US and PRC relationship & India

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 09 Mar 2010 07:20

U.S. Tightens Missile Shield Encirclement Of China And Russia

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Mar 2010 19:31

bt e-mail

A brilliant article by Ramesh Thakur, director of the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo, on what ails Indo-US relations under Obama and what needs to be done.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 3&start=17

The Canberra Times

Monday, March 8, 2010

Obama sets India adrift

The US needs to re-energise this crucial relationship quickly and seriously, RAMESH THAKUR writes

My colleague, Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s former ambassador to the United Nations, once commented wryly that the distance from hubris to delusion is short and the George W. Bush administration covered it in a sprint.

By the end of his second term, Bush was so deeply unpopular around the world that little was required of his successor to establish international popularity and be an early contender for the Nobel peace prize. Simply by staying out of sight and doing nothing, President Barack Obama would have stopped further international alienation of friendly and allied citizens, halted the decline in multilateral cooperation and reversed the growth of anti-American rage among Muslims.

Yet even in this bleak international landscape of the Bush administration, relations with Israel and India stood out for their exceptional warmth. Going by the first year of his administration, Obama may well complete the alienation agenda with both. The glitter of the first state banquet for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh notwithstanding, the relationship with India is adrift under an inattentive Obama.

This is a pity. The signing of the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation deal by Bush followed by shepherding the process of its endorsement by the international community reinvigorated the previously rudderless relationship and spawned massive pro-United States sentiment. Acting together, India and the US could bend the arc of international history towards mutually attractive destinations.

The US has a chance to exploit India’s partnership potential in addressing key regional and global challenges by crafting policies that view India as a solution, not a problem. Basing its India policy through short-term interests derived from third-party relations like Pakistan and China will not just reverse the Bush gains. They will also jeopardise many significant US policy goals for the immediate future and waste a valuable long-term strategic asset. The more than two million Indo-Americans – extremely successful, highly educated, among the richest cohorts by household income and fiercely proud of their dual identity – provide an enduring ballast to the bilateral relationship.

First and, strategically speaking, most importantly, India is a model for all developing and Asian countries: democratic, secular, stable and now even prosperous. It is a striking refutation of the alleged incompatibility of democracy, stability and economic growth with Third World conditions, or even with Islam: India’s 150 million Muslims are comfortable with democratic institutions and practices.

Second, India’s national security interests dovetail with major US security challenges: containing the spread of Islamist fundamentalism, defeating international terrorism, stabilising Pakistan by nurturing the fragile roots of secularism and democracy, securing Afghanistan, preventing the domination of Asia by China, and stopping nuclear proliferation to other nations and terrorists. For these goals India is potentially America’s most important partner in Asia. Japan is a longer, closer and more reliable ally, but its strategic footprint stops in East Asia. With the exception of North Korea and Taiwan – important long-term security concerns – current US security preoccupations are in the region in which India is the natural hegemon. As the most powerful hegemon itself that dominates the Americas, it is puzzling the US fails to see the parallel with respect to the role but also the jealousies and resentments in the neighbourhood.

Third, on most global challenges, from the new G20 grouping to address the task of an orderly exit from the financial crisis to the stalled Doha round of trade talks and the setbacks and reverses in meeting the threat of global warming, India’s cooperation is critical to making meaningful progress. After the Copenhagen collapse on climate change, some commentators made the point that the third party in the G3 after the US and China is not Europe, but India. Europe was missing in action in Copenhagen as a united and powerful actor. Its choice of inaugural president and ‘‘foreign minister’’ shows how much it is trapped in its own soft bigotry of low expectations.

Not so India. There the chief problem may be the expectations-capacity gap in the opposite direction, where future potential is giving an exaggerated sense of current political weight.

Instead of understanding and accommodating India’s legitimate interests and world views and working with India’s democratic compulsions, the US seems indifferent to and irritated by them. On the Doha round, how many US policymakers know that 199,132 Indian farmers committed suicide in the 12 years, 1997-2008? One reason is the vicious debt trap caused by the removal of quantitative restrictions under the World Trade Organisation regime that has left India’s small and marginal farmers, with no access to crop insurance, exposed to the volatility of international markets and prices. No democratic government can ignore such epic human tragedy. On climate change, should Indians accept a permanently lower standard of living than Americans? In the global media village, this would not be an election-winning platform for any political party.

The US was previously permissive of Chinese complicity in Pakistan’s nuclearisation and of Pakistan nurturing terrorism as an instrument of state policy. The anti-Taliban alliance in Afghanistan was kept alive, among others, by India whose role – it is among the largest donors to reconstruction in Afghanistan focusing on building roads, schools, hospitals and a new parliament – is welcomed by many Afghans who are suspicious of Pakistan’s involvement. Efforts to compartmentalise the terror threat to US and Western interests from that to India is false in principle and contradicted in practice by an intricate network of jihadists who work with one another against Christians, Hindus and Jews.

Any government of Pakistan has a vested – and understandable – interest in preserving a friendly Islamist faction based in Afghanistan as a counter to India’s role. The faction’s total liquidation would reduce US dependence on Pakistan. Why should Pakistan cooperate? Being able to convince the US to exert pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir dispute on Pakistan’s terms would be an added bonus. Success on this would not end Pakistan’s self-serving half-heartedness in cooperating with the US, would not end the threat of Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan, would not turn Pakistanis into champions of the US role in the world, but would turn majority sentiment in India against the US. Some equation.

Yet in his leaked report, General Stanley McChrystal parroted Pakistani warnings that growing Indian influence in Afghanistan would exacerbate regional tensions and encourage ‘‘counter-measures’’ by Pakistan. In a recent poll of Afghans commissioned by the BBC, the American Broadcasting Corporation and the German broadcasting company ARD, India was the most favourably viewed country with 71 per cent and the US third with 51 per cent; Pakistan received 2 per cent of the votes.

The US search for accommodation with China is understandable. The US-China relationship is likely to be the world’s most consequential for the foreseeable future. Nor can one reasonably expect the US to lecture its chief creditor (to the tune of $US800 billion) on human rights. But does it help the US in its relations with China to adopt a stance of neutrality on such issues as India’s north-eastern provinces? Does it advance US global non-proliferation interests to remain quiet on China’s supply of designs and material to Pakistan which then found their way to Libya, Iran and North Korea? To concede Asia as China’s sphere of influence when under challenge as a military, economic and technological power?

{Something to think about. Unless US interests are teh saem as pRC vis a vis India.}

Instead, an unapologetic robust Indo-US defence relationship, backed by parallel arrangements between India and Australia, Japan and Israel that is not directed against specific third countries, would appear to be in all their interests.

As Fareed Zakaria – an American Muslim of Indian origin – has noted, for the US in Southern Asia, the prize is India, the booby prize is Afghanistan. Indians recall nostalgically how they were romanced by Bush. Singh and Obama are equally cool and cerebral, if one is more erudite and the other more eloquent. Like Americans, many Indians would welcome signs of passion to re-energise the relationship.

■ Ramesh Thakur is director of the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo. His book Global Governance and the UN is published this month by Indiana University Press.

____________________________________________

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 13 Mar 2010 06:57

Having placed a lot of eggs in the American basket, India is facing fundamental issues with its assumptions regarding American and two of her primary interests: Pakistan China. 2009 showed that Indian assumption of US policies towards China was wrong. Though currently US China relations are strained a bit, US has taken the initiative to repair the relations by sending an envoy.

2009 and 2010 beginning saw another assumption crumbling with the US negotiating with Taliban and promoting a Pakistani role in Afghanistan at Indian expense.

India does not have too many choices. It has to grow its own power and rely on Russia. Coming few months. let's see what KS has to say about the turn of events.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Mar 2010 03:59

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 314mr.html
Assuaging China's expanding 'core' concerns

A big question for some of China's neighbors, including Japan, India and Southeast Asia, is if and when Beijing will extend its list of core sovereignty interests to include claims to land territory that India says belongs to it, and to sea and island territory that Japan and some Southeast Asian countries say belongs to them. This is a major issue and the scale of the claims can be exacerbated by emotive nationalism. China's claims are linked to the maintenance or recovery of territory it says was taken by colonial powers when it was weak.

Beijing insists that around 90,000 square kilometers of territory in India's mountainous northeast, covering virtually the whole of the state of Arunachal Pradesh, is part of China. Meanwhile, India rejects Chinese rule over 38,000 square km of Kashmir land ceded by Pakistan to China in 1964.These disputes are dwarfed by China's maritime claims, which cover about 3 million square km. Most of this is in two areas — the South China Sea, where Beijing's claims overlap mainly with those of Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, and the East China Sea, where its claims are contested by Japan.So far Beijing has described the territorial disputes with India, Japan and Southeast Asian countries as ones involving its "indisputable" or "inalienable" sovereignty. While not ready to compromise on the principle that the territory concerned rightfully belongs to China, it has remained open to talks and has not described the claims as "core" national interests.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Mar 2010 04:10

the real reason they keep it open ended is to try to keep their competitors off balance.

in doing so however, they make the same mistake the USSR made which is to have too many strong states seeing them as a looming threat.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Mar 2010 02:11

Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America?

China has succumbed to hubris. It has mistaken the soft diplomacy of Barack Obama for weakness, mistaken the US credit crisis for decline, and mistaken its own mercantilist bubble for ascendancy. There are echoes of Anglo-German spats before the First World War, when Wilhelmine Berlin so badly misjudged the strategic balance of power and over-played its hand.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Mar 2010 02:13

Gerard wrote:Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America?

Mostly fake and shadow boxing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2010 21:44

prad wrote:acharya: some elaboration would be nice. your one liners are cute but also annoying. and you keep doing the same in thread after thread.

There is no alternative unless you have been following me for the last 10 years.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 19 Mar 2010 05:13

Kanchan gupta tweet.

http://twitter.com/KanchanGupta

The decline of America'. Excellent analysis, timely too, by Vikram Sood @vikramsood in Friday's Pioneer. http://bit.ly/9foFDF

FWIW.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Mar 2010 02:00

Apologize if it has caused some problem. Please ignore my posts so that it may never cause inconvenience.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Mar 2010 09:39

Paper in China Sets Off Alarms in U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world ... 1grid.html

It came as a surprise this month to Wang Jianwei, a graduate engineering student in Liaoning, China, that he had been described as a potential cyberwarrior before the United States Congress.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Mar 2010 01:46

Agnivayu posted this in India Forum

The West has always had a curious approach to foreign policy towards India (and also Russia). Always trying to act friendly in one instance then using that temporary goodwill to do something sneaky and underhanded. Pakistan is seen by many in the U.S. and Europe as a hedge against India. The West in reality seeks to counter BOTH India and China. Privately, the single biggest fear in the minds of Westerners is the rise of India and China. This is an old fear and they have always wanted to prevent or atleast delay the industrialization of India and China. Since that is now unstoppable, their goal is to arm Pakistan sufficiently so that India doesn't gain military dominance in South Asia. Contrary to media propaganda, the Western Elite could care less about freedom or democracy, only their interests.

India doesn't need to worry about this too much. Western policy is extremely short sighted (usually only a 5-10 year timeframe). Even giving Pakistan (a known state sponsor of terrorism, even against the West) $7.5 Billion over 5 years cannot counteract India anymore since India is now a $1.5 Trillion Economy with $32 Billion /year military budget. In the near future, India's GDP will be bigger than the U.S. In that scenario, the West will simply not be able to counter India. India shouldn't fall for the China-India rivalry, instead it should be made into a West vs. China rivalry, where India can play both sides.

Same way DNA has an article on PRC bubble:

$1.2T timebomb ticks in China

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Apr 2010 00:19

When Beijing and New Delhi pull together
By James Lamont
When Hui Liangyu, China’s vice-premier, visited New Delhi last week he was presented with a miniature silver chariot pulled by two horses. The horses, his hosts quipped, represented China and India pulling the global economy into recovery.More often than not these horses pull in different directions. India bridles at its growing dependence on Chinese telecommunications and power equipment, vital for modernising its decrepit infrastructure. It has imposed curbs on Chinese companies bringing workers across the Himalayas to build pipelines and power plants. Fearful of a flood of cheap imports supported by an artificially weak renminbi, India has also put restrictions on non-branded Chinese mobile handsets, toys and chocolate.India’s deficit last year was $16bn on bilateral trade of $43.4bn.This skewed trade has risen to the top of New Delhi’s agenda with Beijing. Ministers have appealed for corrective steps and have taken their complaints to Wen Jiabao, China’s premier. These appeals are likely to be delivered again by S. M. Krishna, India’s foreign minister, on a visit to Beijing next week, and by Pratibha Patil, India’s president, on her official visit later this year.Among other measures, New Delhi wants Beijing to end restrictions on Indian exports of information technology, Bollywood films and fresh food. It wants greater investment opportunities for Indian companies in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and IT.The signs are that Beijing is listening. India’s concerns about its purposeful neighbour have often been met with indifference in Beijing. But China’s Communist party leaders, mindful that the two countries represent almost half of humanity, now appear receptive to a partnership.But where is the silver chariot headed? India and China are hoping to grow at 8-10 per cent over the next 25 years. Still flushed by what they consider a triumphant confrontation with the US at the United Nations talks on climate change in Copenhagen, they are also hoping to align their interests more closely in multilateral discussions over climate, trade and the world’s financial architecture.
The Indian establishment is split. While some predict enmity with China, others – such as Jairam Ramesh, India’s feisty environment minister and a close ally of Congress party head Sonia Gandhi – foresee partnership. Mr Ramesh proposes that whatever India does in the world it should do with China. The trade dispute, in his opinion, will ease as India’s companies become more efficient, and as China opens.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd22c9a2-3cfd ... abdc0.html

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 02 Apr 2010 00:40

The tone of this FT guy James Lamont is interesting. India is fearful, India is pleading and this time China is listening.

A bit tired of this kind reporting.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Apr 2010 02:19

csharma wrote:The tone of this FT guy James Lamont is interesting. India is fearful, India is pleading and this time China is listening.

A bit tired of this kind reporting.

India is using the see saw between the US and PRC whenever it sees the other neglecting India. Since Obama did not give much time to India , India has taken the cue and started talking to PRC.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2010 03:33

Google cache of China Positive on relations with India

Round up of SM Krishna, President Patil and NSA Menon's visits to Beijing

Sudip · Post by **Sudip** » 16 Apr 2010 22:31

China mineral dominance concerns U.S.

China's dominant position in the production of rare earth minerals has long-reaching implications for the U.S. Department of Defense, according to a recent government report.

The report from the Government Accountability Office was commissioned by Congress amid growing concerns that China's potential reduction on the supply of much-needed rare earth minerals could impact critical military uses.

China has secured 97 percent of the production of these minerals, which are used in nearly every electronic device, cell phones, computer hard drives and guided missiles.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 17 Apr 2010 00:13

arunabh wrote:China mineral dominance concerns U.S.

I have a doubt, I think all rare minerals are in Inner Mongolia right, then I call it COM (Chinese occupied Mongolia), because history tells us that the Great wall of China was built to defend Mongolian invasions, that means the de facto border according to Chinese history is Great wall of China. When will China moves back to its historic borders.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Apr 2010 09:12

China's Popularity Rises

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Apr 2010 03:43

A one year apparaisal by Shyam Saran. May god give him long life to interpret for us.

Shyam Saran's lecture at NMF. Great read. Has to be read in full.

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/TheGe ... uences.pdf

Geopolitical Consequences of the Global Financial and
Economic Crisis - A Reassessment after One Year

In my view, the US effort to co-opt China in its recovery strategy, by
offering the latter the prospect of global co-leadership has failed. The
Chinese perceived the US invitation as evidence of US infirmity and
therefore, an opportunity for strategic assertiveness by China .Despite its
inferiority in various other components of national power and global reach,
China saw its trillion dollar surplus as a potent weapon to change the
geopolitical pecking order permanently in its favour. Such perceptions also
led China to adopt a more muscular and sometimes overbearing, posture visà-
vis other major powers such as Japan, the European Union and India.
Consider what happened on the Dalai Lama issue. While commenting on
President Obama’s decision not to receive the Dalai Lama in the White
House, before his own visit to Beijing, an Indian political leader observed to
a visiting dignitary : “The Chinese frowned and Obama ducked. “
But the fall out of this Presidential deference to Chinese sensitivity was that
the Chinese, in their posture towards India, became increasingly vocal in
their opposition to His Holiness’ proposed visit to Arunachal Pradesh and
even our own Prime Minister’s visit to the state provoked strong criticism.
US expectations of any quid pro quo from China were, of course, thoroughly
belied during President Obama’s visit to China in October last year. On none
of the issues that the US anticipated Chinese cooperation,be it the
revaluation of the Chinese Yuan, the sanctioning of Iran or leaning on North
Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions , were expectations met. Rightly or
wrongly, there was a sense in the US, that its President had been treated as a
supplicant.US frustration led to a deliberated targeting of China rather than
as a strategic partner, with common interests and responsibilities. The US
had sought “strategic reassurance” from China. Instead it received a lecture
on how the US must respect China’s core concerns.US frustration led to a
deliberate targeting of China at the Copenhagen Climate Change conference,
and the prospects of diarchy receded. Both sides miscalculated.

Two, if we look at the past couple of years, India’s hedging strategy has
been fairly successful. We have been able to adjust to and cope with a new
US administration, whose priorities and preoccupations have relegated
relations with India to a somewhat lower trajectory than during the Bush
administration. We have begun to define our interest in Afghanistan
independently of US objectives. The recent Chechen suicide bombing in
Moscow, provided an opportunity for India and Russia to revive a regional
partnership, including with respect to Afghanistan which helps the two
countries to go beyond their largely military hardware relationship. We were
able to deflect US and European pressures on climate issues, by forging a
coalition with China, Brazil and South Africa and hold our ground
successfully. This led directly to US acknowledgment of the influence of
this group, when Obama negotiated the final version of the Copenhagen
Accord with the BASIC leaders, leaving other actors including the
Europeans , out in the cold. The efficacy of BASIC will go beyond Climate
negotiations. India’s role in BASIC as also in IBSA and the BRIC, offers
opportunities to increase its global leverage and relevance.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 28 Apr 2010 03:51

Two, if we look at the past couple of years, India’s hedging strategy has
been fairly successful.

A very perceptive observor had written about the "hedging strategy" in the IE couple of years ago. I had posted that article in the forum. Will look for it.....

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 28 Apr 2010 10:29

^^ SS article is interesting, but here are a couple of points:

Then, as if someone had flicked a switch, the negative projection of India in
the Chinese media, came to a virtual halt. Not that this means a fundamental
change in India – China relations, but certainly, restores a degree of
diplomatic space to India and increases its regional and global leverage.
How we utilize this unexpected advantage is a challenge which I hope our
policy makers will rise up to.

Crumbs thrown by the Chinese, nothing to utilize here! Perhaps, Indian media could also put to a virtual halt negative projections of China for a while

As I have had occasion to argue elsewhere, the
Indian preference should be for a multipolar Asia, no different from our
preference for a multipolar global order. We should aim at an
open,inclusive and a loosely structured economic, and security architecture
in the region.

India's multi-cultural society seems to put blinders on how it sees the world and its own surroundings. 1) what is the advantage to India to seek a multipolar Asia, if not the world? 2) how does such a strategy help counter China's strategy for Asia, if not the world?

Harmony in an increasingly globalized
world will need universal values which respect diversity, tolerate plurality of
views and are imbued with a strong sense of equity and justice. The Indian
spirit, in its finest expression, embodies precisely these values, embedded as
they are in our character as a crossroads culture. Again, the world of the
future is going to be one in which knowledge not material, will the most
valuable resource. The society of the future will be a knowledge society and
the empires of the future will be empires of the mind, not territory.

Again, there is very scant evidence given the uncertainties, as Sharan himself acknowledges, as to what sort of a future world awaits us. Assuming the coming age is a knowledge and not material age means what in terms of foreign policy? Case in point how has a pursuit of universal values which respects diversity, tolerates plurality or views, etc. have helped India's interests in Afghanistan, TSP, China, Middle East, etc.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 28 Apr 2010 11:30

All the grand strategies, posturing and hedging apart, 1 big lesson the recent financial meltdown teaches us is that "systemic slack is good". Excess capacity to absorb shocks is good. Slack looks like inefficient resource usage in an era of JIT but it spans the crucial gulf between survival and extinction when crisis erupts.

IMHO of course.

And it certianly seems like the Asians (PRC included but Yindia excluded, perhaps) have taken that leson to heart in building up massive reserves/slack in the form of forex treasure chests, resource deals, mineral hoarding, gold purchases and you-name-it. Can't believe the khanate is unaware. Question is what will they do about it?

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 30 Apr 2010 08:43

X- post from Indian interests thread

Another western academic's verdict on what India is with respect to China and the world. It could be referenced in multiple threads!

Unlike China, wariness marks India's ascent

Some countries are naturally at ease with the concept and the reality of strategic power. Such was clearly the case of France under Louis XIV, the Sun King in the 17th century, and such is the case today of China, whose leadership is comfortable with the balance-of-power games of classical Europe.

India is clearly in a different category. Yet, in order to understand India's political and diplomatic relationship with the outside world, the most enlightening comparison is with America in 1920. Like the United States after World War I, India is realizing that its status and role in the world have been deeply transformed in the last two decades. And, like America then, India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power.

India's history and culture, from Asoka, its mythical emperor in the third century B.C.{What is mythical about Ashoka? This is just a reflection on the depth of this academic's knowledge and the weight of his arguments,}, to Gandhi, push it to emphasize ethics and to consider itself an "exceptional" nation in its relationship with the world. Contrary to China, India finds it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging "Great Power." It would be a gross exaggeration, of course, to speak of an Indian "inferiority complex." And yet India constantly measures itself against China, remains obsessed with Pakistan, and has recently begun to look more critically at its relationship with the U.S.

On PRC

It is natural for India to proclaim its "democratic" superiority to China while recognizing that on all strategic fronts it is not in the same league. But is it even possible to draw a comparison between what one Indian academic has called the "robotized Chinese man" and the vast human diversity of India?

India seems to worry more than ever about China's evolution. China's key role within the G20, together with the relative if not absolute decline of the Western powers, seems to have reinforced the hardliners in Beijing and the nationalism of a China that seems less ready than ever to accept any criticism of its human rights record. Viewed from New Delhi, the vision of a reasonable, prudent and ultimately satisfied China — a vision "sold" to the world by the minister mentor of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew — appears less than obvious.

On TSP and USA

When it comes to Pakistan, too, India seems to lack confidence. On all fronts — demographic, economic, military and political — India is far above Pakistan. But India does not seem to know how to deal with its northwestern neighbor, and even less whom to deal with in its government.

If India seems not to believe that America and its allies can really "succeed" in Afghanistan, nor is it willing to resign itself to a return of the Taliban to power, which could in turn lead to Talibanization of Pakistan. Yet India seems to behave in a very "European" way in Afghanistan; it is ready to send money and experts, but not troops.

India's worries and frustrations in Afghanistan and Pakistan translate into a mixture of disillusion and irritation with an America that, seen from New Delhi, allows itself to be manipulated by Pakistani officials. Indians cannot quite decide whether the Americans are simply "naive" or duplicitous; either way, they are not reassured.

Final verdict

India's unease about strategic power, and its resemblance to a gigantic European Union united only by the English language, reflects its ongoing search for a new international identity. In this quest, India is impaired by its lack of practice in the exercise of power on a grand scale. India is not about to become a second China — it lacks both the means and the ambition.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 30 Apr 2010 17:24

How China changes Saarc

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Apr 2010 23:41

The biggest challenge for India in coming years is to convince the PRC that being non-antagonistic to India is in its best interests. It was always that and JLN and his Panchsheel were part of that process. We tried peacefully but it only reinforced the marxist mind of PRC establishment. India needs to develop a comprehensive set of measures that demonstrate its in PRC's best interests to share mutual recognition of each others interests.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Apr 2010 23:52

ramana wrote:The biggest challenge for India in coming years is to convince the PRC that being non-antagonistic to India is in its best interests. It was always that and JLN and his Panchsheel were part of that process. We tried peacefully but it only reinforced the marxist mind of PRC establishment. India needs to develop a comprehensive set of measures that demonstrate its in PRC's best interests to share mutual recognition of each others interests.

India needs to demonstrate capability, intention and actual concrete measures such as trade, security to PRC sea trade including Oil imports, helping PRC in multilateral negotiations for common good, common regional coordination with ASEAN etc.
India has to build out India's own constituency inside the Chinese population and its diaspora which will help them. The Chinese diaspora lives a two world life. One is in the west and another is in PRC or their extended family with Chinese thought process.
We need to understand them much more closely after their social engineering with modernization.

I have a HK Chinese friend who has family connection to Canada, PRC, Philipines and Taiwan and lives in US. He gives me perspective of what he thinks of India and Pakistan. His father was in British HK and with the British army during the WWII and from his mothers side he has British heritage.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 May 2010 07:55

X-post from TSP thread

abhishek_sharma wrote:In talks, China to press for U.S. support on Pakistan nuclear deal

http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/03/stories ... 751300.htm

and in return, US to press China for Iran sanctions.

China will press for American support for its plan to sell two nuclear power reactors to Pakistan, in Monday's “sub-dialogue on South Asia” with United States officials in Beijing.

The U.S., diplomats and analysts say, is likely to indicate it will not obstruct the controversial deal. In return, the U.S. will ask for greater Chinese support for sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

The recently initiated dialogue on South Asia takes place against a backdrop of rising concerns in India over the Barack Obama administration appearing to encourage China to play a greater role in the region. {That goes back to Clinton. he allowed PRC to draft the Resolution condemning the 1998 nuclear tests. He also passed on to PRC a confidential letter from Vajpayee to him on the China threat that required India to test its weapons)

Following Mr. Obama's visit to Beijing in November, the U.S. and China pledged to “to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia,” in a joint statement which angered Indian officials.

Now, Indian officials are again likely to be left concerned, with the U.S. appearing to take a soft line on China's nuclear engagement with Pakistan

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 May 2010 09:38

Xposted...

sum wrote:Very interesting article:
New Triangle Of Power

A Fulbright scholar,external affairs minister S M Krishna has doubtless read Niccolo Machiavellis Art of War and Chanakyas Arthashastra.Together,the two treatises define the dark science of diplomacy.In todays fraught geostrategic environment,they also teach useful lessons in the conduct of foreign policy.
Indias two defining international relationships are with the US and China.The US sees India as a natural counterweight to China.But Americas realpolitik is Machiavellian.It wants India to play the role of a permanent junior partner much as Britain has done from the 1950s to the present while it pursues its own global objectives.
However,if it leverages its economic and demographic strengths with Chanakyas finesse,India can rapidly emerge as Americas most important global partner instead of a perennially anxious supplicant.US GDP is $14.70 trillion.Indias GDP (by purchasing power parity) is nearly $4 trillion.Assuming an average annual growth rate of 7.25 per cent between 2010 and 2040 (a reasonable trendline-based extrapolation),Indias GDP will increase eightfold to $32 trillion within 30 years.Assuming,further,an average annual growth rate of 2.40 per cent (an equally reasonable trendline extrapolation given a low American savings rate of 4 per cent and a high budget deficit of over $1 trillion),US GDP will double to $29 trillion during the same period.Thus in 30 years,Indias economy using a mathematical model that factors in several economic and demographic variables will be larger than Americas.
This is not fiction but cold,hard fact.US think tanks have come to the same broad conclusion.So has the Obama administration.Few in South Block though recognise its far-reaching implications on the rapidly changing balance of global power.Chinese strategists,in contrast,fully recognise these implications.Similar extrapolations,assuming average annual Chinese GDP growth at a slower average annual trendline rate of 6 per cent,place Chinas GDP at $48 trillion in 2040 50 per cent larger than both the US and India.China is clearly the elephant in the room and already behaves like one.
Chinas principal global objective is to regain its 16-century Middle Kingdom status as the worlds pre-eminent world power an era in which the US did not even exist.From this broad aim flow several others.One,military parity with the US.Two,economic superiority over the US.Three,reintegration with Taiwan.Four,settlement of Tibet.And five,proving to the world that its alternative non-Anglo-Saxon political model can bring sustained economic prosperity to one-and-a-half billion people.
As the third angle in the isosceles triangle of Great Powers in 2040,Indias foreign policy must be at once more sublime and more muscular.India,like China,represents the future,America the present,Europe the past.
Americas history provides many clues to its current behaviour.It was founded by working class families escaping religious persecution from newly-Protestant England 425 years ago.These English settlers (Britain as a nation had not yet been formed) liquidated indigenous Indians,appropriated their land and shipped slave labour from Africa to work the fields.
As the US won independence and grew more powerful,it invaded Mexico and by 1848 had annexed what are today California,Texas,Arizona,Colorado,Nevada,Utah,Wyoming and New Mexico.By the 1890s,it had colonised the Philippines and built a silent empire arching from the Pacific to the Atlantic.After World War II it invaded Korea,Vietnam and Grenada and propped up dictators and puppet-monarchs in Latin America and the Middle East (including the early Saddam Hussein and the sybaritic Shah of Iran).It made a pact with the Sheikhs of the post-Ottoman Middle East to deny Arab citizens voting rights in return for US military protection ostensibly against Israel but in reality against popular democratic movements in their own countries.
With such a colourful past,it is hardly surprising that the US continues to follow a ruthlessly self-interested foreign policy in South Asia to secure its geopolitical goals.But both the US and China have an Achilles heel.The US is a declining power.By 2040,it will not only be relegated to the status of the worlds third largest economy (after China and India) but it will also for the first time in its history become a blackmajority country.African-Americans,Latinos and Asians comprise 34 per cent of Americas population today.By 2040,that figure will rise to 51 per cent.The implications of this demographic shift will resonate across social,ethnic,economic and cultural boundaries.
As Indias own demographic dividend kicks in,New Delhis bargaining power with a declining US and a communist China sitting on a tinderbox of suppressed peoples freedoms will grow if South Block gets its strategy right.That strategy involves deepening Indias economic and diplomatic engagement with Africa and (Brazil-led ) Latin America,influencing the course of the Arab-Israeli dialogue over Palestine and using old military and economic ties with Russia to our advantage in tackling the post-US Af-Pak world with its scattered terrorist threats.
All of this requires a ministry of external affairs with intellectual depth and strategic vision and the ability to project both globally.Sadly,the current MEA falls short.In an emerging tripolar world,the stewardship of Indias foreign policy needs firmer hands and clearer minds.

If Minhaz Merchant wants to play foreign policy then he should try to join the govt and not try to shape the message sitting outside with his money.

There is a section of the people who don't envision the role he does for India. India is too big to be anyone's junior partner or poodle. He should also remember the debt of his ancestor to India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 May 2010 09:54

Balancing act (Asian version)

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... an_version

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2010 22:36

I think this is agood thread for it ties the three players:

A_Gupta wrote: Zbigniew Brzezinski, "A Geostrategy for Eurasia," Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html
Although currently a passive player, India has an important role in the Eurasian scene. Without the political support it received from the Soviet Union, India is contained geopolitically by Chinese-Pakistani cooperation. The survival of Indian democracy is in itself important, in that it refutes better than volumes of academic debate the notion that human rights and democracy are exclusively Western. India proves that antidemocratic "Asian values," propagated by spokesmen from Singapore to China, are simply antidemocratic and not necessarily Asian. India's failure would be a blow to democracy's prospects in Asia and would remove a power that contributes to Asia's balance, especially given China's rise. India should be engaged in discussions pertaining to regional stability, not to mention the promotion of more bilateral connections between the American and Indian defense communities.
PS: This is becoming rapidly off-topic for the TSP thread. Should we move it to some other thread, and which one?

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 06 May 2010 22:38

CRamS wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: Which goras?
Many. One of the most pre-eminent among the foreign policy elite, the guy who first hob-knobbed with AfPak terrorists who now haunt India: Zbignief Brizinsky. In a book, actually interview with him and Brent Scrowcroft by David Ignatius of WP, Zbig clearly says India is an arftifical state (with so many languages and ethnicities glued together) and it is unclear whether in its current form, many northern states will be with India. He further goes on to add that as Indian people are more economically empowered the fisssures will only be exaggarated as people become more politically conscious. He argues that India is not a good partner for US, and both argue that by giving India a nuke deal which TSP is so upset about, it has undercut India's ineterests. Just recently, another Harvard prof was interviewed on rediff said India is a "flailing state" if not a "failing state". My prediction is that unless India evolves a cohesive national identity, the US gameplan of rendering the entire region into a loose "South asian" federation at each other's throats but dependent on US for security and other sustenence is inexorable. And IMO, MMS shares this "vision". As Venkat said, US support to this abomination called TSP despites its diabolical crimes is proof of US intentions.

CRS I am sorry but I am finding it really difficult to buy into this argument. Number one is nuclear deal from US. No other country had the muscle to get it for India. Plus you have seen GW Bush burning the midnight oil to get all the ducks in a row to get is passed in NSG

Second axis of democracy in asia as future counter balance to China. Third would be some one who can police Indian ocean which will releive Unkil from being lone policeman of world. Neither UK nor Germany or any other current ally of unkil fill this gap. Third letting 1 Billion plus people lose can in an uncertain political scenario. Just see what barely 200M afghans have acheived. Fourth you dont want to rock 4th or 5th largest economy by doing that you are also going to get a huge blow (agree you can recover from it but that takes time and it could be 5 - 10 years).

What I think is Unkil has use for both Bharat & TSP the purposes are different but they dont want to lose either and also ensure that they are not at each others throat all the time.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 May 2010 22:44

Brad Goodman wrote:
CRS I am sorry but I am finding it really difficult to buy into this argument. Number one is nuclear deal from US. No other country had the muscle to get it for India. Plus you have seen GW Bush burning the midnight oil to get all the ducks in a row to get is passed in NSG

Second axis of democracy in asia as future counter balance to China. Third would be some one who can police Indian ocean which will releive Unkil from being lone policeman of world. Neither UK nor Germany or any other current ally of unkil fill this gap. Third letting 1 Billion plus people lose can in an uncertain political scenario. Just see what barely 200M afghans have acheived. Fourth you dont want to rock 4th or 5th largest economy by doing that you are also going to get a huge blow (agree you can recover from it but that takes time and it could be 5 - 10 years).

What I think is Unkil has use for both Bharat & TSP the purposes are different but they dont want to lose either and also ensure that they are not at each others throat all the time.

What CRS says become very apparent once you see the geopolitical history and what the western powers have done to go after their interest.

The broad interest of the west is to get unchallenged access to Middle East and Central asia with no rival in the region. When they dont want any rival they dont want any future rival too.
Check this out
India and Geopolitics
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4812906/India-and-Geopolitics

The current nuclear deal is a temporary gap to contain PRC China until even China is targeted for breakup. They dont want large states in the Eurasian landmass.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 06 May 2010 22:49

Acharya Ji even if we agree with this design their biggest threat at the moment is china. India is like 30 years behind china in terms of having any ability to threaten west. India cannot even produce aircrafts or tanks then how will it fight west using stones? India can be easily contained if west really wants to. We import 75% of our oil as simple as that. We barely have much influence. I think if west really was smart they would go all out against china

I think western strategy is clear divide & rule. Balkanize if you can find a fault that can be widened. For next few years they are happy to play India Vs China & Pakistan Vs India story to keep asia occupied with issues. If hypothetically they break India do you think PRC will just sit there and watch tamasha and make themselves ready for GUBO? also in case PRC goes for all out fight does west have the stomach to take losses? This is exactly the weakness that TSPA exploits kiyanahi goes around US with his powepoint telling he has 150000 cannon fodder on ground doing unkill's job he will proudly tell he has let 15000 TSPA pigs go waste. Now that makes centcom happy that some one is doing their dirty job to fulfill grand strategic objectives. So as Shiv ji said in one of his post unkil needs both TSP & India for different purposes.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 May 2010 22:52

Brad Goodman wrote:Acharya Ji even if we agree with this design their biggest threat at the moment is china. India is like 30 years behind china in terms of having any ability to threaten west. India cannot even produce aircrafts or tanks then how will it fight west using stones? India can be easily contained if west really wants to. We import 75% of our oil as simple as that. We barely have much influence. I think if west really was smart they would go all out against china

Dont mistake the capability of the state with the intention and western interest. Even if India is passive just by being there it can cause problem to western interest.
India was contained for the last 60 years if you did not realize it. Hence they can continue and plan for breakup also in future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2010 23:22

Brad, You are mistaking tactics with strategy. Divide and rule is tactics. Dominate the world is strategy.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 May 2010 23:42

Brad Goodman wrote:Acharya Ji even if we agree with this design their biggest threat at the moment is china. India is like 30 years behind china in terms of having any ability to threaten west. India cannot even produce aircrafts or tanks then how will it fight west using stones? India can be easily contained if west really wants to. We import 75% of our oil as simple as that. We barely have much influence. I think if west really was smart they would go all out against china

I think western strategy is clear divide & rule. Balkanize if you can find a fault that can be widened. For next few years they are happy to play India Vs China & Pakistan Vs India story to keep asia occupied with issues. If hypothetically they break India do you think PRC will just sit there and watch tamasha and make themselves ready for GUBO? also in case PRC goes for all out fight does west have the stomach to take losses? This is exactly the weakness that TSPA exploits kiyanahi goes around US with his powepoint telling he has 150000 cannon fodder on ground doing unkill's job he will proudly tell he has let 15000 TSPA pigs go waste. Now that makes centcom happy that some one is doing their dirty job to fulfill grand strategic objectives. So as Shiv ji said in one of his post unkil needs both TSP & India for different purposes.

Goodman gaaru,

Few facts for you.

- Today nearly 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from other countries.
Rank country (bbl/day) Date of Information
1 United States 13,470,000 2008 est.
2 European Union 8,613,000 2007 est.
3 Japan 5,263,000 2008 est.
4 China 4,393,000 2008
5 Korea, South 2,982,000 2008 est.
6 India 2,900,000 2007 est.

- PRC itself wants to exploit Maoist fault lines in India.

- Why does west need to bring boots to break India, when Indian Psecs are doing west's job?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 May 2010 23:45

RamaY wrote:
- Why does west need to bring boots to break India, when Indian Psecs are doing west's job?

Indian Psecs are west's foot soldiers

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 08 May 2010 12:27

India to have 'pre-eminent' role in S Asia: Blake

The US on Saturday acknowledged that India will always have a pre-eminent role in South Asia where it can be a very important force for stability and said it looks forward to its first strategic dialogue with the country in June at the level of Foreign Ministers.

Blake, who was in China last week for the Sino-US strategic dialogue on South Asia, said both the United States and China are sensitive to Indian concerns in the region. {Huh! Next some official from foggy bottom will go on to say India will have a 'pre-eminent' role in India? Why does it need to be stated that a country with 70% of population and more than that share of economy in 'South Asia' will have a 'pre-eminent' role in it? What is South-Asia any way? }"India will continue to have a pre-eminent role in the South Asian region, and it is in all of our interest to work very closely with our friends in India to achieve our common objectives," he said.

Noting that the Chinese have a growing role in South Asia and around the world, Blake said his principal message to them was that the United States would like to coordinate more and better with Beijing, since they have growing assistance programme and investment in South Asia.

"In many cases, we have similar interest in many parts of South Asia. So it is in our interest therefore to coordinate with them on assistance so that we do not duplicate our efforts in important places like Afghanistan," he said.

Observing that there is a need to work with the European Union, China and a lot of countries that have interest in various parts of South Asia, Blake said: "But, I think, India will always have the pre-eminent role. {Why the disappointment? Would the US prefer this role for TSP or BD or Nepal or may be PRC? }

"We understand that, the Chinese understand that India can be a very important force for good and for stability in this part of the region. So it is important for all of us to work with India." {Is that why they transfer missile and n-bomb blueprints to deeper than Mariana Trench friends? }

What is Sino-US strategic dialogue on South Asia? Doesn't the US already have a 'major non-NATO ally' and a 'natural partner' in that region? Is there a similar Indo-US strategic dialogue on East/North-east Asia or Asia-Pacific?

Another pointer to the evolving G-2 condominium and the sharing of responsibilities strategy that is in the vogue.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 08 May 2010 14:51

What is Sino-US strategic dialogue on South Asia? Doesn't the US already have a 'major non-NATO ally' and a 'natural partner' in that region? Is there a similar Indo-US strategic dialogue on East/North-east Asia or Asia-Pacific?

Another pointer to the evolving G-2 condominium and the sharing of responsibilities strategy that is in the vogue.

Sadly, I can't but 400% agree. The Dems in general have a more benevolent "Theory Y" attitude towards PRC that I simply can't explain. It goes beyond mere campaign contributions and the like only.

Anyway, we're now back to a familiar position - that of hoping/praying/counting on/waiting for incredible tactical brilliance from TSP to save our souls yet again.Jai ho.