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

[anupmisra]

War must be last resort to settle disputes: Chinese General Qiao Liang - Shaurya Karanbir Gurung, Economic Times

The author, Qiao Liang, who is a Major General in the People's Liberation Army says, "The reason why so many Chinese people paid attention to the China-India border standoff in the Doklam area is that they are unfamiliar with China's strategic positioning. If they had a clear understanding of China's strategic positioning, they would know that the settlement of the Doklam standoff was one of the best results possible."

Beware of this guy. Uncle Han must know that everyone's favorite uncle, Google chacha, can help spill the beans on everyone and everything out there, if asked. Here's what General Qiao Liang, had to say in his book "Unrestricted Warfare" when he was just a lowly colonel in the PLA:

Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally "warfare beyond bounds") is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law and a variety of economic means to place one's opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.

Reducing one's opponent, the book notes, can be accomplished in a number of ways other than direct military confrontation. The book notes that these alternative methods "have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare, and they have already produced serious threats different from the past and in many directions for...national security."

Wikibhai had this source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

Download the book: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a509132.pdf

[Venkarl]

If they cannot defend the roads during war, what is the point of building them?

That's exactly what I want to know. Militarily it makes no sense, or may be I am missing something. I don't know.

So..for some entertainment Gurulog

if Bangladesh fails in preventing Rohingya migration..
if Rohingya demography swells in BD and somehow they manage to settle in northern BD..
if rohingyas get uninterrupted Supplies from China
if northern BD becomes a kashmir type mess combined with commies
if army gets busy with Indo-BD border

We will have another Kashmir right under our arm close to chicken neck.
Question is who will benefit.
And when that benefit is crawling towards you...is it not logical to test India by pushing the road till Doklam trijunction before initiating the above entertainment strategy ? Well, lets say its already initiated
These roads then may come handy when the right time is correct.

We all know that 2 nuke nations will never take long strides into each others' territory in a war.
This will only damage those nations' economies and future. Thanks to Nukes.
So neither PLA nor IA will march deep into each others' territories as the conflict will not be allowed to swell.
Then how can Chin hurt India in future? - Above entertainment for ya...Pakis will be Islamic+Communist colony by that time anyway

Thats for entertainment onlee ....

@Serious Readers & Lurkers...Apologies for the ramble

[UlanBatori]

About this shyness in going deep into each other's territory: at what stage would a nation decide to use nukes? IMO this is the problem with nukes: Either show readiness to use them at small threshold, or you might as well not have them. Pakistan's strategic advantage over India is that Indians are pissked into thinking that if IA strikes into Muzzafarabad (let alone RYK), Pindi will send F-16s with nukes to Delhi. But this is garbage. If Muzzafarbad is lost, Pakjabis would not lose anything of value. They would not risk LaHore and Pindi over Muzzafarabad.
If Indians in return say that any more terror strikes on an Indian city will bring a tactical nuke down on ISI HQ, I wonder what would happen.

Same deal with China. India and china are ***NOT*** going to nuke each other as long as each has enough detergent. Period. If there is a massive liberation force going into Uttar Dharamsala or into Kunming, there may be an attempt to use tactical nukes - IF a sufficient force concentration can be detected. If it a vast, spread-out force, tactical nukes are like shooting oneself in the musharraf.

The lessons are good and bad. On the one hand, nuke detergent will **NOT*** deter PLA from striking deep into India. Nor should it deter IA from striking deep into Kunming, Uttar Dharmasala or East Turkestan.

Hmm! I realize that I sound like the crazy Soviet Jarnail shown at the start of one of the James Bond movies, arguing for the armored strike through the Fulda Gap straight up to the English Channel.

[Pulikeshi]

[Pulikeshi]

[Arjun]

He explains that it is not the appropriate time for China to continue constructing the road it was building in the Doklam plateau. "Many people would say that the road construction in China's territory was none of India's business. Is this belief right? It is reasonable to some extent because road construction in this area is not a matter of right and wrong, but we need to understand that it is not always right to do something right at any time. Only doing the right thing at the right time is correct.

Clearest admission from China that when the 'time is right' they will again try and restart road construction in Doklam. Whether that is 2 moths from now or 2 years from now is the only matter of debate.

[arun]

War must be last resort to settle disputes: Chinese General Qiao Liang - Shaurya Karanbir Gurung, Economic Times

Beware of this guy. Uncle Han must know that everyone's favorite uncle, Google chacha, can help spill the beans on everyone and everything out there, if asked. Here's what General Qiao Liang, had to say in his book "Unrestricted Warfare" when he was just a lowly colonel in the PLA:

Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally "warfare beyond bounds") is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law and a variety of economic means to place one's opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.

Reducing one's opponent, the book notes, can be accomplished in a number of ways other than direct military confrontation. The book notes that these alternative methods "have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare, and they have already produced serious threats different from the past and in many directions for...national security."

Wikibhai had this source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

Download the book: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a509132.pdf

The cited article by the PLA’s Major General Qiao Liang from Global Times.

War must always be the last resort in disputes

By Qiao Liang Source:Global Times Published: 2017/9/12 20:53:39

he title of China's role in future world written by Wang Xiangsui, retired Air Force Senior Colonel and professor at the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, says it all, that is the importance of China's strategic positioning in the future.

The reason why so many Chinese people paid attention to the China-India border standoff in the Doklam area is that they are unfamiliar with China's strategic positioning. If they had a clear understanding of China's strategic positioning, they would know that the settlement of the Doklam standoff was one of the best results possible. China and India are both neighbors and competitors, but not all competitors must be treated in the toughest way.

Many people would say that the road construction in China's territory was none of India's business. Is this belief right? It is reasonable to some extent because road construction in this area is not a matter of right and wrong, but we need to understand that it is not always right to do something right at any time. Only doing the right thing at the right time is correct.

So, with this principle in mind, one can understand that the Doklam confrontation was solved in the way it should have been. And the most important thing is that when you understand China's strategic positioning and you cannot bring the entire world under your domination, you are willing to leave well enough alone. Only in this way can one completely reach his goal, otherwise, haste makes waste or the result and your desired outcome may even be poles apart.

Many people think that China has a powerful national strength, including a strong military power, thus only war can demonstrate China's power. But resorting to war is irresponsible for the country and the country's future as war has always been the last resort to solve problems. Whenever there may be a way to solve a conflict without war, war should be avoided.

Some people may say that I am a soldier and what I said above reflects a lack of confidence in my country. It's true that I am a military scholar that study strategies. I'm not afraid of war, and I know what war is about. But for any country, the war is always an unfortunate thing. Yet each soldier wants to fight in the war once in his lifetime, which could honor his life.

This is the wish of all of us soldiers. We know that war is ominous. The country can maintain peace and it will be the best to avoid war.

Soldiers can realize their values better in the battlefield, so in this case, what choices should we make? When the country needs soldiers to fight in the battlefield, they will absolutely choose to join the war without hesitation. But in the country's current position, we should spare no efforts to avoid pushing the country into a war as peace is the best outcome.

The author is a Chinese military strategist Major-General of the People's Liberation Army. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Link here:

Clicky

[yensoy]

So..for some entertainment Gurulog

if Bangladesh fails in preventing Rohingya migration..
if Rohingya demography swells in BD and somehow they manage to settle in northern BD..
if rohingyas get uninterrupted Supplies from China
if northern BD becomes a kashmir type mess combined with commies
if army gets busy with Indo-BD border

About 2 million Rohingyas in all, even if everyone from Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan elsewhere are counted. Compare that with roughly 200 million population of Bangladesh. In what way is this substantially more of a threat if all Rohingyas end up in BD than what we are already facing now, and are already prepared for?

[shiv]

He explains that it is not the appropriate time for China to continue constructing the road it was building in the Doklam plateau. "Many people would say that the road construction in China's territory was none of India's business. Is this belief right? It is reasonable to some extent because road construction in this area is not a matter of right and wrong, but we need to understand that it is not always right to do something right at any time. Only doing the right thing at the right time is correct.

Clearest admission from China that when the 'time is right' they will again try and restart road construction in Doklam. Whether that is 2 moths from now or 2 years from now is the only matter of debate.

The important thing is that there is no need to wait or search for for an "admission" from China. There was no earlier admission that they would walk into Doklam. China has not admitted that it will intrude into the Walong region. That should not be taken as meaning that they will not do that.

But India has admitted that it will oppose china. Now that is a first..

[Philip]

A titbit in the media today says that a PLA general has ticked off more gung-ho army officers who wanted to unleash dragonfire upon India at Doklam.
This possibly could mean that the incident which sparked off the crisis was not orchestrated by Beijing but was the gung-ho attitude of local /theatre commanders.
Notwithstanding the report,the fact remains that the policy of the Chins has been to continuouslyu nibble like rabid rondets at Indian territory all along the border and have even squatted in POK and also at Gwadar ,where mentally,economically and physically bankrupt failed terror state called Pak ahs invited them in to run the country.

The EU however has delivered a firm riposte to Chinese meddling in EU affairs. China is attempting to split Europe poaching the former Warsaw Pact Eastern European nations into its orbit.Read on.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/09/one-chin ... k-beijing/

One China – One Europe? German Foreign Minister’s Remarks Irk Beijing
The German foreign minister recently demanded that China follow a “One Europe” policy.

By Lucrezia Poggetti
September 09, 2017

Reviving Europe’s unity was the theme of German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel’s recent speech in Paris. The minister’s address at a gathering of French ambassadors was meant to remind Europeans of their joint purpose, but it ended up raising eyebrows in China, which was presented as a threat to European unity.

The German minister appealed to EU members to pursue a joint foreign policy vis-à-vis the Asian power to counter Beijing’s tactics: “If we do not succeed for example in developing a single strategy towards China, then China will succeed in dividing Europe,” he said. The Chinese Foreign Ministry declared to be “shocked” by the statement.

Chinese tactics undermine consensus within the EU

China has tried to draw Central and Eastern European countries into its orbit with the so-called “16+1” format. Created in 2012, this framework offers a special platform for Beijing to discuss political and economic issues with 16 states in Central and Eastern Europe without the intrusion of Western European nations. China has also been investing heavily in countries connected to its Belt and Road Initiative. Some of these countries have been less willing to criticize the People’s Republic than their Western European counterparts. This includes issues on which they had agreed to coordinate and pursue a common foreign policy in Lisbon in 2007, such as human rights and principles of international law.

In a recent case, Greece – a key destination of Chinese investments under the Belt and Road Initiative – blocked a European Union statement at the UN Human Rights Council that was critical of China’s human rights record. Gabriel mentioned another example, when some member states last year prevented the EU from taking a strong stance on China’s refusal to accept an international court ruling on its territorial claims in the South China Sea. “Some EU member states don‘t want to approve [the ruling], because they do not want to put themselves in conflict with China,” Gabriel said in his address to the French ambassadors.

Beijing questions European unity

In the clearest signal to Beijing (and to some EU member states), the German foreign minister demanded that China should follow a “One Europe” policy – just as European countries follow the “One China” policy, which accepts China’s dictum that foreign nations should not entertain diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Beijing was not amused. “We are shocked by these statements,” said the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman. She dismissed the comparison to Taiwan by saying that “The EU is a regional organization composed of sovereign states, not a sovereign country itself.” And she added, “We hope that he can clarify what he means by ‘one Europe’ and whether there is a consensus on ‘one Europe’ among EU members.”

The director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, Cui Hongjian, took an equally harsh stance in an article for the party-state newspaper Global Times: “It is unreasonable that Gabriel compared the One Europe policy with the One China policy. The latter is based on historical facts and political consensus across the Taiwan Straits, and recognized by international organizations and treaties, while the One Europe policy is only an ambiguous concept.”

While cross-Strait political consensus is not free from controversies (Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen refused to reaffirm the One China principle in her inaugural speech in May 2016, for example), some in Europe may even agree with Cui’s characterization of the EU’s struggles to formulate common policies. But Beijing’s comments also appear to prove Gabriel’s point: that China is ambivalent about its support of EU integration and that it fails to acknowledge the legal and political principles underlying the need to form political consensus on foreign affairs among EU member states.

Lucrezia Poggetti is a research associate at the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS)

[SSridhar]

As for road construction per se, I heard that India has been hinting that twenty or so years later, when Indian infrastructure would have also developed equally well, India wouldn't object to that. I don't know how far that is true or whether it was ever conveyed in so many words officially (which I doubt at all) or it was just an idea discussed in Tier-II or back-channel diplomacy.

That made me suspect initially (apart from the early confusion regarding location) that IA really went into Chumbi Valley, Tibet because if the area under stand-off was Bhutanese, there was no need for concession twenty or even hundred years later.

[kapilrdave]

Clearest admission from China that when the 'time is right' they will again try and restart road construction in Doklam. Whether that is 2 moths from now or 2 years from now is the only matter of debate.

It may be a clear admission from china. But how will they convince themselves that India will act equally wisely with them next time also? Apparently, we have made no such admission yet!

[SSridhar]

India, Japan cannot challenge China: Chinese daily - IANS, Economic Times

Global Times must look into the mirror over what happened in Doka La and what it wrote day after day in the lead up to the denouement.

As Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits India, a Chinese daily has said that close ties between New Delhi and Tokyo posed no "grave threat" to Beijing.

China has always been wary of growing proximity between India and Japan with whom it has territorial disputes. The state-run Chinese media has often been critical of fast developing ties between India and Japan.

An op-ed in the Global Times said "the India-Japan intimacy is more like a contrivance" and both were "are unlikely to challenge China without giving it a serious thought".

It said China would never follow India and Japan "who have somewhat lost themselves".

"Under the international relations logic of the 21st century, closer India-Japan ties won't pose grave threats to China because many of their emotional moves to console each other won't produce any real effects in challenging China.

"A strong China has the confidence that no Asian country can substantially challenge China's national security nor can they by grouping together. China has been in the core of economic cooperation in Asia. Geopolitics is unlikely to go against the geo-economic situation."

This is the 10th meeting between Modi and Abe in the past three years. This time, Modi invited the Japanese leader to Ahmedabad. In 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited the city in Gujarat where Modi was once the Chief Minister.

Both leaders are likely to beef up their defence and security ties. The sale of US-2 amphibious aircraft is also likely to come up.

Last year, China had angrily reacted to the prospective sale of these aircraft to India.

The newspaper said after the Doklam border row, Indian experts and media have emphasised the need to forge deeper ties with the US and Japan to counter China.

"This has exposed the vulnerable feeling of the Indian strategic circle in front of China," the article said.

"They want to encourage themselves by calling for India's alliance with the US and Japan to showcase India's strategic potential to China. This suits the desperate needs of Indian society's mentality."

"As long as Chinese society is mentally strong enough, calls in the Indian and Japanese media for them to draw closer will be in vain. India and Japan are unlikely to form a military and political alliance with the US.

"China's vast trade with Japan and India greatly dwarfs bilateral trade between India and Japan. Given this, Tokyo and New Delhi are unlikely to challenge China without giving it serious thought."

The daily added: "China wants to solve problems when it has disagreements with India on specific issues. China won't actively seek strategic confrontation with India or Japan."

[kancha]

Folks, put out another Twitter Thread on Pakistan as China's 'cat's paw' to keep India tied down on the Western borders.
Do have a look. Will put it out in a blog too, later this day
Trigger was this tweet by @SCMP_News

Opinion: Lesson from Doklam - China and India can still become ‘Chindia’

[SSridhar]

Japan calls for ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ - The Hindu

Japan’s diplomacy with India during Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s latest visit, highlighted the country’s intensifying focus on the Indo-Pacific region and Tokyo’s evolving foreign policy.

Speaking to the media, Japan government’s spokesperson laid out the overarching nature of the new concept, “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy” that aims to prepare Japan to deal with the fast changing global and regional order and threats from China and North Korea.

Spokesperson Norio Maruyama’s presentation before the media introduced the new Japanese strategy that will build peace pro-actively, based on “diplomacy that takes a panoramic view of the world map”.

He stated that the strategy aims to create a “free and open” Asia-Pacific region which connects parts of eastern Africa, south Asia and southeast Asia with the western Pacific Ocean region and Japan.

“Japan will expand infrastructure, development, trade and investment, and enhance business environment and human development from East Asia as a starting point, to the Middle East and Africa,” it stated.

The ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ rests on “two oceans” — Indian and Pacific — and “two continents” — Africa and Asia. It is understood that Japan is quietly challenging China’s aggressive plans in the South China Sea that pose a threat to the energy lane that sustains Japanese economy.

The government of Shinzo Abe believes that connectivity between Asia and Africa through a free and open Indo-Pacific, is expected to support stability and prosperity of the region as a whole. Interestingly, a joint statement issued at the end of the visit did not mention ‘South China Sea’.

[SSridhar]

Japan should not get involved in China-India row: Beijing - Economic Times

China on Friday said no third party should get involved in the India-China boundary dispute, an apparent reference to Japan's plans to invest in India's northeastern state Arunachal Pradesh that is claimed by Beijing.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry was reacting to a host of issues touched upon by the India-Japan joint statement of Thursday, which ranged from freedom of navigation in the South China Sea to concerns over China's Belt and Road project.

The joint declaration, after a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, also spoke about setting up an India-Japan Act East Forum for the facilitation of Japanese investment in India's northeast.

"You also mentioned Act East Policy and forum. You must be clear about that the boundary of China-India border area has not been totally delineated and we have dispute in the eastern section of the boundary and we are now trying to seek a solution through negotiation which is acceptable to both sides," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said here [Beijing].

"We hope India and various parties should respect such aspects and third parties should not be involved in our efforts to resolve our dispute," she added.

The spokesperson was referring to India's Arunachal Pradesh, which is claimed by China as its own.

India and Japan also said in the statement they were for freedom of navigation and UNCLOS in Indo-Pacific regions which include the South China Sea.Indo

China pointed out that India and Japan have nothing to do with the disputed South China Sea as they don't have any stakes in the region.

"Resolving the dispute by directly concerned parties to uphold the freedom of navigation and over flight entitled countries and international law, this is China's position," Hua said.

"We also hope that various parties can uphold the right to freedom of navigation and over flight in various waters," she said, without mentioning which waters she was referring to.

Modi and Abe also talked about China's Belt and Road project.

"You mentioned that there are may be some innuendos on the Belt and Road initiative.

"In terms of improvement on our connectivity, we always do it... We should uphold the wide consultation, joint contribution and benefits to strengthen the infrastructure and connectivity in this region,"

[kancha]

Folks, put out another Twitter Thread on Pakistan as China's 'cat's paw' to keep India tied down on the Western borders.
Do have a look. Will put it out in a blog too, later this day
Trigger was this tweet by @SCMP_News

Opinion: Lesson from Doklam - China and India can still become ‘Chindia’

Just put it out on the blog.
LINK

Once again, nothing that isn't already known over here, but simply needs to be put out on the www. Do have a look

I’ll set the tone by paraphrasing a Hindi saying. ‘There can NEVER be two swords in a single scabbard’. I started tweeting on 29 Jan 12. THIS tweet below was amongst my first few, on 12 Feb 2012.

Flash back to 1962 and 1967. What happened on the battlefields is mentioned here in THIS Blog Post from some days ago. The one thing that the PLA (hopefully) learnt that the Indian soldier was no pushover. A fact that was only reinforced in 1987 at Sumdorong Chu when they were stared down, just as it happened 3 decades later at Doklam. The PLA knew that a shooting match with the IA will be VERY costly.

However, something happened in 1963 that gave the Chinese, an army for hire .. a fanatic army at that, with one single ambition – to show ‘Hindu’ India its place. And it came at not much cost. Heck, they even kowtowed, offering a strategic piece of land too, the Shaksgam Valley!

The Pakis had found their ‘Higher than Himalaya’, ‘Deeper than Deepest Ocean’, ‘Sweeter Than Honey’ (the list of a$$ licking platitudes continues to grow still) benefactor. A benefactor that knew no scruples. All it needed was a (pin)prick that could keep a potential rival – India – engaged away from the LAC.

But the topic I intend to cover here is not nuke proliferation. Instead I wish to talk about Missile proliferation from China to Pakistan. Indian IGMDP was launched in 1983. With the experience of a decent space pgme atleast 2 decades old, the missile pgme saw the Prithvi launched in 1988 & the Agni in 1989.

Suddenly, out of the blue, the Pakis ‘magically’ came up with a missile pgme of their own! The Hatf 1 magically appeared in 1989, tested and inducted! Soon followed by Shaheen, Ghauri, Babar series of missiles!

This from a country that STILL does not manufacture even a decent car of its own. But it’s military hardware production is supposedly all indigenous! Magic, no? Yup. Magic indeed, If u discount the fact that Chinese entities were in fact, under sanctions at about the same time for exporting M-9 & M-11 missiles to Pakistan. The reports available online are very candid with details. Here’s an EXAMPLE

[SSridhar]

Opposed to foreign investments in disputed areas in India's North East: China - Economic Times

BEIJING: China today said it is opposed to any foreign investments including that from Japan in the 'disputed areas' in India's North East region and is against any third party's involvement in resolving its border disputes with India.

Reacting to Japan's plans to step up investments in the northeastern states during Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to India, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told the media that China is opposed to any foreign investment in the 'disputed areas'.{Shooting itself at its feet again?}

[Philip]

India should talk less and do more in building up asap infrastructure and mil power.WE should be as relentless if not more than the Chinese.However,our chalta hai attitude and machinations of babudom,always with greedy eyes on the loot that can be made drags us down.This attitude continues to exist becos of the layers of protection that babus have created for themselves,making prosecution of a corrupt babu near to impossible.The day the babus go to jail for long term with their assets confiscated like terrorists will be the day that India wins.

[manjgu]

POK is disputed internationally..how the F hans investing there?

[ArjunPandit]

POK is disputed internationally..how the F hans investing there?

Sir, let's avoid that line, POK is our rightful territory with PoK as illegal occupier. We had historical roots to that area and recently majority of PoK residents indicated that they want to be with India.
We need to have POK and COK be part of Akhand Bharat (One India) policy that needs to be ratified by anyone asking for OneLizard or One Munna Policy

[anupmisra]

Tibet is a disputed land. How about that? Someone from the media should bring it up.

[Hari Seldon]

China and India: The Roots of Hostility (Mohan Malik analyzes in The Diplomat)

Many analysts believe that growing power asymmetry, in particular Beijing’s global economic clout, is the reason for Chinese derision and bellicosity toward India. However, I argue that the roots of Chinese hostility toward its southern rival are deep-seated and actually pre-date Beijing’s acquisition of economic and military muscle.

An understanding of Chinese perceptions of India insofar as they influence policy is important because the present tensions may or may not erupt in a hot war, but will surely make their cold war colder.

These perceptions have led five successive generations of post-Mao Chinese leadership to contemplate “teach[ing] India a lesson again” at least once every decade since the 1962 War (Zhou Enlai in 1971, Deng Xiaoping in 1987, Jiang Zemin in 1999, Hu Jintao in 2009 and Xi Jinping in 2017).

Refreshing read.

[Arjun]

POK is disputed internationally..how the F hans investing there?

All that the Chinese are communicating is that in case of a war between India and China - any foreign investments in the disputed region will not be immune from attacks. Which is a fair point...India will be keen to apply the same principle wrt foreign investments such as CPEC in POK / Baluchistan or any in Tibet.

[Kati]

One of our major faults is not having subtle control media just as Uncle and Auntie have over theirs.
Before making any major foreign policy decision, Uncle-Auntie's pliant media starts beating the drum
at the tune of their respective govt. Dish out their POV through the media thoroughly, holding debates,
etc etc.... Why not this hasn't been done so far? Current govt. still has a terrible media management,
even after staying in power for three years. Some major dailies (I track the Kolkata ones) dish out garbage
casting doubt on govt's every move, yet there is no consequence. Had it been in Uncle-Auntie's case they
would have put everything of certain media people under microscope - how much honorarium they were
paid, which hotel they stayed in with whom, whether those were filed with IT return, etc etc. and then
release those through non-govt channels .....

Our media should be mobilized to drum up a public opinion highlighting how much closer Tibet has been
to Bharat culturally ...... then one more step,- should Tibet be considered part of China at all, .... then
signature campaign to be submitted to UN stating how China is destroying Tibetan culture, and causing
demographic imbalance, etc etc.... Historical link with Tibet can't be relinquished by Nehru's blunder....

What's preventing us from doing this?

[SSridhar]

POK is disputed internationally..how the F hans investing there?

Exactly. That's what I meant too.

On the CPEC and India's sovereignty issue with POK, the Chinese side has been proffering various excuses such as that CPEC was merely a developmental project and has got nothing to do with territorial disputes and China would abide by whatever resolution that took place between India and Pakistan etc. Complete hogwash. It offers the same standard line whenever the illegal 1963 border agreement between Pakistan and China was referred to.

China strenuously objects to Indian oil companies assisting Vietnam in the latter's EEZ in the Indo-China Sea. In the 19th ASEAN Summit in mid-November, 2011 at Bali, Man Mohan Singh told Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao that Indian activities were purely ‘commercial’ and issues of sovereignty needed to be settled ‘according to international laws and practices’, kind of turned the table on the Chinese. However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, in response to a question on Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh’s assertion of commercial venture, said on Nov. 21, 2011 that “We don't hope to see outside forces involved in the South Indo-China Sea dispute and do not want to see foreign companies engage in activities that will undermine China's sovereignty and interest.” What kind of a dumb answer is this?

When questioned later, on another occasion, as to why China disputed India’s presence in oil exploration in South Indo-China Sea while she herself was building dams and roads in disputed PoK, Mr. Sun, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave a very unconvincing and convoluted answer. He said that the South Indo-China Sea dispute was “very complex” and involved many parties. China was trying to discuss the issue with other countries with overlapping claims. In POK, China's “only focus” was on the development of the local economy. “It doesn't mean” that China had ratified Pakistan's claim to the territory. “The dispute [over the PoK] is between India and Pakistan. So, whenever there are disputes or tensions, China will not be judgmental. Therefore, I don't think they should be mixed”. Does this have any meaning? Does it convince anyone? Even Mr. Sun should have wondered what he was saying !!

Sir, let's avoid that line, POK is our rightful territory with PoK as illegal occupier. We had historical roots to that area and recently majority of PoK residents indicated that they want to be with India.

We need to have POK and COK be part of Akhand Bharat (One India) policy that needs to be ratified by anyone asking for OneLizard or One Munna Policy

ArjunPandit, you are right about the fact that POK is not even 'disputed'; it is forcibly occupied by an enemy. Along the same lines, I feel that we should not even use the terminology, 'Akhand Bharat'. These are all lands of Bharat. We are not a revisionist state incrementally acquiring other's lands, coveting other's real estate. We should simply take back what is ours, i.e. Bharat's. Getting back these lands will not make Bharat as Akhand. It will complete what is today an incomplete Bharat.

[Arjun]

Chinese scholar says China should consult India on CPEC

[Philip]

I have the perfect solution to improving our border infrastructure at record speed and also finding the finance to do so. Our official estimates say that only 25% has been completed with the budget for the whole lot,hence this solution.

Simply outsource most of our border road/rail infrastructure to the Chinese! Their slave labour will do a fab job for us,like the Donald says about the Mexican wall,"China will pay for it too",with 100 yr long-term loans at friendship rates! China than can't complain about India being reluctant about OBOR,etc. China will thus have proven its friendship credentials. The Japanese are giving us a long-term loan of $10B+ for ze bullet train,so why can't China-if it wants to put its money where its mouth is, do something similar for India?

[SSridhar]

China and India: The Roots of Hostility (Mohan Malik analyzes in The Diplomat)

Hari Seldon, thanks for posting it.

The article is good and elaborates all the points that we have discussed here in this thread in the last few months. It concurs with our hypotheses of the Chinese behaviour.

From the above,

From Beijing’s perspective, as long as India understands that China is the preeminent great power in Asia, and New Delhi keeps its subordinate place in the hierarchy, both will enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship.

That's exactly the Emperor-Tributary relationship that China demands from everyone. This Chinese expectation of servitude is what is at the core of the Chinese behaviour. The Chinese might harbour some grievances against India as the author has listed, but the desire to put India in its place is civilizational. It is just not a post-Mao phenomenon. Xi Jinping has unmasked this attitude of the dragon in a way none had before. But, it goes back to the deeply incinerated ideas of tianzi, tianxia & zhongguo in Chinese minds. The Standing Committee of the Politburo considers itself as the rightful replacement of the 'Son of Heaven' as the dynastic Chinese Emperors were known and continues the foreign policy in the same way.

The following would make the above abundantly clear, again quoting from the author himself,

A Huanqiu commentary on July 28, 2017, warned India not to mess with China: . . .“China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously because there cannot be two Suns in the sky.”

The author echoes the analysis discussed here when he says, "The CCP leadership consciously conducts itself as the heir to China’s imperial legacy, often employing the symbolism and rhetoric of empire." We must agree with the fact that “Imperial Sino-centrism shapes and underpins modern Chinese nationalism.”

Similarly, the author's statement of "India’s efforts to take counter-balancing measures are perceived as challenging and threatening in China" describes exactly a favourite and frequent condition for misconception and insecurity leading to war. The following is another classic symptom, "Moderate voices who want Beijing to accommodate a rising India in order to leverage its economic growth and partner with it to build a multipolar world are often drowned out by more hawkish voices." China is falling into the Thucydides Trap.

Considering the fact that twelve out of sixteen cases studied as part of the Thucydides Trap project resulted in a war and considering also the behaviour of China, war between our two nations is inevitable. We must behave like Bismarck against France, who foresaw war, prepared his country militarily, provoked the war at the right time and then shaped the war in a way that he would win.

[schinnas]

China and India: The Roots of Hostility (Mohan Malik analyzes in The Diplomat)

Hari Seldon, thanks for posting it.

The article is good and elaborates all the points that we have discussed here in this thread in the last few months. It concurs with our hypotheses of the Chinese behaviour.

From the above,

From Beijing’s perspective, as long as India understands that China is the preeminent great power in Asia, and New Delhi keeps its subordinate place in the hierarchy, both will enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship.

That's exactly the Emperor-Tributary relationship that China demands from everyone. This Chinese expectation of servitude is what is at the core of the Chinese behaviour. The Chinese might harbour some grievances against India as the author has listed, but the desire to put India in its place is civilizational. It is just not a post-Mao phenomenon. Xi Jinping has unmasked this attitude of the dragon in a way none had before. And, it goes back to the deeply incinerated ideas of tianzi, tianxia & zhongguo in Chinese minds. The Standing Committee of the Politburo considers itself as the rightful replacement of the 'Son of Heaven' as the dynastic Chinese Emperors were known and continues the foreign policy in the same way.

The following would make the above abundantly clear, again quoting from the author himself,

A Huanqiu commentary on July 28, 2017, warned India not to mess with China: . . .“China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously because there cannot be two Suns in the sky.”

The author echoes the analysis discussed here when he says, "The CCP leadership consciously conducts itself as the heir to China’s imperial legacy, often employing the symbolism and rhetoric of empire." We must agree with the fact that “Imperial Sino-centrism shapes and underpins modern Chinese nationalism.”

Similarly, the author's statement of "India’s efforts to take counter-balancing measures are perceived as challenging and threatening in China" describes exactly a favourite and frequent condition for misconception and insecurity leading to war. The following is another classic symptom, "Moderate voices who want Beijing to accommodate a rising India in order to leverage its economic growth and partner with it to build a multipolar world are often drowned out by more hawkish voices." China is falling into the Thucydides Trap.

Considering the fact that twelve out of sixteen cases studied as part of the Thucydides Trap project resulted in a war and considering also the behaviour of China, war between our two nations is inevitable. We must behave like Bismarck against France, who foresaw war, prepared his country militarily, provoked the war at the right time and then shaped the war in a way that he would win.

Brilliant, SSridhar ji. Given the economic trajectory of both countries, long term structural reforms put in place by India the window of opportunity for China to put India in its place is fast closing. It will redouble its efforts after its Doklam misstep. 2020 -21 is the time Cheen would provoke us into a war. We need to get ahead of it. I would estimate a 2019-2020 timeline as beneficial to us.

Reasons are my estimated impact of various structural reforms put in place in India which could result in a hockey stick growth after 2021. We are ar the bottom of the stick now and growth will accelerate from 2018-19 onwards. Beyond 2021, we will be an economic engine that cannot be dismissed lightly by China. If we pin China down and teach humility to it by 2020, our growth trajectory in the following decade can proceed unmitigated. Later point might be too disruptive. Very critical for India to have continuity of central government and key leaders during this time.

[chola]

China and India: The Roots of Hostility (Mohan Malik analyzes in The Diplomat)

Many analysts believe that growing power asymmetry, in particular Beijing’s global economic clout, is the reason for Chinese derision and bellicosity toward India. However, I argue that the roots of Chinese hostility toward its southern rival are deep-seated and actually pre-date Beijing’s acquisition of economic and military muscle.

An understanding of Chinese perceptions of India insofar as they influence policy is important because the present tensions may or may not erupt in a hot war, but will surely make their cold war colder.

These perceptions have led five successive generations of post-Mao Chinese leadership to contemplate “teach[ing] India a lesson again” at least once every decade since the 1962 War (Zhou Enlai in 1971, Deng Xiaoping in 1987, Jiang Zemin in 1999, Hu Jintao in 2009 and Xi Jinping in 2017).

Refreshing read.

I wrote years ago in BR that our contest with Cheen civilizational not ideological.

When BRites talked about hoping that the CCP was gone and chini democrats take over, I asked why the hell would we want a Cheen that is not encumbered by communism?

Because a democratic Cheen would be feted by the US and Japan. An East Asian style democracy like Japan, SoKo or Taiwan would give the PRC a per capita income in line with those nations. Geopolitically, it would no longer be strait-jacketed by Unkil's alliance and would be free to move its massive assets on its East Coast everywhere, including the IOR.

A free and democratic Cheen would be geopolitical disaster for Bharat because the rivalry is civilizational. In fact, if we looked at things in this light, the only thing cleaving the Confucian civilization is Cheen's communism (just like Islam has cloven civilizational Bharatiya.) Without it, then Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and the rest of the Far East becomes one frighteningly powerful civilizational block. They are already economically integrated.

[UlanBatori]

So cholaji, in a nutshell, your argument is that India should go to "war" and "teach China a lesson" before about 2020. Could you explain your view of the end-game - where the war will lead, and what the post-war Indian economy and survival scenario after the Chinese have "learned their lesson"? For instance do you expect the chola empire to be unaffected by this war? Or become dominant again in south/southeast Asia? Do we have a plan for administering the conquered cities/ruins of Shanghai, Beijing, Hang-zhou etc?

[pragnya]

The regular incursions, stare ins, bombast and heightened activity along the unsettled boundary serve no purpose other than instability, creating doubts about each others' activities and pulling the relations back to square one. Both India and China at the moment suffer from a grave 'trust deficit' which can easily lead to unintended consequences. Given the capabilities of both, 'War' is not an option for either and would end only in a stalemate with major loss to both the conutries and putting their economies back by 'years'. The sooner they settle the border the better for both atleast in as much as incursions, skirmishes, hot border etc. while the bigger geopolitical, strategic play will go on as they did between USA and USSR.

One would recall atleast in the not so distant past, the ex Chinese SR Dai Binguo and others have spoken of a package settlement meaning India has to make concessions in the West while they make in the East. It is another matter that they have recently introduced new elements like South Tibet, naming the towns of Arunachal etc. as a bargaining tool probabaly to get the concessions in the West which is strategiaclly of more value for them vis a vis the highway connecting the Xinjiang province to Tibet apart from being a gateway to Eurasia. While one doesn't know the contours of the package some (hint?) may have come or can be deciphered? From -

China on Monday urged India to abide by the Line of Actual Control (LAC) position of 1959, following last week’s scuffle between troops of the two countries along the Pangong lake in Ladakh.

To a question, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying accused Indian troops of undertaking “violent actions” and injuring Chinese personnel.

The Ministry urged India to abide by the “1959 LAC” — an apparent reference to the alignment espoused by former Chinese Premier Zhou en Lai in a letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In his 2016 book, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy , former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon points out that in the proposal of November 1959, the Chinese describe the LAC “only in general terms on maps not to scale”. India rejected the proposal in 1959 and 1962.[/b]

Zhou en Lai then wrote to Nehru that in the eastern sector, the line “coincides in the main with the so-called McMahon Line, and in the western and middle sectors, it coincides in the main with the traditional customary line which has consistently been pointed out by China”.

Ms. Hua said the incident at Pangong lake had “violated the consensus” on border issues. She said China had expressed “grave dissatisfaction” and lodged its serious concern with India.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 536941.ece

In the light of the above what realistically should or would be ok for India? My own opinion wrt the 'package' is -

Eastern Part

McMahon line was accepted by China in the past. So no change here. Infact China has accepted the same line wrt Myanmar to settle the border.

Western part

Subject to the following map and others points below -



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Actual_Control

The green line was accepted by China which I presume to be the line the the spokeswoman was referring to in the Hindu report above which means India would have to forego about 25000sqkm territory from their maximal claim of the 'whole' of Aksai Chin as depicted in Indian maps. If that is true India, IMO, should accept a package deal. For the Indian concession/giveaway on territory in Aksai Chin, China must make the following 'non negotiable' concessions -

1. The areas they took away in Ladakh region namely in Demchok and Chushul area will have to be returned to India.

2. The Chumbi valley should be given to India.

3. China gives up the claim in the Barahoti area.

....................

Is that a fair one?

Disclaimer : This is just an academic thought with no expertise whatsoever wrt the issue at hand. Just to trigger a good forum debate of a matter of interest. I am no expert and I don't have any counter/wherewithal to any vollies of people like SS, Shiv, Suraj, Y I Patel and the yak herder and many others. It is just simpleton view after gleaning over the pages of debate on this thread.

[UlanBatori]

There is no "fair" deal with china because they don't abide by any deal. First people have to get this clearly understood. India should quit posting these "fair" proposals and post only RIGHT and CORRECT proposals, viz, LAC at Kunming, connecting along Laongitude 100 East to the southern border of Mongolia. China to east of that. India will negotiate with Uttara Dharmasala, East Turkestan and Mongolia to settle the future of Greater Dharmasala in future, no need for Chinese help in that.

Would someone kindly prepare and post correct maps based on this please? The above is called the Kutti-Chatthan Line, so named after the famous Indian explorers who first discovered and planted Indian flags along it in 11300BPA.

[chola]

So cholaji, in a nutshell, your argument is that India should go to "war" and "teach China a lesson" before about 2020. Could you explain your view of the end-game - where the war will lead, and what the post-war Indian economy and survival scenario after the Chinese have "learned their lesson"? For instance do you expect the chola empire to be unaffected by this war? Or become dominant again in south/southeast Asia? Do we have a plan for administering the conquered cities/ruins of Shanghai, Beijing, Hang-zhou etc?

Pipedream:
Chola super state (in the framework of federated Greater Bharat) will stretch from TN to Bali. Our primary ports will be Chennai, Hong Kong and Singapore. Han can keep Shanghai and Beijing. Too cold. Just want traditional Cholan imperial lands of Indo-China, Malay Peninsula and western half of Indonesian archaepeligo. And of course, all of Ceylon. Also will take over old chini OBOR port in Iran, Djbouti, East Africa, Venezuela, Brazil and Greece. It will be the great maritime/commercial power in the modern age, eclipsing even the US.

Reality:
I proposed that we take advantage of Doka La opportunity to rework the Asian geo-political hierarchy with a short sharp war. How often do you get to go to war with overwhelming advantages and a ready made excuse?

They threaten war on us! Without war, the status quo won't change until way past our lifetimes and I want to see it while I'm alive!

Anyone who thinks things can change in the near future can look at our pipeline vs theirs. The respective airvraft carrier programs will tell you what we can afford and what they can afford in the coming decades. Never mind our growth rate had dropped for six straight quarters and is now at 5.7% to their 6.7%.

No, our military along the LAC gives us the best chance at upending the status quo with Cheen in my damn lifetime.

[UlanBatori]

Thanks. Based on that I would say that the best prospect is for a war, not initiated or participated by India, that results in PLA becoming unable to retain hold on East Turkestan and North Dharamsala, hain? Also PLAN becoming entirely and permanently submarine.

[schinnas]

UB ji, total rout of PLA unlikely. We can however manage to take some territory along the LoC and give them a severe drubbing similar to what Vietnamese gave them.

Once a bully gets punched or slapped around in public, he cannot bully around anymore. Doklam was just a glaring match that we own. We didn't slap them around yet.

[UlanBatori]

Once a bully gets punched or slapped around in public, he cannot bully around anymore. Doklam was just a glaring match that we own. We didn't slap them around yet.

All very dangerous speculation IMO. Vietnam's "victory" probably came at a cost of 20,000 men killed, another 100,000 wounded, crippled. Are you willing to pay that price for a few barren square miles of Aksai Hind that none of us will ever see or care about? Now imagine that the commander of the first troops to go across the LAC is your cousin?

Also, the trouble with a "lesson" taught back to the bully in exchange for the "lesson" taught to India in 1962, is another 40 years of them wanting to teach another "lesson" back to India. Pointless. Think positive. Help East Turkestan breathe free. 100 East Longitude. Where East Meets West.

[SSridhar]

As US dithers, India-Japan reviewing South China Sea position? - Sachin Parashar, ToI

While a lot of what India and Japan discussed at the Modi-Abe summit was intended to address Chinese expansionism in the form of its OBOR (One Belt One Road) initiative, the two countries also allowed a concession to Beijing by avoiding any explicit mention of South China Sea (SCS).

This is particularly significant as the previous two summit declarations specifically referred to SCS while reaffirming commitment to freedom of navigation and overflight. This time though the successful resolution to the Doklam dispute, which saw China agreeing to India's demand to stop road construction to where Beijing believes the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction is, and Japan's preoccupation with North Korea meant a more restrained response in their joint statement to the security challenge in SCS.

The Modi government introduced explicit mentions of SCS in its joint declarations, first with the US in 2014, in line with a more assertive Act East policy and to maintain a deliberate ambiguity in its position on China's maritime territorial disputes with its neighbours. This was also in keeping with exhortations by several Asean nations for India to increase its profile in the region.

The omission of SCS may also partly have resulted from what many see as the indifference of the US under President Donald Trump to the situation in SCS . As strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney says, India and Japan are now faced with very difficult choices on SCS with Trump effectively giving Beijing a "free pass" to act in whatever manner it wants to. "The omission is especially significant given the reference to the SCS in the 2015 and 2016 joint statements. India and Japan cannot ignore the fact that the US has no clear policy on SCS," says Chellaney.

There is, however, a view that North Korea's provocations may force Trump to rethink his options. To be sure, the US is now said to be planning regular freedom of navigation operations in SCS. However, reports from Southeast Asia suggest that, with Trump and the international community focused on North Korea, China is quietly consolidating its territorial claims in SCS.

According to Chellaney, under Obama, the US allowed China to change the status quo by force in the SCS without incurring any international costs, thereby emboldening Chinese actions in the Himalayas and the East China Sea, and Trump has shown no inclination to challenge Beijing in SCS. "Under Trump, the US has no desire to seek a return to status quo ante in the SCS. As a result, China is consolidating its position in the SCS, even as the US symbolically undertakes freedom-of-navigation operations in the region," he says.

There was a mention of UNCLOS in the 2017 India-Japan joint statement for sure and the same paragraph also reiterated the determination to work together for stability, peace and development in the Indo-Pacific. It's still a dilution though of the 2016 document which said the two PMs "regarding the South China Sea" stressed the importance of resolving the disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law including the UNCLOS. This time foreign secretary S Jaishankar said the Indo-Pacific reference addressed the issue without mentioning specific geographies.

[vijaykarthik]

Considering the fact that twelve out of sixteen cases studied as part of the Thucydides Trap project resulted in a war and considering also the behaviour of China, war between our two nations is inevitable. We must behave like Bismarck against France, who foresaw war, prepared his country militarily, provoked the war at the right time and then shaped the war in a way that he would win.

Exactly. To reiterate, India should plan for a war and decide the timing and the variety of dishes it plans to dish out in the victory. Chief amongst them should be humiliation in defeat through erosion of the chinese imperial ideal and also an effect on the Chinese psyche for the next 60 years. It needs to be a moral victory as much as a physical and practical victory.