Managing Chinese Threat

[brihaspati]

Well chaterratti and thinkeratti from the leftist side need to defend and justify Chinese actions in favour of Islamists - something that shows that Marxists are somehow not "secular". Ideological consistency - at least show-piece wise - is important in Marxist self-legitimacy.

So they have been trying to justify Chinese action as a tactical one against a supposedly "worse" enemy - that of "capitalism" (as if what Chinese communist lords are practising is not a similar early-American robber baron economy of the primitive capitalist or state-capitalist line).

[ramana]

Quoting KS article countering china

K Subrahmanyam: Countering China's new assertiveness

India needs to devise a new balance of power equation to ensure its security and development in the face of the Chinese military challenge
K Subrahmanyam / September 5, 2010, 0:09 IST

There can be no doubt that China is trying to apply pressure on India through measures like refusing a visa to India’s Northern Army Commander in Jammu and Kashmir, issuing stapled visas to people from that state visiting China, undertaking large-scale projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and discussing the possibility of limited war against India. The New York Times has reported that 7,000-11,000 Chinese troops have been deployed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and that the area is closed to the world. Questions are naturally being raised in India as to why the Chinese are indulging in such pressure tactics at this stage.

There was a brief honeymoon period between China and the United States, when there was speculation in both countries about the world order being governed by G-2 (China and the US). After their interaction on economic issues, in which they reached an understanding on the stability of the dollar and continuing Chinese purchases of US treasury bonds, they reverted to their normal stance of competition. China has become more assertive on its ‘core’ concerns, including its interest in international waters as being its ‘waters of concern’. With China’s military modernisation speeding up and its navy expanding, increasing military assertiveness is becoming evident in China’s international behaviour.

China has overtaken Japan as the second largest economy in the world, and it is expected to become the number one economy in the world in the next two decades. Meanwhile, the Chinese aim is to assert itself as the dominant power in Asia. They see India as the only hindrance to their achieving that aim, in view of India’s comparable population, its likely advantage of a youth bulge as China ages and its growth slows down, and the developing Indo-US strategic partnership.

A pluralistic, democratic and secular India as one of the world’s largest knowledge pools is seen as a challenge by China, which emphasises harmony over pluralism and single-party-directed order, as against democracy with emphasis on individual human rights, espoused by India. China has been using Pakistan to counter India by arming it with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional weapons. India as a poverty-free country having one of the largest knowledge pools in the world is challenged on two sides by the religious-extremist fundamentalism of Pakistan and the single-party state ideological fundamentalism of China. Moreover, they are bonded together by their nuclear and missile proliferation relationship.

Both countries are interested in fragmenting India. Both have tried to encourage extremist and secessionist groups within the country in J&K, the North-east and the Maoist areas. It is therefore natural for China and Pakistan to attempt to ensure that US President Barack Obama’s forthcoming visit to India does not take the Indo-US relationship further forward. China has questioned India’s sovereignty over Kashmir with its stapled visas and denial of a visa to India’s Northern Army Commander, and its ostensible military presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir/Pakistan has activated its ‘sleeper agents’ in various Kashmiri towns to stage stone-pelting protests.

In a move to reassure Pakistan, China has discussed in its media the possibility of a limited war against India, copying the Indian debate on the ‘cold start’. China wants to duplicate the Indo-US nuclear deal by offering two more reactors to Pakistan in defiance of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.

How does India deal with this Chinese pressure? We should learn from China. In 1971 China was a nuclear weapon power with thermo-nuclear weapons and missiles. Yet, when it faced the Soviet Union after the Ussuri clashes, it felt the need for allies, overt or covert. Though it had fought the US in the Korean war and lost 150,000 lives, including that of Mao Zedong’s pilot son, it entered into an entente with the US against the Soviet Union.

China made available to the US monitoring stations in Xinjiang against Soviet missile tests and subsequently developed close economic relations with the US, which made China the economic and military power it is today. China’s communist ideology did not come in the way of its national security interests. It was to demonstrate to China the credibility of the US as a covert ally that Kissinger ordered the USS Enterprise mission into the Bay of Bengal during the last days of the Bangladesh war.

The Chinese are masters of statecraft and strategy. In the wake of Chiang Kai-shek’s defeat, when they faced a hostile United States, they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, and when they had problems with the USSR, they switched to a covert alliance with the US. Once the Soviet Union was dissolved and was no longer a threat, China became Russia’s largest arms market. National security interests and not ideology become the primary determinant of national strategy.

Though it is not always fully recognised, it was Indira Gandhi’s astute balance of power strategy that produced the Bangladesh victory. At the time she concluded the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty, she was denounced as a Soviet stooge and a ‘poodle’ of Moscow. The Western media talked of Soviet bases in India and Soviet advisers to the Indian armed forces, just as, today, accusations are hurled at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh charging him with toeing the US line and acting under US instructions.

Similarly, while Krishna Menon committed many mistakes in our defence policy vis-a-vis China, he recognised instinctively that when a country goes for purchase of fighter aircraft and transfer of technology, it is not a mere procurement decision but a geostrategic one. He overrode all objections and decided on the MiG-21 aircraft and thereby established a geostrategic relationship with the Soviet Union which has served the country well ever since.

Times have changed, as has the international strategic milieu. Even while retaining Russia as a friend in the Asian context, India has to develop a new balance of power equation to deal with the challenge from China and Pakistan not merely to our external security but to our national development as a pluralistic, secular and democratic nation. India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa and Arthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.

US wants to befriend India in its high power stakes game with panda. Same happened during cold war-- US vs SU with china siding with US. This occurred because china had clear goals and core interests so it know how much it could tag along with US despite communism prevailing in SU and China. pretty unusual exploited fully by uncle.
Currently china is growing too big for its boots according to US. It is competing with US everywhere. Even in TSP of all nations close to US. TSP has more close relations with panda than US. But US has sunk billions in the sh%thole.
It is battling with Europeans. US is the guarantor of most European nations.
Most europeans dont like chinese usurping their spheres of influence which is eroding slowly and irreversibly.
slowly china is chipping away at everything US stood for and guaranteed in the last century.
It is not doing nicely also trudging on the toes of everyone in the process.
Sure uncle is mightily pissed off with panda and courting India as a counterweight.

As long as India clearly articulates the core interests it can play along side USA. It must have certain goals and national aspirations. With that in the background it can play the game.

India has already started the process of sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division)- courting asean/east asia, central asia, , US also -close economic coperation, weapons etc. Nepal trying to prevent maoists coming to power.
dhanda is too early for us now. hopefully it will arrive when most needed.
These are small steps for now.

What intrigues me is KS going back to ancient Indian texts to deal with current issues and not quoting Tallyrand or Clauswitz or other Western shibboleths. Looks like its really tense to go back to roots.

It also means the BO visit is expected to annouce some new strategic ties. Refer to his invoking Mrs G and Krishna Menon and his decision to buy the Mig 21. Also not absence of ref to JLN.

Only caution I have is the PRC did all its profleration under the beady eye of Washington. Its not like it did it independently. So how sincere is DC in its new found favor for New Delhi especially when the PRC has their fundamentals in their firm grip: $ reserves and trade with selective proliferation.

[Sanku]

Err I hope we are not referring to Sandhya Jain when we talk of chatterati, are we? Please do look up her past writings to see what colors and side of ideological spectrum she is on.

[ramana]

Bji, In India there is no real diff between the thinkeratti. They take stance to get voice.
However one can see a core group. Sandhya Jain is part of that and hardly can be called a Lefty! Anyway no point in shoooting the messenger for it will stop future messages.

[D Roy]

Oye, from the previous page.

The School Of International Studies in JNU does not have too many Jholawallhas. That title goes to the School of Social Studies and even there it is mainly the History, Pol Science and Sociology centers which has this infection.

Know your JNU, it helps.


Also Chicom is threat number one. I have myself been a great espouser of Asian brotherhood but latest dehlhibheration shows that Han is hell bent on Continental domination.

Unkil is willing to cohabitate. it needs to take care of Han which is 10-15 years away rather than Yindoo which is 20-25. And I am not really sure that it is that eager to "take care" of yindoo either.

I say this because Gora has realized that brown man may forghib them but Han despite what they thought all these years has not.

[brihaspati]

No not Sandhya Jain in particular.

Look at such posts as these :
http://hotanalysis.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

The Italian foreign minister's mention that the G-8 would invite China for a conference on Afghanistan indicates that China is poised to play a larger role in the region. It has also consolidated influence in Pakistan, with the Chinese Communist Party signing an agreement with the Jamaat-e-Islami. This is the first time it has concluded an agreement with a political party with an avowedly religious orientation.
China is trying to assume a more assertive role in regions of its interest: Central Asia, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific. Picking up on a veiled suggestion Bill Clinton, then US president, in Beijing in 1998, Beijing will try and persuade the US to yield it a greater role in these areas.

They place the Chinese hobnobbing with Islamists as a kind of passive almost automatic reaction - and natural and to be -expected consequence of "legitimate" security interests. It should be placed as "China may seek to justify such steps as in its national or security interests, but...." etc.

Any write-up that makes such passive placement - will in general create and impression of the Chinese position being legitimate - because security concerns are "legitimate". I know many will find this worthy of ridiculing the supposed Indian tendency of "imposing dharma on the world". But in each and every write-up - if it is to be establishing the Indian viewpoint - cannot or should not make this error.

What China is doing is not "legitimate" and not justified - from the Indian point of view.

[svinayak]

China is trying to assume a more assertive role in regions of its interest: Central Asia, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

Any write-up that makes such passive placement - will in general create and impression of the Chinese position being legitimate - because security concerns are "legitimate".

What China is doing is not "legitimate" and not justified - from the Indian point of view.

They are trying to push China is regions and system where it had no influence before. Earlier system was built by the British with help of India system.
After that US had the period of control in the last 60 years. China system is being pushed as a proxy for the US system until US recovers in a few decades.

Lot of these are show and image building and less about moral and value system

[svinayak]

I say this because Gora has realized that brown man may forghib them but Han despite what they thought all these years has not.

But the gora is using the brown man to deflect the anger and resentment of the han. How stupid can the brown man be.

[D Roy]

Not stupid.

Brown man tried to be friends with Han. But Han is too drunk with power.

Is hurting interests directly and now.

[svinayak]

Not stupid.

Brown man tried to be friends with Han. But Han is too drunk with power.

Is hurting interests directly and now.

Han and gora may be together playing games.
Brown man is still stupid.

[ramana]

Can we put a halt to self loathing? Calling our own names is not helpful. We may disagree with them but not dis them. The Fake Seculars call others stupid. The others call everyone else stupid.

[svinayak]

It is just an expression to describe the geo political situation and not about the population.
Now it can still turn out to be in favor of the brown man if the cards are played correctly.

[ramana]

Op-Ed by Kanwal Sibal in Telegraph

Dangers of Denial

THE DANGERS OF GOING INTO DENIAL
India needs to create political space for imposing costs on China for the latter’s adversarial policies, writes Kanwal Sibal


China’s denial of a normal visa to General Jaswal, who heads India’s Northern Command, for the fourth round of the defence dialogue in Beijing — because he came from the “sensitive location of Jammu and Kashmir” and “people from this part of the world come with a different kind of visa” — is grave political provocation and not mere “needling”, as termed by our media. This Chinese step has many implications.

China has no territorial claims on J&K other than its claim to Aksai Chin in Ladakh, where it occupies territory even beyond its own pre-1962 claim line. If it did not recognize vis-à-vis itself India’s legal authority over the remaining territory in J&K, it would not have engaged us in prolonged border parleys covering the western sector as well. Moreover, as China remains committed, at least ostensibly, to a border settlement, why has it begun to question J&K’s status as Indian territory, for that would make India ineligible as an empowered negotiating partner? Issuing stapled visas to Kashmiris holding Indian passports was the first offensive step in the direction of questioning India’s sovereignty over J&K. It has now compounded the provocation by denying a normal visa to an appointee of the government of India in J&K. By referring to J&K as “this part of the world”, Beijing is implying that the territory is not Indian and has undetermined status.

China’s denial of a visa also contradicts its stated political willingness to promote mutual trust and confidence through increased dialogue between the armed forces of the two countries. Already some modest naval and anti-terrorism joint exercises have taken place as part of an effort to build bridges with the People’s Liberation Army. The general who was denied the visa is in charge of the Aksai Chin area, where the forces of the two countries confront each other and where increasing Chinese incursions worry India. Does China want to signal now that it does not want to engage any general in charge of the sensitive Aksai Chin front even though it supports a bilateral defence dialogue intended to build greater mutual confidence?

China’s step seems even more incongruous when one considers that the present Indian army chief, General V.K. Singh, visited China in 2009 as head of the Eastern Command, which includes Arunachal Pradesh in its jurisdiction. Was China not worried that giving him a visa might be construed as accepting Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory? Is Arunachal Pradesh less of a “ sensitive location” for China than J&K is? Moreover, the Chinese reportedly gave a visa last year to the Indian corps commander at Leh to visit China as part of an Indian defence delegation.

One cannot even argue that these are momentary aberrations in Chinese policy. The issue of stapled visas for Kashmiris has been raised officially by us with the Chinese ever since the practice was detected last year, but they have ignored our démarches. In General Jaswal’s case, the Indian side remonstrated with the Chinese officially before the issue became public, but without result. These political attacks on India’s sovereignty over J&K are therefore well-considered Chinese decisions, taken in full awareness of how they could potentially affect relations between India and China.

China’s expanded challenge to India’s territorial integrity seems to be part of its growing international assertiveness as a result of its phenomenal economic growth, its financial muscle, its developing military capacities and America’s perceived decline as a global power. It has declared the South China Sea an area of its “core interest”, prompting the United States of America to declare that it has “national interests” in this zone. China is establishing the network of an enhanced naval presence in the Indian Ocean that will challenge India’s security interests. Its hardened position on Arunachal Pradesh has become a political fact that India has to contend with, even if its provocations there have subsided now.

China has shifted its attention to J&K for several reasons. It has developed new security interests in the Pakistan-occupied territory not only in the context of the Uighur insurgency in Eastern Turkestan, but also because of the ambitious project to develop an energy lifeline for itself through Gwadar to sources of oil and gas in the Gulf area and beyond. This requires it to have an entrenched presence in PoK through involvement in large-scale infrastructure projects. The recent New York Times story about the presence of thousands of PLA units in PoK has some basis as the Chinese government admits PLA presence, though for flood-relief work. By its massive ground presence and increased stakes in this region, China intends to become a material factor in any eventual settlement between India and Pakistan regarding the state’s future. In the eventuality of Pakistan’s disintegration or inability to govern this region, China would want to prevent any Indian attempt to control it or play a political role there.

We have reacted to the latest provocation by suspending military exchanges with China for the time being. Unidentified official sources have also cautioned China that J&K to us is as sensitive a matter as Tibet is to them. The prime minister’s public candour about China exploiting our “soft underbelly” in Kashmir and Pakistan to keep India in a “low level equilibrium” is a welcome change from the normal tendency to appease China. It is important that our response to this denial of a visa does not remain confined to decisions on military exchanges.

The Chinese action transcends such exchanges; it is a direct assault on our sovereignty over J&K. If we fail to respond, we would be creating space for China to continue questioning our sovereignty over this territory and create more problems for us in tandem with its all-weather friend, Pakistan, whose case for Kashmir it now wants to bolster for evolving strategic reasons. We must, therefore, be more vocal in opposing China’s presence in PoK in public as well as in private talks with the Chinese.

We should rally international opinion against the China-Pakistan nuclear deal, which is a calculated threat to our security. Our engagement with Taiwan should go up visibly. We must seize this opportunity to prise open the question of China’s untrammelled sovereignty over Tibet. We should consider giving stapled visas to the inhabitants of the Greater Tibet region on their Chinese passports. We must begin reminding the Chinese that India has recognized an “autonomous” Tibet as part of China, not a militarily occupied zone; that China should demilitarize Tibet as a necessary bilateral confidence-building measure; that it should reach a peaceful settlement with the Dalai Lama for stable and tension-free relations between India and China.

A rising China will be an escalating problem for us. We urgently need to create political space for ourselves to impose costs on China for its adversarial policies towards us, even as we continue to engage with it.

The author is former foreign secretary of India [email protected]

A question for old timers. Is this spate of PRC moves akin to those undertaken before 1962? Maybe we are not seeing thru the fog. Is this PRC showing displeasure over budding ties with US? If so will there be a replay of 1962 teach a lesson war?


I like his recommendations but dont know the effectiveness.

How many Tibet residents want to visit India for the reciprocal staple visa measure? IOW how much of a slap is it?

[RajeshA]

Any Indian traveling on an Indian passport having a stapled Chinese Visa should be sent back with his Passport confiscated and not be allowed to board, or transit through the Indian border.

The Indian Passport is the property of the Indian Government. It does not belong to the holder!

[krisna]

Is this spate of PRC moves akin to those undertaken before 1962? Maybe we are not seeing thru the fog. Is this PRC showing displeasure over budding ties with US? If so will there be a replay of 1962 teach a lesson war?

IIRC from what I have understood of the events then--
In 1950-60s Mao had failure of great leap, famine with millions perished, trouble with his position in the party. Also there were some major issues with Nehru.
In 1962 Cuban missile crisis was bang in the middle of this adventure.
Right time for china to attack India which was inadequately prepared.

Surprising thing was despite holding onto Tawang and ladakh, they let go off it and went back to the Mcmohan line and LAC.
Likely reason is the difficulty in holding these places and incorporating into china.
Interestingly china never ventured to claim the J&K except for aksai chin due to road connecting the xinjaing and Tibet. It always wanted to swap the Arunachal Pradesh for Aksai chin.
Recently it has started to claim the all of them.(1980 onwards)
During NDA govt there was some talk about this issue of aksai chin and arunachal Pradesh however china did not agree. Their stand changed ever since then.
Today it is not 1962, India has progressed but better be on guard always with a untrustworthy unscrupulous neighbour.

I like his recommendations but dont know the effectiveness.
How many Tibet residents want to visit India for the reciprocal staple visa measure? IOW how much of a slap is it?

Measure for measure.
1) India should definitely question the illegal occupation of Tibet. caliberate the profile of relations with Taiwan, ask for democracy ,Question about uighurs regions, may be also about Mongolian borders. This should be done in a caliberated manner depending upon the response on the other side.
2) question about nuclear proliferation concerns about china.
Benefits- Not many Tibetans will come from other side. Object to any chinese offical coming from that area or ruling that area. ex Hu or whoever etc.
But Tibetans from India will have their visas stapled along with their Indian passports. OR they can have Tibetan passport seals with Indian passports- something like that( I don’t know how to term these).
Many Tibetans go around the world. This will be noticed easily.
Declare openly that Tibet should be a autonomous zone with free movements between Indians and Tibetans. Chinese should move their military out of that area.
Tibetans can indulge in anti china activities in India. No restrictions on it. they can get all the support they want-covertly later overtly as the situation progresses. We have a strong handle provided we use it properly. Tibetans will love that support. HHDL will agree to demanding making Tibet a free autonomous zone.china is asking for it by its bullying tactics.


Advantages- this is high pitched diplomacy- eye for an eye, it may well be better than doing nothing or reacting to Chinese moves that J&K is our territory Arunachal Pradesh is ours etc. which is self defeating attitude. when you die better die fighting(not that it is going to happen but just the attitude to adopt)

China is very paranoid about its areas. They will go crazy about it and make a big issue. It has the same effect as we are doing about Indian territories-

Just for a moment think about reversing the roles of India and china- India questioning Tibet Taiwan xinjaing and china defending.
This gives the answer.
India should fortify defences. No lapses on this front. India must explicitly say that any attack on Indian region(not geographical area) would invite more than appropriate response( enuf doubts about new clear ones should be kept for plausible deniability)

we have to play the diplomatic game if we have to survive as one nation keeping the ammo dry all the time.

[ramana]

How to rally Indian opinion and not sabotage the govt resolve? I see that as the bigger problem. The DIE(in media and in utys) have been raised on steady diet that Commie China is the best. Need to teach some of the chatterati some lessons.

[VinodTK]

Asia's maritime security is all at sea

In April, a large Chinese naval force ventured into waters close to Japan and a Chinese helicopter buzzed Japanese ships at a range of just 90m.

This year's first sea of troubles was off the coast of the divided Korean peninsula.

And New Delhi, rattled in 2008 by the speed of Beijing's deployment to an ocean India had long considered its own, has proposed limited maritime security co-operation with China.

Looks like lot of countries are feeling and noticing China's new found power.

[shiv]

When I look at what the Chinese are doing - at least some percentage of their actions appear to me to belong in the category of "giving an appearance of being intimidating" in order to keep others in awe of them and make the others fear the Chinese. This allows the Chinese to appear unpredictable and causes others to react to them in ways that allows the Chinese to mould how others behave and "respect them"

This behavior requires three conditions:
1) The actual military power required to appear threatening
2) The flaunting of that power at predetermined times and places to intimidate someone
3) Obfuscation so that nobody knows whether the Chinese are going to use their power or not. There is continuing "fear and anxiety" that the Chinese may actually use their advertised military strength (which itself is large with lot of secrecy and veiling)

It is important to understand that this is how the Chinese behave. Knowing this allows handling of al Chinese actions with the following insight

a) The Chinese may be posturing to create a particular image of being threatening an able to pull off some "rapid, spectacular" victory
b) The Chinese may not actually want to do that and may even have weaknesses that make it costly for them to do anything more than posturing
c) The main thing one needs to prepare for is a local military punishment of the Chinese with a threat of greater damage if they take the game further.

The important thing in all this is not to underestimate Chinese military might, but to estimate accurately Chinese will to undertake military action and willingness to face military defeats which they are certain to face in any military action. It is also important to remember that even military action taken by the Chinese will follow the same pattern of giving the appearance of overwhelming blitzkrieg like unstoppable forces - and this is what one can expect to hear from Chinese media in a hot conflict no matter what the truth on the ground may be.

We tend to concentrate on what we see as "Chinese slights" like stapled visa. They combine this with massive symbolic military moves that threaten an overwhelming of defences from Tibet. Simultaneously the Chinese are doing - in the east, an intimidation of Japan, buzzing Japanese ships 90 miles from Japan and other actions designed to intimidate. They are also intimidating Taiwan and the Philippines.

Exactly how many of these countries is China going to fight wars with? If Chin gets involved in a border war with India, are Chinese ships still going to be acting funny with Japan, or will they be sucking up. The interesting thing here is that China is carefully trying to intimidate and overawe everyone. But they cannot take on everyone. The advantage this gives them is that if they get into a difficult situation on any front, they will instantly do a downhill ski and appease one or more powers in some other front until their current threat is removed, after which they will get back to their usual activity.

If there is a military standoff in the east, expect China to go easy on India. The big advantage of "appearing intimidating" is that when Chine holds out a conciliatory hand, an intimidated (dhimmi-ready) power (such as India or Japan) will instantly accept that hand with relief and gratitude, making it easier for China to fight whoever it is currently fighting. To the credit of the US - it remains perfectly strong about its core interests and does not do a downhill ski with China to let China off the hook when China is in trouble on some front or other.

The key to handling China is through military power. Enough military power to seriously stretch their forces is the one thing that gives them maximum takleef and cause them to try more and more to intimidate and "gain the respect" that China needs to conduct its foreign policy in its own style. This fact has not been missed by anyone. The US, Taiwan, Japan and India all know that China does react with anxiety (revealed by a show of aggression) to increased military strength. India's aim should be to maintain enough party pooping power to seriously take down Chinese military power locally and make China weaker against the US and Japan and Taiwan if they choose to needle India. I believe we are doing that. Saying we are reactive makes me happy. Unless we react China will think we are asleep.

We need not necessarily do a tit for tat and give "stapled visas" but we can create new irritants like getting every visa applicant from China to sign a document that accepts the sovereignty of India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Kutch to Arunachal Pradesh. And then put a visa stamp in the passport that says the same thing in Chinese and English.

[merlin]

A question for old timers. Is this spate of PRC moves akin to those undertaken before 1962? Maybe we are not seeing thru the fog. Is this PRC showing displeasure over budding ties with US? If so will there be a replay of 1962 teach a lesson war?

Not an old timer (was not even born then) but I do have one data point. Many years back (15+) I bought a book from a raddi wallah for 5 bucks. It was in a tattered condition and pretty dirty to boot. It had a reprint of letters exchanged between India and China starting from the early 50s IIRC. Letters on the Tibet issue. Although I sold the book back, I still recollect the tone of the Chinese (belligerent) and Indians (polite, formal). There appeared to be increasing belligerence as time went by.

So my guess would be increased aggressiveness might lead to teach a lesson war.

[Lalmohan]

china is more likely to undertake small winnable wars than large ones - which will damage the economy. so expect to see more aggression in the spratley islands, perhaps further afield int he pacific and indian oceans - maybe the occupation of some islands (from the philippines or vietnam). more fist shaking at taiwan (soft target) and growling at India and Japan - without spilling over into a hot situation

[D Roy]

Post Desert Storm both Yindoos and Chicom were bloody scared. Straddled as they were with Soviet style militaries. That was a time when both decided to RMA themselves by buying peace on land border. That was also a time when Yindoo and Chicom considered developing mil hardware together especially in the aerospace sector to counter Gora next gen warfare. But that of course did not lead anywhere.

But in the last few years Chicom feels that its RMA has been adequate and that it is managing to modernize the PLA faster than the IA.

Also Chicom just kept on accelerating between 1990-2010 whereas we did double the yindoo rate of growth.
But today yindoo has moved on to higher growth trajectory and Chicom's ICOR continues to be as high as ever. An investment glut a la Japan in the eighties is very likely which may lead to stagnancy.

Chicom Army has said to Civilian leadership that " we are your only line of defence in case of stagnancy". <After all who bailed you out in 1989 , hain?>


quid pro quo is that Chicom Army's pet foreign policy aims which are very much related to economic payoffs for generalissmos and party members is being given free reign.

Those payoffs although inadequate to pull Chicom economy out of growth morass is perceived by Party and Generalissmos to be enough to buy the loyalty of Chicom foot soldier ( it will be interesting to see what kind of a trajectory PLA soldier salaries, benefits take in the next few years) and also that of a section of their population who are more "connected" to the Global economy. This of course also relates to the number of illegal business run by Chicom military to supplement their salaries at all levels.


Chicom elite have arrived at this way of making moolah which is very similar to how Gora constituencies have made money post WWII on account of the trajectory their national development has taken over the last 30 years.


So Chicom is now trying to hem us in through alliances with Islamists much like what Gora has done before.

[vina]

Know your JNU, it helps.

JNU -- Necropolis of learning . . Quite well known here in BR.

But who was it who actually made that remark?. I cant think of a more apt and cutting one. My salutations to that person.

[D Roy]

No. I don't agree. And the remarks against Kondapalli are an example that knowledge about JNU on this forum is a little skewed.

By JNU people here typically mean the SSS and its historians. Some also of course hate the Economics department along with DSE and ISI.

But the School of International Studies is what really recommends JNU and people like Raja Mohan and Mattoo are from there.

Anyway last post on this OT issue.

[vina]

Some also of course hate the Economics department along with DSE and ISI

Guilty as charged ! Anyway OT. So I will stop here.

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from TIRP Thread

Gwadar Port may be given to China Special Report on Balochistan

GWADAR: The news that Gwadar port is all set to be taken away from the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) and is likely to be given to the Chinese may have repercussions that go much beyond its white sand shores.

Official sources confirm that “an understanding to that effect has already developed at the highest levels but it will take a while before the legal and administrative constraints are removed.” The biggest constraint remains the agreement with the PSA, which was given the right to run the port for 40 years. However, official sources are confident that the PSA had given them sufficient grounds to revoke the agreement. Apart from its failure to bring a single commercial ship to the Gwadar docks, the PSA has not invested even a fraction of the $525 million it had committed to spend in five years.

Some more confirmation of the theories put forth here!

[Philip]

Some have compared China's strategy,at least maritime atrategy as being a "string of pearls".I would expand China's strategy as one of "joining the dots",or what I prefer to call as China's "string theorey".If you look at what China has been upto for decades it becomes apparent.It also gives us a clear indication as to where China is heading,both literally and metaphorically.

If China's avowed aim is to dominate the globe replacing the US as the largest economic and military power by 2050,or at least reach equality by then,then it must first replace the US as the world's largest manufacturing industrial power and be self-sufficient in food production.It is showing huge advances in getting to this target as Chinese made goods,which one finds in almost every store in the western world are the world's cheapest.To keep the industries humming,China needs both men and raw material and the power to run the machines.This is where the problem begins.China does not have all the material and energy resources itself and needs to source them from abroad.So the Chinese "string theorey" develops after China has identified those nations and regions where it can source long-term supplies of raw material and energy and then establishes treaties,agreements,bases,etc.,with them.One might say that this is what most countris do,but in China's case there is a military dimension to the "points of interest".

The next part is to bring these resources home,and then export the Chinese made products overseas for which the worlds' oceans for Chinese merchant shipping are required for the same.So China establishes "dots" on the globe where it can source raw material and use as safe transit ports both ways.It was decades ago that China built the Karakorum Highway,the route from Tibet into POK.At that time one just saw it as a means with which to be able to requip Pak by road.With the advent of the Tibetan railway,one now sees that the rail-road link through Gwadar enables China to gain access to the Gulf,the source of the world's largest energy supplies! Encircling India though these "dots" is another spinoff.The "dots" then become a "chain",with which to ensnare and bind India.Thus when the various dots on the globe are connnected,the dimensions of China's ambitions can be clearly outlined.Our task in our interests is to break the chain ,establish our own regional and extra-regional interests,establishing our very own lines of communication across the sea and land,which sometimes might coincide with those of the Chinese as we are seeing in Lanka and in Burma.

[krisna]

We need not necessarily do a tit for tat and give "stapled visas" but we can create new irritants like getting every visa applicant from China to sign a document that accepts the sovereignty of India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Kutch to Arunachal Pradesh. And then put a visa stamp in the passport that says the same thing in Chinese and English.

I agree with all your post except the above one--
I have some reservations on this visa regarding the sovereignity of Indian land.
China will say that J&K and Arunachal Pradesh is disputed again and lobby it back to India to defend itself.
This makes it again an issue for us.
The issue is to make Chinese lands which are disputed- Tibet should be made an autonomous land, talk about xinjaing determination, inner and outer mongolia unification,Taiwan a separate nation- make 2 china policy with careful caliberation depending on the situation.
The takleef should be on Chinese side not on Indian side (defending that J&K is our land and is not disputed with the chinese mockingly saying Indian lands are disputed).

JMTs.

[RajeshA]

The issue is to make Chinese lands which are disputed- Tibet should be made an autonomous land, talk about xinjaing determination, inner and outer mongolia unification,Taiwan a separate nation- make 2 china policy with careful caliberation depending on the situation. The takleef should be on Chinese side not on Indian side

India does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

Corollary:
One needs to make Tibet an internal affair of India onlee.

[krisna]

India does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Corollary:
One needs to make Tibet an internal affair of India onlee.

provided others do not interfere in our affairs. this is a reciprocal one.

we have to raise stakes both diplomatically and militarily.
Militarily should be the last resort.
from my earlier post

Advantages- this is high pitched diplomacy- eye for an eye, it may well be better than doing nothing or reacting to Chinese moves that J&K is our territory Arunachal Pradesh is ours etc. which is self defeating attitude. when you die better die fighting(not that it is going to happen but just the attitude to adopt)

China is very paranoid about its areas. They will go crazy about it and make a big issue. It has the same effect as we are doing about Indian territories-

Just for a moment think about reversing the roles of India and china- India questioning Tibet Taiwan xinjaing and china defending.
This gives the answer.
India should fortify defences. No lapses on this front. India must explicitly say that any attack on Indian region(not geographical area) would invite more than appropriate response( enuf doubts about new clear ones should be kept for plausible deniability)

we have to play the diplomatic game if we have to survive as one nation keeping the ammo dry all the time.

[RajeshA]

India does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Corollary:
One needs to make Tibet an internal affair of India onlee.

provided others do not interfere in our affairs. this is a reciprocal one.

we have to raise stakes both diplomatically and militarily.
Militarily should be the last resort.
from my earlier post

Advantages- this is high pitched diplomacy- eye for an eye, it may well be better than doing nothing or reacting to Chinese moves that J&K is our territory Arunachal Pradesh is ours etc. which is self defeating attitude. when you die better die fighting(not that it is going to happen but just the attitude to adopt)

China is very paranoid about its areas. They will go crazy about it and make a big issue. It has the same effect as we are doing about Indian territories-

Just for a moment think about reversing the roles of India and china- India questioning Tibet Taiwan xinjaing and china defending.
This gives the answer.
India should fortify defences. No lapses on this front. India must explicitly say that any attack on Indian region(not geographical area) would invite more than appropriate response( enuf doubts about new clear ones should be kept for plausible deniability)

we have to play the diplomatic game if we have to survive as one nation keeping the ammo dry all the time.

It is very impractical.
lot of changes have to be made to do this which will only score brownie points.
why would of any one make HHDL president of India.
He is a honored guest of India. He is the spiritual guide to tibetans worldwide. Let him be.
there is a tibetan govt in exile.
Better for India would to issue visas to tibet separate from chinese ones and go on from there.
We would like to have friendly relations with tibet as we have had in the past.
Support and make Tibet a buffer state free and independent. It will take years so be it.
Suppose by making HHDL president for 5 years- what is going to happen---only loss of face for Tibetans in a way.
panda will be in tibet in the next 5 years. the bearings will be lost if HHDL becomes president.
On top of it who will support him-- agreed he is a good man and all Indians love him without any doubt.
The question is who will support him- all like him but he requires support which I doubt will materialises.
If he fails it is a shame for everyone(Tibetans and Indians alike).

For heavens sake dont ever think of it.
thanx.

krisna ji,
My comment was in response to your comment in 'HHDL for Prezi' Thread.

If the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and HH Dalai Lama sign an Instrument of Accession to India, with Center having powers over Foreign Policy and Defense, and India makes HH DL President of India consuming that agreement, then there will be real punch behind questioning Tibet's occupation by China, as well as of other nations prisoners within PRC.

Otherwise we would be looked upon as casual needlers who started taking pot shots at China because we were bored. When other countries question the status of J&K, then it is real punch on the nose, because the state is under the control of 3 different parties, and the part that is in our control is actually out of control. The dispute on J&K between Pakistan and India is real. Pakistan occupies large swaths of J&K and demands the rest.

If we start making any insinuations on the status of Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan or any other regions, then what? Nothing happens. The Chinese can afford to ignore us, and they can afford to pin-prick us even more often.

provided others do not interfere in our affairs. this is a reciprocal one

As such this provision would not work. Our weak points are real and in dispute, where as their weak points are unapproachable and hence ignorable.

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from TIRP Thread

Gwadar Port may be given to China Special Report on Balochistan

Dilbu, a friend has sent me the following link, "Construction of Sino-Myanmar pipeline starts". His question is, with the port of Kyaukryu (Kyaukpyu) in operation why would the Chinese then need Gwadar.

Though the Myanmarese port is expected to operate by end of 2010 (one has to admire the determination and the unrelenting speed with which the Chinese execute the projects), there are at least two points that come to mind as to why the Chinese would still need Gwadar.

One, the Chinese want to reduce their dependence through the choke-point of the Malacca Straits which could be easily be shut down by India, especially with the cooperation of Indonesia and Malaysia all of whom have border disputes with the Chinese. The three navies have been increasing their exchanges, something which is being looked upon suspiciously by the Chinese. An alternate land route for the Persian Gulf oil & gas is therefore very attractive and also a must for security reasons. Though the Myanmarese port may obviate the need for Chinese tankers to traverse the Malacca Starits, the access to the Myanmarese port is through the the Indian backwaters of Bay of Bengal and uncomfortably close to India. In fact, the Myanmarese port is an afterthought and a redundant option for Gwadar for the Chinese. Besides, the Myanmar-China pipeline may carry significant Myanmar oil and may not have capacity for what China wants to import from the Gulf by land-based pipelines.

Two, Gwadar was certainly a significant component of the 'String of Pearls'. The lease temporarily went to PSA and with rapidly deteriorating security situation in Pakistan, it is high time the Chinese thought of recovering the important port. Under the guise of commercial operations, PLAN can have an innocuous presence. Besides, PLAN is beginning to have extensive operations abutting pirate-infested Yemen-Somalia coastlines. A nearby Gwadar base will come very handy.

[chaanakya]

My comment was in response to your comment in 'HHDL for Prezi' Thread.

If the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and HH Dalai Lama sign an Instrument of Accession to India, with Center having powers over Foreign Policy and Defense, and India makes HH DL President of India consuming that agreement, then there will be real punch behind questioning Tibet's occupation by China, as well as of other nations prisoners within PRC.

Otherwise we would be looked upon as casual needlers who started taking pot shots at China because we were bored. When other countries question the status of J&K, then it is real punch on the nose, because the state is under the control of 3 different parties, and the part that is in our control is actually out of control. The dispute on J&K between Pakistan and India is real. Pakistan occupies large swaths of J&K and demands the rest.

If we start making any insinuations on the status of Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan or any other regions, then what? Nothing happens. The Chinese can afford to ignore us, and they can afford to pin-prick us even more often.

Rajesh

It's brilliant. Actually, its workable and China would be hard pressed to defend its position and Tibet would become a disputed territory (COT) just like POK. Moreover world powers may not be able to question it much on legal ground as that question of Tibet and Taiwan are not settled by majority of countries, just sidestepped by them for the time being.
Question of status Tibet will be ripped open in broad daylight much to the chagrin of Chinese.India would have option to enter into Tibet if hostilities break out.LAC could get shifted to Plateau provided we could manage the logistics.

Idea Must be explored in detail.

[krisna]

If the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and HH Dalai Lama sign an Instrument of Accession to India, with Center having powers over Foreign Policy and Defense, and India makes HH DL President of India consuming that agreement, then there will be real punch behind questioning Tibet's occupation by China, as well as of other nations prisoners within PRC.

Tibet signs instrument of accession then what to do —it is a mockery when India cannot even enter Tibet to take control It is a self defeating one and we will be laughed as jokers. This is a self goal.
OTOH this can occur only when Tibet is free. Later if the Tibetans want to be within Indian union then it will work.
We have to first free Tibet- then the rest can be done.
How to free Tibet—go step by step- make it autonomous zone as per agreements. Later go for freedom and later if Tibetans wishes for Indian union. This again is one of the several steps to take for unraveling china which will be diplomatic with military preparedness.
Only when china becomes weak will Tibet can have a realistic chance of freedom. This takes maneuverings for years.
We cannot rush headlong. Patience, dogged persistence with preservation & articulation of our core interests is the key.
This is a high stakes game for our own survival.

[shiv]

The takleef should be on Chinese side not on Indian side (defending that J&K is our land and is not disputed with the chinese mockingly saying Indian lands are disputed).

JMTs.

An excellent point.

[shiv]

Tibet signs instrument of accession then what to do —it is a mockery when India cannot even enter Tibet to take control It is a self defeating one and we will be laughed as jokers. This is a self goal.

I am inclined to agree with this.

The world works on jiski lathi uski bhains - he who wields the stick gets the buffalo.

Tibet was an extremely paranoid county that allowed nobody inside. Among the first "spies" who measured distances, saw Lhasa and and mapped Tibet were Indians disguised as Buddhist monks working for the Brits. They were a specially trained bunch whose stride while walking was very accurate so they could count steps and accurately judge distances of hundreds of kilometers. The counting was done by a necklace of beads.

The country was so harsh and people so hostile that nobody could get in - not even the Chinese. Until the Chinese eventually did get in and stayed. China will arm itself but put up a show of force designed to intimidate. They need to be stared down with a powerful force that will make them worry about all the different countries with whom they are acting like benchodds.

[chaanakya]

Tibet signs instrument of accession then what to do —it is a mockery when India cannot even enter Tibet to take control It is a self defeating one and we will be laughed as jokers. This is a self goal.
OTOH this can occur only when Tibet is free. Later if the Tibetans want to be within Indian union then it will work.
We have to first free Tibet- then the rest can be done.
How to free Tibet—go step by step- make it autonomous zone as per agreements. Later go for freedom and later if Tibetans wishes for Indian union. This again is one of the several steps to take for unraveling china which will be diplomatic with military preparedness.
Only when china becomes weak will Tibet can have a realistic chance of freedom. This takes maneuverings for years.
We cannot rush headlong. Patience, dogged persistence with preservation & articulation of our core interests is the key.
This is a high stakes game for our own survival.

Actually China lays claim to large part of India including Tawang etc as they supposedly formed part of Great Tibet. So in a sense India is already having part of Tibet under its sovereign control. The impact of this exercise would be to make Tibet (COT) as disputed territory since India has accepted Chinese control over Tibet ( though insisting for autonomy), COT is not disputed by India till date, while IOT is claimed by China.

No question of rushing headlong. Do this and sidestep.Make conciliatory gesture while not renouncing claim. We can even start issuing Indian passport and allow them to enter India AS indians.May be, we can ask some small Island nation to recognise etc for a price. We can ask officials on Chinese delegations , if they ever served in COT, and then deny Visa

We can also start talking about reducing force level at border as a confidence building measures ( reduction will be in terms of what we would ideally be in 2050 at LAC).

And of course , what Rajesh proposes would take years of manoeuvring as you rightly pointed out. But we are not in a hurry to close down our MEA any sooner. IFS and politicians would have their jobs cut out for years.TSP and POK has tought infinite patience to us.

[chaanakya]

The first question which needs to be answered is that whether Tibetans want it. Would HHDH would do so voluntarily?
What I understand, and I may be wrong, that HHDH has accepted China provided Tibet gets autonomy. He has never objected to One China Policy as well.

May be it needs detailed exploration/

[Sanku]

Pulling in from another thread

China has not fought a war since 1979 when it tried to slap Vietnam and got slapped back. An 18 year old Chinese who saw action against Vietnam in 1979 will now be 59 years old - a PLA genelar rooking fol letilement. This fact was in a paper linked off this forum about the US having continuous battle experience.

But Indian men too have been facing live fire continuously so it is a sort of specious self delusion to say that "China is willing to fight" and perhaps India is not. Not true.

Off topic

But of course, the entire effort by China is to make sure that they never have to fight but get what they want without fighting. All the bluff and bluster, all the pipelines here and there and propping up states with extremely dodgy behavior (in Africa too) is basically symptomatic of a 160 kilo bully, who walks about intimidating people, and pushing them out of the way. He is not looking for a fight, he is looking to make sure no one finds out that his weight does not let him fight well by pre-empting others.

Unfortunately CPC is PRO-ACTIVE and we are not even RE-ACTIVE; so while we tell ourselves why we shouldn't fight for x, y, z reasons and how 10000000 Tillion $ economy is a first needed or 17 C 17s are needed and the enemies are not strong really so there is no reason to worry about really etc etc; the Chinese are getting first movers advantage and locking us out, step by step from places, while we sit and dither.

Pretty soon, they will be occupying all the strategic heights and we despite having the will to fight and a army to fight and what not, will find that, the Chinese NO LONGER NEED TO FIGHT, they have won without fighting, because they were proactive and military blustering and we stood aside not checking them with either proaction or reaction of any type.

Then China will be the status-quoist power, with a status quo which is suffocating us to death.

Cheers....

[ramana]

chaanakya, Have you thought why does Tibet have a Tibet House in New Delhi? Only Indian states have Bhavans or Houses in New Delhi.

[Arihant]

Pulling in from another thread

China has not fought a war since 1979 when it tried to slap Vietnam and got slapped back. An 18 year old Chinese who saw action against Vietnam in 1979 will now be 59 years old - a PLA genelar rooking fol letilement. This fact was in a paper linked off this forum about the US having continuous battle experience.

But Indian men too have been facing live fire continuously so it is a sort of specious self delusion to say that "China is willing to fight" and perhaps India is not. Not true.

Off topic

But of course, the entire effort by China is to make sure that they never have to fight but get what they want without fighting. All the bluff and bluster, all the pipelines here and there and propping up states with extremely dodgy behavior (in Africa too) is basically symptomatic of a 160 kilo bully, who walks about intimidating people, and pushing them out of the way. He is not looking for a fight, he is looking to make sure no one finds out that his weight does not let him fight well by pre-empting others.

Unfortunately CPC is PRO-ACTIVE and we are not even RE-ACTIVE; so while we tell ourselves why we shouldn't fight for x, y, z reasons and how 10000000 Tillion $ economy is a first needed or 17 C 17s are needed and the enemies are not strong really so there is no reason to worry about really etc etc; the Chinese are getting first movers advantage and locking us out, step by step from places, while we sit and dither.

Pretty soon, they will be occupying all the strategic heights and we despite having the will to fight and a army to fight and what not, will find that, the Chinese NO LONGER NEED TO FIGHT, they have won without fighting, because they were proactive and military blustering and we stood aside not checking them with either proaction or reaction of any type.

Then China will be the status-quoist power, with a status quo which is suffocating us to death.

Cheers....

Good point. China is pursuing the exact same "slow asphyxiation" strategy with Taiwan, and seems to have done well thus far (and will do even better if we don't step in and help).