.

The border story starts in the year 1865 when British Surveyor W.H.Johnson surveyed the land extent of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Kashmir Maharaja’s outpost at Shahidullah (now Xaidulla) made Johnson include the Kun Lun watershed (further west of the Karakoram) as part of J&K. Pangong Lake (Pangong Tso in Tibet) is the southern end of the Johnson Line and is about five hours drive from Leh through the third highest motorable pass, Chang La. The Pangong Tso is south of the great bend of the Shyok River around Siachen just before the Nubra river joins it. Thus, Shaidullah (further north of the Karakoram Pass ) made the eastern end of Johnson’s survey while Pongong Tso made the southern end of the survey for Ladakh. There existed therefore a gap in the boundary between Pongong Tso and Shahidullah through the Karakoram Pass (the Karakoram pass was never in dispute and which was already accepted as forming the border between Ladakh and Tibet). The Johnson Line thus confirmed Aksai Chin as part of J&K. By 1878, China had conquered Eastern Turkistan (later known as Sinkiang and now Xinjiang) and had erected boundary markers at the Karakoram Pass.

In c. 1897, Sir John Ardagh proposed a boundary line along the crest of the Kun Lun north of the Yarkand river (The Yarkand River orginates in the Karakoram very near Siachen Glacier. One tributary of the Yarkand is the Shaksgam river. It is the Shaksgam valley that Pakistan conceded to China in c. 1963 as part of the Border Agreement with China). This proposal fixed the gap between Pongong Tso and Shahidullah through the Karakoram Pass. These lines together became known as the Johnson-Ardagh Boundary Line.

In c. 1899, Britain re-drew the boundary as China and Britain became friends and the boundary was re-fixed along the Karakoram rather than Kun Lun further east as the Johnson-Ardagh line did. This new line was known as Macartney-McDonald Line. The Chinese never replied to the British proposal.

India, since its independence, has recognized only the Johnson-Ardagh Line in Ladakh which gives the entire Aksai Chin to India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Feb 2015 13:56

From NightWatch for the night of February 22, 2015 on the opposition by China to PM Modi's visit to Arunachal Pradesh.

Comment: Arunachal Pradesh is one of several border states where India is building infrastructure to support an increased permanent military presence with excess capacity to accommodate reinforcements, if needed. The Chinese protest is pro forma.

India and China engage in proper diplomatic relations that preserve stability, but surrender no claims to territory or hegemony. The Chinese do not recognize the colonial era McMahon Line as the boundary between the Chinese region of "south Tibet" and the northern border of India's state of Arunachal Pradesh. India and China have multiple border disputes of this type, unfinished business from British colonial times.

Cordial diplomatic relations between China and India are a veneer that thinly covers the extent of latent hostility between the two ancient empires. Leaders in both countries expect that there will be a grudge match between China and India for the Chinese invasion of India in 1962. That event is almost a cultural memory that forms the backdrop for all Indian dealings with China, plus China's military support for Pakistan for more than half a century.

Until both are ready to settle the grudge, they do business and make money off each other, but always to further an advantage in the larger strategic clash in the future. There cannot be two hegemons in Asia.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 23 Feb 2015 15:34

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericrmeyer/ ... a-dilemma/

I think I also pasted the stuff on the new oil pipeline through Myanmar (thats referred to in the link) a few weeks back.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 23 Feb 2015 15:54

Interesting point from the article above:

Interestingly enough, just after having received the Chinese “heavy weight” emissary, the new president of Sri Lanka, Sirisena, rushed to New Delhi on an official visit. One can well understand his “valse-hésitation”. Combining freedom and development is much like trying to be simultaneously in love with two beautiful women. Sri Lanka would like to love them both, but can’t have at the same time. In my next post, I shall describe the case of Thailand, which now finds itself in a similar dilemma.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Feb 2015 14:10

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 332288.cms

The cargo train with 64 containers completed its maiden journey from Madrid Spain to China's eastern city of Yiwu, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.

The train travelled for 24 days along the Yixin'ou cargo line, the longest of all the China-European cargo railways, with famous Spanish products including wine and olive oil.

The 13,000-km line, one of the longest routes in the world that passes through China, Spain, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany and France. < ..

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 24 Feb 2015 18:34

What is China building in the SCS:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-2 ... -china-sea

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 24 Feb 2015 18:42

64 container ships takes 24 days to get across -- that is some really low throughput compared to a cargo ship, which can carry around 15000-20000 containers. Simply no chance that this land route is going to be useful for trade between EU/China. Any real trade between China and EU has to be via Indian Ocean/Suez or to a port in the black sea and then by cargo ship.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Feb 2015 22:09

Is a China-India-Russia Coalition Inevitable?

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 25 Feb 2015 23:12

A few reasons why a India-Russia-China coalition will not happen anytime soon: 1) chinese warmongering with India and deliberate border provocations will stop China-India coalition 2) Chinese trade with the US, which is still its largest market, will stop it from provoking the US by siding with Russia.

US, China, and India gain by transactional relations with each other, without any intersection of geostrategic interests -- US's imperial warmongering is not going to get India or China on its side any time soon. Of course, the question about US-Russia relations (or the lack of one) is already pre-decided -- they are virtually at war with each other.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 26 Feb 2015 01:09

SSridhar wrote:
ashish raval wrote:It can be up on table only if Tibet, aksai chin is on table for negotiation.
ashish, Aksai Chin is an Indian area illegally occupied by China. Shaksgam valley is an Indian area illegally ceded by Pakistan to China, Arunachal Pradesh which includes Tawang is an Indian area which China illegally claims, just as it claims land and sea territories with each one of its neighbours. So none of these can be on the table except to retrieve Aksai Chin & Shaksgam from China. The only thing that can be on the table is the withdrawal of China from Tibet.

The border story starts in the year 1865 when British Surveyor W.H.Johnson surveyed the land extent of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Kashmir Maharaja’s outpost at Shahidullah (now Xaidulla) made Johnson include the Kun Lun watershed (further west of the Karakoram) as part of J&K. Pangong Lake (Pangong Tso in Tibet) is the southern end of the Johnson Line and is about five hours drive from Leh through the third highest motorable pass, Chang La. The Pangong Tso is south of the great bend of the Shyok River around Siachen just before the Nubra river joins it. Thus, Shaidullah (further north of the Karakoram Pass ) made the eastern end of Johnson’s survey while Pongong Tso made the southern end of the survey for Ladakh. There existed therefore a gap in the boundary between Pongong Tso and Shahidullah through the Karakoram Pass (the Karakoram pass was never in dispute and which was already accepted as forming the border between Ladakh and Tibet). The Johnson Line thus confirmed Aksai Chin as part of J&K. By 1878, China had conquered Eastern Turkistan (later known as Sinkiang and now Xinjiang) and had erected boundary markers at the Karakoram Pass.

In c. 1897, Sir John Ardagh proposed a boundary line along the crest of the Kun Lun north of the Yarkand river (The Yarkand River orginates in the Karakoram very near Siachen Glacier. One tributary of the Yarkand is the Shaksgam river. It is the Shaksgam valley that Pakistan conceded to China in c. 1963 as part of the Border Agreement with China). This proposal fixed the gap between Pongong Tso and Shahidullah through the Karakoram Pass. These lines together became known as the Johnson-Ardagh Boundary Line.

In c. 1899, Britain re-drew the boundary as China and Britain became friends and the boundary was re-fixed along the Karakoram rather than Kun Lun further east as the Johnson-Ardagh line did. This new line was known as Macartney-McDonald Line. The Chinese never replied to the British proposal.

India, since its independence, has recognized only the Johnson-Ardagh Line in Ladakh which gives the entire Aksai Chin to India.

Agreed. But then why would China recognise the Johnson line ! They would laugh off saying that you were not even ruler of your own land and want us to believe what British surveyed!! Chinese have their own perception and we have our own. There has to be some give and take esp. When you cant beat your enemy in both short or forseeable long term. Positions gets hardened when disputes are not resolved over time. This is my main concern.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 26 Feb 2015 01:17

Surasena wrote:
ashish raval wrote:It can be up on table only if Tibet, aksai chin is on table for negotiation.
How about the area you live in, may be that ought to be on the table for negotiation?

Did you ask the people of Tawang before doling out your wisdom?

Well if GoI are so concerned they can always ask for referendum s one of the condition provided the other party is bringing disputed areas on table too. Without it the border disputes will go on forever and it will only take one bullet from either side to start a dispute which India has much to loose in both economically and strategically. So please keep your testosterone fuelled rant aside and think with short and long term future of India.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 26 Feb 2015 03:05

ashish raval wrote:Agreed. But then why would China recognise the Johnson line ! They would laugh off saying that you were not even ruler of your own land and want us to believe what British surveyed!!

This does not really matter. Legally, the Republic of India is the successor state. Likewise, so is the PRC. The simple response to the Chinese is that the Qing Dynasty was in any case unraveling at the seams by then, and were overthrown a few years later, so their position is not any more valid than our own.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 26 Feb 2015 04:19

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 26 Feb 2015 07:14

ashish raval wrote:
Well if GoI are so concerned they can always ask for referendum s one of the condition provided the other party is bringing disputed areas on table too. Without it the border disputes will go on forever and it will only take one bullet from either side to start a dispute which India has much to loose in both economically and strategically. So please keep your testosterone fuelled rant aside and think with short and long term future of India.

Yeah the Chinese are such imbeciles that they will let go of a vast area called Tibet with immense natural resources by holding a referendum (which they are sure to lose) because we will hold a referendum in Tawang. Forget about my testosterone, do you think before you post?

And what do you think the people in Tawang feel when they see posts like yours on an Indian defense forum?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Feb 2015 07:21

ashish raval wrote:Agreed. But then why would China recognise the Johnson line ! They would laugh off saying that you were not even ruler of your own land and want us to believe what British surveyed!! Chinese have their own perception and we have our own.

Absolutely wrong. We are not talking about our 'own perception' here. We are talking of facts and international conventions for drawing boundaries between states as not every square inch can be 'proven' to belong to one state or another. The hard fact is that the far north east corner of the State of J&K was Shahidullah. The Maharajah was ruling up to this place. The boundary line was drawn up on the well known principle of watershed as natural markers of boundaries. Hence, along Kun Lun mountains etc. This is not perception. The State of J&K is not to be confused with the Tibet issue.

Geographically, three mountain ranges are important in understanding the dispute. The Himalayas (the Westernmost), the Karakoram (in the middle) and the Kun Lun (the Easternmost). They all meet at the Pamir Knot at the Wakhan Corridor. Tibet lies enclosed among the Himalayas, Karakorams and the Kun Lun. The Karakoram is bounded on the northeast by the edge of the Tibetan Plateau, and on the north by the Wakhan Corridor and the Pamir Mountains. The southern boundary of the Karakoram is formed by the Gilgit, Indus, and Shyok Rivers, which separate the range from the north western end of the Himalaya range proper.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 26 Feb 2015 07:44

ashish raval wrote: Well if GoI are so concerned they can always ask for referendum s one of the condition provided the other party is bringing disputed areas on table too. Without it the border disputes will go on forever and it will only take one bullet from either side to start a dispute which India has much to loose in both economically and strategically. So please keep your testosterone fuelled rant aside and think with short and long term future of India.

Arun Shourie @ 19:30:

Third point that they emphasize about us is, this is the Chinese book of 1902 quoted by Pankaj Mishra, that Indians are the only people in the world who do not mind losing territory. Its something very deep, this is their view so this is how they will proceed... Knowing that Indians do not mind losing territory the Chinese way is "claim, repeat the claim, go on repeating the claim, grab. Let time pass and these fellows will get used to it...

Congrats on living up to their assessment from 1902.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 26 Feb 2015 07:56

Pakistan in Its Labyrinth
by Roger Cohen, nytimes.com
February 23rd 2015

LAHORE, Pakistan — There is a bit of a hermetic feel to Pakistan these days, as if the country that lies on the ancient road from the West to Asia, a natural bridge, had somehow contorted itself into a self-imposed isolation. The border with India, dividing the Punjab, lies not far from this great city. It is a barrier rather than a gateway. The border with Afghanistan is problematic in its nonexistence. The beast nurtured in the name of Islamabad’s policy of “strategic depth” (whatever that may be), the Taliban in its Pakistani iteration, massacred 134 children at Peshawar’s Army Public School late last year. Not surprising then that tourism is down to a trickle. I made my way to the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort — high-walled, dusky-red, magnificent in extent. There was not a foreigner in sight, not a camera clicking.

President Obama goes to India and Pakistan is way down on his agenda — if it is there at all. Nobody in Washington frets any longer about balancing visits to New Delhi and Islamabad. Oh, yes, Afghanistan, American treasure and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI), or top spy agency: Well, the less said about that, the better.

India is a democracy and a great power rising. Pakistan is a Muslim homeland that lost half its territory in 1971, bounced back and forth between military and nominally democratic rule, never quite clear of annihilation angst despite its nuclear weapons, its prime ministers as susceptible to a violent end as Henry VIII’s wives, struggling to define its identity almost 68 years after it came into being. The fog of war is rivaled only by the fog of Pakistan, in which Osama bin Laden lived and paced for several years.

But perhaps something new is stirring in the penumbra. There is much chatter about Beijing. China needs Pakistan to keep India busy; it does not want an India freed of its Pakistani headache. So Beijing helps Pakistan with military technology. It builds nuclear power stations. (The Saudis help Pakistan with big gifts, too, widely seen as informal insurance of protection with those Pakistani nukes if ever needed by the Royals or Riyadh.)

Interests shift, however. China needs Pakistan on another front now. This month a Uighur suicide bomber killed as many as eight people in the volatile Chinese region of Xinjiang, near the border of Pakistan. It was the latest in a series of attacks by Muslim Uighurs resentful of domination by the Han Chinese. Some Uighurs have embraced jihadi Islam, an ideology for which plentiful schooling and terrorist training is available in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In this light, reining in the Taliban looks a little more attractive to the Chinese than it once did. And, as the United States learned long ago, if you want to do something about the Taliban, you’d better do something about Pakistan.

All this forms the backdrop to an interesting question: Does rising China make its formal entrance to the world diplomatic stage by trying to mediate talks between the Afghan Taliban, the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani, and a Pakistani ally sobered by the very belated realization that the Taliban it has fostered for “strategic depth” (which may mean the fanciful notion that a semi-controlled Afghanistan could give it maneuvering room against India) is also a mortal danger to Pakistan itself? Is it here that President Xi Jinping’s China begins to punch its strategic weight?

It is past time. The United States cannot carry the weight of the world; it has other priorities right now. China could be helpful as American combat troops withdraw. Ghani wants to begin talks with the Taliban. An Afghan-Pakistani thaw has begun since he took office. That Peshawar school attack has focused minds on the costs to Islamabad of imagining there could be a “good Taliban” in Afghanistan and “a bad Taliban” in Pakistan: One of course feeds the other. China is talking to the Taliban. It has leverage over Pakistan.

Skepticism is in order. The Afghan war is a long story now. But the change in American strategic priorities, the change of government in Afghanistan, the change of mood in Islamabad, and the change of needs in China have created space. This is an issue on which President Obama and President Xi can find common cause.

Pakistan will not extricate itself from dysfunction through an Afghan resolution, but it would help. The nonsense of “strategic depth” must give way to the wisdom of commercial breadth — and not just on the western border. Chinese-Indian pragmatism can be a beacon for Pakistani-Indian pragmatism — maybe.

There is a wealth of talent and energy in Pakistan . A Taliban suicide bomber killed five people in Lahore this month. The people of Lahore responded by bravely hosting the Lahore Literary Festival, a wonder of creativity, eclecticism, ideas and dialogue. Openness is what Pakistan needs. It is time to emerge from the fog and lay to rest outdated ghosts.
© 2015 The New York Times Company.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 Feb 2015 11:05

Where exactly to tag this article? Interesting all the same:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/rus ... ?page=show

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Feb 2015 12:52

From NightWatch for the night of Feb 25, 2015

China: On 24 and 25 February, Chinese state media have extolled President Xi Jinping's expression of his strategy for the next stage of China's development. It is captured in the "Four Comprehensives." One analytical commentary described them as the implementation phase of Xi's "China Dream," promulgated in 2012.

The four comprehensives are:

-comprehensively achieving a moderately prosperous society;

-comprehensively deepening reform;

-comprehensively governing the nation according to the law;

-comprehensively and strictly governing the Party.

Comment: For the sake of clarity in governing a huge population, Chinese leaders regularly articulate their governing philosophy and priorities in slogans that more than a billion people can comprehend and act on. The only recent leader who did not indulge in enumerating the national priorities was Deng Xiaoping, the father of modern Chinese political and economic reform.

For the next few months, Party cadres will be indoctrinating the Party members and the population in general on the local applications of the four comprehensives. This process will be a nationwide, high priority task.

One insightful analysis noted that the four comprehensives represent a compilation of Xi's and the Party's policy statements since 2012, when Xi was elected General Secretary. For example, the point about achieving a moderately prosperous society is integral to Xi's ideas abput the China Dream as" the great revival of the Chinese nation."

Many China watchers will analyze, explicate and parse the four comprehensives in coming weeks. One theme that is sharply outlined is the paramount need for better leadership by the Communist Party and government without corruption. Xi and his advisors identified corruption in the Party and the government as posing the greatest threat to Communist Party rule. Three of the four statements provide evidence that the central leadership continues to hold that conviction.

The guidance is inward focused. Achieving the China Dream requires getting the leadership in order and under discipline, according to this guidance. That implies that the Xi government will continue to place a premium on stability along the borders and in disputed areas.

Xi's government cannot and will not compromise claims to sovereignty anywhere. Nevertheless, the four comprehensives are not a call to assert hegemony. Their achievement requires stability in foreign affairs. Thus, Chinese leaders will continue to seek peaceful solutions to confrontations, whenever they can. They also will intervene in non-military ways to stop adventurism or provocations that could upset regional stability.{I am unable to agree with this analysis about China striving for stability along its borders. Ever since Xi came on the scene, the PLA, PLAN and PLAAF have been aggressive along their respective borders with all neighbours. On what basis does the comment express optimism that China would seek peaceful solutions to confrontations? In fact, all confrontations are Chinese created. All adventurism and provocation emanate from China}

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Feb 2015 17:01

Modi's Arunachal Visit Could Complicate Border Disputes: Chinese Daily - Huffington post

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month could add fuel to the territorial disputes between India and China, a leading Chinese daily has said.

Any visit by an Indian prime minister to "the disputed border region" would "undoubtedly step on China's toes and influence bilateral relations", the Global Times, known for its sharp views on India, said in an op-ed piece headlined "Modi border visit an unhelpful irritant".

The article is based on an interview with Hu Shisheng, director of the Institute of South and Southeast Asian and Oceania Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.

The visit, coming weeks after Minister of External Affairs Susham Swaraj advocated an "out-of-box" solution to Sino-Indian border disputes,"has triggered strong dissatisfaction and opposition from China".

Modi visited Arunachal Pradesh Feb 20 to attend its 23rd State Foundation Day.

During the course of the visit, he flagged off the Naharlagun-New Delhi Express while expressing the hope that the boost in communications through the railways would propel growth and development in Arunachal Pradesh and other parts of the northeast.

"There might be plenty of reasons for Modi to attend the celebration in the disputed zone, including boosting his Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) political influence and winning more support from this area, especially since the Congress party has long dominated India's northeast," the article stated.

"However, he has more reasons not to go, among which the major concern is that a visit could add fuel to the long-standing territorial disputes between China and India, making it difficult to achieve a resolution and irritating bilateral ties."

According to Hu, India's previous coalition governments had weak decision-making ability, leaving them unable to push forward with innovative proposals on the border issue.

"As the new Indian government settles in, now is the best time to bring the border disputes to an end, because a solution requires not only strong will, but also strong political implementation capacity," the expert on strategic studies said.

According to the article, New Delhi and Beijing should apply the principle of mutual understanding and accommodation in solving such disputes.

Stating that the border dispute comes from colonial days, it stated that "identifying the lines of control on each side will be a key step to facilitating the long-stalled process of bringing the disputes to a peaceful resolution".

"As with every other relationship around the world, cooperation and confrontation coexist all the time in Sino-India relations," Hu said.

"This relationship between two rapidly emerging powers is all about how to get on well with one another despite all the controversies and conflicts."

The article pointed out that Modi's government, which is focusing on development and improving people's livelihood, "realises that it must maintain a good relationship with China from which India could derive the markets, technologies and financial support to substantially boost the country's economy".{condescending, eh ?}

"In an atmosphere of cooperation, with strong leaders on both sides, the two countries should seize the strategic opportunity to solve their border disputes," it concluded.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Feb 2015 17:40

Economic Survey 2015: $1 trillion forex war-chest to boost India's geo-political power - PTI, Economic Times

A "war-chest" of foreign exchange reserves worth up to $1 trillion in the long run can help India bolster its geo-political influence in an increasingly inter-connected economic world, says the Economic Survey.

"If power used to flow from the barrel of a gun, in an increasingly inter-dependent economic world, hard and soft power derive from a war-chest of foreign exchange reserves. China's abundant reserves have highlighted this fact," said the survey for 2014-15 tabled in Parliament today.

"China, in its own heterodox and multiple ways, is assuming the roles of both an International Monetary Fund and a World Bank as a result of its reserves," it added.

Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian in his maiden survey said a larger issue on the external front is geo-strategic.

Since acquisition of reserves "is not costless", the survey said there is also a need to undertake a cost-benefit analysis.

Touching upon the link between foreign exchange reserves and geo-political influence, the report said that China has de-facto become one of the lenders of last resort to governments experiencing financial troubles.

According to the survey, reserves provide a cushion against shocks, creating economic and financial resilience. They also create geo-political influence.

"The question for India, as a rising economic and political power, is whether it too should consider a substantial addition to its reserves, preferably its own reserves acquired though running cumulative current account surpluses, possibly targeting a level of USD 750 billion - USD 1 trillion over the long run," it said.

At the end of January this year, India's foreign exchange reserves stood at $328.7 billion.

"The acquisition of reserves is not costless because it requires a policy of mercantilism and consequential distortion of financial and exchange markets. But there is a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be undertaken," the survey said.

Noting that today China has de-facto become one of the lenders of last resort to governments experiencing financial troubles, the report said the country has also become one of the bigger providers of development assistance.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 27 Feb 2015 18:31

It is pretty clear that the US is pushing China and its interests in reality, and wants India to pick a fight with china -- only winner there would be the US. Both the HuffPo article and the nightwatch article and many others emanating from the USA have this common denominator. This is a continuation of the Kissinger/Zbig plans of having US-China duopoly working together at the top of the heap...if China does not oblige US's plans, it would need someone else to pick a fight with China, like EU in Ukraine currently.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Feb 2015 19:15

U.S. Navy says it has been flying P-8 reconnaissance planes out of Philippines - Reuters, Japan Times

The United States has been flying its most advanced surveillance aircraft, the P-8A Poseidon, out of the Philippines for patrols over the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy said on Thursday, acknowledging the flights for the first time.

The United States, the Philippines’ oldest and closest ally, has promised to share “real time” information on what is happening in Philippine waters as China steps up its activities in the South China Sea.

China claims most of the potentially energy-rich South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims.

The U.S. Navy said in a statement it demonstrated the capabilities of P-8A in both littoral and open ocean environments, and explained to Philippine forces the functions that the aircraft’s sensors are capable of.

“It was a remarkable opportunity to work alongside the members of the Filipino armed forces,” said U.S. Navy Lieutenant Matthew Pool, Combat Air Crew 4 patrol plane commander.

“Sharing this aircraft’s capabilities with our allies only strengthens our bonds.”

The United States says it does not take sides in disputes between China and other South China Sea claimants and it calls on them to negotiate a formal maritime Code of Conduct.

The Unites States has also called for a freeze on provocative acts in the sea but China rejects U.S. involvement in the dispute.

China accuses the United States of emboldening claimants such as the Philippines and Vietnam with its military “pivot” back to Asia.

The P-8A was deployed in the Philippines for three weeks until Feb. 21, making more than 180 flight hours over the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy said.

Colonel Restituto Padilla, a spokesman for the Philippine armed forces, said the U.S. Navy has been operating P-3C Orions since 2012 from Philippine bases under a bilateral security agreement that sees U.S. forces rotate through the Philippines.

He said P-8A aircraft replaced the Orions on the rotations last year but the allies had made no announcement of its flights.

“We expect more surveillance planes to be deployed in the Philippines, increasing the frequency of rotation,” Padilla said.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Feb 2015 19:19

China defends its South China Sea activities as ‘restrained’ after US raises concerns - AP, ToI

China defended its activities in the South China Sea as restrained and responsible on Friday after the US intelligence chief called its expansion of outposts in the region an "aggressive" effort to assert sovereignty.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the country's activities on shoals and in surrounding waters it claims are "reasonable, legitimate and legal" and that its attitude has been one of "restraint and responsibility."

China says it has historical claims to a huge swath of the South Sea China that overlaps the claims of several neighbors including Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Philippines, and it objects to what it considers US meddling. The US says it has a national interest in the peaceful resolution of the disputes in the region.

US director of national intelligence James Clapper cited China's expansion of its outposts, including for the stationing of ships and potential airfields, at a US Senate hearing in Washington on Thursday. His comments underscored US concerns about land reclamation activities that could fuel tensions between China and its neighbors.

Clapper described China's claim to more than 80 per cent of the South China Sea as "exorbitant".

Hong said China hopes the US can be more "circumspect" regarding the issue. "No other country has a right to make unfounded accusations," he said at a daily ministry briefing.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies said last week that Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan have over the years modified existing land masses in the South China Sea, and the Philippines is planning to upgrade an airport and pier on an island it occupies. But the think tank said China is unusual in how it has been "dramatically changing the size and structure of physical land features."

China has had a troop and supply garrison at Gaven Reef since 2003, and began significant construction there last year, building a new artificial island of more than 18 acres (7 hectares). The main building on the new island appears to have an anti-aircraft tower, the center said.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Feb 2015 22:53

SSridhar wrote:Economic Survey 2015: $1 trillion forex war-chest to boost India's geo-political power - PTI, Economic
A "war-chest" of foreign exchange reserves worth up to $1 trillion in the long run can help India bolster its geo-political influence in an increasingly inter-connected economic world, says the Economic Survey."If power used to flow from the barrel of a gun, in an increasingly inter-dependent economic world, hard and soft power derive from a war-chest of foreign exchange reserves. China's abundant reserves have highlighted this fact," said the survey for 2014-15 tabled in Parliament today.
Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian in his maiden survey said a larger issue on the external front is geo-strategic.

Did they read the discussion in Economic Dhaga on this subject? This where Rajan's role is crucial. Till now he has done everything to discourage the build of reserves .

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Feb 2015 06:04

Top-level PLA team in India to discuss peace along LAC - ToI

Ahead of PM Narendra Modi's visit to China in May, a top-level People's Liberation Army delegation is in India to discuss ways to boost CBMs between the world's largest and second-largest standing armies and defuse troop confrontations along the 4,057-km Line of Actual Control.

The 15-member delegation led by General Zhang Youxia, who is also a member of the all-powerful Chinese Central Military Commission, is also slated to call on defence minister Manohar Parrikar and Army chief General Dalbir Singh Suhag on Saturday. Interestingly, there are as many as four Lt-Generals and a Major-General in the delegation visiting from February 27 to March 2.

It was in October 2013 that India and China had inked their new border defence cooperation agreement (BDCA) but it has not proved very effective in defusing and managing troop face-offs or in preventing either side from tailing each other's patrols.

The BDCA holds both armies will "exercise maximum self-restraint" if a face-to-face situation develops, as also have the right to "seek a clarification from the other side" if "a doubtful situation arises" where there is "no common understanding" of the LAC. But frequent "transgressions" continue to take place all along the LAC from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh.

India, apart from being outgunned by China in terms of military capabilities, has also lagged far behind in developing border infrastructure. As reported by TOI earlier, just 19 of the 73 "strategic" roads (adding up to 3,808-km) identified for construction along the LAC for better troop mobility almost a decade ago, have been fully completed till now. All the 73 all-weather roads, with more east-west lateral links as well as better access routes to strategic peaks and valleys, were to be completed by 2012.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar on Friday told Lok Sabha that 16 roads would be completed by this year, another 13 by 2016, nine by 2017 and four by 2018 and beyond, as per revised timelines. The delays in execution of road projects mainly occur due to delays in forest/wildlife and land acquisition clearances, hard rock stretches, limited working seasons and natural disasters, he said.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Feb 2015 07:59

China formally backs trilateral partnership with India, Sri Lanka - Atul Aneja, The Hindu

China on Friday formally backed a trilateral partnership with India and Sri Lanka to establish a Maritime Silk Road (MSR) and promote the rise of Eurasia.

Responding to a question from The Hindu , during a joint press conference with visiting Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi declared that “China is open to a triangular cooperative relationship” involving India and Sri Lanka. He reinforced the three-way engagement by pointing out that China would like to “expedite such cooperation and see practical measures between China and India,” where each country would pool its bilateral strengths, leading to Sri Lanka’s social and economic development.

Mr. Wang’s comments, signalling a more inclusive strategic appreciation of the region, run counter to Indian concerns, expressed during former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, that a firm military relationship between China and Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean was taking root, following the docking of a Chinese submarine in Colombo.

Mr. Wang said China would “certainly like to hold talks” with India on a triangular relationship with Sri Lanka in the future, in tune with Sino-Indian partnership on key global and regional issues. The Chinese Minister commented that Beijing would like to see progress in India-Sri Lanka relations, which would become a factor of stability in South Asia.

With the conceptual lines of a triangular relationship surfacing, Mr. Samaraweera also said Sri Lanka saw China as a “great friend” and India as a “neighbour and relative.” He stressed that Sri Lanka’s centrist and pragmatic foreign policy, liberated from any specific ideology, was grounded in the principle of non-alignment, and was ultimately geared to benefit the Sri Lankan people.

Colombo port project

Mr. Samaraweera said he did not specifically discuss the Colombo port project — which has been mired in controversy given its supposed military attributes — with his Chinese counterpart.

“Anything relating to Chinese investment will be shared and discussed with the government of China before we take any final decision,” he said.

“We are trying to ensure that there is a level playing field for all investors and a conducive environment for investment based on the restoration of the rule of law, democracy, good governance and transparency,” said the visiting Minister. “All proposals in future will be considered totally on merit.”

Part of Mr. Samaraweera’s agenda was to prepare for next month’s visit to China by President Maithripala Sirisena, and fast-tracking high level exchanges including the possible visit to Colombo by Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang.

Both sides are looking at the signing of a Free Trade Area (FTA) accord and prioritising tie-ups in the field of healthcare, agriculture, science and technology and people-to-people relations.

The three-way proposal is a clever ruse by China to take on India in Sri Lanka. It knows that India cannot match the Chinese investments and assistance to Sri Lanka and in this secure thought, it wants to appear as very reasonable and inclusive. Its objectives remain the same, that of encircling India, that of diminishing the Indian sphere of influence, that of blunting the 'Asian pivot', that of destroying the effectiveness of the informal alliance of those countries alarmed by the aggressive and assertive rise of China. China's intention is threefold in this offer. One, if India accepts the offer, then India can be silenced easily by a preponderant China. The 'willing accomplice' cannot complain in that case anymore. Two, if India rejects the offer, then India can be painted as a villain and which could no longer complain about the Chinese project having failed to be part of it when offered with 'all sincerity'. Thirdly, it will also solve the awkward dilemma of the new dispensation in Colombo as it affords an opportunity for Colombo to turn around and say that it was India which did not want to partner China when offered a chance.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Mar 2015 10:01

Silicon Valley is in a panic following an announcement that China is considering sweeping counterterrorism legislation. The law would require tech companies to provide the Chinese government with NSA-like access to private data, terms the industry may be forced to accept if they want to do business in the world’s most populated country.

Silicon Valley Panic: China Demands NSA-Like Access and Control

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 01 Mar 2015 12:48

Bade wrote:The near term goals should be to make China accept Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India. Do check on Wikipedia to get the demography both by ethnic or religious groupings, there is no valid claim possible from PRC for any part of Arunachal including Tawang.

As for Manasarovar it was not officially Indian held territory, so the best is to support Tibetan autonomy from PRC as a near term goal.

Aksai Chin will take longer to resolve. What will a few decades do. Even this will have to wait for a Tibetan state to appear to weaken PRC's hold on the region. But the time will come. Borders are never permanent by any stretch.

Why are we even talking about justifying the status of Arunachal to China?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 01 Mar 2015 12:52

ashish raval wrote:
devesh wrote:Luckily it's not up to you to give up Tawang! Did you even think before posting that?!
It can be up on table only if Tibet, aksai chin is on table for negotiation.

No. Under no circumstances can an inch of Indian territory be on any fcuking table. Are you ok?