US and PRC relationship & India

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 31 Jul 2010 13:36

Pranav wrote:
Should not China be asking itself why it hasn’t forged the stable and friendly relationship with India that India enjoys with many of China’s neighbors, like Japan, South Korea and Vietnam.

It is an old article ... Hopefully greater wisdom will prevail / has prevailed in Beijing.

I don't believe either country needs to answer to anybody. Power is a zero-sum game, and as China and India's power grow, other powers will inevitably diminish and they will inevitably resist this trend. In a global climate, just about everyone would be affected, but the strongest will be each country's neighbors, which is why neither country will have improving relationships with its neighbors aside from ones that are already somewhat submissive(NK/Pak for China, Nepal/SL for India).

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 16:51

Another thing that comes to mind if I apply chanakian logic is that China with its belligerent attitude has managed to send most of its neighbor's back into America's arms which plays very favorably into Americas Geo-political ambitions.I hope the GOI keeps an eye out for this G-2 Tamasha (which has the habit of continuing on and off)

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 31 Jul 2010 19:04

China has now reached a stage where their economy is 3.5 to 4 times that of India by official measures.

The Chinese are definitely at the crossroads. Given that a 10 billion here or there is no big deal to buy toys for them, there is every chance a section of them have started thinking in terms of hegemony.

But there must also be wise ones, and believe me if those guys hadn't been around China would not have seen this day, who would want to keep a pause on the hegemonists and say " grow a little more, choose the sequence of adversaries carefully".

There may be some guys in the CCP who are thinking - " Look the time for making a play at Asian supremacy has arrived", who do we choose?"

One set says - "India." " They are the one country standing between us and the crown of Asia. They are upstarts and should be put in their place".

The wise guys say "When and Where" - The ambitious ones start thinking - some say the land borders along Tibet, others say Joint attack with Pukes in the Northern sector, still others talk of Myanmar.

One by one these get shot down by the wise men as leading to ultimately either a stalemate or nuclear war.

Then somebody says "What about Taiwan?" isn't it necessary we get back all that was ours ( like we did with Hong Kong and Macau) before we put the Indians in their place?

"America is still too strong. Its hand would get forced. We would start losing conventionally and then the prestige of the motherland will be lost".

"Japan", a few hopefully chime in.

The wise men nod their heads and say "No. Same as India and with American support. You will burn your hands."

Then a lone voice from the back says quietly- "Vietnam".

A thin smile breaks out on the faces of the wise old men.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Jul 2010 20:46

ramana wrote:First US think tank acknowledgement that US-PRC relationship turning into

Fak-Ap:

Looks like a blow hot, blow cold policy. If someone knows Shyam Saranji please get his views.

One more time... BRF is ahead of ________

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 91#p913491

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 21:08

I don't believe that China would go for direct war as a first option - Sun Tzu famously said that full-blown war is only suitable as a last option. As for Vietnam, the Chinese already skewered them by backing Khmer Rouge / Pol Pot to seize control over Cambodia and draw in Vietnam. It was Brzezinski who told them to do that.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... brzezinski

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Th ... olPot.html

Likewise, I believe that China wants to repeat the same game in Nepal to bring it under their control, because of their nervousness over the arrival of US troops near its western borders. Notice that Brzezinski's old partner-in-crime Jimmy Carter showed up in Nepal to "monitor" the elections there. His "monitoring" consisted exclusively of complaining about the "mistreatment" of communist party workers.

China has now achieved its goal of dislodging Nepal from its former closeness to India, so they've held off on pursuing the Khmer Rouge tactics. You can see that the horrific escalation of violence by the Maoists has suddenly dropped off, as they go in for the political process, and infiltrate their cadres into the govt. Tibetans are now routinely deported from Nepal, and China is even allowed to embed their own security forces in the country.

We should move to partition Nepal, just like we should support partition of Afghanistan.
We should support Madhesis, because then otherwise Nepal is steadily becoming a Chinese base, and it's going to be used against us one day. The Chinese leadership don't care about how many people have to die to achieve their goals - they've proven this with the genocide they helped to commit in Cambodia.

We should treat these people like the mass-killers they are, and just start building up our nuclear stockpile. You can't deal with mass-murderers from a position of weakness.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Jul 2010 22:47

CHINA – INDIA – PAKISTAN China fails moral test in its deals with Pakistan
When India reached an agreement with the United States on civil nuclear cooperation, it took the high moral ground and won. By contrast, China and Pakistan are breaking international law and ethical standards; their deals are dangerous and illegal.
http://www.speroforum.com/a/37457/CHINA ... h-Pakistan

The point is not that rules were changed, but the process and debate that engendered change. Ultimately, the NSG was unable to counter the US argument that India is reliable. After all, India’s record of not acquiring, diverting to military purposes or transferring nuclear weapons or technology illegally – even though, not having signed the NPT, India was never bound by its restrictions – is impeccable. India’s moral compass, carefully maintained ever since the 1940s when its nuclear program was initiated, secured legitimization of its de facto nuclear status internationally and on India’s own terms.
Sino-Pakistani nuclear diplomacy presents an essay in contrast both in terms of procedure and goals. Unlike the Undo-US negotiations, Sino-Pakistani negotiations are secret. There is no sign of a separation plan to ensure that material and technology is not diverted to third parties or weapons programs. Nor is there any indication of approaching the NSG for a waiver. Whereas Indians earned the right to nuclear commerce because they did the right thing, Pakistan’s nuclear diplomacy has a well-documented and abysmal record of proliferation involving not just a handful of out-of-control scientists but the state. This is not a question of who should be involved in nuclear trade, but that Pakistan has actively ignored all international conventions, abdicated all sense of responsibility, and persistently lied about its clandestine actions

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Aug 2010 10:53

Beijing claims 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea

naren · Post by **naren** » 02 Aug 2010 11:15

Sanjay M wrote:We should treat these people like the mass-killers they are, and just start building up our nuclear stockpile. You can't deal with mass-murderers from a position of weakness.

First step would be to derecognize this "one China" nonsense. Then prop up Taiwan. Let 'em know that there will be consequences.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Aug 2010 12:29

Sanjay M wrote:Beijing claims 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea

Can't India claim Indusputable soveriginity over Indian Ocean. If it does then what can PRC do. It seems to be a huge self goal by the PRC.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 02 Aug 2010 13:10

Sanjay M wrote:Beijing claims 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea

From the above article

But he added, "We will, in accordance with the demands of international law, respect the freedom of the passage of ships or aircraft from relevant countries."

Kind of contradictory I think , if waters continue to be goverened by International Law and provide passage for all variety of ships and aircrafts then what is the sovereignity there.

For Eg. - India's territorial waters are Indias territory and no international cargo can pass through it without permission from India. I don't see how China can permit or Deny in the same way , especially beyond it's territorial waters.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Aug 2010 13:20

^^^ Maoist dictum that all power comes from the barrel of a gun. Having enough guns makes them feel it's their right to dictate who can or cannot go where.

They intend to unilaterally take whatever oil/resources the Spratleys have, and will tell the rest of the world 'tough luck'.

I don't think they're relying on any particular international law or precedent, just their own raw might.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Aug 2010 13:51

I just come back to my original question. India declares Indian ocean Indias Ocean and bans all chinies ships from it what are they going to do about it.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Aug 2010 14:03

^^^Continue sailing through it, of course.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 02 Aug 2010 14:08

Pratyush wrote:I just come back to my original question. India declares Indian ocean Indias Ocean and bans all chinies ships from it what are they going to do about it.

Pratyush ji,

The problem, with your suggested line of action, is how it will be perceived by the rest of the world. A non Chinese, non - Indian will think, if India can ban chinese ships today, it will ban my ships tomorrow. This will be adverse impact on us. We would not be able to antagonize the whole world, just to stop Chinese ships. Also it gives out an impression, that India is a hegemonic power. Something which we should avoid.

China can do the reverse and say, "we ban Indian ships from south china sea" or worse in "pacific ocean". This will impact us badly, with trade with Korea, Japan, West coast of US and Canada impacted. This will also impact our Siberian oil which flows through Pacific ocean to reach us. And this is not only applicable to China, there are 6 other oceans, which might be in the future barred to us.

Even if we say ban Chinese ships, we will need to enforce it with our Navy and Air force. The Indian ocean is huge, and we do not have a navy powerful or big enough to plug in all the entry points of Indian Ocean.

Also don't forget, we will be using our might to enforce this. The problem with might is that it ebbs and flows. And there are bigger dogs than us in Indian Ocean. China might also send its navy in force to break this. And if Chinese navy manages to break this so called blockade, what adverse impact will it have on us ?

Forget all of this, the cost of doing what you are proposing outweighs what ever benefit that we will gain.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Aug 2010 14:52

Sir, I understand what you are saying. But my question is rhetorical in nature. Cause today they claim sovereignty over south china sea. What prevents them from preventing the passage off ships tomorrow. Cause look at it this way. They are saying that they will not impede the trade routes. Who is to say that tomorrow the visit by an Indian naval ship to that region will not be seen as as causes beli by the PRC. If we are accepting the Chines sovereignty over the South China Sea.

The idea is, that, any PRC claim of sovereignty beyond 12 statute (SP) miles must be rejected in Toto. As per the UN laws of the seas.

Moreover, if the PRC claims are to be recognized then they need to get these claims recognized by the UN. In the manner prescribed under the UN laws of the seas. This is some thing that they have not done so far. So the claim of absolute sovereignty is not legally enforceable today or even tomorrow.

It is some thing that gives them is the excuse to act like TSP. By building a grievance where none existed in order to divert the Populations attention. If I am correct then the conditions in PRC must be worst then I thought previously.

Alternatively, PRC today is acting like the Nazi Germany. In terms of its contempt of International treaties and conventions.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 03 Aug 2010 11:10

Sanjay M wrote:^^^ Maoist dictum that all power comes from the barrel of a gun. Having enough guns makes them feel it's their right to dictate who can or cannot go where.

They intend to unilaterally take whatever oil/resources the Spratleys have, and will tell the rest of the world 'tough luck'.

I don't think they're relying on any particular international law or precedent, just their own raw might.

Can you give me any instance of power NOT coming from the barrel of a gun(or equivalent)? The U.S., USSR, Third Reich, GB(when the sun never set), Rome, China, Mongols(Ghengis Khan era)...need I go on? Let's not be naive here. You can find powerful nations/empires without great morality, but you're never gonna find one without a great military(unless it's on its way to a collapse).

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 03 Aug 2010 11:24

Perhaps we're not talking about old empires here, but the here and now. And that democracy, freedom and pluralism is the way forward. Not Maoism with its emphasis on coercion, violence, terror, regimentation and monolithism.

Ancient India is an example of a country/entity that made a great impact on the rest of Asia, without firing a single shot, sending a single colonist or soldier. Buddhism and all its related art, literature and symbolism moved entirely peacefully from India to Tibet, Burma, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Central Asia. This was a phenomenon far more impressive than any Mongol, Chinese, Islamic, Japanese, French, British or Portuguese empire.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Aug 2010 17:15

^^^ yes but with massive military power at home to defend the borders

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 03 Aug 2010 19:10

As described by Chanakya in the Arthshastra where he clearly identifies the Mauryan army as the chief reason that allows Pataliputra to sleep peacefully at night...

Indeed every Indian should have only this thought going forward -

Make my country the greatest on earth and world peace will follow as the deep spirituality revealed by its holy men and women over the millenia will get imbibed by others ...

The advances in technology have ensured that dissemination is no longer an issue. the question is whether people are willing to hear what India has to say.

At the moment it is consumerist ideals that people wish to imbibe on account of the material success of the gora world... this can be reversed if we can make India "cool" really and literally.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Aug 2010 05:48

DavidD wrote:Can you give me any instance of power NOT coming from the barrel of a gun(or equivalent)? The U.S., USSR, Third Reich, GB(when the sun never set), Rome, China, Mongols(Ghengis Khan era)...need I go on? Let's not be naive here. You can find powerful nations/empires without great morality, but you're never gonna find one without a great military(unless it's on its way to a collapse).

Buddy, I'm talking even in inside your own country, the power to rule comes from the barrel of a gun, and not through a popular mandate.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Aug 2010 03:22

I was reading about China's Dong Feng 21D missile - it's a long-range anti-ship ballistic missile:

http://www.stripes.com/news/new-chinese ... s-1.111552

The advanced weapon, a medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile known as the Dong Feng 21D, is “nearing operational capability,” according to a report last year by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence. And if its targeting system proves accurate, the Dong Feng would rank as the world’s first mobile, land-based missile capable of hitting a moving aircraft carrier from nearly 2,000 miles away, depending on its payload and other factors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 72166.html

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention.

"When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically – fighter to fighter or ship to ship – and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said.

Gee, that's a big game-changer. Shouldn't India consider building a missile like this?

After all, India's peninsular landmass projects downward in such a way so as to permit targeting of a deep section of the Indian Ocean from land-based missiles.

It's China which seeks to move into waters near India, and not India which seeks to move into waters near China. Therefore, any likely naval clash would be closer to Indian Ocean region. In that case, it would be better to stack the odds more decisively in our favour, in order to deter China, and to make sure we come out better in any clash. Why merely depend on our naval vessels being able to defeat theirs, when we could bring homeland-based missiles into the fight to really pulverize them?

If India were to create its own version of DF-21D, then it could effectively neutralize China's String-of-Pearls strategy (not that I'm really in favour of relying upon technological band-aids to redress strategic deficiencies)

Do we have plans for such a missile of our own, and if not, why not?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 06 Aug 2010 04:34

US-Vietnam nuke deal 'destabilizing'

The US and Vietnam - two former Cold War foes - are in advanced talks to share nuclear fuel and technology, which could "unsettle" China, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

Under the agreement, Hanoi will reportedly be allowed to enrich uranium on its own soil, a move that is also expected to hamper global nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Aug 2010 04:42

^^^China already has a proxy guerrilla card against Vietnam, thanks to Atlanticist Brzezinski - they're called the Khmer Rouge. If Vietnam becomes too much of a bother for China, then the Khmer Rouge will become militant once again. Thanks to the hard work of the Atlanticists, all the cards are stacked in China's favour.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Aug 2010 02:22

China shaken by US move to sign nuclear deal with Vietnam

Washington has confirmed it in negotiation a deal with Vietnam similar to the one it has signed with India. The move has implications for India, which faced Chinese resistance to its nuclear deal with the US. India is also wary about what it regards as China's non-transparent move to sell two more nuclear reactors to Pakistan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Aug 2010 04:15

China's DF21 An Innovative Way to Dominate Seas

by Vice-Admiral Arun Kumar Singh

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Aug 2010 04:24

Some analysis of DF21 requirements:

http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archi ... y-thoughts

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Aug 2010 04:32

Senior Republican Criticizes State on Vietnam Nuclear Deal

U.S. Won't Rule Out Vietnamese Uranium Enrichment

Is the Obama administration getting tough on China?

Amriki-Chini Bhai-Bhai Bye-Bye?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Aug 2010 09:35

Sanjay M wrote:^^^China already has a proxy guerrilla card against Vietnam, thanks to Atlanticist Brzezinski - they're called the Khmer Rouge. If Vietnam becomes too much of a bother for China, then the Khmer Rouge will become militant once again. Thanks to the hard work of the Atlanticists, all the cards are stacked in China's favour.

Sanjay Sir,

I thought that the KR were a spent force. More so because the genocide trials taking place in cambodia.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Aug 2010 09:46

Sanjay M wrote:China's DF21 An Innovative Way to Dominate Seas

by Vice-Admiral Arun Kumar Singh

DF 21 is an interesting concept no doubt. The problem is how to target the missile against a mobile target. Moreover the 5 minutes or so for the missile to reach a moving ship at sea the ship would have moved away from the original aim point.

Also being able to know the exact location of the ship at the time of engagement by the Missil, will be a huge challenge. One of the solution would be to add a seeker to a maneuvering RV. But doing that with a conventional warhead will reduce the size of warhead carried by the missile. Also it will be venerable to SM 6 type ABM missile.

In the light of the problems it is possible that the Chinies may use Nukes in conjunction with the missile.

Which will be a different game all together

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Aug 2010 09:58

Pratyush wrote:Sanjay Sir,

I thought that the KR were a spent force. More so because the genocide trials taking place in cambodia.

The trials appear to only be a slap on the wrist. The high officials have escaped. Notice how the Cambodian PM Hun Sen is anxious to claim that the light sentences are fair. He wouldn't want to see the peace disturbed.
Certainly, China would not wish to lose its proxies, which is why it doesn't drop Pak or NKorea. China will keep some cards in reserve.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Aug 2010 10:22

I thought the most of the higher ups were dead. Moreover, with the comming overground of KR coupled with it past actions would make it socially untouchable to most of the Cambodians.

IIRC, almost every family lost a member or two to that regime. The pain is to severe for the polulation to forget and just let the KR back in. Also the rest of ASEAN will not just sit back and allow a KR type regime to re-emerge in Cambodia.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Aug 2010 11:08

Rest of SouthEast Asia is hostage to China. Also, don't forget that US ally Thailand supported the Khmer Rouge along with China (Amriki-Chini Bhai-Bhai)

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Aug 2010 17:12

^^^the past is gone. I am concerned about the future and the past cannot be an indicator of the future behavior of the the ASEAN states. Especially if they know that China is out to dominate them. They would like to jockey for position in order to get the best deal for them selves. Which may result in them seeking alternate power centers such as India or the US.

That is where the opportunity lies and we should be placed to exploit the same.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Aug 2010 19:58

U.S. expands Asian NATO to contain and confront China

During her trips last month to nine nations from the Baltic Sea to the South China Sea, especially during her stays in Georgia and Vietnam, Clinton reiterated in no equivocal terms that the U.S. recognizes no "spheres of influence" by any other nation anywhere in the world, including ones by Russia and China on their borders and in their immediate neighborhoods [3], and that Washington reserves the exclusive right to intervene in regional conflicts around the world and to "internationalize" them when and how it sees fit.

The naval, submarine and air exercises were conducted "only 500 km from Beijing. Considering that the nuclear-powered super-carrier USS George Washington's radius of action is up to 600 km, and the aircraft it carries can reach a speed of 1,000 km an hour, the joint drill was dangerously close to China's security threshold."

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Aug 2010 05:41

Christopher Sidor wrote: I just come back to my original question. India declares Indian ocean Indias Ocean and bans all chinies ships from it what are they going to do about it.[

Pratyush ji,

The problem, with your suggested line of action, is how it will be perceived by the rest of the world. A non Chinese, non - Indian will think, if India can ban chinese ships today, it will ban my ships tomorrow. This will be adverse impact on us. We would not be able to antagonize the whole world, just to stop Chinese ships. Also it gives out an impression, that India is a hegemonic power. Something which we should avoid.

The problem, is how it will be perceived by the rest of the world. A non Chinese, non - Indian will think, if China can sell WMD to Pakistan today, it will strike WMD on India tomorrow. This will be adverse impact on us.

Can India not try to stop this. India will do whatever to protect itself. What will the world say

Will the world stop India from protecting itself.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Aug 2010 19:20

Former enemies US, Vietnam now military mates

"I'm certain that the Chinese government and the Chinese people are trying to protect their interests," he added when asked about China's increased aggressiveness within the area. "It is more important for Vietnam (and) its partners to establish that they have an equal right to economic prosperity and peace within the region as well."

Chinese navy ships were seen shadowing the USS George Washington at a distance over the past several days as the supercarrier made its way throught the South China Sea along Vietnam's eastern coast, U.S. Navy officials said Sunday.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Aug 2010 08:37

China hits out at U.S. “double standards”

Like the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, this deal, too, has been perceived in China as part of a greater American “containment” strategy. “[The deal] means the U.S. is strengthening cooperation with Vietnam to contain China,” said Fan Jishe, a researcher of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in an interview with the official China Daily. “To Washington, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Aug 2010 08:51

Does the word Pakistan mean anything?

I am satisfied that the US has shaken of its torpor. India will likely transfer IRBM technology to Vietnam, now.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Aug 2010 10:13

^^^ It will be interesting to seen how India will respond to the warming up in ties between Vietnam and the US. If IRBMs are transfered to Vietnam along with Nuke weapons know how I will be delighted. IIRC India already has a peace full Nuke agreement with the Vietnam.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Aug 2010 12:10

Pratyush wrote:^^^ It will be interesting to seen how India will respond to the warming up in ties between Vietnam and the US. If IRBMs are transfered to Vietnam along with Nuke weapons know how I will be delighted. IIRC India already has a peace full Nuke agreement with the Vietnam.

I talked to a Vietnam merchant who claims to have connection with the PM and he says that Indians are active and also welcomed. They listen to Indians and want Indian help. He showed me a card of an Indian diplomat.
When the mention of Ho Cho Minh harbor was done they want India to take it. They want protection.