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

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2015 15:58

Chumar standoff an 'evil design' of PLA: Ex-ITBP chief Subhas Goswami - Economic Times

Going on record for the first time, a former ITBP Chief has termed as "evil design" of Chinese Army the month-long face-off with the Indian military in Chumar area in Ladakh division last year which saw both sides entering into "serious" altercations.

Terming the reasons for the standoff as part of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) machinations, Subhas Goswami, who was heading the force at that time, wrote about an eye-ball-to-eye-ball situation with the PLA in Chumar, located 210 kms northeast of Leh town of Jammu and Kashmir.

The standoff was one of the longest between the two sides on this mountainous border which has witnessed a number of incidents between ITBP/Army and PLA owing to the respective sides' perception of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Writing a short memoir to "prove his assessment of the force", the former Indo-Tibetan Border Police force Director General said the incident will remain "etched" in his mind.

Goswami was chief of ITBP, which guards the 3,488 km Sino-Indian border, between November, 2013 to December, 2014.

"It was about the eye-ball-to-eye-ball standoff with the Chinese Army at Chumar in Ladakh. On receiving information that the PLA was preparing to build a road in our territory, ITBP along with the Indian Army rushed to the spot and physically prevented the Chinese Army from carrying out their evil design.

"This stout defence led to serious altercations and jostling between the opposing troops," Goswami wrote in his memoirs he penned for the 54th anniversary of the force which was celebrated this month.

He said the PLA expanded the area of conflict to near by locations by "heli-lifting its forces from the rear."

"Indian Army also mobilised its forces and standoff in four/five different places in the Ladakh sector continued simultaneously for about a month.

"The ITBP used its animal transport in the conflict to great effect. The Chinese could not build an inch of road and finally had to go back to their barracks," Goswami wrote in the article titled 'A Life Changing Experience'.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2015 16:07

Austin wrote:About Obama’s ‘Freedom Of The Seas’ Hypocrisy—–When Taiwan Claimed The Spratlys Washington Didn’t Say Boo

Almost every nation involved in the SCS conflict, be it Philippines or Vietnam, has done similar things to lay claim to islands, islets, and reefs in that area. Nobody is an angel in that respect. The US hypocrisy is well known as well. But, China's duplicitous efforts in the SCS are fraudulent on a large scale, aggressive, violative of international norms and confrontational to say the least. China is neither willing to negotiate nor willing to subject itself to UNCOLS arbitration even though it is a party to the Law of the Seas convention. Besides, China's maritime claims, its unwillingness to accept even passing-by military assets in the EEZ, and its strict expectations of every such asset reporting to the Chinese authority are completely unacceptable given the fact that China is the second largest military power and claims 90% of the SCS as its own. There can be no comparison with either the claims or the behaviour of any other nation.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2015 16:16

Top Chinese military officer Fan Changlong to visit India, Pakistan - Reuters

One of China's most senior military officers will visit Pakistan and India next month, China's defence ministry said on Thursday, making trips to neighbouring rivals which have very different relations with Beijing.

China and Pakistan describe each other as "all weather friends" and have tight links, and while Chinese and Indian relations have improved considerably since a brief border war in 1962, the two remain locked in a messy territorial dispute and deep suspicions persist.

Fan Changlong, one of the vice chairmen of the Central Military Commission which controls the Chinese armed forces and is headed by President Xi Jinping, will visit in the middle of November, ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told a regular news briefing.

The trip is to boost friendly exchanges and help "jointly maintain regional peace and security", Yang said, without elaborating.

This could be to do with the Afghan situation and China wants to take the lead to protect its interests. China might feel that the SCO membership of India gives it a leverage.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Oct 2015 17:11

SSridhar wrote:Almost every nation involved in the SCS conflict, be it Philippines or Vietnam, has done similar things to lay claim to islands, islets, and reefs in that area. Nobody is an angel in that respect. The US hypocrisy is well known as well. But, China's duplicitous efforts in the SCS are fraudulent on a large scale, aggressive, violative of international norms and confrontational to say the least. China is neither willing to negotiate nor willing to subject itself to UNCOLS arbitration even though it is a party to the Law of the Seas convention. Besides, China's maritime claims, its unwillingness to accept even passing-by military assets in the EEZ, and its strict expectations of every such asset reporting to the Chinese authority are completely unacceptable given the fact that China is the second largest military power and claims 90% of the SCS as its own. There can be no comparison with either the claims or the behaviour of any other nation.

Well it depends on how you look at it , if you check US aggressive behaviour in Iraq in past decade , Libya , Syria where they went ahead invading nation making million homeless and destroying a nation or its drone program that kills more innocent etc then China will look like an angel.

Its all geopolitics , US is a hegemonic power and as hegemonic power it wants to contain china and thats their stated policy goal so it is using this issue as tool to contain them.

During Cold War they used the same policy against us , used the threat of growing IN , Soviet Allay etc and tried to contain us via Pakistan and perhaps still do, Thats how Hegemonic power behaves

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 29 Oct 2015 20:33

China wants to be the de facto leader of Asia. US is not the leader but it controls most of the levers. China wants to supplant US without having the nous and the fire power to achieve this. US on the other hand does not have the strength it used to have to bulldoze its will. The 4 big powers- US, China, Japan and India might want the support of the small ones like Vietnam, Indonesia, S Korea. But will China go to war based on hubris?

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Oct 2015 21:08

panduranghari wrote:China wants to be the de facto leader of Asia. US is not the leader but it controls most of the levers. China wants to supplant US without having the nous and the fire power to achieve this. US on the other hand does not have the strength it used to have to bulldoze its will. The 4 big powers- US, China, Japan and India might want the support of the small ones like Vietnam, Indonesia, S Korea. But will China go to war based on hubris?

China and US wont go to war directly , but will try to stare each other down. They would rather intimidate the lesser nations and see what the other one does .. but certainly at some point things can go out of hand .. if India plays its cards carefully there is indeed a whole lot to gain from it ! We are not yet the equal of US or even China .. till then this is the only way

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Oct 2015 22:11

US, Chinese Navy Heads Discuss South China Sea Tensions

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /74807126/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2015 22:45

being at high table 1:1 discussing tensions is itself a huge step up for china. previously only soviet union got that honour under SALT/START/INF talks etc.

cheen has arrived.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2015 10:10

Minor incident could spark war in South China Sea: China naval chief Wu Shengli - Reuters

China's naval commander told his US counterpart there is a risk of "a minor incident that sparks war" if the United States continues with its "provocative acts" in the South China Sea, the Chinese navy said on Friday.

Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to US chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.

The two officers held talks after a US warship challenged China's territorial assertions in the South China Sea on Tuesday by sailing within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing's man-made islands in the Spratly archipelago.

"If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war," {What about the repeated intrusions in Demchok, Depsang etc? Won't they spark a war?} the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.

"(I) hope the US side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and US navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again," Wu said.

Speaking earlier, a US official said the naval chiefs agreed to maintain dialogue and follow protocols to avoid clashes.

Scheduled port visits by US and Chinese ships and planned visits to China by senior US Navy officers remained on track, the official said.

"None of that is in jeopardy. Nothing has been cancelled," said the official.

Both officers also agreed on the need to stick to protocols established under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).

"They agreed that it's very important that both sides continue to use the protocols under the CUES agreement when they're operating close to keep the chances for misunderstanding and any kind of provocation from occurring," said the official.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2015 10:28

Austin wrote:Well it depends on how you look at it , if you check US aggressive behaviour in Iraq in past decade , Libya , Syria where they went ahead invading nation making million homeless and destroying a nation or its drone program that kills more innocent etc then China will look like an angel.

Its all geopolitics , US is a hegemonic power and as hegemonic power it wants to contain china and thats their stated policy goal so it is using this issue as tool to contain them.

During Cold War they used the same policy against us , used the threat of growing IN , Soviet Allay etc and tried to contain us via Pakistan and perhaps still do, Thats how Hegemonic power behaves

Absolutely.

Neither being hegemonic nor being a party to the incidents of Iraq, Libya, maritime disputes in SCS or ECS etc., India has to follow its best interests. Both the US and PRC are hegemonic with PRC even being a revisionist state. Since India should not be a nation that is swayed by dharmic justice in its practice of statecraft (we may also have to resort to that shamelessly if the situation so demands) if it needs to play realpolitik, it does not really matter who is a better evil between the two overall. The high art of international relations and diplomacy must be to get maximum benefits for us at the least acceptable risk while appearing all the time to be a dharmic state as far as possible by giving our decisions that kind of veneer. That is true 'non-alignment' IMO because we are not ideologically aligned with anyone. We may support someone if the situation demands or oppose another if that suits us or even remain neutral if that was the best option for us. We cannot be ignored or even 'punished' by anyone anymore. While the US is a threat for us, China is an immediate existential threat. No doubt about that either, at least in my mind.

In the present case, therefore, the Indian demand of 'freedom of navigation' (raised first by Man Mohan Singh) in the SCS and asking China to agree to UNCLOS arbitration suit us eminently. We have a legitimate reason to raise that because of our sea-trade routes and support anyone who does the same, whatever be their other motivations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2015 10:51

Chinese sabre rattling in the ICS will not stop the US from its patrols.XI Gins now has to walk the talk,or "walk the plank"!China is truly putting itself out on a limb with its dangerous hyperventilating.Instant islands do not a legitimate claim make.If it wants to be treated as a sane member of the intl. community it must respect UNCLOS.The only way out is for an intl. conf. where rival claims can be adjudicated by an intl. tribunal.

This is one case where the US is spot on with its actions.China's actions in the Indo-China Sea are akin to the actions of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait. China has clearly "invaded" the ICS with its instant islands/atolls.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... -china-sea
China warns US it could spark war with 'provocative acts' in South China Sea
Beijing’s top admiral issues the warning during teleconference talks with his US counterpart aimed at defusing tension in the region

Staff and agencies

Friday 30 October 2015 02.29 GMT
Save for later

China has warned the US that its “dangerous and provocative acts” in the South China Sea could lead to “a minor incident that sparks war”.

China’s naval commander, Admiral Wu Shengli, issued the warning to his American counterpart Admiral John Richardson during video conference talks on Thursday aimed at defusing tension in the region, according to a Chinese naval statement.
Neither China nor the US will give way in this South China Sea showdown
Jonathan Fenby
Read more

“If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war,” the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.

“I hope the US side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and US navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again,” Wu said.

The high-level talks followed mounting international alarm in the wake of the decision by Washington to send a US destroyer close to artificial islands built by Beijing in the South China Sea.

According to the Pentagon, however, the hour-long talks had been “productive”.

The admirals discussed “freedom of navigation operations, the relationship between the two navies including pending port visits, senior leader engagement and the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue”, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Navy spokesman Lieutenant Tim Hawkins said the conversation on Thursday had been “professional and productive”.

The USS Lassen guided-missile destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles of at least one of the land formations claimed by China in the disputed Spratly Islands chain on Tuesday.

The move prompted the Chinese government to summon the US ambassador in Beijing and denounce what it called a threat to its sovereignty.

The US said after Thursday’s talks that the Chinese had expressed no desire to cancel scheduled visits by Chinese ships to a Florida port next week and that an upcoming visit to China by the commander of the US Pacific Command would still take place.
Advertisement

“We look forward to continue this dialogue,” an official said.

Wu and Richardson, the US navy operations chief, had agreed to speak again via video conference later this year.

Tensions have mounted since China transformed reefs in the area – also claimed by several neighbouring countries – into small islands capable of supporting military facilities, a move the US says threatens freedom of navigation.

Washington has repeatedly said it does not recognise Chinese claims to territorial waters around the artificial islands and reiterated that it would send more warships to sail close to the controversial islets.

But in a move that is likely to trigger fury in Beijing and reignite tension in the region, an international tribunal ruled on Thursday that it had the power to hear a case brought by the Philippines over the disputed seas.

Manila has insisted the UN convention on the law of the sea, which the Philippines and China have both ratified, should be used to resolve the bitter territorial row over isolated reefs and islets.

China has refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing the Permanent Court of Arbitration – which is more than a century old and based in The Hague – had no jurisdiction over the case.

“Reviewing the claims submitted by the Philippines, the tribunal has rejected the argument” by China that the “dispute is actually about sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and therefore beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction”, the court said in a statement.
Advertisement

Instead, the court ruled the case reflects “disputes between the two states concerning the interpretation or application of the convention” - something which falls within its remit.

A senior Chinese diplomat said on Friday that China would neither participate in nor accept the case. Vice foreign minister Liu Zhenmin added that the case would not affect China’s sovereign claims in the seas.

China insists it has sovereign rights to nearly all of the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which about a third of all the world’s traded oil passes.

Following a stand-off between Chinese ships and the weak Filipino navy in 2012, China took control of a rich fishing ground called Scarborough Shoal that is within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

China has also undertaken giant reclamation activities, raising fears it will use artificial islands to build new military outposts close to the Philippines and other claimants.
China may fear reputation damage more than military threats over South China Sea
Ashley Townshend
Read more

The tribunal – set up in 1899 to resolve international disputes between countries – stressed on Thursday its ruling did not yet go to the heart of the merits of Manila’s case, which was first filed in 2013.

A new hearing will now be held behind closed doors in The Hague, and a final ruling is not expected until next year.

The tribunal agreed it would take up seven of the 15 submissions made by Manila, in particular whether Scarborough Shoal and low-tide areas like Mischief Reef can be considered islands, as China contends.

It will also consider whether China has interfered with Philippine fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal.

But it set aside seven more pointed claims, mainly accusing Beijing of acting unlawfully, to be considered at the next hearing on the actual merits of Manila’s case.

In a July hearing in the Hague, Philippine foreign secretary Albert del Rosario warned the integrity of UN maritime laws was at stake.

China’s behaviour had become increasingly “aggressive” and negotiations had proved futile, del Rosario said.

But the court on Thursday also directed Manila to narrow down the scope of its final request that it should order that “China shall desist from further unlawful claims and activities.”

In Washington, a senior US defense official hailed the tribunal’s decision as victory for international law.

“We of course welcome the decision of the panel. This demonstrates the relevance of international law to the territorial conflicts in the South China Sea,” the defense official said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Oct 2015 11:11

SSridhar wrote: Both the US and PRC are hegemonic with PRC even being a revisionist state.

I am not hear to defend China but US is the last country in the world to lecture any country about Rules and Law and how to abide by it

How is China a hegemonic state , How many times did China Invade any nation in past 2-3 decade ? How many military bases does it have in the world or military personal deployed in conflict world wide.

Does China have any stated policy like US which says let me Contain China or let the world business rules be written by me and not by China in words of BO

US is very unique in the world being a hegemonic state by policy and action , the others are lesser mortals

While I agree with rest of your statement , Its in our interest to deal with China keeping UN laws in Mind and make sure China Plays by it and use diplomatic tools for the same.

I dont see any existant threat from China or for that matter any other country , thats a US talk good for neocons onleee , If we have a credible nuclear deterrent then we are as much a threat to China or US or any one as they are to us.

Neither US nor India would bury its relation with China as now much of Global Economy depends on Chinese growth and our trade with them is growing.

We should work with Asian Partners be it china or any other country to make our economy stronger , to make sure not just Yuan but also aim Rupee is accepted as IMF reserve currency thats how we will eventually get stronger economically.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Oct 2015 11:44

China warns US against ‘minor’ incidents that could ‘spark war’

https://www.rt.com/news/320116-china-us ... spark-war/

Addressing the issue of US intrusion on Thursday in a video teleconference, Admiral Wu Shengli warned the chief of US naval operations Admiral John Richardson to refrain from further “provocative acts”.

“If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war,” Wu said, according to a Chinese naval statement.

“(I) hope the US side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and US navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again,” Wu added.

Commenting on the bilateral exchange during the teleconference, an American official told Reuters that both sides agreed to avoid clashes. The US and Chinese navies also decided to maintain dialogue and follow protocols stipulated under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).

“They agreed that it’s very important that both sides continue to use the protocols under the CUES agreement when they're operating close to keep the chances for misunderstanding and any kind of provocation from occurring,” said the official.

The US Navy stressed that it is entitled to “protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law.”

On Thursday, the court in the Hague ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear territorial claims that were filed by the Philippines over the disputed areas in the South China Sea. The UN-based body will hold further hearings to settle the issue but they will not focus on sovereignty but rather economic entitlements.

“This arbitration concerns the role of ‘historic rights’ and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features in the South China Sea and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China in the South China Sea that are alleged by the Philippines to violate the Convention,” a press release issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration read.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2015 12:38

Austin wrote: I am not hear to defend China but US is the last country in the world to lecture any country about Rules and Law and how to abide by it

I am not here to defend the US either

How is China a hegemonic state , How many times did China Invade any nation in past 2-3 decade ? How many military bases does it have in the world or military personal deployed in conflict world wide.

Hegemony is not defined by the use of military force alone, please. Even then, it has attacked many of its neighbours as a punitive measure. India, Vietnam, Laos for example

How many times it invaded & occupied? Even once is enough. Isn't it? Tibet.

Military bases? We have discussed that here before. FYI, see below:

China proposes to have a naval base in Djibouti that faces the Bab-el-Mandeb. In May 2015, the President of Djibouti announced high level talks between China and Djibouti on the construction of the naval base in the northern part of Obock. China has already extended loans of USD 9.8 Billion to a poor Djibouti which cannot absorb the loans, leave alone return them with interest. It is believed that Djibouti went the same way as Sri Lanka and Maldives which unable to manage the unsustainable rates of Chinese loans buckled and ceded territory, concessions and sovereignty to China. It is also constructing a naval base in Bagamoyo in Tanzania. A leaked PLAN report talks of 18 foreign naval bases in such places as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Seychelles, Madagascar and Namibia. The possible foreign naval bases include Chongin Port (North Korea), Moresby port (Papua & New Guinea), Sihanoukville Port (Cambodia), Koh Lanta Port(Thailand), Chittagong Port(Bangladesh), Gwadar Port(Pakistan),Hambantota Port(Sri Lanka), Male(Maldives), Seychelles, Djibouti Port(Djibouti), Lagos port(Nigeria), Mombasa Port(Kenya), Dar es Salaam Port(Tanzania), Luanda Port(Angola) and Walvis Bay Port(Namibia).

Does China have any stated policy like US which says let me Contain China or let the world business rules be written by me and not by China in words of BO

US is very unique in the world being a hegemonic state by policy and action ,

What the US does to China or vice versa in terms of stated policies between themselves is irrelevant to us. All I know is that China has been assiduously trying to contain India in every possible way. Why should one announce a policy while actions can speak better than words.

the others are lesser mortals

As I said before, there are different shades of hegemony and a lesser hegemon is still one.

I dont see any existant threat from China or for that matter any other country , thats a US talk good for neocons onleee

The whole China-Pakistan collaboration, IMO, poses an existential threat to us.

If we have a credible nuclear deterrent then we are as much a threat to China or US or any one as they are to us.

Not true. We have no intention of threatening anyone else while the US & China have.

Neither US nor India would bury its relation with China as now much of Global Economy depends on Chinese growth and our trade with them is growing.

Nobody is suggesting that either.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2015 12:57

China can't build its instant atolls in the ocean and claim sovereignty .It is behaving like an illegal squatter.In fact sh*tting in the ICS and polluting its peace. This is one case where I agree with the US.Left unchallenged,China will simply roll over most of Asia,including key Indian territory in the Himalayas.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2015 15:57

Carving out a path on China’s road - Phunchok Stobdan, The Hindu

New Delhi has recently made a subtle move by trying to reverse the Kashmir discourse hitherto scripted and played by Pakistan for seven decades. The new move is accompanied by a sudden spurt in video clippings showing Pakistani atrocities in Gilgit-Baltistan. Hopefully, this is not a propaganda stunt and the policy shift will gain seriousness from now on.

New Delhi’s move comes against the backdrop of China’s renewed push into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir through its $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) initiative. The subsequent “Karamay Declaration” of August 2015 defined Pakistan’s role in China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative. The nexus is nothing new but the motivation, significance and implications of CPEC needs careful analysis.

Iron brothers

The plan seemingly aims to build a crucial two-way bridge-link for China to access the Indian Ocean and conversely for Pakistan to reach out to Eurasia. But it is likely to deepen the already complex strategic ties between the two “iron brothers”, dubbed now as equivalent to the U.S.-Israel links. China expects CPEC will yield far-reaching economic benefits and regional security is instrumental for this purpose.

First, the Karakoram (land) with Gwadar (sea) alignment has both commercial and military significance to serve as strategic chokepoints vis-à-vis India.

Second, the CPEC is suspected to be about offsetting the growing U.S.-India intimacy as also in China’s quid pro quo to counter India’s “Act East” policy.

Third, it seems linked to preventing the Afghan-Pak area from potentially becoming a safe haven for Uighur militants once the U.S. troops leave Afghanistan. Beijing’s frantic initiatives for Afghan reconciliation talks explain that.

Clearly, Beijing seeks new opportunity to fill up gaps where India has largely failed. Considering PoK’s strategic location, it could have many ramifications for India. It is here that CPEC is linked to Pakistan’s recent attempts at manipulating the legal and demographic profile of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). Islamabad wants to make GB the fifth province of Pakistan. As speculations go Pakistan could lease additional areas in GB to China like the Shaksgam Valley that was surrendered in 1963. Opening a Chinese Consulate is also in the offing. This is too serious for India to ignore.

Meanwhile works under the CPEC have started, ranging from building of hydro projects, roads and tunnels to leasing land in Gwadar. While Beijing has justified CPEC as a “livelihood project”, Pakistan is going the whole hog to get the landlocked Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) members to join the corridor and offering them access to the Indian Ocean. For India, China’s OBOR plan posed a dilemma: joining it raised fears of getting sucked into China game plan, but not joining is inconsistent with New Delhi’s broader diplomatic strategy. New Delhi also seems more peeved over the way Beijing announced the plan without prior discussion.

India’s non-endorsement of OBOR has raised eyebrows on the future course of India-China relations. China’s plan obviously carries security undertones, but staying outside it seems short-sighted.

Creative engagement

Clearly, India requires a two pronged strategy. First, New Delhi should start placing Gilgit-Baltistan plus Ladakh (82 per cent of J&K) on the centre-stage as a keystone policy to blunt both the Kashmir rhetoric and CPEC. It is also time to start working on Pakistan’s domestic resistance i.e. in Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit-Baltistan. The “Modi effect” seems to be already working as these regions are now abuzz with pro-freedom slogans.

Second, India should explore opportunistic aspects in the OBOR especially for regaining access to the northern axis, prevented by loss of GB to Pakistan. Therefore, India needs to weigh the option of getting a physical entry into GB, Sinkiang and Wakhan areas hitherto remained out-of-its-way — it can’t be in India’s interest to support the project and not reap all the economic benefits. Further considering the region remains a critical focus of India’s threat perceptions, being on the road would be beneficial for tracking regional terrorism and developing capabilities to respond to future uncertainties Opting out is a diplomatic risk as Pakistan may exploit India’s absence. As in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Pakistan would be on the lookout to place India in the role of the spoiler within the SCO. Clearly, Russia and others would want India in the OBOR as a counterweight to Chinese influence. Regardless of economic interests, India can’t ignore the symbolic significance as it was along the Silk Route that Indian trade and philosophy (Buddhism) once travelled to the rest of Asia.

It’s an open question whether this type of diplomacy will be successful, but India’s philosophy should be is clear: travel on the road. This is a tricky balancing act, but the challenge is to re-conceptualise and seek new economic, diplomatic and security realities on the ground. Just as India joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a wise approach would be to creatively join the Silk Route.

In fact, a countervailing strategy would be to offer a mollifying connectivity plan for a direct transport, energy, trade, fiber optics and communication highway connecting Persian Gulf with China through Indian Territory under the rubric India-China Silk Route Corridor. It could serve multiple interlocking advantages for India from infrastructure building to buying guarantee against Chinese misadventures. The idea could help open a new path and become a masterstroke counter-strategy in India’s long-term home and foreign policy.

(Phunchok Stobdan is a former ambassador and an expert on Inner Asian affairs.)

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2015 19:05

US naval patrol signals contest with China for control of Malacca Straits - Atul Aneja, The Hindu

The controversial patrol by a U.S. warship in an area in the Spratly islands over which China claims sovereignty is having an unexpected fallout.

It has triggered a growing domestic perception that Beijing should swiftly militarise these islands, and test the resolve of the Washington-led alliance in the Pacific.

Washington’s unilateral decision to send the destroyer, USS Lassen, within 12 nautical miles of Zhubi reef — a part of the Spratly archipelago — has generated a volley of opinion that China must beef up its defences in the South China Sea. China claims sovereignty over the Spratly islands and its adjacent waters within the nine-dash-line. The littoral states of Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei contest the claim, which China says is rooted in history and post-war settlement governed by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.

Analysts say that by militarising a set of artificial islands atop the submerged coral reefs, China would be better positioned to influence the Malacca straits—the major trade artery that links the Indian and the Pacific ocean.

In turn this would test President Barack Obama’s “Asia Pivot” or Rebalance doctrine, based on the accumulation of forces in the Pacific, in alliance, mainly with Japan, South Korea and Australia, with Malacca straits as its focal point. An article in the state-run tabloid Global Times acknowledged that the US and Japan — the core pillars of the Asia Pivot — would have “calculated that the Strait of Malacca is within the radius of Chinese aircraft above the reefs”.

The entry of the USS Lassen under the guise of “freedom of navigation” is fast leading to a consensus in China that the artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago need to be militarised to counter the U.S. in the West Pacific.

Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the US said shortly after the incident that Beijing has now to seriously think about beefing up its defence capabilities in the region.

"We have to make sure we have sufficient means to safeguard our sovereignty there, to protect our lawful rights there, and ... maintain peace and stability there, and nobody will have any more illusion that it could continue to provoke," he observed. Chinese netizens are also urging their government to militarise the islands, following the US patrol.

The website China Military Online collated comments by Chinese netizens as published by the International Business Times. The online comments, advocating retaliation, included: "Attack," "fight," "sink it," "down with American imperialism," and, "finally the U.S. is giving us a reason to militarise the South China Sea."

The underlying tensions between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea are also having a fall-out on the bonding between Washington and its top allies. Australia, which has already defied the U.S. by joining the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), has announced that it would continue to hold the proposed naval drills with China in the South China Sea, notwithstanding the latest bout of tensions between Beijing and Washington. Spokesman for Australian defence minister Marise Payne said on Thursday that two Royal Australian Navy ships would still take part in exercises with their Chinese counterparts off the southeastern Chinese coast, not far from the disputed Spratly Islands.

The incident has also driven fissures within the ASEAN grouping. Indonesia has slammed the deployment of USS Lassen as exercises in “power projection”. “We disagree, we don't like any power projection,” said Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan.

Phay Siphan, spokesperson for Cambodia's Council of Ministers, was quoted as saying that the US is flexing its muscles and creating more tension in the area. However, the Philippines, has strongly defended the dispatch of the US warship.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 30 Oct 2015 21:00

Indonesia and Cambodia seem to have already chosen the Chinese camp. Vietnam and Philippines are clearly not going to side with China. On the OBOR initiative, the 4 trillion dollar investment that China has undertaken relies on the survival of Pakistan. Without Pakistan, the OBOR is more or less failure. The NSG and MCTR membership is the key IMO. If we get these memberships, we get a lot more manoeuvring room. We can arm Vietnam with both nuclear weapons and Brahmos. What does SCO membership give us? Access to central Asia?

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 30 Oct 2015 22:06

From TSP thread

ramana wrote: Westphalian nation-state theory is good for the dusk of Europe and not for antediluvian Islamic state structure.
Even Erdogan Turkey is unraveling due to the kabila nature of Islamic state.

The world is going to become a very messy place. How can China control this beast?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Oct 2015 23:35

They seem to be in good company

Russia, China, terror pose challenge to world order: US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Oct 2015 23:49

panduranghari wrote:Indonesia and Cambodia seem to have already chosen the Chinese camp. Vietnam and Philippines are clearly not going to side with China. On the OBOR initiative, the 4 trillion dollar investment that China has undertaken relies on the survival of Pakistan. Without Pakistan, the OBOR is more or less failure. The NSG and MCTR membership is the key IMO. If we get these memberships, we get a lot more manoeuvring room. We can arm Vietnam with both nuclear weapons and Brahmos. What does SCO membership give us? Access to central Asia?

thats patently not true ! MTCR and NSG doesn't mean you can do whatever u want ! (only whats blessed by the US !)

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 30 Oct 2015 23:54

SSridhar wrote:
Does China have any stated policy like US which says let me Contain China or let the world business rules be written by me and not by China in words of BO

US is very unique in the world being a hegemonic state by policy and action ,
What the US does to China or vice versa in terms of stated policies between themselves is irrelevant to us. All I know is that China has been assiduously trying to contain India in every possible way. Why should one announce a policy while actions can speak better than words.

What did China do to stop the rise of Bhaarath?
a) Support to Pakistan:
But Pakistan lives because of US support not China. Moreover, China didn't come to Pakistan's rescue during 1971 or Kargil or 1965. And Pakistan didn't support China during 1962. On the other hand, US sent its armed support to Pakistan in 1971 and urged China to help Pakistan.

The documents reveal that Indira Gandhi went ahead with her plan to liberate Bangladesh despite inputs that the Nixon Administration had kept three battalions of Marines on standby to deter India, and that the American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had orders to target Indian Army facilities.

Link

b) Support to communists and other separatists:
But communists have been created by the Russia. It was only very late that they jumped on to China's bandwagon. Anyway, Bhaarath had supported Tibet and should do it again. As for separatists, many separatists do live in west as well. Many Khalistani supporters live in the west. If that does not stop us from making love to west, then why should China's case be different? So, strictly speaking communism was created by Russians and separatism was patronized by west. China is a very late entrant to this game.

c) 1962 war: This was a border dispute between China and Bhaarath about Tibet. Chinese allege that the war was started by Bhaarath. If Bhaarath did start the war(and I hope thats true), then I think Bhaarath did the right thing because China cannot be allowed to occupy Tibet. The moment China invaded Tibet, it was a war on Bhaarath as far as I can see. Tibet should be in Bhaarath's protection. Today, China is occupying Manas Sarovar. China is a hegemony. It has already gobbled up Manchuria, part of mongolia, and Tibet. So, China needs to be cleared out from Tibet.

But, China's support to Pakistan is not the evidence for anti-India stance. If anything, China's lack of support to Pakistan is interesting. So, China's threat to Bhaarath is from east, not west. It is already sitting on Tibet. Threat from Pakistan is not based on China's support.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 31 Oct 2015 12:42

kit wrote: thats patently not true ! MTCR and NSG doesn't mean you can do whatever u want ! (only whats blessed by the US !)

Perhaps. Or the GOI wants to do that anyway. They are just waiting for the memberships. A lot of energy and money has been spent.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 31 Oct 2015 17:02

Heard from a chaiwallah today that the North India Electric grid collapse in 2012 was the result of a Chinese cyber attack. Take it FWIW

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 31 Oct 2015 17:06

This is a very good article by Ashley Tellis.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/making_waves.pdf

US and India to collaborate in develop Indian Aircraft carrier.

No country today possesses the technical capacity to
design and build aircraft carriers like the United States.
And no country today would profit as much from collabo
-
rating with the United States in carrier design and construction as India at a
time when its local dominance in the Indian Ocean is on the cusp of challenge
from China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which commissioned
its first aircraft carrier in 2012

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2015 17:14

Khan is gearing up for a messy world by embedding more intel, sensors, drones, sf units, soar type lift assets into each theater and developing ever smaller agile weapons.
At back end internet and telecom snooping and data crunching ramped up.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 31 Oct 2015 17:23

Catch is we have to buy the F-35 lightnings along with the A/C.

For this reason only it is worthwhile to buy the Rafales so that India has a fallback option.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Oct 2015 20:34

johneeG, if I understand you correctly, you make the following fundamental point: China has not been doing anything to contain India ('rise of Bhaarath', as you put it). In order to support that you essentially muster three arguments, namely, that China has not really supported Pakistan in its wars with India as much as the US did, secondly that Russian communism predated Chinese communism in India or that Chinese support for terrorists can be at the most only as bad as the Western support for Indian separatists like Khalistanis or that Chinese support for Indian separatists can only be as bad as the Indian support for Tibet (equivalence between China's Tibet and India's North East) and therefore China is either a 'late entrant to the game' in which the Western powers are head-and-shoulders above or that India cannot complain because it has played the same game with China in Tibet, and thirdly China-Pakistan nexus is not an evidence of the former's anti-India stance.

First, a clarification. We know the duplicitous behaviour of the West and we know perfectly well the several instances where India has suffered as a result. India-US and India-China are not a mutually exclusive zero-sum games. But, in realpolitik, which is what statecraft is all about, these are common. That's why I do not believe that somehow China has a lesser right to play that. By all means, it should. I have absolutely no problem with various manifestations of China's containment strategy of India. That is exactly how I wish India too had behaved earlier. However, we need to recognize our environment and what we are facing up to just so that we can overcome the challenges.

Of course, China had not done anything substantial in terms of a direct support for Pakistan during war times. Pakistan's hopes in 1965, 1971 were always that China would open another front with India and thus dilute India's efforts on its border. Except for making some noise like giving us some deadlines, or firing a few shots or deploying some formations, or making fiery statements, China, in fact, did not show the kind of belligerence that we were expecting from it. We know this as a fact and there is no dispute on that, though what we do not know is exactly why it behaved like that. We can only surmise. I feel that there were 'other factors' that compelled China to behave the way it did.

In 1962, China availed the opportunity of the world focus being in Cuba when it rapidly invaded India and withdrew just in time as well. The US-India collaboration started after that in military matters and China knew that another attack on India would invite a more muscular American involvement. Its own position was rather shaky too after the monumental disaster of the Great Leap Forward and a new Cultural Revolution was already in the making. Its relationship with the USSR was fast deteriorating even as India was upping its proximity with the USSR simultaneously. There were strained relationships between it and Indonesia & Vietnam. US troops had begun to be deployed in Vietnam in 1965. These, rather than any other goodwill considerations towards India, might have also prompted a cautious Chinese to take a less aggressive posture in 1965.

In 1970, a huge problem started between a popular retired PLA General Lin Biao, second only to Mao in communist hierarchy, on the one hand and Chairman Mao and Zhou-en-Lai on the other. Lin Biao opposed the rapprochement with the US. There was a a large number of pro-Moscow generals who gathered around Lin Biao and against Mao & Zhou's pro-US policies. It was not until Lin Biao could be purged through a plane crash in Mongolia in late September 1971 that Mao himself could take the next steps in normalizing relationships with the US. Mao himself came close to being ousted from power through a military coup. The top leadership's confidence in PLA hierarchy was shaken. Naturally, the Chinese could not have been confident enough to take a more militaristic approach against India at that difficult time.

By the end of the decade of the 60s, the US & China had started towards a rapprochement, but the China-USSR relationship became more fraught with danger. In any case, the Chinese revisionist ambitions remained intact. these were, curtailing the space for the two superpowers, improving its own leverage to change the pecking order in Asian power structure so that it could be at the top. Increasingly, the Asian stage has been expanded to international.

Even granting China the benefit of doubt, there are overwhelming evidences pointing to the Chinese containment strategy of India and we were aware of that much before the fashionable 'String of Pearls Theory' was coined by the American firm Booz Allen Hamilton. We have enough material generated within India (and even in this thread and its earlier incarnation) to conclude that without needing western inputs.

On the equivalence between Tibet and North-East, there is simply no comparison.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 31 Oct 2015 22:25

SS saar,

I would like to add 1 more thing to your very astute analysis.

Chinese point of view is based on historical claims and they are annoyed that no one is willing to see their point of view. India and others see Chinese assertive posture as threat to the status quo. China does not want to give up its historical claims. India does not wish to be a vassal state.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Nov 2015 05:52

U.S. Tech Companies and Their Chinese Partners With Military Ties

Good article.

Analysts and officials in the American military community are increasingly examining a recent trend among United States technology companies of forming new partnerships with Chinese firms that have ties to the Chinese military. Critics are concerned that the growing number of such deals could inadvertently improve the fundamental technology capabilities of the Chinese military – or worse, harm United States national security. Below is a list of some of the recent partnerships formed between American tech firms and military-connected Chinese companies.
Tsinghua Holdings
This government-run company that is closely connected to Tsinghua University has received billions of dollars in state money to become a new national champion for microchips. One of its subsidiaries, Tsinghua Tongfang, supplies military communications control equipment and electronic countermeasures and satellite navigation equipment to the People’s Liberation Army, according to a report from the Defense Group Inc., a security firm. At one time, the son of Hu Jintao, the former Chinese president, was Tsinghua’s representative to the Chinese Communist Party.

American Connections
INTEL: In September 2014, Intel agreed to invest $1.5 billion for a 20 percent stake in a holding company run by the Tsinghua subsidiary Tsinghua Unigroup. Intel said it would work with two companies acquired by Tsinghua Unigroup to develop new chip technology for mobile phones.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: In May, HP sold a 51 percent stake in its China-based server, storage and networking business, H3C Technologies, for $2.3 billion to the Tsinghua Holdings subsidiary Unisplendour.

WESTERN DIGITAL: In September, Unisplendour agreed to pay $3.78 billion for a 15 percent stake in the American hard-disk-drive maker Western Digital.

DELL: In June, Dell signed a strategic partnership with the subsidiary Tsinghua Tongfang to develop advanced computing technologies supporting cloud computing, big data and smart cities.

IBM: Tsinghua University is a member of IBM’s Open Power program to license advanced IBM technology.

Inspur Group
One of China’s leading makers of servers and networking equipment, Inspur has benefited from government policies aimed at weaning the country off foreign technology. The Chinese military uses Inspur computers, mobile mapping systems and communications systems according to the Defense Group Inc. report. Inspur also sells to the China Air-to-Air Missile Research Academy and the China Academy of Engineering Physics.

American Connections
IBM: Inspur is a partner in IBM’s Open Power program, which gives the company access to the technology supporting parts of its high-end server technology.

CISCO: In September, Cisco formed a $100 million joint venture with Inspur to develop advanced information technology infrastructure, data centers and networking equipment.

INTEL: Inspur sells servers that use Intel chip technology to Chinese clients, many of which have government connections.

China Electronics Technology Group Corporation
A crucial state-run company, the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (C.E.T.C.) is composed of many former military labs that have been the crucial developers of the technology supporting China’s military. The company’s labs designed the electronics on China’s first nuclear bomb, guided missile and satellite. Today, some labs are focused on the military, with others on commercial operations.

American Connections
MICROSOFT: In September, Microsoft announced a partnership with C.E.T.C. to provide specialized configuration, deployment and maintenance of a localized Windows 10 to support government institutions and critical infrastructure in China.

IBM: In December 2013, IBM signed a strategic partnership with a C.E.T.C. joint venture with the Shanghai Municipal Government, which focuses on developing new software products and solutions.

Beijing Teamsun Technology
Teamsun does things as diverse as setting up networks for large companies and government organizations and protecting those networks from online attacks. It also sells satellite communications equipment and software. The company counts the Second Artillery Equipment Academy and the Chinese People’s Armed Police Force as customers and is registered as a military supplier, according to the Defense Group Inc. report.

American Connections
IBM: Through cooperation with the Beijing city government in November 2014, Teamsun has acquired or is in the process of getting intellectual property rights to advanced IBM server, software and database technology.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 01 Nov 2015 13:56

PM Narendra Modi’s Foreign Policy Spotlight Over Indian Ocean Region

Dr Gaurav Pradhan, October 31, 2015

The last post was about PM Narendra Modi’s ‘Act East Policy’ and the manner in which he has played the role of a seasoned diplomate, steered foreign perception of India in a bid to make the country a member of global solutions facing the world. This article continues where it left off with PM Modi’s Indian Ocean policy initiative.

The Indian Ocean region (IOR), which has long been considered as India’s nautical backyard, is steadily turning into a hotspot thanks to growing Chinese strategic presence over the region’s numerous strategically located archipelagos.

To counter the recent moves made by China in the name of President Xi’s pet ‘Maritime Silk Road’ project, India started to reach out to its maritime neighbour’s in the IOR with proposals of enhanced economic and security cooperation.

http://newsworldindia.in/opinion/prime- ... on/143743/

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 01 Nov 2015 14:54

NRao wrote:U.S. Tech Companies and Their Chinese Partners With Military Ties

Good article.

The exact reason why the trans Pacific Partnership was so hastily signed on the 5th of October is in the above link. US wants to ensure China gets no technology access directly or indirectly through the 12 members who constitute the TPP. TPP expressly forbids anyone to trade with a third party who has no direct blessing of the USG. It also imposes harsh penalties on those who have already invested in a profitable relationship with China. There are about 22 clauses in the TPP which impose embargoes on private citizens and also specific technologies.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Nov 2015 20:33

JohneeG: Is your question even half serious? In which area does PRC NOT seek to curtail India's rise? Geo-political, economic, diplomatic, resources, security, strategic? Ever looked at the composition of arms of Pakistan and where it comes from? Granted we are not civilizational enemies or something but from a nation-state perspective, we are competitors, opponents and in some areas enemies. Do not forget, PRC sits on our sovereign land.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 01 Nov 2015 20:54

An update from Bharat Karnad
http://bharatkarnad.com/2015/11/01/stri ... the-hague/

This is about Philippines' arbitration case in The Hague and some implications. He also discusses USS Lassen sailing.
Excerpt

The important thing to note is that Beijing did nothing against Lassen, and will be hard pushed to react harshly against ships from other countries either, to prevent the ganging up of the all the littoral and far-off navies, sinking what slight possibility there still is for Beijing to prosecute its longstanding strategy of refusing to deal with ASEAN but to cut separate deals with the regions states on a bilateral basis in order to impose its terms.

His take for India (given it is BK, one can predict though!)

Delhi should learn how to deal with China, to take note of small and weak Asian countries on China’s periphery standing up to Beijing even as India pussyfoots around issues, fearful of adverse Chinese reaction.

MadhuG · Post by **MadhuG** » 02 Nov 2015 04:14

China propagates perceptions of external threat domestically to keep its populace distracted from the shortcomings of the Chinese economy and internal socio-political issues. Drumming up nationalistic fervor works to the favor of the Politburo.

The Chinese positions on the South China Sea dispute, the border disputes with India, Taiwan, Japan and the presence of the USN Seventh Fleet are nothing but a well planned long time orchestration by the PLA to keep a constant stream of external threats at an optimal level - not likely to escalate but enough heat to keep its citizens distracted. All with a careful underpinning of ambiguity and subtlety to allow flexibility in policy and politics as the situation deems. Case in point is the the claim to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. China immensely benefits if it keeps burning down its smaller neighbors' GDP in expensive military build up which can never match China's GDP and thus China's own military build up. Except with Russia. It will be a long time before China can match Russia's stockpiled arsenal. No wonder, China and Russia were quick and effective in resolving their border disputes. No ambiguity, no war mongering, no denials, no persistent sovereignty claims and no legal muddling like in all other disputes or issues.

The South China Sea dispute is unique when compared to other disputes by being a multi-lateral dispute irrespective of Chinese insistence that each disputant deal with it bilaterally. The South China Sea is also a global issue as the sea is a transit point for international traffic - commercial or otherwise. This is one bluff where there will be escalations. The bluff has become bigger than the game and there is no going back for the Chinese. If they back down, they lose credibility domestically, weaken the CCP and degrade their influence over their neighbors - which will in turn unravel other disputes. If they don't back down, they have to be ready to go through the meat grinder that is the second largest air force in the world - the US Navy. And then there is only one outcome (and China won't like that).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Nov 2015 06:28

There are several issues with the Indo-China Sea claims by the Chinese:

There is no historical or territorial basis for the claim even when it was made in 1949 by Zhou-en-Lai
China is trying to 'manufacture' territorial claims now by forcibly possessing far-away atolls and converting them into islands
China overlooks every other littoral nation's similar claims confining them to just their territorial waters of 12 nm
China, being a party to UNCLOS, uses its provisions to stake EEZ claims, but is unwilling to settle maritime disputes through arbitration based on the same UNCLOS provisions
China agreed with the ASEAN to a Code of Conduct of Parties to be followed in the Indo-China Sea, but is unwilling to do any further follow up on this even after a decade!
The Chinese aim is to completely 'throttle' all naval activities by other countries (especially the US, India & Japan and future potential alliance partners) in the Indo-China Sea by claiming all the sea and insisting that passage of any naval asset through its EEZ must be only with its permission. The Chinese idea of 'freedom of navigation' in ICS even on the high seas is limited to only cargo ships, not naval assets of other nations. The idea is also to prevent the Pacific Fleet of the US Navy from linking up with Singapore/India/West Asia et al. This Chinese interpretation is simply unacceptable to everyone else. This way, China is trying to mitigate its Malacca dilemma by creating an artificial chokepoint in the ICS for other nations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Nov 2015 11:24

Tx Sri for using the "ICS" title to describe the scene of action! Yes,we fear China,or at least our great mandarins of the MEA.With such fear inside their bellies,the battle is already lost.When plucky little Vietnam,grievously weakened by the Vietnam War,stood upto and defeated China in their last spat,it showed how a much smaller non-nuclear nations could give the arrogant PRC a severe thrashing. Our MEA mice should learn from their Viet counterparts. India must operate a forward flotilla in the ICS and establish a naval/air base there just as China is doing at Gwadar.India's outpost in the ICS should have enough offensive potential to deliver telling blows against the PLAN.If we can also operate our TRU-142 Bears from Viet bases,the Bears equipped with LR cruise missiles like the KH-101/2s,Nirbhay ASMs or equiv.,they could carry upto 16 ASMs,both cruise missiles and BMos-M and be able to strike any port/naval base on the Chinese coast as well as targets inland by launching these stand-off missiles.

China gets rebuffed by the courts.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/china-wa ... claim.html

China Navy chief warns US as Hague deals China a blow
Thursday, 29 Oct 2015 |

An arbitration court in the Netherlands ruled on Thursday that it had jurisdiction to hear some territorial claims the Philippines has filed against China over disputed areas in the South China Sea.

In a legal defeat for China, the Hague-based tribunal rejected Beijing's claim that the disputes were about its territorial sovereignty and said additional hearings would be held to decide the merits of the Philippines' arguments.

The news came as China's naval commander told his U.S. counterpart there is a risk of "a minor incident that sparks war" if the United States continues with its "provocative acts" in the South China Sea, the Chinese navy said on Friday.

The two officers held talks after a U.S. warship challenged China's territorial assertions in the South China Sea on Tuesday by sailing within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing's man-made islands in the Spratly archipelago.

Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.

Read MoreBeijing in uncharted waters as US sails into South China Sea

"If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war," the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.

"(I) hope the U.S. side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and U.S. navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again," Wu said.

The U.S. patrol on Tuesday was the most significant U.S. challenge yet to territorial limits China claims around its artificial islands in one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

In the Hague, China has boycotted proceedings and rejects the court's authority in the case. Beijing claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, dismissing claims to parts of it from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

The tribunal found it has authority to hear seven of Manila's submissions under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and China's decision not to participate did "not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction".

The U.S., a treaty ally of the Philippines, welcomed the decision, according to a senior U.S. defense official.

"This demonstrates the relevance of international law to the territorial conflicts in the South China Sea," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official added: "It demonstrates that sovereign claims are not necessarily indisputable and it shows that judging issues like this on the basis of international law and international practice are a viable way of, at a minimum, managing territorial conflicts if not resolving them."

State Department spokesman John Kirby told a regular news briefing that in accordance with the terms of UNCLOS, the decision of the tribunal would be legally binding on both the Philippines and China.

John McCain, chairman of the U.S. Senate's armed services committee, hailed the Hague ruling.

"Today's ruling is an important step forward in upholding international law against China's attempts to assert vast and, in my view, questionable claims in the South China Sea," he said. McCain said Washington should continue to support partner countries and allies such as the Philippines in the face of China's assertiveness, including through routine freedom-of-navigation patrols like the one that angered Beijing this week.

Read MoreHow China's military buildup threatens the US

Speaking before Admiral Wu's comments on the recent patrol by a U.S. warship, a U.S. official said the naval chiefs agreed to maintain dialogue and follow protocols to avoid clashes. Scheduled port visits by U.S. and Chinese ships and planned visits to China by senior U.S. Navy officers remained on track, the official said.

"None of that is in jeopardy. Nothing has been cancelled," said the official. Both officers also agreed on the need to stick to protocols established under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).

"They agreed that it's very important that both sides continue to use the protocols under the CUES agreement when they're operating close to keep the chances for misunderstanding and any kind of provocation from occurring," said the official.

A U.S. Navy spokesman stressed Washington's position that U.S. freedom of navigation operations were meant to "protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law".

Bonnie Glaser, a South China Sea expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, called the Hague outcome "a major blow for China given that the opinion explicitly rejects China's arguments that ... the Philippines has not done enough to negotiate the issues with China."

Angry China shadows US warship near man-made islands

The court said it could hear the arguments including one contending that several South China Sea reefs and shoals were not important enough to base territorial claims on. China has been building artificial islands on reefs in the sea and claiming control over the waters within a 12-mile (19-km) radius.

On seven other submissions, including that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign right to exploit its own territorial waters, the court said it would reserve judgment about jurisdiction until it had decided the merits of the case.

No date has been set for the next hearings, which will also be closed to the public.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in the Netherlands in 1899 to encourage peaceful resolution of disputes between states, organisations and private parties. China and the Philippines are among its 117 member countries.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Nov 2015 12:35

panduranghari wrote:Chinese point of view is based on historical claims . . . China does not want to give up its historical claims.

panduranghari, there are two points in the ICS issue. One is the whole Sea area (or 80 to 90% of that) as claimed by China through the fraudulent nine-dashes and the other is the historicity of the claim.

The first one is simply unacceptable because the crucial sea becomes then the private property of a country especially as China places all kinds of restrictions on navigation. The claim is unsustainable because nobody can arbitrarily draw lines on maps and base the claims on that. Claims on individual islands etc are a different matter altogether

On the historicity of the claims, most islands are claimed by China based upon "time immemorial" use by Chinese fishermen or maritimers, or finding some ancient Chinese artefacts etc. These are NOT acceptable claims of sovereignty. Every littoral nation makes similar claims too. China must be dispossessed of all the newly created artificial islands.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 02 Nov 2015 14:50

We should stake claim on the whole of China, after all the name was given by us. But seriously, like China wanted to defeat the greatly experienced Indian army and teach them a lesson leading to 1962 war, perhaps a short war on the Indo-China sea causing loss of ehhandee to the PLAN will perhaps be forced if China chooses not to reign its aggressive behaviour.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Nov 2015 16:33

Philip wrote: China gets rebuffed by the courts.

China Navy chief warns US as Hague deals China a blow

An arbitration court in the Netherlands ruled on Thursday that it had jurisdiction to hear some territorial claims the Philippines has filed against China over disputed areas in the South China Sea.

In a legal defeat for China, the Hague-based tribunal rejected Beijing's claim that the disputes were about its territorial sovereignty and said additional hearings would be held to decide the merits of the Philippines' arguments.

In the Hague, China has boycotted proceedings and rejects the court's authority in the case. Beijing claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, dismissing claims to parts of it from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

The tribunal found it has authority to hear seven of Manila's submissions under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and China's decision not to participate did "not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction".

The U.S., a treaty ally of the Philippines, welcomed the decision, according to a senior U.S. defense official.

"This demonstrates the relevance of international law to the territorial conflicts in the South China Sea," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official added: "It demonstrates that sovereign claims are not necessarily indisputable and it shows that judging issues like this on the basis of international law and international practice are a viable way of, at a minimum, managing territorial conflicts if not resolving them."

State Department spokesman John Kirby told a regular news briefing that in accordance with the terms of UNCLOS, the decision of the tribunal would be legally binding on both the Philippines and China.

John McCain, chairman of the U.S. Senate's armed services committee, hailed the Hague ruling.

"Today's ruling is an important step forward in upholding international law against China's attempts to assert vast and, in my view, questionable claims in the South China Sea," he said. McCain said Washington should continue to support partner countries and allies such as the Philippines in the face of China's assertiveness, including through routine freedom-of-navigation patrols like the one that angered Beijing this week.

Bonnie Glaser, a South China Sea expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, called the Hague outcome "a major blow for China given that the opinion explicitly rejects China's arguments that ... the Philippines has not done enough to negotiate the issues with China."

The court said it could hear the arguments including one contending that several South China Sea reefs and shoals were not important enough to base territorial claims on. China has been building artificial islands on reefs in the sea and claiming control over the waters within a 12-mile (19-km) radius.

On seven other submissions, including that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign right to exploit its own territorial waters, the court said it would reserve judgment about jurisdiction until it had decided the merits of the case.

No date has been set for the next hearings, which will also be closed to the public.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in the Netherlands in 1899 to encourage peaceful resolution of disputes between states, organisations and private parties. China and the Philippines are among its 117 member countries.

The latest announcement by the Permanent Council of Arbitration under UNCLOS that it had the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute and China's boycott of its proceedings did not matter, is a huge slap on the Chinese face.

It was in c. 2012 that the PLAN occupied a shoal, known as Scarborough Shoal, near the main island of the Philippines. The two navies were involved in a stand-off for two months. In March 2014, the Philippines filed for an arbitration under UNCLOS in the UN on the Chinese claims. On the issue of the arbitration under UNCLOS, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, "China will not participate in the arbitration launched by the Philippines. China supports resolving disputes through consultation with the countries involved on the basis of respecting historical facts and international laws." The Philippines provided a 4,000-page paper of supporting materials for its case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Philippines, according to sources in its foreign ministry, says its claim is part of its continental shelf and well within its 370-kilometer exclusive economic zone. The legal paper also asks the court for guarantees on Philippines' territorial claims.

In May 2013, the Philippines protested the "provocative and illegal presence" of a Chinese warship near Second Thomas Shoal, which is occupied by Philippine troops. In late January 2014, PLAN sent a naval flotilla comprising of the amphibious landing craft, Changbaishan, and two destroyers to James Shoal (which PRC calls as Zengmu Reef). In March 2014, China prevented movement of two ships contracted by the Philippine navy to deliver supplies and troops to the disputed Second Thomas Shoal (which the Chinese call as Ren'ai Reef). The second Thomas Shoal is in the Spratly Islands group west of Palawan Island. The Philippines government has deliberately run aground a rusty ship on the shoal to show the Philippine flag. Eight marines of the Philippines Navy rotate duty on that ship. The Second Thomas Shoal, which sits around 200 km. from the western Philippine island of Palawan, is claimed by the Philippines, China and Taiwan.

In July 2015, China refused to be subjected to UN arbitration under UNCLOS for any dispute in ICS (Chinese nomenclature, SCS). The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, "On the issue of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, China will never accept any imposed plan, nor any solution arrived at by unilaterally resorting to a third party for resolving disputes," She also said the Philippines' initiation of the arbitration ignored China's legitimate rights under such international laws as the UNCLOS and breached commitments made by the Philippines not to unilaterally seek arbitration. The spokesperson laid the blame for the current tension in the South China Sea on the Philippines, saying it has illegally occupied Chinese islands there since the 1970s. "Despite being the victim of the South China sea disputes, China remains highly restrained and keeps safeguarding regional peace and stability in mind,"